Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Martin Luther's Legacy: Reforming Reformation Theology For The 21st Century

    Transféré par

    Sergio Lobos
    885 vues369 pages
    This volume is a unique interpretation of what Martin Luther contributes to renewed appreciation of Biblical diversity. The Church in the West is struggling. One reason behind this is that the prevailing models for Theology have imposed logical and modern ways of thinking about faith that renders theology academic, and therefore largely irrelevant for daily life. By letting the first Reformer speak for himself in this book, Mark Ellingsen shows how Martin Luther’s theological approach can reform the Church’s theology today. The real Luther-not the one taught by his various systematic interpreters-presents Christian faith in its entirety, with all its rough edges, in such a way as to direct on how and when to employ those dimensions of the Biblical witness most appropriate for the situation in which we find ourselves.

    Titre original

    Martin Luther's Legacy: Reforming Reformation Theology for the 21st Century

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formats disponibles

    PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    This volume is a unique interpretation of what Martin Luther contributes to renewed appreciation of Biblical diversity. The Church in the West is struggling. One reason behind this is that the prevailing models for Theology have imposed logical and modern ways of thinking about faith that renders theology academic, and therefore largely irrelevant for daily life. By letting the first Reformer speak for himself in this book, Mark Ellingsen shows how Martin Luther’s theological approach can reform the Church’s theology today. The real Luther-not the one taught by his various systematic interpreters-presents Christian faith in its entirety, with all its rough edges, in such a way as to direct on how and when to employ those dimensions of the Biblical witness most appropriate for the situation in which we find ourselves.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    885 vues369 pages

    Martin Luther's Legacy: Reforming Reformation Theology For The 21st Century

    Transféré par

    Sergio Lobos
    This volume is a unique interpretation of what Martin Luther contributes to renewed appreciation of Biblical diversity. The Church in the West is struggling. One reason behind this is that the prevailing models for Theology have imposed logical and modern ways of thinking about faith that renders theology academic, and therefore largely irrelevant for daily life. By letting the first Reformer speak for himself in this book, Mark Ellingsen shows how Martin Luther’s theological approach can reform the Church’s theology today. The real Luther-not the one taught by his various systematic interpreters-presents Christian faith in its entirety, with all its rough edges, in such a way as to direct on how and when to employ those dimensions of the Biblical witness most appropriate for the situation in which we find ourselves.

    Droits d'auteur :

    © All Rights Reserved
    Téléchargez comme PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 369

    MARTIN

    LUTHER’S
    LEGACY
    Reforming Reformation
    Theology for the 21st Century

    MARK ELLINGSEN
    Martin Luther’s Legacy
    Mark Ellingsen

    Martin Luther’s
    Legacy
    Reforming Reformation Theology for the 21st
    Century
    Mark Ellingsen
    Atlanta, GA, USA

    ISBN 978-1-137-58757-2 ISBN 978-1-137-58758-9  (eBook)


    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9

    Library of Congress Control Number: 2017937475

    © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017


    This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
    Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
    of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
    on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
    retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
    now known or hereafter developed.
    The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
    publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
    exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
    The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
    information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
    Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
    with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
    been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
    maps and institutional affiliations.

    Cover credit: FineArt/Alamy Stock Photo

    Printed on acid-free paper

    This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature


    The registered company is Nature America Inc.
    The registered company address is: 1 New York Plaza, New York, NY 10004, U.S.A.
    For Betsey
    The special one who accompanies me in all my journeys with Luther
    and most everywhere else
    Preface

    Nobody studies Luther alone, especially if they are Lutherans like myself.
    The footnotes in this book just begin to hint at my numerous intellectual
    debts in understanding the first Reformer. Add to that the hundreds, no
    thousands of conversations I have had about this Reformation Father for
    over 50 years with Luther scholars from across the globe, Lutheran theo-
    logians of most every stripe, and even colleagues in Lutheran ministry
    who love his heritage. This book is a “thank-you” for all I’ve learned.
    One of its main messages is that these colleagues are pretty much cor-
    rect. Martin Luther really taught what almost all of them said he did. His
    thought is so rich that most interpretations of the Reformer are correct,
    at least in part about him. Most everybody is right about Luther—in
    part—because the other interpreters are right about him too.
    What Philip Schaff wrote over a century ago about Augustine
    (Luther’s great influence) applies to the Reformer: “In great men, and
    only great men, great opposites and apparently antagonistic truths live
    together. Small minds cannot hold them.”1
    What Schaff said about Augustine as being such a person can apply
    to Luther, that he may still hold a mediating place between the great
    traditions of Christendom, the prospect of a future reconciliation in a
    higher (more pastorally sensitive) unity.2 Letting Luther teach us about
    the diversity in his thought and its pastoral implications, an invitation to
    learn more about him from most of Luther’s interpreters, is in large part
    what this book is about.

    vii
    viii  Preface

    My song of praise to my fellow-students of Luther in this Preface


    would be woefully incomplete if I failed to mention the one who has
    been with me most every year, through most every new insight I’ve had
    about the Reformer in all the years I have known him. I refer Betsey, the
    one I live with, who has been with me in all my journeys—the ones with
    Luther and all the other journeys of life as well. As we talked about this
    book we considered some other book dedications I want to write some-
    time, like to a couple of beloved newer spouses of two of our children
    not to mention some grandchildren we love a whole lot. They deserve
    some books too someday, if I don’t run out of gas. But there was no
    way I was going to let a book on the theologian I so dearly love, the
    man whose writings have helped make my life so sweet, without this
    book being for the one who has been with me in these journeys, through
    all the ups and downs of a life in ministry, and who when talking about
    them together has made what Luther taught me even better and a lot
    more fun. Now you know why this book is for Betsey, even though I’ve
    had a lot of other helpers.

    Mark Ellingsen

    Notes
    1. Philip Schaff, “Prologomena: St. Augustine’s Life and Work,” in
    Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol.1 (1886; reprint
    ed.; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), p. 23.
    2. Ibid., p. 24.
    Contents

    1 Introduction: Luther the Reformer, Past and Present  1

    2 Scripture and Theological Method  19

    3 God and Trinity  75

    4 Christology 97

    5 The Holy Spirit  109

    6 Creation and Providence  119

    7 Human Nature, Sin, and Free Will  135

    8 Atonement 157

    9 Justification 167

    10 The Christian Life (Sanctification)  217

    11 Church  269

    ix
    x  Contents

    12 Ministry 279

    13 Sacraments 287

    14 Eschatology 299

    15 Social Ethics  307

    16 Conclusion: How Luther Still Reforms Us Today  335

    Appendix 
    339

    Index 
    345
    Abbreviations

    Texts by Luther
    Ab.Chr.  Confession concerning Christ’s Supper [Von
    Abendmahl Christi, Bekenntnis] (1528)
    Act. Aug. Proceedings At Augsburg [Acta augustana] (1518)
    Adv. Advent Sermons [Adventpostille] (1522) (1525)
    Adv.bull.  Against The Anti-Christ’s Bull [Adversus exerabilem
    Antichristi bullam] (1520)
    Ambr. Cath. A Response to the Book of Master Ambrosius
    Catherines [Ad librum eximii Magfistri Nostri
    Magistri Ambrosii Catharini, defensoris Silverstri
    Prieratis asccerimi, responsio] (1521)
    Anbet.Sak.  The Adoration of the Sacrament [Von Anbeten des
    Sakraments des heligen Leichnams Christ] (1523)
    Ander Ep.Pet. Sermons On the Second Epistle of St. Peter [Die
    ander Epistel S. Petri, und ein S. Judas gepredigt
    und augelegt] (1523–1524)
    Antinom. (1) First Disputation Against the Antinomians [Die
    erste Disputation gegen die Antinomer] (1537)
    Antinom. (2) Second Disputation Against the Antinomians [Die
    zweite Disputation gegen die Antinomer] (Jan.
    1538)
    Antinom. (3) Third Disputation Against the Antinomians [Die
    dritte Disputation gegen die Antinomer] (Sept.
    1538)

    xi
    xii  Abbreviations

    Ap.Conc.  Call of Martin Luther For a Council [Appellatio f.


    Martini Luther ad Concilium] (1518)
    28 Art. Action On the 28 Articles [An der Rat zu Erfurt:
    Gutachten uber die 28 Artikel der Gemeine] (1525)
    Assert.art.  Response to the Bull of Leo X [Assertio omnium
    articulorum M. Lutheri per bullam Leonis X novis-
    simam domnatorum] (1520)
    Auff.Ed.  Commentary On the Alleged Imperial Edict [Auff
    das Vermeyut keiserlich Edict Ausgangen ynn]
    (1531)
    Auff.Ems.  Answer To the Hyperchristian, Hyperspiritual, and
    Hyperlearned Book By Goat Emser in Leipzing [Auff
    das uberchristlich ubergeystlich und uberkunstlich
    buch Boks Emszer zu Leypczick Antwortt] (1521)
    Auff.Leip.  Concerning the Answer of the Goat in Leipzig [Auff
    des bocks zu Leypczick Antwort] (1521)
    Aus. Joh. Another Interpretation of John 1–14 [Ein ander
    Auslegung uber Joh. 1–14] (n.d.)
    Aus.Mos.  An Interpretation of Some Chpaters of Other Books
    of Moses [Auslegung der etliche Kapitel des andern
    Buchs Mosi, gepredigt zu Wittenberg] (1524–1526)
    Aus.Vat.  An Exposition of The Lord’s Prayer for Simple
    Laymen [Auslegung deutsch des Vaterunsers für die
    einfältigen Laien] (1519)
    Ban.  A Sermon On the Ban [Ein Sermon von dem Bann]
    (1520)
    Bapt. Rom. On the Papacy in Rome: Against the Most
    Celeberated Romanist in Leipzig [Von dem Bapstum
    zu Rome: widder den hochberumpten Romanisten zu
    Leiptzck] (1520)
    Beid.Ges.  On Receiving Both Kinds in the Sacrament [Von
    beider Gestalt des Sakraments zu nehmen] (1522)
    Bet. Personal Prayer Book [Betbuchlein] (1522)
    Betr.Leid. Christ A Meditation On Christ’s Passion [Ein Sermon von
    der Betrachtung des heiligen Leidens Christi] (1519)
    Bib.DB  Bibliograph of Prints [Bibliographie der Drucke mit
    Jahresangabe] (1546)
    BR Letters
    Br. auf.geyst. Letter To the Princes of Saxony Concerning the
    Rebellious Spirit [Eyn brief an die Fürsten zu
    Sachsen von dem auffrurischen geyst] (1524)
    Br. Schwarm. Letter To the Christians in Strasbourg Concerning
    Enthusiasts [En Brif an die Christen zu Strassburg
    wider den Schwärmgeist] (1524)
    Abbreviations   xiii

    Brief. Card.Al. Letter To Cardinal Albrecht (1518)


    Brief. Rech. Letter To Hans von Rechenberg [Ein Sendbrief An
    Hans v. Rechenberg] (1522)
    Brief Schieich. Infliltrating and Clandestine Preachers [Ein
    Brief D. Martin Luthers von den Schieichern und
    Winkelpredigern] (1532)
    Brief. Staup. Letter To Johann Staupitz (1518)
    Bull. Bep. Bis. Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the
    Bishops Falsely So Called [Die Bulle Des Ecclesiastic
    Wittenbergk Wider die Bepstischen Bichoff, Die da
    gibt Gottes genade zu lon allen den, die sy haltenz,
    und in volgen] (1522)
    Butz.  Seven Psalms of Penance [Der sieben Butzpsalmen]
    (1525)
    Capt. Bab. The Babylonian Captivity of the Church [De
    Captivitate Babylonica Ecclesiae] (1520)
    Christ. Adel To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation
    [An den Christlichen Adel deutscher Nation von den
    Christlichen Standesn Besserung] (1520)
    Christ.Bish.  An Example of How to Consecrate a Christian
    Bishop [Exempel, einen rechten christliche Bischof zu
    weihen] (1542)
    Christ. ver. That a Christian Assembly or CongregationHas the
    Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call,
    Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and
    Proven by Scripture [Das eyn Christliche versamlung
    odder gemeyne recht und macht habe, alle lere tzu
    urteylen und lerer zu beruffen, eyn und abzusetzen,
    Grund und ursach aus der schrifft] (1523)
    Christ. Vorm. Christian Exhortation to the Livonians Concerning
    Public Worship and Concord [Eyne Christliche
    vormanung von eusserlichem Gottis dienste unde
    eyntracht in die yn lieffland] (1525)
    Con.lob.  Consolation for Labor and Load [Tessaradecos con-
    solatoria pro laboruntibus et oneratis] (1520)
    Cont. Lov. Against the Thirty-Two Articles of the
    Louvian Theologists [Contra asinos Parisienses
    Lovaniensesque; also titled Wider dei XXXII Artikel
    der Theologisten zu Löwen] (1545)
    I Cor. Commentary on I Corinthians 7 [Das siebente
    Kapitel S. Pauli zu den Korinthern ausgelegt]
    (1523)
    xiv  Abbreviations

    Deut.  Lectures on Deuteronomy [Deuteronomion Mosi cum


    annotationibus] (1525)
    Dial.Pri.  A Dialogue With Silvestri Prieratis [Ad dialogum
    Silvestri Prieratis de potestate papae responsio]
    (1519)
    Dict. Ps. Lectures on the Psalms [Dictata super Psalterium]
    (1513–1516)
    Disp.Christ.  Disputation on the Divinity and Humanity of
    Christ [Die Disputation de divinitate et humanitate
    Christ] (1540)
    Disp.Ec.  Disputation Against John Eck [Disputatio et excu-
    satio F. Martini Luther adversus criminationes D.
    Johannis Ecci] (1519)
    Disp. Heid. The Heidelberg Disputation [Disputatio
    Heidelbergae habita] (1518)
    Disp.hom.  The Disputation Concerning Man [Die Disputation
    de homine] (1536)
    Disp. indulg. The Ninety-Five Theses [Disputatio pro declaration
    virtutis indulgentiarum] (1517)
    Disp. just. Disputation on Justification [De Disputation de
    iustification] (1536)
    Disp.miss.priv.  Disputation Against Private Masses [Die
    Disputation contra missam Privatam] (1536)
    Disp.nup.  Disputation on the Wedding [Die
    Zirkulardisputation de veste nuptiali] (1537)
    Disp.potest.  The Disputation on the Authority of Councils [Die
    Disputation de potestate concilii] (1536)
    Disp. Schol. Theol. Disputation Against Scholastic Theology [Disputatio
    contra scholasticam theologiam] (1517)
    Disp.Verb.  The Disputation Concerning the Pasage: “The Word
    Was Made Flesh” [Die Disputation de sententias
    Verbum caro factum est] (1539)
    Disp. Wider. Kais. Disputation on the Right of Opposition Against the
    Authority [Die Zirkulardisputation uber Das Recht
    des Widerstands gegen den Kaiser] (1539)
    Dol.  On Translating and on the Intercession of the Saints
    [Sendbried vom Dolmetschen und Furbitte der
    Heiligen] (1530)
    Dr. Hier. Concerning the Three Hierarchies [Von den drei
    Hierarchien] (n.d.)
    Dr. Sym. The Three Symbols or Creeds of the Christian Faith
    [Die drei Symbola oder Bekenntnis des Glauben
    Christi] (1538)
    Abbreviations   xv

    Dtsch. Kat. The Large Catechism [Deutscher Katechismus]


    (1529)
    Dtsch.Ord.  An Exhortation to the Knights of the Teutonic Order
    That They Lay Aside False Chastity and Assume The
    True Chastity of Wedlock [An die herrn Deutsch
    Ordens, das sie falsche keuscheyt meyden und zur
    rechtenehlichen keuscheyt greyffen Ermanung]
    (1532)
    Dup. just. Two Kinds of Righteousness [De duplici iustitia]
    (1519)
    Eel.Leb.  The Estate of Marriage [Uom Eelichen Leben]
    (1522)
    Ehe. On Marriage Matters [Von Ehesachen] (1530)
    En.ep.  Explanations of the Epistles and Gospels
    [Enarrationes epistolarum et euangeliorum, quas
    postillas vocant] (1521)
    Ep.Jes.  The Epistle of the Prophet Isaiah [Die Epistel des
    Propheter Jesaia, so man in der Christmesse lieset]
    (1526)
    Ep. 1.Joh. Lectures on 1 John [Vorlesung über den
    1.Johanesbrief] (1527)
    Ep.Pr.  Epilogue to a Pamphlet of Sylvester Prieras [Epitoma
    responsionis ad Martinum Luther (per Fratrem
    Silvestrum de Prierio)] (1520)
    Erm. Fried. Admonition to Peace, A Reply to the Twelve Articles
    of the Peasants in Swabia [Ermahnung zum
    Fridenauf die zwold artikel der Bauernschaft in
    Schwaben] (1525)
    Ess.9  Account of Isaiah 9 [Enarratio capitis noni Essaiae]
    (1543/1544)
    Ess.53 Account of Isaiah 53 [Enarratio 53. Captis Essiae]
    (1544)
    Ev.Joh.1-2  Sermons on the Gospel of John 1–2 [Auslegung des
    ersten und zweiten Kapitels Johannis im Predigten]
    (1537/1538)
    Ev.Joh.3-4  Sermons on the Gospel of John 3–4 [Auslegung des
    dritten und vierten Kapitels Johannis im Predigten]
    (1538/1540)
    Ev.Joh.6-8  Sermons on the Gospel of John 6–8 [Wochenpredigten
    über Joh.6–8] (1530–1532)
    Ev.Joh.14-15 
    Sermons on the Gospel of John 14–15
    [Reihenpredigten über Johannes 14–15] (1533)
    xvi  Abbreviations

    Ev.Joh.16  Sermons on the Gospel of John 16 [Das XVI Kapitel


    S. Johannis gepredigt und ausgelegt] (1538)
    Ev.Joh.16-20  Sermons on the Gospel of John 16–20
    [Wochenpredigten überJoh.16–20] (1528–1529)
    Ex.  Sermons on Exodus [Predigten über das zweite Buche
    Mose] (1524–1527)
    Fast. (1518) Two Lenten Sermons [Zwei deutsche Faternpredigten
    von 1518]
    Fast. (1525) Lenten Sermons [Fastenpostille] (1525)
    Fest. Festival Sermons [Festpostille] (1527)
    Fid.in.  The Acquisition of Infused Faith [De fide infusa
    acquisitia] (1520)
    Form. Miss. An Order of Mass and Communion for the Church
    At Wittenberg [Formula Missae et Communionis pro
    Ecclesia Vuittembergensi] (1523)
    Gal. (1519) Commentary on Galatians [In epistolam Pauli ad
    Galatas M. Lutheri commentarius] (1519)
    Gal. (1535) Commentary on Galatians [In epistolam S. Pauli ad
    Galatas Commentarius] (1535)
    Geist.Aug.  Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled At Augsburg
    [An der gantze geistlichkeit zu Augsburg versamlet
    auff den Reichstag] (1530)
    Gen. Lectures on Genesis [Genesisvorlesung] (1535–1545)
    Gl.Ed.  Commentary on the Alleged Imperial Edict [Glosse
    auf das vermeinte kaiserliche Edikt] (1531)
    Gr. Serm. Wuch. Longer Sermon on Usury [Grosser Sermon von dem
    Wucher] (1520)
    Grnd.  Defense and Explanation of All the Articles [Grund
    und Ursach aller Artikel] (1521)
    Grnd. Bull. Defense and Explanation of all the Articles Which
    Were Unjustly Condemned by the Roman Bull
    [Grund und Ursach aller Aritkel D. MartinLuthers,
    so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind]
    (1521)
    Gut.Werk.  Treatise on Good Works [Sermon von den guten
    Werken] (1520)
    Hab.  Lectures on Habbakuk [Der Prophet Habakuk ausge-
    legt] (1526)
    Hagg.  Lectures on Haggai [Vorlesungen uber die Kleiner
    Propheten: In Haggeum] (1525)
    Haus. House Sermons [Hauspostille] (1544)
    Abbreviations   xvii

    Heb.  Lectures on Hebrews [Die Vorlesung über den


    Hebraerbrief ] (1517)
    Henr.  Against King Henry VIII of England [Contra
    Henricum Regem Angliae] (1522)
    Himm.Proph.  Against the Heavenly Prophets [Wider die himmlis-
    chen Propheten von den Bildern und Testament]
    (1524)
    Hndb.  Observations on Augustine’s Writings [Luthers
    Handbermerkungen zu Augustins Schriften de trini-
    tate und de civitate dei] (n.d.)
    Hndb.Sent.  Observations on The Sentences of Peter Lombard
    [Handbemerkungen Luthers Zu den Sentenzen des
    Petrus Lombardus] (1510–1511)
    Hspost. House Postil [Hauspostille]
    Inst.min.  Concerning the Ministry [De instituendis ministris
    ecclesiae] (1523)
    Jes. (1527-1529) Lectures on Isaiah [Vorlesungen über Jesaja]
    (1527–1529)
    Jes. (1527-1530) Lectures on Isaiah [Vorlesungen über Jesaja]
    (1527–1530)
    J.Christ.  That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew [Dass Jesus
    Christus ein geborner Jude sei] (1523)
    1.Joh.  Sermons on I John [Etliche schone Predigten aus der
    ersten Epistel S. Johannis Von der Liebe] (1532)
    Jon.  Lectures on Jonah [Der Prophet Jona ausgelegt]
    (1526)
    Jud. und Lug. On the Jews and Their Lies [Von den Juden und iren
    Lugen] (1543)
    Kat.pred.  Ten Sermons on the Catechism [Katechismus pre-
    digten herausgegeben von G. Buchwald] (1528)
    Kauf. und Wuch. On Trade and Usury [Von Kaufshandlung und
    Wucher] (1524)
    Kirchpost.E.  Church Postil for the Epistles [Kirchen–Postille–
    Epistel–Predigten] (1522/1544)
    Kirchpost.G.  Church Postil for the Gospels [Kirchen-Postille-
    Evangelien-Predigten] (1522/1544)
    Kl.Ant.  Short Answer to Duke George [Klein Antwort auf
    Herzog Georgen] (1533)
    Kl.Kat. Small Catechism [Kleiner Katechismus] (1529)
    Kl. Proph. Lectures on the Minor Prophets [Vorlesungen uber die
    Kleinen Propheten] (1524–1526)
    xviii  Abbreviations

    Kl. Serm. Wuch. Short Sermon on Usury [Kleiner Sermon von dem
    Wucher] (1519)
    Kl.unt.  A Brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect
    in the Gospels [Eyn kleyn unterricht, was man ynn
    den Evanglijus suchen und gewartten soll] (1521)
    Konz.  On the Councils and the Church [Von den Consiliis
    und Kirchen] (1530)
    15.Kor.  Commentary on I Corinthians 15 [Das 15.Kapitel
    der Ersten Epistle S. Pauli an die Korinther] (1532)
    Kr. leut. On Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved [Ob
    Kriegesleute auch in seligem Stande sein konnen]
    (1526)
    Kr. Trk. On the War against the Turks [Vom Kriege Wider
    der Turken] (1529)
    Kurz. Bek. A Short Confession of the Holy Sacrament [Kurzes
    Bekenntnis vom heiligen Sadrament] (1544)
    Kurz Form A short Form of The Ten Commandments [Eines
    kurze Form der zehn Gebete, eine kurze Form des
    Vaterunsers] (1520)
    Kurz Vat. A short Form of The Lord’s Prayer [Ein kurtze form,
    des Vater noster zu verstehen und zu beten, fur die
    junge kinder im christenglauben] (1519)
    Latom.  Against Latomus [Rationis Latomiae confutatio]
    (1521)
    Leid. Christ. A Meditation on Christ’s Passion [Ein Sermon
    Betrachtung des heilige Leiders Christi] (1519)
    Leip.Disp.  The Leipzig Disputation [Resolutiones Lutherianae
    super propositionibus suis Lipsiae disputatis] (1518)
    Letz. Wort. Treatise on the Last Words of David [Von den letzten
    Worten Davids] (1543)
    Lib.christ.  The Freedom of a Christian [Tractatus de libertate
    christiana] (1520)
    Lib. Ex. Cath. On the Book of Ambrose Catharini [Ad librum
    eximii Magistri Nostri Magistri Abrosii Catharini,
    defensoris Silverstri Prieratis accerimi, responsio]
    (1521)
    Lied. Hymns [Lieder]
    Magn.  Commentary on the Magnificat [Das Magnificat
    verdeutschet und ausgelegt] (1521)
    Mar. Ges. The Marburg Colloquy [Berichten von Hedio, Des
    Marburger Gesprach] (1529)
    Abbreviations   xix

    Matt. Ann. Annotations in Some Chapters of Matthew


    [Annotationes in aliquot capita Matthaei] (1538)
    Matt.5-7  Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount [Das 5.,
    6. Und 7. Kapitel S. Matthaei gepredigt und ausgel-
    egt] (1530–1532)
    Matt.11-15  Sermons on Matthew 11–15 [Wochenpredigten über
    Matth.11–15] (1528/1529)
    Matt.18-24  Sermons on Matthew 18–24 [Matth.18–24 in
    Predigten ausgelegt] (1537–1540)
    Men.  Avoiding the Doctrines of Men [Von Menschenlehre
    zu meiden, und Antwort aud Spruche, so man
    fuhret, Menschenlehre zu starken] (1522)
    Mis.Mess.  The Misuse of the Mass [Vom Mistbrauch der Messe]
    (1521)
    Mos.  How Christians Should Regard Moses [Ein
    Unterrichtung wie sich die Christen in Mosen sollen
    schicken] (1525)
    Mos. Dec. Moses’ Holy Exclamations [In Genesi Mosi librum
    sanctissimum Declamationes] (1525)
    Ord. gem. Kast. Ordinance of a Common Chest [Ordnung eyns
    gemeynen Kastens] (1523)
    Papst. Mit. The Papacy and Its Members [Das Papstthum mit
    seinen Gliedern] (1526)
    Pfar.Wuch.  Treatise on Usury to the Pastors [And die Pfarrherrn
    wider den Wucher zu predigen] (1540)
    1 Pet. Sermons on the First Epistle of St. Peter [Epistel S.
    Petri gepredig und ausgelgt] (1522)
    2 Pet. Sermons on the Second Epistle of St. Peter [Die ander
    Epistel S. Petri und S. Judas gepredigt und ausgelgt]
    (1523/1524)
    Pot.leg.  On Magisterial Laws in the Church [De poteste legis
    ferendi in ecclesia] (1530)
    Prae.Witt.  SomeWittenberg Precepts Made Public [Decem prae-
    cpta Wittenbergensi praedicuta populo] (1518)
    Pred. Sermons [Predigten]
    Pred. Deut. (1529) Preaching on Deuteronomy [Predigten über das
    fünfte Buch Mose]
    Pred. Deut. (1530/1564) Sermons On Deuteronomy [Predigten über das 5.
    Buchs Mose]
    Pred.Gen.  Sermons on Genesis [Predigten über das erste Buche
    Mose] (1526–1528)
    xx  Abbreviations

    Pred. Kind. A Sermon on Keeping Children in School [Eine


    Predigt, dass man Kinder zur Schulen halten solle]
    (1530)
    Pred.1.Mos. (1523/1524) Sermons on Genesis [Predigten über das erste Buch
    Mose]
    Pred.1.Mos. (1527) Sermons on Genesis [Uber das erste Buch Mose,
    Predigten]
    Pred.2.Mos.  Sermons on Exodus [Predigten uber das zweite Buch
    Mose] (1524/1527)
    Pred.Sol.  Notes on Ecclesiastes [Vorlesung uber den Prediger
    Solomo] (1532)
    Pref. Proph. Preface to Prophets of the Old Testament About
    Christ [Prophetiae veteris testament de Christo]
    (1542)
    Promodisp.Fab.  The Promotion Disputation of Theodore
    Fabricius and Stanislaus Rapagelanus [Die
    Promotionsdisputation von Theodor Fabricius und
    Stanislaus Rapagelanus] (1544)
    Promodisp.Heg.  The Promotion Disputation of Peter Hegemon [Die
    Promotionsdisputation von Petrus Hegemon] (1545)
    Promodisp.Kopp.  The Promotion Disputation of Heironomus Kopp
    and Friedrich Bachofen [Die Promodisputation von
    Heironomus Kopp und Friedrich Bachofen] (1543)
    Promodisp.Mar.  The Promotion Disputation of Johann Marback [Die
    Promotionsdisputation von Johann Marback] (1543)
    Promodisp.Pall.  Preface to the Promotion Disputation of Palladius
    and Tileman [Vorrede zur Promotionsdisputation
    von Palladius und Tilemann] (1537)
    Promodisp.Pet.  The Promotion Disputaton of Peter Hegemon
    [Promotionisdisputation von Petrus Hegemon]
    (1545)
    Promodisp.Schmed.  The Promotion Disputaton of Heinrich
    Schmedenstede [Promotionisdisputation von
    Heinrich Schmedenstede] (1545)
    Promodisp. Scot. The Promotiondisputation of John Scotus
    [Promodisputation von Johannes Macchabaus Scotus]
    (1542)
    Prop.Sat.  Propositions against the Synagogue of Satan
    [Propositiones adversus totam synagogam Sathannae
    et universas portas inferarum]
    Ps. Lectures on the Psalms [Psalmenauslegungen]
    (1529/1532)
    Abbreviations   xxi

    2.Ps.  Second Lectures on the Psalms [2.


    Psalmenvorlesungen] (1519/1521]
    Ps.2  Commentary on Psalm 2 [Enarratio Psalmi
    secundi] (1532/1546)
    8.Ps.  Commentary on Psalm 8 [Der achte Psalm Davids
    gepredigt und ausgelegt] (1537)
    Ps.45  Lectures on Psalm 45 [Vorlesungen uber die Psalmen
    2, 51, 45] (1532/1533)
    Ps.51  Exposition of Psalm 51 [Ennaratio Psalmi LI]
    (1532/1538)
    Ps.68  Commentary on Psalm 68 [Deutsche Auslegung des
    67. (68) Psalmes] (1521)
    82.Ps.  Commentary on Psalm 82 [Der 82. Psalm ausgelegt]
    (1530)
    90.Ps.  Commentary on Psalm 90 [Ennarraio Psalmi XC]
    (1541)
    Ps.101  Commentary on Psalm 101 [Auslegung des 101
    Psalmos] (1534–1535)
    Ps.110  Sermons and Commentary on Psalm 110 [Der CX.
    Psalm, Gepredigt und ausgeleget] (1535)
    118. Ps. Commentary on Psalm 118 [Der hundertun-
    dachtzehnte Psalmen] (1521)
    119. Ps. Interpretation of 119 Psalms [Der 119 Psalm, ver-
    dolmeticht und ausgelegt] (1529)
    127.Ps.  Exposition of Psalm 127 [Der 127.Psalm ausgelegt
    au die Christen zu Riga in Liesland] (1524)
    Quest.vol.hum. 
    Questions on the Strength of the Human Will without
    Grace [Quaestio de viribus et voluntate hominis sine
    gratia disputata] (1516)
    Rad.  To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That
    They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools [An
    der Radherrn aller Stedte deutsches lands: das sie
    Christliche schulen auffrichten und halten sollen]
    (1524)
    Rath.  To the Councilmen of All the cities of Germany That
    They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools [An
    die Ratherren aller Städte deutscheslands, das sie
    christliche Schulen aufrichten und erhalten sollen]
    (1524)
    Reich.Gott.  On the Kingdom of God: What It Is and How [Vom
    Reiche Gottes, was es sei und wie] (1525)
    xxii  Abbreviations

    Reih. Gen. A Sermon Series on Genesis [Reihenpredigten uber


    1.Mose] (1523–1524)
    Res.  Explanations of The Ninety-Five Theses [Resolutiones
    disputationum de indulgentiarum virtute] (1518)
    Res.Cath.  Response to Ambrose Cathanni [Ad librum eximii
    Magistri Nostri Magistri Ambrosii Catharini defen-
    soris Silverstri Prieratis acermim responsio] (1521)
    Res. pap. Resolutions on the Propositions of the Power of the
    Pope [Resolution Lutherana super propositione sua
    decimal tertia de potestate papae] (1519)
    Rom.  Lectures on Romans [Die Vorlesung uber den
    Romerbrief ] (1515–1516)
    Schlus. On the Keys [Von den Schlüsseln] (1530)
    Schmal.Art.  Smalcad Articles [Adie Smalkaldischen Artikel]
    (1537)
    Sch.Reisz.  Christian Text to W. Reiszenbuch [Christliche Schrift
    an W. Reiszenbuch] (1525)
    Send.Al.  Open Letter to Lord Albrecht [Sendschreibenan
    Herzog Albrecht von Preuszen] (1532)
    Send.Buch.  An Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the
    Peasants [Ein Sendbrief von den harten Buchlein
    wider die Bauern] (1525)
    Send.Rech.  A Letter to Hans von Rechenberg [Ein Sendbrief
    Liber die Frage, ob auch jemand, ohne Glauben ver-
    storben, selig warden wage (An Hans v. Rechenberg)]
    (1522)
    Sent.Lom.  To The Sentences of Peter Lombard [Zu den
    Sentenzen des Petrus Lombardus] (1510–1511)
    Serm. (1514-1517) Early Sermons [Sermone aus den Jahren 1514–1517]
    Serm.Bereit.  A Sermon on Preparing to Die [Ein Sermon von
    Bereitung zum Sterben] (1519)
    Serm.Bu.  Sermon on the Sacrament of Penance [Ein Sermon
    von dem Sakrament der Busze] (1519)
    Serm.dr.gut.  A Sermon on the Three Kinds of Good Life for the
    Instruction of Consciences [Sermon von dreierlei
    gutem Leben, das Gewissen zu unterwichten] (1521)
    Serm.ehe.St.  Sermon on the Estate of Marriage [Ein Sermon von
    dein ehelichen Stand] (1519)
    Serm. G.K. On Rogantide Prayer and Procession [Ein Sermon
    von dem gebet und procession von der Kreutz
    wochen] (1519)
    Abbreviations   xxiii

    Serm. H.M. A Treatise on the New Testament, That Is The Holy


    Mass [Ein Sermon von den neuen Testament. Das its
    von der heiligen Messe] (1520)
    Serm.heil.Leid.  A Sermon on the Meditation of Christ’s Holy Passion
    [Ein Sermon von der Betrachtung des heiligen
    Leidens Christi] (1519)
    Serm.hoc.Sak.  The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body
    of Christ and the Brotherhoods [Eyn Sermon von
    dem hochwürdigen Sakrament des heiligen Wahren
    Leichnams Christi und von den Bruderschaften]
    (1519)
    Serm.poen.  The Sacrament of Penance [Sermo de poenitentia]
    (1518)
    Serm.Ruch.  Sermon on Soberness and Moderation [Ein Predig
    Von Ruchterfait und Wassigkait] (1539)
    Serm. S. P. P. A Sermon on the Festivalof St. Peter and St. Paul
    [Ein Sermon gepredigt zu Leipzig auf dem Schloss
    am Tage Petri und Pauli] (1519)
    Serm. S. Steph. Sermon on Saint Stephen’s Day [Sermo in die S.
    Stephani] (1515)
    Serm. S. Thom. Sermon on St. Thomas’ Day [Sermo die S. Thomae]
    (1518)
    Serm. Sak. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ –
    Against the Fanatics [Sermon von Sakrament des
    Leibes und Blutes Christi, wider die Schwarmgeister]
    (1526)
    Serm. Tauf. The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism [Eyn
    Sermon von dem heyligen hochwirdigten Sacrament
    der Taufte] (1519)
    Serv.arb. The Bondage of the Will [De servo arbitrio] (1525)
    Som. Post. Summer Sermons [Sommerpostille] (1526)
    Som. Post. (Cruc.) Cruciger’s Summer Sermons [Crucigers
    Sommerpostille] (1544)
    Sp.OT.  Sayings from the Old Testament [Spruche aus dem
    Alten Testament] (n.d.)
    Sterb.  A Sermon on Preparing to Die [Ein Sermon von der
    Bereitung zum Sterben] (1519)
    Stuf.  Lectures on the Psalms of Ascent [Vorselung über die
    Stufenpsalmen] (1532/1533)
    Sum. Ps. Summaries on the Psalms, and Causes of
    Interpreting [Summarien über die Psalmen und
    Ursachen des Dolmetchens] (1533)
    xxiv  Abbreviations

    Sup. ann. Computation of the Years of the World [Supputatio


    annorum mundi] (1541)
    Tauffbuch.  The Order of Baptism Newly Revised [Das tauff-
    büchlein auffs Neue zugericht] (1526)
    Taul.Serm.  Marginal Notes on Tauler’s Sermons [Luthers
    Randbemerkungen zu Taulers Predigten] (1516)
    Tess.Con.  FourteenConsolations [Tessaradecas Consolatoria pro
    laborantibus et onerantis] (1520)
    Thes. Antinom. Theses against Antinomians [Die Thesen gegen die
    Antinomer] (1537–1540)
    Thes. Wel. Theses Concerning Faith and Law [Die Thesen für
    Promotionsdisputation von Heironymus Weller und
    Nikolaus Medler] (1535)
    I Tim. Lectures on I Timothy [Vorlesung über den 1.
    Timotheusbrief] (1527–1528)
    Tit.  Lectures on Titus and Philemon [Vorsesung über
    dieBriefe an Titus und Philemon] (1527)
    Torg.  The Torgau Sermon on Christ’s Descent Into Hell
    [Die Dritte Predigt Von Jesu Christo ein Predigt zu
    Hohe zu Torgau gepredigt] (1533)
    Tract. Ec. Treatment of In What the Church Is to Take Refuge
    [Tractatulus de his, qui ad eccleias contugiunt]
    (1517/1520)
    Trost. An. Comfort When Facing Grave Temptations [Trőstung
    für eine Person in hoher Anfechtungen] (1531)
    Trost. Christ. A Letter of Consolation to the Christians At Halle
    [Trőstung an die Christen zu Halle über Herr
    Georgen ihres Predigers Tod] (1527)
    TR Table Talk [Tishreden]
    Uber.  Answer to the Hyperchristian, Hyperstpiritual,
    and Hyperlearned Book by Goat Emser in
    Leipzig—Including Some Thoughts Regarding His
    Companion, the Fool Murner [Auff das ubirchrist-
    lich, ubirgeystilch und ubirkunstlich buch Bocks
    Emszers zu Leypczick Antwortt D.M.L. Darynn auch
    Murnarrs seynsz geselln gedacht wirt] (1521)
    Und. beich. A Brief Instruction, How One Sould Confess [Ein
    kurz underwensung, wie man beichten soll] (1519)
    Unter. Art. Instruction on Some Articles [Unterricht auf etlich
    artickell, die im von seynen abgunnern auff gelegt
    und zu gemessen Vuerden] (1519)
    Abbreviations   xxv

    Unter.Buch.  An Instruction to Penitents Concerning the


    Forbidden Books of Dr. Martin Luther [Ein
    Unterrich der Beichtkinder über die verbotenene
    Büucher] (1521)
    Unter. Visit. Instructions for Visitors of Parish Pastors in Electoral
    Saxony [Unterricht der Visitatatorn an die Pfarhern
    ym Rursurstenthum zu Sachssen] (1528)
    Ver.Kor.  Publication of the Koran [Verlegung des Alcoran
    Bruder Richardi] (1542)
    Verm.  Admonition Concerning the Sacrament of the
    Body and Blood of Our Lord [Vermahnungzum
    Sakrament des Leibes und Blutes Christi] (1530)
    Verm. Zu Aug. Exhortation to the Clergy Assembled at the Diet of
    Augsburg [Vermahnung an die Geistlichen, versam-
    melt auf dem Reichstag zu Augsburg] (1530)
    Verm.Christ.  Exhortation to All Christians [Eine true
    Vermahnung zu allen Christen, sich zu hutten vor
    Aufruhr und Emporung] (1522)
    Verm.Fried.  Admonitition to Peace:A Reply to the Twelve Artices
    fo the Peasants of Swabia [Vermahnung zum
    Friedeen auf die zwölf Artikel der Bauerschaft in
    schwaben] (1525)
    Verm.Geitst.  Exhortation to All Clergy [Vermahnung and die
    Geistlichen, versammelt aud den Reichstag zu
    Augsburg] (1530)
    Verm.Trk.  Appeal For Prayer against the Turks [Vermahnung
    zum Gebet wider Türcken] (1541)
    Vor. Brent. Preface to on the Prophet Amos [Vorwort zu In
    prophetan Amos Iohannis Brentii] (1530)
    Vor.Deut.Schr. 
    Preface to the German Edition of Luther’s Writings
    [Vorrede zum.1. Bande der Wittenberger Ausgabe
    der deutschen Schriften] (1548)
    Vor. D.T. Preface to the Complete Edition of a German
    Theology [Vorrede zu der vollstandigen Ausgabe der
    “deutschen theologie”] (1518)
    Vor.Emp.  A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard
    against Insurrection and Rebellion [Eyn trew vor-
    manung Martini Luther tzu allen Christen sich tzu
    vorhuten fur auffruhr unnd Emporung] (1522)
    Vor.Hist.  Preface to Galeatius Capella’s History [Vorrede zu
    Historia Galeatii Capellae] (1538)
    xxvi  Abbreviations

    Vor.Kor.  Preface to the Koran [Vorrede zu Theodor Bilianders


    Koranausgabe] (1543)
    Vor.Lat.  Prefaces to the Complete Edition of Luther’s
    Latin Writings [Vorrede zum ersten Bande der
    Gesamtausgabensein lateinischenSchriften] (1545)
    Vor.Lib.  Preface to the Book of Rites and Customs of Turks
    [Vorwort zu dem Libellusde ritu et moribus
    Turcorum] (1530)
    Vor. N.T. Prefaces to the New Testament [Vorrede auff. Das
    neue Testament] (1546/1522)
    Vor. O.T. Prefaces to the Old Testament [Vorrede auff das Alte
    Testament] (1545/1523)
    Vor. Ps. Lectures on Psalms 2, 51, 45 [Vorlegungen über die
    Psalmen 2, 51, 45] (1532)
    Vor. Rheg. Preface to Urbanus Rhegius [Vorrede zu Urbanus
    Rhegius, Prophetiae verteris testament de Christo]
    (1542)
    Vot.monast.  Judgment of Martin Luther on Mastic Vows [De
    votis monasticis Martini Lutheri iudicium] (1521)
    War.Papst.  Why the Books of the Pope Were Burned [Warumb
    des Papsts und seiner Jungernn Bucher von Doct.
    Martino Luther vorbrant seynn] (1520)
    Wein. Christmas Sermons [Weihnachtpostille] (1522)
    Wellt. Uber. Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be
    Obeyed [Von welltlicher Oberkeit, wie weit man ihr
    Gehorsam schuldig sei] (1523),
    Widder.  Dr. Luther’s Retraction of the Error Forced Upon
    Him by the Most Highly Learned Priest of God, Sir
    Jerome Emser. Vicar in Meissen [Ein Widerspruch
    D. Luthers seines Yrrthums, erczwungen durch
    den allerhochgelehrtesten Priester Gottis Herrn
    Hieronymo Emser, Vicarien Zu Meiszen] (1521)
    Wider Antinom. Against the Aninomians [Wider die Antinomer]
    (1539)
    Wider Bau. Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of
    Peasants [Wider die rauberischen und morderischen
    Rotten der Bauern] (1525)
    Wider Hans Against Hanswurst [Wider Hans Wurst] (1541)
    Wider Pap. Against the Papacy: An Institution of the Devil
    [Wider das Papsttum zu Rom vom Teuffel gestiffet]
    (1545)
    Abbreviations   xxvii

    Wider sabat. Against the Sabatarians [Wider die Sabbather an


    einen guten Freund] (1538)
    Wider Turk. Sermon against the Turks [Heerpredigt wider den
    Turken] (1529)
    Wider Wuch. Pastoral Admonition against Usury [An
    die Pfarrhern wider den Wucher zupredigen
    Vaermahnung] (1540)
    Wied.  On Rebaptism [Von der Wiedertaufe an die zwei
    Pfarherrn] (1528)
    Winck.  The Private Mass and the Consecration of Priests
    [Von der Winckelmesse und Pfaffenweyhe] (1533)
    Wint. Winter Sermons [Winterpostille] (1528)
    Worm. Diet of Worms [Verhandlungen mit D. Martin
    Luther auf den Reichstage zuWorms] (1521)
    Wort.  That These Words of Christ, “This Is My Body,” Still
    Stand Firm Against the Fanatics [Das diese Wort
    Christi “Das ist mein Leib” noch fest stehen wider die
    Schwarmgeister] (1527)
    Zach.  Lectures on Zechariah [Der Prophet Zacharja ausgel-
    egt] (1527)
    Zeph.  Lectures on Zephaniah [Vorlesungen über die Kleiner
    Prophetens: Zephajab] (1525)
    Zirk.c.c.  The Circular Disputation of the Council of
    Constantinople [Die Zirkulardisputation de concilio
    Contantiensi] (1521)

    Collections in Which These Texts Appear


    BC  The Book of Concord. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert,eds.
    Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000.
    CS  Collected Sermons. John N. Lenker and Eugene Klug, eds. Grand
    Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000.
    LW  Luther’s Works. St. Louis-Philadelphia: Concordia Publishing House—
    Fortress Press, 1955ff.
    W2  Dr. Martin Luthers Sammtliche schriften. Johann George Walch, ed. St.
    Louis, 1880–1910.
    WA  D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (Weimarer
    Ausgabe). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1883ff.
    WABR 
    Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe, Senuschreiben und Bedenken. Berlin: Georg
    Reimer, 1825–1856.
    xxviii  Abbreviations

    WADB 
    D. Martin Luthers Werke: Die Deutsche Bibel. Kritische Gesamtausgabe
    (Weimarer Ausgabe). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1906–
    1914.
    WATR 
    D. Martin Luthers Werke: Tischreden. Kritische Gesamtausgabe
    (Weimarer Ausgabe). Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1912–
    1921.
    CHAPTER 1

    Introduction: Luther the Reformer, Past


    and Present

    We are well acquainted with Martin Luther, we think.1 Some read-


    ers will already be familiar with the story of how this young man, born
    to an upwardly mobile peasant couple (at least his father) in 1483 and
    planning on a career in law, vowed to become a monk, joining the
    Augustinian Order, after safely escaping a frightening thunderstorm.
    Others will also be aware of how as a brilliant student and protégé of the
    Order’s leader Johann von Staupitz, trained in Nominalist thought and
    Augustine’s theology, the subject of our book was called to the faculty
    of Saxony’s Wittenberg University. And most everyone knows that dur-
    ing his first years on the faculty of this new university, after (some think
    it happened prior to) a Tower Experience which changed his understand-
    ing of St. Paul’s concept righteousness of God, this young professor
    went on heroically to challenge the selling of Indulgences, leading to the
    Reformation. Luther’s own account of his breakthrough in the Tower
    suggests it happened in 1519, as the other events he describes in the nar-
    rative as happening at the time of his life-changing experience (including
    his having lectured on Galatians and Hebrews as well as initiating a new
    round of lectures on the Psalms) transpired in that year. However, the
    essence of what he learned from The Tower Experience already appears
    in a 1516 sermon, as he claimed that God’s work is creating righteous-
    ness.2
    Many historians and social critics even think of Luther as the first
    modern man, asserting individual judgment and conscience over the
    norms of the medieval establishment.3 Others insist that he was a

    © The Author(s) 2017 1


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_1
    2  M. ELLINGSEN

    thoroughly late medieval German.4 For some, he is a great theologian,


    the father of Protestantism. For others he is a heretic. And still others see
    him as a Catholic theologian. Most everyone on all sides would concede
    the importance of Justification by Grace Alone in his thought. Usually
    the Luther we encounter says a great deal about the views of the one
    interpreting him.5
    With the 500th anniversary of the Reformation now upon us (there
    is no evidence, though, that Luther himself actually nailed the Ninety-
    Five Theses on the Wittenberg church door as myth would have it), it
    is crucial for the sake of historical accuracy that we break with these old
    paradigms of interpreting the first Reformer.6 These older paradigms
    transform Luther into a systematic theologian, even if he becomes sys-
    tematically paradoxical.7 The rough edges in his thought are suppressed
    in favor of the themes dearest to the interpreter’s constructive think-
    ing. Yet, as we shall see, when Luther is interpreted in this modern, sys-
    tematic mode, we are led to misinterpret what the Reformation was all
    about. It is hard to make a systematic theologian out of him, since he
    never wrote a complete systematic treatise summarizing all his teach-
    ings. (The closest thing to such a treatise, his Smalcald Articles, does not
    include a developed hermeneutic and discussion of biblical authority.)
    Yet if we remain committed to systematizing him, we are likely to join
    the media and modern historiography in viewing the events of October
    31, 1517 and what follow s as the dawn of modernity and its celebration
    of individuality over traditional norms, the struggle against corruption in
    the Church, the Protestant break with Tradition in favor of the authority
    of Scripture alone, and as an expression of Luther’s psychological tur-
    moils.
    In fact, as we shall observe, the Reformation might not have hap-
    pened had Luther himself not broken with a systematic model of theol-
    ogy. Yet we still need handy summaries of the richness of his thought,
    resources for preaching and teaching the Reformer’s insights without so
    simplifying him as to result in a book which is more about the interpret-
    er’s views than Luther’s.
    Providing such a handy summary is one aim of this book. Its
    other rationale emerges when we clarify what Luther is doing
    Methodologically as an alternative to doing theology systemati-
    cally. The pastoral–contextual model of doing theology that we will
    observe in Luther was not only reforming in his sixteenth-century
    context. I am going to demonstrate how his approach might help his
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  3

    twenty-first-century heirs, might reform how theology is done today.


    And given the perceived irrelevance of theology today to the detriment
    of the Western church and the mess it is in, the Church as a whole needs
    this new model.

    The Richness of Luther’s Theology


    The book will demonstrate that the many different versions of Luther
    have some truth to them. For when the Reformer is read in all his rich-
    ness, almost all the various venerable traditions of Luther interpretations
    are correct (at least sometimes). My thesis that Luther was not offering
    a systematic theology is not a new insight. In the last half of the twen-
    tieth-century German scholar Paul Althaus made this point.8 Along
    with other famed German interpreters Werner Elert, Gerhard Ebeling,
    and Gerhard Heintze, as well the eminent American Historian Jaroslav
    Pelikan, Althaus noted that the Reformer operated in a pastoral, contex-
    tually conditioned manner.9 In a 1530–1531 entry in Table Talk Luther
    confirmed this: “True theology is practical, and its foundation is Christ,
    Whose death is appropriated through faith.”10
    I propose to move Luther scholarship beyond this insight and direct
    scholars to recognize the presence of a pattern to the conceptual diver-
    sity in Luther’s contextual thought. Throughout his career he articulated
    similar themes when addressing similar pastoral concerns. Identifying
    the precise nature of this pattern to his use of Christian concepts is rich
    in theological and pastoral implications. It can provide us not only with
    a fresh appreciation of the strengths of the various traditions of Luther
    interpretation. There is, as Heinrich Bornkamm writes in 1970, “some-
    thing of Luther’s spirit [and thought] in all his legitimate heirs.”11 His
    thought is rich enough to spawn many heirs.
    Identifying the pastoral purposes for which Luther deployed various
    doctrinal configurations can also be an important step in the develop-
    ment of a new paradigm for systematic theology, one which is sensitive
    to today’s pastoral contexts. The paradigm for Luther research that I
    propose takes lessons from the Reformer about not just what contempo-
    rary Lutherans should proclaim, but also learns lessons from him about
    when to proclaim his various insights.12
    There are risks in taking all that Luther wrote so seriously. He him-
    self noted in a 1537 letter that the only works he wrote that he would
    acknowledge are The Bondage of the Will and his Catechisms. At the end
    4  M. ELLINGSEN

    of his life he even suggested that it would be better if all his books were
    burned.13 But his work as a whole has had and continues to exert influ-
    ence on the Church and Western society. And this is a book about his
    legacy, about what we can learn from his writings. And so what I am
    doing in this book is to offer a conceptual study of Luther’s writings, an
    analysis which may or may not be relevant for drawing conclusions about
    his mature faith.
    No matter how much of Luther’s corpus we consider, Luther himself
    acknowledged his reliance on the contextual approach we have identified
    in his thought. Of course he still held out for the overall consistency in
    his thought. In 1522, while acknowledging the context-conditionedness
    of his thought, he wrote,

    My doctrine does not in any part contradict itself; nor can it do so, since it
    is the doctrine of Christ, and the whole world already knows that on faith,
    on love, on works, and on those matters which the Spirit of Christ teaches
    us in Holy Writ I have ever been of the same mind, have always taught
    and written the same thing even though I have daily progressed more and
    more by practice and study and have presented the same matters at time
    from this angle, at another from that and have treated them more clearly
    and fully at one time than at another, as Scripture itself does.14

    Elsewhere in a later 1540 reference in Table Talk he clearly endorses this


    sort of contextuality. He is recorded as asserting, “This [the preaching of
    Law and Gospel] shouldn’t and can’t be comprehended in a fixed rule.
    Christ Himself preached [the Law and the Gospel] according to circum-
    stances.”15 In another remark over table he adds,

    A preacher is like a carpenter. His tool is the Word of God. Because the
    materials on which he works vary, he ought not always pursue the same
    course when he preaches. For the sake of variety of his auditors he should
    sometimes console, sometimes frighten, sometimes scold, sometimes
    soothe, etc.16

    Luther also advises that preachers vary their style, sometimes scolding,
    sometimes soothing, suiting preaching to the place and circumstances.17
    He likewise observed elsewhere that there is a limit, a time, and an age
    for every doctrine.18 In addition, the Reformer argued that biblical
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  5

    themes emphasized should be related to the context one was addressing.


    In a 1525 treatise he wrote,

    The Word in Scripture is of two kinds: the first does not pertain or apply
    to me, the other kind does. And upon that Word which does pertain to me
    I can boldly trust and rely, as upon a strong rock. But if it does not per-
    tain to them, then I should stand still. The false prophets pitch in and say,
    “Dear people. This is the Word of God.” That is true; we cannot deny it.
    But we are not the people. God has not given us the directive.19

    Luther applied these insights to reading Scripture and trying to sort out
    tensions in it.20 Thus he once claimed that Paul and James seem to dis-
    agree because they are each defending different aspects of the Gospel.
    Indeed, he claims, much that is in Scripture is depicted according to the
    context to which it is addressed.21 Likewise the Reformer insisted that
    the topic of preaching should be geared to its context and also that pas-
    toral style should differ depending on the circumstances and persons
    addressed.22 Similar points are even made in The Small Catechism regard-
    ing the contextual sensitivity one must have in formulating the themes
    the preacher stresses.23 He even claimed in one context that different
    doctrines are most appropriately considered in different points in the
    Christian life. Thus, he urged that Christ and the Gospel be considered
    prior to sin, in order that its depth might be fully recognized, and that
    only later Predestination receive consideration.24
    A similar point was expressed by Luther in his 1535 Lectures on
    Galatians. He maintained that good works and love must be taught in
    their proper place, but not when the issue was justification:

    We concede that good works and love must also be taught; but this must
    be in its proper time and place, that is, when the question has to do with
    works apart from this chief doctrine … So since we are now dealing with
    the topic of justification, we reject and condemn works; for this topic will
    not allow of any discussion of good works.25

    There are rich scholarly, ecumenical, and theological implications in the


    pastoral–-contextual paradigm that I propose for interpreting Luther.
    Essentially, as we shall observe, the Reformer’s praxis–oriented theologi-
    cal method entails that we should stress dialectical elements of faith more
    in contexts in which Pelagianism is on the horizon. Mere exposition of
    6  M. ELLINGSEN

    the faith, to be sure, still embodies some dialectical patterns (e.g. the
    distinction of Law and Gospel, the distinction between God’s Work and
    human works, the distinction of the Two Kingdoms). But when the con-
    cern addressed is apologetics, exhorting the living of the faith (sancti-
    fication), or when comforting despair, then the dialectical elements of
    Christian faith are almost entirely unified.
    This analysis provides some handles on the diversity of Luther’s
    thought, on the diversity within the Lutheran heritage and in the
    Christian tradition in general. These trends also make good parish sense.
    Those who have pastored will resonate with this wisdom. The time to
    confound with dialectical thinking is when encountering legalistic atti-
    tudes, when encountering those who are absolutely certain that their
    views are the view of God. But when ministering to those with doubts,
    with those in despair, then an unambiguous affirmation of the love of
    God, of the compatibility of faith and reason, is in order. Likewise, the
    compatibility of Law and Gospel, of faith and works, is in order when
    confronting sloth in the Christian life.
    The paradigm for Luther Research that I propose offers a new, pas-
    torally sensitive way of doing theology. It breaks with the dominant sys-
    tematic model of theology which has prevailed in the academy since the
    Enlightenment, if not as long ago as the Middle Ages. By this prevailing
    systematic model I refer to theologizing which seeks logically to organ-
    ize the affirmations of the faith around some foundational, fundamental
    principles—whether it be a philosophical commitment like existentialism
    or process philosophy, a sociopolitical agenda like feminism or liberation,
    or around a given doctrinal theme like Justification by Grace, a Sovereign
    God, Holiness, or the like. Such a theology is not sensitive to the need to
    address all the pastoral concerns that church leaders encounter in every-
    day ministry.
    The perceived irrelevance of systematic theology by many pastors
    is in part a function of the inadequacies of even the best theologies to
    address every pastoral situation. The paradigm I propose might rem-
    edy this shortcoming, as it entails that the theological task is not just to
    articulate and elaborate on the classical doctrines of the faith. One must
    also seek to identify the sort of contexts (pastoral concerns) for which
    a given construal of a doctrine is best-suited. My proposal is that as we
    identify Luther’s use of Christian concepts, the contexts for which he
    deployed a given conception, we will learn lessons regarding the purpose
    and the context in which to utilize specific formulations of doctrines (for
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  7

    example, when to emphasize the opposition of Law and Gospel, when to


    deploy a Third Use of the Law, when to stress the Real Presence of the
    Sacraments and an authoritative view of ministry, and when not to).
    Knowing when to proclaim a given affirmation for the right pastoral
    context, not just how to say it, makes theology a lot more practical. And
    identifying the pattern in Luther’s use of Christian concept is not only
    a new, never-done-before interpretation of his thought, it is a fresh way
    of making theology more relevant. It also opens the way for rich ecu-
    menical explanations, as it is likely we will find that many of the disa-
    greements among theologians are not fundamental disagreements at all,
    that they agree when they address similar pastoral concerns, but just disa-
    gree because they are addressing different pastoral concerns.26 These are
    indeed revolutionary findings and insights. Reforming our reading of
    Luther can reform modern theology.

    How This Approach Helps Us Understand the


    Reformation
    The reading of Luther I propose in this book is needed if we are fully
    to appreciate his Reformation legacy, and the significance of the events
    on October 31 about 500 years ago. Much research has been devoted
    to Luther’s dependence on, though troubled relationship with Scholastic
    theology.27 And the paradoxical character of his thought has been widely
    recognized in the academy.28 But what has not been noted is that the
    contextually related, unsystematic character of his theology is what
    made possible the heart of Luther’s Reformation insights, the focus on
    sola gratia and sola fide. It is no accident that the budding Reformer’s
    Disputation against Scholastic Theology preceded his Ninety-Five Theses.
    No less than Luther, the great Scholastic theologians recognized the
    rich diversity of the biblical witness. But unlike Luther, in dealing with
    the tensions found in the biblical witness, Scholastics were committed to
    resolving these tensions, positing smooth transitions between grace and
    works, between Law and Gospel, between reason and faith. For example
    Thomas Aquinas wrote,

    The divine rights of grace do not abolish the human rights of natural rea-
    son.29
    8  M. ELLINGSEN

    Now although the truth of the Christian faith … surpasses the capacity of
    the reason, nevertheless that truth that the human is naturally endowed to
    know cannot be opposed to the truth of Christian faith.30

    One need only examine several Scholastic magna opera to see this Method
    in action. A thesis is stated, its antithesis given, and then arguments are
    mounted to resolve these tensions and the truth of the original claim.
    We can observe this approach in Aquinas’s treatment of Justification.
    The tensions between grace and works, between Law and Gospel,
    between divine justice and charity, must be synthesized. Thus he insists
    that justification is brought about by God’s love (the Good News of
    faith) and by the achievement of justice (the regulation of our action.)31
    Although the Nominalists did not posit this sort of smooth transi-
    tion between reason and the Word of God one can still observe this
    synthesizing in how they carry on theological discourse.32 For exam-
    ple, in Gabriel Biel the acceptance of the offer of grace is necessary
    in order to explain how we can be in friendship with God. (It would
    make no sense to say we were friends if God merely accepted our
    works.)33 The Scholastic distinction between the meritum de condigno
    (merit achieved with the help of grace) and the meritum de congruo
    (doing what the believer is capable of doing, merit achieved without
    aid and so merely non-meritorious preparation for justifying grace) as
    well as the distinction between God’s necessitates absoluta and God’s
    self-binding decisions necessarily to save those who do what is in them
    with justifying grace (necessitas consequentiae) provide further exam-
    ples of the Scholastic propensity to resolve tensions between compet-
    ing alternatives or dialectical tensions like grace and works or divine
    Providence and human freedom.34 Luther will have none of this subtle
    synthesizing.
    It has been contended that the heart of Luther’s critique of
    Scholasticism is the Reformer’s Nominalist critique of Aristotle.35
    Luther clearly had a significant amount of criticism to level against the
    Philosopher of Aquinas:

    I find it more than astonishing that our scholars can so brazenly claim that
    Aristotle does not contradict Catholic truth.36

    41. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This
    in opposition to the Scholastics.
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  9

    43. It is an error to say the no man can become a theologian without


    Aristotle. This is in opposition to common opinion.
    50. Briefly, the whole Aristotle is to theology as darkness is to light. This in
    opposition to the Scholastics.37

    But rejecting Aristotle, though significant in shaping Luther’s theological


    convictions about the bondaged will, his breaking with the idea of grace
    as a habit, and his rejection of transubstantiation was not the whole story
    in the budding Reformer’s break with Scholastic theology.38 Other ways
    in which he breaks with Scholastic suppositions (and its stress on rational
    syntheses of the tensions in Christian faith) are most significant and need
    to be considered:

    45. To state that a theologian who is no logician is a monstrous heretic


    – this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This is in opposition to com-
    mon opinion.

    46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substitution brought about
    with regard for limit and measure. This is in opposition to the new dialec-
    ticians.39

    47. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say


    that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common
    knowledge.40

    These comments give permission to challenge the medieval (and mod-


    ern systematic) model of finding synthesis of the tensions in Christian
    thought (since there is no internal logic of faith according to Luther).41
    The first proposition of the Disputation with the Scholastics noted in
    the preceding quotation is especially significant. Some Scholastic theo-
    logians seem to have criticized Augustine for his failure to be sufficiently
    systematic, for not always reconciling tensions between spirit and let-
    ter, between faith and works. Luther wants to join the African Father in
    embracing these unresolved paradoxical tensions.
    Armed with these methodological suppositions the budding Reformer
    did not need to try to smooth out tensions in his classic Reformation
    affirmations. And so it appears that without this break with Scholastic
    theology, apart from his commitment to doing theology without resolv-
    ing the tensions inherent in Christian faith, we would not have found
    the Reformer positing tensions between faith and works, likely would
    10  M. ELLINGSEN

    not have had the results of October 31, 1517 transpire. The reading of
    Luther that I introduce in this book provides us with fresh insights about
    what the Reformation was all about (overcoming systematic distortions
    of Christian faith in favor of a theology sensitive to the richness of the
    biblical witness, providing a theology rich enough to deal with everyday
    life in all its diverse situations). Luther’s Reformation really was a reform
    of how to do theology—even if the Church has not fully caught on yet.

    The Way Ahead


    The rest of the book will demonstrate the validity of my thesis about
    reading Luther, providing readers with the sort of guidance on how
    to do a pastorally sensitive theology that I have promised. A chapter
    will be devoted to the Reformer’s teachings on each of the major doc-
    trines. Such a classical order of dogmatic presentation is not an impo-
    sition of a system on Luther like many modern interpreters have done.
    We must keep in mind that long before the development of modern
    systematic theology, organizing theological content according to a nar-
    rative arrangement of the classical doctrinal loci was practiced by the
    Scholastics and Dogmatic Theologians of the Protestant Orthodox era.
    Arranging Luther’s thought in this narrative model (starting with
    authority and then moving to God and proceeding with His acts in
    Creation, Redemption, Sanctification, and the things of the Church—the
    order of the Nicene Creed) may not be the order Luther himself would
    have used had he written a book organizing his thought on each of the
    classical doctrines. As we shall observe at times he would want us to start
    with the doctrine of Justification or Christology. But when he actually go
    around to sketching his version of the faith, as he did in his Catechisms
    and even the Smalcald Articles, the order of doctrines more closely fol-
    lowed the narrative order of arranging doctrines employed in this book.
    The difference between the approach of pre-modern theologians I am
    using in analyzing Luther and those engaged in systematic theology is
    like the very significant difference between formal and material presup-
    positions. The former arranges data and activities in such a way that it
    does not influence the outcome. The latter set of presuppositions sets the
    agenda of the investigation.
    Modern systematic theologians opt for presuppositions about the faith
    (philosophical suppositions, political suppositions, some sort of doctrinal
    emphasis) that shape how the content of the faith is articulated, impact
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  11

    behavior. An example of a material presupposition is that you need a col-


    lege degree to get a good job. That presupposition influences behavior
    and how you tell the story of the America dream. By contrast, merely
    interpreting a theologian’s thought in relation to the historic doctrines is
    a formal presupposition. This presupposition orders chaos, but does not
    determine the outcome of the analysis. An example of such a presupposi-
    tion is the rules of a basketball game. These presuppositions order the
    chaos of 10 players on the court. But they do not mandate whether the
    fast break and full-court press are more effective than a deliberate offense
    and a zone defense. And so likewise, interpreting Luther in relation to
    the historic doctrines does not bias the interpretation towards any par-
    ticular conclusions about what he taught.
    In recognizing the richness of Luther’s thought with this interpre-
    tive approach, we will come to appreciate not just the validity of many of
    the different versions of the Reformer’s thought but also the ecumenical
    friendliness of his theology. In noting a consistent pattern in his use of
    Christian concepts we will take the first steps in developing a theology
    for the parish and every-day life, presenting the insights of the academy
    in such a way that we can learn how to use them in everyday life. As
    we do, we will take steps towards reforming theology today in a manner
    consistent with the Reform Luther undertook 500 years ago. In under-
    taking this task and in all the theologizing we do, students of Luther do
    well to heed the Reformer’s warning:

    If presumption even in secular affairs, when reliance on wealth or power


    or wisdom puffs up the heart, is never indulged in without danger, it is
    far more dangerous in theology; yet this is the very place where it is most
    commonly found … Thus we must daily fight against this latent pest, and,
    above all, not to be pleased with ourselves.42

    The diversity in Luther’s theology can help us do this.

    Notes
    1. Luther may not have been born to as poor a family as he suggests in TR
    (1544), WATR5:558, 13. Also see his lineage described in Charlotte
    Methuen, “Luther’s Life,” The Oxford Handbook of Luther’s Theology.
    Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka, eds. (Oxford: Oxford
    University Press, 2014), p. 7; Hans Schwarz, True Faith in the True
    12  M. ELLINGSEN

    God: An Introduction to Luther’s Life and Thought (rev. and exp. ed.;
    Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015), pp. 7–8.
    2. For Luther’s description of The Tower Experience, see Pr. op. lat., WA
    54: 184–187/ LW 34:334–338. For other descriptions, see TE (1532),
    WATR3:228f., 24ff./ LW54:193; Ibid. (1538), WATR4:72f., 27ff. /
    LW54:308–309; cf. Serm. St. Thom., WA1:112, 10/ LW51:18: “Ut
    haec clavius intelligantur sciendame quite sit opus Dei. Et nihil aliud nisi
    iustitiam … facere.” Regarding the likelihood of a 1519 date for The
    Tower Experience, see Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross
    (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1985), pp. 95ff., 142–145.
    3. An early example of presenting Luther as a forerunner of modernity is
    evident in Gotthold Lessing, Anti-Goeze (1778), I. Also see Wilhelm
    Dilthey, “Auffassung und Analysie des Menschen im 15. Und 16.
    Jahrhundert (1891/1892),” excerpted in Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther
    im Spiegel der deutschen Geistgeschichte (Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer,
    1955), pp. 232–233; Max Weber, Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
    Capitalism, trans. Talcott Parsons (New York and London: Routledge,
    1930); Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (3 vols. in 1; Chicago:
    University of Chicago Press, 1967), p. 86. Luther’s remarks at the Diet
    of Worms (1521), WA7: / LW32:112–113 and Lectures on Galatians
    (1535), WA40I:177, / LW26:97, as Luther appeals to free conscience,
    could be taken in support of their thesis. But it is not clear that the con-
    science is really free for Luther, but is rather subordinate to God and
    His Word. See Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to his Thought
    (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), p. 193.
    4. See Ernst Troeltsch, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, vol.
    2, trans. Olive Wyon (New York: Macmillan Co., 1931), 552. Also see
    Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil, trans. Rileen
    Walliser-Schwarzbart (New York and London: Doubleday, 1992), pp.
    80–81.
    5. For an excellent survey of how Luther is systematized by most of his mod-
    ern interpreters, so that that the main themes of the Reformer’s thought
    reflect the interpreter’s agenda, see Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s
    Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. and ed. Roy
    A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1999), pp. 3–7. My dis-
    sertation, “Luther in Context” provides detailed documentation of this
    process in the interpretations of Luther offered by Werner Elert, Gustaf
    Aulen, and Regin Prenter. On the importance of Justification by Grace
    for Luther, see Ch.VIII, n.1.
    6. For a discussion of whether Luther actually posted the Theses, see Eric
    Gritsch, A History of Lutheranism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), p.
    274; Erwin Iserloh, The Theses Were Not Posted: Luther between Reform
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  13

    and Reformation, trans. J. Wicks (Boston: Beacon, 1968); Heinrich,


    Bornkamm, Thesen und Thesenanschlag Luther: Gerichten und Bedeutung
    (Berlin: Topelmann, 1967). Philip Melanchthon, Opera, vol. VI, in
    Corpus Reformatorum, pp. 161–162, merely noted, based on hearsay evi-
    dence, that Luther made the Theses public in church on Oct.31, 1517.
    7. Karl Barth has interpreted Luther in this paradoxical mode, notably in his
    The Epistle To the Romans, trans. Edwyn Hoskyns (London, Oxford, New
    York; Oxford University Press, 1933), p. 141.
    8. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert Schultz
    (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), p. 3.
    9.  Paul Althaus, “Die Bedeutung der theologie Luthers fur die theolo-
    gische Arbeit,” Luther–Jahrbuch, (1961): 28; Althaus, The Theology of
    Martin Luther, p. 262; Gerhard Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction To
    His Thought, trans. R. A. Wilson (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970),
    p. 49; Werner Elert, Morphologie des Luthertums, vol. I (München: C.
    H. Bed’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1931), pp. 104–105; cf. Carter
    Lindberg, “Luther on Poverty,” Harvesting Martin Luther’s Reflection on
    Theology, Ethics, and the Church, ed. Timothy J. Wengert (Grad Rapids,
    MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), p. 136.
    10. TR (1531–1532), WATR1:72, 16/ LW54:22: “Vera theologia est prac-
    tica, et fundamentum eius est Christus, cuius mors fide apprehenditur.”
    11. Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther im Speiger der deutscher Geistgeschichte
    (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1970), p. 196.
    12. A word about what is meant by pastoral context and how it can be iden-
    tified should be added. The concern for the context of Luther’s theol-
    ogy does not obligate us to portray the full chronological development
    of his thought or to acknowledge every one of his intellectual debts. Of
    course these historical factors must be considered to some extent in order
    to avoid anachronistic interpretation. Nevertheless the concern is not so
    much with Luther’s intellectual (or even his emotional) psyche, as it is
    with a purely conceptual study of the theological concerns he had in view
    in deploying the various images he uses. To this end I have asked Luther
    to be his own interpreter, allowing him to identify for us the concern that
    he (or a biblical passage as he interprets it) had in view. Or when fail-
    ing to receive explicit clarification, efforts will be made to surmise, on the
    basis of what he did say, his instructions for determining the purpose for
    which a given Christian image may be used.
    All this can be accomplished by close textual analysis or Luther’s trea-
    tises. No exhaustive study of historical antecedents will be necessary. Thus
    “context” in this book always refers to “literary context,” an interpretive
    decision which should neither distort the Reformer’s thought nor hide
    his true intentions behind any veil of “formalism.” The occasional nature
    14  M. ELLINGSEN

    of Luther’s treatises should entail that the literary context adequately


    reveals the historical and psychological context as well. The texts are the
    only legitimate access anyone has to Luther and his world of concerns.
    13. BR (1537), WABR8:99f./ LW50:172–173; Pr. op. lat., WA54:180, /
    LW34:327–328.
    14. Henr., WAl0II:189.6: “Non enim mea doctrina sibi ulla parte pugnat
    nec pugnare potest, cum sit Christi, et orbi toto iam constet me de fide,
    de charitate, de operibus et de iis, quae sacris literis spiritus Christ nos
    docuit, semper fuisse eodum sensu, semper eadem docuisse et scripsisse
    licet usu et studio de die diem magis ac magis proficerem et easdem res
    nunc sic, nuc sic tradiderim, aliquando ciarius, alibi locupletius, alibi copi-
    osius et varie tractarem, quo modo et ipsae sacrae literae easdem res tract-
    ant.”
    15. TR (1540), No.5269, WATR5:38, 9/ LW54:404: “Respondit Doctor:
    Man sols and kans in kein gewiss regeil fassen. Es hats Christus selbst
    nach seiner gelegenheitt gepredigett. Drumb, wie der locus oder text
    gibt, so neme man es, legem und euangelium, dan man muss beides
    haben.” Cf. Antinom.(3), WA39I:571ff., 10ff./ LW47:104–105. Yet in
    another context in response to Antinomians Luther insisted that the Law
    precede the Gospel; see Kirchpost.G., W211:754f., 18/ CS1/2:386.
    16. TR (1532), No.234, WATR1:98f., 27ff./ LW54:31: “Praedicator est
    quidem faber; instumentum eius est verbum Dei. Quia autem subiecta,
    in quae operator, variant ideo non debet perpetuo idem tenor esse in
    docendo, sed pro verietate subietorum aliquando consolari, terrere, obi-
    urgare, placare etc. debet.”
    17. Ibid. (1532), WATR1:98f., 26ff./ LW54:31; Ibid., WATR2:44, 8/
    LW54:138: “Convenientia sunt Paedicanda pro loco et personis.”
    This was Luther’s advice for pastoral care in general. See his Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:625f., 29ff./ LW26:414. His remarks in Antinom. (3),
    WA39I:571–574, also confirm context-dependency. Luther concedes
    in this text that in the early portions of his career he had taught about
    repentance in a manner similar to the Antinomians. He proceeds to
    argue, however, that because the situation has changed a different kind of
    teaching is necessitated.
    18. Vor. N.T., WADB7:24, 5 /LW35:378.
    19. Mos., WA16:385f., 26/ LW35:170: “Es ist zweyerley wort ynn der
    Schrifft: Eines geht mich nicht an, betrifft mich auch nicht, Das ander
    betrifft mich, Und auff das selbige, das mich angehet mag ichs kuntlich
    wagen und mich darauff als auff einen starcken selsen verlassen, Trifft es
    mich nicht, so sol ich still stehen. Die falschen Propheten faren zu und
    sprechen: ‘Liebes volck, das is das wort Gottes,’ Es ist war, wir kunnens ja
    nicht leuchen. Wir sind aber das volck nicht, zu den redet. Gott hat uns
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  15

    auch widder dis noch ihenes geheissen, das er yhn zu thuen besolen hat.”
    Cf. Aus.Mos, WA16:284f., 27ff.; Jon., WA19:195, 3/ LW19:42.
    20. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:237, 3.
    21. Dict.Ps., WA3:422, 13/ LW10:358–359.
    22. TR (1532), WATR2:44, 8/ LW54:138; Ibid., WATR1:98f., 26ff; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:625f., 29ff.
    23. Kl. Kat., Pref.18, WA30I:274, 20/; BC349.18.
    24. Vor.N.T., WADB7:22f., 33ff./ LW35:378f.
    25.  Gal. (1535), WA40I:240, 17/ LW26:137: “Concedimus, docendum
    quoque esse de bonis operibus et charitate, Sed suo tempore et loco,
    quando scilicet quaestio est de operibus extra hunc capitalemarticulum…
    Itaque cumiam versemur in loco communi de iustificatione, reicimus et
    damnamus opera.”
    26. A comparison of Luther’s use of theological concept with the pattern to
    the use of these same concepts by Augustine as articulated in my The
    Richness of Augustine: His Contextual & Pastoral Theology (Louisville,
    KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005) and Wesley in my “Wesley as
    Contextual Theologian: A New Paradigm for Overcoming Tensions in
    the Wesleyan/Holiness Heritage,” The Asbury Theological Journal 59,
    nos. 1–2 (Spring/Fall, 2004): 77–88, suggest that the pattern to the use
    of Christian concepts found in Luther embodies an ecumenical pattern.
    Cf. my “Contextual Theology and a New Ecumenism,” The Christian
    Century (August 13–20, 1986): 713–714.
    27. Steven Ozment, The Age of Reform 1250–1550 (New Haven and
    London: Yale University Press, 1980), pp. 231–239, 310; Heiko
    A. Oberman, Luther: Man between God and the Devil (New York
    and London: Doubleday, 1990), pp. 159–161; Adolar Zumkeller,
    “Die Augustinertheologen Simon Fidati von Cascia und Hugolin
    von Orvieto und Martin Luthers Kritik an Aristoteles,” Archiv fur
    Reformationsgeschichte 54 (1963): 15, 37 (the previous two concerning
    Luther’s critique of Aristotle). On how Luther inherited skepticism about
    High Scholasticism form the ethos of Wittenberg University, see Alister
    E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation (2nd
    ed.; Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), esp. p. 105. Jaroslav
    Pelikan, From Luther to Kierkegaard (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing
    House, 1950), pp. 3, 4, noted that it is likely that Luther’s knowledge of
    High Scholasticism (via antique) was second-hand.
    28. Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 26, 32, 33; Werner Elert, The
    Structure of Lutheranism, trans. Walter A. Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia
    Publishing House, 1962), pp. 59ff.; Gerhard Forde, On Being a
    Theologian of the Cross; Reflection on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation 1518
    (Grand Rapids, II: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1977).
    16  M. ELLINGSEN

    More recently, dissenting voices about this matter have been raised by
    Theodor Dieter, “Martin Luther’s Understanding of Reason,” Lutheran
    Quarterly XXV (2011) and Christine Helmer, “Introduction to Luther’s
    Theology in Global Context,” Religion Compass 3 (2009): 13, who argue
    that the Reformer was not so inclined to neglect reason in supporting his
    positions, not so inclined to break with Scholastic theology on that issue.
    I can concur with these colleagues in calling attention to the diversity in
    Luther’s thought, noting how the agenda of his interpreters impacts how
    he is read. But both she and Dieter are wrong if they are taken as reject-
    ing the presence of dialectical components in Luther’s thought (as the
    discussion which follows indicates). And they are also wrong, the book
    demonstrates, if they are construed as implying that Luther’s theology
    as a whole is rationally coherent in a Western logical (Aristotelian) sense.
    I also go beyond Dieter’s and Helmer’s appreciation of the presence of
    diversity in Luther’s thought insofar as I identify the pattern to the diver-
    sity in his thought.
    29. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (1266–1273), 2a–2ae, x.10: “Jus
    autem divinum, quod est ex gratia, non tollit just humanum, quod ex
    naturali ratione.”
    30. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles (1259–1263), bk.1, ch.vii:
    “Quod veritati fidei Christianae … rationis capacitatem excedat, haec
    tamen quae ratio naturaliter indita habet, huic veritati contrariria esse non
    possunt.”
    31. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 1/2ae, Q.113, Art.1.
    32. On the rejection of a smooth transition from reason to faith, see William
    of Occam, Ordinatio (cf.1323), II, Q.IX.
    33. Gabriel Biel, The Circumcision of the Lord (n.d.), c, in Sermones (Brixen,
    1583).
    34. For the Nominalist use of these distinctions, see Gabriel Biel, Epithoma
    partier et Collectorium Circa IV Sententiarum (1495), II,d.27,q.1,art.2;
    Robert Holcot, Lectiones super libros Sapientiae (1481/1489), lect.145B.
    35. Joseph Lortz, Die Reformation in Deutschland (4th ed; 2 vols.; Freiburg,
    1962); Leif Crane, “Die Anfange von Luthers Auseinandersetzung mit
    dem Thomasmus,’ Theologische Literaturzeitung 95 (1970): 242–248.
    Also consider Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross: Martin
    Luther’s Theological Breakthrough (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), pp. 136–
    141.
    36. Hndb., WA9:27, 22–24: “Sed multo mirior nostratium qui Aristoltelem
    non dissonaire catholicae veritati impudentissime garriunt.”
    37. Disp. Schol. Theol., 41, 43, 50, WA1:226, 10ff./ LW31:12:
    41. Tota fere Aristotelis Ethica pessima et gratiae inimical. Contra Scholast.
    1 INTRODUCTION: LUTHER THE REFORMER, PAST AND PRESENT  17

    43. Error est dicere: Sine Aristotle non fit theologus. Contre dictum commune.
    50. Brevitur, Totus Aristotles ad theologiam et tenebrae ad lucem.
    Contra schol.
    Cf. BR (1518), WABR1:150, 41.
    38. Disp.Schol.Theol., 5, 6, 21, 30, WA 1:224f., 22ff./ LW31:9, 10, 11,
    Gut.Werk., 4, WA6:207,15/ LW44:26–27; Capt.Bab., WA6:508, 7/
    LW36:29.
    39. Disp. Schol. Theol., 45, 46, WA1:226, 17ff./ LW31:12:
    “45. Theologus non logicus est monstrosus haereticus, Est monstrosa et
    haeretica oratio. Contra dictum commune.”
    46. Frustra fingitur logica fidei, Suppositio mediate extra terminum et
    numerum. Contra recent. Dialect.”
    40. Ibid., 1, WA1:224, 7/ LW31:9: “1. Sicere quod Augustinius contra
    haereticos excessive loquantur, Est dicere Augustam fere ubique mentium
    esse. Contradictum commune.”
    41. As we shall observe during the book, there is an internal or narrative logic
    of Christian faith, but this is not to say that Luther is wrong in condemn-
    ing here the idea that there is a rational logic of faith.
    42. Ps.131, WA40III:388, 15 (WLS:1358): “Sienim in politicis, eum aut
    opum aut potentiae aut sapientiae fiducia influntur animi, nonquam sine
    periculo abil, in Theologia lange periculosissima est, et tamen ibi maxime
    est … Quare quotidie contra hanc latentem pestem pugnandum est et
    cavendum praecipue, ne quis sibi placeat, quasi teneat distinctionem Legis
    et Eungelii.”
    CHAPTER 2

    Scripture and Theological Method

    Though perhaps not a systematic theologian, Luther had a high regard


    for theology. In remarks written for a graduating student he called the-
    ology “the queen of all wisdom and knowledge.”1 The Reformer’s
    approach is not properly understood unless we realize that he did not
    understand himself to be elevating his own agenda, but was merely artic-
    ulating what the best theologians of the Church always knew.2 Or as he
    put it in a 1532 sermon, “For I must place the Word of God above eve-
    rything else … I must be willing to risk my body and life, the popularity
    of the work, my goods, my reputation, and all my happiness.”3
    We have already noted Luther’s troubled relationship with Scholastic
    Theology and how this entails a critique of Aristotle on whom the fol-
    lowers of Thomas Aquinas depended.4 As a result, and as we shall
    observe further in this chapter, Luther had suspicions about the use of
    Philosophy in Theology.5 If used, philosophical concepts and reason first
    need to be bathed in faith, he contended while articulating the logic of
    Christian faith or offering comments with an apologetic intent.6 In one
    such context he notes that such an apostolic philosophy will be more
    eschatologically oriented, focusing not on the essence of what things are
    but on what they might become or how they relate to life.7
    The Reformer speaks of the weakness of human knowledge when he is
    engaged in polemics.8 The problem with the prevailing philosophy in his
    day, rooted in Greek Philosophy, was that reality was defined in terms of
    essence. Luther changes the focus to existentia, the external relations one

    © The Author(s) 2017 19


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_2
    20  M. Ellingsen

    has. For him, one’s essence is determined by what one does or is done to
    them.9
    From such a perspective, Luther could deem the study of history as
    nothing else than viewing God’s work—grace and wrath.10 When we
    rest in God’s good pleasure with God’s Word, he claims, then all we do
    becomes glorious and remains forever, while histories of the world are
    eternally wretched. Such a view of the tensions between ordinary his-
    tory and history from God’s perspective is most suggestive of Luther’s
    endorsement of something like the modern notion of “salvation-history”
    as distinct from ordinary history.11

    Reason and the Knowledge of God


    Philosophy, like reason, always has its place in earthly matters, including
    law and medicine, the Reformer contended.12 At times, when explaining
    the logic of Christian faith, he was even willing to affirm that through
    reason we can know God.13 For apologetic purposes, the Reformer pos-
    its the natural knowledge of God (while conceding it is imperfect).14 He
    even embraces a cosmological argument.15
    Reason even tells us what God is like. In his Catechism the Reformer
    defines Him as “that to which we look for good and in which we find
    refuge in very time of need.”16 To have a god, he says, is to trust and
    believe in that with your whole heart.17 But Luther warns in other
    contexts, when teaching the Commandments of God, that the natural
    knowledge of God can lead to idolatry.18 Yet he seems to engage in pre-
    cisely this exercise, not naming it idolatry, when his focus shifts to com-
    forting despair or exhorting Christian life. Then he claims that we all
    shape a God for ourselves.19 He goes so far in one polemical setting as
    to contend that we have a general knowledge (accessible to all) of God as
    omnipotent.20 (Could this be a way of his contending that such a vision
    of a wrathful God is a human construction?) And when addressing the
    logic of a text he was exegeting, with some polemical agendas in view, he
    even claims that we know God generally as merciful.21 Perhaps he is con-
    tending here that a baptized reason already saturated with faith, does see
    God in this loving way. But in polemical contexts he claims that “It is the
    nature of reason that it seeks to understand and to measure God accord-
    ing to the Law.”22
    The contextuality of Luther’s thought is obviously evident in these
    instances. It reflects further in polemical contexts or when criticizing
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  21

    philosophy when he insists that God is incomprehensible (presumably


    denying access to God through reason).23 Also in such contexts or when
    explaining the logic of faith or offering comfort Luther insisted that God
    is only known in the Word.24 We will observe this even more clearly later
    in the chapter when we consider his Theology of the Cross. And in sim-
    ilar contexts he posits a distinction between the general knowledge of
    God (accessible to all) and the particular knowledge of God (regarding
    what the Lord thinks of us and how we are saved).25 This distinction
    made in contexts when he was not totally rejecting some role for rea-
    son in knowing God, clearly connects with the Reformer’s commitment
    to biblical authority, with what many contend to be a commitment on
    his part to the authority of Scripture alone (sola scriptura).26 But in fact,
    there is more to this story.

    Scripture Alone (Sometimes)


    True enough, on some occasions, like when critiquing newer Catholic
    practices of the day, the Reformer claimed that no work not found in
    Scripture should be undertaken.27 The assent of faith is due only to what
    is in Scripture, he contends.28 When defending his position in Catholic
    polemics Luther affirmed the authority of Scripture, the most reliable
    of all testimonies, he claimed.29 It is said to be our first principle.30 He
    asserts that it is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine.31
    And as he refers to Scripture in another work:

    The queen must rule and everyone must obey and be subject to her. The
    Pope, Luther, Augustine, Paul, or even an angel from heaven … these
    should not be masters or arbiters, but only witnesses, disciples, and confes-
    sors of Scripture.32

    In this connection Luther speaks of the Christian’s freedom to


    judge doctrine.33 He also insisted in this connection on the clarity
    of Scripture, that it is its own interpreter, which is said to be the easi-
    est and clearest interpretation.34 These commitments entail that we do
    not need Tradition as an interpretive guide, for Scripture’s literal sense
    is clear. This in turn undermines the validity of the use of allegorical
    ­interpretation.
    These commitments reflect elsewhere in Luther’s writings. When
    addressing polemical concerns, critiquing episcopal authority, Tradition
    22  M. Ellingsen

    is said not to be authoritative, even if it lasted for a thousand years.35


    He even asserted on at least two occasions that Councils can err.36 In his
    view a Council has no more authority to establish new articles of faith
    (a position more compatible with the Eastern view of the consensus fide-
    lium) than the Catholic position on the authority of Councils.37 But he
    did take a Conciliarist position in other polemical circumstances, con-
    tending that Councils have more authority than the Pope.38
    In the same spirit, in face of temptation, the Reformer claims that one
    must cling to the Word and cast aside discussion contrary to it.39 While
    dealing with papal abuses, he claims that the Church can only discern the
    books of the Bible, the canon.40 Yet when in a similar context concerned
    with the Gospel, he claims that “the Gospel is not believed because the
    Church confirms it but rather because people sense that it is the Word
    of God.”41 (Regarding the canon, it is interesting to note that Luther
    included the Apocrypha in his first German translation of the Bible,
    referring to it as “Those Books Are Not Held Equal to the Scriptures,
    but Are Useful as Good to Read.”42) But there are times when the
    Reformer appeals to Tradition, while explaining the logic of faith or
    when making arguments especially to authorize infant baptism, Christ’s
    Presence in the Eucharist, or the Immaculate Conception, as well as to
    authorize The Creed and the Trinity.43
    Councils never err, Luther claimed, while considering essential things
    of faith.44 They have no intrinsic authority, but can represent the univer-
    sal Church if in accord with Scripture.45

    Luther as Dialectical Theologian:


    Philosophical Roots
    Endorsement of the paradoxical character of Luther’s thought is
    widespread in the academy.46 That is true, but not all the time. We
    have already noted that the Reformer was very critical of Aristotle,
    and so of systematizing his own theological convictions. His roots
    in Nominalist philosophy explain this point of view. The Reformer
    claimed that Occam was his master.47 He embraces the Nominalist
    realism and its claim that things are defined by their essence, not just
    their impact on the observer.48 Luther also speaks of the influence of
    Johann von Staupitz on him.49 Mysticism was another influence he
    acknowledged, even prior to the Reformation when he either sought
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  23

    to depict the Christian life or offered a response to despair.50 All of


    these influences entailed critique of the rationalist approach to the the-
    ology of his day. Of course once again Luther was not systematically
    consistent in endorsing these convictions, as in polemics he repudiated
    Mysticism.51
    We have already observed that Luther understood himself as a contex-
    tual theologian. He is overtly critical of a systematic approach:

    45. To state that a theologian who is not a logician is a monstrous heretic


    – this is a monstrous and heretical statement. This is in opposition to com-
    mon opinion.

    46. In vain does one fashion a logic of faith, a substation brought about
    with regard for limit and measure. This is in opposition to the new dialec-
    ticians.52

    47. To say that Augustine exaggerates in speaking against heretics is to say


    that Augustine tells lies almost everywhere. This is contrary to common
    knowledge.53

    Luther’s critique of reason, already observed in connection with the


    knowledge of God, relates to faith as a whole. When exhorting faith in a
    sermon he proclaimed, “The natural light of man and the light of grace
    cannot be friends. Human nature wants perception and certitude as a
    condition of faith. Grace wants faith prior to perception.”54
    Even when just explicating faith or critiquing works-righteousness he
    claimed that human reason does not understand faith; it remains hid-
    den.55 Reason is the devil’s whore, he claims when critiquing Erasmus’s
    defense of free will.56
    In Scripture, he claims, one finds nothing but “contrast and antith-
    esis.”57 He even makes this claim when merely explaining the faith.58
    In the same spirit he contends that every assertion is said to be hidden
    under its denial.59
    Yes, Luther was a dialectical theologian, but not all the time, only
    in polemics and a lesser extent when expositing the faith. And yet for
    all of his use of dialectical paradoxical thinking, when addressing death
    and sin he claimed that “faith reconciles opposites.”60 When dialogu-
    ing with philosophy he was even open to its use as long as it was clearly
    subordinated to Christ and the Word, that we had become fools in
    Christ.61
    24  M. Ellingsen

    Luther the Literalist: The Result of Theological


    Development?
    Luther was very aware how easily Scripture could be or has been dis-
    torted, claiming it was a “wax nose.”62 Most of the time Luther’s her-
    meneutical method involved denial of allegorical interpretation in favor
    of concentrating on the literal sense.63 Allegory, he claims, is too hard to
    understand.64
    In one early context Luther claimed that the spiritual meaning of the
    Bible is not merely its allegorical, but its mystical meaning.65 For him,
    even early in his career prior to the Reformation, the literal sense referred
    to the plain meaning of Scripture interpreted christologically, that is in
    light of the message of God’s unconditional love and justification by
    grace through faith revealed in Christ.66 He made a similar point nearly
    two decades later in 1535 claiming that “The chief point of all Scripture
    is that … God is merciful, kind, and patient.” Scripture is about the God
    Who promises he once contended while offering comfort.67 Explaining
    the faith in earlier lectures Luther said much the same, claiming that

    Scripture always proclaims the mercy of God and our sin. The Majesty
    of God is supreme; we are completely worthless … If only our faith were
    strong, this gracious disposition of God would make us fearless in all
    things.68

    These comments are not prescriptive for reading Scripture critically,


    which, as we shall observe, Luther endorsed in some contexts. But at this
    point Luther is merely offering descriptions of his conclusions about the
    main themes of the Bible’s literal sense.
    When the context changed to defending faith, there is some change
    in the Reformer’s characterization of Scripture’s main point. He claims
    that Scripture’s purpose is to reveal sin.69 Its every word finds meaning in
    Christ, or He is said to be the King of Scripture when Luther was exhort-
    ing faith or was engaged in polemics.70 Concerned with pointing out our
    sin he says that “If you would interpret well and confidently, set Christ
    before you …”71 This entails for the Reformer that one thing Scripture
    taught was that life was possible only under the forgiveness of sin.72 But
    when dealing with Christian ethics, his sense of Scripture’s main point
    changes again. He claims that Scripture is “written for our instruction,
    that is our moral upbuilding, to be understood as an example.”73
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  25

    Luther prioritizes the literal sense (understood Christologically),


    even prior to 1517, when he still employed allegorical modes of inter-
    preting Scripture.74 Or as he put it in his First Lectures on the Psalms,
    the literal sense, attributed to Christ, is fundamental.75 In a polemical
    context the Reformer claims that generally Scripture has just one mean-
    ing.76 The four senses of Scripture all point to Christ, he claimed.77
    He added that whenever a text is difficult, it should be dashed against
    Christ the Rock.78
    Luther later became critical of reading the Old Testament alle-
    gorically.79 But he never totally rejected the use of allegory. He spoke
    of an openness to it if the literal meaning is absurd.80 Even after the
    Reformation had begun, while dealing with the Psalms, the budding
    Reformer’s affinity with allegory remained to the extent that he was
    open to a variety of valid given interpretations as long as they are pious.
    (His concern here was with the Christian life.)81 There are suggestions
    here that like in the First Psalm Lectures Luther is open to various con-
    struals of Scripture insofar as there are different paths to holiness.82

    Allegory and a Liberal/Critical Approach


    to Biblical Hermeneutics

    Once over table in 1531, speaking against pride of learning, sounding


    like a very postmodern scholar, Luther claimed that “experience alone
    makes the theologian.”83 He includes experience and agonizing struggle
    [tentatio] as a necessary ingredient of a theologian in 1536.84 Dealing
    with charges not to give into sin, Luther notes in a sermon that “The
    Holy Spirit is only given to the anxious and distressed heart.”85 Again it
    is evident that experience is deemed an essential element for understand-
    ing the faith and Scripture for the Reformer when he addressed how to
    live the Christian life (Sanctification issues). He also claims, when deal-
    ing with Christian life, that Anfechtung (despair) leads to an appreciation
    of how sweet God’s Word is.86
    Luther knew a great deal about this trouble, terror, and despair which
    he called Anfechtung.87 He writes,

    If I would live long enough, I would like to write a book on


    Anfechtung, for without this nobody can understand Holy Scriptures,
    not faith, or know the fear and love of God, indeed he or she cannot
    know what hope is.88
    26  M. Ellingsen

    But it is evident, especially in the 1539 comment cited above that experi-
    ence is not so much normative or constitutive of the Bible’s meaning for
    Luther in this or most contexts. In these comments he was merely sug-
    gesting that experience gives credibility to one’s teachings. It refers to
    experience living in the world of the biblical text.89
    Defending the faith from legalistic abuse, Luther claims that what
    God says must be taken at face value.90 When exegeting he claimed that
    the literal sense “alone holds its ground in trouble and trial.”91 Luther
    affirms the objectivity of God’s Word as he offers comfort, claiming that
    rejection of the Word does not detract from its efficacy.92
    The Reformer’s commitment to Scripture’s literal sense made
    him uncomfortable in polemical contexts with any effort to separate
    Scripture’s spiritual meaning from its literal sense, as is done in alle-
    gory.93 In line with these commitments he taught, as we have previously
    noted, that Scripture interprets itself.94 It is also of interest to note that
    this point that in non-polemical contexts when reading the Bible literally,
    Luther envisaged a compatibility of reason and faith.95 It is evident that
    Luther relied on the literal sense of Scripture for his theology, but not
    unilaterally and in a patterned diversity.

    An Inerrant Scripture
    Some branches of Luther’s heirs have contended that his literalism
    leads to the affirmation of biblical inerrancy. True enough, in contexts
    concerned to undercut the authority of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and
    Tradition, Luther claims that Scripture is inerrant.96 When trying to
    make clear our own inadequacies in interpreting Scripture, when criti-
    quing the authority of Tradition or addressing our own lack of under-
    standing, he referred to the Bible in language implying that the words
    and phrases of Scripture are divine.97 He spoke of the Bible in some con-
    texts as written by God.98 When engaged in polemics in one lecture, the
    Reformer claims that every word of Scripture is revealed.99
    Concerned to exhort praise (Christian living), Luther notes that
    Scriptures are a different book from any other ever written.100 Or when
    defending the Trinity as sublime he speaks of something like the verbal
    inspiration of Scripture.101 He refers to the biblical authors as “infalli-
    ble teachers” (in the context of where he had opted for a Christocentric
    critical principle).102 Luther also affirmed divine inspiration of Scripture
    when engaged in polemics with alternative worldviews.103 The Holy
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  27

    Spirit is said to be the author of Scripture.104 Even small details are


    deemed inspired, a point made while addressing Christian life with
    polemics in the background.105 In a softer way he claims with dialoguing
    with reason that faith holds that Scripture does not deceive or lie.106
    When critiquing Catholic hierarchy, Luther claimed that many con-
    tradictions in Scripture can be resolved by analyzing the texts’ moti-
    vations.107 In the same spirit, while defending himself from his critics,
    Luther insisted that all teaching of Scripture must be accepted, not
    endorsing one article and rejecting others.108

    Towards a Narrative Theology?


    Of course such insistence on divine inerrant inspiration was not mono-
    lithic. Other times, without polemics in view, such as while telling the
    Christmas story, he employed a narrative style of preaching most remi-
    niscent of modern Narrative Theology and the homiletics of the African-
    American church.109 This narrative predisposition was related to Luther’s
    stress on orality, evidenced in a work appended to a collection of his ser-
    mons. He claimed that strictly speaking Scripture is not God’s Word, for
    the Gospel is a spoken Word or narrative.110
    Frequently Luther refers to the “historical sense” of Scripture in such
    contexts or those in which he stressed the literal sense of Scripture.111
    But the significance of the biblical writings is not exhausted by the facts
    reported, he insisted.112 The proper use of the accounts consists in mak-
    ing their reality efficacious for the present.113 This is a responsible use of
    these texts, he contends, for in his view godliness and ­ungodliness remain
    the same through all the ages.”114 Like modern Narrative Theology,
    Luther teaches in preaching contexts that the Bible is true, even if
    not historically verifiable or if we discern some inconsistences.115 The
    Reformer speaks of truth in theology in terms of God’s truth saturat-
    ing our hearts (acting on us).116 In the same spirit Luther also offers an
    interesting insight about why miracles no longer seem to happen: “God
    will perform no miracles so long as problems can be solved by means of
    other gifts He has bestowed on us.”117
    Of course he claimed that apparently natural events like grain growing
    out of the earth are miracles.118 And to critics of Lutheranism he claimed
    in a sermon that mighty miracles continue among Lutherans.119 Luther
    makes this point in his 1532 sermons on 1 Corinthians. Much like
    Narrative theologians he makes no effort there to defend the historical
    28  M. Ellingsen

    credibility of the Resurrection.120 The argument for the Resurrection is


    based solely on the Word and its logical outcome, that Christians cannot
    be Christians if they deny the Resurrection.121 Reason, he claims, makes
    nonsense of the Resurrection.122 We need to ignore experience and sense
    perception.123 (Luther himself handles the Resurrection differently when
    exhorting Christian living against Antinomians. Then sounding like the
    Theology of Hope he speaks of Jesus’ Resurrection as something begun
    in us, but not completed.124)
    At other points the Reformer, when outlining the logic of faith,
    makes comments suggesting that truth differs depending on one’s
    discipline or set of assumptions.125 Truth in theology and philosophy
    differ, he argued.126 Faith must follow the grammar of faith in using
    philosophy, he insisted.127 Every word in Christ takes on a new mean-
    ing, a commitment which resembles the view of twentieth-century phi-
    losopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, who taught that words have different
    meanings in different contexts (language games).128 In this light, much
    like many modern narrative theologians (influenced by the philosophy
    of Ludwig Wittgenstein) Luther claims while exegeting Biblical texts or
    criticizing alternative worldviews that sacred subjects cannot be made to
    fit grammatical rules, that the language of faith is not subject to rules
    imposed from outside the subject.129 The language of faith transcends
    reason in this case; it is its own language game, as Wittgenstein would
    contend.130
    Another example of this propensity to regard truth as different in
    different language games is found in the Reformer’s 1535 Lecture on
    Galatians, as he claims that righteousness is different in theology from
    how it comes about in philosophy.131 Elsewhere Luther claims that peo-
    ple of faith must learn a new language in faith.132
    The Reformer also contended that Christ is present in faith.133 This
    has implications for the doctrine of Justification, that in faith and salva-
    tion we actually encounter Christ.
    Likewise it follows that God is Present in the Word.134 When we heed
    God’s Word we are taught by God Himself, Luther asserted. This hap-
    pens even if we hear an ass speaking, like Balaam did.135 He is also said
    to be present in the Word.136
    This is why Luther claims that while according to reason and the
    senses what the Christian has is small and finite when in fact what he has
    is large and infinite. The infinite is enclosed in the finite.137 As a result he
    can saw,
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  29

    Today I beheld God’s Word and Work. Yes, I saw and heard God Himself
    preaching and baptizing. To be sure, the tongue, the voice, the hands, etc.,
    are those of a human being; but the Word and the ministry are really those
    of the Divine Majesty Himself.138

    Luther says the Word is living, while offering comfort or when respond-
    ing to Enthusiasts.139
    The Reformer adds to this that God’s Word is said to accomplish
    something; He works through words.140 The Word is construed as the
    womb which conceives the believer.141 God’s Word takes us captive,
    Luther proclaims.142 Scripture changes us into it; we do not change
    it into us.143 The words fit our case in whatever situation we are, he
    insists.144
    It is important to note that when Luther talks this way Scripture is
    not transformed into the one who studies it, but transforms us into it.145
    The Biblical characters tell us who we are, as the text leads us to identify
    with them.146 We are to crawl into the Word.147 In that sense the Word
    is Sacramental.148 It is Sacramental, for, as Luther claims while expos-
    iting faith or comforting, in theology the sign marked by its language
    is already present in the Word. As we already observed, the Reformer
    believes that the Word brings what is actually bestowed.149 Of course this
    does not mean that we can trust our experience. As he once put it:

    We must not judge by what we feel or what we see before us. The Word
    must be followed, and we must firmly hold that these truths are to be
    believed, not experienced; for to believe is not to experience. Nor indeed
    that what we believe is never to be experienced, but that faith is to precede
    experience, and the Word must be believed even when we feel and experi-
    ence what differs from the Word.150

    In the same way the Reformer writes, “We should adapt and adjust
    our minds and feelings so that they are in accord with the sense of the
    Psalms.”151
    While expositing the faith he claims that we become the Word of God
    as the intellect becomes what it knows.152 We experience the Word.153 In
    a similar manner he states that this happens because we only know God
    and His extraordinary actions like the Resurrection and The Virgin Birth
    because Christ reveals them to us. We could never get to such knowledge
    on our own.154
    30  M. Ellingsen

    Other Alternative Hermeneutical Approaches


    In other contexts, when offering comfort, Luther speaks of the Biblical
    characters as offering examples of our moral upbuilding.155 When offer-
    ing comfort we are not so much to identify with the biblical characters as
    we are to imitate them.
    The commitments to biblical literalism that we have noted are prob-
    lematic to some interpreters of Luther, those who regard him as the
    first modern man. They are likely to dismiss texts noted as examples of
    Luther’s medievalism, but to highlight instead his appeal to freedom of
    conscience exhibited in his heroic defiance of the Roman Empire at the
    Diet of Worms.156
    Contrary to those who regard Luther as a forerunner of modern free-
    dom of conscience, our bondage to the Word of God seems consist-
    ent with Luther’s famed claim at the Diet of Worms that his conscience
    is bound by the Word of God.157 Nevertheless, we can begin to note
    Luther’s tendency to inject more of himself in the interpretation in
    polemical circumstances or when dealing with despair than the more pas-
    sive role for the interpreter that we have observed when he opts while
    just preaching or teaching for a hermeneutic which deems Scripture as
    narrative or as inerrant.
    We see this in tendency in a sermon on the Epiphany while Luther
    seeks to comfort despair. He says there that Scripture bears Christ in its
    arms.158 In line with this Christocentrism already observed (but now in
    justifying a critical interpretation), the Reformer wrote, when dealing
    with those who would compromise grace,

    I refuse to look at anything except this Christ. He should be such a treas-


    ure to me that in comparison with Him everything else is filthy. He should
    be such a light to me that when I have taken hold of Him by faith I do not
    know whether there is such a thing as Law, sin, or unrighteousness in the
    world. For what is everything there is in heaven and on earth in compari-
    son with the Son of God?159

    Against his critics Luther also says, in citing the opinion of Staupitz, that
    his theology is about glorifying God, that it is safer to ascribe too much
    to God than to man.160 Dealing with works-righteousness he contends
    that every statement in Scripture and act of God, has the purpose of get-
    ting us to see that we are sinners.161 All Scripture speaks of faith and that
    works are useless, Luther declares in a similar pastoral context.162
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  31

    Even in these cases, Luther did not want to be the lone interpreter,
    cutting new ground with his interpretations. Thus he makes clear that
    Scripture was not alone for him when he addressed charges of heresy, as
    he claimed that he was not just offering his own private concerns by the
    teachings of the Church.163 For him the Church’s Rule of Faith was his
    hermeneutical canon. In fact, even when just interpreting Scripture he
    insisted that we cannot manipulate it, relying on our own understanding,
    read it in dialogue with the Rule of Faith.164
    For example, we have already noted that Luther would rely on
    Tradition (traditional practice), not just Scripture, when dialoguing with
    Anabaptists.165 In the context of reminding us of our sinfulness he spoke
    of the Apostles as infallible teachers.166 Luther is not the solitary indi-
    vidual, the creative forger of new meanings that today’s Postmodern
    Deconstructionist claims him to be.167 But some of the language of his
    use of the letter–spirit distinction gives some modern interpreters a sense
    that he may be an ally.

    Letter–Spirit Distinction
    Especially when concerned with Christian feelings, with how we live or
    in polemical circumstances, Luther sometimes posits a letter–spirit dis-
    tinction:

    By the term “written code” in the writings of the Apostle, Paul refers not
    only to the symbolic portions of Scripture or the doctrine of the Law but to
    every teaching which prescribes those things which belong to the good life,
    whether Gospel or Mosaic Law. For if these things are known and remem-
    bered and the spirit of grace is not present, it is merely an empty code and
    death of the soul. Hence blessed Augustine, De Spiritu et littera, ch.4: “That
    teaching by which we receive the command to live continently and uprightly
    is the written code that kills, unless the life-giving Spirit is present.”168

    Luther’s use of the letter–spirit distinction entails that if grace is not


    given, if Christ is not made present, Scripture is merely a dead letter.169
    The letter kills, Luther and Paul teach; both seem to equate spirit with
    the Gospel.170 Only by the Spirit can we suppose that one who is visibly
    exalted is inwardly slain, despised, rejected be exalted.171
    In a manner most suggestive of modern, Kantian epistemology and its
    commitment to the autonomy of the interpreter, Luther seems to claim
    32  M. Ellingsen

    that the interpreter judges Scripture on the basis of the experience it


    gives. But this also provides him with a critical perspective on Scripture.
    In the midst of polemics he writes,

    Even if you were to provide six hundred passages … I have the Author and
    Lord of Scripture, and I want to stand on His side rather than believe you.
    Nevertheless it is impossible for Scripture to contradict itself … If you are
    not able to reconcile Scripture and yet stress Scripture … I shall stress the
    Lord.172

    Another way of saying this is that the Bible is only spiritually understood
    when its meaning comes to us and is experienced as a present reality.
    The Reformer makes a related claim while engaging in apologetics or
    when offering comfort in preaching in contending that Scripture often
    speaks of God as we feel him to be, expressing the feelings of the bibli-
    cal authors.173 Elsewhere he even goes so far as to claim when dealing
    with the Christian life that faith creates the deity.174 But this very mod-
    ern-sounding phrase is balanced by an awareness that God exists and is
    greater than our experience of him in faith.175
    Even when functioning as a narrative theologian Luther claimed, as
    we have noted, that Christ is present in faith, in its form.176 But when
    deploying the letter–spirit distinction, it entails for Luther that if the
    Bible is read merely as a report of the past, it is functioning as a dead
    letter.177 The biblical text is merely said to be the womb of Christ.178
    The Gospel is said to be hidden in Scriptures.179 This entails for Luther,
    when addressing opponents who compromise grace, that we must use
    Christ against the Scripture sometimes. In fact he claims that if Christ is
    not in Scripture it is not Scripture.180
    These commitments likewise entail that for Luther the Bible is said
    to “contain” God’s Word; preachers extract from it the living Word.
    Scripture is said to hold God’s Word.181 It is also contains some
    wood, straw, and hay mixed with the gold, the swaddling clothes and
    manger in which Christ lies.182 It is good to be reminded that Luther
    sounds much like a modern biblical scholar when he describes how
    the early Christian witness was originally oral and only later put in
    writing.183
    The letter–spirit distinction provided Luther with a way of responding
    to those who say they read the Bible and it cannot be understood. He
    argued that only the Spirit understands Scripture correctly.184
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  33

    Of course the letter–spirit distinction we have been discussing entails


    a critical approach to Scripture. Introducing his translation of the Bible,
    explaining the Gospel’s real nature, how we are saved, the Reformer lists
    the best books of the Bible—John’s Gospel, Paul’s letters (esp. Romans),
    and 1 Peter. They are said to be “the true kernel and marrow of all the
    Books.”185 In a polemical context, Paul’s theology is said to open up all
    of Scripture.186 He calls James by contrast “an epistle of straw,” would
    throw Jimmy in the fire. Yet with his conservative hermeneutic he is led
    to praise when not engaged in polemics.187 He was also critical of the
    Book of Hebrews and found no trace of the Spirit in Revelation.188
    In softer, less polemical moments Luther refers to Galatians as his
    Katherine von Bora.189 When explicating faith or exhorting works,
    Luther claims that Paul and John do the best job in the Bible of empha-
    sizing Christ, while the other Gospel writers are better emphasizing
    good works. Both seem to have a valid place (though Luther himself
    would emphasize faith and Christ).190
    We need to be sure in closing this section that we not forget that
    this critical approach to Scripture was not Luther’s only methodologi-
    cal approach. For example when just expositing the Word Luther moves
    away from a functional letter–spirit view of Scripture.191 In such con-
    texts Luther advises that if vexed by sin and fear of judgment, we should
    simply search Scriptures for what comforts and avoid all that testifies to
    wrath.192 With regard to Theological Method and Hermeneutics it is
    evident that Luther was a Pastoral Theologian, sensitive to his context.

    Law and Gospel
    No discussion of Luther’s Theological Method can avoid his views on
    the relationship between Law and Gospel. He says that the knowledge
    of theology depends on the right knowledge of Law and Gospel: “Next
    to knowledge of the whole of Scripture, the knowledge of the whole of
    theology depends on the right knowledge of Law and Gospel.”193 He
    claims that knowing the difference between Law and Gospel was his
    breakthrough.194
    He adds at one point that “whoever knows well how to distinguish
    the Gospel and the Law … is a real theologian.”195 Distinguishing them
    is “the greatest skill in Christendom.”196 In line with this observation
    is a 1532 lecture on Psalm 51, expositing the text, Luther writes, “The
    proper subject of theology is man guilty of sin and condemned and God
    34  M. Ellingsen

    the Justifier and Savior of man the sinner.” Luther adds that what is dis-
    cussed in theology outside this subject is in error.197
    As the Reformer put it while polemicizing,

    The knowledge of this topic, the distinction between the Law and the
    Gospel, is necessary to the highest degree; for it contains a summary of all
    Christian doctrine.198

    Let no one, therefore, ponder the Divine Majesty, what God has done and
    how mighty He is; or think of man as the master of his property, and the way
    the lawyer does; or his health the way the physician does, But let him think
    of man as sinner. The proper subject of theology is man guilty of sin and
    condemned, and God the Justifier and Savior of man the sinner. Whatever
    is asked or discussed in theology outside this subject is error and poison.199

    These commitments are in line with his claim already observed that one
    finds nothing in Scripture, Luther adds at one point, but “contrast and
    antitheses.”200 He said much the same in his Lectures on Hebrews in
    1517–1518, which he claimed as the basis of his Theology of the Cross
    (see below):

    Frequently in the Scriptures there are two opposite ideas side by side. For
    example, judgement and righteousness, wrath and grace, death and life, evil
    and good. This is what is referred to in the phrase … “And alien work is
    done by Him so that He might affect His proper work” [Is.28:21] … Here
    we find the Theology of the Cross, or, as the Apostle expresses it: “The
    Word of the cross is a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the
    Gentiles” [1 Cor.1:18, 23], because it is utterly hidden from their eyes.201

    In polemics Luther teaches that every concept of Scripture must be


    understood to imply its opposite.202 One cannot keep the true meaning
    of justification without it, he adds.203 We cannot confuse them.204 Law
    and Gospel, the finite and the infinite, must remain in tension.205 In a
    1537 sermon he claimed that we need to learn well the “grand distinc-
    tion” between Law and grace, that it had befuddled him for more than
    the first thirty years of his life.206
    The Reformer distinguishes Law and Gospel most sharply when
    defending faith from abuse. He softens the distinction more when
    exhorting faith and still more when exhorting Christian life. Perhaps
    most famously he remarks while defending faith from papal abuse:
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  35

    The way to distinguish the one from the other is to locate the Gospel in
    heaven and the Law on earth, … to distinguish as sharply the righteous-
    ness of the Gospel and that of the Law as God distinguishes day and night.
    Let the one be like the light and the day, and the other like the darkness
    and the night. If we could only put an even greater distance between
    them!207

    But, Luther adds against the Antinomians, just as repentance and for-
    giveness of sin should not be separated, neither should Law and Gospel
    be separated.208
    Often Luther distinguishes Law and Gospel in terms of content, espe-
    cially in polemical contexts or expositing faith:

    26 …The Law says “do this,” and it is never done. Grace says “believe in
    this,” and everything is already done.209

    On this subject the Reformer also writes,

    By “Law” we should understand nothing but God’s Word and command


    in which He commands us what we are to do and not to do … The Gospel
    is such a doctrine or Word of God as does not demand our works or com-
    mand us to do anything but bids us simply to receive the offered grace of
    forgiveness …210

    The Law is a commandment, Luther claims, and the Gospel teaches


    what God has given us.211 The Gospel is defined as good tidings.212 It
    is defined as “this divine promise of grace and forgiveness of sin.”213 It
    is preaching Christ, not dependent on works.214 It is discourse about
    Christ.215 It is the truth that “our righteousness comes by faith alone,
    without works of the Law.”216
    The Gospel is also defined as or identified with the “promises” of God
    or the works of God understood as the creation of righteousness, peace,
    mercy, patience, kindness, joy, and health.217 It is nothing else but Christ
    coming to us.218 It is salvation, a pure free gift:

    The Gospel or faith is something that does not demand our works or tell
    us what to do, but tells us to receive, to accept the gift, so that we are pas-
    sive, that is, that God promises and says to you: “this and that I import to
    you. You can do nothing for it.”219
    36  M. Ellingsen

    Luther also defines the Gospel as God’s Promise, while the Law is said
    to deal with our things and works.220 The Gospel is also said to be the
    preaching of forgiveness.221
    More often when dealing with exhortation to faith or Christian life
    issues the Reformer distinguishes Law and Gospel in terms of their
    impact on people, not their content. Thus he identifies the Gospel as
    what gives life.222 But the Law cannot justify.223 It is a Word that only
    condemns.224 It makes us sinners or is anything that makes us realize our
    sin.225 It kills and terrifies.226 The objective of the Law is desperation.227
    It produces hatred of God and despair.228 As Luther put it in the midst
    of polemics, God commands the impossible.229
    Luther, as we have noted, knew a great deal about this terror and
    despair, which he called Anfechtung. Thus in his view the Law lays guilt
    on us.230 It teaches us our impotence.231 It crushes us.232 It frightens
    and annoys.233 When taken in the fleshly sense, the Law produces bril-
    liant hypocrites who imagine themselves the first of all to whom every-
    thing is due. Christ kills their righteousness.234
    Luther adds that the Law also shows not the grace of God, but His
    wrath.235 It reveals the wrath and judgment of God in such a way as to
    make it impossible not to hate God, to wish He did not exist.236 About
    the Law Luther writes,

    If our nature had not been corrupted by sin to such an extent, there would
    be no need for the preaching of the Law. But now, because of our hard-
    ness and extreme smugness, God cannot accomplish anything through His
    grace unless He has first broken and crushed our adamantine hearts.237

    He contends that the more sinful we perceive ourselves to be the more


    passionately will we call on God.238 The Reformer adds,

    The Law constrains us … teaches us that we must be changed before


    we can accomplish its works; it makes us conscious of our inability as we
    are.239 The Commandments of God are but a mirror, wherein we behold
    our filth and wickedness …240

    It teaches us our sin.241


    Without the Law we are ignorant of our sin. In fact, Luther adds, we
    are likely to remain secure and proud of our moral capacity.242 But he
    also insists that the Law cannot get us to righteousness.243
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  37

    As the Word of Moses, the Law in Luther’s view is only able to


    instruct and sanctify the flesh, while the Gospel is directed to the inner
    life of man and so about to sanctify the spirit.244 It shows us our inabil-
    ity.245 Nothing goes as the Law demands.246 It is beyond the power of
    humans to fulfill.247 It demands the impossible.248 In this sense the Law
    is a tyrant.249 It makes sin abound, because it irritates and repels the will.
    Every work of the Law is sin.250
    Luther maintains that the Law makes us see how desperately wicked
    his heart is, how great his sins are, even what was considered good
    works.251 It is like a jail that fences us in. By contrast, the Gospel is a free
    wilderness, unrestrained.252 The Law only reveals what already exists in
    human nature.253 We need to be careful, then, in how we use the Law,
    Luther warns. For when good works are taught, Luther notes, it leads to
    pride and works-righteousness.254

    Making a point too often overlooked in modern Reformation theology,


    Luther notes that the Law is not properly understood apart from the Gospel:

    Thus we see that the Law and Prophets, too, cannot be preached or rec-
    ognized properly, unless we see Christ wrapped up in the Scriptures … For
    Christ must be heard in the Gospel and then one sees how beautifully the
    entire Old Testament is attuned to Him.255

    The Law is found in the New Testament as well as in the Old Testament,
    Luther notes.256 Yet the Old Testament also contains grace, he adds.257 But
    the Law can also be known from reason (natural law), Luther insists.258
    The Reformer says about our freedom from the Law that the Law is a
    bit like the child’s tutor:

    The tutor’s release of the pupil does not mean the death or departure of
    the tutor, but spiritually, that the child has been changed, and can do what
    the father wished the tutor to teach him. Likewise the Law releases us,
    not by its passing, not by being abrogated, but spiritually; and because a
    change has been effected in us and we have the experience God designed
    us to have through the Law.259

    The Gospel is greater than the Law, Luther insists, for the latter was
    ordained through servants.260 He compares the Gospel to the sun and
    the Law to the moon. The moon beams with the sun’s light. As long as
    both shine, you can distinguish day and night. But when the two lights
    38  M. Ellingsen

    disappear you just have an absolute blackout.261 The Gospel has the Law
    in its power.262 In explaining the faith, the Law is said to be destroyed
    by the Gospel.263 But despite the Gospel’s freeing Word, Luther nicely
    asserts why we still need the Law:

    Therefore the grumbling, “If the Law does not justify, it is nothing,” is a
    fallacious conclusion. For just as the conclusion is valid if one says: “Money
    does not justify; therefore it is nothing. The eyes do not justify; therefore I
    shall pluck them out” … When we deny that the Law justifies, we are not
    destroying or condemning it.264

    But we still need the Law, he says, in order to work repentance.265

    God first gives the cross and affliction, then honor and blessedness … But
    God first of all terrifies the conscience, set on miserable wine … then, how-
    ever, He consoles us with the promises of the Gospel which endure for-
    ever.266

    Regarding the Law’s role in working repentance and its importance,


    Luther writes,

    there is no person on earth in His [Jesus’] mind who is to be excused or


    excepted, but must confess and acknowledge they are sinners … For the
    cornerstone of this building, of how to become a Christian, must in every
    case be to confess our sins, for otherwise you can neither rejoice in your
    forgiveness nor be comforted.267

    The Law introduces us to sin and overwhelms us with the knowledge of it.
    It does this so that we may see to be freed and sigh after grace.268 … [T]
    hen the whole world becomes too small for us there is no help anywhere
    except in Christ.”269

    Luther nicely elaborates on this point:

    I must first take you down to hell before taking you up to heaven, you
    must despair in the first place … In view of this lay hold of His Word and
    Promise that He will change you; this only will help you … This is true
    comfort that does not rest on our ability but on the fact that we have a
    gracious God Who forgives our sins.270

    We can identify the seeds of Luther’s thinking about a distinc-


    tion between Law and Gospel in his efforts to deal with the need for
    repentance over-against the sale of Indulgences. Addressing in 1516
    the combination of proclaiming the logic of faith and also critiquing
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  39

    self-righteousness, Luther introduced the idea (suggestive of his


    Theology of the Cross) that a distinction must be made between God’s
    proper work (making us righteous or saving us) and his alien work (to
    make us sinners).271 The strange work correlates with the Law and the
    proper work with the Gospel in the Law–Gospel distinction.272 We must
    despair of our own ability in order to be prepared to receive the grace of
    God, Luther notes when engaging the legalism of Catholic Scholasticism
    or articulating the logic of faith.273
    In polemical circumstances the Law precedes the Gospel for Luther
    (just as one must first experience Anfechtung). The Law drives us to
    Christ, Luther says, and the Gospel says that God is present with those
    who are contrite, when the Reformer exhorts faith while responding to
    Antinomian polemics.274 But here we must remember Luther’s previously
    noted caution that the Law and the Gospel are to be preached according
    to circumstances, and his claim outside of polemics that the Law is only
    properly known in relation to the Gospel.275 In this connection Luther
    also advises against the Antinomians that the Law should be preached first,
    but not at all to the faint-heated, those already in despair.276

    How and How Far Should Law and Gospel Be


    Distinguished?
    Luther does concede that at least until 1513 or longer he did not
    understand the Law–Gospel distinction and so he did not know God’s
    mercy.277 When defending faith Luther stressed the opposition of Law
    and Gospel:

    The way to distinguish the one from the other is to locate the Gospel in
    heaven and the Law on earth, to call the righteousness of the Gospel heav-
    enly and divine and the righteousness of the Law earthly and human, and
    to distinguish the righteousness of the Gospel and that of the Law as God
    distinguishes between heaven and earth or between day and night. Let the
    one be like the light and the day, and the other like the darkness and the
    night. If we could only put an even greater distance between them.278

    Luther seems contextual in the emphasis he places on the distinction


    between Law and Gospel.279 We have already noted that when address-
    ing despair the Reformer posits their distinction solely on the basis of our
    response to the Word:
    40  M. Ellingsen

    The corollary is that the Word of the new and of the old Law is the same,
    but only according to our understanding or lack of understanding it is
    described as perfect or imperfect, short or lengthened.280

    Law and Gospel are said to be distinct in these pastoral contexts only
    in respect to attitudes and function, not regarding their differences in
    content.281 In this spirit Luther writes (when addressing Antinomian dis-
    tortions), “The time and proper function of the Law is to kill; but the
    function of the Gospel is to make alive.282
    Luther concedes the contextuality of his approach to the Law–Gospel
    dialectic even later in his career in dialogue with the Antinomians. He
    even concedes that early in his career in order to preach the Gospel pow-
    erfully against papal abuse he had preached like the Antinomians, but
    now the situation is different, he contends.283
    When dealing with Christian life issues the Reformer refers to the unity
    of Law and Gospel in experience.284 In one good example he writes,

    The Law and the Gospel neither can nor should be separated; just as
    repentance and forgiveness of sins should not be separated. For they are so
    closely bound up together and involved in each other.285

    In these contexts, later in his career he even spoke of faith working


    through love.286 Or when focusing just on our relationship to God
    or when addressing despair, Luther counsels no attention be paid to
    the Law.287 The Reformer himself speaks of his contextual approach
    to preaching the Law differently to the faint-hearted.288 How and the
    extent to which Law and Gospel should be distinguished is clearly a mat-
    ter of context.

    On Different Uses of the Law


    It is standard to say that Luther posits Two Uses of the Law (the
    Political Use, which is the Law functioning to nurture good citizens and
    as a norm for just laws, and the Theological Use, the Commandments
    functioning to condemn sin). He most clearly articulates this in his
    articulation of the faith in The Smalcald Articles.289 He claims that the
    Second (Theological) Use to condemn sin is the principal Use.290
    However, when dealing with Antinomians, those not taking seri-
    ously our Christian responsibility, he is recorded as teaching much like
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  41

    Catholics, the Eastern church, and virtually all Protestant denominations,


    a Third Use of the Law (the Commandments functioning as a guide to
    and exhorter for Christian living).291 Granted, the authenticity of this
    text has been disputed. But there are other texts which imply a Third
    Use. One is to be found in a 1522 New Year’s Sermon concerned with
    the Law. He speaks there of preaching even to those who observe the
    Law (i.e., Christians).292
    We see something like a Third Use of the Law when the Reformer
    addressed matters related to Sanctification or comfort.293 Even in the
    Catechisms the positive use of the Commandments appears in texts con-
    cerned to address changes in Christian behavior.294 Luther also claims
    that the Law is a disciplinarian that makes us do good, rather like a
    custodian prepared the child for adulthood.295 Late in his career when
    addressing issues related to living the Christian life, the Reformer even
    spoke of Christ as an example.296 He also spoke of the law of love in
    these contexts (equating it sometimes with the natural law).297
    Luther even goes so far as to indicate the proper contexts for a
    Third Use of the Law. As late as 1535 he claims that the Law should
    be made a god and be dealt with reverently apart from the matter of
    Justification.298 But he also claims that the final cause of obedience to
    the Law is the good example it can portray for evangelism and our grati-
    tude towards God reflected in our actions.299 Elsewhere the Reformer
    insists that good works must also be urged on account of the weakness of
    the flesh.300 In that sense the Third Use functions in comforting despair
    occasioned by this weakness.301 That the Third Use of the Law appears
    in these contexts is not surprising in view of his tendency to construe
    Scripture this way (as providing examples) in such contexts.

    Theology of the Cross


    A crucial aspect of Luther’s critique of Scholastic Theology emerges from
    his Theology of the Cross. It should already be obvious that this set of
    commitments stressing the paradoxical character of God’s actions is a
    significant part of Luther’s thinking, but when not engaged in polem-
    ics or exhorting faith, the Reformer is not a consistent adherent of these
    themes.302
    It was while polemicizing in The Heidelberg Disputation that the
    Reformer claimed that “true theology and recognition of God are in the
    42  M. Ellingsen

    crucified Christ.”303 Such a theologian knows only the crucified and hid-
    den God.304 Luther notes,

    20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends


    the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the
    Cross.305

    We must begin at the bottom to rise up, not at the top as Philosophy
    does.306 The Reformer even claims that God is found in the weakness of
    an infant, in the suffering of a cross.307
    Luther’s commitment to the literal sense of Scripture led him to claim
    while extolling faith from the pride of works that Scripture is “filled with
    antitheses.”308 We have already noted Luther’s critical perspective on rea-
    son. He claims, when responding to critiques of faith by reason, that we
    should follow the Word and regard our own thoughts as vain.309 Reason
    cannot endure God’s Word unless it is first blinded and disagrees, a point
    Luther makes against proponents of believer’s baptism.310 Reason is the
    devil’s whore, he asserts.311 Faith must kill reason, Luther says in polemi-
    cal circumstances.312
    Luther also contends that reason cannot understand the Word (stated
    when trying to comfort or engaged in polemics).313 Reason is said to
    amount to nothing compared to the Word.314 When explicating faith
    with specialized concern to avoid doctrines of men, Luther proclaims,

    The natural light of man and grace cannot be friends. Human nature wants
    perception and certitude as a condition of faith prior to perception; that is
    why human nature will not proceed beyond its own light. Grace happily
    steps out into the darkness and follows nothing but the Word …315

    The light of man and grace cannot be friends (a comment made while
    dealing with sin).316
    The lowly appearance of the Gospel offends (a claim Luther makes while
    condemning reason).317 God’s Word must be a stumbling block, Luther
    remarks in a sermon proclaiming faith and responding to his critics.318
    Elsewhere the Reformer adds, “It is the lot of God’s Word in the world to
    find that the learned and the works–righteous always knows better.”319
    The Theology of the Cross entails believing that God turns every-
    thing upside down, Luther proclaims in a sermon. What we call jolly and
    beautiful He calls poor, sick, and weak.320 “In the eyes of the world the
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  43

    Word of Christ is always foolishness,” Luther notes.321 “This seems to


    the world contrary to reason because God seems to be lying, forsaking
    us, not choosing us by rejecting us. To the godly man, however, it is
    believable.”322
    This critique of reason has implications for the focus of Theology:

    The person who wants to know God, free from unsubstantial speculation
    about Him, must begin at the bottom and learn first to know the Virgin
    Mary’s son born in Bethlehem. Thereafter he will learn, as the text itself
    states, precisely Who the Virgin’s Son is, namely the everlasting Lord and
    King.323

    Luther claims there is a reason to be on guard against wisdom:

    But the meaning of the saying is this: The wise and understanding … are
    always exerting themselves; they do things in the Christian Church the way
    they want to themselves. Everything that God does they must improve, so
    that there is no poorer, more insignificant and despised disciple on earth
    than God; He must be everybody’s pupil.324

    The Reformer was critical of Philosophy and the concept of sub-


    stance. It is a foothold or settled ground on which man can stand.325
    Addressing temptations, he claims that faith attaches itself to noth-
    ing.326 When exhorting comfort in a sermon Luther observed, “Faith is
    against feeling and feeling against faith.”327 Faith is said to be in contra-
    diction to the senses.328 In one sermon he proclaims, “That is why we
    should refuse to listen when our heart speaks to us in terror and unbe-
    lief. We should instead listen to what God says, for He is greater than
    your heart or mine.329
    In polemical circumstances doctrine is even distinguished from life.330
    Luther writes,

    There as I often warn you, doctrine must be carefully distinguished from


    life. Doctrine is heaven; life is earth. In life there is sin, error, unclean-
    ness, and misery, mixed, as the saying goes, “with vinegar.” Here love
    should condone, tolerate, be deceived, trust, hope, and endure all things
    (I Cor.13:7); here the forgiveness of sins should have complete sway, pro-
    vided that sin and error are not defended. But just as there is no error in
    doctrine, so there is no need for any forgiveness of sins. Therefore there is
    no comparison at all between doctrine and life.331
    44  M. Ellingsen

    The distinction between doctrine and life or faith and feeling in con-
    texts when faith is being defended or even exhorted led the Reformer
    to some apparently flippant attitudes towards suffering, as he claims that
    it does not matter who believes or that “the person must be completely
    rejected.”332 Such attitudes reflect in the abusive language he could use
    towards opponents, calling them liars and goats in print.333

    Distinguishing faith from life (its feelings and trends) entails that for
    the Reformer God is greater than our hearts.334 The heart may deceive,
    but not Christ, he asserts when engaged in polemics with the Catholic
    establishment.335 Dialoguing with uncertainty and Catholic teaching he
    writes,

    And this is the reason why our theology is certain: it snatches us away from
    ourselves and places us outside ourselves, so that we do not depend on our
    own strength, conscience, experience, person, or works but depend on that
    which is outside ourselves, that is not the promise and truth of God, which
    cannot deceive.336

    In one of his lectures he claimed,

    This is not a mean art but the art of the Holy Spirit. Reason cannot sing
    about the Lord’s blessings. It is the work of the Spirit alone to under-
    stand the mercies of God. It is the wise man who begins to praise and give
    thanks. Reason of itself cannot do this. It only observes the threats and
    terrors of God and the ungodliness in the world, and then it begins to
    murmur and blaspheme.337

    Even when concerned with the logic of faith Luther observes that God
    proposes things that are impossible and absurd. There is a tension with
    reason.338
    Writing in a context while aiming to undermine legalism the Reformer
    observes,

    And universally our every assertion of anything good is hidden under


    the denial of it, so that faith may have its place in God, Who is a negative
    essence of goodness and wisdom and righteousness, Who cannot be pos-
    sessed or touched except by the negation of all our affirmatives.339

    And while seeking to undercut pride in a 1532 Advent sermon, he


    writes,
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  45

    It [the Gospel] is and remains a teaching which causes offense but not to
    the unimportant people. Experience has shown that it remains a teaching
    which causes offense … They [the self-righteous] consider the Gospel an
    annoying, rebellious teaching.340

    In the same spirit in Lectures on Galatians he claims that Scripture is


    “filled with antitheses.”341
    All of these themes suggest the Theology of the Cross of his
    Heidelberg Disputation, where Luther wrote,

    20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the


    visible and manifest things of God through suffering and the cross.342

    Thus God destroys the wisdom of the wise … It is impossible for a person
    not to be puffed by his good works unless he has first been deflated and
    destroyed by suffering and evil until he knows that he is worthless and that
    his works are not his but God’s.343

    In line with these early appearances of the Theology of the Cross when
    Luther addressed despair or aimed to undercut legalism, in a 1516 ser-
    mon he makes a distinction between God’s proper work and His alien
    work (making men sinners) in order to create righteousnessss.344 God is
    said to reveal by concealing.345 The Reformer writes elsewhere,

    Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they
    are nevertheless really eternal merits.346

    God is hidden, but recognized in suffering.347


    Addressing legalism, Luther notes in a 1520 commentary on a psalm
    that God’s Word is like a lamp shining in a dark place. It becomes a lie
    before it becomes truth. We cannot go to heaven unless we first go to
    hell and God becomes first a devil. But the last word is that God’s faith-
    fulness endures.348 In an early sermon he observes that God performs
    an alien work making the faithful sinners before performing His Work of
    Justification. He kills and makes alive.349 God works like a surgeon, making
    dangerous and disfiguring incisions, but nevertheless does good work.350
    Of course God’s hiddenness is related to the Theology of the
    Cross.351 While addressing legalism (the usual context for invoking The
    Theology of the Cross) along with seeking comfort for the faithful’s
    despair, Luther notes God’s hidden ways:
    46  M. Ellingsen

    He has hidden His power under nothing but weakness, His wisdom under
    foolishness, His goodness under severity, His righteousness under sin, His
    mercy under wrath.352

    Prior to the Reformation the Reformer claimed that “God conceals what
    is His in order to reveal it.”353
    Responding to legalism, Luther notes that the righteousness of God
    is hidden under sin.354 In similar contexts he frequently notes that the
    ways of God are said to be hidden, far above our patterns of thought.355
    The Gospel is said to be hidden.356 So is the heritage of Christ.357 As the
    Reformer put it in a polemical context, If faith is essentially concerned
    with concealed reality then “it is necessary that everything which is to be
    believed be hidden so that there may be room for faith.” He adds,

    It cannot be hidden any more deeply than when it appears to be the exact
    opposite of what we see, sense, and experience.358

    Faith must believe against reason Luther claims for reason says faith is
    impossible.359
    Hiddenness (esp. of the Christian) is a theme used to comfort from
    despair, Luther adds.360 It is also used in polemical circumstances.361 In
    a comment with rich implications for Ministry and Social Ethics (God
    working through the lowly), Luther writes,
    But God follows this method and shows poor sinners, such as Saint
    Paul and we were, to fend off the arrogance and conceit of such wisea-
    cres. For He does not wish to use such self-assured and presumptuous
    spirits for this work by people who have been through the mill, have
    been tested and crushed … No, God must always retain the honor.362
    Engaging in polemics, God is even said to be recognized in suffer-
    ing.363 Indeed while offering comfort prior to the Reformation Luther
    writes,

    For we ought to have the greatest courage at the very time when evil
    befalls us, for that is where God shows His good will; we should be most
    pleased at the time when the most unpleasant things happen, for then it is
    certain that the acceptable Will of God is at work …364

    Against the spiritual pride of the Anabaptists he even claimed that faith is
    paradoxical, often greatest when we doubt or are in despair.365
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  47

    Not just the ways of God, but the Christian life is hidden, according
    to the Theology of the Cross.366 Most of the time Luther’s Theology
    of the Cross emerges when defending faith. But he seems to develop
    the theme of Christian life being hidden at least when dealing with the
    Christian life and comfort in language suggesting modern liberation the-
    ology the Reformer speaks of he faithful experiencing poverty, that you
    must become of low estate.367
    A focus on The Cross seems evident in Luther’s Christocentric claim
    that the Cross of Christ alone is his theology.368 But in another context
    he claims that God might not have spoken His final Word in Christ.369
    He even claims in The Bondage of the Will in polemics with legalism that
    God wills things not disclosed in His Word.370 This is another sense of
    hiddenness (the Hidden Will of God) posited by Luther in addition to
    His revealed Will.371
    The Reformer advises that we focus on the revealed God, believe
    against the hidden God.372 We should seek to know no other God than
    the God clothed with His Promises.373 In these contexts the Reformer
    urges that we leave God in His Majesty [deus abconditus] to Himself, but
    only contrite on Him as set forth in His Word.374 Better to do that than
    speculate (a claim made in polemics with Erasmus).375
    Something like the Theology of the Cross appears early in Luther’s
    career, in the First Lectures on Psalms. God, it seems, defies reason, can-
    not be known empirically, Luther claims while seeking to humble us.
    This makes place for faith.376 While exhorting Christian living, Luther
    notes that we cannot contemplate the divine majesty, the hidden God.
    This awareness leads to humility.377 While reflecting on our sinful
    nature or polemicizing against legalistic distortions of the faith, Luther
    notes that to contemplate God in His hiddenness will lead to our being
    crushed.378
    Of course in another context, concerned merely to interpret Romans,
    Luther is willing as we have noted to claim that there is a natural knowl-
    edge of God (though theology cannot be constructed on it).379 Seeking
    to undercut reason and to exhort faith, Luther contends that only by
    faith can the invisible things be discerned.380
    Dealing with Christian life or comfort he states that faith is concerned
    with what is hidden.381 Faith creates hope, he states.382 While addressing
    Pelagian abuses, Luther claims that this hiddenness is in part related to
    the fact that faith is grounded in the knowledge of God in the sense of
    His means, not His essence.383 As we shall observe in later chapters, The
    48  M. Ellingsen

    Theology of the Cross and its theme of the deus absconditus also pertains
    to Predestination and Providence. It clearly permeates his thinking in
    polemics, exhortation to faith, and exhortation to comfort, but we have
    noted that its paradoxical themes fade in contexts when the Reformer
    exhorts Christian living.

    Black Presence in the Bible


    Another topic of hermeneutics most relevant to our present situation
    is Luther’s awareness of the African contributions to the Bible. A few
    examples follow. Luther identifies one of The Wise Men as Ethiopian.384
    Writing late in his life he claimed that “Many Ethiopians, Ammonites,
    and Edomites attached themselves to the confession and worship of
    the God of Israel in accordance with God’s call.” He also claimed that
    Nimrod and Cush were Ethiopian.385 Luther’s reflections at this point
    are most pertinent to our subsequent analysis of the contributions his
    Social Ethic might make to Reformation theology today.

    Summary Reflections
    Certainly we find in Luther evidence that he employed at times (esp.
    when doing apologetics or comforting despair) which takes seriously the
    role of the interpreters and what they bring to the text, models much
    like what dominates in the academy today.386 But we also more typically
    find in Luther a hermeneutic that is pre-modern, positing a theology not
    rooted in reason or experience, entailing an objectivity to theology. This
    fits his focus on God (Who is outside us) saving us, and not we ourselves.
    Addressing God in thankfulness in comforting us, Luther writes,

    And this is the reason why our theology is certain: it snatches us away from
    ourselves and places us outside ourselves …387

    Christ helps the world by confounding the world’s wisdom …388

    Sometimes these commitments led to complete, unconditional fidel-


    ity to the biblical texts. Other times we see in him a critical approach
    to Scripture, its originator. Just as sometimes we find him totally com-
    mitted to the authority of Scripture (in polemics) and other times (esp.
    when dealing with the logic of the Christian faith) an appreciation of
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  49

    the catholic tradition and even of a legitimate role for philosophy when
    subordinated to the Word. And so Luther is a man who provides gives
    us glimpses of how to hold these different methodological options
    together, encouraging us to use them in appropriate ways as long as
    they serve the Word of God’s unconditional love. Luther nicely summa-
    rizes his theology in the spirit of the Theology of the Cross over dinner,
    reminding us not to get sidetracked in our theological/methodological
    meanderings:

    If at death I could leave behind me the reputation that I teach with


    the greatest diligence that one should be on guard against specula-
    tions and should in all simplicity apprehend Christ, I would have done
    much.389

    Notes
    1. Thes.Wel., WA39I:59,
    20/ LW34:128.

    2. Latom., WA8:45, 17/ LW32:140–141; Pr. Op. lat., WA54:180, 8/
    LW34:329; Disp.Schol. Theo., WA1:228, 34/ LW31:16.
    3. Matt.5–7, WA32:399f., 35ff./ LW21:121: “… So segne ich Gottes wort
    verfluche sie mit allem was sie haben, Denn ich must Gottes wort uber
    alle ding setzen und leib und leben, der welt ganst, gut, her un alles heil
    daran zusetzen.”
    4. Disp.Verb., WA39II:3, 5/ LW38:239; Latom., WA8:127, 7/ LW32:258.
    See p.15, n.27. For Luther on Aristotle, see Disp.Schol.Theo., WA1:226,
    16/ LW31:12. Also see p. 16, n. 35.
    5. Latom., WA8:127, 7/ LW32:258; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:228f., 14.
    6.  TR (1533), WATR3:105f., 11ff./ LW54:183ff.; Disp.Verb.,
    WA39II:26ff., 29ff./ LW38: 259. Cf. TR (1533), WATR1:191, 15/
    LW54:71; TR (1530–1535), WATR1:191, 23/ LW54:71; Disp.hom.,
    WA39I:180, 11ff./ LW34:144; Serv.arb., WA18:L718, 13/ LW33:189:
    Unlike the preceding texts, Luther merely claims there while polemiciz-
    ing with Erasmus that with faith as a supposition reason can be used to
    develop the logic of faith.
    7. Rom., WA56:371, 1ff./LW25:360f.; Dict.Ps., WA3:419, 25/ LW10:355–
    356; Ibid., WA55I:388, 273ff.
    8. Serv.arb., WA18:659, 28/ LW33:99–100.
    9. Dict.Ps., WA3:419f., 25ff./ LW10:355–356.
    10. Vor.Hist., WA50:383f., 17ff./ LW34:277–278.
    50  M. Ellingsen

    11. Gen., WA43:672f., 40ff./ LW5:354. For the modern concept of sal-


    vation-history, see J. C. K. von Hofmann, Interpreting the Bible, trans.
    Christian Preus (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1959), pp.
    28, 72, 205; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, eds. G. W. Bromiley and T.
    F. Torrance (4 vols.; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1935–1969), Vol.I/1,
    pp. 373–378; Ibid., Vol.I/2, pp. 470, 521.
    12. Disp. hom., WA39I:175, 11/ LW34:137; Disp.Verb., WA39II:14, 1/
    LW38:248; Ibid., WA39II:24f., 32ff./ LW38:272; Ex., WA16:262, 29;
    cf. Wein., WA10I/1:191, 14/ LW52:149; Gen., WA42:469f., 32ff./
    LW2:290–291; Ibid., WA43:104, 37/ LW3:320; Ibid., WA44:17, 32/
    LW6:24–25.
    13.  Gal. (1535), WA40I:607, 19/LW26:399; Gen., WA42:631, 36/
    LW3:117; Reih. Gen., WA24:9, 20; Jon., WA19:205f., 27ff./ LW19:53;
    Promodisp.Heg., WA39II :346, 4; TR (n.d.), WATR6:20, 19.
    14. Rom., WA56:176, 16/ LW25:156; Jon., WA19:206, 30/ LW19:54.
    15. Pred. (1537), WA45:90, 2.
    16. Dtsch.Kat., WA30I:133, 1/ BC:386.2: “Antwort: Ein Gott heisset das
    dazu man sich versehen sol alles guten und zuflucht haben ynn allen
    noten.”
    17.  Ibid., WA30I:133, 2/ BC:386.2.
    18. Pred.Deut., WA28:609f., 29ff.; Deut., WA14:587f., 16ff./ LW9:53–54;
    cf. Ps.51, WA40II::329f., 17ff./ LW12:312ff.
    19. Kl.Proph., WA13:246, 6/ LW19:11; Pred. (1525), WA17I:412, 19.
    20.  Serv.arb., WA18:709, 10/ LW33:175; Ibid., WA18:719, 22/
    LW33:191.
    21. Rom., WA56:177, 11/ LW25:157; Jon., WA19:206, 7/ LW19:54.
    22. Ex., WA16:140, 16: “Nu die vernunfft wil allezeit Gott hofemeistern,
    ob er fuge und recht habe, wil Gott messen nach irem Gesetze und ged-
    ancken.” Cf. Serv.arb., WA18:729, 15/ LW33:206.
    23. Serv.arb., WA18:784, 11/ LW33:290; Wein., WA10I/1:527, 11; Desp.hom.,
    WA39I: 175, 28/ LW34:138; Disp.Verb., WA39II :8.10/ LW38:244; Ibid.,
    WA39II :5, 9/ LW38:241; Gen., WA 42:293, 29ff./ LW2:45.
    24. Serm.Sak., WA19:492, 33/ LW36:343; Pred.Deut., WA28:608, 8–9;
    Jes. (1527–1529), WA25:106, 43; Jes. (1527–1531), WA31II:37,
    17ff./ LW16:53–54; Disp.Verb., WA39II:5, 9/ LW38:241; Wort.,
    WA23:151, 14/ LW37:68; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:267, 22/ LW23:169.
    25.  Gal. (1535), WA40I:607, 27/ LW26:399; Jon., WA19:207, 7/
    LW19:55–56 (specialized exhortation to faith); Wein., WA10I/1:532, 1.
    26. This popular perception of Luther, all over the Internet, has been
    espoused by Lewis Spitz, Sr., “Luther’s Sola Scriptura,” Concordia
    Theological Monthly XXXI, No.12 (December, 1960): 740–745; Peter
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  51

    Kreseft, “The Authority of the Bible,” Fundamentals of the Faith (San


    Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 272.
    27. Wein., WA10I/1:431f., 17/ LW52:136–137; Miss.Mess., WA8:527, 20/
    LW36:186.
    28. BR (1518), WABR1:171, 70; Capt. Bab., WA6:508, 14/ LW36:29; Rat.
    Lat., WA8:97, 17/ LW32:215; Grund., WA7:453, 1ff.; Schmal. Art.,
    WA50:206, 26/ BC:304.
    29. Grnd., WA7:317, 1/ LW32:11–12; Asert.art., WA7:96f., 35ff.
    30. Assert.art., WA7;97f., 16ff.
    31. Grnd., WA7:317, 8/ LW32:11–12.
    32. Gal. (1535), WA40I:120, 20/ LW26:58: “Haec Regina debet dominari,
    huic omnes obedire et subiacere debent. Non eius Magistri, Iudices seu
    Arbitri, sed simplices testes, discipuli et confessores esse debent, sive sit
    Papa, sive Lutherus, sive Augustinus, sive Paulus, sive Angelus e coelo.”
    33. Christ.Adel., WA6:412, 20/ LW44:135
    34. Assert.art., WA7:97, 23; Pred. (1522), WA10III:238, 10; Serv.arb.,
    WA18:609, 4/ LW33:28; Ibid., WA18:653ff., 13ff./ LW33:90ff.; Latom.,
    WA8:99, 14/ LW32:217. Scripture is said to be not clear only for those
    held captive by Satan; see Serv.arb., WA18:659, 18/ LW33:99.
    35. Christ.ver., WA11:408f., 29ff./ LW39:306.
    36. Dial.Pri., WA1:656, 30; Disp.Ec., WA59:480, 1469.
    37. Konz., WA50:607, 7/ LW41:123. On the consensus fidelium, see John
    Meyendorff, “Doing Theology in an Eastern Orthodox Perspective,”
    Eastern Orthodox Theology” A Contemporary Reader, ed. Daniel B.
    Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995), p. 88.
    38. App.Conc., WA2:36, 23.
    39. Gen, WA43:517, 30/ LW5:129.
    40. Capt.Bab., WA6:561, 3/ LW36:107–108
    41. Pot.leg., WA30II:687, 32: “Non enim dieo creditor, quia Ecclesia appro-
    bat, Sed quia verbum Dei esse sentitur, ut Thessalonicenses fecerunt.”
    Cf. Prop.Sat., WA30II :420, 6ff.
    42. Bib.D.B., WADB2:547: Das sind Bucher: so nicht der heiligen Schrifft
    gleich gehalten: und doch nutzlich und gut ze lessen sind.”
    43. Ab.Chr., WA26:500, 14/ LW37:361; see Notes on Infant Baptism and
    the Creeds or Trinity in Chs.12 or 3. Cf. Dr.Sym., WA50:262ff., 1ff./
    LW34:201ff.
    44. Disp.ed., WA59:547, 3575; 118.Ps., WA8:149f., 34ff.
    45. Disp.potest., WA39I:186, 24; Capt.Bab., WA6:508, 18/ LW36:29.
    46. Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert Schultz
    (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 26, 32, 33; Werner Elert, The
    Structure of Lutheranism, trans. Walter Hansen (St. Louis: Concordia
    Publishing House, 1962), pp. 59ff.; Gerhard Forde, On Being a
    52  M. Ellingsen

    Theologian of the Cross: Reflection on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation


    1518 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997).
    47. Kl.Ant., WA38:160, 3; Antinom. (2), WA39I:420, 27; Geist.Aug., WA30II:300,
    22/ LW34:27–28; TR(1532), WATR2:516, 6; TR (1532), WATR2:517,
    22; Adv.bull., WA6:600, 11; TR(1540), WATR5:63, 1. For Luther’s
    critique of Aristotle and systematic theological convictions, see INT nn.27–
    30; Disp. Schol.Theol., 41, 43, 50, WA1:226, 10ff./ LW31:12; TR (1532),
    WATR1:79, 6; Hndb., 9:27, 22; Kirchpost.G, W211:48, 7/ CS1/1:63.
    Luther was also critical of Plato. See Kirchpost.G., W211:171, 44/ CS1/1:
    190.
    48. Magn., WA7:577, 26/ LW21:331; Capt.Bab., WA6:508, 7/ LW36:28–29;
    Verm. Zu Aug., WA30II:300, 22 Rom., WA56:371, 2/ LW25:360–361.
    Cf. William Ockham, Summa Logicae, I. C.XIV–XV (St. Bonaventure, N.Y.:
    The Franciscan Institute, 1957), Vol. I, pp. 43–49; William of Ockham,
    Super 4 Libros Sententiarum, I, Dist.43.
    Related to such realism is Luther’s propensity to define a substance
    (like God’s Being) in terms of how it acts. (See Magn., WA7:577, 26/
    LW21:331 and Chap. 3 for other references.) Commitment to ontology
    that presupposes essence entails a rejection of subjective construal of
    reality. These commitments are also suggested by the Reformer’s claim,
    while exegeting, that words must be adopted to the subject matter
    (Gen., WA42:195, 3ff./ LW1:263). Also see the discussion of Narrative
    Theology below.
    49. TR (1533), WATR1:245, 11/ LW54:97; Ibid. (1531), WATR1:59, 10/
    LW54:19–20; BR (1518), WABR1:525, 4/ LW48:65–66; BR(1516),
    WABR1:79, 58/ LW48:35–36; Vor.D.T., WA1:378–379/ LW31:75–76.
    50. Vor.D.T., WA1:379, 5/ LW31:75; Rom., WA56:413, 18/ LW24:404ff.;
    Ibid., WA56:377f., 24ff./ LW25:367–368; Ibid., WA56:423, 19/
    LW25:415; Dict.Ps., WA3: 124, 29ff./ LW19:119ff. Also see the dis-
    cussion of Justification As Conformity To Christ in Chap. 9.
    The influence of Mysticism on the young Luther was a dominat-
    ing interest among many Luther scholars. For examples, see John
    Dillenberger, God: Hidden and Revealed (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg
    Press, 1953),who conducts a thorough survey of the attitude of schol-
    arship on this issue prior to the middle of the twentieth century. See
    Rudolf Otto, West-Östliche Mystik (Gotha: Leopold Klotz Verlag, 1926),
    pp. 277f.; Hermann Hering, Die Mystik Luthers in Zusammenhang
    seiner Theologie und in ihrem Verhaltnis azur alteren Mystik (Leipzig:
    J.C. Hinrichs, 1879); Wilhem Braun, Die Bedeutung der Concupiszenz
    in Luthers Leben und Lehre (Berlin: Trowitsch, 1908), p. 295; Siegfried
    Lommatzsch, Luthers Lehre vom ethisch-religiösen Standpunkt aus und
    mit besonderer Berucksichtigung seiner Theorie vom Gesetz (Berlin, 1879),
    p. 141; Karl Holl, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  53

    über Römerbrief mit Rücksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit,”


    Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol. 1 (Tübingen: J.C.B.
    Mohr, 1932), pp. 148–149.
    With the notable exceptions of Bengt Hoffman, Luther and the
    Mystics (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977); Louis
    Saint-Blanc, “La theologie de Luther et un noveau Plagiat de Pierre
    d’Ailly,” Positions Lutheriennes 4 (1956):61–77; and Volker Leppin,
    “Luther’s Transformation of Medieval Thought: Continuity and
    Discontinuity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology,
    eds. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomir Batka (Oxford: Oxford
    University Press, 2004), esp. p. 121 (affirming Mysticism’s impact on
    Luther’s dialectical thinking), more recent Luther research has tended
    to stress the Reformer’s discontinuity with Mysticism. See Walther von
    Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trans, Herbert Bouman (4th
    ed.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1976), p. 166; Roland
    Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), pp. 42–43;
    Scott Hendrix, “Martin Luther’s Reformation of Spirituality,” in
    Harvesting Martin Luther’s Reflections, ed. Timothy Wengert (Grand
    Rapids, IM: Eerdmans, 2004), p. 255. Of course, in an addendum
    to the fourth edition of his work, von Loewenich, p. 222, in a man-
    ner not unlike Hoffmann in his “On the Relationship between Mystical
    Faith and Moral Life in Luther’s Thought,” Bulletin, Vol.55, No.1
    (Feb.1975): 21–33, suggests that there was an appropriate place for the
    imagery of Mysticism in Luther’s thought, at the level of his piety.
    51. Rom., WA56:299f., 25ff./ LW25:287; TR (1533), WATR1:302f., 30ff./
    LW54:112; Capt.Bab., WA6:561f., 34ff./ LW36:109.
    52. Disp. Schol. Theol., WA1:226, 17ff./ LW31:12: “45. Theolgus non logi-
    cus est monstrosus haereticus, Est monstrosa et haeretica oratio. Contra
    dictum commune.”
    46. Frusta fingitur logica fidei, Suppositio mediate extra terminum et
    numerum. Contra recen. Dialect.”
    53. Ibid., WA 1:224, 7/ LW31:9: “1. Dicere, quod Augustinus contra
    haereticos excessive loquatur, Est dicere Augustam fere ubique mentium
    esse. Contradictum commune.”
    54. Wein., WA10I/1:611, 18/LW52:196: “Es mag nitt natur-liecht unnd
    gnaden-liecht freund sein. Natur will fulen und gewisz seyn, ehe sie
    glewbt. Gnad will glewben, ehe sie fulet, darumb gehet die natur nit
    weytter den ynn yhr liecht.”
    55. Haus., W213II:2390, 2/ CS7:210; Ibid., W213II:2438ff., 1/ CS7:237;
    Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:71, 3/ LW16:100–101.
    56. Himm.Proph., WA18:164, 24/ LW40:174–175. Also see other relevant
    footnotes in the subsequent discussion of the Theology of the Cross.
    54  M. Ellingsen

    57. Serv.arb., WA18:782, 21/ LW33:287: “Summa cum scriptura ubique


    Christum per contentionem et antithesin praedicet (ut dixi), ut quicquid
    sine Christi spiritu fuerit, hoc Satanae, impietati, errori, tenebris peccato,
    morti et irae Dei subiiciat, contra liberum arbitrium pugnabunt tenti-
    monia, quotquot de Christo loquuntur. At ea sunt innumerabilia, imo
    tota scriptura.”
    Other instances of such a dialectical vision of Scripture when defend-
    ing faith from critique include Rom., WA56:233, 5/ LW25:217–218;
    Lib.christ., WA7:50, 23/ LW31:345–346; Gal. (1535), WA40I:391,
    17/ LW26:248.
    58. Gal. (1535), WA40I:391, 18/ LW26:248: “Est enim Scriptura plena Antithesibus.
    Et ingeniosi hominis est cernere Antitheses in Scrpturis ac per eas posse interpre-
    tari Scripturas.”
    59. Rom., WA56:392f., 32ff./ LW25:383.
    60. Gen., WA43:219, 28/ LW4:117: “Fides igitur conciliat contraria.”
    61. Disp.Heid., 29–30, WA1:355, 2ff./ LW31:41. Also see n. 6.
    62. Prae.Witt., WA1:507, 34.
    63. For the rejection of allegory, see Gen., WA42:67, 21/ LW1:89; Ibid., WA42:68,
    26/ LW1:90; Ibid. WA42:69, 16/ LW1:91; Ibid., WA42:74, 5, 33/ LW1:97,
    98; Ibid., WA 42:76, 1/ LW1:99; Ibid., WA42:91f., 4ff./ LW1:122; Ibid.,
    WA42:173, 4, 35/ LW1:232, 233; Ibid., WA42:368, 14ff./ LW2:151–152;
    Ibid., WA372, 21ff./ LW2:158; Ibid., WA42:377, 1/ LW2:164; Ibid.,
    WA43:490, 14/ LW5:88; Ibid., WA43:667f., 4ff./ LW5:345; Ibid., WA44:
    93, 15/ LW6:125; Ibid., WA44:114:29/ LW6:153; Capt.Bab., WA6:509, 8/
    LW36:30; TR (n.d.), WATR6:178, 1; Deut., WA14:500, 10/ LW9:7; Ibid.,
    WA14:560, 20/ LW9:25; Ps., WA31I:254, 13/ LW14:36; Jes. (1527–1530),
    WA31II:242, 30/ LW16:326; Zach., WA23:485, 10/ LW20:155; Ibid.,
    WA23:608f., 32/ LW20:282; Gal. (1535), WA40I:653, 14/ LW26:433;
    Gal. (1519), WA2:515, 28/ LW 27:259; Ibid., WA2:551, 16/ LW27:312;
    Serv.arb., WA18:701, 4/ LW33:163; Ibid., WA18:703, 26/ LW33:167;
    Ibid., WA18:734f., 25/ LW33:213; Uber., WA7:647, 21/ LW39:175;
    Ibid., WA7:650, 12/ LW39:178; Ibid., WA7:653, 1/ LW39:181; BR (1518),
    WABR1:34, 1/ LW48:54.
    64. Gal. (1519), WA2:574, 16/ LW27:346.
    65. Prae.Witt., WA1:461, 27.
    66. Dict.Ps., WA3:13, 14/ LW10:7; Ibid., WA4:153, 27/ LW11:304; Men.,
    WA10II:73, 15/ LW35:132. For numerous other references, see p. 246,
    nn. 1–5.
    67. Gal. (1535), WA40I:588, 12/ LW26:386): “Deinde tota scripura hoc
    praecipue agit, ne dubitemus, sed certo speremus, confidamus et creada-
    mus Deus esse misericordiam, benignum, patientem, non mentientem
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  55

    et fallentem, sed fidelem et verace, qui servet promissa, Imo qui nunc
    praestiterit, quod promisit, tradendo unigenitum filium suum in mor-
    tem propter peccata nostra, ut omnis, qui credit in filium, non pereat,
    sed habeat aeternam.” Cf. Ibid., WA40I:129, 19/ LW26:64. On
    Scripture as concerned with the Who promises, see Gen., WA44:724,
    41/ LW8:201.
    68. Jes. (1527–1529), WA31II: 11, 19 / LW16:16–17: “Scriptura semper
    praedicat misericordiam dei et nostrum peccatum. Maiestas dei summa
    est, nos vilissimi, attamen nobis persuadere debemus deum nobis mis-
    ericordem esse, quia promisit. Hic favor dei, si modo firma esset fides,
    faceret nos impavidos in omnibus.”
    69. Rom., WA56:233, 5/ LW25:217–218.
    70. Rom., WA56:414, 13/ LW25:405; Gal. (1535), WA40I:459, 16/
    LW26:295. Cf. Vor.N.T., WADB7:384, 26/ LW35:396; Dict.Ps.,
    WA4:439, 20f; Gal. (1535), WA40I:458, 30/ LW26:295.
    71. Vor.OT., WADB8:29, 32/ LW35:247: “Wenn du wilt wol und sicher
    deuten, So nim Christum fur dich, Denn das ist der Man, dem es alles
    und gantz und gar gilt.” A similar point when exhorting faith against
    flase teaching is evident in Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:66, 17/ LW22:339.
    72. Stuf., WA40III:348, 18.
    73. Rom., WA56:137, 1/ LW25:119–120: “Quecumnquqe [Qu] e [cumque
    enim etiam de Christo et do quocunque alio Scriptura sunt/ ad nostrum
    doctrinam i.e. morale institutionem exemplariter intelligendo scripta
    Grec[us] ‘prescripta’ sunt: i.i. quasi ante oculos posita sun tut per paten-
    tiam in rebus ut consolationem scripturarum in Verbis spem habeamus in
    Deum.” Cf. Mos., WA16:391, 1/ LW35:173.
    74. Dict.Ps., WA3:11, 26ff./ LW10:3f., is an example of his use of allegori-
    cal interpretation.
    75. Ibid., WA3:11, 33/ LW10:11. For other examples of this stress on the
    literal sense, see Dict.Ps., Glosses, WA55I :4, 20: “In Scriptura … nulla
    valet allegoria, tropolgia, anagoge, nisi albi hystorice idem exresse dica-
    tur. Alioquin ludibrium fieret Scriptura.” Dict.Ps., WA4:305, 6: “Quod
    inde puto venire, quia propheticum, id est literalem, primo non quesi-
    erunt: qui est fundmentum ceterorum, magister et lux et author et fons
    atque origo.”
    This emphasis was in line with medieval thinking; see Thomas
    Aquinas, In I Sent prol. Q.1aa. 5, 7; A. Haufnagel, “Wort Gottes:
    Sinn und Bedeutung nach Thomas von Aquin,” in Helmut Feld and
    J. Nolte, eds., Wort Gottes in der Zeit (Düsselford: Patmos-Verlag,
    1973), pp. 236–256; Helmut Feld, Die Anfange der modemen biblischen
    Hermeneutik in der spatmittelalterlichen Theologie (Weisbaden: Fran
    Steiner Verlag, 1977), pp. 70–83.
    56  M. Ellingsen

    76. Serv.arb., WA18:606, 29/ LW33:26.


    77. Dict.Ps., WA3:458., 5ff./ LW10:402; Ibid., WA4:439, 20f.
    78. Ibid., WA3:12, 32/ LW10:6.
    79. Vor.O.T., WADB8:11, 1/ LW35:235; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:243, 20/
    LW16:327; Ibid., WA31II:97, 23/ LW16:136–137; Deut., WA14:560,
    12/ LW9:24–25; Gen., WA42:568, 3ff./ LW3:27.
    80. Gen., WA44:93, 13/ LW6:125; Ibid., WA42:173f., 30ff./ LW1:233;
    Ibid., WA43:490, 15/ LW5:88; Latom., WA8:64, 17/ LW32:168; 2.Ps.,
    WA5:541, 12. For further discussions of Luther’s use of allegory, see Heinrich
    Bornkamm, Luther und das alte Testament (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1948), pp.
    74ff.; Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelische Evangelienauslegung: Eine Untersuching
    zu Luthers Hermeneutik (München: Kaiser, 1942); Karl Holl, Gasemmelte
    Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol.1 (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1932), pp.
    553ff.; Robert Kolb, Martin Luther and the Enduring Word of God (Grand
    Rapids, MI: Baker, 2016), pp. 158–161.
    81. 2.Ps., WA5:23, 1/ LW14:285.
    82. Dict.Ps., WA3:512, 21/ LW10:455.
    83. TR (1531), WATR1:16, 13/ LW54:7: “Sola autem experientia facit the-
    ologum.” Cf. Ibid. (1532), WATR1:146, 12/ LW54:50.
    84. Ibid. (1536), WATR3:312, 11; cf. ibid. (1532), WATR1:146, 12/
    LW54:50.
    85. Kirchpost.E., W212:625, 6/ CS4/1:335: “Darumb wird der heilige
    Geist niemand gegeben, den even dennen, die da stehen in Betrubnisz
    und Angst.”
    86. Vor.Deut.Schr., WA50:659, 3/ LW34:285; 2.Ps., WA5:163, 28; Taul.
    Serm., WA9:98, 21.
    87. Disp.indulg., WA1:234, 5/ LW31:27; Res., WA1:557, 23/ LW31:129.
    88. TR (1539), WATR4:490, 24ff.: “Ego si diutius vivere libenter vellem
    librum conscribere de tentationibus, nam sine illis homo neque sacram
    scripturam neque fidem, timorem et dilectionem Dei agnoscere potest
    immo non potest scire, qui nunquam fuit in tentationibus.”
    89. Another text indicating that Luther refers to experience not in terms of
    experience which shapes a Biblical text’s meaning, but the interpreter’s
    experience with the biblical text is Vor.Lat., WA54:186, 27/ LW34:338.
    Cf. Latom., WA8:127, 21/ LW32:258. For a similar interpretation what
    Luther means by experience is offered by Oswald Bayer, Martin Luther’s
    Theology: A Contemporary Interpretation, trans. Thomas Trapp (Grand
    Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007), p. 22.
    90. Serv.arb.,WA18: 702f., 29ff./ LW33:166.
    91. Deut., WA14:560, 13/ LW9:24: “… ut Christianus lector primam operam
    navet quaerendo sensui illi, ut vocant, literali, qui solus tota est fidei et
    theologiae Christianae substantia, qui in tribulation et tentatione solus
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  57

    subsistit et portas inferi cum peccato et morte vincit atque triumphat in


    laudem et glorium dei.”
    92. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:582f., 40ff./ LW22:55.
    93. Latom., WA8:63, 27/ LW32:167; Uber., WA7:655, 27/ LW39:184;
    Ibid., WA7:650, 16ff./ LW39:178.
    94. Pred. (1522), WA10III:238, 10. Also see Note 34, above for other refer-
    ences.
    95. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:108,12; Disp.hom., WA39I:180, 27/ LW34:144;
    TR (1533), WATR1:191, 15/ LW54:71; Ibid. (1532), WATR3:105, 11/
    LW54:183.
    96. Pred. (1531), WA34I:347f., 26ff.: “Es ist vil spruch … Ita in conscione
    videamus, ut sincerum verbum praedicatur. Das ist, das er sagt. Quod
    ipse sit morituris dei, non sunt recht.”
    97. Stuf., WA40III:254, 7: “Sunt vocabula et locutio divina.” The Spirit is
    said to be the author of Scripture, in Ibid., WA40III:16, 24.
    98. Gen., WA43:618, 31/ LW5:275; Men., WA10II:92, 6/ LW35:153;
    Letz.Wort., WA54:55, 21/ LW15:299; Hspost. (1545), WA52:811, 34.
    These points are made while offering comforting or defending Christian
    readings of the Bible. And when combatting Enthusiasts in 1.Joh,
    WA20:789, 35/ LW20:321, Luther claims that all Scripture is inspired.
    99. Ps.51, WA40III:386, 11.
    100. Pred. (1542), WA49:256f.35ff./ CS2/1:98: “Denn Gottes Wort ist ein
    andere Rede, und die Heilige Schrift ein ander Buch den menschen rede
    und Schrifft, das wol S. Gregorius gesagt (wie er auch zu dem guten
    spruch komen ist, die Schrifft sey ein solch wasser, darin ligunt et sapi-
    entibus, ut non possint erlangen.”
    101. Letz.Wort., WA54:35, 2/ LW15:275.
    102. Thes.Wel., WA39I:48, 1 / LW34:113.
    103. Men., WA10II:92, 4.
    104. Stuf., WA40III:16, 24; TR (1532), WATR2:151, 11; Gen., WA42:23,
    23/ LW1:30; 1 Pet., WA14:31, 25/ LW30:167.
    105. Haus., WA52:811, 28; Gen., WA44:91f.38ff. / LW6:123.
    106. Wein., WA10I/1:191, 13/ LW52:49.
    107. Konz., WA50:548, 14/ LW41:54; cf. Haus., WA52:564, 16.
    108. BR (1523), WABR3:345, 4.
    109. Wein., WA10I/1:58ff./ LW52:7ff. What follows should be carefully
    noted by critics like Robert Kolb, who in his Luther and the Stories of
    God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2012), pp. 34–35, incorrectly accused
    me of contending that Luther imposed his own agenda on the biblical
    narrative. What follows makes clear he did that, but most times he did
    not. See my “Luther as Narrative Exegete,” Journal of Religion 63 (Oct.
    1983): 394–413.
    58  M. Ellingsen

    110. Kl.unt., WA10I/1:17, 7/ LW35:123; Ibid., WA10I/1:84, 14ff./ LW35:117–


    118; Leip. Disp., WA2:424, 16; Ab.Chr., WA26:444, 37; 1 Pet., WA12:259,
    8/ LW30:3.
    111. Uber., WA7:652, 23/ LW39:181; Gen., WA42:108, 17/ LW1:144; Ibid.,
    WA42: 141, 4/ LW 1:188; Ibid., WA42:356, 19/ LW2:134.
    112. 2.Ps., WA5:543, 13.
    113. Pred. (1519–1521), WA9:630, 14ff.
    114. 2.Ps., WA5:29, 28/ LW14:290f.: “Nam etsi variant per tempora mores,
    personae, loca, ritus, eadem tamen vel pietas vel impietas transit per
    omnia saecula.” Cf. Latom., WA8:69, 24/ LW32:176.
    115. Ev.Joh., 1–2, WA46:726, 1ff./ LW22:218f.; Pred. (1532/1533), WA36:492,
    6/ LW28:68.
    116. Fid.in., WA6:94, 9.
    117. Rath., WA15:35, 18/ LW45:356: “… so wird Gott nicht wunder thun,
    so lang man der saschen durch ander seyne dargethane gutter greaten
    kan.”
    118. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:121, 5/ LW78:258; Kirchpost.G., W211:1379f.,
    15/ CS2/2:219.
    119. Jes. (1527–1529), WA25:233f., 37.
    120.  Pred. (1532/1533), WA36:5501f.., 17ff./ LW28:77–78; Ibid.,
    WA36:525ff., 16ff./ LW28:94–95, 97; cf. Hans Frei, The Identity of
    Jesus Christ, pp. 7–9.
    121.  Pred. (1532/1533), WA36:492f., 31ff./ LW28:68–72; Ibid., WA
    WA36:524f., 31ff./ LW28:94–95; Ibid., WA36:530, 25/ LW28:98;
    Ibid., WA36:540, 20/ LW28:105.
    122. Pred. (1532/1533), WA36:632, 11/ LW28:170; Ibid., WA36:478, 5ff./
    LW28:59.
    123.  Ibid., WA36:530, 13/ LW28:98.
    124. Thes. Antinom., WA39I:356, 15. Such a position is affirmed by Jürgen
    Moltmann, Theology of Hope, trans. James W. Leitch (5th ed.; London:
    SCM Press, 1967), p. 87.
    125. Gal. (1535), WA40I:410f., 13ff. / LW26:260–262; Gen., WA42:35,
    22/ LW1:47.
    126. Disp.Verb., WA39II:5, 9ff./ LW38:241–242.
    127. Ibid., WA39II:24, 36/ LW38:276.
    128. Disp.Christ., WA39II:94, 16ff.; Gen., WA42:35f., 40ff./ LW1:47–48;
    cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, trans. G. E. M.
    Anscombe (New York: Macmillan Co., 1958), p. 216.
    129. Gen., WA42:599, 6/ LW3:70–71; Ibid., WA42:272, 16/ LW2:14–15; cf. Ibid.,
    WA43:144f., 35ff./ LW4:13; Ibid.,WA42:35, 22ff./ LW1:47; Disp.Verb.,
    WA39II:5, 13ff./ LW 38:241; Disp.Christ., WA39II:94, 16; Promodisp.Pall.,
    WA39I:229, 16; 2Ps., WA5:27, 8; Disp.hom., WA39I:180, 27/ LW34:144; Gal.
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  59

    (1535), WA40I:418, 12/ LW26:267; Disp.Verb., WA39II:3, 1/ LW38:239; TR


    (1540), WATR5:26, 11.
    Cf. Disp.hom., WA39I:175, 24/ LW34:137ff.; George Lindbeck, The
    Nature of Doctrine (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1984), p. 20; Hans
    Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative (New Haven: Yale University Press,
    1974), p. viii.
    130. Gal. (1535), WA40I:596, 16/ LW26: 391; Ps.2, WA40II:231, 20/ LW12:32–
    33; cf. Wittgenstein, esp. 2–5, 20–21. See Hannes Illge, Gewissehnheit durch
    das Wort: Eine sprachphilosophische Untersuching von Luthers fundamentalthe-
    ologischer Einsicht (Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2008).
    131. Gal. (1535), WA40I:407f., 32ff./ LW26:260; cf. Disp.Christ.,
    WA39II:94, 17.
    132. Pred. (1532/1533), WA36:646, 11/ LW28:180; Ibid., WA36:687, 35/
    LW28:208;
    cf. 2.Ps., WA5:27, 7/ LW14:286.
    133. Gal. (1535), WA40I:228f., 31ff./ LW26:129
    134. Wein., WA10I/1:186, 15.
    135. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:148, 24/ LW23:97.
    136. 1.Pet., WA12:369, 10/ LW30:114; Ps., WA31I:456, 1/ LW14:134;
    Latom., WA8:50, 20/ LW32:147.
    137. Gal. (1535), WA40I:596, 21/ LW26:391; Disp.Christ., WA39II:112,
    15.
    138. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:521f., 36/ LW24:67: “jeut hab ich Gottes wort
    und werck gesehen ja Gott selbs gehört und gesehen, predigen und
    Teuffen … Die zunge stimme, faust k. sind wol des menschen, aber das
    wort und ampt ist eigentlich der Gottlichen maiestet selbs…”
    139. Haus., W213I:560, 23/ CS6:76; 1.Joh., WA20:790, 24/ LW20:321.
    140. Dict.Ps., WA3:152, 7/ LW10:128.
    141. Gal. (1535), WA40I:597, 15 / LW26:392; Wein.,WA10I/1:232, 13/
    LW52:78–79.
    142. Wein, WA10I/1:130, 14/ CS1/1:163.
    143. Dict. Ps., WA3:397, 11/ LW10:333.
    144. Vor.O.T., WADB10I:102, 23/ LW35:256.
    145. Dict. Ps., WA3:397, 9ff./ LW10:332. Cf. Gen., WA44:262, 11/ LW6:350–
    351; Ibid., WA44:265, 33/ LW6:355; Wein., WA10I/1:87f., 4ff./ CS1/
    1:155f.; Pred.(1519–1521), WA9:630, 14.
    146. Gal. (1535), WA40I :195f., 28ff/ LW26:108–109; Ev.Joh.16–20,
    WA28:371, 15ff./ LW24:242–243; Wein., WA10I/1:63f., 14ff./ LW52:9–
    10; Wein., WA10I/1:72, 11/ LW52:15; Hspost., W213II:2639.7/ CS7:258.
    147. Pred. (1530), WA32:98, 17.
    148. Pred. (1519–1521), WA9:440, 2.
    149. TR (1540), WATR4:666, 8f.; Gen., WA43:535, 3/ LW5:140.
    60  M. Ellingsen

    150. Stuf., WA40III:370f., 23: “Ideo autem opus habemus hoc testimonio,


    quod, cum sensum sequimur, contrarium experimur. Sed non ex sensu
    nee ex re praesenti iudicui, facienum est, verbum est sequendum et stat-
    uendum, quod haec credenda, no experienda sint. Credere enim non est
    experiri; non, quod nunquam expereinda sint, quae credimus, sed quod
    experientiam debet praecdere fides et est credendum verbo etiam tum,
    cum diversa a verbo senimus et experimur…”
    151. Oper.Ps. (1519–1521), WA5:46, 13/ LW14:310: “In fine hoc mov-
    endum, quod illustrissimi patres, presertim Athanasius et Augustinius
    tradiderunt, hoc est, ut affectibus psalmorum affectus nostros accom-
    odemus et attempremus.”
    152.  Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:29,15: “Nec id mirum, quod nos verbum
    fiere oportere dixi, cum Philosophi dicant, quod intellectus sit intelli-
    gible per actualem intellectionem et sensus sensible per actualem sensa-
    tionem, quanto magis id in spiritu et verbo verum est! … et ita obiecta
    sunt eorum esse et actus, sine quibus nihil essent, sicut materia sine
    forma nihil esset.”
    153. Stuf., WA40III:370, 5; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:599, 5/ LW24:151; Jon.,
    19:220, 5/ LW19:68–69.
    154. Hspost., W213II:2585.2/ CS7:210; Ibid., W213II:2614.1/ CS7:237.
    155. Rom., WA56:137, 1/ LW25:119–120
    156. See p. 12, n. 3.
    157. Worm., WA7:838, 2/ LW32:112–113. Cf. Hans Schwarz, True Faith in
    the True God: An Introduction to Luther’s Life and Thought (expanded
    ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress press, 2015), esp. p. 31.
    158. Wein., WA10I/1:576, 18/ CS1/1:337.
    159. Gal. (1535), WA40I:304, 9 /LW26:182: “Ego plane nihil videre volo
    prae illo Christo. Is tantus mihi thesaurus esse debet, ut reliqua omnia
    prae ipso mihi sordeant. Is denique tanta lux mihi esse debet, ut eo
    apprehenso fide nesciam, an sit lex, peccatum vel ulla iniustitia in
    mundo. Quid enim onmia quae in coelo et terra sunt, ad filium Dei?”
    Cf. Ibid., WA40I:458, 19/ LW26:295; Wein., WA10I/1:81f., 21ff./
    LW52:22 (where Luther also makes this point when preaching).
    160. Gal. (1535), WA40I:132., 10/ LW26:66.
    161. Rom., WA56:233, 8/ LW25:218.
    162. Wein., WA10I/1:379, 9/ CS1/1:270
    163. Lat., WA8:45, 19/ LW32:140–141.
    164. Oper.Ps., WA3:517, 33/LW10:460.
    165. Dtsch.Kat, 4, WA30I:218, 6ff./ BC462.49ff.; Widdertauf., WA26:155,
    7ff./ LW40:241.
    166. Thes. Wel., WA39I:48, 1/ LW34:113.
    167. See Jacques Derrida, Limited Inc. (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
    Press, 1977); Edward Said. Orientalism (New York: Vintage, 1944), esp.
    p. 10.
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  61

    168. Rom., WA56:336, 25/ LW25:324–325: “‘Littera’ apud Apostolum Paulum


    Est non tantum figuralis Scriptura aut doctrina legis, Sed prorsus omnis
    doctrina, que precipit ea, quae sunt bone, vite, siue sit euangelica siue
    Mosica. Haec enim si cognoscantur et memoria teneantur et non assit spiri-
    tus gratiae, sunt tantum litera vacua et mors animae. Unde B. Augustinus
    de spi. et lit. c.4: ‘Doctrina illa, quippe qua mandatum accipimus conti-
    nenter recteque vivendi. Litera est occidens, nisi assit spiritus viuificans …”
    Cf. Dict.Ps., WA3:255ff., 23ff./ LW10:211–213; Ibid., WA3:12, 2/
    LW10:4–5.
    169. Dict. Ps., WA3:620, 2/ LW11:110: “Quia habere intellectum spiritual-
    ium non nisi ex scientia seu notitia Christi habetur. Nescito enim Christo
    impossibile est habare intellectuam in Scriptura, cum ipse sit sol et veritas
    in Scriptura.” Cf. Vor.N.T., WADB7:384, 25/ LW35:396.
    170. Dict.Ps., WA4:365, 5/ LW11:497; Ibid., WA3:258, 8f./LW10:215.
    171. Ibid., WA4:82, 19/ LW11:231.
    172. Gal. (1535), WA40I:458, 32/ LW26:295f.: “… nihil moror Scripturae
    locos, si etiam sexcentos producas pro iustitia operam contra fidei
    iustitiam et clamites Scripturam pugnare; Ego Autorem et Dominum
    Scripturae habeo, a cuius parte volo potius stare quam tibi credere –
    Quanquam impossibile sit Scripturam pugnare nisi … Ego cum Autore
    Scripturae maneo.” Cf. Thes.Wel., WA39I :47, 19/ LW34:112.
    173. Pred.1.Mose. (1523/1524), WA24:169, 24; Gen., WA42:293, 6/
    LW2:44.
    174. Dtsch.Kat., WA30I:133, 3/ BC386.2.
    175. Gal. (1535), WA40I:360, 24/ LW26:227. This phrase which was used
    by Ludwig Feuerbach to coopt Luther and also by Karl Barth to con-
    demn the Reformer for fostering Humanism (Protestant Theology from
    Rousseau to Ritschl, trans. Brian Cozens [New York: Harper, 1959], p.
    359) overlooks Luther’s safeguarding of the trans-subjective character of
    God’s existence. For Feuerbach’s critique of Luther, see his The Essence
    of Christianity, trans. Georg Eliot (New York: Harper& Row, 1957),
    pp. 44–46.
    176. Gal. (1535), WA40I:228, 27/ LW26:129.
    177. Dict. Ps., WA4:365, 6/ LW11:497: “Nam quod illis tunc suffecit ad
    intellectum, nobis nunc est litera. Quia ut supra dixi,. subtilior est nunc
    litera nobiscum quam olim fuit. Et hoc propter profectum. Nam, ut
    dixi, onmis qui proficit, hoc quod post se obliviscitur, est ei litera, et
    in quod se ante extendit, est ei spiritus. Quia semper illud quod habe-
    tur, est litera ad illud, quod acquirendum est: ut de motu diximus. Ita
    articulus trinitatis expressus tempore Arrii fuit spiritus et paucis datus,
    nunc autem est litera, quia revelatus, nisi et nos addamus aliud, scilicet
    vivam fidem ipsius. Quare orandum semper est pro intellecu, ut non in
    62  M. Ellingsen

    occidente litera torpescamus. Si enim filii dei sumus, semper oportet esse
    in generatione.”
    178. Ibid., WA3:454, 22/ LW10:397.
    179. Adv., WA10I/2:35, 1/ CS1/1:31.
    180. Gal. (1535), WA40I:458, 13ff. / LW26:295f.: “Deinde esto etiam quod
    Sophistae sint arguitores me et ita obruant et illaqueent me argumentis pro
    operibus contra fidem, ut prorsus me explicare nonpossim, quamvis hoc nullo
    modo possint, tamen potius honorem habere et credere velim uni Christo
    quam permoveri omnibus locis, quos contra me pro iustitia operum statuenda
    producerent.
    Quare si ipse est pretium redemptionis meae, si Ispe factus est Peccatum
    et Maledictum, ut me iustificaret et benediceret, nihil moror Scripturae
    locos, si etiam sexcentos producas pro iustitia operum contra fidei iustitiam
    et clamites Scripturam pugnare; Ego Autorem et Dominum Scripturae
    habeo, a cuius parte volo potius stare quam tibi credere…” Cf. Vor.N.T.,
    WADB7:384, 29/ LW35:396; Thes.Wel., WA39I:47, 19/ LW34:112.
    181. Adv., WA10I/2:75, 1/ CS3/2:42: “Wo ist aber gottis wortt ynn allen
    buchernn ausser der heiligen schrifft?” Cf. Wein., WA10I/1:628f., 12ff./
    LW52:205–206.
    182. Vor.N.T., WADB7:344, 27/ LW35:395; Vor.O.T., WADB8:12, 5/
    LW35:236; Wein., WA10I/1:576, 10/ LW52:171; Ibid., WA10I/1:139,
    13/ CS1/1:169. Luther’s remarks obviously suggest that he is a forerunner
    of historical criticism, points made by K. A. Meissenger, Luthers Exegese in
    der Fruhzeit (Leipzig: M. Heinsius Nachfloger, 1911); Karl Holl, “Luthers
    Bedeutung fur den Fortschritt der Auslegungskunst (1921),” Gesammelte
    Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol.1 (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1932),
    pp. 544–582; Fritz Hahn, “Luthers Auslegungsgrundsatze und ihre theolo-
    gischen Voraussetzungen” Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie 12 (1934):
    165–218; Gerhard Ebeling, Evangelishche Evangelienauslegung: Eine
    Untersuching zu Luters Hermeneutik (Munich: Kaiser, 1942).
    183. Wein., WA10I/1:625ff., 18ff./ LW52:205–206; 1 Pet., WA12:259, 81/
    LW30:3.
    184. Rom., WA56:336, 10/ LW25:324.
    185. Vor.N.T., WADB6:10, 9/ LW35:361–362; 1.Pet., WA12:260, 8/
    LW30:3–4. Cf. Vor.N.T., WADB7:2f., 1ff./ LW35:365f.
    186. Latom., WA8:107f., 37ff./ LW32:229f.
    187. Promodisp.Schmed., WA39II:194, 24/ LW34:317; Vor.N.T., WADB6
    :20, 33/ LW35:362; cf. Ibid., WADB7:384ff., 1ff./ LW35:395.
    188. Vor.N.T., WADB7:344, 27/ LW35:395; Ibid., WADB7:404, 12/ LW35:398.
    189. TR (1531–1532), WATR1:69, 18/ LW54:20.
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  63

    190. Matt.5–7, WA32:352f., 35/ LW21:65.


    191. See pp. 14–15, n. 19; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:473, 14ff./ LW24:14.
    192. 1 Tim., WA26:24, 31/ LW38:245–246.
    193. 
    En.ep., WA7:502, 34f.: “Quando autem pene universa scriptura totiusque
    Theologiae cognitio pendet in recta cognitione legis et Euangelii …” Cf. Gen.,
    WA42:637, 29/ LW3:125; Lib. Christ., WA7:52, 24/ LW31:348; Serv.arb.,
    WA18:694f., 39ff./ LW33:153–154; TR (1542–1543), WATR5:210, 12/
    LW54:442f.; Pred. (1532), WA36:369, 19/ LW51:281; Ibid., WA36:27, 17;
    TR (1531–1546), WATR6:142, 26; Ibid. (1531), WATR2:4, 7/ LW54:127.
    194. TR (1542–1543), WATR5:210, 12/ LW54:442–443.
    195. Gal. (1535), WA40I:207, 17/ LW26:115: “Qui igitur bene novit discer-
    nere Evangelium a lege, is gratias agat Deo et sciat se esse Theologum.” Cf.
    Ibid., WA40I:526, 15/ LW26:342; TR (1531–1536), WATR6:127ff., 33ff.
    (esp. 146, 17); Antinom.(1), WA39I:361f., 19ff.; Antinom.(3), WA39I:
    552, 10.
    196. Pred. (1532), WA36:9, 28: “Denn dis [zwischen dem Gebot und Euangelion]
    ist die höchste kunft ynn der Christenheit, die wir wissen sollen…”
    197. Ps.57, WA40II:328, 1. LW12:311: “… ut proprie si subiectum Theologiae
    homo reus et perditus et deus iustificans vel salvator.”
    198. Gal. (1535), WA40 I:209., 16/ LW26:117: “Is locus de discrimine legis
    et Evangelii scitu maxime necessarius est, quia continent summam totious
    Christianae doctrinae.” Cf. Pred. (1532), WA36:25, 29; En.ep., WA7:502,
    34.
    199. Ps.51, WA40 II:327f., 37ff./ LW12:311: “… Ne quis de Maiestate cogitet,
    quid fecerit Deus et quam potens sit, Item ne quis cogitet de homine suarum
    rerum domino, sicut Iureconsultus, aut de homine aegro, sicut Medicus, sed
    de homine peccante. Nam Theologiae proprium subiectum est homo peccati
    reus ac perditus et Deus iustificans ac salvator homnis peccatoris. Quicquid
    extra hoc subiectum in Theologia quaeritur aut disputatur, est error et vene-
    num.” Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:526, 26/ LW26:342.
    200. Serv.arb., WA18:782, 21/ LW33:287: “Summa, cum scriptura ubique
    Christum per contentionem et antithesis praedicit (ut dixi), ut quicquid
    sine Christi spriitu fuerit, hoc Satanae, impietati, errori, tenebris, peccato,
    morti et irae Dei subiiciat, contra liberum arbitrium pugnabunt testimo-
    nia, quotquot de Christo loquuntur. At ea sunt innumerabilia, imo tota
    scriptura.” Luther uses this dialectical vision of Scripture in similar con-
    texts in Rom., WA56:233, 5/ LW25:217–218; Lib. Christ., WA7:50,
    23/ LW31:345–346; Gal (1535), WA40I:391, 18/ LW26:248.
    201. Heb., WA57III:79f., 12ff.: “Hace sunt duo contraria in Scripturis fre-
    quentatia: iudicium et iusticia, ira et gratia, mors et vita, malum et
    64  M. Ellingsen

    bonum … Alienum opus eius ab eo, ut operator opus suum … Haec


    theologia crucis est, seu ut Apostolu dicit: ‘Verbum crucis scandalum
    Iudeis et stulticia Gentibus,’ quia penitus abscondita ab oculis eorum.”
    202. Gal.(1535), WA40I:391, 18/ LW26:248.
    203. Ibid., WA40I:486, 25/ LW26:313.
    204. Pred. (1532), WA36:9, 6.
    205. Gal.(1535), WA40I :40, 28/ LW26:4–5; Disp.Schol.Theol., WA1:228, 1/
    LW31:14; Gal.(1535), WA40I :207, 19/ LW26:115; Disp.Schol.Theol.,
    WA1:227, 6ff./ LW31:13, 14; Ibid., WA1:228, 229./ LW31:15; Serv.
    arb., WA18:680, 23ff./ LW33:132; Ibid., WA18: 677f.7ff./ LW33:127–
    128; Ibid., WA18:694f.39ff./ LW33:153–154; Ibid., WA18:766ff.8ff./
    LW33:261–264.
    206. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:658, 24 / LW22:145.
    207. Gal (1535), WA40I:207, 19/ LW26:115: “Sic autem discernenda sunt,
    ut Evangelium ponas in coelo, legem in terra, ut Evangelii iusitiam
    appelles coelestem et divinam, legis terrenam et humanam, Utque tam
    diligenter distinguas iustitiam Evangelii a legis iustitia, quam diligenter
    distinxit Deus coelum a terra, lucem a tenebris, diem a nocte, Ut haec
    sit lux et dies, illa tenebrae et nox. Atque utinam adhuc longius eas dis-
    cernere possemus.” Cf. Ibid., WA40I:558f., 33ff./ LW26:115; Ibid.,
    WA40I:469, 19/ LW26:301.
    208. Disp.miss.priv., WA39I:146, 8.
    209. Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 31/ LW31:41: “26. Lex dicit ‘fac hoc,’ et nun-
    quam fit: gratia dicit ‘Crede in hunc,’ et iam facta sunt omnia.”
    210. Pred. (1532), WA36:30f., 3ff.: “Das Gesetz sol das heissen, das Gottes
    Wort und gebot ist, das Gott uns gebeut, was wir thun sollen, und fod-
    dert werck von uns … Dagegen das Euangelium oder der Glaube ist
    solche Lere oder wort Gotttes, Das nicht unsere Wercke foddert noch
    gebeut Uns etwas zu thun, Sondern heisst uns die angebotene Gnad
    von vergebung der Sünden…”
    211. Mos., WA16:366f., 15ff./ LW35:162; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:661, 11f./
    LW22:143; ibid., WA46:667, 7/ LW22:150; Kl.unt., WA10I/1:9, 11ff./
    LW35:117; ibid., WA10I/1:13, 3/ LW35. 120.
    212. Vor.N.T., WADB6:2, 23/ LW35:358.
    213. Kirchpost.G., W211:83, 25/ CS1/1:99.
    214. Vor.N.T., WADB6:6, 22/ LW35:360.
    215. Rom., WA56:168f., 33/ LW25:148; Kl.unt., WA10I/1:9, 11/ LW35:117.
    216. Gal. (1535), WA40I:163, 28/ LW26:88: Est autem veritas Evangelii,
    quod iustitia nostra est ex sola fide, sine operibus legis.”
    217. Gen., WA44:711f., 10ff./ LW8:181ff.; Serm.S.Thom., WA1:118.,
    20ff./ LW51:18; cf. Capt.Bab., WA6:513f., 34ff./ LW36:38ff.
    218. Kl.unt., WA10I/1:13, 19/ LW35:121.
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  65

    219. Pred. (1532), WA36:14, 22: “Das Euangelium oder der glaube ist,
    welcher nicht unsere werck foddert, heist uns nicht thuen, sondern heist
    uns nemen und uns lassen geben, das wir etwas leiden, das ist, dast Gott
    verheist und lesst dir sagen: dis and das schencke ich dir, du kanst oder
    hast nichts dazu gethan…”
    220. BR (1531), WABR6:96, 28/ LW50:16; Gal. (1519), WA2:466, n.27/
    LW27:184.
    221. Gal. (1519), WA2:466,12/ LW27:184; Antinom. (1), WA39I:370, 4.
    222. Latom., WA8:108, 12/ LW32:230; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:663, 3/ LW22:145.
    223. Gal.(1535), WA40I:218, 15/ LW26:122; TR (1531–1546), WATR6:144,
    30; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I: 213, 17; Thes.Antinom., WA39I:347, 27.
    224. Res., WA1:616, 26/ LW31:231; Schmal.Art., III.2, WA50:223f., 33ff/
    BC311f.; Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 25/ LW31:41 (#23); Thes.Antinom., WA39I:
    356, 19ff.; Kirchpost.G., W211:1119, 9/ CS2/1:377; Rom., WA56:293f., 31/
    LW25:281; Haus.,W213II:1951, 13/ CS6:65; Deut., WA14:676, 36ff./
    LW9:178; Kirchpost.E., W212:373, 22/ CS4/1:67; Krichpost.G., W211:1338,
    7/ CS2/2:170; Ibid., W211:1342, 18/ CS2/2:174; Serv. arb.,WA18:678, 15/
    LW33:128; Pref.N.T., WADB 7:21, 31/ LW35:377; Kirchpost.E., W212:216,
    29/ CS3/2:237; Gen., WA42:567, 15/ LW3:26; Wein, WA10I/1:455, 5; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:556, 20/ LW26:364; Ibid., WA40I:509, 12/ LW26:329; Lib.
    christ., WA7:52f., 37ff./ LW31:348; Bet., WA10II :377, 4/ LW43:14; Latom.,
    WA8:105, 37/ LW32:226f.; Letz. Wort., WA54:79,1/ LW15:327; Serv.arb.,
    WA18:67, 9/ LW33:127.
    225. Rom., WA56:293f., 33/ LW25:281; Thes.Antinom., WA39I:348, 29;
    Antinom. (3), WA39I:535, 1.
    226. Deut., WA14:680, 4/ LW9:182; Antinom.(2), WA39I:456, 7.
    227. Thes. Wel., WA39I:50, 36/ LW34:116–117; Gal. (1535), WA40I:368,
    12.
    228. Antinom.(3), WA39I:559, 11; Ibid., WA39I:556f., 15ff.; Ibid., WA39I:580.,
    7.
    229. Latom., WA8:97f., 38ff./ LW32:215; Ibid., WA8:75, 15/ LW32:180; Rom.,
    WA56: 182, 29/ LW25:163.
    230. Pred. (1532), WA36:17, 23.
    231. Serv.arb., WA18:673f., 34ff./ LW33:121.
    232. Gal. (1535), WA40I:517f., 10ff./ LW26:335.
    233. Ibid, WA40I:532, 17/ LW26:346; Ibid, WA40I:486, 13 / LW26:313.
    234. Deut., WA14:577f., 28ff./ LW9:41.
    235. Gal. (1535), WA40I:485f., 28ff./ LW26:313; Rom., WA56:292, 1/ LW25:
    279.
    66  M. Ellingsen

    236. Gal. (1535), WA40I:487., 17/ LW26:313–314.


    237. Gen., WA43:172, 17/ LW4:51–52: “Si natura peccato non sic corrupta
    esset, legis praedictione non esset opus. Nunc autem Deus per gratium
    suam nihil apud nos propter nostram duritem, et altissimam securitatem
    efficere potest, nisi prius adamantia corde lege fregerit et contuderit.”
    Cf. Serv.arb., A18:684, 27/ LW33:138.
    238. Hauspost., W213II:256f., 7/ CS5:323.
    239. Kirchpost.E., W212:372f., 22/ CS4/1:67: “Wiewohl es sie damit
    dringet und zu merken gibt, die Person müsses anders werden, sole sie
    solche Werke reichen, weil sie fuhlt, dass sie nicht kann solche Werke
    reichen.”
    240. Ibid., W211:1338, 7/ CS2/2:170: “Darum sind die Gesetze Gottes
    allein ein Spiegel, darin wir sehen unsern Schlamm und Bosheit; den sie
    beschliessen uns alle unter die Sunde.”
    241. Ibid., W211:1697, 29ff./ CS3/1:181: Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:213, 4.
    242. Serv.arb., WA18:673f., 40/ LW33:121; Ibid., WA18:769, 9/ LW33:262; Latom.,
    WA8: 105, 13/ LW32:226; Gal (1519), WA2:522, 26/ LW27:269; Thes.
    Antinom., WA39I: 348, 3ff.
    243. Vor.O.T., WADB5:7, 2ff.; Kirchpost.G., W211:1694, 21/ CS3/1:177.
    244. Dict.Ps., WA4:9, 28/ LW11:160.
    245. Vor.O.T., WADB8:24, 6/ LW35:244.
    246. Ibid., WADB8:14, 18/ LW35:238.
    247. Dtsch.Kat., WA30I:179, 24/ BC: 429.
    248. Vor.O.T., WADB8:26, 14/ LW35:245.
    249. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:69, 17/ LW16:98.
    250. Disp. Schol. Theol., WA1:228 /LW31:14.
    251. Kirchpost.G., W211:83, 23/ CS1/1:98.
    252. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:265, 11/ LW17:8.
    253. Antinom.(1), WA39I:361, 30.
    254. Rom., WA56:276, 6/ LW25:263.
    255. Wein., WA10I/1:81, 8/ LW52:22: “Szo sehen myr, das auch gesetz und
    propheten nitt recht geprediget noch erkennet werdenn, wyr sehenn
    denn Christum drynnen gewicklet … Denn Christus muss tzuuor ym
    Euangelio gehortt werden, alss den sihet man, wie seyn das gantz allt
    testament auff yhn alleynn stymmet und reymet sich szo lieblich…”
    256. Vor.O.T., WADB8:13, 11/ LW35:236.
    257. Ibid., WADB8:13, 16/ LW35:237.
    258. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:667, 10/ LW22:150; Widder him., WA18:80, 17/ LW40:
    96–97; Mos., WA16:379f., 32ff./ LW35:168; Wellt. Uber., WA11:279, 19/
    LW45:128.
    259. Wein., WA10I/1:467, 15/ CS3/2:282: “Wie nu der tzuchmeyster nit
    alsso von dem knaben lessit, das er sterke odder andersswo hyntzihe,
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  67

    szondern geystlich, das der knabe ist anders worden unnd kan, was der
    vatter haben willt durch den zuchtmeyster, Alszo lessit das gesetz auch
    nit von uns, das es auffhore tzu seyn odder abethan werde, szondern
    geystich lest es abe, das wyr anders worden sind und haben, das gott
    wollt durch seyn gesetz gehabt haben.”
    260. Gal. (1535), WA40I: 494, 14ff./ LW26:318–319.
    261. Haus., W213II:2423, 22/ CS7:68–69.
    262. Vor.O.T., WADB8:19, 16/ LW35:240.
    263. Gal. (1535), WA40I: 467, 14/ LW26:300; cf. Ibid., WA40I: 517f., 31ff./ LW26:
    335–336.
    264. Ibid., WA40I:475f., 32ff./ LW26:306: “Est itaque haec murmuratio: Si
    lex iustificat, Ergo nihil est. Nein, das taug nicht. Pecunia non iustificat,
    ergo est nihil. Nasus meus non iustificat, ergo abscindo; caput meum
    etc. Oportet unicuique rei officium suum et usum tribuere. legem non
    damnamus, sed aliter respondemus ad rem, quando dicitur neminem
    peream iustificari etc.”
    265. Wider Antinom., WA50:474, 13/ LW47:114; Thes. Antinom., WA39I:352,
    1; Ibid., WA39I:355, 17.
    266. Kirchpost.G., W211:477, 39/ CS1/2:69: “Gott zuerst da Kreuz und
    Leiben, darnach Ehre und Seligkeit … Aber Gott macht zuvor böse
    Gewissen und gibt bösen Wein, ja, eitel wasser; aber hernach tröstet er
    mit seinen Verheisungen des Euangelii, die da ewig währen.”
    267. Haus., W213II:1917, 13, 15/ CS6:36: “ … so will er keinen Menschen
    auf Erden entschuldigt noch ausgenommen haben, sondern will, dass sie
    sichalle für Sunder beschuldigen dargeben … Denn zu diesen Bau, wo
    man einen Christen will machen, muss da allewege der erste Stein, dass
    man die Sünde erkenne. Denn sonst wird man sich Vergebegung nicht
    können freuen noch trosten.”
    268. Latom., WA8:105, 37/ LW32:226–227: “Lex enim introduxit et nos
    obruit peccato per cognitioniem eius, quo fecit, ut ab illo peteremus et
    gratiam suspiraremus.”
    269. Antinom. (2), WA39I :456, 7: “Talis enim est doctrinal egis, ut, si vere
    tangat cor, so wirt einen die weite welt zu enge, neque hic erit auxilium
    ullum, reliquum praeter quam Christus.”
    270. Kirchpost.G., W211:1350f., 10ff./ CS2/2:183–184: “Ja, mein Freund,
    ich muss dich zuvor Hölle fuhren und darnach erst gen Himmel; du
    müsst vorhin verzweiseln … Darnach ulym sein Wort und Verheissung,
    dass er dich verwandeln woll, das wird dir erst helfen … Das ist ein
    rechter Trost, der nicht in unserm Vermögen steht, sondern darauf, dass
    wir einer gnädigen Gott haben de runs vergibt.”
    Cf. Antinom. (2), WA39I :445, 20.
    271. Serm. S. Thom, WA1:112, 24/ LW51:19; cf. Dict.Ps., WA3:249, 19/
    :W10:232; ibid., WA4:87, 22.
    68  M. Ellingsen

    272. Gal. (1535), WA40I:88f., 26ff./ LW26:36; Rom., WA56:375, 6/ LW25:365;


    Ibid., WA56:426, 6/ LW25:418; Ps.2, WA40II:237f., 36ff./ LW12:311–
    312; Disp. Heid., WA1:354, 31/ LW31:41 (#26).
    273. Disp.Heid., 18, WA1:354, 15/ LW31:40; Kurz Form., WA7:204, 13.
    274. Gal. (1535), WA40I:489f., 29ff./ LW26:315.
    275. See p. 14, n. 15 and p. 66, n. 255, above.
    276. Kirchpost.G., W211:1330, 46/ CS2/2:160–161.
    277. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:663, /LW22:145–146.
    278. Gal. (1535), WA40I:207, 19/ LW26:115: “Sic autem discernenda sunt,
    ut Evangelium ponas in coelo, legem in terra, ut Evangelii iustitiam
    appelles coelestem et divinam, legis terrenam et humanam, Utque tam
    diligenter distinguas iustitiam Evangelii a legis iustitia, quam diligenter
    distinxit Deus coelum a terra, lucem a tenebris, diem a nocte, Ut haec
    sit lux et dies, illa tenebrae et nox. Atque utinam adhuc longius eas dis-
    cernere possemus.”
    Cf. Rom., WA56:248ff., 5ff./ LW25:234–236; Gal. (1535),
    WA40I:336f., 32ff./ LW26:208–209.
    279. This insight has been noted by Gerhard Heitze, Luthers Predigt von
    Gesetz und Evangelium (Munchen: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958), pp. 261,
    264, 274.
    280. Rom., WA56:408, 18/ LW25:398: “Corollarium. Quia Idem est verbum
    Noue et veteris Legis, solum secundum nostrum Intelligentiam Vel non-
    Intelligentiam dicitur perfectum Vel non perfectum, Breue Vel longum.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:404ff., 21ff./LW25:393–394; Gal. (1535),
    WA40I:469, 19/ LW26:301–302.
    281. Gal. (1535), WA40I:469, 19/ LW26:301–302; Disp.just., WA39I:89,
    19/ LW34:159
    282. Antinom. (1), WA39I:363, 19: “Sic verum et proprium officium legis est
    accussare et occidere, Evangelii vivificare.”
    283. Antinom. (3), WA39I:571ff., 8ff.
    284. Gal. (1535), WA40I:520, 25/ LW26:337–338; cf. Ibid., WA40I:522f.,
    32ff./ LW26:339–340; Ibid., WA40I:527., 21./ LW26:343; Ibid.,
    WA40I:529., 16./ LW26:345.
    285. Antinom. (1), WA39I:416, 7: “Lex et Evangelium non possunt nec
    debent separari, sicut nec poenitentia et remissio peccatorum. Ita einim
    sunt inter se colligate et implicita.”
    286. Gal. (1535), WA40II:37f., 25ff./ LW27:30–31; cf. Ibid., WA40I:240,
    17/ LW26:137; ibid., WA40I:427f., 25ff./ LW26:273.
    287. Gal. (1535), WA40I:317, 19./ LW27:64; Ibid., WA40I:239f., 15ff./
    LW27:136–137; Ibid., WA40I:251f., 26ff./ LW27:144–145; Gen.,
    WA43:47f., 37ff./ LW3:241.
    288. Gen., WA43:34., 5ff./ LW3:222.
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  69

    289. Schmal.Art., III.II, WA50:223f., 33ff./ BC: 311f.; cf. Gal. (1535),


    WA40I:479f., 17ff./ LW26:308ff.; I Tim., WA26:15, 39/ LW28:233;
    Ibid., WA26:16, 24/ LW28:234; Antinom. (2), WA39I:441, 2f.; Ibid.,
    WA39I:460, 12.
    290. Antinom. (2), WA39I:460, 16.
    291. Ibid., WA39I:485, 15.
    292. Wein. (1522), WA10I/1:456f., 8ff./ CS3/2:272–274. For a critique of this
    reading, see Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and
    Systematic Development, trans. and ed. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis:
    Fortress Press, 1999), p. 183.
    293. Gen., WA42:670, 3ff./ LW3:170 (see 160 for context); Gal. (!535),
    WA40I:577, 20/ LW26:378–379; Gal. (1535), WA40II:162, 20/
    LW27:127; Wein., WA10I/2:187, 31/ CS3/2:112.
    294. Kl.Kat., Pref.11, in Bekenntnischriften der evangelish-luthersche Kirche
    (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956), 503.11/ BC348.11;
    Dtsch.Kat, I.Con.319, WA30I: 179.30/ BC429.319; references in
    Chap. 9.
    295. Gal. (1519), WA2:528, 17/ LW27:278.
    296. Gal. (1535), WA40I:389f., 27ff./ LW26:246–247.
    297. Ibid., WA40II:144f., 14ff./ LW27:113–114; Himm.Proph., WA18:80, 28/
    LW40:97.
    298. Gal. (1535), WA40I:588., 24/ LW26:365–366.
    299. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:662, 9ff./ LW22:144; Promodisp. Fab., WA39II:274,
    8ff.
    300. Gal. (1535), WA40I:67f., 22ff./ LW27:53–54., Ibid. WA40II:78, 22ff./
    LW27:63; ibid. WA40II:90f., 26ff./ LW27:72; Thes. Wel., WA39I:47,
    37/ LW34:113.
    301. 1 Pet., WA12:386, 4/ LW30:130–131.
    302. Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trnas. Herbert J.
    A. Bouman (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing, 1976), p. 167, con-
    tended that the Theology of the Cross is “something that impinges on
    Luther’s total theology.” As long as “impinges” is taken loosely to entail
    always in the background and not consistently deployed, I can agree.
    For the history of scholarship on the various views of the Theology of
    the Cross in Luther, see Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the
    Cross (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1985), pp.
    179–180 (noted especially by scholars after the shattering of the opti-
    mism of liberal Protestantism).
    303. Disp. Heid., WA1:362, 18/ LW31:53: “Ergo in Christo, crucifixion est
    vera Theologia et congnitio Dei.” Cf. 2 Ps., WA5:176, 32.
    304. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:64, 35/ LW51:17; Ps., WA31I:436, 7.
    70  M. Ellingsen

    305. Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 19/ LW31:40: “20. Sed qui visiblia et posteriora


    Dei per passions eet crucem conspecta intelligit.”
    306. Som.Post. (1526), WA10I/2:297, 5; cf. Ess.9, WA40III:656, 21.
    307. Disp.Heid., WA1:362, 1/ LW31;52.
    308. Gal. (1535), WA40I:391, 18/ LW26:248: “Est enim Scriptura plena
    Antithesibus. Et ingeniosi hominis est cernere Antitheses in Scripturis ac
    per eas posse interptetari Scripturas…”
    309. Pred. (1533), WA37:39, 15ff.
    310. Kirchpost.G., W211:493, 36/ CS1/2:87; Stut., WA40III:51, 8; cf. Kirchpost.G.,
    W211: 494, 37/ CS1/2:88; Ibid., W211:505, 17/ CS1/2:99.
    311. Pred. (1545/1546), WA51:126, 19/ LW51:374; Serv.arb., WA18:729,
    7/ LW33:206; Wider him., WA18:164, 24/ LW40:174–175; Ibid.,
    WA18:182, 11/ LW40:192; Eel.Leb., WA10II:295, 16/ LW45:39; Wein,
    WA10I/1:326f., 16ff./ CS3/2:225–226;. cf. TR (1533). WATR4:105,
    35/ LW54:183.
    312. Gal. (1535), WA40I:363, 3/ LW26:228; cf. Gen., WA42:53, 22/
    LW1:70.
    313. Haus., W213II:2125, 14/ CS6:221; Gen., WA44:587, 5/ LW8:10; Disp.
    Verb., WA39II: 8, 10ff./ LW38:244; Ibid., WA39II: 14, 8/ LW38:248.
    314. Serv.arb., WA18:784, 17/ LW33:290.
    315. Wein., WA10I/1:611, 18/ LW52:196: “Es mag nitt natur-liecht unnd
    gnaden-liecht freund seyn. Natur will fulen und gewiss seyn, ehe sie
    glewbt. Gnade will glewben, ehe sie fulet, darumb gehet die natur nit
    weytter den ynn yhr liecht. Gnade trit erauss frolich ynn finsternis,
    folgert den blossen wort und schrifft.”
    316. Ibid., WA10I/1:232f., 16ff./ LW52:79.
    317. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31I:500, 12/ LW17:311.
    318. Wein, WA10I/1:402, 11/ LW52:117.
    319. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:39f/.41ff./ LW23:30: “dis gluck hat das Gottliche
    Wort in der Welt, das die Lerer und Werck heiligen alles bessser wissen,
    darumb sagen sie acuh.”
    320. Fast. (1518), WA1:268, 3/ LW51:36–37.
    321. Jes. (1527–1531), WA31II: 393, 13/ LW17:169: “Nam Christi verbum
    semper coram mundo est plane stulticia sicut hodie contingit nobis.”
    322. Jes. (1527–1531), WA31II:400, 4/ LW17:177: “Contraria racioni
    coram mundo apparent, quia videtur mendax deus, nos relinquens, non
    eligens nos, sed repudians. Pio autem credibile est.”
    323. Hspost., W213II:1570.14/ CS5:212–213: “Also habe ich oft gesagt und
    sage es hoch: Wer Gott erkennen und ohne Gefahr von Gott speculiren
    will, der schaue in die Krippe, hebe unten an und lerne erstlich erkennen
    der Jungfrauen Maria Sohn, geboren zu Bethlehem; danach wird er sein
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  71

    an diesem Kindlein lernen, wie es der Text an sich selbst gibt, wer der
    Jungfrauen Sohn sei, nämlich ein König und Herr in Ewigkeit.”
    324. Pred. (1546), WA51:188, 7/ LW51:384: “Aber res hat deise meinung:
    Die weisen und Klugen in der Welt machens also, das ynen Gott nicht
    gunstig oder gut sein kan, Denn sie haben das hertze leid, machens in
    der Christlicher Kirchen, wie sie es slbs wollen, Alles, was Gott thut und
    macht, das müssen sie bessern. Das also kein ermer geringer, verechtiger
    Discipel nicht ist auff Erden als Gott. Er mus aller Jünger sein, jederman
    wil sein Schulmeister und Preceptor sein.”
    325. Oper.Ps., WA3:419, 25ff./ LW10:355–356. See Lib.christ., WA7:61,
    18ff./ LW31:361.
    326. Gen., WA43:517, 25/ LW5:129.
    327. Som.Post. (1526),WA10I/2:222:20/ CS1/2:244; cf. Stuf., WA40III :370f.,
    26ff.
    328. Pred.Gen., WA3:474, 14; Rom., WA56:48, 18/ LW25:41; Kirchpost.G.,
    W211:628, 13/ CS1/2:244.
    329. Haus., W213II:2501, 25/ CS7:140: “Darum soll man nicht hören, was
    unser Herz dazu sagt aus Zagen und Unglauben; sondern horen, was
    Gott sagt, der grosser ist den mein und dein Herz.”
    330. TR (1533), WATR1:294f., 19/ LW54:110 – noting this is why he did
    not critique the life-style of his opponents
    331. Gal.(1535), WA40II:51, 8; 52, 13/ LW27:41): “Ista distinctio valde nec-
    essaria doctrinae et vitae: doctrina coelum, vita terra. In vita est peccatum,
    error, immundities et miseria, ut dici solet, cum aceto; ibi charitas con-
    niveat, toleret, ludatur, credat, speret, sustineat omni, ibi maxime valeat
    remissio peccatorum, modo peccatum et error non defendantur. Sed in
    doctrina ut non est error, ita non opus habet ulla remissione peccato-
    rum. Nulla igitur penitus est comparatio doctrinae et vitae.” Cf. Gl.Ed.,
    WAWA30III:343, 23/ LW34:77.
    332. Rom., WA56:224, 25/ LW25: 209; Ibid., WA56:210, 11/ LW25:195; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:234, 24/ LW26:133; Ibid., WA40I:282, 18/ LW26:166:
    “Itaque cum disputandum est de iustia Christiana, prorsus abiicienda est
    persona.”
    Cf. TR (1533), WATR1:294ff., 19ff./ LW54:110; Wider Bau., WA18:361,
    24/ LW46:54; for his reaction to the Jews, see the last chapter.
    333. Auff.Leip., WA7:274, 17/ LW39:125; Ibid., WA7:271, 6/ LW39:121.
    334. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:717, 10/ LW30:280.
    335. Res., WA1:596, 8/ LW31:195.
    336. Gal. (1535), WA40I:589, 25/ LW26:387: “Atque haec est ratio, cur
    nostra Theologia certa est: Quia rapit nos a nobis et point nos extra nos,
    ut non nitamur viribus, conscientia, sensu, persona, operibus nostris, sed
    eo nitamur, quod est extra nos, Hoc est, promissione et veritate Dei,
    quae fallere non potest.”
    72  M. Ellingsen

    337. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:536, 20/ LW17:356: Non est ars exigua, sed
    est spiritussancti ars. Racio non potest de beneficiis domini canere. Nam
    solius spiritus opus intelligere misericordias domini, ille sapiens incipit
    laudare, gracias agere. Racio per se hoc non potest, sed solum specula-
    tur minas et terrores dei et mundi impretatem, tunc incipit murmurare,
    blasphemare.”
    338. Gal. (1535), WA40I:361, 19/ LW 26:227–228; Jes. (1528–1531), WA31II:
    129, 3/ LW16:183.
    339. Rom., WA56:392f., 32ff. /LW25:383: “Et universaliter omnis nostra affir-
    matio boni cuiuscunque sub negatione eiusdem, Vt [sic “Ut”] fides locum
    habeat in Deo, Qui Est Negatiua Essentia et bonitas et Sapientia et Iustitia
    Nec potest possideri aut attingi nisi negatis omnibus affirmatiuis nostras.”
    340. Haus., WA52:29, 15/ CS:5:67: “… Es ist ein predigt, da man sich
    anstosset, unnd nicht geringe leut, Sonder die heyligsten, frombsten,
    weysten, gewaltigsten auff erden … Die es aber nicht wissen, die blasen
    sich auff umb irer güten werck willen fallen von disem wort auff eygne
    gerechtigkeyt unnd halten es für ein ergerliche oder auffrürische lehr.”
    341. Gal (1535), WA40I:391, 18/ LW26:248: “Est enim Scriptura plean
    Antithesibus. Et ingeniosi hominis est cernere Anththeses in Scripturis
    acper eas posse interptetari Scripturas.”
    342. Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 19 /LW31:40: 20. Sed quia visibilia et posteriora
    Dei per passions et erucem conspecta intelligit.” Cf. Ibid., WA1:362, 1/
    LW31:52
    343. Ibid., WA1:362, 31/ LW31:53: “Impossible est enim, ut non infletur
    operibus suis bonis, qui non prius exinanitus et destructus est passionibus
    et malis, donec sciat seipsum esse nihil et opera non usa sed Dei esse.”
    344. Serm.(1514–1517), WA1:112, 10ff./ LW51:18–19; cf. Dict.Ps., WA3:246,
    19–20; Ibid., WA4:87, 22/ LW11:236.
    345. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:138, 15/ LW51:26.
    346. Disp.Heid., WA1:353, 21/ LW31:39: “Opera Dei ut semper sint
    deformia malaque videantur, vere tamen sunt merita immortalia.”
    347. Disp.Heid., WA1:362, 1/ LW31:52; cf. Gen., WA44:587, 11/ LW8:11.
    348. Ps.117, WA31I:249, 15ff./ LW14:31f.
    349. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:112, 24/ LW51:19; Antinom. (2), WA39I:470,
    26.
    350. Disp.Heid, WA1:357, 36/ LW31:45.
    351. Ibid., WA1:357, 3/ LW31:44; Ibid., WA1:362, 14/ LW31:53; Dict.Ps.,WA3:246,
    19; Ibid., WA4:87, 22/ LW11:236; Ibid., WA4:111, 21/ LW11:263.
    352. Rom., WA56:380, 33/ LW25:370: “Quia methaphysice intelligimus, i.e.
    fecundum quod nos eos comprehenimus fall. Apparentes et non abscondi-
    tas, Cum suam potentiam non nisi sub infirmitate, Sapientiam sub stiltitia,
    2  SCRIPTURE AND THEOLOGICAL METHOD  73

    Bonitatem sub austeritate, Iustitiam sub peccatis, misericordiam sub ira


    absconderit.”
    353. Serm.S.Thom., WA1:138, 13/ LW51:26: “Homo abscondit sua neget,
    Deus absconite sua ut revelet.”
    354. Rom, WA56:380, 33/ LW25:370; Ibid., WA56:392, 28/ LW25:382–
    383.
    355. Rom., WA56:167f., 13ff./ LW25:146–147; Ibid., WA56:237, 20/ LW25:
    223; Ibid., WA56:375, 21/ LW25:365; Ibid., WA56:171, 8ff./ LW25:
    150–151; Ibid., WA56:186, 10/ LW25:167–168; Ibid., WA56:375f., 6ff./
    LW25:365–366; Ibid., WA56:380, 33/ LW25:370; Ibid., WA56:446, 11/
    LW25:438; Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:108, 13ff./ LW51:26; Gal. (1535),
    WA40I:366, 16/ LW26:231; Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 19/ LW31:40; Ibid.,
    WA1:353, 8/ LW31:39.
    356. Rom., WA56:446., 31/ LW25:438–439.
    357. Dict.Ps., WA3:106, 29/ LW10:107.
    358. Serv.arb., WA18:633, 8/ LW33:62: “Non autem remotius abscondun-
    tur, quam sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experentia.”
    359. Matt.18–24, WA47:330, 36.
    360. Rom., WA56:392, 29ff./ LW25:382–383; Ibid., WA56:246, 12ff./ LW25:232–
    233; Oper. Ps., WA3:183, 32/ LW10:155–156.
    361. Serv.arb., WA18:651, 21/ LW 33:156. For more on hiddenness, see
    Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959), pp.
    94–102; Alfred Adam, “Der Begriff ‘Deus absconidtus’ bei Luther nach
    herkunft und Bedeutung,” Luther-Jahrbuch (1963): 101.
    362. Pred. (1532), WA36:514, 16/ LW28:86–87: “So thut es Gott auch darumb,
    das er solche arme sünder dazu erwelet, wie S. Paulus und wir gewest sind,
    das er solcher Klügler vermessenheit und dunckel wehre, Denn er will nicht
    solche sichere vermessene geister dazu haben, sondern solche leute, die zuvor
    wol durch die rolle gezogen … das sie Gott erwelet habe.”
    363. Disp.Heid., WA1:362, 1ff./ LW31:52.
    364. Rom., 56:450, 13/ LW25:442–443: “Et sunt hec Verba consola-
    tionis plenissima. Quia tunc maxime bonum debemus habere animum,
    quando mala veniunt, quia ibi est bona voluntas Dei; tunc maxime
    beneplacere, quando displicentissima veniunt, quia ibi est certissime vol-
    untsa Dei beneplacens i.e. placibilissima.”
    365. Widdertauff., WA26:155, 18/ LW40:241.
    366. Disp.Heid., WA1:357, 1/ LW31:44; Ibid., WA1:353, 21/ LW31:39
    (#4); 2.Ps.,WA5:36,15 / LW14:298; Rom., 56:392, 25/ LW25:382;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I:573, 25/ LW26:376.
    367. Magn., WA7:593f., 30ff./ LW21:347f.
    74  M. Ellingsen

    368. 2.Ps., WA5:176, 32.


    369. TR (1543), WATR 5:293ff.
    370. Serv.arb., WA18:685, 27/ LW33:140.
    371. See Ibid., WA18:684ff., 5ff./ LW33:138ff.
    372. Ibid., WA18:689, 22/ LW33:145–146.
    373. Ps.51, WA40II:329f., 10ff./ LW12:312f.; cf. Ibid., WA40II:386, 31/
    LW12:352.
    374. Serv.arb., WA18:285, 14ff./ LW33:139–140.
    375. Ibid., WA18:685, 1ff./ LW33:139–140; Ibid., WA18:784, 1ff./ LW33:289–
    290; Ibid., WA18:689, 18ff./ LW33:145–146.
    376. Dict.Ps., WA3:124, 33/ LW10:119–120; Ibid., WA4:83, 3/ LW11:231–
    232.
    377. Ibid., WA3:190, 24/ LW10:161–162.
    378. Ps.51, WA40II:330, 1; Ibid., WA40II:327f., 37ff./ LW12:311; Ibid.,
    WA40II:329, 32/ LW12:312; Serv.arb., WA18:684, 14/ LW33:139–140.
    379. Rom., WA56:176f.15ff./ LW25:156–157. See notes 13–25, above.
    380. Dict.Ps., WA3:230, 25/ LW 10:190; Ibid., WA3:508, 1/ LW10:45; Jes.
    (1527–1530), WA31II:364, 21ff./ LW17:131–132.
    381. Dict.Ps., WA4:272, 22/ LW11:407.
    382. Rom., WA56:295, 14ff./ LW25:283.
    383. Gal. (1535), WA40I:608, 6/ LW26:399–340.
    384. Dict.Ps., WA3:470, 5/ LW10:412–413.
    385. Gen., WA44:211,1/ LW6:283–284:”Multi Aethiopes, Ammonitae,
    Edomitae adiunxerunt se confessioni et culti Dei Israel secundum voca-
    tionem Dei.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA42:401, 7ff./ LW2:197.
    386. Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought, ed. Carl Braaten (New York
    and Evanston, IL: Harper & Row, 1968), esp. p. 243, well represents
    this model and an interpretation of Luther in harmony with it.
    387. Gal. (1535), WA40I:589, 25/ LW26:387: “Atque haec est ratio, cur
    nostra Theologia certa sit: Quia rapit nos a nobis et point nos extra nos,
    ut non nitamur viribus, conscientia, sensu, persona, operibus nostris,
    sed eo nitamur, quod est extra nos, Hoc est promissione et veritate Dei,
    quae fallere non potest.”
    388. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47I:68, 41/ LW22:342: “er hulfft also der welt, des her
    der welt weisheit zu schanden machete.”
    389. TR (1532), WATR2:106, 19: “Wann ich mocht hinder mir lassen, das
    ich mit hochstem vleis lerne man soll sich hutten vor speculirn und
    allein Christum quam simplcissime ergreiffen, multum effecissem.”
    CHAPTER 3

    God and Trinity

    Although the general consensus of scholars is that Luther was focused


    on Christ and Justification, he was very concerned about the doctrine of
    God. His theology, he says, was about giving God the glory, letting God
    be God.1 And it is his judgment that this can only happen by focusing on
    grace, for it “takes away all glory, wisdom, righteousness, etc., from men
    and gives it solely to the Creator,” for it is “far safer to ascribe too much
    to God than to men.”2
    We see this commitments reflect when Luther speaks of God while
    exploring the mystery of Christ’s Presence in the Lord’s Supper as “an
    inexpressible being, above and beyond all that can be imagined.”3 He is
    said to be the highest good and the source of all good.4 He is that which
    is higher than all and helps all.5 We have already noted that in polemical
    contexts Luther says that God in His essence is altogether unknowable.6
    Also in polemical contexts Luther calls the faithful to wonder at God’s
    Majesty.7 We should let God be God.8 But in the context of expounding
    the logic of faith Luther affirms, in a manner consistent with his Theology
    of the Cross, that it is best to begin reflecting on the doctrine of God
    where Christ did—in the Virgin’s womb.9 This leads the Reformer to
    claim even in non-polemical contexts that God only manifests Himself
    through His works and Word.10 The Word is His covering.11
    Luther observes that the Word is “a being Who is able to deliver us
    from every evil.”12 He is said to be “that One to Whom the frightened
    run to seek help in time of desperate need.”13

    © The Author(s) 2017 75


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_3
    76  M. Ellingsen

    We believe in God Who is an almighty Creator Who makes everything


    out of nothing, Who makes out of evil good, out of the hopeless and last
    redemption and salvation.14

    The Reformer is concerned to refer to God’s kindness, which leads to


    repentance.15
    When articulating faith, he speaks of the great and overflowing good-
    ness of God, a sublime patience Who does not stop inciting faith.16 This
    reference to what God does in giving faith is consistent with the realistic
    ontology borrowed from the Nominalists that we have noted previously
    in Luther. He claims that to know God’s works is to know Him; God is
    what He does.17
    This God is always loving, according to Luther in non-polemical cir-
    cumstances or when not addressing sloth and sin. As the Reformer once
    put it in such a context:

    God Himself is love, and His Being is nothing but pure love. Therefore if
    anyone wanted to paint a picture of God in a telling way, he would have to
    paint a picture that showed nothing but love, as though the divine nature
    were nothing but an intense fire and fervor of a love that has filled heaven
    and earth.18

    In general with non-polemical exhortative contexts in view Luther


    repeatedly claims that the nature of God is love.19 He also refers to
    God’s “indescribable mercy” when teaching Justification by Grace.20

    This is what it is to be god; not to take good things but to give, that is, to
    return good for evil.21

    In the same vein the Reformer writes that God’s love gladly wastes
    kindness on the ungrateful.22 In another context he writes:

    This is a description or definition of God that is full of comfort: that in


    His true form God is a God Who loves the afflicted, has mercy upon the
    humbled, forgives the fallen, and revives the drooping. How can any more
    pleasant picture be painted of God?23
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  77

    In one sermon he refers to God as philanthropic.24 The vision of His


    compassion does not render God any less awesome. Writing about our
    sin and its forgiveness the Reformer observes,

    In secular matters, when we speak of a king or a prince, we make it a cus-


    tom to do so with some nice gesture, reverence, and genuflection. Much
    more should we bow the knee of our heart when we speak about God,
    and we should mention the Name of God with gratitude and the greatest
    reverence.25

    In fact, in a sermon dialoguing with legalism, Luther notes, apart


    from Christ, God is terrible, only wrath.26 When offering comfort,
    Luther notes that there is no other God than the One Who talks to us
    and treats us as Christ does.27 But as Christians we are only to expect
    good things from Him. To this Luther adds that German derives the
    word “God” from the term “good.” “He is an Eternal Fountain which
    gushes forth nothing but the good from flows all that is good.”28
    When explaining the faith, Luther claims, after noting that “God does
    not appear to any, but those who fear Him and humble themselves,” that
    “God is the God of none but the lowly.”29 And in The Large Catechism
    the Reformer says that God is “like an eternal, inexhaustible fountain,
    which, the more it gushes forth and overflows, the more it continues to
    give.”30 He is a glowing oven, full of love.31 With God, love flows from a
    Fatherly heart; He is the fountain of all good.32
    God is said to be love, when articulating the logic of faith or comforting.33
    The Father’s love is just as strong as the Son’s.34 As Luther once put it over
    table:

    Our Lord God must be a devout Man to be able to love knaves. I can’t do
    it, although I myself am a knave.35

    The Reformer refers to a German proverb that says that “God has more
    than He has ever given.”36 Earlier in his career he had written

    The love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, fools and
    weaklings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather
    than seeking its own good, the love of God flows for and bestows good.37
    78  M. Ellingsen

    Late in his life while offering comfort Luther noted that God, the
    King of the Universe, gently lifts us out of our doldrums and insecuri-
    ties and gently puts us in His lap.38 Elsewhere He calls Him a gracious
    Father.39 He does not want us to hate ourselves any more, Luther noted,
    but loves us like beloved daughters.40 Elsewhere he added,

    For the Holy Spirit does not wish us to fear in such a way that we are
    overwhelmed by fear and despair … But He wills that you should fear and
    so escape pride and presumption, and you should rejoice and so escape
    despair … [Then you will] fear God not as a tyrant but as children fear
    parents with respect.41

    Luther once observed that God’s Name El Shaddai means that he has
    breasts to nurture the Hebrews.42 When explaining the faith or offering
    comfort, Luther calls God or Christ Mother on a number of occasions.43
    God’s love is compared to a mother’s love.44 He is said to hold us in His
    arms.45
    When consoling us, Luther extols God’s boundless compassion:

    His compassion is boundless and without measure after it begins to shine


    again. Therefore His compassion is more abundant because it is part of
    God’s nature, since wrath is truly God’s alien work, in which He engages
    contrary to His nature, because He is forced into it by the wickedness of
    man.46

    In 1535 he wrote,

    This is the indescribable and infinite mercy of God which Paul would like
    to spread abroad with an enthusiastic and generous flow of words; but
    the human heart is too limited to comprehend, much less to describe, the
    great depths and burning passion of divine love towards us.47

    Even early in his career when lecturing to overcome righteousness of


    the flesh Luther claimed that God does not change from our merits, we
    are assured, even if we have changed.48 Insofar as Luther seems here to
    assert God’s faithfulness to His Promises, this point has implications, as
    we shall note, for making a case for the continuing accuracy of Luther’s
    interpretation of the righteousness of God in relation to Justification.
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  79

    The love of God does not find, but creates that which is pleasing to it. The
    love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.49

    In line with this thinking and the Theology of the Cross Luther claims
    that God is a God of the oppressed:

    For God is a God of the humble, the miserable, the afflicted, the
    oppressed, the desperate, and of those who have been brought down to
    nothing at all. And it is the nature of God to exalt the humble, to feed the
    hungry, to enlighten the blind, to comfort the miserable and afflicted, to
    justify sinners, to give life to the dead, and to save those who are desperate
    and damned. For He is the almighty Creator Who makes everything out of
    nothing.50

    He loves the afflicted (a point made while comforting).51 He wants to


    have patience with our weakness.52
    Explaining the faith Luther notes that God deals with us in the friend-
    liest manner.53 He contends that God is always talking with us—is a ver-
    bal God.54 The Reformer also advises that God is best understood not
    in Himself as substance, but in terms of relationship.55 Indeed it is said
    to be God’s nature to create something out of nothing.56 These com-
    mitments follow from the Reformer’s belief, articulated when preaching,
    that the Father’s true essence is revealed in Christ.57
    When offering comfort or proclaiming the Gospel Luther claims that
    Christ (and so love) reveals the Majesty of God.58 He is said to be fully
    known in the Word:

    Therefore the world knows that nothing represents the condition of the
    heart so perfectly and so positively as the words of the mouth, just as
    though the heart were in the word … Thus it is also with God. His Word
    is so much like Himself, that the Godhead is wholly in it, and he who has
    the Word has the whole Godhead.59

    In one sermon offering comfort from despair, Luther claims that ref-
    erences to God’s love may not necessarily apply to trinitarian issues or
    doctrine but have a “practical application” teaching us to know “what
    our attitude over against God and Christ must be to find the Father and
    know His will.” There is “no other God than the One God Who is called
    Jesus Christ.” 60
    80  M. Ellingsen

    In similar contexts, Luther portrays God with His wrath is subordi-


    nated to grace.61 In a polemical context he writes, “It is God’s nature
    first to destroy and to bring to nothing whatever is in us before He
    gives us of his own.”62 When comforting, he says that things said about
    God do not entail that He does evil or is wrathful Himself. Much in the
    fashion of Liberal theology, Luther claims that wrath in God is just the
    result of our misperception of His goodness.63 When dealing with the
    Christian life with a concern to critique those caught up in works-right-
    eousness, on at least one occasion Luther seems to take another position
    much like modern liberal theology, positing a loving God Who reacts
    toward His creatures as they act towards Him.64 Or he claims that God
    remains loving; we just misperceive His mercy.65
    In a related manner, much as we noted previously when the
    Reformer was seeking to point out our despairing circumstances or
    exhort Christian life Luther once claimed that “Just as I think about
    God, so it is with me.”66 When comforting despair, the Reformer
    commented that God’s compassion is more abundant than His wrath,
    which is His alien work forced on Him by our wickedness.67 In one of
    his Lectures while seeking to encourage or comfort Luther claims that
    damnation is solely the result of our misuse of God’s benevolent activ-
    ity.68 Other times in these contexts, as we will note in more detail when
    describing Luther’s treatment of the doctrine of Providence, he claims
    that evil is the fault of evil instruments.69 Luther’s concern here seems
    to be that he is consoling the weak that God’s wrath is not construed as
    His active judgment.70
    Elsewhere in the Lectures on Romans Luther insists that to say that
    God gives man what he wants does not entail that God does not will
    that thing.71 It was not atypical in late medieval thought to posit like
    the Nominalists did that God’s mutability must be correlated with His
    never changing.72 Thus while dealing with the meaning of the Right
    Hand of God while engaged in polemics, the Reformer contended
    that the power of God is so great that it cannot be measured.73 God
    is said to rule constantly, but not manifest to us. He sees us, but we
    do not see Him. The context for these remarks is preaching the holi-
    ness of God.74 Yes, God is loving for Luther (especially when he was
    expounding the logic of faith and comforting others), but that is not
    the whole story.
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  81

    A God of Wrath
    In other contexts God’s justice is said to be too absolute to be satis-
    fied by works of attrition.75 Because God is righteous and just, sin must
    offend Him.76 Defending faith against Epicurean tendencies, Luther
    asserts the immensity of divine wrath.77 As he put in in a sermon, “The
    consciousness that God is angry and that He is an irate judge of sin
    is innate in the human heart … In such circumstances it is impossible
    for man to be happy.”78 Such an awareness of God’s enormous wrath
    was the root of the Anfechtungen (despair) that plagued Luther.79 A
    God Who is in control of all creatures but is against us entails that all
    creation is against us, that every and any natural event might be our
    enemy.80 Apart from Christ we stand under this wrath.81 Or in such con-
    texts Luther refers to God’s holiness.82 Such a portrayal of God under-
    cuts pride.83 In The Bondage of the Will, combating Erasmus’s brand of
    Pelagianism, Luther insists that appreciating the wrath of God is essential
    for faith.84
    The opposition of God’s wrath and love emerges as Luther seeks to
    defend faith or condemn sin. He posits then an opposition of wrath and
    love in God, so that (in the spirit of the Theology of the Cross) we must
    believe against this picture of God.85 In such contexts, in line with his
    Theology of the Cross, Luther distinguishes between God’s alien work
    (opus alienum) and His proper work (opus proprium). God’s strange
    work, and so His wrath, is said to be alien to His Nature.86
    Luther’s construal of God’s hidden, alien work as the hardening and
    abandoning of some, a fully omnipotent God, accords with the absolute
    will of God posited by the Nominalists. He rejects the Scholastic distinc-
    tion between the absolute Will of God and His ordained Will posited
    by the Scholastics.87 God plays an active role in judgment, Luther also
    claims, in contexts in which pride or smugness must be curtailed.88 In
    contexts like these Luther may speak of a hidden God not revealed in
    Christ (related to the teaching of double predestination):

    Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that eve-
    rything which is believed should be hidden … Thus God hides His eternal
    goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, His righteousness under iniquity.
    This is the highest degree of faith, to believe Him merciful when He saves
    so few and damns so many …89
    82  M. Ellingsen

    When dealing with questions about what the Christian life looks like,
    Luther was inclined to portray God as more demanding.90 Also in dialogue
    with legalistic tendencies, Luther says that God is “a negative essence and
    goodness and wisdom and righteousness.” In short, God is hidden.91
    In contexts when the polemics are mixed with exhortation to faith,
    Luther softens his teaching of God’s wrath, by speaking of a conflict
    between God and tyrants.92 However, these texts from the Romans lectures
    are balanced by claims when he seeks to defend the sola fide that God uses
    the devil to do evil.93 In such contexts God’s love is hidden under wrath.94
    When offering comfort, Luther speaks of God’s wrath directed
    towards the enemies of the faithful, and so subordinates wrath to love.95
    Also when comforting, Luther claims that God’s Nature is that after He
    has afflicted His own He shows Himself benevolent.96
    In some contexts requiring the comfort of despair (along with a cri-
    tique of liberation), Luther needed to acknowledge his teaching of dou-
    ble predestination, and in those contexts he affirmed both it and the
    God of love:

    If you believe in the revealed God and accept His Word, He will gradually
    also reveal the hidden God; for “He who sees Me also sees the Father,” as
    John 14:9 says. He who rejects the Son of God also loses the unrevealed
    God along with the revealed. But if you cling to the revealed God with a
    firm faith, so that your heart will not lose Christ even if you are deprived of
    everything, then you are most assuredly predestined, and you will under-
    stand the hidden God.97

    When just addressing despair the Reformer even more radically subor-
    dinated the hidden God to the revealed God, construing His hiddenness
    as passive, a mere function of our sinful misperceptions (after the fashion
    of liberal theology):

    But these things must be borne, and we must conclude that God is the
    One Who is hidden, and yet He is not hidden, for the flesh prevents us
    from being able to look at Him … So it seems that God is completely for-
    saking us and casting us away, because He is hidden to us and we are hid-
    den along with Him. But in faith, in the Word, in the Word and in the
    Sacraments He is revealed and seen.98

    In a similar fashion when exhorting Christian living he claims that as you


    think about God so He is.99 We see a similar commitment in Luther’s
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  83

    claims while offering comfort and critiquing philosophy that rather than
    assigning to God emotions of a human being like repentance and wrath,

    it seems to me that there is a less complicated explanation, namely that


    Holy Scripture is describing the thinking of those men who are in the
    ministry. When Moses says that God sees and repents, these actions really
    occur in the hearts of men …100

    When teaching repentance God’s wrath is minimized more.101 And when


    dealing with God’s demands of service (Christian life) Luther puts it this way:

    For the Holy Spirit does not wish us to fear in such a way that we are over-
    whelmed by fear and despair … but He wills that you should fear and so escape
    pride or presumption, and you should rejoice and so escape despair … [Then you
    will] fear God not as a tyrant, but as children fear their parents with respect.102

    In a sermon exhorting faith, in much the same spirit, Luther claims, “The
    consciousness that God is angry and that He is an irate Judge of sin is
    innate in the human heart.”103 But when articulating or exhorting the
    faith he writes, “To think of God as wrathful is to believe in no God.” 104
    Luther adds:

    Finally, He pours Himself out for me altogether.105

    Anyone who regards Him [God] as angry has not seen Him correctly, but has
    pulled down a curtain and cover, or even more, a dark cloud over His face.106

    And yet Luther still assures us when comforting despair and exhorting
    faith that God comforts us in our trials with an awareness that God sets
    trials before us in order to rely on His Promises and to cleanse us.107 For
    God exalts the lowly, Luther adds while expositing the faith108 He “is the
    God of none but the lowly, the oppressed, and the sighing.”109

    Where Is God?
    Luther breaks with the above–beneath the earth cosmologies for gain-
    ing answers to this question. Instead he makes some very timely claims.
    He speaks of God taking the faithful to hell before He brings them back
    and comforts them. Presumably God is both in heaven and hell.110 We
    84  M. Ellingsen

    cannot measure God’s Power. He is said to be Present everywhere, in


    every single creature.111

    He [God] is Present everywhere in death, in hell, in the midst of our foes,


    yes, also … governs them, and they must all do as He wills.112

    He is said to be “a vast immense being that fills the world, pervades it


    and towers over it:

    He [God] is a supernatural, inscrutable being Who exists at the same time


    in every little seed, whole and entire, and yet also in all above and outside
    all created things.113

    “Nothing can be more truly present and within all creatures than God
    Himself and His Power,” Luther claims.114
    God is said to be in all and above all and outside all created things.
    “Nothing is so small but God is still smaller, nothing so large but God
    is still larger.”115 He is a vast, immense Being that fills the world, is inex-
    pressible and beyond all that can be described.116 The Reformer depicts
    Him as “in a manure bug or even in the cesspool … no less than in
    heaven.”117 He is closer to me than I am to myself, Luther adds.118
    While explicating Law and Gospel Luther claims that the Word of God
    is impossible to escape, for it is above and yet in all things.119 He is always
    acting.120 Luther says something similar about the Lordship of Christ, as
    he claims that His Lordship is “active, energetic,” and continuous …”121
    Christ is completely present to us. Nothing is nearer than He is.122
    Luther also notes that God acts continuously in that He exists at
    the same time in every little seed, whole and entire, and yet also in all
    things.123 What happens to the Son happens to the Father, since the
    entire Trinity is in Christ, he adds.124 This has implications for God
    being totally involved not just in Jesus’ fate, but in His human nature. In
    comments most suggestive of something like the Eastern idea of deifica-
    tion, Luther once claimed,

    For in Christ a part of our flesh and blood, that is, our human nature sits
    in heaven above at the right hand of God … It is an unspeakably great
    glory and honor for humankind to have been raised so high by Him, not
    merely to heaven among the holy angels and archangels … but to the level
    of direct equality with God Himself.125
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  85

    A Triune God
    Regarding the Trinity doctrine, Luther once justified the Trinity late in
    his life by noting that reference to God as Elohim in Gen.1:1 is plural.126
    Also when explaining the logic of faith, the Reformer identifies God as
    Three Who has given Himself wholly and completely with all that He is
    and has.127 In another treatise Luther stressed the unity of the Persons
    of the Trinity. Father, Son, and Spirit are not at all different in nature, he
    claimed. Drawing on The Nicene Credal formulation he claims that their
    distinctness is only a function of the fact that “He [Christ] does not have
    the Godhead from Himself, nor from anyone else but the Father, since
    He was born of the Father from eternity.” And the “Holy Spirit “does
    not have the Godhead from Himself nor from anyone else but from the
    Father and the Son.”128 Obviously the Filioque is affirmed here (and
    elsewhere).129 Citing Augustine Martin Luther describes the Trinity:
    “The Father is the Mind; the Son, the intellect; and the Holy Spirit the
    Will.”130 He also uses Augustine’s idea of God as the triune connection
    of mind, intellect, and will.131
    Luther spoke of the relation of Father and Son as akin to the rela-
    tion between the sun and its rays.132 He also describes the distinction
    between Father and Son as like difference between speaker and Word.133
    Formulating an image unique to Luther he speaks of the Trinity in terms
    of an internal conversation in God – Father as Speaker, Son as he Word,
    and Spirit the Listener.134 Elsewhere he speaks of the Triune God as
    Preacher [Father], Sermon [Son], and hearer [Spirit].135
    The Reformer contends that the Three Persons give themselves
    wholly to us, Luther claims. The Father gives Himself with heaven and
    earth and all creatures. The Son subsequently gave Himself, all his work,
    sufferings, and righteousness in order that we might have the Father.
    But this grace would benefit no one if it remained hidden. The Holy
    Spirit comes and gives Himself to us wholly and completely, teaching us
    to understand the deed of Christ, helping us receive and preserve it.136
    Father and Son are said to be bound so closely together that “we should
    learn to think of God only as Christ.” Thus this is a God in Whose lap
    we may cuddle like children in their mother’s arms.137 This image not
    only reflects a Christocentrism. It also communicates an affirmation of
    God’s maternity.
    For Luther the Persons of the Trinity have an intimacy surpassing any
    earthly unity. The human body and soul are not so completely One as
    86  M. Ellingsen

    the Triune God he claims.138 Luther indeed offers us a vision of God


    Who is intimate with us when exhorting faith or comforting), but Whose
    Majesty and awesomeness confounds us (when we are compromising the
    primacy of grace). Little wonder that this awesome God seems to be so
    unlike Himself in different contexts.

    Notes
    1. Pred. (1525), WA17I:232, 34/ LW12:187; cf. Wein., WA10I/1:616f., 1ff./
    LW52:199; Unter. Art., WA2:69, 18. Other intpreters making this point
    regarding the importane of the doctrine of God for Luther include Philip
    Watson, Let God Be God (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press. 1948); Paul
    Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert Schultz (Philadelphia:
    Fortress Press, 1966), p. 105. Also see for this emphasis Stuf., WA40III:356,
    18; Ibid., WA40III:358, 1; Ps., WA31I: 244, 26/ LW14:26.
    2. Gal. (1535), WA40I 131f., 25f. / LW26:66: “Et verrum est doctrinam
    Evangelii adimere hominibus omnem gloriam, sapientaim, iustitiam
    etc. et ista tribuere soli Creatori qui ex nihilo ominia facit. Multo autem
    tutius est tribuere nimium Deo, quam hominibus.”
    3. Ab.Chr., WA26:340, 1/ LW37:228: “Ists ein unausprechlich wesen
    uber und ausser allen, das man nennen odder dencken kan.” Cf. Hab.,
    WA19:426, 7/ LW19:228.
    4. Gut.Werk., WA6:227, 28/ LW44:52; Dtsch.Kat., WA30I:135, 17/ BC:
    388–389.
    5. Rom., WA56:177, 1/ LW25:157.
    6. Gen., WA42:293, 5ff./ LW2:45; Ibid., WA42:635, 17/ LW3:122.
    7. Serv.arb., WA18:631f., 37ff./ LW33:60.
    8. See note 1, for references.
    9. Gal. (1535), WA40I:77, 11/ LW26:28–29.
    10. Gen., W42:9, 32/ LW1:11.
    11. Ibid., WA42:11, 19/ LW1:13.
    12. Jon., WA19:206, 12/ LW19:54.
    13. Dtsch. Kat., I.1, WA30I:133, 1/ BC:386.2: “Ein Gott heisset das, dazu
    man sich versehe sol alles guten und zuflucht haben ynn allen nöten.”
    14. Gen., WA44:607, 33/ LW8:39: “Quia credimus in illum Deum, qui
    est creator onmipotens, producens ex nihilo omnia, ex malis optima, ex
    desperatis et preditis salute.” Cf. Magn., WA7:547, 1/ LW21:299.
    15. Rom., WA56:19, 14/ LW 25:17.
    16. Jes. (1528–11530), WA31II:58, 13/ LW16:83.
    17. Magn., WA7:577, 26/ LW21:331.
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  87

    18. 1 Joh., WA36:424, 16: “Gott is selbs die Liebe, und sein wesen ist eitel
    lauter liebe, Das wenn jmand wolte Gott malen und treffen, so müst
    er ein solch bild treffen, das eitel hebe were, als sey die Göttliche natur
    nichts den ein feur offen und brunst solcher liebe, die himmel und
    erden füllet …”
    19. 1 Joh., WA36:424,9; Ps.51, WA40II:462,27/LW12:406; Gen., WA42:646,
    9/ LW3:137–138; Gal. (1535), WA40I:488, 15/ LW26:314; Ibid., WA40I:
    387,27/ LW26:245–246; Ibid., WA40I:522, 27/ LW26:339; Ibid., WA40I:
    298, 19/ LW26:178; Ibid., WA40I:455, 15/ LW26:292.
    20. Gal. (1535), WA40I:97, 15/ LW26:41.
    21. Dict.Ps., WA4:269, 25/ LW11:403: “Sed hoc est deum non accipere
    bona, sed dare, ergo pro malis bona retribuere.”
    22. Ps., WA31I:182, 19/ LW14:106.
    23. Ps.51, WA40II:462,27/LW12:406: Plenissima igitur consolationis est haec
    Dei seu description seu definitio, quod Deus in sua propria forma sit talis
    Deus, qui amet afflictos, qui misereatur humliatorum qui ignoscat lapsis
    et foveat languidos. Num enim potest ulla suavior Dei imago describi?”
    24. KirchPost. (1522), WA10I/1:95–128.
    25. Gal. (1535), WA40I:100, 12:LW26:43: “Sie in Politia, quando Regum
    aut Principum nomina appellamus, id honesto quodam gestu, reverentia
    et genut flexione facere solemus. Multo magis, cum de Deo loquimur,
    genu cordis flectere et momen Dei cum gratitudine et summa revernetia
    naominare debemus.”
    26. Hspost. (1544/1532), WA52:308, 17 / CS6:148.
    27. Ev.Joh, 14–16, WA45:517, 10/ LW24:62; cf. Ps., WA31I:63, 21.
    28. Dtsch.Kat., I.1, WA30I:135f., 34/ BC:389.25: “Daher auch achte ich,
    wir Deutschen Gott eben mit dem namen von alters her nenne (seiner
    und artiger den sein andere sprache) nach wortlin ‘gut,’ als der ein
    ewiger quellbrun ist, der sich mit eitel güte ubergeusset und von dem
    alles was gut ist und heisset ausfleust.” See Ibid., WA30I:135, 18ff./
    BC388f.18ff.
    29. Jes. (1528–1530), WA31II:72, 7/ LW16:102: “Deus enim est non nisi
    humilium, oppressorum, gemencium suspivancium.”
    30. Dtsch. Kat., WA30I:201, 5/ BC:447.56.
    31. Pred. (1532), WA36:424, 2.
    32. Kirchpost.G., W211:1098.13/ CS2/1:354.
    33. Gal. (1535), WA40I:494, 14ff./ LW26:318–319; Ibid., WA40I:488,
    15ff./ LW26:314; Ibid., WA40I:298, 19/ LW26:178; cf. Gen.,
    WA42:621f., 40ff./ LW3:103–104; Send.Rech., WA10II:323f./
    LW43:53.
    88  M. Ellingsen

    34. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:80, 30/ LW22:355.


    35. TR (1532), WATR1:100, 23/LW54:32: “Unser herrgott mus enin
    frommer man sein, das er die buben kan lieb haben. Ich kan es nit thus,
    und bin doch selb ein bub.”
    36. Gen., WA44:605, 17/ LW8:35: “Gott hat noch mehr, den er je vergab.”
    37. Disp. Heid, WA1:365, 8/ LW31:57: “Prima pars patet, quia amer Deo
    in homine vivens dilgit peccatores, malos, stultos, infirmos, ut faciat ius-
    tos, bonos, sapientes, robostos et sic effluit potius et bonnum tribuit.”
    38. Gen., WA42:647, 7/ LW3:139; cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:408, 14/ LW26:
    260.
    39. Matt.5–7, WA32:329, 1/LW21:37; Vor. 1.Joh., WA20:696, 32/ LW30:
    266.
    40. Kl.Proph., WA13:506, 16/ LW18:359.
    41. Ps.2, WA40II:288f., 26ff./ LW12:75: “Non enim vult Spiritussantus nos
    sic timere, ut in timore absorpti desperemus … Hoc autem vult, ut et
    timeas atque ita effugias superbiam seu praesumptionem, et exultes, ut
    effugias desperationem... hi sunt vere filii Dei, qui Deum timent, non ut
    tyrannum sed, sicut liber parentem, cum reverentia...”
    42. Gen., WA 42:607, 17ff./ LW3:82–83.
    43. Ev. Jn.6–8, W33:522, 12/ LW23:325; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:370,
    30/ LW17:139; Ibid., WA31II:272, 11/ LW17:16; Jes. (1527–1530),
    WA31II:42, 21/ LW16:60; Gen., WA42:364, 10/ LW2:145.
    44. TR (1533), WATR1:189,21/LW54:70; Ecl.Leb., WA10II:298, 29/LW45:43;
    Kl. Proph., WA13:508,16/ LW18:362–363; Gen., WA42:364, 10/LW2:145.
    45. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:204, 6.
    46. Gen., WA42:356, 20/ LW2:134: “… sicut Die ira, cum ceperit exaestu-
    are, est intolerabilis, Ita misericordia quoque, postquam relucere incipit,
    infinita et sine modo est. Est autem ideo misericordia exuberantior, quia
    haec est de natura Dei, Cum ira vere sit alienum Dei opus, quod contra
    naturam suam suscipit cogente ita malicia hominum.”
    47. Gal. (1535), WA40I:455,15/LW26:292): “Haec est ineffabilis et infinita
    illa misericordia Dei quam Paulus libenter exuberanti et largissima
    quadam copia verborum effundere vellet. sed illam abyssum profundis-
    simam et Zelum ardentissimum divinae charitatis erga nos non potest
    angustia cordis humani comprehendere, multo minus eloqui. Quinetiam
    ipsa magnitudo divinae misercordiae non solum difficultatem credenda,
    sed et incredulitatem parit.”
    48. Rom., WA56:440,2/LW25:432; cf. Disp.Verb., WA39II:20, 1/ LW38:253.
    49. Disp. Heid, WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41: “Amor Dei non invenit sed ereat
    suum diligible. Amor hominis fit a suo diligibili.”
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  89

    50. Gal. (1535), WA40I:488, 15/ LW26:314: “Nam Deus est Deus humil-
    ium, miserorum, afflictorrum, oppressorum, desperatorum, et eorum
    qui prorsus in nihilum redacti sunt; Estque Dei natura exaltare humiles,
    cibare esurientes, illuminare caecos, mieros et afflictos consolari pec-
    catores iustificare, mortuous vivificare, desperator et damnatos salvare
    etc.”
    51. Ps.51, WA40II:462, 27/ LW12:406.
    52. Gen., WA43:446, 11/ LW5:25.
    53. 1 Pet., WA12:266, 21/ LW30:10; Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:260, 28/
    CS3/1:53.
    54. Promodisp.Schmed., WA39II:199,3/LW34:316; cf. Reih.Gen., WA24:
    38, 9.
    55. Gen., WA42:634f., 20ff./ LW3:122; Pred. (1538), WA46:337, 4ff.
    56. Stuf., WA40III:154, 11/ LW21:299; Gen., WA42:572, 21/LW3:33; cf.
    Antinom. (2), WA39I:470, 1.
    57. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:589, 1/ LW24:140–141.
    58. Gen., 43:460, 23/ LW5:46; Ibid., WA43:461,23/ LW5:48; Ev.Joh.1–2,
    WA46:672, 14/ LW22:156–157.
    59. Kirchpost.G., W211:160, 15ff./ CS1/1:179: “Also gar bekennt alle
    Welt, dass sein Bild dem Herzen so eben gleich und gewiss ist, als die
    Rede des Mundes gleich also wäre das Herz, wesentlich im Wort … Also
    ists im Gott auch, da ist sein Wort ihm eben so gleich, das die Gottheit
    ganz darin ist, und wer das Wort hat, der hat die ganze Gottheit.”
    60. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:588f., 35ff./ LW24:140: “Nu wollen wir hie nicht
    scharff disputiren (wie der alten Peter etliche gethan haben uber diesem
    text) wider die Arianer, wie beide, der Vater inn Christo und Christus
    im Vater ist nach dem einigen, unzerteilten Gottlichen wesen, Sondern
    reden ist allein von dem brauch oder nutz des selben Artikels, wie wir
    uns gegen Gott und Christo sollen schicken, das wir den Vater treffen
    und seinen willen erkennen, Das ein Christen (wie wir allzeit gehört
    haben) lerne also sagen: Ich weis von seienem Gott on allein von dem
    einigen, der da heisst Ihesus Christus.”
    61. Dict.Ps., WA3:330, 26/ LW10:273; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:106f., 28ff./ LW22:384–
    385; Rom., WA56:304, 20/ LW25:291; Gal. (1535), WA40I:591, 23/
    LW26:388; Ibid., WA56:380, 23/ LW25:370; Ps.51, WA40II:342,37/ L12:322;
    Ibid., WA56:387f.,27ff./LW25:378; Ps., WA31I:156ff.,35ff./LW14:88–90; Ibid.,
    WA56:434,25ff./ LW25:426; Gen., WA44:280, 17/ LW6:374; Ibid., WA56:450,13/
    LW25:442–443.
    62. Rom., WA56:375,18/ LW25:365: “Quad totum ideo facit, Quia Natura
    Dei est, prius deftruere et annihilare, quicquid in nobis est, antquam sua
    donet …”
    90  M. Ellingsen

    63. Dict. Ps., WA3:35, 7/ LW10:40: “Item singulariter nontandum pro reg-


    ula, quod multa dicuntru de deo in Scriptura, que ipse tamen non facit.
    Sed quia facit ea alios facere ideo Scriptua reducens intellectum nos-
    trum in deum et docens gratiarum actionem et onmia flumina revocans
    in mare unde fluunt, attribuit ei, que faciunt creature. Ut illud: ‘Tunc
    loquetur ad eos in ira sua’ i.e. loqui faciet Christum et alios sanctus in ira
    sua: quia et ira seu vindicta, quam faciunt creature, sunt dei. Non enim
    ira sic est sua, quia in ipso sit. Sed quia creatura, in qua est ira, est eius
    et ipsius nutu et imperio affligit impios, ipse autem in se manens quiet-
    issimus et tranquillus, immo summe bonus et non turbatus. Nam tam
    est bonus deus, et quicquid ipse immediate agit, not sit nisi summum
    gaudium et delectatio et non affligit, sed magis reficit.”
    Cf. Gen., WA44:112, 1/ LW6:150; Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology,
    Vol.1 (3 vols. in one; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967/
    pp. 282–283; Ibid., Vol.2, pp. 76–77; Friedrich Schleiermacher, The
    Christian Faith, Vol.1, eds. H. R. MacKintosh and J. S. Stewart New
    York and Evanston, IL: Harper & Row, 1963), pp. 350–352.
    64. Rom., WA56:234, 2/ LW25:219: “Deus Est mutalbilis quam maxime.
    Partet, Quia Iustificatur et Iudicatur, psalm 17: ‘Cum electo electus eris
    et cum peruerso peruerteris.’ Qualis est enim vnusquisque [sic “unus-
    quisque] in seipso, talis est ei Deus, in obiecto. Si Iustus, Iustus; Si
    mundus, mundus; Si iniquu, iniquus etc’.”
    65. Gen., WA42:553, 7ff./ LW3:7.
    66. Ps.51, WA40II:343, 2: “Sicut de [d]eo cogito, ita fit mihi.”
    67. Gen., WA42:356, 19/ LW2:134.
    68. Gal. (1535), WA40I:522, 14/ LW26:339.
    69. Serv.arb., WA18:709f., 31ff./ LW33L176; Ibid., WA18:711, 2ff./
    LW33:178–179.
    70. Ibid., WA18:714, 6/ LW33:183.
    71. Rom., WA56:108, 9/ LW25:97.
    72. See for example Gabriel Biel, Collectorium circa quattuor libros Sententiarum,
    V,Dist.M,qu.1,c.3,art.3,dub.1 (Tűbingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1973), Vol.1, p.
    418: “Et omnibus his modus fit mutation. Non autem propter hoc oportet
    ponere aliquam formam Deum necessitantem. Nec oportet ponere obiectim
    aliquod distinctum a Deo immutabile et aeternum ad salvandum immuta-
    bilitatem actus divini; sicut patet de creation. Deus non vult nunc creare et
    non prius seu prius non voluit, sine mutatione actus in Deo.”
    73. Wort., WA23:133f., 18ff./ LW37:57–58.
    74. Gen., WA42:665f., 22ff./ LW3:164–165; Ibid., WA43:619, 5ff./ LW5:276–277.
    75. Stuf., WA40III:344, 23; 2.Ps., WA5:201, 5.
    76. 2.Ps., WA5:50, 5ff./ LW14:316; Tess.Con., WA6:127, 5.
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  91

    77. 90.Ps., WA40III:567, 22/ LW13:125–126; cf. Ibid., WA40III:485f.,


    9ff./ LW13:76–78; Ibid., WA40III:513, 1/ LW13:93; Promodisp.Heg.,
    WA39II:366, 18.
    78. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:98, 17/LW22:375: “Nun sticktt das in aller men-
    schen hertzen, das Gott zurne und ein zorniger Richter sej uber
    Sunde … So kan der mensch nicht frolic sein, sonder mus sich imerdar
    furchten, das Gott mit der feulen hinder ihme stehe und zuschlagen
    wille.”
    79. See p.155, n.148, for references.
    80. Pred.1.Mos., (1523/1527), WA14:101, 24; Gen., WA44:546, 9/ LW7:332.
    81. Matth.11–15, WA28:17, 7ff.
    82. 1 Pet., WA12:287, 25/ LW30:32.
    83. 1 Pet., WA12:289, 3/ LW30:33–34; Latom., WA8:67, 2ff./ LW32:172.
    84. Serv.arb., WA18:633, 7ff./LW33:62–63:” Altera est, quod fides est
    rerum non apparentium. Ut ergo fidei locus sit, opus est, ut omnia quae
    creduntur, abscondantur … Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum
    esse elementem, qui tam multos damnat … Si igitur possem ulla ratione
    comprehendre, quomodo is Deus sit misericors et iustum, qui tantam
    iram et iniquitatem ostendit, non esset opus fide. Nunc cum id com-
    prehendi non potest, fit locus exercendae fidei, dum talia praedicantur
    et invulgantur, non aliter, quam dum Deus occidit, fides vitae in morte
    exercetur.”
    Cf. Wein., WA10I/1:472f, 1ff./ CS3/2:285ff., on the importance of
    appreciating our sin.
    85. Gal. (1535), WA40I:576, 27/ LW26:378.
    86. Gal.(1535), WA40I:488, 15ff./ LW26:314; cf. Gen., WA42:356,
    19/ LW2:134; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:168, 8/LW16:233;
    Gen., WA43:458, 31/ LW5:42–44; Serm.S.Thom., WA1:112f., 24/
    LW51:19–20.
    For other references to this distinction, though without specific reference
    to the nature of God as love, see Rom., WA56:374f., 21ff./ LW25:365;
    Disp.Heid., WA1:361, 4/LW31:51; Ps.90, WA40III:584, 24ff./
    LW13:135–136; Op.Ps. (1519–1521), WA5:63f., 33ff./ LW14:335; Jes.
    (1527–1530), WA31II:168, 8/ LW16:233–234.
    87. Serv.arb., WA18:719, 12/ LW33:190. And yet there may be a connec-
    tion between this distinction and Luther’s opus alienum/opus proprium
    (thogh for Scholastics God’s omnipotence is cerely potentiality). See
    Theodor Dieter, “Luther As Late Medieval Theologian: His Positive
    and Negative Use of Nominalism and Realism,” in Robert Kolb, Irene
    Dingel, L’Ubamic Batka, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luher’s
    Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 20014). p. 41.
    92  M. Ellingsen

    88. Gen., WA44:503, 24/ LW7:275: “Quia lex intus in corde est, quae
    terret et est lex Dei, Ideo omnis consternatio et pavor conscientiae fit
    cooperante Deo. Non igitur potes excutere legem, sed ipsa excutit tibi
    cor. Quia est Dei iudicium aeternum et immutabile, cuius accusastionem
    et impetum haud facile sustinebis.”
    90.Ps., WA40III:513, 13/ LW13:93: “Ergo ex descriptione hae Dei,
    quod sit aeternus et omnipotens, immensus et infinitus, Sequitur utrumque,
    quod et habitaculum eius seu securos favor super timentes eum sit infinitus,
    et quod furor seu ira eius super etiam sit immensus. Et infinitus. Nam effec-
    tus semper sequitur magnitudinem causae efficientis.”
    For surveys of the tendency to overlook wrath in Luther, see Lennart
    Pinomaa, Der Zorn Gottes in der Theologie Luthers (Helsinki: Druckerei-
    A.G. Der Dinnischen Literaturgesellschaft, 1938), pp. 7–11.
    89. Serv. Arb., WA18:633, 7ff./ LW33:62–63: “Ut ergo fidei locus sit, opus
    est, ut omnia quae creduntur, absconduntur … Sic aeternam suam clem-
    ntiam et misericordiam abscondit sub aeterna ira, Iustitiam sub iniqui-
    tate. Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse clementem, qui
    tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat …”
    Cf. Serv.arb., WA18:685, 14ff./LW33:139–140; Ibid., WA18:689f.,18ff./
    LW33:145–146; Gen., WA43:458, 31/ LW543–44; Serv. Arb.,
    WA18:633,7ff./ LW33:62–63.
    90. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:746f., 38/ LW35:56; Serm.Tauf., WA2;730f., 35/
    LW35:34.
    91. Rom., WA56:292f., 32ff./ LW25:383: “Et universaliter omnis nos-
    tra affirmatio boni cuiuscunque sub negatione eiusdem, Vt [sic “Ut”]
    fides habeat in Deo, Qui Est Negatiua Essentia et bonitos et Sapientia et
    Iustitia Nec potest possideri aut attingi nisi negates omnibus affirmatiuis
    nostras.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:375, 6/ LW25:365; Ibid., WA56:380, 33/
    LW25:370; Ibid., WA56:392, 28/ LW25:382–383.
    92. Rom., WA56:180, 14/ LW25:161; Ibid., WA56:402, 13/ LW25:392.
    93. Ibid., WA56:402, 16/ LW25:392: “Immo sepius et precipue nostro
    tempore suscitat diabolum Vt [sic “Ut”] suos electos in horrenda pec-
    catat prosternat et dominetur in eis diu, Vel saltem vt [sic “ut”] eorum
    bona proposita semper Impediat et contraria facient quam volunt, vt [sic
    “ut”] sicetiam palpare possint, Quia ipsi non sunt, qui bene velint aut
    currant.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:179, 27/ LW25:160; 90.Ps., WA40III :516f., 13ff./
    LW13:96–97; Ibid., WA40III :584., 24/ LW13:135.
    94. Rom., WA56:381, 2/ LW25:370.
    95. Tess.Con., WA6:128, 5/ LW42:156–157.
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  93

    96. Gen., WA42:561, 1/ LW3:17.


    97. Ibid., WA43:460, 26/ LW5:46: “Si credus in Deum revelatum, et recipis
    verbum eius, paulatim etiam absconditum Deum revelabit. Quia, ‘qui
    me videt, videt et partem.’ Ioannis 14, capite. Qui filium reiicit, amittit
    cum revelato DEO etiam non revelatum. Si autem firma fide revelato
    Deo adhaeseris, ita ut cor tuum sic sentiat te non amissurum Christum,
    etiamsi omnibus spoliatus fueris: tum certissime praedestinatus es, et
    absconditum Deum intelliges: imo iam de present intelligis.”
    98. Ibid., WA44:110, 23/ LW6:148: “Sed ferenda ista sunt, et sic statuen-
    dum est: Deus est, qui absconditus est. Hoc est eius proprium. Revera
    est absconditus, et tamen non est absconditus. Caro enim obstat,
    quo minus eum intueri possimus … Ideo videtur Deus nos pror-
    sus deserere et abiicere. Quia est absconditus nobis, et nos una cum
    ipso abscondimur. In fide autem, in verbo, in Sacramentis revelatur et
    conspicitur.”
    99. Pred. (1533–1534), WA37:589, 20ff.; cf. Ps.68, WA8:8, 9/ LW13:6–7;
    Ps.51, WA40II: 342f., 37ff./ LW12:322f.; Fast. (1525), WA17II:66,
    18/ CS1/2:63.
    100. Gen., WA42:293, 6/ LW2:44: “ … Sed mihi simplicius esse videtur,
    quod scilicet Scriptura sancta loquitur secundum cogitationem eorum
    hominum, qui sunt in minsterio. Quod igitur Moses dicit Deumvidere
    et poenitere, haec vere fiunt in cordibus eorum qui ministerium, verbi
    habent.”
    101. Gal. (1535), WA40II: 317, 34/ LW12:305; Ibid., WA40II: 342, 16/
    LW12:322.
    102. 2Ps., WA40II:288f., 26ff./ LW12:75: “Non enim vult Spiritssanctus nos
    sic timere, ut in timore absorpti desperemus … Hoc autem vult, ut et
    timeas atque ita effugias superbiam seu presimptionem, et exultes, ut
    effugias desperationem … qui Deum timent, non ut tyrannum sed, sicut
    liberi parentem, eum reverential …”
    103. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:98, 17/ LW22:375: “Nun stictt das in aller men-
    schen hertzen, das Gott zorne und ein zorniger Richter sey uber die
    Sunde, wie wir den seinen zorn in die welt sehen …”
    Cf. Jon., WA19:210, 5/ LW19:210; Gen., WA44:546, 30/ LW7:
    332–333.
    104. Jes. (1527–1530), WA312:279, 6/ LW17:24: “Nam iratum opinai deum
    est nullum deum credere.”
    105. Ibid., WA312:282, 10 / LW17:28: “Deique totum se mihi effundet …”
    106. Matt.5–7, WA32:328f., 37/ LW21:37: “Denn wer in fur zornig ansihet,
    der sihet in nicht recht, sondern nur ein furhang und decke ja ein finster
    wolcke fur sein angesich gezogen.”
    94  M. Ellingsen

    Cf. Ps.51, WA40II:417, 18/ LW12:374; Ps., WA31I:147f., 14ff./ LW14:


    84f.
    107. Gen., WA43:200f.,25ff./ LW4:91–95; Fast.(1525), WA17II:13, 14/ CS4:17;
    Ps.68, WA8:7,13/LW13:7; Ps., WA31I:169f., 32ff./ LW14:94; Jes. (1527–
    1530), WA31II:118, 7/ LW16:167.
    108. Magn., WA7:546f., 32ff. / LW21:299.
    109. Gal. (1535), WA40I: 488, 15ff./ LW26:314.
    110. Kl.Proph., W13:101, 18/ LW18:98; cf. Krichpost.G., W211:477, 39/ CS1/2:69;
    Gen., WA42:561, 1/ LW3:17.
    111. Wort., WA23:133, 8/ LW37:57–58; cf. Gen., WA42:40, 32/ LW1:
    53–54.
    112. Jon., WA19:219, 31/ LW19:68: “Er ist allenthalben gegen wertig
    ym tod, ynn der hellen, mitten unter den feinden, ya auch ynn yhrem
    hertzen. Denn er hats alles gemacht und regieret es auch alles, das es
    mus thun was er wil.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA19:197, 18/ LW19:44; Serv.arb., WA18:623, 14/ LW33:47.
    113. Ab.Chr., WA26:339, 34/ LW37:228: “ … sondern ein ubernatürlich
    unerforschlich wesen, das zu gleich, ynn eym iglichen fornlin gantz und
    gar und dennoch ynn allen und uber allen und ausser allen Creaturen
    sey …”
    Cf. Wort., WA23:133, 26/ LW37:57–58.
    114. Wort., WA23:135, 5/ LW37:58: “ … das nichts gegenwertigers noch
    ynnerlichers sein kan ynn allen creaturn, den Gott selbs mit seiner
    gewallt …”
    115. Ab.Chr., WA26:339, 39/ LW37:228.
    116. Ibid., WA26:339, 25/ LW37:227–228.
    117. Serv.arb., WA18:621, 16/ LW33:45: “Iam videamus tationes consilii
    tui, Deum, esse secundum naturam in antro scarabei vel etiam cloaca
    (quod tu veris dicere et aarguins Sophistas ita garrire) non minus quam
    in coelo …”
    118. Wort., WA23:137, 33/ LW37:60.
    119. Heb., WA57III:162, 2/ LW29:165.
    120. Magn., WA7:574,10/ LW21:328; Serv.arb., WA18:18:712,19/ LW33:180.
    121. Kirchpost.G., W211:940, 10/ CS2/1:190; cf. Serv.arb., WA18:718, 28/
    LW33:189; Magn., WA7:574, 27/ LW21:328.
    122. Gal. (1535), WA40I:545, 26/ LW26:356.
    123. Jon., WA19:197, 18/ LW19:44; cf. Ibid., WA19:219, 31/ LW19:68;
    Ab.Chr., WA26:329, 27/ LW37:216.
    124. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:72,22/LW22:346; Wein.,WA10I/1:188, 6/ LW52:46.
    125. Ps.110, WA41:98f., 31/ LW13:243: “ … das eben dises unsers fleisches
    und bluts (das ist: der menschlichen natur) ein stücke droben im himel
    Zur rechten Gottes … Denn das ist die unausprechlich grosse herrligkeit
    3  GOD AND TRINITY  95

    und ehre des menschlichen geschlechts, das es so hoch erhaben wird,


    nicht schlecht gen himel unter die heiligen Engel oder Ertzengel,
    welches doch trefflich grosse Fürsten und Herren sind, sondern schlecht
    Gotte selbs gleich gestzt …”
    126. Gen., WA42:10, 11/ LW1:11–12.
    127. Ab.Chr., WA26:505, 38/ LW37:366.
    128. Letz.Wort., WA54:58, 19ff./ LW15:303: “Der Son ein unterschiedliche
    Persone ist vom Vater in derselben einigen Vaterlichen Gottheit, Sein
    unterscheid ist, das er Son ist, und die Gottheit nicht von sich selbs,
    noch von jemand, sondern allein vom Vater hat, als ewighlich vom Vater
    geborn. Der Heilige geist … die Gottheit nicht von sich selbes noch von
    jemand hat, sondern beide vom Vater und Sone zu gleich und das alles
    von ewigkeit in ewigkeit.”
    129.  Ab.Chr., WA26:505,29/LW37:365f.; Letz.Wort., WA54:64,3/ LW15:
    309–310.
    130. Gen., WA42:38, 2/ LW1:50.
    131.  Ibid., WA42:43, 19/ LW1:60.
    132. Dr. Sym., WA50:275f., 38/ LW34:219.
    133. Kirchpost.G., W21:156f., 6/ CS1/1:175–176.
    134.  Ev.Jn.16, WA46:59, 31/LW24:364–365; Ev.Joh., 1–2, WA46:543f.,
    6ff./ LW22:8–9.
    135. Krichpost.G., W211:1098.14/ CS2/1:354–355.
    136. Ab.Chr., WA26:505f., 29ff./ LW37:366.
    137. Ev.Jn.14–15, WA45:519, 30/ LW24:64.
    138. Kirchpost.E., W212:648.6/ CS4/2.
    CHAPTER 4

    Christology

    Luther was clearly a Christocentric theologian. In fact, when deal-


    ing with Christian life issues or addressing allegations of sloth against
    Lutherans and challenges to their catholicity, Luther sometimes spoke
    of Christology or the Work of Christ, not Justification, as the heart of
    Christian faith. In a sermon he wrote,

    Therefore, this Gospel deals with the great article about Christ, that we
    should receive Him, kiss and embrace Him, cling to Him, never allow
    ourselves to be from Him nor Him from us. This is the chief article of
    Christian doctrine, and on it rests our salvation.1

    In a context about Christian living Luther claims that the chief article of
    faith is the Resurrection of Christ.2 The article of faith that Christ is our
    Lord is said to be what makes us Christian.3 He is the righteousness of
    God and the righteousness of faith.4
    Luther refers to Christ as like a mother-hen, giving her chicks all
    she has.5 He is said to deal with us in a fatherly way.6 According to the
    Reformer, He is closer than a closest friend.7 Luther also speaks of the
    profound love Christ has for us.8 He is also portrayed as gentle.9 Christ
    is said to draw all in a kindly manner.10 Luther adds,

    Therefore, if you believe in Christ, you must not flee from Him or be
    frightened; for here you perceive and that His whole heart, mind, or

    © The Author(s) 2017 97


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_4
    98  M. Ellingsen

    thinking are intent only rescuing you from all that assails and oppresses
    you and on placing you with Christ over everything.11

    Behold, if we could portray His [Christ’s] heart and press it into our own
    heart, that He has such a gushing desire, anxiety, and longing for us, then
    we could not dread or fear Him, but would joyfully run up to Him and
    abide in Him alone …12

    He further elaborates on the love our Lord has for us:

    The first thing you see in this person Christ is that He does not look at
    anyone with a sour face, treat anyone in an unfriendly manner, or frighten
    and drive anyone away from Him; He invites and draws all to Him in the
    kindliest manner, both with His words and with His bearing.13

    He is found everywhere, Luther contends, no matter our mood. “For


    He holds in His hands everything.”

    Therefore, so long as He dwells in my heart, I have courage where I go, I


    cannot be lost. I dwell where Christ my Lord dwells.14

    While seeking to offer consolation, Luther notes that Christ is a Priest


    more than a Judge.15 He warns against making Him a lawgiver who
    teaches us how to live, a point most relevant in light of the role Christ
    plays as an Example for Luther at a number of points.16 He is no law-
    giver, not a judge.17
    But to have Christ is no longer to be under the Law, Luther con-
    tends.18 Christ does not want to teach us how to lead a good life, but
    to live and rule in us.19 He does not want to be known as a miracle
    worker. The Reformer does speak of Christ as an Example when exhort-
    ing the Christian life.20 He says that Christ is both Gift and Example, but
    that the latter should only be taught in times of rejoicing, but without
    temptation (see chapter on Sanctification for further elaboration of this
    point).21
    To be sure, the Reformer in turn adds that Christ’s role as Example
    was “the least important aspect of Christ.”22 We are first to accept Him
    as Gift.23 Likewise to regard Christ as Teacher apprehended through rea-
    son is of no avail, the Reformer claims, as He could not make us alive.24
    The Reformer compellingly describes the awesomeness of the
    Incarnation:
    4 CHRISTOLOGY  99

    Reason stumbles at this article when it tries to measure and comprehend it


    with its wisdom … Here one must believe, not see, measure, or compre-
    hend.25

    Luther reminds us that Christ is like us in every way, but without


    Original Sin.26 He also provides a helpful way of understanding the
    importance of Christ’s humanity:

    That is why we should learn our lesson well and earnestly ponder the great
    honor that has been bestowed on us by Christ’s becoming a human being.
    For it is such a great honor, that even if one were an angel, you would do
    well to wish that you were a human being, so that you could boast. My
    own flesh and blood is greater than all the angels.27

    As he puts it in one of his letters:

    Whoever wishes to think about or to meditate on God in a way which


    will lead to salvation must subordinate everything else to the humanity of
    Christ.28

    Human though He be, the Majesty of God is still revealed in Christ.29


    Indeed, the entire divinity is within the Word.30 The essence of God is
    given in His Word.31 We can think of God only in Christ.32 With refer-
    ence to Christ Luther notes, while explicating the logic of faith in dia-
    logue with Zwingli, that “apart from this Man there is no God.”33 In
    line with His Theology of the Cross, the Reformer notes while preaching
    that God cannot be found except in Christ.34
    Though Christ the hidden, God becomes revealed.35 In Him all the
    treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden.36 His human nature
    is said to bring entrance to God’s idly paternal heart.37 Christ is corre-
    spondingly identified as “the mirror of God’s fatherly heart.”38
    God’s essence is said to be fully in the Son.39 He is totally revealed in
    Christ.40 The whole fullness of God dwells in Christ.41 Thus in Christ
    we peer into the depths of God’s Fatherly heart and inexhaustible good-
    ness.42 Luther’s own words are instructive at this point:

    It is because of His [Christ’s] humanity and His Incarnation that Christ


    becomes sweet to us, and through Him God becomes sweet to us. Let
    us therefore begin to ascent step by step from Christ’s crying in His
    100  M. Ellingsen

    swaddling clothes up to His Passion. Then we shall easily know God. I am


    saying this [extolling Christ’s humanity] so that you do not begin to con-
    template God from the top. But start with the weak elements.43

    Yes, but what the Lord God has in mind is this; Man, you ought to accept
    Christ just as God sends Him, not as you want Him to be.44

    The Son is said to reveal God’s Face.45 God’s face is His graciousness
    as our Father.46 Luther connects the Will of Christ with the Will of the
    Father.47 Only through Christ, he adds, do we know God hidden in suf-
    fering.48 This overcomes all our despair (Anfechtung).49
    Christ gives courage: The faithful dwell where Christ dwells.50 He is
    a “poison against the Law, sin, and death, and simultaneously a remedy
    to regain liberty, righteousness, and eternal life.”51 He is a helper and
    rescuer from death.52 He changes the heart and reason, without breaking
    down anything in outward affairs.53 Christ cleanses our hearts, putting
    away our impurity and making us pure.54 The Church and the faithful
    rest on Christ’s shoulders. All our sins lie there.55

    Christ’s Two Natures


    In line with his Credal commitments and fidelity to Tradition Luther
    affirms the doctrine of Christ’s Two Natures. He speaks of the Creator
    becoming a creature.56 We need to assert this, Luther claims, for if God
    is not involved and does not add His weight to the scale, or weight sinks
    the balance of the ground.57 If God is not involved in Christ’s Work we
    will not be saved.
    The Reformer speaks of Christ emptying Himself in Jesus. He speaks
    of it in the sense that a prince might empty himself of his power and con-
    cern himself with his subjects’ needs.58 He provides a helpful image for
    portraying the union of the Two Natures in Christ:

    For humanity and divinity are not one natural single being; but in this one
    indivisible Person they are so unified that one cannot be separated from
    the other; just as sugar water is still water, but the sugar is blended with
    the water that the two cannot be separated even though they are distinct
    constituents … Just as you find real sugar in sugar water, so the divinity
    and humanity of Christ form one cake.59
    4 CHRISTOLOGY  101

    Christ’s divinity and His humanity are so united more intimately than
    body and soul.60 Luther also spoke of the union of the Two Natures as
    akin to a glowing iron.61 The Reformer provides us, as he did in the case
    of the Trinity, with some helpful images for making sense of Christology
    as a mystery of the faith.

    The Influence of Ancient Africa


    As we shall observe throughout the book, Luther was influenced by sev-
    eral theological commitments of ancient North Africa. This is readily
    apparent in his endorsement of the communicatio idiomatuum, typical of
    the Alexandrian School of theology in the ancient world. This commit-
    ment entails that the idioms of Christ (the characteristics of each Nature)
    can be attributed to the other. Whatever you say of Jesus humanity you
    can say of His divinity.62 Thus it follows that Luther teaches that what
    Christ died and suffers, essentially God does too.63
    Luther also describes Christ’s humanity as the “tool and house of the
    deity.”64 His human nature is said to share the properties of the divine
    nature—omnipresence.65 And Mary is said to be Mother of God.66

    More on Mariology
    Regarding Mariology, Luther was open to the Perpetual Virginity of
    Mary.67 He clearly affirms this even in later sermons.68 He even did not
    deny the Immaculate Conception with Christian life issues at stake.69 But
    he contended that this is not in Scripture.70
    Luther once claimed when merely explicating texts that Mary was
    born in sin.71 We will have more to say about Mary’s and the role of the
    saints in prayer later in Chap. 10. Luther rejects the Assumption of Mary,
    saying it is papist.72 In another case, he says that we do not know how
    Mary got to heaven.73

    An Inconsistent Alexandrian
    At one point in his career Luther seems to have denied the commun-
    ion of idioms, while still endorsing the ubiquity of Christ’s Body. But
    this occurs in his Notes on Peter Lombard’s Sentences, as he observes
    that the Magisterium has not understood that its sanction authorizes this
    position.74 However, even if this denial of the Alexandrian position in
    102  M. Ellingsen

    its context as a mere observation of what seems unwittingly entailed by


    Church teaching is accurate, we must still observe that when speaking of
    examples of faith or engaging in polemics with unbridled reason, Luther
    seems to have embraced the alternative Antiochene Christology in claim-
    ing that Christ’s divine nature did not die.75 God does not suffer, he
    asserted in such contexts.76
    Something like an Antiochene Christology appears when Luther
    teaches that the Spirit of God did not move Christ equally every time.77
    The indwelling of the Logos becomes more perfect in the course of ethi-
    cal development, Luther contended.78 Once when dialoguing with critics
    of the strangeness Christ, contending that only Christians know Jesus,
    Luther also asserted that the Father did not suffer.79
    On the other hand, while explicating faith or critiquing Zwingli he
    contended that God suffered and died in Christ’s death.80 As Christ
    suffered, God suffered and died, the first Reformer contended.81 God
    is said to be afflicted when we are afflicted.82 Likewise Christ is said
    to bring our human nature “to the level of direct equality with God,”
    bringing it into the Godhead.83

    Why It Matters
    Luther nicely summarizes an answer to the question posed in this sec-
    tion. Christ became our sin, the Reformer asserts, so that His righteous-
    ness might be ours.84 Christ is also said to be the greatest of all sinners (a
    point that links with the Reformer’s discussion of Christian life as brave
    sinning):

    And all the proponents saw this, that Christ was to become the greatest
    thief, murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc. there has
    ever been anywhere in the world.85

    Christ does not want to be known as a miracle worker, Luther


    notes.86 In His glorification we have a continuous reality, where He now
    exercises dominion, not limited as it was when He dwelt on earth in visi-
    ble form. Now He can be in touch with and reign over all. Luther speaks
    of this Lordship as active and energetic.87
    In this connection, as already noted, Luther asserts that in Christ,
    our human nature sits in heaven with God, almost to the level of direct
    4 CHRISTOLOGY  103

    equality with God Himself.88 Deification is suggested here, as Luther


    deals with how we are to believe—a Christian life concern.
    In his final sermon, the Reformer nicely has Christ Himself express
    why He makes things better for the faithful:

    If things go badly, I will give you the courage even to laugh about it; and if
    even though you walk on fiery coals, the torment shall nevertheless … not
    be so bad, and you will rather feel that you are walking on roses. I will give
    you the heart to laugh …89

    Luther writes elsewhere:

    … He [Christ] does not come with a great voice, with storm and commo-
    tion, but very orderly; not changing nor breaking anything in the outward
    affairs of human life … but He illumines and changes for the better his
    heart and reason.90

    Luther profoundly summarizes Christ’s significance for us:

    But, as Christ said earlier, it all depends on whether you feel and find that
    you love this man [Jesus]. For if you truly believe this, then love will be
    there, and your heart will be moved … Should I not thank, praise, honor
    and serve Him with my life and my goods? If not, I should be ashamed
    that I am a human being. Therefore Christ declares, “Sincere love for me
    is part of a true Christian.”91

    Notes
    1. Hspost., W213II:1420f.14/ CS5:82: “Also handelt dies Euangelium den
    hohen Artikel von Christo, dass wir annehmen sollen ihn füssen und her-
    zen, uns an ihn hängen, uns von ihm nicht reissen, noch ihn uns nehmen
    lassen. Das ist das Hauptstück christlicher Lehre und darauf steht der
    Grund unserer Seligkeit.”
    Cf. Schmal.Art., I.II, WA50:198f., 23ff./ BC301.1ff. (not surprisingly
    includes reference to the doctrine of Justification since there is a concern in
    this text with the logic of faith as well as concern for practice of the Christian
    life); Magn., WA7:599f., 32ff./ LW21:354; Gal. (1535), WA40I:33,7/ LW27:
    145; Dr. Sym., WA50:226, 22/ LW34:207; Rom., WA56:371, 17/ LW25:
    361; 1 Pet., WA12:259, 8/ LW30:3; TR (1532), WATR2:242, 1; Men.,
    WA10II:73, 15/ LW35:132; Pred. (1538), WA46:414, 14.
    104  M. Ellingsen

    2. 1 Pet., WA12:268, 17/ LW30:12.


    3. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:61, 10/ LW22:334.
    4. Dict.Ps., WA3:457f., 38ff./ LW 10:401–402; Gal. (1535), WA40I:229,
    31/ LW26:130.
    5. Wein., WA10I/1:284, 9/ CS1/1:234–235; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:522, 11/
    LW23:325.
    6. Hspost., W213II:1994.16/ CS6:58–59.
    7. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:235, 2/ LW23:150; TR(1532), WATR2:67, 32/ LW54:143.
    8. Hspost., W213II:1813f.24/ CS5:427.
    9.  Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:310f., 32ff./ LW17:64; Fest., WA17II:396,
    15/ LW51:131.
    10. Ev.Joh, 6–8, WA33:87, 20/ LW23:59.
    11. Pred. (1532), WA36:590, 20/ LW28:139–140: “Darumb darfftu ja nicht
    fur ym fliehan noch erschrecken, so du an Christum gleubt, Denn hie
    hörest und fihestu, das er kein ander hertz und sinn odder gedancken hat,
    denn dich dich aus allem, so dich anfichtet und drucket, zu retten und
    mit Christo uber alles zu setzen …”.
    12. Kirchpost.G., W211:1261.44/ CS2/2:86–87: “Siehe, wenn wir könnten
    also sein Herz malen und in unser Herz drücken, das ser solche ausge-
    schüttete Begiende, Angst und Verlangen nach uns hat; so könnten wir
    uns ja nicht vor ihm entsetzen noch fürchten, sondern würden fröhlich
    zu ihm lauten und bei ihm allein bleiben ….”.
    13. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:515f., 37ff./ lW24:60: “Denn and dieser person
    Christ siheftu erstlich, das er niemand faur ansihet noch un frendlich
    handelt, oder schrecket und von sich jagt, Sondern jderman beide, mit
    worten und geberden auffs freundlichkeit zu sich locket und reitzet.”
    14. Kirchpost.E., W212:887.46/ CS4/2:279: “Darum wenn er in meinem
    Herzen wohnt, so bleibt der Muth stehen; wo ich hinkomme und fahre,
    kann ich nicht verloren werden. Denn wo Christus, mein Herr bleibt, da
    bleibe ich auch.”
    15. Heb., WA57III:165, 9/ LW29:167.
    16. Antinom.(3), WA39I:535, 7.
    17. Gal. (1535) WA40I: 298, 19/ LW26:178; Kl.Ant., WA38;148, 12; Pred.
    (1535/1536), WA41:653, 41; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:482, 16/ LW24:24;
    Matt.18–24, WA47:590, 1.
    18. Hspost., W213II:2631.14/ CS7:251.
    19. Gal.(1535), WA40I:562f., 26ff./ LW26:368; Ibid., WA40I:568f., 25ff./
    LW26:372f. Also see n.16, above.
    20. Serm.Beriet., WA2:691f., 23ff./ LW42:107–108; Rom., WA56:136, 12/
    LW25:119; Ibid., WA56:137, 19/ LW25:120; Tess.Con., WA6:114, 16/
    LW42:135–136; Disp.just., WA2:148, 32/ LW31:302.
    4 CHRISTOLOGY  105

    21.  Gal. (1535), WA40II:42,29/LW27:34; Kl.unt., WA10I/1:11,1/ LW35:


    119; cf. Kl.unt., WA10I/1:11, 12/ LW35:119.
    22. Br.Schwar., WA15:396, 16: “ … wie Christus eyn exempel sey, wilchs das
    geringst stuck an Christo ist …”
    Cf. Kl.unt., WA10I/1:8f, 18ff./ LW35:117.
    23. Kl.unt., WA10I/1:11, 12/ LW35:119.
    24. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:259, 21/ LW23:165.
    25. Pred. (1540/1545), WA49:248f, 31ff.: “Die Vernunfft stosset sich an
    diesem Artikel, wenn sie in messen und fassen wil mit yrer flugheit … es
    heisset gegleubet, nicht gesehen, gemessen oder gegriffen …”.
    26. Hspost., W213II:2659.8/ CS7:277.
    27. Ibid., WA213II:1483.12/ CS5:137: “Darum sollen wir wohl lernen und
    mit Ernst bedenken, erstlich zu was Ehren wir sind gekommen in dem,
    dass Christus ist Mensch geworden. Denn es ist ein solche Ehre, dass
    wenn einer ein Engel ware, wünschen möchte rühmen: Mein Fleisch und
    Blut fitzt über alle Engel …”.
    28. Br (1519), WABR1:329, 50: “ …quicunque velit salubriter de Deo cogi-
    tare aut speculari, prorsus omnia postponat praeter humanitatem Christi.”
    Cf. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:154f., 37ff./ LW23:102.
    29. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA47:210,9/LW22:504; Heb., WA57III:99f.,1ff./ LW29:111.
    30. Wein., WA10I/1:188,7f./LW52:46; Ibid., WA10I/1:186,15f./ LW52:46/
    LW52:45.
    31. Kirchpost. (1522), WA10I/1:188, 61/ LW52:42.
    32. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:517, 4/ LW24:61–62; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:189, 27/
    LW23:123.
    33. Ab.Chr., WA26:332, 19/ LW37:218; “ … und ausser diesem menschen
    kein Gott ist …” Cf. Ps., WA31I:63, 21.
    34.  Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:179f., 40ff./ LW23:117; Hspost., W213II:2586.3/
    CS7:210.
    35. Gen., WA43:460, 29/ LW5:46.
    36. Gal. (1535), WA40I:79, 3/ LW26:30.
    37.  Leid.Christ., WA2:140f.,35ff./LW42:13; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:674, 2/
    LW22:158; BR (1519), WABR1:329,50ff.
    Cf. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:589, 31/ LW24:141; Kl.Kat., II.2. WA30I:295,
    14/ BC 355.4.
    38. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:192,3/BC:439f.65; cf. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:514,17/
    LW24:59; Pred. (1526), WA20:228,9; Fast., WA17II:244, 27; Serm.heil.
    Leid., WA2:140, 30/ LW42:13.
    39. Heb., WA57III:99f., 12ff./ LW29:111.
    40. Wein., 10I/1:188, 6/ LW52:46.
    41. Gen., WA43:583, 7/ LW5:224; Heb., WA57III:99, 3/ LW29:111; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:79, 3/LW26:30.
    106  M. Ellingsen

    42. Pred.(1526), WA20:228, 12.


    43. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II: 516, 24/ LW17:331: “Nam ex humanitate
    Christi et eius incarnacione duleescit nobis Christus et per hunc deus
    nobis duleescit. Ita incipiamus ascendere gradatim ex vagitu Christi in
    incunabulis usque ad passionem. Deinde facile deum agnoscemus. Haec
    ideo loquor, ne in summo incipiatis deum considerare, sed ab infirmis
    incipite.”
    Cf. BR (1519), WABR1:329, 50; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:157, 3/ LW23:103.
    44. Hspost., W213II:1419.11/ CS5:81: “Ja, da hat unser Herr Gott Lust zu:
    hinter sich, meine ich. Es heist: Lieber Mensch, du sollst Christum also
    annehmen, wie ihn Gott sendet, nicht, wie du ihn haben willst.”
    45. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:673, 8/ LW22:157.
    46. Matt.5–7, WA43:329, 1/ LW21:37.
    47. Joh., 6–8, WA23:90f.,41ff./ LW23:61; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:589, 31/ LW24:
    141.
    48. Disp. Heid., WA1:362, 23/ LW31:53.
    49. Kirchpost.G., W211:728.9/ CS1/2:357; Pred. (1525), WA17I:42, 24ff./
    LW51:128.
    50. Kirchpost.E., W212:887.46/ CS4/2:279.
    51. Gal. (1535, WA40I:278, 28/ LW26:163: “ Sic Christus simul est vene-
    num contra legem peccatum et morten et remedium pro libertate, iustitia
    et vita aeterna.”
    52. Hspost., W213II:2540.1/ CS7:177.
    53. Kirchpost.G., W211:752f.13/ CS1/2:384.
    54. Kirchpost.E., W212:120.42/ CS3/2:135.
    55. Hspost., W213II:2591f.16/ CS7:226–227.
    56. Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:43f., 39ff.
    57. Konz., WA50:590, 1/ LW41:103–104; cf. Pred. (1522), WA10III:74, 1;
    Fast., WA17II:236, 12.
    58. Wellt. Uber., WA11:273, 14/ LW45:120.
    59. Ev.Joh.6–8., WA33:232, 4/ LW23:148–149: “Denn die Menscheit und
    Gottheit ist wol nicht ein näturlich einigs wesen, dennoch sind sie in
    der einigen und unzertreulichen Person, das man sie nicht von einander
    scheiden kan. Gleich wie Zuckerwasser ist wasser, aber also vermenget
    mit dem Zucker, das niemand isst kan Zucker und wasser voneinander
    scheiden, obs wol fur sich zweierley naturen sind … gleich wie im
    Zuckerwassert du den waren Zucker befindet, also wird aus der Gottheit
    und Menscheit des Herr Iesus auck in ein Kucher.”
    60. Ab.Chr., WA26:340, 22/ LW37:229; Ibid., WA26:333, 11/ LW37:219; Disp.Christ.,
    WA39II: 114,14; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:558,14/ LW24:106–107; Ev.Joh.3–4,
    WA47:56, 10/ LW22:328.
    4 CHRISTOLOGY  107

    61. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:191, 4/ LW23:123–124; Aus.Joh., WA49:250; Gal.


    (1535), WA40I:417, 17/ LW26:266.
    62. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:72,24/ LW22:346; Konz., WA50:589,21/ LW41:103;
    Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:557,7/ LW24:105–106; Ibid., WA45:556,3/ LW24:1
    04;1Tim., WA26:38,18/ LW28:265; Promodisp. Fab., WA39II:280,16; Disp.
    Christ., WA39II:93, 4; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:76f., 33ff./ LW22:351; Ess.53, WA40III:
    704, 5; Pred. (1537), WA45:300, 37ff.; Letz.Wort., WA54:92, 17/ LW15:343.
    There is an obvious indebtedness to the ancient Alexandrian School
    of Christology, though nowhere did I find Luther to invoke Cyril of
    Alexandria. The Reformer’s dependence on Athanasian Christology has
    been argued by Wilhelm Maurer, “Die Einheit der Theologie Luthers,”
    Kirche und Geschichte. Gesammelte Aufsatze (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
    & Ruprecht, 1970), 1:11–21. For references to the comunicatio idi-
    omatum in the writings of ancient African theology, see Athanasius, Four
    Discourses Against the Arians (ca.359), III.XXVI.33; Cyril of Alexandria,
    Epistola XVII (430).
    63. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:605, 21/ LW30:223; Ev.Joh.16–20, WA28:486, 24; Pred.
    (1533–1536), WA41:481, 3; Wein., WA10I/1:150, 22.
    64. Wein, WA10I/1:447, 12: “ …gewissen eyn handgetzeug und hawss der
    gottheit …”.
    65. Wort., WA23:137f.,8ff./LW37:59ff.; Ab.Chr., WA26:321,19/ LW37:210.
    66. Magn., WA7:555,33/ LW21:308; Ibid., WA7:558,10/ LW21:311; Ibid.,
    WA7:568f.,2ff./ LW21:322f.; Ibid., WA7:573f.,19ff./ LW21:326f.;
    Jud., WA11:314, 2/ LW45:199.
    67. Jud., WA11:319f., 32ff./ LW45:205–206.
    68. Pred. (1540/1545), WA49:174, 49; Ibid., WA49:182, 6.
    69. Magn., WA7:573, 4/ LW21:327; Fast., WA17II:288, 5 (here he insists
    that Mary was not born in sin).
    70. Fast. (1525), WA17II:280, 19.
    71. Pred (1540/1545), WA49:173, 9.
    72. Haus., WA52:681, 6.
    73. Pred. (1527), WA10III:269, 18.
    74. Hndb.Sent., WA9:88, 28ff.
    75. Wein., WA10I/1:416, 14/ CS1/1:284.
    76. Pred. (1525), WA17I:72, 12.
    77. Wein., WA10I/1:446f., 7ff./ CS1/1:303–304.
    78. Ibid., WA10I/1:447, 11/ CS1/1:306.
    79. Ev.Joh.14–15,WA45:550, 36/ LW24:99.
    80. Ab.Chr., WA26:319, 33/ LW37:209–210; Letz. Wort., WA54:92, 13/
    LW15:343; 2.Ps., WA5:50, 9/ LW14:316; Konz., WA50: 589, 26/
    LW41:103; Ess.53, WA40III:721, 5.
    108  M. Ellingsen

    81. Ab.Chr., WA26:321, 19/ LW37:310; Promodisp.Fab., WA39II:280, 18;


    Disp.Christ., WA39II:121, 8.
    82. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:538, 17/ LW17:358.
    83. Ps.101, WA41:98f., 34ff./ LW13:243: “Denn das ist die unasuprechlich grosse
    herrligkeit und ehre des menschichen geschlechts, das es so hoch erhaben wird
    nicht schlecht gen himel under die heiligen Engel oder Ertzengel, welches
    doch trefflich grosse Fürsten und Herren sind, sondern schlecht Gotte selbs
    gleich gesetz.”
    84. 2.Ps., WA5:607, 32; Ibid., WA5:605, 11; cf. Gal.(1519), WA2:534, 34/
    LW27:288.
    85. Gal. (1535), WA40I:433f., 26ff./ LW26:277: “Et hoc viderunt omnes
    Prophetae, quod Christus futurus esset omnium maximus latro homicida,
    adulter, fur, sacrilegus, blasphemus, etc., quo nullus maior unquam in
    mundo fuerit …”.
    86. TR (1533), WATR1:294f., 24ff./ LW54:111–112.
    87. Kirchpost.G., W2:11:940.23/ CS2/1:190–191; Kirchpost.E., W2:12:886.46/
    CS4/2:279.
    88. Ps.101, WA51:98f.,34ff./ LW13:243; cf. Serm.heil.Leid, WA2:140f., 27ff./
    LW42:13.
    89. Pred. (1546), WA51:194, 12/ LW51:392: “Gehets euch ubel, so wil
    ich euch den mut geben, das ir noch dazu lachen solt, und sol euch die
    warter nicht so gros sein, der Teufel nicht so böse, wenn ir auch auff
    fewrigen Nolen gienget, so sols euch düncken, als gienget ir auff Rosen,
    Ich wil euch das hertz geben das ir lachen solt …”.
    90. Kirchpost.G., W2:11:752f.13/ CS1/2:384: “ … da kommt er nicht mit
    Beche und Boltern, Stürmen und Rumoren; sondern sein säuberlich und
    gemach fährt verrückt, bricht und zerstört nichts in äusserlichem und
    menschlichem Leben … sondern das Herz und Verstand erleuchtet und
    bessert.”
    91. Ev. Joh.14–15, WA45:594f., 29ff./ LW24:146: “Es ligt aber alles daran
    ob du solchs bey dir fülest und findest (wie er droben auch gesagt hat),
    das du diesen man lieb habest, Denn wo ir solchs warhafftig gleubet, so
    wird auch die Liebe da sein, und werdet fülen ewer hertz also gesinnet …
    Solt ich dem in nicht widerumb lieben dancken und loben, dienen und
    ehren mit leib und gut? Wolt ich doch ehe wüindschen, das ich kein
    mensch geboren were.
    Darumb (sagt er) gehoret zum rechtschaffen Christen, das er Mich von
    hertzen lieb habe …”.
    CHAPTER 5

    The Holy Spirit

    Contrary to popular consensus Luther posited a strong doctrine of the


    Holy Spirit. He makes a distinction between the Spirit as Person (the
    Spirit in His divine Nature) and the Spirit as He is given to us (His
    actions). We focus first on the Spirit’s actions.1
    To be sure, Luther was very critical of the Enthusiasts/Spiritualists of
    his day (Karlstadt, and Zwickau Prophets, and Thomas Muntzer). What
    concerned him was that they compromised the primacy of God’s Word
    and grace. Luther insisted that the Spirit claimed by these Reformers
    needed to be tested by the Word. As he put it, they had devoured the
    Holy Spirit, feathers and all, even introducing new laws purportedly
    given by the Spirit.2 They seem not to know suffering and cross, but
    only glory and triumph.3 The Reformer claimed their desire for extraor-
    dinary religious experience clings to all because of sin.4
    Luther criticized these leaders’ stress on the Holy Spirit for inverting
    the order which prioritized God’s outward action on us (the Word) over
    our subjective experience of it (see Chap. 2). He wrote:

    Now when God sends forth His holy Gospel he deals with us in a twofold
    manner, first outwardly, then inwardly. Outwardly he deals with us through
    the oral word of the Gospel and through material signs, that is Baptism and
    the Sacrament of the Altar. Inwardly he deals with us through the Holy
    Spirit, faith, and other gifts. But whatever their measure or order the out-
    ward factors should and must precede. The inward experience follows and
    is effected by the outward … His [Karlstadt’s] insolence leads him to set up

    © The Author(s) 2017 109


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther ’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_5
    110  M. Ellingsen

    a contrary order and, as we have said, seeks to subordinate God’s outward


    order to an inner spiritual one … he wants to get the Spirit first.5

    God is to be found in the Word, for the Holy Spirit is given in the
    Gospel; it is there we lay hold of Him in the right way, the Reformer
    noted.6 And then he adds another interesting insight to critique the
    Enthusiasts (like the Zwickau Prophets and others) encountering him:
    “Because of sin we must not act arrogantly like the Fanatics who imagine
    themselves perfect.”7
    Luther believed that these Enthusiasts seemed to think they had
    achieved perfection because they claimed authority merely on the basis of
    their experience, with no need for verification by externals like Scripture
    or church institutions.8 He criticized those claiming to have the Spirit
    apart from the Word.9 For him, Word and Sacrament are the veils
    through which the Spirit works.10 The Spirit, Luther observes, is only a
    Schoolmaster, teaching the Word. The Word precedes the Spirit’s Work,
    not the Spirit working without the Word.11
    The Spirit, the Reformer notes, puts God’s Word in our hearts.12 He
    adds: “God wants to give the Holy Spirit through the Word, and with-
    out the Word He does not want to do it.”13

    Second, it is shown that this Word precedes, or must be spoken before-


    hand, and that afterwards the Holy Spirit works through the Word. One
    must not reverse the order and dream of a Holy Spirit Who works without
    the Word and before the Word, but One Who comes with and through the
    Word and goes no farther than the Word goes.14

    As we have noted, for Luther external elements of faith must come


    before internal elements.15 In other words, God is to be found in the
    Word; it is there we lay hold of Him in the right way.16

    Who the Spirit Is What He Does


    The distinction between as the Spirit as Person and as given to us is a bit
    like the Reformer’s claim that God in His Nature is our enemy in threat-
    ening us with the Law, but when uniting Himself to us He is a friend.17
    We have already noted Luther’s description of the Spirit in Himself as
    Listener to the divine conversation between Father and Son. As given to
    us, Luther identifies the Spirit as Sanctifier “the One Who still makes us
    holy” (Who sanctifies us). His Work is said to involve the beginning.18
    5  THE HOLY SPIRIT  111

    Elsewhere this sanctifying work by the Spirit is seen through the purging
    and mortification of sin.19
    In His role as Sanctifier, the Spirit is said daily to increase holiness
    (comments significantly made in the Catechisms, concerned to teach
    Christian life).20 When exhorting comfort Luther notes that only the
    Spirit brings about the right Knowledge of Christ.21 No one can under-
    stand God unless receiving it immediately from the Holy Spirit.22 Nor
    can we correctly understand Scripture without the Spirit, Luther adds.23
    In a 1527 sermon he writes:

    … the Holy Spirit, the real teacher, comes and gives power to the Word so
    that it takes hold.24

    Without the Holy Spirit we are ungodly.25 We hate God.26


    Luther proceeds to note that it is the Spirit’s Work in making pos-
    sible the distinction between Law and Gospel.27 The Spirit also gives the
    Church the power to distinguish letter and spirit.28 And we are reminded
    by the Reformer that we get nowhere in faith without the Spirit:

    Flesh and blood are too weak to obtain this glorious confidence [that we
    are servants of Christ]: the Holy Spirit is essential.29

    We need the Holy Spirit in order to know what has been given to us.30
    Without the Spirit we would know nothing of Christ.31 The Spirit makes
    possible the language game of faith distinct from philosophy, as was dis-
    cussed in the first chapter.32
    As noted, Luther believes that the Spirit only comes from preaching
    of Scripture, while outlining his testimony to faith.33 Thus the Spirit only
    comes through material and physical things like Sacramental elements
    and the Word.34 The Spirit is nowhere more alive than in the holy letters
    themselves.35 We cannot come to Christ and believe in Him without the
    Spirit.36 The Spirit is necessary in order to understand Scripture.37
    Luther notes that wherever Christ’s Name is, there is the Spirit.38 The
    Spirit is said to bring Christ into our hearts and so gains control over
    believers leading them to feel compelled to admit it is true and right.39
    And so (most importantly) faith is a work of the Spirit!40 The Spirit
    makes our faith sure, removing all doubts.41 When exhorting Christian
    life or comforting despair, Luther broke with the Theology of the Cross’
    claim that faith and feeling are in tension claiming that no one can
    112  M. Ellingsen

    receive he Word without “feeling it,” without “feeling Christ.”42 Even


    the preparation we do for hearing God’s Word is a Work of the Spirit,
    Luther adds when undercutting pride.43 The Spirit comforts the afflicted
    and the despairing.44 He gives courage, brings us into the Church’s lap,
    and creates new hearts.45
    The Reformer observes that when God [through the Spirit] draws us,
    it is not like a hangman dragging us, but done in a friendly fashion.46
    The lowliness of Christ can only be perceived through the Spirit.47 When
    discussing Justification Luther affirms this point and almost everything
    that follows, but he seems open to placing more emphasis on this when
    he claims that the Spirit also inscribes biblical insights into our hearts by
    faith.48 He does this and makes creatures who love and willingly obey
    God.49 In other comments made while preaching or explicating the logic
    of faith, Luther claims that the Spirit makes alive:

    As a hen broods her eggs, keeping them warm in order to hatch her
    chicks, and, as it were, to bring them to life through her, so Scripture says
    that the Holy Spirit brooded, as it were, on the waters to bring life to
    those substances which were quickened and adorned. For it is the office of
    the Holy Spirit to make alive.50

    The Spirit is also said to be the agent of making us born again and so
    loving.51 Not one of us can preach the Word adequately, Luther says;
    the Spirit must do it.52 He is the Divine Pilot of the ship of faith.53
    Christians are filled with the Spirit, Who begins new obedience in us.54
    But while Luther connects the Work of the Spirit in these cases with
    a Third Use of the Law (obedience) in texts devoted to exhorting
    Christian living (against Antinomians), in a different pastoral context
    more concerned with exhorting faith or comfort Luther refers to the
    spontaneity of the good works, that we become drunk with the Spirit,
    with the richest knowledge of God.55
    We cannot separate love from the Holy Spirit, Luther says.56 The
    Spirit sets our hearts on fire.57 He creates new hearts.58 Creates the new
    creation and must mortify our deeds.59 The Spirit can defy the world.60
    He is generous and kind in bearing with sins.61
    As previously noted, the Holy Spirit must make us holy and sustain
    us. Without the Spirit there is no grace.62 He creates a new man, com-
    pletely changing us.63 The Spirit makes us bold and happy.64 Without
    the Spirit we could not bear the devil and the world.65 Through the
    5  THE HOLY SPIRIT  113

    Spirit we cheerfully and gladly do all we should do.66 Again we observe


    here Luther positing the spontaneity of good works.
    The Reformer calls the Spirit a Comforter.67 He consoles and
    strengthens.68 The Spirit “kindles a new flame of fire in us, namely, love
    and desire to do God’s Commandments.” (He makes these comments
    about obeying the Law in the context of a sermon exhorting the faith-
    ful to Christian living.69) Elsewhere in another sermon, as we previously
    noted, Luther claims that we can only do good works when done from
    the heart out of love, and this cannot happen unless born again through
    the Holy Spirit.70 The Spirit is said to be the source of every good
    thought.71 His Presence creates the ability and necessity to pray.72
    In another sermon Luther notes that the Spirit comes (and so takes
    us) when and where He will.73 He is superior to the Law.74 In this sense,
    for this reason, the Holy Spirit and our sin should be mingled. We are
    like sick men in the hands of a physician. No one should think that
    because he has the Spirit he must be altogether strong.75 Indeed, Luther
    notes, it is the Spirit Who makes the Law properly function to contribute
    to Justification by terrifying and bruising us.76
    In view of his awareness of the realities of our remaining sin, even
    after receiving the Holy Spirit, Luther speaks of the Spirit and grace
    as a “medicine …”77 He stands by to keep us from falling into error.78
    Without the Holy Spirit, hearts are either hardened in sin or in despair.79
    As Author of the Law it is only by the Spirit’s work that the Law con-
    demns sin.80 In addition, the Spirit is the One Who consoles and
    strengthens until His Work is fully accomplished.81
    Explaining the Creed for preaching and learning, Luther speaks of
    the Spirit continuing God’s Work when “creation is now behind us” and
    “redemption has also taken place.”82
    Luther also says the Spirit creates, calls, and gathers the Church. As
    creator of faith, new hearts, and good works He truly is Spiritus Creator
    for Luther.83

    Notes
    1. Antinom. (1), WA39I:370, 12 / Lohse:233.
    2. Br.auf.geyst., WA15:213, 11ff./ LW40:52; Himm.Proph., WA18:66, 17/
    LW40:83; Ibid., WA18:73, 14ff./ LW40:90.
    3. BR (1522), WABR2:423, 61/ LW48:364.
    4. Schmal.Art., III.8, WA50:246, 20ff./ BC:323.9ff.
    114  M. Ellingsen

    5. WA18:136, 9ff./ LW40:146, 147: “So nu Gott seyn heyliges Euangelioun


    hat auslaffen gehen, handelt er mit uns auff zweyerley weyse. Syn mal
    eusserlich, das ander mal ynnerlich. Eusserlich handelt er mit uns durchs
    mündliche wort des Euangelii und durch leypliche zeychen, alls do ist
    Taufe und Sacrament. Ynnerlich handelt er mit uns durch den heyligen
    geyst und glauben sampt andern gaben. Aber das alles der massen und der
    ordenung, das die eusserlichen stucke sollen und müssen vorgehen … das
    er diesen orden umblere und eynen widdersynnischen auffrichte aus eyge-
    nem frevel und füret die sache der wassen: Erstlich, was Gott eusserlich
    ordenet zum geyst ynnerlich, wie gesagt ist … er das ynn wind und will
    zuvor hyneyn ynn den geyst.”
    Cf. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:582, 17/ LW22:54; Schmal.Art., III.8, WA50:
    245f., 1ff./ BC322–323.
    6. Serm. Sak., WA19:492, 22/ LW36:342; Gal. (1535), WA40I:336, 34/
    LW26:208.
    7. Kirchpost. E., W212:624.14/ CS4/1:334–335: “Darum sage ich, dass
    man hier klug sein muss, und darauf sehen, dass man von dem Heiligen
    Geist nicht so trotze und fruendig poche, wie etlich hoffährtige, vermess-
    ene Schwarmgeister thun, auf dass nicht jemand zu sicher fahre und sich
    dünken lasse, dass er allenthalben vollkommen sei.”
    8. BR (1522), WABR2:424f., 9ff./ LW48:366; Rad., WA15:42,15ff./ LW45:
    365, 366; Himm.Proph., WA18:213, 23ff./ LW40:222.
    9. Schmal.Art., III.8, WA50:245, 1/ BC:322.3.
    10. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:244, 19.
    11. Kirchpopst.G., W211:1073.74/ CS2/1:329.
    12. Pred. (1522), WA10III:260, 21.
    13. Pred. 2. Mos., WA16:270, 18: “ … den Gott wil den heiligen Geist,
    geben durch das wort, one wort wil est nicht thun.”
    14. Kirchpost.G., W211:1073.75/ CS2/1:329: “Zum andern, ist auch das
    hierin angezeigt, das solch Wort muss vorher gehen oder zuvor geredet
    werden, und darnach der Heilige Geist dadurch wirken; also dass mans
    nicht umkehre, und eineneHeiligen Geist träune, der ohne Wort und vor
    dem Wort wirke, sondern mit und durch das Wort komme, und nicht
    weiter gehe, den soweil solch Wort gehet.”
    15. Himm.Proph., WA18:136, 9/ LW40:146.
    16. Serm. Sak., WA19:492, 22/ LW36:342.
    17. Antinom. (1), WA39I:370, 13.
    18. Dtsch.Kat.,II.3,WA30I:188,21/BC:436.40ff; Kl.Kat.,II.III, WA30I:297, 28/
    BC: 355.6 – the Spirit is said to sanctify us. Antinom.(1), WA39I:370f., 18ff.
    WA39I:391,
    19. Konz., WA50:624, 28/ LW41:143–144.
    20. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:191, 8/ BC:439.59.
    21. Kirchpost.G., W211:627.11/ CS1/2 :243.
    5  THE HOLY SPIRIT  115

    22. Magn., WA7:546, 26/ LW21:299.


    23. Hspost., W213II:1987.4/CS6:20; Ibid.,W213II:1989.9/CS6:22–
    23;KirchpostG., W2 11:758.26/ CS1/2:390.
    24. Fest., WA17II:460, 5: “ … so kompt der heylige geyst, der rechte schül-
    meyster und gibt dem wort krafft, das es befleybet.”
    25. Gen., WA42:291, 30/ LW2:42.
    26. Ibid., WA42:292, 27/ LW2:43.
    27. TR (1531), WATR2:3f., 20ff./ LW54:127; Pred. (132), WA36:13, 22.
    28. Dict.Ps., WA3:12, 2/ LW10:4.
    29. Kirchpost.E., W212:824.35/ CS4/2:210: “So sind wir ohne das zu
    schwach nach Fleisch und Blut, solchen Ruhm zu erhalten, darum gehört
    der Heilige Geist hiezu …”
    Cf. Vor.N.T., WADB7:11, 17/ LW35:371. For numerous references
    to the Spirit working faith, see pp. 202–203, nn.111–112.
    30. Tit., WA25:73, 20/ LW29:98.
    31. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:192, 6/ BC:439f.65; cf. Ibid., WA30I:188, 31/
    BC:436.44.
    32. Disp.Christ., WA39II:104, 18.
    33. Schmal. Art.III.8, WA50:245, 1/ BC322.3.
    34. Wort., WA23:193, 31/ LW37:95.
    35. Assert.art., WA7:97, 2: “ … spiritus nusquam praesentius et vivacius quam
    in ipsis sascris suis, quas scripsit, literas inveniri potest.”
    36. Kl.Kat., II.3, WA30I:297, 25/BC:355.6; Thes. Wel., WA39I: 44, 4/ LW34:
    109.
    37. Serv.arb., WA18:609, 5/ LW33:28.
    38. Serm.dr.gut., WA7:801, 16/ LW44:241.
    39. Wein., WA10I/1:130, 14/ LW52:33.
    40.  Magn., WA7:546,24/ LW21:299; Pred. (1538),WA46:422,1; Ev.Joh.1–
    2,WA46:582,17/ LW22:54; Vor. N.T., WADB7:10,6/ LW35:370–371; Ev.Joh.
    14–15,WA45:579,30/ LW24:130; Ibid., WA45:729,5/ LW24:294; Ibid., WA45:654,
    15/ LW24:212; Magn., WA7:546, 24/ LW21:299; Jes. (1527–1530),WA31II:439,
    37/ LW17:230; Hspost., W213II: 2069.12/ CS6:171; Ibid., W213II:2125.12/
    CS6:220; Kl.Kat., II.3, WA30I:297f., 25ff./ BC:355.6; Himm.Proph., WA18:139,13/
    LW40:149; Fest., WA17II:459f., 35ff.; Jon., WA19:206, 28/LW19:54. Sometimes
    Luther just calls faith a work of God; see Pred. (1523), WA12:422ff., 32ff.
    41. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:729, 5/ LW24:294.
    42. Magn., WA7:546, 24/ LW21:299; Beid.Ges., WA10II:23, 6/ LW36:248.
    43. Pred. (1523), WA12:497, 3.
    44. Gal. (1535), WA40 :58, 20/ LW26:383.
    116  M. Ellingsen

    45. Hspost., W213II:2059.26/ CS6:163; Ibid., W213II:2058.22/ CS6:161;


    Dtsch.Kat.,II.3,WA30I:187f.,37ff./ BC:435f.37;Kirchpost.E.,
    W212:621f.7f./ CS4/1:332.
    46. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:130ff., 39ff./ LW23:86.
    47. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:500, 12/ LW17:311.
    48. Letz.Wort., WA54:36, 35/ LW15:277.
    49. Kirchpost.E., W 12:621.5/ CS4/1:331.
    50. Gen., WA42:8,25/ LW1:9: “His Spiritus sanctus incubat; sicut eninm gal-
    lina incubat ovis, ut pullos excludat ova calefaciens et calore quasi ani-
    mans: It scriptura dicit Spiritum sanctum quasi incubasse aquis, ut ista
    corpora, quae animanda et aranda erant, vivificaret. Nam Spiritus sancti
    officium est vivificare.”
    51. Kirchpost.G., W211:1696.26/ CS3/1:180; Ibid. W211:1707.11/
    CS3/1:188.
    52. Pred. (1522), WA10III:347, 18/ LW51:111.
    53. TR (n.d.), WATR5:346, 26.
    54. Antinom.(2),WA39I:435,18; Antinom.(1), WA39I:383,10; Ibid.,
    WA39I:388, 15; Antinom.(2), WA39I :483, 1.
    55. Gen., WA44:774, 19/ LW8:266.
    56. Sent.Lom., WA9:42, 35.
    57. Kirchpost.E., W212:937.4/ CS4/2:331.
    58. Ibid., W212:621.6/ CS4/1:332; Kirchpost.G., W211:1179.41/
    CS2/1:439; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:654,15/ LW24:212.
    59. Gal. (1535), WA40II:178,21/ LW27:140; Konz., WA50:625,66/
    LW41:144.
    60. Kirchpost.G., W211:1038.10/ CS2/1:292.
    61. Gal. (1535), WA40II:140, 14/ LW27:110.
    62. Butz., WA18:504, 26/ LW14:172.
    63. 1 Pet., WA12:299, 3/ LW30:44.
    64. Vor.N.T., WADB7:10, 16/ LW35:370; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:729,16/
    LW24:294.
    65. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:727, 2/ LW24:291.
    66. Fest., WA17II:397, 9/ LW51:132.
    67. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:565, 17/ LW24:114–115; Ibid., WA45:579, 30/
    LW24:130; Ibid., WA45:561, 17/ LW24:110.
    68. Kirchpost.G., W212:309.51/ CS3/2:333–334.
    69. Ibid., W211:1704.11/ CS3/1:188: “Darnach verheisst er auch den
    Heiligen Geist geben damit das Herz anfange, Gott zu lieben und sein
    Gebot zu halten … und durch den Heiligen Geist entzünde unde treibe,
    dass es beginne ihn wieder zu lieben vor Tage zu Tage mehr und mehr.”
    70. Ibid., W211:1696.26/ CS3/1:180.
    71. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:579, 30/ LW24:130.
    5  THE HOLY SPIRIT  117

    72. Ibid., WA45:541, 27/ LW24:89.


    73. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:32, 2/ LW22:302–303.
    74. Kirchpost.G., W211:1025.17/ CS2/1:280.
    75. Ibid., W211:1027.23/ CS2/1:281.
    76. Gal.(1535), WA40I:489f., 31ff./ LW26:315.
    77. Trost.An., WA7:789ff., 22ff./ LW42:186.
    78. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:124f., 42/ LW23:83.
    79. TR (n.d.), WATR5:346, 24.
    80. Antinom. (1) WA39I:391, 18; Ibid., WA39I:370, 9.
    81. Kirchpost.E., W212:624.13/ CS4/1:334.
    82. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:191, 18/ BC:439.61: “Denn die schepffung
    haben wir nu hinweg …”.
    83. Ibid., II.3, WA30I:188, 13/ BC:436.38f.; Ibid., II.3, WA30I:191.18/
    BC:429.61. The idea of Spiritus Creator owes to Regin Prenter, Spiritus
    Creator, (Kobenhavn: Samerlens forlag 1944).
    CHAPTER 6

    Creation and Providence

    Martin Luther has been accused of weakness in his doctrine of Creation,


    allegedly so accused due to his over-emphasis on salvation. In fact, while
    articulating the faith for training in how to live as Christians (in his Large
    Catechism) Luther actually teaches that the purpose of Creation was in
    order that we might be saved and sanctified.1 True enough, but this is
    not the whole story. Other comments by Luther about Creation, when
    merely expositing the logic of Christian faith, lead him to make com-
    ments most suggestive of cutting-edge Scientific insights. Likewise the
    Reformer is contextual in his approach to Providence.
    While merely expositing the logic of faith, Luther posits an ongoing
    creation. As he puts it, “creating and preserving are on end the same”
    for God.2 Creation, he says, is not a moment of origin but a continuing
    new beginning.3 Every day He is creating.4 God is said not to be like a
    carpenter who builds a house and goes away.5
    On the other hand, when explaining faith with an eye towards
    instructing how to live the Christian life (in his Catechism), Luther also
    claims that Creation is a past event.6 When engaged in polemics, defend-
    ing biblical authority against allegory, Luther even posits a 6-days crea-
    tion to protect the Bible’s literal sense.7 With similar concerns in view he
    insisted on the historicity of Adam and Eve.8

    © The Author(s) 2017 119


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_6
    120  M. Ellingsen

    How God Created and What He Did: Dialogue


    with Medieval and Modern Science

    The Reformer taught that God created all things by speaking them into
    existence.9 But in accord with late medieval consensus, Luther rejected
    Copernicus, insisting that the sun revolves around the earth.10 God
    holds all of Creation together by His Word, Luther commented:

    Therefore the heaven, which cannot stand firm by means of its bounds …
    stands firm through the Word of God …11

    In creation, God has given Himself to us.12


    We have already noted that for Luther God is in every creature and
    through them creates. On this point the Reformer is in line with mod-
    ern Quantum Physics which posits the existence of some reality (often
    called the God-Particle) which is in all matter and brings the various sub-
    atomic particles together (a point made above by Luther in claiming that
    His Word holds all Creation together).13 To these points, Luther adds, it
    is the nature of God to create all things out of nothing, to make some-
    thing of nothing.14
    Regarding the creation of all living things, Luther claims that not
    much is said in the Bible about angels.15 But he did believe that angels
    are with us.16 Luther defines angels as … a spiritual creature, a personal
    being without a body, appointed for the service of the heavenly church.17
    About animals, Luther said that they put us to shame. Birds,
    he claimed, are more pious than we are, for they are happy and sing,
    whether they have food or not.18 Concerning the works of God, the
    Reformer claims in one sermon that “The beginning is nothing, the end
    is everything …”19 With reference to God’s love and acceptance, Luther
    is recorded as saying (in a manner most consistent with his emphasis on
    Justification by Grace):

    In the same all men are not acceptable and pleasing to God on account of
    their worthiness, but only by the grace of God.20

    Earlier he observed that “The love of God does not find, but creates that
    which is pleasing to it.”21
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  121

    As we noted when discussing the Theology of the Cross, Luther con-


    tends that God works in hidden surprising ways. In polemical circum-
    stances like The Heidelberg Disputation he writes:

    4. Although the works of God are always unattractive and appear evil, they
    are nevertheless really eternal merits.22

    Even when just interpreting texts Luther claims that we can only under-
    stand creation clearly from an eschatological point of view.23 Yet other
    times he contends that creation reveals something about God’s Power.24
    This creates a sense of wonder.25 It can strengthen faith.26

    Providence
    In view of God’s permeation of all creation, His role in growing crops,
    Luther advocated reading the Gospel to crops in order to clean the air
    of devils to help crops better grow.27 Luther notes that despite all that
    God has to put up with from us He continues to send the sunshine and
    other blessings to those of us who do not deserve it.28 In these ways the
    Reformer relates Creation and Providence to the teaching of grace alone.
    When comforting despair Luther subordinated Creation to
    Redemption, claiming that Creation is intended to serve the divine pur-
    pose of Redemption.29 At least he closely relates them when not engaged
    in polemics.30

    An Omnipotent God, Totally in Control


    God’s Will and foreknowledge are said to be immutable, Luther says
    in his controversy over free will.31 He speaks, though, of a necessity of
    immutability, the recognition that events occur necessarily.32 In that way
    an element of voluntariness is retained.33
    This language of necessity has Nominalist roots.34 It was in face of
    Erasmian legalism that Luther asserted that God is in control of all
    things.35 The Will of God cannot be hindered.36 All that comes into
    being is necessary, Luther contends in these contexts.37 All things hap-
    pen by necessity, he claims when addressing legalism.38 He adds when
    stressing that the Word works all, God is construed as causing every-
    thing, even the movement of our hands and the weather.39
    122  M. Ellingsen

    When Luther addresses compromises of grace and affirms God’s


    total control of the cosmos, he does refer to the foreknowledge of God.
    But in those cases he insists that such foreknowledge does not entail
    that events are contingent.40 In fact, what happens transpires necessar-
    ily, he asserts when addressing challenges to grace.41 In these contexts,
    Luther speaks of the “necessity of immutability.”42 But this is not a mere
    determinism.43 Luther warns at this point about the insufficiencies of
    language when describing God’s “necessitating” events and also when
    teaching God’s hidden will in double predestination.44
    Seeking to respond to Erasmus’s examples of our exercise of free will,
    God is said to work through us, and in that sense we cooperate with
    Him.45 The Reformer makes this point even more strongly when dealing
    with issues related to living the Christian life. He insists that “God wills
    that man should work … and without work He will give him nothing.”
    But, he adds, God gives nothing because of this labor, “but solely out of
    His goodness and blessing.”46 Thus in Polemical contexts the Reformer
    seeks to distinguish divine coercion from the necessity of immutability
    in making these points regarding our cooperating with His Providential
    actions.47 Such points are related to Scholastic distinctions.48
    Another matter to keep in mind as we consider Luther’s claim that all
    that happens is of necessity is his stated purpose in making these claims,
    that his discussion has nothing to do with “what we can do with God’s
    working, but [only pertains to] what we can do of ourselves.”49 We are
    just His masks.50 Luther makes this point in one context grappling with
    doubt in order to make the point that what happens in the world is hid-
    den.51 The masks help create all manner of things.)52 (Luther also identi-
    fies the Word and Sacraments as God’s masks.53)
    In a sermon the Reformer also says that we are God’s fingers.54
    Creatures are said to be the hands of God.55 He also speaks of creatures
    as the means or medium through which God works.56 Likewise, angels
    are said to be used by God; they do not act on their own.57 Luther adds
    that God works miracles in that He is in the creatures which work.58 He
    speaks of all creation (including human creatures) as the hands of God.59
    Ultimately God is the only causal agent, in Luther’s view. He is the first
    cause of all things; all others are only secondary or instrumental causes.60
    Apparently ordinary natural events are really miracles.61 Christians are
    said to be the “legs” which carry the world. Whatever God gives the
    world He gives for the sake of Christians.62 God is the poet, and we are
    the verse, he said.63
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  123

    God is said to do everything.64 As Luther puts it:

    Fight and let Him give the victory. Preach and let Him win hearts … In
    all our doings He is to work through us, and He alone shall have the glory
    from it … Don’t be lazy or idle, but don’t rely on your own work and
    doings. Get busy and work, and yet expect everything from God alone.65

    Nothing takes place but as [God] wills it.66 God wills all in all.67
    Regarding God’s Work, we note again how Luther asserted that the
    beginning is nothing, but the end is everything.68 Our earlier discussion
    of the Theology of the Cross reminds us that, especially when exhorting
    faith or when engaged in polemics, Luther endorsed the paradoxical char-
    acter of God’s revelation construing God as hiding good in His work.69
    Since God is in control of the past and future, Luther assures us that
    there is no need to worry.70 He writes:

    Therefore such a believer is so filled with joy and happiness that he does
    not allow himself to be terrified by a creature and is the master of all
    things; he is afraid only of God, his Lord, Who is in heaven – otherwise he
    is afraid of nothing that might happen to him.71

    In other sermons Luther makes similar points:

    … we must come to rely on God, trust in Him in every need, and learn to
    be content with what He daily provides.

    This insight, Luther notes, entails that God will see to it that the poor
    not starve. Indeed, in death the rich have no more than the average
    Christian.72

    We should, therefore, learn contentment and not become impatient and


    angry with God because we are not wealthy. Were we rich we might well
    become meaner and more sinful.73

    These commitments are most pertinent to the progressive Social Ethic


    on economics that we will observe in Luther.

    The Reformer wanted to ensure in polemical contexts and when reflecting


    on temptations (like in the quote that follows) that the Will of God was
    understood as effectual and could not be hindered.74He [God] is Present
    124  M. Ellingsen

    everywhere, even in death, in hell, in the midst of our foes, yes also in their
    hearts. For He has created all things, and He also governs them, and they
    must all do as He wills.75

    Even though we fall away from ourselves we cannot fall out of God’s
    hands. We just run into His lap.76 Focusing less on polemics, Luther
    observes that there is joy and happiness in knowing that all is up to God
    and so there is nothing to fear.77
    When the context was less focused on polemics and more on suffer-
    ing, God is said to permit things to break apart, to kill in order to give
    life.78 Addressing despair, Luther also notes that because God loves us
    He “plays” with His saints sometimes.79 When concerned to comfort
    and exhort works, Luther claims that God lays crosses on us to compel
    us to believe and help others.80 He is even said to use the devil to work
    evil (a claim made with polemics in view).81 Luther also claims that God
    uses the devil to punish sin (affirming divine omnipotence).82 As he puts
    it in a similar context, the God Who is hidden works death and life.83
    Similarly he writes while dialoguing with a belief that works save:

    In short, God cannot be God unless He first becomes a devil. We cannot


    go to heaven unless we first go to hell.84

    God’s yes is hidden in a no.85


    The devil has no power not given by God, the Reformer claims,
    a point made when polemicizing with works-righteousness or when
    exhorting Christian life (when as we have seen Luther teaches a God of
    wrath).86 This entails that God is even the author of evil.87 Luther also
    makes this claim when dealing with the Christian life and distress (along
    with some polemics).88 But he adds that in so doing, when God rules the
    devil, He does not do evil. God withdraws and simply permits Satan to
    do evil.89
    Looking back on how things turned out positively Luther spoke of
    God causing his constipation.90 When warning against papal error, the
    Reformer tells his mother that her sickness is God’s fatherly chastise-
    ment.91 When exhorting Christian living the plague is said to be God’s
    judgment.92 Likewise the Turkish plague.93
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  125

    Compromises of God’s Full Control


    When comforting those tempted by despair the Reformer claimed that
    God does send temptations, but only that we might rely on the promises
    of God.94 And also when comforting despair along with polemics in The
    Bondage of the Will Luther claims that we are caught between God and
    the devil regarding who rides us. We will observe this vision of God’s
    Providence, limits to His Power, in other texts not so concerned with
    polemics (see later in the chapter), but rarely in this treatise without a lot
    of interpretation to reassert a strong affirmation of divine omnipotence.95
    For example, there are other texts in The Bondage of the Will which
    refer to the conflict between God and Satan, but in these cases the con-
    cern to address despair is not as strong. Perhaps in these instances the
    conflict with Satan is subordinated to claims that God uses Satan.96 Satan
    is even depicted on one occasion by Luther as a fallen angel.97 Luther
    also notes on at least one occasion that God uses witchcraft and sor-
    cery to work evil—an indication that such practices were continuing in
    late medieval Germany.98 The struggle against Satan was an important
    dimension of Luther’s daily life, for Satan was regarded as at work in
    unhappiness sickness, and death, even seeking to do away with the doc-
    trine of Justification.99
    When God’s working evil was raised as an issue of concern (His hard-
    ening of the heart), the Reformer suggested that God works with how
    He finds us, simply does not hinder evil.100 Elsewhere while “humor-
    ing reason” (offering apologetics), Luther reiterates that God is not act-
    ing evilly, but only using evil instruments that cannot escape the sway of
    His omnipotence. Evil, he claims, is the fault of the instruments.101 In
    another text he claims that God does not do evil, but uses instrumental
    means, like the Law and Satan, to rob us of pride.102 In this spirit he
    writes:

    Hence it comes about that the ungodly man cannot but continually err
    and sin, because he is caught up in the movement of divine power and not
    allowed to be idle, but wills, desires, and acts according to the kind of per-
    son he is.103

    He also overlooks things, so His wisdom and goodness are known in our
    weakness.104
    126  M. Ellingsen

    When addressing despair Luther says that God allows the righteous
    to be attacked and troubled by evils so that they might be conformed
    to their king.105 In such contexts God’s wrath is directed to the enemies
    of the faithful.106 When noting how to address the hard-hearted Luther
    claims that God takes some to hell.107 But when merely explicating faith
    with some concern for Christian life in view Luther contends that God
    tempts no one.108
    Once while addressing despair engendered by the concept of the
    hardening of the heart the Reformer speculated that God may have per-
    mitted the Fall in order to reveal His glory.109 While preaching he claims
    that “since God is good, He can do nothing except what is good.”110 In
    another context as Luther addresses hard-heartedness, Luther claims that
    with these insights we can sleep in our little nests and sing in the morn-
    ing like the birds.111
    In a comment most suggestive of the modern Theory of Relativity,
    Luther claims that time is in God, in the sense that all time is but an
    instant to Him; He grasps all in a single moment.112 This has implica-
    tions for the issues of God’s complicity in evil, for it entails that God’s
    decision to act is concurrent with our own actions on earth. Expounding
    on this subject of what we can do through God’s working (Christian
    life), Luther claims that God does not work without us.113 It seems that
    even when refuting Pelagianism, the Reformer Luther claims that God
    works on the kind of people we are (working through us).114

    A God Who Struggles with Evil


    When just expositing Scripture he claims that humans retain freedom in
    areas of life that do not relate directly to God.115 Not all that happens
    in everyday life is God’s doing. Indeed, when comforting, Luther notes
    that much is said in Scripture about God that He does not do. His crea-
    tures do the wrath:

    Furthermore, we must pay special attention to the rule that many things are
    said in Scripture about God, which He, however, does not do Himself …
    He will cause Christ and other saints [presumably the devil] to speak in their
    wrath, because also the wrath and vengeance which creatures express are
    God’s. Not that the wrath is His because it is in Him, but because the crea-
    ture, in whom the wrath is, is His, and the creature’s nod and command He
    afflicts the ungodly, though He in Himself remains most quiet and calm, yes
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  127

    is supremely good and not disturbed. For God is so good that whatever He
    does by Himself is nothing but the highest delight and pleasure.116

    In a sermon exhorting faith Luther claims, while comforting, that


    all evil in the world is the devil’s doing.117 Death is also portrayed as
    the work of the devil.118 These points are no more clearly asserted than
    when the devil is discussed in polemical treatises like The Bondage of the
    Will. There and elsewhere when trying to assert some contingency in
    line while still engaged in polemics Luther speaks of the human will as
    ridden either by God or Satan.119
    The devil is even said to slay (a point made while defending God’s
    goodness).120 Viewing the devil as source of evil is also endorsed by
    Luther when describing faith.121 Reason rejects this, but it is more trou-
    bled if it did not believe that evil and suffering were the work of Satan
    and instead thought God had laid the evil on us. God is said to discipline
    us to show us love.122
    Suffering is a means God uses to create (responding to our efforts to
    thwart God).123 This is a theme most suggestive of the Theology of the
    Cross (which emerges when we seek to thwart God with our efforts at
    saving ourselves). Luther even asserts that God can use the devil to work
    good.124
    In contexts of exhortation or comfort from despair, God is said to be
    in a struggle with the tyrants of Satan (commitments that fit the Classic
    View of the Atonement to be discussed in two chapters). Such points
    are made when comforting despair over sin or the goodness of God.125
    Likewise when preaching.126
    While facing death, Luther claims that the devil causes pain and dis-
    ease and causes depression.127 He is also said to cause insomnia.128 It
    is likewise claimed that Satan distorts our perceptions.129 While noting
    God’s struggle with evil Luther notes that God is not totally in control
    of things, that He sighs on account of us.130
    However, Luther assures us when explicating the faith with some
    Christian life concern in view, the Word fights the devil.131 He even
    notes that we are created to fight against the devil.132 But when deal-
    ing with Christian life and sloth, Luther claims that suffering is God’s
    Will.133
    Christ is not always in control, for Luther (especially when not in
    polemical circumstances or when not comforting despair). But this view-
    points most in line with modern science’s awareness that in existence we
    128  M. Ellingsen

    be permeated by one cosmic reality in order to hold together. But side-


    by-side this freedom, Luther insists in face of reason, doubts, and today’s
    Secularism that God is in total control. Again we encounter different
    emphases for different pastoral concerns.

    Notes
    1. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30 :191f., 36ff./ BC439.64.
    2. Gen., WA43:233, 24f./ LW4:136: Nos Christiani scimus, quod apud
    Deum idem est creare et conservare.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA43:200, 15/ LW4:90; Som.Post. (1544), WA21:521,
    21; Kl.Kat., II.1, WA30I:247f., 20ff./ BC354.2; Dtsch.Kat., I.1,
    WA30I:183f., 31ff./ BC432f.13, 19.
    3. Gen., WA42:9, 11/ LW1:10; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:559, 17/ LW22:27.
    4. Pred. (1523), WA12:441, 9.
    5. Som.Post (1544), WA21:521, 21.
    6. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:191, 18/ BC439.61.
    7. Gen., WA42:91, 18/ LW1:121; cf. Jon.,WA19:219, 12/ LW19:68.
    8. Gen., WA42:71, 15/ LW1:93; Ab.Chr., WA26:502, 30/ LW37:362.
    9. Gen., WA42:17, 15/ LW1:21–22.
    10. TR (1539), WATR4:412f., 32ff./ LW54:358ff.; Gen., WA42:26, 29/
    LW1:35.
    11. Gen., WA42:20, 3/ LW1:25: “Igitur coelum, quod suo termino non
    potest consistere (est enim aqueum), consistit verbo Dei …”
    12. Dtsch.Kat., II.1, WA30I:185, 24/ BC:433.24.
    13. Gen., WA42:40, 32/ LW1:53. See Note 11, above. On the Higgs
    Boson (the so-called God-Particle), a hypothetical elementary parti-
    cle which provides mass to particles that burrow through it, see Brian
    Greene, The Hidden Reality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011), pp.
    63–65.
    14. Kl. Proph., WA 13:547,22/ LW 20:4; Ibid., WA 13:618,2/ LW 20:84.
    Stuf., WA40III:154, 11; Kl.Kat., II.1, WA30I:222f., 10ff./ BC:354f.2ff.;
    Pred. (1537), WA45:222, 26.
    15. TR (1532), WATR1:130, 22.
    16. Gen., WA43:317, 39/ LW4:254; Ibid., WA43:68f., 10ff/ LW3:269f.;
    Pred. (1530), WA32: 117, 9.
    17. Tr (1543), WATR5:552, 1: “Angelus est substantia creata spiritulis, quae
    est persona sine corpora, destinata ad ministerial coelestis ecclesiae.”
    18. Krichpost.G., W211:1625.29/ CS3/1:114.
    19. Wein., WA10I/1:382, 18/ CS1/1:259.
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  129

    20. Ibid., WA10I/1:420, 18/ CS1/1:287: “ … wie den alle menschen nitt


    umb yhrer wirdickeytt willen, szondernn auss lautter gottis gnaden
    angenehm und lieblich sind …”
    21. Disp. Heid., WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41: “18. Amor Dei non invenit sed
    creat suum diligible, Amer hominis fit a suo dilogibili.”
    22. Ibid., WA1:353, 21/ LW31:39: “4. Oper Dei, ut simper sint deformia
    malaque videantur, vere tamen sunt merita immortalia.”
    23. 8.Ps., WA45:229ff., 35ff./ LW12:118–121.
    24. Wort., WA23:132, 26/ LW37:57–58.
    25. TR (1533), WATR3:301, 10/ LW54:200; Serm.Sak., WA19:496,11/
    LW36:344–345.
    26. Gen., WA42:37, 1ff./ LW1:49.
    27. Serm.G.K., WA2:178, 29/ LW42:91.
    28. Matt.5–7, WA32:404, 22/ LW21:126–127; cf. Hspost., W213II:2351.51/
    CS6:427.
    29. Gen., WA42:533, 2/ LW2:377; Ibid., WA44:66, 8/ LW6:89.
    30. Dict. Ps., WA3:550, 33ff.
    31. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 26/ LW33:37.
    32. Ibid., WA18:693, 30ff./ LW33:151–152.
    33. Ibid., WA18:720f., 28ff./ LW33:192–193.
    34. See Albrecht Ritschl, “Geschichtliche Studien zur christlichen Lehre von
    Gott,” Geammelte Aufsatze (1896), pp. 65ff. This point is repudiated
    by Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trans. Herbert
    Bouman (4th ed.; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976), p. 26.
    35. Serv.arb., WA18:614ff., 27ff./ LW33:36–39; Rom., WA56:181f., 24ff./
    LW25:162–163.
    36. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 23/ LW33:38.
    37. Ibid., WA18:617, 9/ LW33:40.
    38. Assert.art., WA7:144f., 34ff.; Serv.arb., WA18:636, 23/ LW33:68; Ibid.,
    WA18:615f., 31ff./ LW33:37–38.
    39. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 1; Ps., WA31I:450, 28/ LW14:129; cf. Gen.,
    WA43:619, 22/ LW5: 276–277 (a point made while offering comfort).
    40. Serv. Arb., WA18:614ff., 27ff./ LW33:36–42.
    41. Ibid., WA18:714ff.,38ff./LW33:184–192; Ibid., WA18:618ff./ LW33:42–
    43; Ibid., WA18:714, 13ff./ LW33:183.
    42. Ibid., WA18:720, 31/ LW33:192–193; cf. Assert.art., WA7:146, 3.
    43. Ibid., WA18:616,n.1/ LW33:39.
    44. Ibid., WA18:709, 6/ LW33:175; Ibid., WA18:616,n.1/ LW33:39.
    45. Ibid., WA18:754, 1/ LW33:242–243: “Sicut homo antequam creatur, ut
    sit homo, nihil facit aut conatur, quo fiat creatura, Deinde factus et crea-
    tus nihil facit aut conatur, quo perseveret creatura, Sed untrunque fit sola
    voluntate onmipotentis virtutis et bonitatis Dei nos sine nobis … sed non
    130  M. Ellingsen

    operator in nobis sine nobis ut quos ad hoc creavit et servavit, ut in nobis


    operaretur et nos ei cooperaremur, sive hoc fiat extra regnum suum gen-
    erali, omnipotentia, sive intra regnum suum singulari virtute spiritus sui.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA18:693, 30ff./ LW33:151–152.
    46. 127.Ps., WA15:366f.,15ff./LW45:324ff.,: “Aber damit ist nicht zuver-
    stehen, als verbote er zu erbeytten … Gott will die ehre haben, alls der
    allyne gibt alles gedeyen … Gott hat Adam gepotten, seyn brod zu
    essen ym schweys seines angesichets, und will, er soll erbeytten, Und on
    er beyt will er yhm nict geben.”
    Cf. Ps., WA31I:435ff., 7ff./ LW14:114f.
    47. Serv.arb., WA18:720f., 28ff./ LW33:192–193.
    48. Luther’s distinction closesly parallels the Scholastic distinction made
    by Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I,Q.19, Art.8, between the
    “necessity of consequence” and the “necessity of the thing consequent.”
    49. Serv.arb., WA18:753, 36/ LW33:242: “Non disputamus, quid operatne
    Dei possimus, sed quid nos possimus, videlicet an iam creati ex nihilo
    aliquied nos faciamus vel conmur illo generali motu omniptentiae, ut
    paremur ad movam creaturam spiritus.”
    See Ch. 9 for a further elaboration of these points.
    50. 127.Ps., WA15:373, 7/LW45:331; Deut., WA14:633, 13/ LW9:96;
    Ps., WA31I:436, 7/ LW14:114–115; Fast., WA17II:192, 28.
    51. 127.Ps., WA15:373, 7; Ps.51, WA40II:417f., 33ff./ LW12:373.
    52. Fast. (1525), WA17II:192, 28.
    53. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:522, 11/ LW24:67.
    54. Hspost., W213II:2323.17/ CS6:400.
    55. Dtsch.Kat.,I.1, WA30I:136, 8/ BC389.26; cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:
    174f., 31ff./ LW26:95, as he calls creatures God’s masks.
    56. Dtsch.Kat., I.4, WA30I:153, 29/ BC407.150.
    57. Zach., WA23:511f., 33ff./ LW20:169, 170.
    58. TR (1543), WATR5:17, 10/ LW54:400.
    59. Gal. (1535), WA40I:173f., 9ff./ LW26:95.
    60. Stuf., WA40III:209ff., 27ff; Ibid., WA40III:215, 20
    61. Ps., WA31I:450f., 10ff./ LW14:128f.
    62. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:535f., 16ff/ LW24:82–83.
    63. Gen., WA44:572, 27/ LW7:366.
    64. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 1; Serv.arb., WA18:614, 22/ LW33:35; Ibid.,
    WA18:709, 10/ LW33:175.
    65. Ps., WA31I:436f., 28ff. /LW14:115: “Kriege du und lasse yn den sieg geben …
    Und so fort an ynn allen unserm thun Sol eus alles ynn und durch uns thun
    Und er allein die ehre davon haben … Nicht faul und műssig sein, auch nicht
    auff eigen erbert und thun sich verlassen, Sondern erbeiten und thun und doch
    alles von Gott allein gewarten.”
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  131

    66. Serv.arb., WA18:786, 5/ LW33:293.


    67. Ibid., WA18:709, 19/ LW33:175.
    68. Wein., WA10I/1:382, 20/ CS1/1:259.
    69. See p. 70,nn.318ff.
    70. Pred.Sol., WA20:121, 20.
    71. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 23: “Darumb stehet ein solcher glaubiger
    mensch ynn solcher freüd und fröligkeit, das er frych vor seiner creatur
    lesst erschrecken, yst aller dingen herr, unnd furcht sych allein vor Got,
    seynem herrn, der ym hymmel ist, funft furchtt er sych nichts von key-
    nem ding.”
    72. Hspost., W213II:1721, 2f./ CS5:344–345: “… lernen Gott vertrauen, das
    ser uns werede ernähren, und sich genügen lassen an dem, was Gott tägl-
    cih bescheret.”
    73. Ibid., W213II:1724.10/ CS5:348: “Darum sollen wir uns genügen las-
    sen, und nich ungeduldig warden noch mit Gott zürnen, ob wir schon
    nicht reich sind. Wo wir reich wären, möchten wir ärger werben und
    mehr sündigen.”
    74. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 33/ LW33:38.
    75. Jon., WA19:219,31/LW19:68: “Er ist allenthalben gegen wertig ym tod,
    ynn der hellen, mitten unter den feinden, ja auch ynn yhrem hertzen.
    Denn er hatts alles gemacht und regieret es auch alles, das es mus thun
    was er wil.”
    76. 2.Ps., WA5:168, 1.
    77. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 23.
    78. Hab., WA19:425, 23/ LW19:228.
    79. Gen., WA43:371, 27/ LW4:326.
    80. 1 Pet., WA12:374, 10/ LW30:119.
    81. Rom., WA56:180,7/LW25:160–161; Ibid., WA56:401f., 30ff./ LW25:
    391–392; 90.Ps., WA40III:518,13/LW13:97; TR (1532), WATR1:106,
    16/ LW54:34. Pred.2.Mos., WA16:143, 4 (addressing challenges to
    Paul); Ps.51, WA40II:417, 18.
    82. 90.Ps., WA40III :516ff., 25ff. .
    83. Serv.arb., WA18:685, 21/ LW33:140.
    84. Ps.117, WA31I:249, 25f./ LW14:31: “… Got kan nicht Got sein. Er
    mus zuvor ein Teufel werden, und wir konnen nicht gen himel komen,
    wir mussen vorhin ynn helle faren …”
    85. Fast. (1525), WA17II:203, 32f.
    86. 90.Ps., WA40III:519, 3/ LW13:97; Ps.51, WA40II:416, 25/ LW12:374;
    Serv.arb., WA18: 709, 12/ LW33:175–176; Gal. (1535), WA40I:314,
    15/ LW26:190.
    87. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 28ff./ LW33:176.
    132  M. Ellingsen

    88. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:638,6ff./LW24:195; Pred.Deut. (1529), WA28:661,


    23; Ps., WA31I: 169, 29/ LW14:94.
    89. Pred.2.Mose., WA16:143,4; cf. TR (1532), WATR1:106, 16/ LW54:34;
    Serv.arb.,WA18: 709f., 12ff./ LW33:175–177.
    90. BR (1521), WABR2:335, 1/ LW48:219.
    91. BR (1531), WABR6:103f., 14ff./ LW50:18.
    92. Eel.Leb., WA10II:300, 5/ LW45:44.
    93. Kr. Trk., WA30 :107–148/ LW46:161–205.
    94. Gen., WA43:201f., 25ff./ LW4:92–94.
    95.  Serv.arb., WA18:635, 17/ LW33:65–66; Ibid., WA18:743, 32/
    LW33:227; Ibid., WA18: 782, 30/ LW33:287–288.
    96. Serv.arb., WA18:749f., 30ff./ LW33:236–237; Ibid., WA18:675, 34/
    LW33:124; Ibid., WA18:679, 23/ LW33:130; Ibid., WA18:710, 8/
    LW33:177; Ibid., WA18:743f., 27ff./ LW33:227; Ibid., WA18:762f.,
    36ff./ LW33:256. For perhaps stronger affirmation of God’s role in
    using the devil to work evil, see Rom., WA56:402, 16/ LW25:392;
    Ibid., WA56:179,27/LW25:160; cf. Ps.51, WA40III:519,18/ LW13:97.
    97. Gen., WA42:17ff., 36ff./ LW1:22.
    98. Gal. (1535), WA40I:314, 15/ LW26:190; TR (1533), WATR3:131, 6/
    LW54:188. See Allan C. Kors and Edward Peters, Witchcraft in Europe
    400–17000 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001), pp.
    262–263.
    99. Stuf., WA40III:68, 30; TR (n.d.), WATR6:219, 30; Ibid., WATR6:215,
    40ff. For the importance of the struggle with the devil in Luther’s life
    and thought, see Heiko Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the
    Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbert (New York and London:
    Doubleday, 1992), esp.pp. 104–106; Harmannus Obendiek, Der Teufel
    bei Martin Luther (Berlin:Furche, 1931).
    100. TR (1540), WATR4:642f., 36ff./ LW54:385.
    101. Serv.arb., WA18:709/28/ LW33:176: “Hic vides Deum, cum in malis
    et per malos operator, mala quidem fiere, Deum tamen non posse male
    facere, licet mala per malos faciat, quia ipse bonus male facere non post-
    est … Vitium ergo est in instrumentis, quae ociosa Deus esse non sinit,
    quod mala fiunt, movente ipso Deo.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA18:711, 2ff./ LW33:178–179; Ibid., WA18:709f., 31ff./
    LW33:176.
    102. Ps.51, WA40II:416f., 32ff./ LW12:373–374.
    103. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 34/ LW33:176: “Hinc fit quod impius non possit
    non semper errare et pecarre, quod raptu divinae potentiae motus ociari
    non sinitur, sed velit, cupiat, faciat taliter, quails ipse est.”
    104. TR (1540), WATR4:639, 11/ LW54:384.
    105. Kl.Proph., WA13:507, 25/ LW18:361.
    6  CREATION AND PROVIDENCE  133

    106. Tess.Con., WA6:128, 17/ LW42:156–157.


    107. Kl.Proph., WA13:101, 18/ LW18:98.
    108. Kl.Kat., III.6, WA30I:254, 12/ BC:358.18.
    109. TR (1540), WATR4:642f., 34ff./ LW54:385–386; Serv.arb., WA18:712,
    20/ LW33:180.
    110. Stuf., WA40III:26, 30: Nam Deum cum bonus, sit, nihil potest dare, nisi
    quod bonum est.”
    Cf. Serv.arb., WA18:709, 23/ LW33:176.
    111. Haus., WA52:473f., 33ff.
    112. 1 Pet., WA12:369, 6/ LW30:114; Kirchpost.G., W211:1865.35/ CS3/
    1:358–359; Gen., WA42:574, 6/ LW3:35; Ps.2, WA40II:257:21/ LW12:
    52; Pred.(1522), WA10III:194, 10; 90.Ps., WA40III:525, 4 / LW13:101;
    2 Pet., WA14:70, 27/ LW30:196; Pred. (1532), WA36:349, 8. See Albert
    Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper,” Analendir Physik (1905):
    891–921.
    113. Serv.arb., WA33:753f., 39ff./ LW33:242–243.
    114. See Ibid., WA18:709, 23/ LW33:176, quoted above.
    115. Gen., WA42:512, 19/ LW2:350; Serv.arb., WA18:638, 1ff./ LW33:70;
    Ibid., WA18:662, 6/ LW33:103; Ibid., WA18:753, 12ff./ LW33:241f.
    See Ibid., WA18:638, 4/ LW33:70: Here he makes this affirmation only
    if we are willing to let free will go.
    116. Dict. Ps., WA3:35, 7/ LW10:40: “Item sigulariter nontandum pro reg-
    ula, quod multa dicuntur de deo in Scriptura, que ipse tamen non facit.
    Sed quia facit ea alios facere ideo Scriptura reducens intellectum nos-
    trum in deum et docens gratiarum actionem et omnia flumina revocans
    in mare unde fluunt, attribuit ei, que faciunt creature. Ut illud: ‘Tunc
    loquetur ad eos in ira sua’ i.e. loqui faciet Chrisum et alios sanctus in ira
    sua: quia et ira seu vindicta, quam faciunt creature, sunt dei. Non enim
    ira sic est sua, quia in ipso sit. Sed quia creatura, in qua est ira, est eius
    et ipsius nutu et imperio affligit impios, ipse autem in se manens quiet-
    issimus et tranquillus, immo summe bonus et non turbatus. Nam tam
    est bonus deus, et quicquid ipse immediate agit, non sit nisi summum
    gaudium et delectatio et non affligit, sed magis reficit.”
    For a similar assessment, that the “dualistic” imagery enables more eas-
    ily the affirmation of the picture of the God of love, insofar as it func-
    tioned as a kind of release for Luther, see Roland Bainton, Here I Stand
    (New York: Abingdon Press, 190), pp. 283–284.
    117.  Ev.Joh.14–15,WA45:527, 38/ LW24:73–74; Ev.Joh.16, WA46:77ff.,
    25ff./ LW24: 384ff.
    118. TR (1532), WATR2:78, 22/ LW54:145–146.
    119. Serv.arb., WA18:126, 23/ LW33:70; Himm.Proph., WA18:62f., 26ff./
    LW40:80.
    134  M. Ellingsen

    120. TR (1532), WATR2:78, 22/ LW54:145–146.


    121. Gal. (1535), WA40I:94, 16/ LW26:39–40; Wider Antinom., WA50:473,
    34; Kl.Proph., WA13:89, 1/ LW18:79–80.
    122. Haus., WA52:284f.
    123. Magn., WA7:548, 12/ LW21:301.
    124. Pred. (1531), WA34II:240, 25.
    125. Rom., WA56:266, 17/ LW25:254; Ibid., WA56:257, 17/ LW25:244;
    Ibid., WA56:349, 15/ LW25:338.
    126. Pred.Deut. (1529), WA28:527,21; Ps.2,WA40II:249f.,29ff./ LW12:46–47.
    127. TR (1537), WATR3:390, 7/ LW54:227; Ibid. (1531), WATR1:404,
    28/ LW54:15, 16.
    128. Ibid. (1532), WATR2:132, 4.
    129. Gal. (1535), WA40I:315,19/LW26:190–191, Ibid., WA40I:319f., 32ff./
    LW26:194–195.
    130. Pred. (1538), WA46:495, 31f.
    131. Dtsch.Kat., Vor., WA30I:127.7/ BC381f., 12f.
    132. Gen., WA42:56, 30/ LW1:74.
    133. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:747,29/LW35:57; Gut.Wrk., WA6:248,1/ LW44:77;
    Ps., WA31I: 149, 32.
    CHAPTER 7

    Human Nature, Sin, and Free Will

    Though many Liberal Theologians have sought to portray Luther as a


    thinker who lets the human situation set his theological agenda and/
    or to be dependent on Greek philosophy for his Anthropology, we find
    much evidence to undermine those assumptions. On the other hand,
    when it comes to his views on Sin his dependence on Augustine becomes
    readily evident.

    Human Nature
    Luther claims that we cannot really know the essential nature of human
    beings until we view ourselves in our source, Who is God—to be in rela-
    tionship to Him. For we cannot do so on our own strength.1 Unlike phi-
    losophy, which defines human beings in terms of qualities like reason and
    sensation, in Luther’s view, who we are as humans is determined by our
    relationships (with God), grounded in someone else, is even determined
    by our being justified by faith.2
    From this perspective, Luther notes that we are the pinnacle of cre-
    ation and everything was created to serve us.3 But the Reformer con-
    demns false pride about this.4
    Luther generally embraced the Greek body–soul dualism. He was a
    Traducianist, claiming that the soul was created with the body in human
    procreation.5 Sometimes, when concerned with instruction in Christian
    life, he even opted for a triadic body–soul–spirit distinction.6 But in these
    and other instances he does not allow these Pauline conceptions to lapse

    © The Author(s) 2017 135


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther ’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_7
    136  M. Ellingsen

    into a dualism which renders the body as less good. In accord with mod-
    ern critical thinking Luther notes that the flesh refers to lusts, to any-
    thing outside of grace, not to our physicality.7
    While continuing to embrace the Greek body–soul dualism, the
    Reformer expressly distances himself and a biblical understanding from
    the concept of substance. “Scripture is not interested in the quiddities
    (essences) of things, but only in their qualities.” That is, the focus of per-
    sonhood is not on the possession of things, but on what he or she has
    done over a lifetime. A person is what he or she does.8 On one occasion
    he even wondered whether soul and body really are separate things.9
    Despite his critical view of reason in polemical contexts, when expli-
    cating faith’s logic (esp. regarding humanity), Luther said it was
    “divine,” praising its grandeur.10 He defines reason as the power to
    understand and to judge.11 Reason can lead to knowledge of the moral
    law, Luther contended.12 Even after the Fall, reason directs us on tem-
    poral matters, he claimed. And it can also lead us to keep the natural law
    outwardly, to civic righteousness.13
    We have already noted how he conceded that reason gives access to
    the natural knowledge of God. Humans are said to be rational animals
    with creative hearts. But, Luther adds, our reasoning is with a heart.14
    The Reformer also believed that because we were created in open
    heaven, and sin is the reason we now live under roofs, it follows had
    Adam not fallen we would have lived in nakedness.15 Language is said to
    be God’s most precious gift.16 And language, he says, emerges from the
    heart.17 The ability to speak, he says elsewhere, is what makes humans
    unique.18
    Luther also posits a relational view of human beings (that our sub-
    stance is our qualities in action).19 The Reformer says that “God cre-
    ated human beings so that they could get along together in a friendly
    and peaceful way.”20 We are said to be persons like God in the sense of
    forgiving sin.21 The Reformer also speaks of the sense in which we have
    dominion:

    … I know that God does not give out His gifts so that we can rule and
    have power over others or so that we should spurn their opinion and judg-
    ment: rather so that we should serve those who are in such a case as to
    need our counsel and help.22
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  137

    We were created, Luther argues, made in God’s likeness, in order to


    live forever with God in praise of Him. “Human beings know neither
    their beginning nor their end when they are without the Word.”23 And
    we are created for eternal life as well as to worship Him. Our hope of eter-
    nal life is identified as one way of describing the image of God.24 In addi-
    tion, Luther speaks of the image of God as righteousness or sinlessness.25
    Reference is also made to reason and free will.26 Reason is said to be the
    image of God.27 The image of God is also identified as being like God in
    having the ability to forgive and retain sins.28 Or the image is defined as
    living a life that knows God and loves Him; the image is lost in sin.29
    Since sin and the image’s loss we cannot understand the image to any
    extent, Luther claims.30 Of course acknowledging the loss of the image
    of God in sin Luther does not want to imply that we are no longer
    human beings or no long God’s creatures. Thus he insisted that sin in
    not part of the human essence, does not define who we are as God cre-
    ated us to be.31
    Adam is said to have known God, according to Luther. The first man
    is said to have been good and to have had had beautiful tranquility32
    But, Luther insists, we never stop getting away from God, even in the
    midst of the nothingness of our sin and death:
    Where does a man who hopes in God end up, except in his own
    nothingness?

    But when a man goes into nothingness, does he not merely return to that
    from which he came? Since he comes from God and his own nonbeing,
    it is to God that he returns when he returns to nothingness. For even
    though a man falls out of himself and out of all creation, it is impossible
    for him to fall out of God’s hand, for all creation is surrounded by God’s
    hands … So run through the world; but where are you running? Always
    into the hand and lap of God.33

    Sin pries us away from God intended for humans, a relationship with us.

    Sin and the Bondage of the Will


    Early in his career Luther spoke of human beings having a free choice
    in salvation, not just in ordinary matters.34 But usually he speaks
    of our being utterly mired in sin. Luther made this point prior to the
    Reformation. And then in another pre-Reformation lecture he added
    138  M. Ellingsen

    that “Man cannot but seek his own advantages and love himself above all
    things.”35 As the Reformer put it in one of his lectures: The essence of
    man is sin.36
    Sin destroys all our natural powers, Luther claims.37 All parts of the
    soul are weakened by it.38 Of course Luther still affirms the majesty of
    reason.39 But he recognizes in polemical contexts and discussions of sin
    or suffering that with sin, reason is trapped in the things of the world
    (even while claiming elsewhere while explicating texts that reason knows
    God).40
    The very first Thesis of The Ninety-Five Theses, that “the entire life
    of believers [is] to be one of repentance,” implies that we are ever in
    sin.41 The Reformer insists that we are inclined to do evil in all we do.42
    Luther affirms Original Sin and that we are born in sin. In a 1532 lec-
    ture he explained how we are born in sin. Though marriage is good, the
    seed is of evil lust and hatred of God. There is no knowledge of God in
    sex, he claimed, but lust.43 He also claims that a bad seed can only bring
    forth bad fruit.44
    Being born in sin does not necessarily entail a determinism in Luther’s
    view. As we have already noted, even late in his career he claimed that we
    maintain freedom in secular matters (things under us).45 He had made
    that point in The Bondage of the Will.46
    The root of sin is unbelief, the first reformer claimed.47 Elsewhere
    he speaks of both unbelief and doubt as the source of sin.48 We “stink
    of pure self-esteem and self conceit,” he says.49 In one text he claims
    that there is no greater sin than unfaith50 When we stop being grateful,
    Luther believed that then we turn God into whom we want Him to be—
    an idol.51
    Ingratitude is said to be robbery of God.52 Likewise pride.53 Nothing
    but pride, evil, lust, hate, and envy cling to my flesh.54 Sin is also evi-
    denced in Luther’s thinking in that we never act without reluctance, and
    such reluctance impedes fulfillment of the Law. This is why no one is
    righteous.55
    Luther claimed that by nature we want to be God, not let God be
    God.56 Original sin is primarily a broken relationship with God.57
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  139

    Concupiscence
    Luther most characteristically defines Sin as concupiscence; in theses con-
    texts he contends that no act done according to nature is not an act of
    concupiscence.58 In claiming that sin is concupiscence, this entails for
    Luther that the passion, inclination, concupiscence itself and the inclina-
    tion to sin are all sin itself.59 This concupiscence entails that we desire
    nothing “except that which is high and precious and that which brings
    honor …”60 This awareness causes depression (Anfechtung) which tor-
    tured Luther in the years before and even after his monastic vow.61
    Every act is concupiscent, Luther claims.62 Sin is lodged in our
    hearts.63 We sin in all we do.64 Sin is said to remain after Baptism.65
    We are eager for power over others.66 All we do is for our advan-
    tage.67 We seek ourselves in everything the Reformer asserts.68 We
    are such wicked louts that we never do more than what is necessary.69
    Concupiscence makes us “crooked.”70 In another way Luther compel-
    lingly describes how sin traps us:

    Sin is at your throat; it drives you and lives heavy on you. Reason knows
    no other counsel and advice. As soon as reason sees that it has sinned, it
    declares: “I will reform and become pious! … At the same time you are
    too feeble to remove it …71

    No act is done according to nature that is not an act of concupiscence


    against God.72

    Although the Reformer treats concupiscence in this way when engaged


    in polemics or when preaching (exhorting faith), when offering comfort
    he compromises a bit by opting for a position more like Roman Catholic
    thinking. He relegates concupiscence to the status of merely being
    the tinder of sin, not sin unless we act on it.73 More typically, though,
    Luther observes that natural man does not want to be righteous for its
    own sake, but is determined “to earn something or escape something.”74
    We do good for the sake of praise and honor.75 We are slaves to sin, if
    not in our works, with our concupiscence and inclination.76 Even our
    best works are marred by sin.77 Our holiness is just dung and filth.78
    The works of man may seem attractive and good, Luther observes. We
    are capable of civic righteousness, of deeds that seem proper in the politi-
    cal public realm.79 But even these actions are likely mortal sins.80 Every
    sin is a mortal sin.81 These commitments entail rejecting the Scholastic
    140  M. Ellingsen

    distinction between mortal sins and venial sins.82 The most righteous of
    works are not righteous.83 Therefore we are unable to do good.84 Even
    in our humility we become proud of it.85 Our righteousness is nothing
    but unrighteousness.86
    For Luther, works do not justify any more than a monkey who might
    imitate certain human actions can be said to do good deeds. These deeds
    would only be human if perpetrated by a human being, only those whom
    God made righteous can do righteous deeds.87 This is all the more dan-
    gerous because we try to run from an acknowledgment of sin.88
    Luther observes that we love ourselves above all things, seeking our
    own advantage and to please ourselves in all we do. That is why all our
    good works are mortal sins.89 We are caught up in our selfishness.90 We
    can do nothing but sin.91 We are curved in on ourselves:

    The reason is that our nature has been so deeply curved in upon itself
    because of the viciousness of original sin that it not only turns the finest
    gifts of God in upon itself and enjoys them (as is evident in the case of
    legalists and hypocrites), indeed it even uses God Himself to achieve these
    aims, but it also seems to be ignorant of the very fact that in acting so iniq-
    uitously, so perversely, and in such a depraved way, it is even seeking God
    for its own sake.92

    The Reformer correctly notes how we love what pleases us.93


    Everyone wants to get more than he has. We are all greedy.94 We turn
    things around, serving food and clothes, and not having them serve us.95
    We seek the honor and favor of the world.96
    Nothing really helps. Life leaves us discontent: “When things come
    flowing in, boredom soon takes over; if they do not flow in, there is an
    insatiable desire to have them, and there is no peace.”97 God gets used
    as our meal ticket.98 We are so messed up that even when we feel God’s
    Presence and gifts in our lives we soon forget it. Luther writes:

    For we know from experience that God has us under His regimen who, no
    matter how God tests them …. forget about it almost immediately. The
    condition of the human heart is so desperately wicked that it immediately
    forgets what is past and keeps on badgering God to provide novel miracles
    and punishments when we ought to be stouthearted and remember His
    blessings; but they immediately forget His benefactions.99
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  141

    We always seek ourselves:

    For man cannot but be seeking his own advantages and love himself above
    all things. And this is the sum of all his iniquities. Hence even in good
    things and virtues men seek themselves, that is, they seek to please them-
    selves and applaud themselves … I say now that no one should doubt that
    all our good works are mortal sins if they are judged according to God’s
    judgment and severity and not accepted as good by grace alone.100

    We always want to do what is forbidden.101 The Reformer adds:

    28. The love of God does not find, but creates that which is pleasing to it.
    [But] The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to
    it.102

    Luther defines the flesh as egoism and being turned in on ourselves.103

    In Bondage
    The Reformer teaches that we are held captive by sin (for, as noted, we
    sin in all we do).104 It always remains.105 We are in sin until the end of
    life.106 Free will is said to be at its worst when it is at its best. “The more
    it tries the worse it becomes and acts.”107 Sin is inescapable; free will
    denied.108 We are always sinning in all we do. This is why free will exists
    in name only.109
    About our situation Luther observes:

    This is the truth, what the world is; it is a stable of wicked, shameful peo-
    ple who misuse all creatures of God in the most disgraceful manner, who
    blaspheme God and inflict everything evil on Him. These shameful people
    God loves.110

    As he puts it elsewhere:

    The world is like a drunken peasant. If you life him into the saddle on one
    side, he will fall off on the other. One can’t help him, no matter how one
    tries. He wants to be the devil.111

    True, we are in bondage, but Luther insists that even then we do not sin
    involuntarily. Our wills ae exercised in sin.112
    142  M. Ellingsen

    We do not want to believe we are sinners, do not fully recognize our


    sin.113 Human beings in general are under the illusion that they are
    “free, happy, unfettered, able, well, and alive.”114 Luther offers an excel-
    lent example of this unwillingness to hear about our sin:

    But if, when the pastor rebukes others, you say, “What a preacher he is,
    what a telling message he really gets across!” But when he finds fault with
    you, you say “These clerics, don’t they ever talk about anyone else but
    me?”115

    As a result we do not want to hear about grace:

    For as soon as people hear that their own efforts count for nothing, all
    is forgotten [regarding John 3:16]. They insist that they and their own
    method must remain aright.116

    The deeper men sink into the slime of sin, the more secure and joyful they
    grow.117

    These dynamics manifested themselves in Luther’s view in behavior in


    his time reminiscent of our own context:

    It has now gotten to the point where gross vice, drinking, and carousing
    are no longer regarded as disgrace, but intemperance and drunkenness
    must now go by the name of gaiety. And just as all vices have become vir-
    tues, including greed … it’s the going policy of the market …118

    When we live this way the result is often a lack of excitement or grati-
    tude towards Christ.119 The Reformer notes further:

    … he is a very rare person who confesses and believes he is a sinner … It is


    not a natural way.120

    No matter how holy and righteous you are, beware of even relying on the
    Lord by means of yourself or your righteousness.121

    People would gladly believe in Christ if this could make them lords or con-
    fer kingdoms on them … Fidelity to Christ’s doctrine is rare, especially
    when people encounter an evil wind.122
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  143

    Luther observes that anyone who boasts of his goodness and despises
    others is no better than they are. In God’s Presence we should just be
    glad we can attain forgiveness.123 These leads him to observe:

    In other words, sin is always in us, but when the Law does not come, sin is
    for all practical purposes asleep. 124

    God sees far more defects in us than we can ever see.125


    Original sin is like a beard, which returns again and again, despite our
    shaving it:

    The original sin in a man is like his beard, which though shaved off today
    so that a man is very smooth around his mouth, yet grows again by tomor-
    row morning. As long as a man is alive, such growth of the hair and the
    beard does not stop. But when the shovel beats the ground on his grave,
    it stops. Just so original sin remains in us and bestirs itself as long as we
    live.126

    We noted in the chapter on Providence that especially in polemical cir-


    cumstances combating Pelagianism that Luther rejects free will.127
    Obviously the nature of our fallen human condition entails this. We are
    all slaves to sin, all commit sin, even if not outwardly, but in our con-
    cupiscence.128 We are all sinners.129 The world, Luther says, is “a stable
    full of wicked, shameful people who misuse all creatures of God in the
    most disgraceful matter, who blaspheme God and inflict everything evil
    on Him.” The amazing thing is that God loves these shameful people.130
    Free will is shattered, Luther asserts.131 We have already noted that in
    his view it exists in name only.132 And when it does what it can it com-
    mits sin.133 It only leads to evil:

    As a result the will is neither sick, nor does it need the grace of God. All of
    this is based upon the stupid principle of free will – as if the free will could
    by its own power, chose to follow opposite paths, when it is prone only to
    evil.134

    Most of the time the denial of free will is solely grounded in the doctrine
    of Sin. Only once, in his The Bondage of the Will, does Luther root it in
    divine omnipotence, implying that we have no freedom, that all is deter-
    mined by God.135 To believe in free will, the Reformer asserts. makes
    144  M. Ellingsen

    Christ useless.136 Free will calls into question our need of God’s grace,
    he notes.137 It leads to Pelagianism.138
    Luther does not believe that our bondaged will due to Adam’s sin
    alleviates us for responsibility, for it is as if we fell in sin ourselves.139 On
    the other, though, we need to keep in mind the sense in which Luther
    believes that God works good through us (see previous Chapter). And
    we cannot understand free will unless it is adorned by God’s grace.
    Without grace we do not do God’s Will, but our own which is never
    good.140 Indeed, with some apocalyptic concerns in view, he concedes
    that this is free will, as long as the term just refers to an aptitude for the
    divine.141
    Luther laments our fickleness.142 What a man has he despises; what he
    does not have he loves.143 In a sermon the Reformer develops this theme
    further and observes:

    … Nothing is remembered longer than an injury, and nothing is more


    quickly forgotten than a benefaction … It is characteristic of an evil nature
    always to remember an offense and always to upbraid and reproach one
    with things long past.144

    Luther speaks of the world infested by wise acres and smart alecks
    exploring their own way to heaven.145 The Reformer adds:

    But those who want to amount to something and who seek glory and fame
    while they really amount to nothing, desecrate and dishonor His Name.146

    We do things the wrong way, Luther claims: We are confident before


    we sin and afraid after sinning.147 This fear associated is a despair
    (Anfechtung) which tortured Luther, setting the stage for The Tower
    Experience.148
    Until the heart believes in God, it is impossible for it to rejoice in
    Him. When faith is lacking, man is filled with fear and gloom and is dis-
    posed to flee at the very mention, the mere thought of God.149
    As we have already noted, we try to run away from this fear, and it is
    costly:150

    Sin is not felt while it is being committed.151


    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  145

    Luther quotes the ancient German proverb:

    All men are pleased with what they do;


    a world of fools, I’m telling you.152

    Reason seeks itself [concupiscence], not God, Luther adds.153 Reason


    is so blind that we cannot recognize sin without the Law.154 Apart from
    the Gospel we do not even desire the right things, Luther claims.155
    In showing us our sin, the Law leads to despair, even of God’s mercy.
    The Law burdens our hearts. This is the Anfechtung Luther experienced.
    It exhausts us, makes us recalcitrant and self-centered.156 Indeed we even
    come to hate the Law.157 We would just as soon kill God if we could.158
    We have already noted that when teaching bondage of the will Luther
    did not entirely reject free will in ordinary day-to-day tasks. He writes:

    That is, man should know that so far as his goods and possessions are con-
    cerned, he has the right to use, to act, or not to act according of his free
    will – although even this is overruled by the free will of God alone, just as
    He pleases. But over against God, or in matters pertaining to salvation or
    damnation, man has no free will but is a captive, is a subject and servant
    either of the Will of God or of the will of Satan.159

    But the will is like a sword, Luther writes:

    A sword contributes nothing whatever towards its motion but is entirely


    passive; however, in inflicting the wound it has through its motion co-
    operated with him who wielded it. Therefore just as a sword does not co-
    operate toward its willing. This willing is a motion which the divine Word
    produces. It is merely something that is done to the will.160

    In a manner consistent with his teaching of Single Predestination (see


    Chap. 9), the Reformer claims, while arguing against the Catholic idea
    of cooperation with grace while seeking to assert a place for the will,
    that man is only free to place an obstacle in the path of grace.161 It is
    with a similar eye towards giving hope while undercutting free will or
    when describing threats to Christ’s rule of the Church that the Reformer
    claims that the human will is either ridden by God or Satan.162
    146  M. Ellingsen

    Good News not Far Away


    Our sin makes life miserable and tragic, vanishing like a shadow.163
    (Anfechtung is suggested by this observation.) This was probably related
    to Luther’s awareness of the flawed, imperfect character of his confes-
    sion.164 Dealing with criticisms of his thought by Catholic princes at the
    Diet of Augsburg, Luther responded by claiming that “Where there is no
    sin there is no forgiveness …” Sin must be emphasized.165 Those who
    want to speak of Christ’s redemption must concede that they are prison-
    ers of sin.166 The greater the iniquity, the greater the grace.167
    As Luther put it, first late in his career and then in his pre-Reforma-
    tion lectures on Psalms:

    Therefore this manifold corruption of our nature should not be minimized


    … this should be emphasized I say, for the reason that unless the sever-
    ity of the disease is correctly recognized, the cure is also not known or
    desired.168

    The more you disparage yourself the more you praise God, and the more
    you displease yourself, the more He pleases you, and vice versa.169

    He made a similar point in another lecture prior to the Reform:

    A true Christian must have no glory of his own and must to such an extent
    be stripped of everything he calls his own … Therefore we must in all
    things keep ourselves so humble as if we still had nothing of our own. We
    must wait for naked mercy of God Who will reckon us just and wise.170

    The Anfechtung (despair) which awareness of sin produces is the


    experience of taking everything away. As a result, nothing is left but
    God.171 This accounts for why making sin great is inseparably connected
    with exalting God’s love.172
    Sin humbles us in making us realize that we are no better than anyone
    else, Luther claims:

    This should serve … to break our pride and keep us humble. He has
    reserved to Himself this prerogative, that if anybody boasts of his goodness
    and despises others … he will find that he is not better than others, that
    in the Presence of God all men must humble themselves and be glad that
    they can attain forgiveness.173
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  147

    For we never correctly praise God unless we first disparage ourselves.174

    It is our glory, therefore, to be worthless in our eyes and in the view of the
    world … In that extreme despair we hear You are precious in My eyes.175

    Luther counsels us that an awareness of Sin makes grace sweeter Without


    Sin and guilt we would never know the great fullness of God’s mercy.176

    Notes
    1. Disp.hom., 17, WA39I:175, 36 / LW34:138; Serv.arb., WA18:662, 12/
    LW33:103.
    2. Disp.hom., 1ff., WA39I:175, 3ff./ LW34:137; Ibid., 32, WA39I:176,
    34/ LW34:139; Gen., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12.
    3. Disp.hom., WA39I:176, 7/ LW34:138; cf. Dtsch.Kat., II.1, WA30I:184,
    2/ BC432.13ff.
    4. Pred. (1537), WA45:15, 7.
    5. Thes. Antinom., WA39II:341, 21; Promodisp.Heg., WA39II:358f., 3ff.;
    Antinom.(1), WA39I:401, 4; Disp.hom., 21, WA39I:176, 7/LW34:138;
    Ibid., 15, WA39I:175, 32/LW34:138; TR (1540), WATR5:18, 12/
    LW54:401; Kurz Vat., WA7:221, 18; Hspost., W213II:2743.27/CS7: 351.
    6. Magn., WA7:550, 23/LW21:303.
    7. Gal. (1519), WA2:509, 21/ LW27:249; Leip.Disp., WA2:415, 6; cf. Rudolf
    Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol.1, trans. Kendrick Grobel
    (New York: Charles Scribner’s Son, 1951), pp. 222, 239.
    8. Dict. Ps., WA3:419f., 37ff./ LW10:356: “Quia Scriptura nihil curat quid-
    ditates rerum, sed qualitates tantum. Et hic qualiter unusquisque est et
    agit, secondum hoc habet substantiam: qua si caret, iam non subsistit.”
    9. Promodisp.Pet., WA39II:354, 10.
    10. Disp.hom., WA39I:175, 9/ LW34:137.
    11. Gen., WA42:93, 37/ LW1:24.
    12. Wein., WA10I/1:240, 7ff. /LW52:84 (when doing exhortation);
    Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46: 667, 24/ LW22:150f. (while explaining the logic of
    faith); Kirchpost.G., W211:1327.40/ CS2/2:158.
    13. Wein., WA10I/1:531, 6; Konz., WA50:553, 14/ LW41:60 (while report-
    ing history in the text); Disp.hom., 5, WA39I:175, 11/ LW34:137.
    On civic righteousness, see Gal. (1519), WA2:489f., 23ff./ LW27:219;
    Rom., WA56:235, 12/ LW25:220; Ibid., WA56:237, 4/ LW25:222;
    Gen., WA42:291f., 24ff./ LW2:42.
    14. Gen., WA42:248, 38/ LW1:124. For natural knowledge of God, see
    p.50, nn.13–14; Gen., WA42:348, 38/ LW2:123.
    148  M. Ellingsen

    15. TR (1530), WATR1:574ff., 24ff.


    16. TR (n.d.), WATR1:565, 22: “Inter omnia opera seu dona praestantis-
    simum est loqui. Hoc enim solo opera homo differet ab omnibus
    animalibus.”
    Cf. TR (1543), WATR4:546, 11.
    17. Dtsch.Kat., I.2, WA30I:139, 17/ BC:392.50.
    18. Vor. O.T., WADB10I:100, 10/ LW35:254.
    19. Dict. Ps., WA3:419, 25/ LW10:355. Also see p.49, n.7.
    20. TR (n.d.), WATR6:266, 23: “Denn Gott hat die Menschen geschaffen,
    das man sich freundlich und friedlich in Zuchen und Ehren zusammen
    haben soll.”
    21. Gen., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12.
    22. Gen., WA42:432, 13/LW2:239: “ …scio Deum sic distrbuere sua dona,
    non ut per ea dominemur aliis, aut contemnamus aliorum iudicia, sed ut
    serviamus iis, qui in ea re nostra habent opus opera.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA43:333, 28/ LW4:276.
    23. Ibid., WA42:98, 26 /LW1:131: “Nam neque principiam nec finem
    suum homines norunt, quando verbo carent …”.
    24. Ibid., WA42:42, 5ff./ LW1:56f.; cf. Ibid., WA42:654, 23/ LW3:149;
    Ibid., WA42:63, 25/ LW1:84; Ibid., WA42:98, 11/ LW1:131.
    25. Disp.just., WA39I:108, 5/ LW34:177; Gen., WA42:47, 8/ LW1:62–63.
    26. Wein., WA10I/1:206f., 23ff./ LW52:60; Gen., WA42:64, 27/ LW1:84–85.
    27. Gen., WA42:47, 33/ LW1:63; cf. Ibid., WA42:85, 10/ LW1:112.
    28. Ibid., WA42:10, 36/ LW1:12.
    29. Ibid., WA42:47f., 32ff. /LW1:63–64.
    30. Ibid., WA42:46, 4 /LW1:61.
    31. Ibid., WA42:124, 32/ LW1:166.
    32. Ibid., WA42:47, 8/ LW1:62–63.
    33. 2Ps., WA5:168, 1: “Quo enim perveniat, qui sperat in deum, nisi in sui
    nihilum? Quo autem abeat, qui abit in nihilum, nisi eo, unde venit? Venit
    autem ex deo et suo nihilo, quaere in deum redit, qui redit in nihilum.
    Neque enim extra manum dei quoque cadere potest, qui extra seipsum
    omnemque creaturam cadit, quam dei manus undique complecitur …
    Per mundum ergo rue, quo rues? Utique in manum et sinum dei.”
    34. Dict.Ps., WA4:295, 19ff.: “Anima mea in minibus meis simper …. Anima
    mea est in potestate mea et in libertate arbitiri possum eam perdere vel
    salvare eligendovel reprobando legem tuam, q.d. licet ego sim liber ad
    utrunque, tamen legam tuam non sum oblitus. Et hec glosa melior est …”.
    35. Rom., WA56:275, 11/ LW25:262; Ibid., WA56:237, 2f./ LW25:222: “Quia
    homo non potest nisi qua sua sint, quaere et se super omnia diligere.” Also
    see Ibid., WA56:289, 18/ LW25:276; Ibid., WA56:312, 6/ LW25:299;
    Ibid., WA56:321, 2/ LW25:308–309.
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  149

    36. Ps.51, WA40II:327, 21/ LW12:310f.


    37. Ibid., WA40II:323f., 32ff./ LW12:308–309.
    38. Dict.Ps., WA3:285, 17/ LW.
    39. Disp.hom., WA39I:175, 9/ LW34:137.
    40. Stuf., WA40III:51, 8; Pred. (1525), WA17I:68, 20. Also see p.50, n.12.
    41. Disp. indulg., 1, WA1:233, 10/ LW31:25: “1. Dominus et magister
    noster Iesus Christus dicendo ‘Penitentiam agit &c.’ omnem vitam fide-
    lium penitentiam esse voluit.”
    Cf. Kirchpost.G., W211:692.33/ CS1/2:315; Ibid., W211:713.49/
    CS1/2:340; Ibid., W211:719.61/ CS1/2:347.
    42. Dict.Ps., WA3:212, 36/ LW10:177.
    43. Ps., WA40II:381, 29/ LW12:348f.; cf. Sum., WA38:36, 25; Dict.Ps.,
    WA3:288f., 37ff./ LW10:236.
    44. Ps.51, WA40II:380, 25/LW12:348; Fest., WA17II:286, 9; Serv.arb.,
    WA18:784, 5/ LW33:289–290.
    45. Gen., WA42:64, 27/ LW1:84–85.
    46. Serv. Arb., WA18:752.7/ LW33:240.
    47. Gen., WA42:122, 12/ LW1:162; Ibid., WA42:111, 23/ LW1:148; Vor.
    N.T.,WADB7: 6, 32/ LW35:369; Antinom.(1), WA39I:404, 5.
    48. Gen., WA42L112, 29/ LW1:149; Heb., WA57III:182, 5/ LW29:182;
    49. Wein., WA10I/1:636, 11/ LW52:213.
    50. Antinom.(3), WA39I:580, 13.
    51. Rom., WA56:179, 11/ LW25:159–160; 2.Ps., WA31I:454, 13ff./ LW14:133.
    52. Rom., WA56:12, 1/ LW25:10.
    53. Ps.51, WA40II:325, 28/ LW12:309; Disp. Heid., WA1:358f., 36/ LW31:47.
    54. Pred. (1525), WA17I:234, 15/ LW12:188: “ … aber gleichwol so fule
    ich noch ymerdar des fleisches böse art und natur, da stickt in meienem
    fleisch eitel ehre, böse, lust, hafs und neid.”
    55. Leip.Disp., WA2:412f., 33ff.; cf. Heid.Disp., WA1:367, 28/ LW31:61;
    Res.Cath., WA7:760, 1.
    56. Disp.Schol., WA1:225, 1/ LW31:10; Rom., WA56:376, 19/ LW25:366.
    57. Vor. N.T., WADB7:6f., 32ff./ LW35:369.
    58. Disp. Schol. Theol., WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10: “21. Non est in natura nisi
    actus concupiscentiae era deum.”õ
    Cf. Ibid., WA1:224, 22/ LW 319; Ibid., WA1:227, 14/ LW31:13;
    Ibid., WA1:227, 16, 22, 35, 37; / LW31:14; Ibid., WA1:228, 1, 22/
    LW31:14, 15; Res., WA1:532, 20/ LW 31:86; Ibid., WA1:662, 17/
    LW31:136; Disp.Ec., WA2:160, 33/ LW 31:317; Dict.Ps., WA 3:287,
    22/ LW 10:235; Rom., WA56:321, 3/ LW25:309; Ibid., WA56:391,
    20/ LW25:381; Dict.Ps., WA3:16, 12/ LW10:12; Ibid., WA3:538,
    12/ LW11:21; Ibid., WA4:328, 13/ LW11:447; Ibid., WA4:151, 18/
    LW11:301; Rom., WA56:367, 24/ LW25:357 (claiming we are slaves).
    150  M. Ellingsen

    59. Rom., WA56:276, 6/ LW25:259; cf. Ibid., WA56:275, 11ff/ LW25:


    262; Ibid., WA56: 283, 15/ LW25:270; Disp.Just., WA39I:118, 7/ LW34:
    186.
    60. Kirchpost.G., W2: 11:444, 3/ CS2/1:33: “Denn das ist der Menschen
    Weisheit, dass sie nichts anderes sihet trachtet noch begehrt, den was
    ehrlich hoch und föstlich ist …”.
    61. Ps.68, WA8:9, 4/ LW13:7; Kirchpost.G., W211:749, 3/ CS1/2:380; TR
    (1532), WATR1: 146, 121/ LW54:50; BR (1520), WABR2:171, 7/LW48:
    174; cf. Vor.Lat., WA54:185, 21/ LW34:336–337.
    62. Disp.Schol.Theolo., 21, WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10; cf. Uber., WA7:656,
    18/ LW39:185.
    63. 1 Pt., WA12:301, 19/ LW30:47.
    64. Grnd., WA7:436f., 23ff./LW32:86; Ab.Chr., WA26:345, 32/ LW37:
    233; Gut.Werk., WA6:244, 10/ LW44:72–73.
    65. Rom., WA56:312, 4/ LW25:299; Ibid., WA56:273f., 10ff./ LW25:261;
    cf. Latom., WA8:101, 34/ LW32:220; Disp.just., WA39I:116f., 22ff./
    LW34:185.
    66. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:609, 19ff./ LW24:162.
    67. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:212, 12; Kirchpost.E., W212:107.14/ CS3/
    2:120; Ev.Joh. 16–20, WA28:371, 17/LW69:243; Wein., WA10I/1:
    25f., 12ff.; Rom., WA56:178f., 27/ LW25:159; Gut.Werk., WA6:244,
    10/LW44:72–73.
    68. Disp.Heid, WA1:360, 27/ LW31:50.
    69. Hspost., W213II:1576.7/ CS5:217.
    70. Rom., WA56:305, 4/ LW25:292.
    71. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:679f., 36ff./ LW22:165: “Es ist sűnde auff deinem
    halfe, die dringet und druckt, und Vernunfft kan da seinen andern rat
    noch lere geben, den sihet sie, das gefündiget hat, so spricht sie: ich
    wil mich bessern und from werden … den wo sie da bleiben, so bist
    due verdamet und verloren, den du bist zu schwach dazu, du kanst die
    sunde nicht uberwinden.”
    72. Disp.Schol.Theol., WA1:225, 9/ LW31:10: “Non est in natura nisi actus
    concupiscentiae erga deum.”
    73. Rom., WA56:353, 1ff./LW25:341–342; Council of Trent, Decree
    Concerning Original Sin (1546), 5.
    74. Serm.dr.gut, WA7:804, 4/ LW44:241: “… sundern wil etwas damit vor-
    dienen oder empflihen …”.
    75. Gut.Werk., WA6:221f., 30ff./ LW44:44.
    76. Rom., WA56:353f., 1ff./ LW25:357.
    77. Grnd., WA7:445, 17/ LW32:91; Ibid., WA7:433, 13ff./ LW32:83;
    Ibid., WA7:438, 7/ LW32:86–87; Dict.Ps., WA4:364, 15/ LW11:496.
    78. Hspost., W213II:1431.7/ CS5:91.
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  151

    79. Serv. Arb., WA18:765f., 40ff./ LW33:261; Ps.51, WA40II:389, 4ff./


    LW12:354f; Antinom.(2), WA39I:459, 16; Ps.51, WA40II:455, 36/
    LW12:400; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:309f., 33ff./ LW17:63; Rom.,
    WA56:96, 12/ LW25:86; Ibid., WA56:418f., 27ff./ LW25:410.
    80. Disp. Heid., 3, WA1:353, 19/ LW31:39.
    81. Und beich., WA2:60, 19f.
    82. Serm.Bu., WA2:721, 24/ LW35:20; Serm.poen., WA1:322, 33.
    83. Serv.arb., WA18:767f., 31ff./ LW33:263–264.
    84. Kirchpost.G., W211:1138.4/ CS2/1:397–398.
    85. 2.Ps., WA5:564, 28.
    86. Gal. (1535), WA40I:479, 23/ LW12:308.
    87. Rom., WA56:248f., 24ff./ LW25:235.
    88. Gen., WA42:126, 37/ LW1:169; Rom., WA56:314, 3/ LW25:301.
    89. Rom., WA56:237, 2/ LW25:222.
    90. Ibid., WA56:482, 24/ LW25:475.
    91. Gem., WA42:290, 14/LW2:40.
    92. Rom., WA56:304, 25/ LW25:291: “Ratio est, Quia Natura nostra vitio
    primi peccati tam profunda est in seipsam incura, vt non solum optima
    dona Dei sibi inflectat ipsisque fruatur (vt patet in Iustitiariis et hipo-
    critis) immo et ipso Deo vtatur ad illa consequenda, Verum etiam hoc
    ipsum ignoret, Quod tam inique, curue et praue onmia, etiam Deum,
    propter seipsam querat.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:356, 4/LW25:345; Ibid., WA56:482f., 24ff./ LW25:
    475; Dict.Ps., WA3:212, 34/ LW.
    93. Disp. Heid., 28, WA1:354, 34/ LW31:41.
    94. Hspost., W213II:2364.1/ CS7:16.
    95. Kirchpost.G., W211:1621.20f./ CS3/1:11.
    96. Matt.5–7, WA32:408, 36/ LW21:132.
    97. Pred.Sol., WA20:12, 10/ LW15:10: “Quando vult aliquis artifex esse
    fieri, tum non adest, non est quies, donec adsit: adipiscens fastidit et
    expetit aliud.”
    98. Magn., WA7:556, 25/ LW21:309.
    99. Hspost., W213II:1492.3/ CS5:145: “Denn das sieht man in der
    Erfahrung, dass Gott unter seinem Regiment solche Leute hat, er thue
    ihnen wohl oder übel er stäupe sie oder gebe ihnen gute Worte, so ists
    bald vergessen. So ein schändlich Ding ists um eines Menschen Herz,
    dass es so balb eines Dinges vergisst und unsern Herrn Gott immerdar
    treibt, dass er stets heue Wunderzeichen und Strasen muss gehen lassen,
    sollen wir anders wacker sein und seiner Wohlthat gebenken, sonst wirds
    gar bald vergessen.”
    100. Rom., WA56:237, 12/ LW25:222: “Quia homo non potest, nisi que
    sua sunt querere et se super omnia diligere. Que est summa omnium
    152  M. Ellingsen

    vitiorum. Vnde et in bonis et virtutibus tales querunt seipsos, se. Vt sibi


    placeant et plaudant.”
    Cf. Grnd., WA7:445, 17/ LW32:91; Matt.5–7, WA32:410, 18/
    LW21:134; Ibid., WA32:413, 24/ LW21:137; Rom., WA56:356, 6ff./
    LW25:345.
    101. TR (1542–1543), WATR5:219, 31/ LW54:448.
    102. Disp.Heid., WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41: “28. Amor Dei non in verit sed
    creat suam diligibile, Amor hominis fit a suo diligibili.”
    103. Rom., WA56:342f., 33ff./ LW25:331; Ibid., WA56:356, 4/ LW25:345.
    104. Ibid., WA56:385, 15/ LW25:375; Serv.arb., WA18:709, 28/ LW33:176;
    Ibid., WA18: 636, 4/ LW33:67; Ibid., WA18:670, 19/ LW33:115.
    105. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:141, 15/ LW51:30.
    106. Rom., WA56:220, 25/ LW25:308.
    107. Serv.arb., WA18:760, 14/ LW33:252: “Quid igitur reliquum est, quam
    liberum arbitrium, dum optimum est, pessimum esse, et quo magis
    conatur, hoc peius fieri et habere?”
    108. Serv.arb., WA18:722, 4/LW33:194–195; Disp. Heid., 13–15,
    WA1:354, 5ff./ LW31:40; Serm. S.P.P., WA2:247, 15/ LW51:57.
    109. Disp. Heid., WA1:354, 5/ LW31:40; Ibid., WA1:359, 23/ LW31:48;
    Grund., WA7:436f., 33ff./ LW32:86; Assert.art., WA7:142ff. But see
    how Luther qualifies this point in p.130, n.49.
    110. Pred. (1532), WA36:181, 1/ WLS:821: “Das ists werlich. Mundus abu-
    titur ingratissime omnibus creaturis et blasphemat deum und legt yhn
    alle plage an. Das ist dilectio incompehensibilis et maior igni …”.
    111. TR (1533), WATR1:298, 9/ LW54:111: “Die welt ist wie ein trunker
    baur: hebt man in auff einer seht in fattel, so felt er zur andern wider
    herab. Man kan yhr nit helffen, man stelle sich, wie man wolle, sie will
    des Teuffels sein.”
    112. Antinom.(1), WA39I:378f., 27ff..; Serv.arb., WA18:693, 28/ LW33:151–152.
    113. Kirchpost.G., W211:712f.46f./ CS1/2:339; Promodips.Heg., WA39II:
    366f., 7ff.; cf. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:122f., 41ff./ LW22:403.
    114. Serv.arb., WA18:679, 23/ LW33:130: “Scriptura vero talem proponit
    hominem, qui non modo sit litagus, miser, captus, aeger mortuus, Sed qui
    addit, operante Satana principe suo, hanc miseriam caecitatis miseriis suis,
    ut se liberum, beatum, solutim, potentem, sanum vivum esse credat.”
    115. Hspost., W213II:2726, 22/ CS7:336: “Aber das heisst nicht recht
    gehört, wenn der Pfarrherr andere Leute straft, dass du sagest: Das ist
    ein seiner Mann, er kann aus den Bünden (ausbündig) wohl predigen;
    wie geht er hindurch! wenn er aber dich angreift, das du sagest: Dass den
    Pfassen dies und jenes! hat er von niemand zu predigen, den von mir?”
    116. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:94, 25/ LW22:371: “Es ist sich whohl druber zu
    verwundern, das eine solche bossheit in den menschen sein solle, das
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  153

    sie ihre gute werck ohne grossen zorn und unwilligkeit nicht wegkwers-
    sen konnen, do es ihnen doch lieb und angeneme sein soltle durch eine
    frembde hulsse und wolthatt selig zu werden.”
    117. Haus., WA52:799:19: “Aber da sihet man an niemandt nasse augen, und
    geschicht, ne tieffer die menschen im schlam der sünden stecken, das sie
    so vil dest mer sicher und frölich sind …”.
    118. Hspost., W213II:2129.7/ CS6:225: :Ists doch jetzt dahin gekommen,
    dass das grobe Laster Sausen und Schwelgen, nicht mehr für Schande
    gehalten wird, sondern Völlerei und Trunkenheit muss nun Fröhlichkeit
    heissen. Und gleichwie alle Laster sind zu Tugend geworden, also ists
    auch mit dem Geiz … dass wenn sie könnten auf dem Markte …”.
    119. Ibid., W213II:2100.13/ CS6:199; Ibid., W213II:1875f.19ff./ CS5:473.
    120. Rom., WA56:232f., 34ff./ LW25:217: “Vnde dixi, quam rarum et ard-
    uum sit peccatorem fieri et hunc versum recte dicere et ex corde … Sed
    dicendum, Quis modus iste sit, quo hominem spiritualiter fieri oportet
    peccatorem. Est enim non naturalis.”
    121. Dict.Ps., WA3:56, 36/ LW10:68: “Quantumvis ergo sis sanctus et ius-
    tus, cave, unquam per te vel in tuer iustitia spenes in dominum.”
    122. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:640, 11/ LW23:393: “Aber man woltte gern an
    Christum gleuben wen einer dadurch köndte zum Herrn werden und
    einer ein konigreich Erlangen mochte … Das gescheicht feltten, das
    man bleibet bey den lehre, wenn ein saurer windt wehet …”.
    123. Dtsch.Kat., III.5, WA30I:207, 7/ BC:452.90.
    124. Hspost., W213II:1951.13/ CS6:65: “Will also sagen: Sünde sit alwege in
    unss; aber weil das Gesetz nicht kommt, ist die Sünde gleich, als schliese
    sie …”.
    125. Haus. (1544), WA52:293,
    126. TR (1531), WATR1:60, 26: “… die Erbsunde in Menschen ware gleich
    wie eines Mannes Bart, welcher, ob er wol heute abgeschnitten würde,
    dass einer gar glatt ums Maul wäre, dennoch wűchse ihm der Bart des
    Morgens wieder. Solches Maschen der Här und Barts hörete nicht auf,
    dieweil ein Mensch lebte; wenn man aber mit der Schaufel zuschlägt, so
    hörets auf. Also bleibet der Erbsunde auch in uns und reget sich, deiweil
    wir leben …”.
    127. Disp. Schol. Theol., 5, 6, WA1:224., 22/LW31:9; Serv.arb., WA18:
    668f., 6ff./LW33:113-115; Ibid., WA18:757f., 18ff./ LW33:247ff.
    128. Rom., WA56:367, 26/ LW25:357.
    129. Hspost.,W213II:2163.2/ CS6:254.
    130. Pred. (1532), WA36:181, 2: “Mundus abutitur ingratissime omnibus
    creaturis et blesphemat deum und legt yhn alle plage an. Das ist delectio
    incomprehensibilis et maior igni, quem vidit Mose, et infernali.”
    154  M. Ellingsen

    131. Serv.arb., WA18:615, 12/ LW33:37; Ibid., WA18:709ff., 5ff./ LW33:


    175–183; Ibid., WA18:718, 31/ LW33:189; 1 Pet., WA12:262, 11/ LW30:
    6 – specialized context of exhortation to Christian life.
    132. See n.109, above (esp. Disp.Heid., 13–14, WA1:354, 5ff./ LW31:40).
    133. Grnd., WA7:445, 31/ LW32:92.
    134. Marginal Comments on Gabriel Biel (n.d.), text as esptablished by Leif
    Grane, Contra Gabrieliem: Luthers Auseiandersetzung mit Gabriel Biel
    in der Disputatio contra schoalsticam theologiam (Gyldendal: Aarhuus
    Stiftsbogtrykkerie, 1962), p. 359: “Et per consequens non est informa
    nec eget gratia dei. Onmia ista ex stulto fundamento precedent liberi
    arbitrii – quasi l. arb. Passit ex se ipso in utrumque oppositorum, cum
    solum ad malum sit pronum.”
    135. Serv.arb., WA18:749f., 30ff./ LW33:236–237, is the exception, but even
    in this treatise at another point, addressing a different context, Luther
    claims that we still have freedom in ordinary matters (see previous chapter).
    136.  Ibid., WA18:777, 33/ LW33:279; Ibid., WA18:609, 15ff./ LW33:29.
    137.  Ibid., WA18:777, 28/ LW33:279; Ibid., WA18:644, 9/ LW33:77;
    Ibid., WA18:664, 1ff./ LW33:106–107.
    138.  Ibid., WA18:664, 14/ LW33:107.
    139. Fest., WA17II:282, 14.
    140. Serm.S.P.P., WA2:246f., 34ff./ LW51:57.
    141. Serv.arb., WA18:636, 10/ LW33:67.
    142. Hspost.,W213II:1493.6/ CS5:147.
    143. Gal. (1535), WA40II:84, 15/ LW27:67.
    144. Decem praecepta: Wittenbergens; predicate populo (1518), WA1:480, 24:
    “… Nihil tardius recordairi quam iniuriam, et nihil citius abolescere
    quam beneficium … At contra malae naturae ingenium, semper retinere
    offensam, semper exprobrare et obiicere diu practerita.”
    145. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:584, 20/ LW22:56–57.
    146. Ps., WA31I:424, 23/ LW13:384: “Welche aber auch etwas sein wollen
    und rhum odder namen suchen, so sie doch nichts sind, die entheiligen
    und unehren seinen namen …”.
    147. Res., WA1:594, 19/ LW31:192.
    148. Disp.indulg., 15, WA1:234, 5/ LW31:27; Res., WA1:557f., 33/
    LW31:129; Serv.arb., WA18:719, 9/ LW33:190; TR(1531), WATR1:48f.,
    10ff./ LW54:16–17; Ibid., (1532), WATR3: 228, 24/ LW54:193; Ibid.
    (1539), WATR4:293, 4/ LW54:336; 2.Ps., WA5:210, 13.
    149. Krichpost.E., W212:82, 2/ CS3/2:93: “Denn es ist nicht möglich, dass
    sichein Herz sollte in Gott freuen, das nicht zuvor an ihn glaubt. So
    nicht Glaube ist, das ist eitel Furcht, Flucht, Scheu und Traurigkeit,
    wenn nur Gottes gedacht oder genennet wird …”
    Cf. Ibid., W212:93.30/ CS3/2:106.
    7  HUMAN NATURE, SIN, AND FREE WILL  155

    150. See n.117, above.


    151. Gen., WA42:122, 26/ LW1:163: “Dum enim in actu est, non sentitur
    …”.
    152. Sp.OT, WA48:10, 12/8: “Eim jeden gselt sein weise wol, Darumb die
    Welt ist Karren vol.”
    153. Rom., WA56:355, 15/ LW25:344.
    154. Serv.arb., WA18:766, 8/ LW33:261; Antinom.(1), WA39I:412, 1; Som.
    Post., WA10I/2:407, 20; Wein., WA10I/1:455, 5.
    155. Kl. Proph., WA13:541, 16/ LW18:382.
    156. Thes. Wel., WA39I:50, 24/ LW34:116; 2.Ps., WA5:556, 20ff.; Gen.,
    WA44:617, 33/ LW8: 52.
    157. 2.Ps., WA5:557, 10ff.
    158. Antinom.(3), WA39I:560, 20; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:660, 20/ LW22:142;
    Antinom.(1), WA39I: 382, 14.
    159. Serv.arb., WA18:638, 7/ LW33:70: “ … ut sciat sesse in suis facultatibus
    et possessionibus habere ius utendi, faciendi, omittendi pro libero arbi-
    trio, licet et idipsum regatur solius Dei libero arbirtrio, quocunque illi
    placuerit. Caeterum erga Deum, vel in rebus, quae pertinent ad salutem
    vel damnationem, non habet liberum arbitrium sed captivus, subiectus
    et servus est vel voluntatitis Dei vel voluntatis Satanae.”
    160.  2Ps., WA5:177, 21: “Voluntas vero incarnate seu in opus externum
    effusa recte potest dici cooperari et activitatem habere, sicut gladius
    in suo motu prorsus nihil agit, mere autem patitur. At in vulnere facto
    cooperatus per motum suum secanti per ipsum. Quare sicut gladius
    ad sui motum nihil cooperator, ita nec voluntas ad suum velle, qui est
    divini verbi motus, mera passio voluntatis …”.
    161. Serm (1514–1517), WA1:32, 18ff.
    162. Serv.arb., WA18:635, 17/ LW33:65–66; Att.Ann., WA38:545, 28.
    163. 90.Ps., WA40III:573, 8/ LW13:128.
    164. Verm.geist., WA30II:287, 13/ LW34:19, 336–337; Vor.Lat.,
    WA54:185f., 21ff./ LW34:336–337.
    165. Auff.Ed., WA30III:345, 8/ LW34:78: “Wo keine sunde ist, das ist kein
    vergbung …”.
    166. Wein., WA10I/1:440f., 22ff./ LW52:143.
    167. 1 Tim., WA26:24, 6/ LW28:245.
    168. Gen., WA42:107, 5/ LW1:142: “Non itaque haec naturae multiplex
    corruption extenuanda sed magis amplificanda … Amplificanda, inquam,
    haec sunt propterea quod, nisi recte cognoscatur magnitude morbi,
    remedium quoque non congoscitur nec desideratur.”
    169. Dict.Ps., WA4:172, 11/ LW11:316: “Tanto enim magis deum laudas,
    quanto magis to vituperas, et tanto magis ipse tibi placet, quanto magis
    tu fibi displaces, et econtra.”
    156  M. Ellingsen

    170. Rom., WA56:159, 4/ LW25:137: “Sed omnino Christianus verus ita


    debet nihil proprium habere, ita omnibus extus esse, vut gloriam et
    ignobilitatem idem fit Sciens, Quod Gloria sibi exhibita sibi … Idarco
    in istus omnibus sic oportet se habere in humilitate, quasi adjuc nihil
    habeat, et nudam misericordiam Dei expectare eum pro Iusto et sapi-
    ente reputantis.”
    171. 2.Ps., WA5:165f., 39ff.;cf. Heb., WA57III:207, 21/ LW29:209.
    172. Latom., WA8:114f., 36ff./ LW32:240.
    173. Dtsch.Kat., III.5, WA30I:207, 7/ BC:452.90: “Solchs aber sol nu darzu
    dienen, das uns Gott den stoltz breche und ynn der demut halte. Denn
    er hat yhm für behalten das vorteil; ob yemand wolte auff seine fromkeit
    bochen und andere verachten, das er sich selbs ansehe und dis gebete
    fur augen stele, so wird er finden, das er eben so from ist als die andern,
    und müssen alle fur Gott die feddern nidderschlagen und fro warden,
    das wir zu der vergebung kommen …”.
    174. Dict.Ps., WA3:191, 3/ LW10:162; cf. Gen., WA42:107, 5/ LW1:142.
    175. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:330, 28/ LW17:88: “Nostra gloria igitur
    est in nostris oculis et mundi aspecta vilescere … In illa desperaciona
    extrema audimus: “Tu es preciousus ante oculos meos.”
    176. TR (1540), WATR4:643, 6.
    CHAPTER 8

    Atonement

    Since the twentieth century, but even earlier, Luther Research has been
    torn by a dispute over whether Luther taught the Satisfaction Theory of
    the Atonement (the belief that Christ’s death has redeemed us by paying
    the debt owed God for our sin) or whether that vision of the Atonement
    was rejected by the Reformer since it entails a legalistic model for under-
    standing God’s Work.1 In fact, as we have observed in other disputes
    about Luther’s theology, both sides are right about the Reformer (at
    least in certain contexts).
    According to Luther Christ is not called Christ because He took Two
    Natures, but because of His office as Savior. We do not yet have Christ,
    Luther though, if all we know about Him is that He is God and man.2
    We transfer our sins to Christ, so now we see our sin in Him.3 As the
    Reformer put it:

    If our sins, therefore, rest upon Christ, we can be content; they are in the
    right place – just where they belong. Upon us they do not lie well; for
    we and all men, yes, and all creatures, are too weak to bear a single sin …
    Therefore let them remain upon Christ.4

    While describing the works of Christ (and so the logic of faith) Christ is
    said to overcome sin, death, and hell for us.5 This image suggests the Classic
    View of the Atonement (the idea that, unlike the Satisfaction Theory, Christ
    has saved us by conquering the sin, evil, death, and Satan).6 With some con-
    cern to exhort faith, Luther also speaks of fighting the devil.7

    © The Author(s) 2017 157


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_8
    158  M. Ellingsen

    Mr. Devil, do not rage so. Just take it easy! For there is One Who is called
    Christ. In Him I believe. He has abrogated the Law, damned sin, abol-
    ished death, and destroyed hell. And He is your devil, you devil, because
    He has captured and conquered you, so that you cannot harm me any
    longer nor anyone else who believes in Him.8

    While offering comfort Luther refers to Christ conquering death.9


    He is also said to have “swallowed up and devoured death.10 Luther also
    speaks to Christ smothering death and even of God’s wrath as Christ’s
    enemy.11 Christ is said to catch Satan on a hook like a worm.12
    Luther himself has very little to speculate about regarding the devil.
    He merely identifies Satan as “the insane idea of self-righteousness.”13
    Even the Law is construed as an enemy of Christ.14 The wrath of God is
    also construed sometimes as an enemy.15 The Reformer also believed in
    witches.16
    The Victory of Christ is made ours through Word and Sacrament,
    Luther claimed.17 For the Cross is hidden.18 Explicating the faith, the
    Reformer notes that the sufferings of Christ are the afflictions of all the
    people.19 This awareness makes suffering more tolerable.

    Satisfaction Theory
    The Classic View was not Luther’s only way of construing the
    Atonement. It is true that when preaching Luther claims that there is
    no place for thinking about satisfaction in his thought.20 But this seems
    to be a contextual commitment. For contrary to some interpreters the
    Reformer also teaches in some contexts the Satisfaction Theory—the
    idea that Christ’s death satisfies the wrath of God. It appears especially
    when dealing with Christian life, being a pupil of the Law, or when
    Christian life is combined with a polemical concern.21
    Against the sects but also with Christian life in view the Reformer
    wrote:

    In these words Paul gives a beautiful description of the priesthood and the
    work of Christ, which is to placate God to intercede and pray for sinners,
    to offer Himself as a sacrifice for their sins, and to redeem them … and
    offer Himself to God as a sacrifice for us miserable sinners to sanctify us
    forever.22
    8 ATONEMENT  159

    In a sermon exhorting love, Luther compellingly embraces the images of


    substitution:

    For how amazing it is that the Son of God becomes my Servant, that He
    humbles Himself so that He cumbers Himself with my misery, yes with the
    sin and death of the entire world! He says to me: “You are no longer a sin-
    ner, but I am your substitute. You have not sinned, but I have.” 23

    In the same vein Luther claims:

    Whatever sins I, you and all of us have committed or may commit in the
    future, they are as much Christ’s own, as if He Himself had committed
    them.24

    Christ is the greatest of all sinners:

    And all the prophets saw this, that Christ was to become the greatest thief,
    murderer, adulterer, robber, desecrator, blasphemer, etc. there has ever
    been anywhere in the world.25

    Only Christ satisfies God’s wrath, the Reformer noted.26 In his 1517
    Lectures On Hebrews, concerned with sacrificial biblical images, Luther
    claims that “Christ appears before the face of God for us.”27 This image
    also suggests like the Satisfaction Theory that Christ placates God for us.

    Other Alternatives
    On a handful of occasions, when exhorting the Christian with a con-
    cern to affirm God’s love in face of despair, Luther speaks of Christ
    as an Example (exempel) (Third Use of the Law and Moral Influence
    Theory).28 This vision of the Atonement entails that Christ’s example
    saves us insofar as we are to emulate Him and by this lifestyle be saved.
    The general consensus about the Reformer’s theology at this point is
    correct. The Reformer is very suspicious about this image. Christ’s role
    as Example is said to be of no avail without Christ on the Cross.29
    It is obvious, then, that like the other doctrines thus far considered
    Luther employs different ways of depicting the doctrine we considered
    in different contexts (perhaps because the Bible teaches all of them).
    Thus it is not surprising that Luther brought several of these Atonement
    160  M. Ellingsen

    models (the Classic View and Satisfaction Theory) together when expli-
    cating faith.30 Later in the book we’ll elaborate on how to hold the
    diversity together. It has a lot to do with the fact that they are all present
    in Scripture.

    Whom Is the Atonement for?


    Luther has a strong focus on believing that what Christ has done is for
    me (pro me), that

    … you believe this both of yourself and also of the elect, that Christ died
    and made satisfaction for your sins.31

    He makes this point especially when exhorting faith, insisting that what
    Christ has done is for the elect and for me. Christ’s Work is just a not
    just a mere historical fact, but is life-changing.
    When exhorting faith or its logic, as we shall see, Luther posits that
    Christ’s Work creates a situation of salvation for all (Single Predestination) .
    He claims that “wherever the Word of the Gospel is, there is remission of
    sins.”32 It is for the whole world and so for us, Luther claims in polemical
    circumstances or when articulating faith’s logic.33 But when dialoguing with
    those who devalue Baptism or preaching he claims:

    Had Christ been crucified a hundred thousand times and had nothing
    been said about it, what profit would the act of His being brought to the
    Cross have brought?34

    When exhorting Christian life faith must be activated in order for


    Christ’s Atoning Work to do you any good. But in contexts where the
    logic of faith is being expounded or comfort offered, then His Work
    provides us with salvation (as long as we do not throw it away). Luther
    seems to teach this idea of salvation given to all even further in his exege-
    sis of 1 Peter 3:19—which teaches that Christ preached to the spirits in
    heaven (presumably hell).

    Christ’s Descent into Hell


    Luther was open to Christ preaching to the dead, but does not sup-
    port the affirmation in one lecture.35 In a 1527 sermon he claims that
    the affirmation of descent into hell entails that Christ went as deep as it
    8 ATONEMENT  161

    is possible to go to bring all things under His rule.36 But he was more
    open to this understanding of I Peter 3:19 later in his life.37
    The Reformer prefers to interpret the text in terms of all time
    being one for God (those believing in their subsequent belief when in
    heaven).38 He was open to God imparting faith after death.39 The devil’s
    reign and power is said to be destroyed by Christ’s descent into hell. But
    it still holds unbelievers.40 Hell and the devil can no longer do harm for
    Christians, he proclaims.41
    With Christ’s descent to hell and His Resurrection, the devil can be
    said to be beneficial for believers, Luther claims.42 The grave henceforth
    becomes a garden for the saints.43 We shall observe even more clearly
    in the next chapter that there is definitely a universal thrust to grace
    on Luther’s grounds when he is not addressing polemics or exhorting
    Christian life.

    Closing Comments
    The Atonement is Good News for Luther:

    … it hurts the Lord to see that we weep at the sight of His suffering. He
    wants us to be glad, praise God, thank His grace, extol, glorify and confess
    Him; for through this journey we come into possession of the grace of
    God.44

    Our nature is opposed to the function of power of Christ’s Passion … We


    must clearly transfer our sins from ourselves to Christ … Hence you must
    say: “I see my sin in Christ, therefore my sin is not mine but another’s. I
    see it in Christ.”45

    The Passion is a testimony to Christ’s “tremendous love” (grosze liebe).46 It


    is hard to be an ingrate in face of the Atonement, Luther contends. If some-
    one comes to your rescue, you would be a wretch not to feel grateful.47

    Notes
    1. 
    A good example of this debate is evidenced in the dispute between
    Gustaf Aulen, Christus Victor, trans. A. G. Herbert (London: S.P.C.K.,
    1931) and Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther.trans. Robert
    C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963), pp. 218ff., earlier
    staged between Albrecht Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification
    and Reconciliation, ed. and trans. H. R. Mackintosh and A.B.
    162  M. Ellingsen

    Macaulay (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1900) and Theodosius Harnack,


    Luthers Theologie mit besonderer Beziehung auf seine Versohnungs- und
    Erlosungslehre (Erlangen: T. Blaesing, 1886), pp. 1–19.
    2. Thes. Wel., WA39I:45f., 33ff./ LW34:110f.; Ex., WA16:217f., 10.
    3. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:434, 4/ LW17:223.
    4. Haus., WA52:738f., 39ff.: “Ligen nu dein Sünde auff Christo, so sey nur
    in deinem hertzen zu friden, sie ligen am richten art, da sie hyn gehören.
    Auff dir lagen sie nicht recht, den du und alle menschen, Ya alle Creatur
    sind zu schwach, das sie ein einige sünd föndten tragen … Darumb lass
    sie nur auff Christo ligen …”
    Cf. Leid.Christ., WA2:136–142/ LW42:7–14.
    5. Kirchpost.G., W211:22.51/ CS 1/1:38–39; Kirchpost.E., W212:492.4/
    CS4/1:196.
    6. 1 Pet., WA12:284, 18/ LW30:29; Vor N.T., WADB6:8, 5; Gal. (1535),
    WA40I:356, 31/ LW26:224; Pred. (1541), WA49:252,14; Kl.Kat., III.2,
    WA30:295f., 29ff./BC355.4; Kirchpost.G, W2:11162f.73/ CS 1/1:286;
    Dtsch.Kat., II.2, WA30I :187, 5/ BC435.31; Rom., WA56:366, 3/
    LW25:356; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:599, 7/ LW24:151; Hspost., W213II:
    2011f.17ff./ CS 6:118–119; 1 Pet., WA12:268, 28/ LW30:13; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:545,30/LW26:356; Pred. (1532/1534), WA36:590, 20/
    LW28:139–140; Hspost., W213II:2013f., 22ff/ CS 6:121; Ev.Joh.3–4,
    WA47:80f., 20ff./ LW22:355; Gal. (1535), WA40I:440f.,21ff./ LW26:
    283; Ibid., WA40I:65,11/ LW26:21–22; 15.Kor., WA36:549, 14ff./
    LW28:111; Fest., WA17II:292, 6ff.; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:556, 30/ LW22:
    24; Gal. (1535), WA40I:441, 16/ LW26:282; Lied., WA35:424, 22/
    LW53:220; Ibid., WA35:444,6/ LW53:257 (comforting in death).
    Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:599,10/ LW24:151; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:85,12ff./
    LW22:360; Lied. (1523), WA35:493f., / LW53:219f.
    7. Rom., WA56:180,14/ LW25:161; Ibid., WA56:402, 13/ LW25:392; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:34, 1ff./ LW27:145–146; Ibid., WA40I:441, 22/ LW26:282;
    Ibid., WA40I:50, 12/ LW26:10–11; Ibid., WA40I:97, 15/ LW26:41–42; Ibid.,
    WA40I:131, 15/ LW26:65–66; Ibid., WA40I:317, 21ff./ LW26:192–193; Ibid.,
    WA40I:320f, 25ff./ LW26:195–196; Ibid., WA40I:581f, 7/ LW26:381; Ibid.,
    WA40II:61,29/ LW27:49; Ibid., WA40II:98f, 31ff./ LW27:78–79; Dtsch.Kat.,
    II.2,WA30I: 186, 12/ BC:434.27; Ibid., III.3, WA30I:202f., 8ff./ BC:448f.65ff.;
    Dr.Sym., WA50:268, 15/LW34:209; 8.Ps., WA45:219, 24/ LW12:109; Ev.Joh.
    16–20/ WA28:68, 14 Pred. (1525), WA17I:71, 18ff.; Gen., WA43:579f., 14ff./
    LW5:218f.; Pred. (1522), WA10III:356, 17.
    8. Gal.(1535), WA40I:276, 28/ LW26:162: “ … Domine diabole, noli sice
    saevire, sed moderate agito, Quia unus est qui vocatur Christus; In hunc
    Ego credo. In legem abrogavit, peccatum damnavit, mortem abolevit,
    infernum destruxit Estque, diabole, tuus Diabolus; nam te captivovit
    8 ATONEMENT  163

    et vinxit, ut mihi et omnibus credentibus in ipsum non possis amplius


    nocere.”
    9. BR (1531), WABR6:104, 32; Ps.68, WA8:21, 24ff./ LW13:22.
    10. Dtsch.Kat., II.2, WA30I:187, 6/ BC435:31 “den tod vershlungen and
    gefressen.” Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:440, 15/ LW26:281–282.
    11. Serm. Bereit., WA2:689, 3/ LW42:104. For Christ conquering God’s
    wrath, see Gal. (1535), WA40 :440, 15/ LW26:281–282.
    12. Pred. (1522), WA10III:100, 24.
    13. Gal. (1535), WA40I:34, 19/ LW27:146: “Et tamen inter eos sic profecit
    Satan, id est iustitiae propriae furor, ut post omnes prophetas ipsum etiam
    filium Dei, sibi promissum Messiam, occiderent, eadem scilicet causa,
    quod docerent gratia Dei, non iustitia nostra hominess Deo placere.”
    14. Hspost., W2:13II:2631f.13ff./ CS7:251; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:69,
    8/ LW16:98. Gal. (1535), WA40I:565, 12/ LW26:370.
    15. Gal. (1535), WA40I:440, 15/ LW26:281–282: “Sic Maledictioni quae
    est Divinia ira per totum orbem terrarium, idem certamen est cum
    Benedictione, hoc est, cum aeterna gratia ee misericordia Dei in Christo.
    Congreditur ergo Maledictio cum Benedictione et vult damnare et pror-
    sus in nihilum redigere eam, sed non potest. Benedictio enim est divina
    et aeterna, ideo oportet ei Maledictionem cedere. Nam si Benedicio in
    Christo posset vinci, tum, vinceretur Deus ipse. Sed hoc est impossible.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA40I:130, 23/ LW26:65; Ibid., WA40I:552, 2/ LW26:361–
    362; Haus., WA52:799, 5.
    16. TR (1533), WATR3:131, 6/ LW54:188.
    17. 15.Kor., WA36:685, 2/ LW28:206; cf. Gal. (1535), WA401:569, 25/
    LW26:373, as Christ is said to conquer the Law so that He must be God.
    18. 2.Ps., WA5:84, 40.
    19. Gal. (1535), WA40II:171, 26/ LW27:134.
    20. Som. Post. (Cruc.), WA21:251, 19.
    21. Vor.O.T., WADB8:29,32/ LW35:247; Ibid., WADB8:27,3ff./ LW35:245;
    Pred. (1522), WA10III:49,8ff. / LW52:92; Rom., WA56:296,17/ LW25:
    284; Wein.,WA10I/1:123f, 15ff./ CS3/2:162; Ibid., WA10I/1:12f.,
    5ff.; Ibid., WA10I/1:720, 3/ LW52:280; Pred.(1522), WA10III:49, 22/
    LW51:92 (articulated while discoursing on taking the Eucharist); Ev.Joh.
    1–2, WA46:683, 2/ LW22:169–170 (an exhortation to Christian life and
    polemics); Fest., WA17II:291, 4ff.; Pred. (1529), WA29:578f., 2ff; Dtsch.
    Kat., II.3, WA30I:187, 37/ BC435.37; Ps.51, WA40II:405, 26/ LW12:
    365; Lied. (1524), WA35:453, 4/ LW53:254; Pred. (1525 [1535]), WA37:
    59, 21 (addressing death and faith).
    Cf. Ps.2, WA40II:289, 26/ LW12:75.
    22. Gal. (1535), WA40I:297f., 34ff./ LW26:177: “Et his verbis Paulus pul-
    cherrime describit sacerdotum et officia Christi. Ea sunt placare Deum,
    164  M. Ellingsen

    intercedere et orare abrogavit veteres ceremonias et facit novas …


    Sacrificium offert se deo pro nobis miseris paccatoribus, ut nos sanctifi-
    caret in aeternumn.”
    Cf. Ess.53, WA40III:733, 1; Hspost., W213II:1785.35/CS5:402–403;
    Gal. (1519), WA2:563, 1ff./ LW27:328; Serm.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:389,
    27; Pred. (1523), WA10III:49f.,25ff./ LW51:92 (dealing with Church and
    life issues); Heb., WA57III:49f.,35ff./ LW29:217 (Christian life context).
    Hspost., W213II:1808.11/ CS5:423; Ibid., W213II:1809f.14/ CS5:424.
    23. Ev.Jon.1–2, WA46:681,1/LW22:166–167: “Denn was ists, das der Son
    Gottes mein knecht wird, und sich so seer nidriget, das er auch meinen
    jamer und sünde, ja der gantzen welt sünde und tod, auff seinen hals
    nemen und tragen solt und zu mir sprechen: du bist nicht mehr ein
    sünder, sondern Ich. Ich trit an deine stat, du hast nicht gesündiget,
    sondern ich …”
    24. Gal. (1535), WA40I:435, 16/ LW26:278: “Quaecunque peccata Ego, Tu
    et nos onmes fecimus et in futurum facimus, tam propria sunt Christi,
    quam si ea ipse fecisset.”
    25. Ibid., WA40I:433f.,26ff./ LW26:277: “Et hoc viderunt omnes Prophetae,
    quod Christus futurus esset omnium maximus latro, homicida, adulter, fur,
    sacrilegus, blasphemus, etc., quo nullus maior unquam in mundo fuerit …”
    26. Haus., WA52:795, 5; Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA21:434f., 34ff.; Wein.,
    WA10I/1:124ff.,20ff.; Ibid., WA10I/1:717,21/LW52:279; 1 Tim., WA26:37,27/
    LW28:264; Pred. (1533–1534), Pred. (1533–1534), WA37:59, 21; Miss.Mess.,
    WA8:519, 13/ LW36:177.
    27. Heb., WA57III:215, 16/ LW29:217: “Christus apparuit vulture Dei pro
    nobis.”
    28. Leid.Christ., WA2:141, 8/ LW42:13; Fast., WA17II:74, 15.
    29. Ev. Joh.6–8, WA33:259, 1/ LW23:165.
    30. Dtsch.Kat., II.2., WA30I:186f., 29ff./ BC: 434f.31; Heb., WA57III:54,
    14. In contexts of exhorting faith with polemics in view the Reformer
    speaks of Christ satisfying the devil or the Law when employing the
    Classic View in Fest., WA17II:291, 4ff. and and Gal. (1535), WA40I:503,
    19 / LW26:325.
    31. Rom., WA56:370, 11/ LW25:360: Sic enim arbitrator Apostolus homi-
    nem Iustificari per fidem’ (assertive de te ipso etiam, non tantum de elec-
    tis credere, Quod Christus pro peccatis tuis mortus sit et satisfecit).”
    32. 1 Tim., WA26:40, 27/ LW28:269: “Ergo in Euangelio est remission
    peccatorum.”
    Cf. Ev.Joh.20, WA46:41, 19/ LW24:343; I.Joh., WA20:638, 30/
    LW30:237; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:100,12/ LW22:377; Som.Post. (Cruc.),
    WA22:224, 27.
    33. BR (1539), WABR10:239, 16; Thes.Wel., WA39I:49, 16/ LW34:115.
    8 ATONEMENT  165

    34. 1 Tim., WA26:40,10/LW28:268: “Si hundert tausent Christus crucifixi et


    nemo de eo dixisset, quid profuis set factum: traditum in crucera.”
    cf.Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:778, 3/ LW30:314; Himm.Proph., WA18:202f.,
    36ff./ LW40:146.
    35. 1 Pet., WA12:367, 31/ LW30:113.
    36. Pred. (1527), WA23:702, 12.
    37. Gen., WA42:323, 11/ LW2:86.
    38. 1 Pet., WA12:368f., 20ff./ LW30:114–115.
    39. Send.Rech., WA 10III: 325, 3/ LW43:54; BR (1522), WABR2:422, 23/
    LW48:361.
    40. Torg., WA37:66, 29.
    41.  Ibid., WA37:66, 21.
    42. Bet., WA10II:372f., 24ff./ LW43:27.
    43. Torg., WA37:70., 33.
    44. Haus. (1545), WA52:799, 11: “Darumb thut es demHerrn wehe, weyl
    sein leiden dahin gericht ist, das wir darumb solten weinen, Er will, das
    wir frölich sein, God loben, seyner gnade dancken, yn preysen, rhümen
    und bekennen sollen, Sintemal wir durch solchen gang zur gnade Gottes
    kommen, von sünden unnd dem tod ledig und Gottes liebe finder sind
    worden.”
    45. Jes. (1527–1530), WA312: 433f., 31/ LW17;223: “Nostra natura pugnat
    contra usum et vim passionis … ergo dic: Ego peccatum meum in Christo
    video, ergo peccatum meum non est meum, sed alienum, in Christo
    video.”
    46. Hspost., W213II:1750.1/ CS5:372.
    47. Ibid., W213II:1865f.,22/ CS5:473f.
    CHAPTER 9

    Justification

    One very consistent theme in Luther, uttered in several distinct pasto-


    ral contexts (though not when exhorting Christian life or defending his
    catholicity), is the centrality of the doctrine of Justification, the most
    important teaching in all of Christendom. The Reformer claims,

    For the issue [Justification] here is nothing trivial for Paul; it is the princi-
    pal doctrine of Christianity. When this is recognized and held before one’s
    eyes, everything else seems vile and worthless. For what is Peter? What is
    Paul? What is an angel from heaven? What is all creation in comparison
    with the doctrine of justification? Therefore if you see this threatened or
    endangered, do not be afraid to stand up against Peter or an angel from
    heaven.1

    The Reformer calls Justification “master and prince, lord, leader and
    judge of all kinds of teachings, which preserves and guides all churchly
    teaching and establishes our consciences before God.”2 It creates true
    theologians.3 It is the criterion by which all matters of doctrine and life
    are to be judged.4 Luther comes close to making this claim in a 1532
    exposition of Psalm 51 as he claims that “the real subject of theology is
    the human being accused of sin and lost and God the One Who justifies
    and receives the sinful human being.”5 The Word of God’s love is a forge
    and furnace, he says.6 Indeed, one is properly called Christian, he says,
    because a Christian simply depends on Christ without all merits, his own
    righteousness, and without all works.7

    © The Author(s) 2017 167


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_9
    168  M. Ellingsen

    Luther’s unequivocal commitment to defending this teaching, no


    matter the consequences of the welfare of others, surfaces most famously
    in his comments at the Diet of Worms.8 As he put it in a sermon, he
    would rather people say he preaches too sweetly and hinders works than
    that he failed to preach faith and failed to help timid consciences.9 We
    need this emphasis, he says, because justification is an elusive thing, firm
    in itself but something with which we fallen human beings struggle.10
    No other article of faith is so threatened by the danger of false teach-
    ing.11 It is just so difficult to believe that sinners can be justified.12
    What Luther said about preaching this doctrine may still be true today
    that “the common people sleep and cough when we preach the article
    of justification but prick up their ears at stories.”13 Besides, he added (in
    a comment relevant for today as it was in its own time), “how full the
    world is nowadays of false preachers and false saints, who fill the ears of
    the people with preaching good works.”14
    We also observe the Reformer’s claim that the cross and suffering can
    easily be borne by those sharing justifying faith.15 Justification accom-
    plishes its work, he claims, by killing all that pertains to human effort.16
    For the sake of this concern “the person must be completely rejected.”17
    In a 1533 entry in Table Talk he claimed that he could not countenance
    forgiveness of sin for one who is in error about this doctrine.18 He was
    willing to take this strong stand, because in his view Pelagianism is the
    one perennial error in history.19
    Quite consistently throughout his career the Reformer oriented all his
    other teachings to this doctrine, for as we have observed to this juncture
    in the book, all his other theological formulations (at least when preach-
    ing, expounding the logic of faith, combating heresy, and comfort those
    in despair) logically entail that we are saved by grace alone and testify to
    God’s unconditional love.
    In nearly all cases, then, the Reformer teaches justification by grace
    alone, that it is a completed act which is totally a Work of God. Luther
    defines grace in several related ways—God’s Presence,20 forgiveness of
    sins,21 imputation of righteousness,22 and God’s mercy.23 Another defini-
    tion employed is acceptance and favor, belonging to the category of rela-
    tionship.24 These definitions led him to break with Scholastic Theology,
    for Luther rejects its idea of grace as a quality of the soul or a habit.25
    But prior to 1517 and even after the Reformation began there are
    notable exceptions, emerging in a familiar pattern. In his 1515–1516
    9 JUSTIFICATION  169

    Lectures On Romans, while dealing with questions of the Christian life,


    the Reformer writes:

    Therefore I prefer to think (as I did above) of the people who are in the
    middle between the ungodly Gentiles and the believing Gentiles, those
    who through some good action direct toward God as much as they were
    able earned grace which directed them farther, not as though this grace
    had been given to them because of such merit, because then it would not
    have been grace, but because they thus prepared their hearts to receive this
    grace as a gift.26

    Elsewhere in the treatise when the Reformer deals with good deeds
    he refers again to “preparing” ourselves for grace.27 While addressing
    issues of holiness, he even spoke of humility or immersion in God’s Work
    as a precondition for grace.28 Sometimes like the earlier Scholastics and
    the Catholic reading of Augustine he taught that even the preparation
    was a work of grace, but not typically, as he more frequently spoke like
    Nominalists of our melting grace with an original movement of the will.
    Earlier in his First Lectures on Psalms, also in line with the Scholastic
    Theology of the day, he claimed that faith must be formed by love.
    Elsewhere he expressly taught that justification entails the cooperation
    of grace and works.29 And in the post-1517 Heidelberg Disputation he
    returns again to this Scholastic concept of “preparation for grace,” as he
    urges humility, much like he did in an earlier 1516 sermon:

    It is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are
    told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for
    grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching.30

    A sermon in 1522 or 1523 exhorting Christian life suggested that we


    must do something to get grace, as Luther claimed that “The Holy Spirit
    is given to none except to those who are in sorrow and fear.”31 In a com-
    ment made at table in the 1530 s while the temptations of Christian life
    were discussed Luther claimed, “Ah how large a part of righteousness
    is it to want to be righteous!” He even expressly refers to the need for
    preparation for grace in a context in 1529 lectures.32
    The concept of preparation for grace was (still is) crucial for Roman
    Catholic conceptions of the doctrine of justification, as it is a way of
    incorporating works into justification, while still asserting the essential,
    170  M. Ellingsen

    even primary role of grace in the process.33 Most of the time Luther
    broke with Scholastic thinking in renouncing a role for works in
    Justification. Even in his early work, notably in polemics, he rejected the
    idea of preparation for grace. We are always sinning when we do what is
    in us, he claimed.34 But even in his later years, when dealing with good
    works or speaking of suffering, we find an admission that we may earn
    merits, that we must be humble in order to experience grace, that “faith
    is indeed called a work in its place,” and elsewhere in such a context he
    calls it an act of the will which holds the Word.35 As we have already
    noted in Chaps. 5 and 7, when not concerned with legalistic abuses or
    when comforting those in despair and addressing sloth he speaks of faith
    as something we must do. We need it to grasp or apprehend Christ, he
    claims while explaining the nature of faith or exhorting it.36 In that sense
    we can say that Luther teaches salvation by faith in these contexts.
    Much of Luther’s rationale for critiquing Indulgences was related
    to his concern that their sale undermined Christian living.37 And in
    that context he spoke frequently of the need for repentance, which he
    claimed was what every doctrine of Christ was concerned about.38
    Repentance, so central to The Ninety-Five Theses, functions in com-
    ments about Indulgences as a kind of preparation for grace.39 There is
    ambiguity about whether repentance is something we do. However, in
    other contexts, when critiquing pride, he claims that repentance is not
    our own doing, but a work of God’s Word.40 Repentance alone, he
    claims while exploring justification, does not justify.41 (But at least in a
    1538 exposition of a Psalm, which also includes some attention to the
    Christian life, he does not rule out openness to repentance [works as
    playing a role in justification].42)
    Luther nicely summarized the difference between his characteristic
    Reformation treatment of Justification and the characteristic Catholic
    approach:

    But where they speak of love, we speak of faith.43

    Faith receives the good; love gives the good.44

    We will soon note, though, that the Reformer has less praise for faith in
    other contexts.
    The Scholastic concept of Justification with its concern to find a place
    encouraging works entails that we are in a process. Of course most of the
    9 JUSTIFICATION  171

    time the Reformer portrays Justification as a completed event. In a dis-


    pute about freedom from the Law he claims that the believer is already
    righteous and “sees himself and is in heaven.”45 In a 1522 Christmas ser-
    mon, the Reformer criticizes those occupied with works and claims that
    justification is experienced “immediately and not in process.”46 Yet we
    find instances in his Lectures on Romans when he spoke of justification
    as healing the sick and, as late as 1537, when dealing like the Scholastics
    did with matters pertaining to living the Christian life or apologetics,
    he could refer to Justification as something on the way, as a process in
    which the believer is engaged.47 Just two years earlier than that, when
    addressing issues of living the Christian life or testing an antinomian-
    inclined student’s readiness for graduation he taught that justification is
    both complete and still lies ahead (is a process). In these cases he may
    have argued that God forgives us or declares us righteous in light of
    what we will become in the future.48 He actually was still drawing on
    the Scholastic distinction between first and second grace in 1515–1516
    when dealing with the issue of how we are to pray.49 And while defend-
    ing The Ninety-Five Theses while dealing with matters related to the
    Christian life he claimed like Scholastics that sin is not imputed to us
    because of Christ and because we seek to destroy sin.50
    Of course, especially but not just in his later years the Reformer repu-
    diated Scholastic conceptuality, especially the concept of “preparation
    for grace” and the notion of faith as a habit. True preparation is God’s
    Work, he once claimed. But in most of these cases he was attempting
    to defend faith from distortions.51 And insofar as we have observed that
    the Reformer continued to use this images to some extent when dealing
    with apologetics or the nature of Christian life, it seems appropriate to
    conclude that the Reformer is teaching us lessons about the purpose for
    which these characteristic Roman Catholic themes may serve our min-
    istry today, insights which can richly serve Catholic Luther Scholarship
    and ongoing Lutheran–Catholic conversations.52

    Characteristic Reformation Images


    True enough, there is no one way that Luther depicts Justification. But
    when teaching grace alone he consistently embraces in similar contexts
    the insights of his Tower Experience, that we are saved by God’s external
    righteousness, that His righteousness makes us righteous. There is much
    debate among scholars as to the date of this life-changing experience,
    172  M. Ellingsen

    whether it happened before or after Luther posted The Ninety-Five


    Theses. At least we know that as early as 1515 when addressing legalism
    in his Lectures on Romans he claims that, like in The Tower Experience,
    the righteousness of God is not something “by which He [God] is right-
    eous in Himself but the righteousness by which we are made righteous
    in Him.”53 The Reformer well summarized these insights in 1545 (refer-
    ring to events in the following quote which transpired after 1517, such
    as taking up again lectures on Psalms and post-1517 negotiations with
    the Pope after the Indulgence Controversy):

    … I felt that I was a sinner before God with an extremely disturbed con-
    science … I did not believe that He was placated by my satisfaction. I
    did not love, yes, I hated the righteous God who punishes sinners, and
    secretly, if not blasphemously, certainly murmuring greatly, I was angry
    with God …

    There I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by


    which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely by faith. And this is the
    meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the Gospel, namely, the
    passive righteousness with which merciful God justifies us by faith …54

    In a 1522 sermon he says much the same:

    Carefully note this point: When you find the phrase “the righteousness of
    God” in Scripture, do not think that it means the essential inner righteous-
    ness of God, … otherwise you will be frightened by it. Know rather that
    according to the usage of Scripture it means the grace and mercy of God …55

    These insights about the righteousness of God and the passivity we


    have in receiving it entail that there is no salvation by works. Faith and
    works are in tension; works outside of grace, even repentance, are evil.56
    As Luther put it later in his career: “Then we do nothing and work noth-
    ing in order to obtain this righteousness? I reply: Nothing at all.”57
    A core commitment of Luther at this point was to distinguish
    Christian righteousness from other forms of righteousness.58 As he put it
    in a later sermon explaining the logic of faith:

    So no one is not called Christian because he does much, but because he


    receives something from Christ, draws from Him and lets Christ only give
    to him. If one no longer receives anything from Christ, he is no longer a
    9 JUSTIFICATION  173

    Christian, so that the name Christian continues to be heard only on receiv-


    ing, and not on giving and doing …59

    And while polemicizing against Pelagianism he observed that “We do


    not become righteous by doing what is righteous, but being made right-
    eous we carry out righteous acts.”60
    Especially when undercutting works-righteousness, the righteous-
    ness God reckons to us is “alien,” not our own but conferred on us by
    God.61 As early as the First Lectures on Psalms, while explaining the
    logic of faith, Luther equates righteousness with faith.62 Later in his
    career he claimed that “To believe is to sprout righteousness.”63 But in
    the Psalms Lectures he refers to a passive, external righteousness early
    in his career while attacking works-righteousness.64 And he refers to the
    passive, alien righteousness of Christ when expositing faith or critiquing
    legalism.65 This of course entails that righteousness comes by grace or
    mercy.66
    Sometimes, though rarely, Luther spoke of God counting, imput-
    ing, or reckoning (imputare or reputare) righteousness.67 This is sig-
    nificant in terms of sorting out Luther’s intellectual debts. Augustine
    used this Latin phrase (about imputing righteousness) and so did the
    Nominalists.68 Luther also speaks of Christ’s righteousness as our
    umbrella against the heat of God’s wrath.69 Or, also in polemical con-
    texts the Reformer speaks of Christ’s righteousness as our shield.70
    Linking our righteousness to God leads the Reformer in one setting to
    define it as “nothing else than knowing God,” or as the knowledge of
    Christ.71
    In Luther’s estimation, while addressing polemics with the Catholic
    Church, we are snatched outside ourselves, don’t need to depend on our
    own strength, and this gives more confidence.72 He said much the same
    in earlier lectures with a similar agenda, by contending that “man rather
    than sin is taken away”—is put in a new context.73 We need to be placed
    in a new context of righteousness in order to do righteous deeds. For
    works do not justify any more than a monkey imitating certain human
    actions can be said to be human. These deeds are human only if done
    by a human, and so only righteous if done by one made righteous by
    God.74 This entails that the Law is abrogated for the believer. But we are
    free from it only in the sense that it no longer condemns or accuses the
    faithful.75
    174  M. Ellingsen

    In the background of these observations is the concept of the “blessed


    exchange,” the belief that in faith we receive all that Christ has (right-
    eousness) and He takes on all we have (our sin).76 Saved by grace alone
    entails that there is no role for works in saving us, the Reformer insists.77
    He states this point powerfully in a Christmas Sermon, claiming that
    Christ takes our births (under sinful condition) and absorbs them into
    His own:

    … every Christian may rejoice and glory in Christ’s birth as if he had him-
    self been born of Mary.78

    When merely explaining or defending faith, Luther does not force a


    choice between salvation by grace and by faith. He claims still early in his
    career that “through Christ” and “by faith” are joined together, though
    in early polemics he does prioritize the Word of God over faith.79 The
    belief that what Christ has done is really “for me” is an essential dimen-
    sion of faith.80
    The Reformer defines grace as “God’s favor”, “the perpetual opera-
    tion … by which we are captivated or moved.”81 Faith is said to presume
    the grace of God. It does not require knowledge, or certainty, but a free
    surrender to God.82 It is just the means for comprehending Christ’s
    divinity is seen or comprehended.83 It merely trusts in Christ’s mercy.84
    Indeed He is said to be present in it (an affirmation most consistent with
    the Reformer’s Narrative hermeneutic).85
    Faith is nothing more than trust, Luther claims when explaining the
    logic of Christian faith in his Small Catechism.86 Indeed, he adds, while
    addressing a Scholastic critic, how saturated we are by sin in response to
    claims on behalf of free will that faith is powerful only because it rests on
    Christ.87 In a sermon on Pentecost outlining the logic of faith, Luther
    claims that faith is merely the hand that holds what God has given us.88
    Elsewhere he claims that faith merely opens the sack and holds out its
    hand.89 It is just the dwelling place, while Christ is the real protector.90
    While rejecting Pelagian concepts he asserts that faith is just a ring
    holding a pearl of great price.91 It is Christ and grace, not faith, that
    saves he says while proclaiming the logic of faith.92 When responding to
    Roman Catholic critiques he contended that “faith is not enough but
    only that faith which hides under the wings of Christ.”93 It does not rely
    9 JUSTIFICATION  175

    on itself, but only clings to Christ, the Reformer claims.94 This is the
    source of its power.95
    We have already noted that Luther claims that faith just opens the
    sack and holds out its hand. It is just the ring that holds the gem.
    Thus faith is not what saves, it is not enough itself, but rather it is
    the treasure it holds that matters. It merely hides under the wings of
    Christ.96
    These commitments entail that the strength of faith does not so much
    matter for Luther:

    It [weak faith] is like a man who has fallen in the middle of a stream. He
    catches the branch of a tree somehow to support himself above the water
    and be saved. So in the midst of sins, death, and anxieties, we too hold
    Christ with a weak faith. Yet this faith, tiny though it may be, still preserves
    us and rules over death and treads the devil and everything under foot.97

    You can be saved with either a weak or a strong faith, he asserts. The
    Reformer spoke of two people each with money, one in a paper sack and
    the other in an iron chest. Either way, both possess the same treasure.98
    Even a weak faith saves, he claims.99 But when moving to Christian life
    and not the logic of faith, or when offering comfort Luther suggests that
    a strong faith receives more, makes us gods.100
    Faith and spirituality are not what saves. Luther writes:

    No one should rely on his own piety, but one should trust only in Christ’s
    righteousness and in everything Christ has.101

    As he said against Anabaptist denials of infant baptism:

    It is not that the Word of God is greater and more important than faith,
    since faith builds and is founded on the Word of God rather than God’s
    Word on faith? Furthermore faith may waver and change, but God’s Word
    remains forever.102 Likewise religious regulations are of no help in attain-
    ing God’s favor, Luther adds.103 Indeed God in Christ keeps loving us
    no matter how weak our faith. Luther compares Christ’s love to the sun
    which “will not refuse to shine because I am lazy and would gladly sleep
    longer.” So Christ’s love keeps shining on the hard-hearted even when
    they do not want to see it.104
    176  M. Ellingsen

    He writes in a sermon:

    Now it is true, the preaching of faith is very lovely and winsome, but
    coupled also with subtle and potential risk. For preaching about faith is
    preaching about grace … But if one were to preach faith, and not grace
    then people resort to their own works, and eventually they despair.105

    Another sermon deems faith the result of the Power of God (His
    Work).106 The Word takes us captive.107 We do not seek God, Luther
    writes when preaching with polemics in view. “Rather He seeks you.”
    We only receive passively, like dry earth is shaded and protected.108 And
    once when preaching against works Luther says that to say that faith is
    man’s creation is as useless as foam and scum on bad beer.109 In other
    settings he makes related points, stating:

    Rather than seeking its own good, the love of God flows and forth and
    bestows good.110 Faith is a divine work in us which changes us and makes
    us to be born anew of God … O, it is a living busy, active mighty thing
    this faith. It is impossible for it not to be doing works incessantly.111

    When just presenting the Christian story as well as when critiquing


    Pelagian tendencies, faith is construed as a gift or work of God with
    which we do not cooperate.112 We are just passive.113 This opens the way
    for Predestination, which we will consider in closing.
    As noted, though, Luther is contextual in talking about faith. When
    exhorting faith he does not always contend that faith is God’s Work. And
    in a disputation doing apologetics he even concedes, as we have noted,
    that “faith may be called a work in its place.”114 When concerned with
    receiving Christ and how to live the Gospel, Luther spoke of faith as
    obedience or as what gives “permission” for the Gospel to work in us.115
    Nevertheless, Luther insists that the Work of God does not reduce us
    to robots; it cordially lures us.116 Even insights about the need for grace
    are works of grace, Luther insists.117 That such faith justifies is evident in
    the case of infants, who have no works and yet are saved by Him.118 And
    so Luther observes:

    … the forgiveness of sins do not depend on our penance or worthiness …


    It is true you should be sorry for your sins; but to hold that this insures
    the certainty of the forgiveness of sins and confirms the work of the keys is
    to forsake the faith and to deny Christ.119
    9 JUSTIFICATION  177

    There is much debate about whether these insights were Augustinian


    as he and his followers have claimed.120 It is being argued by scholars that
    the Reformer’s core insights were his own creative interpretations and
    could not have been derived from the thought of the African Father.121
    But in fact a quotation by Augustine makes clear the convergence
    between him and Luther (at least when they addressed similar contexts):

    … the “righteousness of God” – not whereby He is Himself righteous, but


    that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly …122

    The dependence of Luther on Augustine for his insights about


    Justification can and has been proven further in other formats.123

    Why It Matters
    The impact of the Reformation insights on Luther is well known. But
    it is wise to explore these points in order to appreciate the impact that
    dealing with the doctrine might have on faith and theology today.
    Luther comments on the certainty of salvation that these insights afford:

    27. Now it is certain that Christ or the righteousness of Christ, since it is


    outside of us and foreign to us, cannot be laid hold of by works.124

    He makes a similar point in 1535:

    This is the reason why our theology is certain: It snatches us away from
    ourselves and places us outside ourselves, so that we do not depend on our
    strength, conscience … but … on the Promise and Truth of God, which
    cannot deceive.125

    We get out of ourselves and come to Christ.126 As Luther puts it


    elsewhere:

    Paul thus makes plain that many things transpire which tend to create in us
    anxiety, but we must not let them make us over-anxious; we must commit
    ourselves to God and implore His aid for our needs.127

    In line with his Theology of the Cross and the need to posit a par-
    adoxical relationship between God’s Word and experience or reason
    Luther notes:
    178  M. Ellingsen

    You should not believe your conscience and your feelings more than the
    Word which the Lord Who receives sinners preaches to you… Therefore
    you are able to fight with your conscience by saying: You lie; Christ speaks
    the truth and you do not.128

    All doubt and the Anfechtung Luther and others experience in our sinful
    condition may now vanish: “The Christian entertains no fear – he should
    not doubt – that he is righteous, and a child through grace.”129 For as
    the preceding quote makes clear, Justification and Christ’s Work are to
    be understood pro me (for me).130 Christians now have the certainty that
    what a person does or thinks is pleasing to God.131 Judgment has been
    abolished, and so Christians may yearn for judgment.132 Christians are
    truly free:

    From this anyone can clearly see how a Christian is free from all things and
    over all things so that he needs no works to make him righteous and save
    him, since faith abundantly confers all things.133

    Luther also speaks of the certainty he has that we are in a state of


    grace.134 In fact, God even forgives sins we have not yet committed, he
    claims.135 As he put it in 1518:

    Sinners are lovely because they are loved; they are not loved because they
    are lovely.136

    No need to despair, for a cherry tree never despairs though it has no fruit
    in the winter.137 Elsewhere the Reformer adds:

    Now I have someone on whom I may rely and on whom I may trust to
    whom I look, namely, God Who no longer is angry and punishes but saves
    from every danger and toil.138

    Even if your sin and your conscience plague and oppress you and you
    stand in awe of God’s judgement, you must realize that all has been
    changed and that judgment has been abolished. Instead of harboring fear
    of the Final Judgment you must yearn and long for it.139

    Must not the heart presently start with alarm at its own boldness and say: Do
    you really think it is true that the great and majestic God, the Maker of heaven
    and earth, has so regarded my misery and so mercifully looked upon me,
    deeply and manifoldly as I have sinned against Him…? How can such grace
    and such a treasure be grasped by the human heart or any other creature?140
    9 JUSTIFICATION  179

    Elsewhere Luther speaks of our hearts melting for joy as we learn


    of God’s love.141 Because death has been overcome, we know that
    all adversity is nothing in the eyes of God.142 Christ is said to fill the
    vacuum of our emptiness.143 Confident in Christ we can defy any who
    would be angry with us.144
    Justification by grace keeps our focus on Christ, Luther contends:

    Now if God confers His grace because of their works, their careful prepara-
    tion, Christ must be without significance. What need have they of Christ if
    they can obtain grace in their own name by their works?145

    … We never correctly praise God unless we first disparage ourselves.146

    In a lecture he puts it another way:

    Therefore faith is a constant gaze that looks at nothing except Christ, the
    victor over sin and death and the dispenser of righteousness, salvation, and
    eternal life.147

    Unlike what happens when purchasing Indulgences, such confidence


    alleviates fear, the Anfechtung that Luther had experienced.148 Even in
    unfaith God’s love is like the shining sun, always lighting us up even
    when we shut our eyes.149
    The Reformer also refers to the joy this freeing Word brings. He
    claims that it consoles our consciences before God.150 And then in a
    Christmas sermon he writes:

    13. But if you possess faith, your heart cannot do otherwise than laugh
    for joy in God and grow freed, confident and courageous. For how can
    the heart remain sorrowful and dejected when it entertains no doubt of
    God’s kindness to it, and of His attitude as a good friend with whom it
    may unreservedly and freely enjoy all things?151

    Of course Justification does not solve all the problems of life, but it gives
    courage to keep on keepin’ on:

    But when Christ comes He does not change the outward and unpleasant
    conditions, but strengthens the person, and makes out of a timid, a fearless
    heart, out of a trembling, a bold heart…152
    180  M. Ellingsen

    It is not like sin is eliminated. As we have already noted, in polemical


    contexts with legalism Luther speaks of the believer being taken away,
    placed in a new context, and getting away from ourselves and ourselves is
    good for our peace of mind.153
    Justification must be by grace alone, because Luther is committed
    above all to glorifying God:

    And it is true that the doctrine of the Gospel takes away all glory, wis-
    dom, righteousness, etc., from men and gives it solely to the Creator, Who
    makes all things out of nothing. Furthermore, it is safer to ascribe too
    much to God than to men.154

    Justification by grace ensures that Christ receives all the credit that
    belongs to Him. As Luther put it: “I see no reason for the need of Christ
    if I am able to attain grace by my works.” Elsewhere he claims that who-
    ever believes in forgiveness of sins must also confess sin.155 In the same
    spirit the Reformer claims that “Christ dwells only in sinners.”156 God
    makes us attractive, he says, because he loves us. He does not love us
    because we are attractive.157 In fact, even when speaking of Justification
    in this way, while comforting despair, the Reformer speaks of the humil-
    ity of the faithful:

    It is our glory, therefore, to be worthless in our own eyes and in the view
    of the world … In that extreme despair we hear you are precious in My eyes
    “Because you are nothing to yourself, you are precious to Me.”158

    And likewise in his polemics with legalism he writes:

    A true Christian must have no glory of his own and must to such an extent
    be stripped everything he calls his own … Therefore we must in all things
    keep ourselves so humble as if we still had nothing of our own. We must
    wait for the naked mercy of God Who will reckon us just and wise.159

    Confession of sin is the cornerstone of Christian life.160 But even this


    repentance is a Work of God’s Word.161
    Luther also compares justification to like being a son born or heir
    inheriting the father’s goods without any work or merit.162 Life is a lot
    better when we teach and believe that we are justified by grace through
    faith.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  181

    What Happens When You Are Justified?


    For centuries, Luther’s Reformation insights were associated with the
    Forensic understanding of Justification, the belief that God declares
    us righteous, but that not much has changed in our lives as a result of
    God’s declaration.163 If we review the quotations above about the Tower
    Experience and the related comments, this seems evident. That we
    receive an alien righteousness that is not ours seems to imply that God is
    declaring us righteous.
    In recent years, though, interpreters from Finland, led by Tuomo
    Mannermaa and his students have discerned another vision in the
    Reformer’s thinking about Justification. In their view the believer
    receives the righteousness of Christ not just in a nominal and external
    way, but really and inwardly. Of course earlier twentieth-century scholars
    like Regin Prenter and Paul Althaus have noted the concept of some-
    thing like a Mystical Union with Christ (Conformity to or Union with
    Christ) in Luther’s thought. But Mannermaa and his colleagues proceed
    to go even further in suggesting similarities between the Reformer’s way
    of depicting the inward transformation that happens in Justification to
    the Eastern concept of theosis (the belief that we become like God sub-
    stantially in the salvation process).164
    There is a lot of evidence in support of the Finnish interpretation and
    even for the insights of the earlier scholars noted. Mysticism and its idea
    of Union with Christ had a clear impact on Luther’s theology and piety
    of Mysticism. As early as in his Explanations of the Ninety-Five Theses
    the budding Reformer claimed to have found more good theology in
    the Medieval Mystic John Tauler than in all the Scholastics combined.
    And Tauler believed that the soul could become God-like.165 Another
    Mystical work which Luther deeply admired was Theologia Germanica.
    It too approaches the language of theosis in contending that “Wherefore
    God took human nature or manhood upon Himself and was made man,
    and man was made divine.”166

    Justification as Conformity to Christ


    Given this indebtedness, it is not surprising that we can find some texts
    in Luther’s corpus which resemble these commitments. In one of his
    pre-Reformation 1514 sermons and in 1535, while comforting those in
    despair or dealing with the need for good works, the Reformer espoused
    182  M. Ellingsen

    the language of the concept of theosis.167 This sort of affirmation is not


    just a function of a pre-Reformation insight disowned by the mature
    Luther. In a 1525 sermon while offering comfort and asserting that
    Christ may be found everywhere, he contended that the faithful become
    full of God, so that we become wholly divine.168 Very late in another
    sermon on Pentecost, but another time in the last decade of Luther’s life,
    he referred to the faithful becoming participants in the divine nature:

    This is certainly a sublime, beautiful promise, and as St. Peter (2 Peter 1, 4)


    says, one of the precious and exceedingly great promises given to us, poor,
    miserable sinners, that we are to become partakers of the divine nature,
    and should be exalted so highly honored as not only to be loved by God
    through Christ, and to enjoy His favor and grace – as the highest and most
    precious and sacred thing – but should even have the Lord Himself …169

    We have already noted that in another sermon Luther says that Christ
    has made of men gods.170 In all of these cases the Reformer seems con-
    cerned to offer comfort in despair.
    Although the resemblance to the concept of theosis in these quota-
    tions is obvious, to identify them unequivocally with this Eastern concept
    overlooks Luther’s dependency on Mystics who as Augustine-inspired
    taught grace alone while proponents of theosis are inclined not to prior-
    itize grace, positing the simultaneity of grace and works.171
    In view of the debate in academic circles over whether the Reformer
    actually taught deification, it is important to note that how along with
    these apparent affirmations of the concept he seemed expressly to dis-
    tance himself from deification when merely articulating the faith. Thus
    in such contexts he claimed that “We shall be like Him but not identi-
    cal with Him …” or that we merely come to divine qualities like eternal
    truth, righteousness, and everlasting life.172 He also uses the language
    of being “planted together with Christ, united with Him,” “attached to
    Him.”173
    There are plenty of other instances when Luther uses Mystical lan-
    guage of intimacy between the faithful and Christ. This concept entails
    that through the Work of the Holy Spirit we are conformed to Christ’s
    Will, much like what happens among lovers. Luther perhaps most clearly
    talks this way in his famed explication of the logic of faith, The Freedom
    of a Christian. He writes:
    9 JUSTIFICATION  183

    The third incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ
    as a bride is united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the Apostle
    teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh (Eph. 5:31–32).

    And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage –
    indeed the most perfect of all marriages, since human marriages are but
    poor examples of this one true marriage – it follows that everything they
    have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil.174

    This conforming to Christ, Luther says in 1519, entails that we share


    His torments of sin in The Passion as well as its benefits.175 Elsewhere
    he notes that when this happens we are torn away from the things of the
    world.176
    Luther expressly endorses Mysticism in a lecture five years later:

    The Kingdom of Christ is a mystical furnace that purges out the impu-
    rity of the old Adam … Christ is not only the purifier … but also the fire.
    Also the soap –. That is what Christians sense. They have less affection for
    wealth; they are less afraid of death; they disregard everything secular. The
    power to do this is the “fire” and the “soap.”177

    Elsewhere Luther’s Mysticism is apparent when he speaks of kissing and


    embracing Christ, not being torn from Him.178 The comfort that comes
    with this mystical union surfaces in one of Luther’s sermons as he offers
    consolation (exhortation to comfort). He proclaims:

    The sum of the matter is this: Depressed or exalted, circumscribed in what-


    soever way, dragged hither or thither, I still find Christ. For He holds in
    His hands everything … Therefore, so long as He dwells in my heart, I
    have courage where I go, I cannot be lost. I dwell where Christ my Lord
    dwells.179

    On numerous other occasions, not just when explaining the faith as


    have noted but also sometimes when offering comfort, the Reformer
    described the doctrine of Justification in this way, in terms of a trans-
    forming relationship of intimacy between the believer and Christ.180 He
    is portrayed as illumining our hearts.181 The believer’s soul is said to
    be Christ’s bride or that Christ is incarnate in the believer.182 Similarly
    Luther often speaks of Christ dwelling in us or that righteousness is not
    given unless Christ is Present.183 As we have noted, the first Reformer
    184  M. Ellingsen

    Luther affirms that Christ is present in faith.184 Indeed, Christ is said


    to fill the vacuum in us.185 We are filled with the fullness of God.186 In
    language perhaps suggestive of theosis, but not identical with the con-
    cept, Luther claimed when exhorting Christian faith that when the soul
    is united with the Word of God it becomes like the Word—like man
    becomes red like the fire in which it is heated.187 As the Reformer put it
    in a 1537 sermon and another time in the last decade of Luther’s life:

    This, I say, is the first main point by which man soars outside himself
    and beyond himself into Christ … It is like this: Just as I am in Christ, so
    Christ, in turn, is in me. I have taken possession of Him; I have crept into
    Him out of the power of sin, death, and the devil.188

    Continuing this set of images suggesting the intimacy the faithful


    has with Christ, the Reformer claimed in 1531 that faith cements us
    to Christ so that He and you are as one person, more intimately than a
    husband is coupled to his wife.189 Again we observe in the Reformer’s
    references to the intimate relationship between Christ and the believer
    more similarities to Mysticism than to the Eastern concept of theosis.
    Consequently it seems more appropriate to interpret his other references
    to this intimacy in a way compatible with a Mystic union with each party
    maintaining his own personhood rather than the Eastern concept of
    being swallowed up in the Godhead.
    Writing in his famous Galatians Commentary of 1531/1535, a trea-
    tise devoted, the Reformer says, to instructing in the faith, we find lan-
    guage merely suggesting the Mystical union.190 The Reformer wrote:

    For to the extent he is a Christian, he [the Christian] is above the Law and
    sin, because in his heart he has Christ, the Lord of the Law, as a ring has a
    gem.191

    In the very same treatise the Reformer offered remarks which could be
    construed as affirming theosis. Because Christ is in him, he claimed, the
    Christian is greater than the world.192 Being greater than the world sug-
    gests a divine attribute. And yet in view of this comment’s appearance in
    a treatise in which the images suggesting the concept of theosis seem to
    have given way to the language of Conformity to Christ, it seems more
    likely that Luther at this point was simply referring to the Christian’s
    receiving the gifts (and the greatness) of Christ.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  185

    In the same spirit would it not be more appropriate to interpret


    Luther’s earlier comment that by faith we are caught up beyond our-
    selves into God in terms of the model of Conformity to Christ rather
    than theosis?193 Other remarks written early in the Reformation simi-
    larly express a union of Christ and the believer in such a way that the
    Finnish interpretation might be vindicated. But expressions of a union
    with Christ in body and spirit might as readily be compatible with the
    Reformer’s Mystic inheritance. While seeking to explain the faith in his
    earlier Commentary on Galatians he wrote:

    By faith in Christ, a Christian is made one spirit and one body with Christ.194

    On other occasions during these years and with a similar aim in view
    Luther claimed that we are made one with Christ or of one spirit, one
    body, or one person with Him.195
    Especially significant in suggesting Luther’s endorsement of an alter-
    native to the Eastern concept of theosis is the way he described Christ’s
    Presence in the believer in a 1517 Sermon. Because Christ is active, he
    claimed, the faithful will no longer drudge and sweat.196 In a later ser-
    mon Luther speaks of our becoming new or true human beings.197 These
    remarks are not only suggestive of a transformation in which the faithful
    do not lose their identity. But in contrast to the Eastern concept of theosis
    they also imply an affirmation that the entire transformation transpiring in
    Justification as well as that the practice of the Christian life is all by grace.
    There is no question but that Luther regularly and characteristically por-
    trayed Justification in terms of an intimate relation with Jesus (Conformity
    to Christ), when concerned to describe the faith or to preach. In fact, this
    notion of Justification as Conformity to Christ is the dominant model in
    Luther’s corpus. This is the case not just in terms of quantity of references.
    But also its centrality is a function of Luther’s reasons for using this image—
    not to address problems but just for good old-fashioned explication of faith.

    Forensic Justification
    The new Finnish interpreters do not readily account for the obvious
    fact that this model of Conformity to Christ is not Luther’s only way
    of construing the doctrine of Justification, cannot be readily synthesized
    with the Reformer’s use of other models.198 We have already identified
    the Reformer’s occasional use of Roman Catholic, Scholastic portrayals
    186  M. Ellingsen

    of the doctrine in terms of a grace–works synergy. And it is evident


    that the concepts used to describe the Reformation breakthroughs on
    Justification by Grace through Faith employ images describing an exter-
    nal declaration by God of a new situation for believers in Justification,
    not an inward transformation—employing the so-called Forensic View of
    Justification.
    Even later in his career we can find the first Reformer espousing
    such a forensic construal when engaged in polemics (addressing works-
    righteousness) or seeking to comfort from legalism or when exhort-
    ing the practice of Christian living in face of sloth. As late as 1536 and
    1535 when addressing works-righteousness in a debate, Luther taught
    that God “considers” us righteous, even though we are not internally
    righteous.199 Other times (in polemical circumstances) we are said to
    be “reckoned” righteous.200 The forensic view, construing Justification
    as a divine judgment of innocence, is expressly affirmed on several
    other occasions when comforting despair in the 1530 s as the Reformer
    employed the image of a law court pronouncement of innocence by
    God.201
    In one case he says that we are like guilty criminals standing
    before God and then found innocent. In other cases we are said to be
    “accounted righteous.”202 Sometimes in face of legalism or even when
    dealing with Christian life he speaks of sin not being imputed.203 Another
    image used by Luther when polemicizing with Catholic legalism or
    exhorting the Christian life is that of the doctor who declares the sick man
    well, but he is really healthy while still sick.204 He also spoke of God no
    longer remembering our sin, “expunging it from the record.”205 In con-
    texts exhorting Christian living (with polemics in view), he claimed that
    God no more sees our sin, but adorns the faithful with righteousness.206
    The righteousness given through such a pronouncement is said to be
    not a consequence of our own righteous efforts, but is God’s (an alien or
    formal) righteousness.207 It is external, he claims, when addressing ten-
    dencies to teaching salvation by works.208 Luther even goes so far as to
    contend that this righteousness is not only outside of us, but also pas-
    sive.209 In all these cases the Reformer was either addressing Pelagian
    abuses or false pride about the Christian life, in contrast to his reliance
    on images suggesting Mystical Union or theosis which emerged while he
    was exhorting faith or expounding faith’s logic.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  187

    It is tempting to contend that the Reformer’s diminution of this


    forensic language to depict Justification is a function of his maturing or
    aging. But that overlooks his use of the language of the imputation of
    righteousness as early as 1519. In his Commentary on Galatians in that
    year he claimed that sin is not imputed, because we have been united
    with Christ.210 In other words, we find the image of Conformity to
    Christ (being united with Him when justified) in 1519 and even before
    the Reformation.
    As in the case of most doctrines, Luther’s treatment of Justification
    is very much related to the context and pastoral concerns he addressed.
    The more the target is works-righteousness, exhorting Christian liv-
    ing, or despair, the more likely he will stress the alien character of God’s
    righteousness. But in everyday proclamation or when merely teaching
    the faith, the more likely he is to draw on Mystical notions of unity with
    Christ.

    Who Is Justified? the Doctrine of Predestination


    We have already begun to address this matter when we discussed
    whether faith is something we do or is a gift of God. Luther’s position(s)
    on that question bespeak his consistently inconsistent treatment of
    Predestination. Of course, when faith is portrayed as a Work of the Holy
    Spirit, Predestination is implied. This implies that when faith is construed
    as what we do, when dealing with issues of Sanctification and urging
    the faithful to believe, Predestination has no place in his thought. But
    when confronting works-righteousness he taught Double Predestination.
    When explaining the faith he taught Single Predestination. And some-
    times when comforting despair he even hinted at universal salvation!
    In a manner which seems very uncharacteristic of the Reformer, in his
    Lectures On Romans, while dealing with how to live the Christian life
    and at the same time critiquing Pelagian-like pride, Predestination is
    portrayed conditionally, as in some sense dependent on what we do. He
    writes:

    They do not understand that God elects and has pleasure only in a soul
    that is worthy of contempt and confesses that is rejected in the Presence of
    God, a soul that rejects itself, gives preference to others, and finds pleasure
    in them.211
    188  M. Ellingsen

    In a similar, though quite distinct vein, responding to Erasmus’s discus-


    sion of divine foreknowledge, Luther could refer to God’s infallible fore-
    knowledge. But even in these cases he notes that there is no contingency,
    that what God foreknows is not contingent, but that He foreknows
    necessarily.212
    In the Romans lectures, Luther himself provides indications that
    he was self-consciously aware of the patterns in his thought regarding
    Predestination. We should not rush into speculations about the doctrine,
    he warns. It is strong wine, and first we need solid food.213 In 1517 he
    clearly denounced the Nominalist idea that Predestination is the result of
    God’s foreknowledge of what we are to do, not necessarily that God had
    to elect the faithful.214 In the context of despair over death he advises
    forcing all thoughts of Predestination out of our minds.215 When he
    senses anxiety is caused by the doctrine he urges readers and hearers not
    to concern themselves with the hidden God, but to focus on the revealed
    God in Christ.216
    In 1525, in a work in which he had affirmed that God controls all events,
    the Reformer provided a clear statement of the purpose of Predestination
    when discussing the matter in the context of reflections on living the
    Christian life in a polemical context. It has, he claims, as we have previously
    noted, nothing to do with “what we can do through God’s Working, but
    [only pertains to] what we can do of ourselves.”217 As he put it in a remark
    about Paul’s use of the concept in a comment at dinner in 1533:

    He [Paul] didn’t touch upon predestination except to repudiate the right-


    eousness of the Law.218

    Elsewhere he claims that it is the abolition of all “deserving.”219 The


    doctrine thereby functions to destroy all presumption.220
    For Luther, Predestination is not an affirmation to be made in every
    (or even in most) circumstances and pastoral contexts. In numerous writ-
    ings between 1519 and 1545 he repeatedly advises that Predestination
    must not be considered among those who have not yet heard the Gospel
    or sunk in despair.221 It should only be taught to “experts,” those strong
    in the faith.222 This is sound pastoral advice.

    It is common to regard Luther as a critic of Double Predestination—


    the idea that God elects some to salvation and other to damnation.
    But in fact in a number of cases, when addressing works–righteous
    9 JUSTIFICATION  189

    compromises of grace, the Reformer taught it. In his Lectures on Romans,


    a work devoted to “break[ing] down all righteousness and wisdom of
    our own,”223 Luther claims that indirectly “He [God] Himself is the
    author of the reprobation of others,” “give[s] grace only to whom He
    wills, and gives it not to all but reserves for Himself an election among
    men.”224 Luther relates this affirmation to a strong affirmation of God’s
    Providence, positing divine omnipotence.225 (A more thorough discussion
    of this topic is provided in Chaps. 6 and 7.)
    In other treatises addressing a similar concern with works-righteous-
    ness, notably in his famous polemic with Erasmus on free will in 1525,
    the Reformer endorses Double Predestination along with an insistence
    that all events necessarily take place (though in such a way that God
    works through us).226 Clearly endorsing Double Predestination Luther
    writes,

    Admittedly, it gives the greatest possible offense to common sense or natu-


    ral reason that God by His own sheer will should abandon, harden, and
    damn men …227

    In a 1523 sermon while exhorting Christian life and also critiquing


    Pelagian tendencies he proclaimed:

    St. Peter declares that they are chosen … God will not admit all men to
    heaven; He will count His own very exactly … Our will is unimportant;
    God’s will and choosing are decisive.228

    Luther is so systematically committed to this viewpoint in these contexts


    that he even read biblical texts with a universal thrust like 2 Timothy 1:4
    or John 1:9 in light of the particularism of Double Predestination.229
    The God Who condemns some in eternity is hidden, the deus
    absconditus (a sense of hiddenness of God different from God’s hidden-
    ness as working in surprising way through opposites, as we observe in his
    Theology of the Cross):

    Hence in order that there may be room for faith, it is necessary that eve-
    rything which is believed should be hidden … Thus God hides His eternal
    goodness and mercy under eternal wrath, His righteousness under iniquity.
    This is the highest degree of faith, to believe Him merciful when He saves
    so few and damns so many…230
    190  M. Ellingsen

    As such salvation is always surprising.231 The Reformer may endorse his


    affirmation of Double Predestination, when, as we have noted, in these
    polemical contexts he notes that our language is inadequate to describe
    this reality.232
    The despair created by Double Predestination brings us close to grace,
    Luther claims.233 It offends, brings to despair, but it also brings us close
    to grace.234 He insists that God is still good in light of the decree of
    damnation, but that can only be seen in light of glory.235 He notes that if
    one has despair over his election he can rejoice, for such despair is not a
    characteristic of reprobate men.236
    Just as characteristic of Luther’s theology is something like the con-
    cept of Single Predestination—the idea that God elects and that damna-
    tion is our own fault. The Reformer may not be explicit about this, but
    he frequently discusses Predestination without reference to God’s deci-
    sion of damnation, as he is preaching or offering comfort. Some exam-
    ples follow:

    I might also say that the eternal will makes the unwilling willing, and the
    unwilling do not apprehend.237

    The Gospel of salvation … will reach even the nations and will be preached
    everywhere throughout the world. Afterward there will be no distinction
    either of places or of persons.238

    Moreover, who knows whether I am elected to salvation? Answer:

    Look at the words I beseech you, to determine how and of who He is


    speaking. “God so loved the world,”… Now the “world” does not mean
    SS. Peter and Paul alone, but the entire human race, all together. And no
    one is here excluded.239

    Those who hold that God is not willing to favor everybody with salvation
    become either desperate or godless people…240

    Single Predestination implies that unfaith, the sin against the Holy
    Spirit, is all that damns. About the unforgivable sin Luther writes:

    If a person becomes so pious in his works and his being that does not
    require forgiveness or grace but regards his works in themselves good and
    pure enough to render grace and forgiveness superfluous, he remains out-
    side kingdom and grace and sins against grace … This is the sin against
    9 JUSTIFICATION  191

    the Holy Spirit, which cannot be forgiven, that is, it is a sin that lacks
    grace.241

    As Luther explains Single Predestination elsewhere in explicating 1


    Tim.2:4:

    … God saves all the faithful, but He does not save the faithless in the same
    way.242

    And in a sermon he proclaimed that if we have doubts about salvation


    we should take hold of our nose, search our guts, and it will become
    evident that we are part of the world and so belong to the number of the
    elect.243 In another context the Reformer speaks of our being in a state
    of grace.244
    Sometimes, when offering comfort or explaining faith, Luther sim-
    ply directs us to Christ when contemplating Predestination.245 Single
    Predestination is also implied in cases where Luther asserts in preach-
    ing contexts or when his polemics with legalism include consideration
    of repentance that God has no other Word than His Word of love in
    Christ.246
    In such contexts, while seeking to comfort despair, Luther even effec-
    tively abolishes a dialectic between the hidden and revealed God, so that
    Christ totally reveals God’s eternal plan, assuring all of salvation. Writing
    in the last decade of his life Luther writes:

    If you believe in the revealed God and accept His Word, He will gradu-
    ally also reveal the hidden God… He who rejects the Son also loses the
    unrevealed God along with the revealed. But if you cling to the revealed
    God with a firm faith, so that your heart will not lose Christ even if you are
    deprived of everything, you are most assuredly predestined, and you will
    understand the hidden God.247

    Throughout much of his corpus, Luther construes salvation as a possibil-


    ity, even a reality for all.
    Of course when faced with proponents of belief in universal salvation
    (apokatastasis) Luther flatly rejects the concept.248 And we have already
    observed how when defending faith from Pelagian tendencies, when he
    teaches Double Predestination, there the concept that all are saved has
    no place. It apparently also does not have a place just when proclaiming
    192  M. Ellingsen

    the faith or unfolding its logic. Even when preaching on a text which
    has been interpreted as entailing that Christ preached to those with-
    out faith in death when he descended into hell (I Peter 3:18–20), the
    Reformer refuses to embrace this interpretation, though he does pro-
    claim that neither hell nor the devil can take us.249 But when addressing
    existential despair over the eternal fate of those outside the faith, Luther
    expresses more openness to second chances and the salvation of all. In a
    1544 treatise on The Lord’s Supper and in a 1532 entry in Table Talk
    the Reformer hopes openly of the salvation of “unbelievers” (his theo-
    logical rivals) like Ulrich Zwingli and the Anabaptists.250 In his Lectures
    On Genesis we find him exhorting his hearers with a Word of hope, that
    they place the eternal fate of unbaptized infants into the hands of the
    God Who is “by nature merciful.251 Hope is even expressed for the sal-
    vation of selected biblical characters like Lot’s wife, Ishmael, and Essau,
    who were apparently unfaithful during their life on earth.252
    Luther is even more expressly open to an apokatastasis in his 1522
    Letter To Hans Von Rechenberg, a soldier who had raised the question
    of whether one who dies without faith might be saved.253 After respond-
    ing that God saves no one without faith, the Reformer writes:

    It would be quite a different question whether God can impart faith to


    some in the hour of death or after death so that these people could be
    saved through faith. Who would doubt God’s ability to do that? No one,
    however, can prove that He does do this. For all that we read is that He
    has already raised people from the dead and thus granted them faith.254

    In the right pastoral circumstances, offering comfort to those in


    despair, Luther did not shrink from offering the hope that salvation
    might be for all. This nicely fits the pattern observed in this chapter: The
    more Sanctification and practice of the Christian life are the issue, the
    more Luther says about a role for works or human involvement in salva-
    tion. The more in despair and powerless we feel, or the more caught up
    in works-righteousness, the more the total initiative is placed on God’s
    Work. And the more caught up we are in legalism, the more we need
    the alien character of grace, the transcendent sovereignty of God, to
    be emphasized. As that threat is less confronted, a more unambiguous
    proclamation of grace, love, and God’s intimacy serves. And even better
    perhaps is his warning in a remark over dinner that it is better to avoid
    9 JUSTIFICATION  193

    speculation about Predestination.255 Again we observe that this is just


    good parish common sense.

    Concluding Comments
    We have already noted the wonderful comfort and confidence that
    Luther’s Word of grace can bring us. Two more examples, offered while
    the Reformer reflected on the logic of faith, further help us appreciate
    what is at stake in his focus on Justification.

    This article of justification must be learned diligently. It also can support


    us in face of these countless offenses and can console us in all temptations,
    all persecutions.256

    Speaking on behalf of Christ in the 1530 s Luther writes:

    Finally you will also learn that I shall be in you. For through Me you will
    not only acquire comforting confidence and assurance, an intrepid heart,
    and undaunted courage toward the Father, the conviction that He is gra-
    cious toward you, and is no angrier with you than He is with Me…257

    God’s forgiveness is so great that He not only forgives past sins; He even
    forgives the ones we have yet committed.258 We come to appreciate God
    even more when we believe this insight. In a Table Talk comment the
    Reformer remarks:

    Our Lord God must be a devout man to be able to love knaves. I can’t do
    it, although I am myself a knave.259

    Justification by grace leads to Sanctification and the practice of the


    Christian life, as we shall note in the next chapter. On this matter in one
    of his sermons Luther writes:

    The world has the evil habit that when we preach about the forgiveness of
    sins by pure grace, without merit, it either says that we forbid good works
    or wants to draw the conclusion that we may, therefore, continue to live
    in sin and do as we please. But in all reason the very opposite should fol-
    low: the willingness of people to do good to the praise, honor, and glory
    of God. For this doctrine, if rightly understood, does not lead to pride and
    wanton wickedness, but to humility and obedience.260
    194  M. Ellingsen

    For our sins are not forgiven with the design that we should commit sin
    but that we should cease from it.261

    Indeed, justification by faith even gives us confidence that our works


    please God.262 And we dare never surrender this doctrine, for Luther
    reminds us that it so easily can slip away:

    There are very few of us who know and understand this article, and I treat
    it again and again because I greatly fear that after we have laid our head to
    rest, it will soon be forgotten and will again disappear.263

    Notes
    1. Gal. (1535), WA40I: 192f., 7ff. / LW 26:106: “Sed haec est causa:
    Paulus not agit de lana caprina et de pane lucranddo sed de summo
    articulo Christiano qui dicitur iusticia; hoc conspiciendum; illo habito ob
    oculus, tunc caetera omni vilescunt et nihil sunt. Quid angelus, universa
    creatura, si videam istum periclitari. Si is not leidet, non est, si Petrum
    etc. Non satis magnifice iustum. Ipsi spectant mangitudinem personae et
    mirantur et obliviscuntur altitudinem et maiestatem articuli.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA 40I:48, 25/ LW26:9; Ibid., WA 40I:441/ LW26:282–
    283; Ibid., WA 40I:33, 7/ LW27:145; TR (n.d.), WATR6:155, 28; BR
    (1530), WABR5:221, 15/ LW49:263; Pred. (1545/1546), WA51:82,
    7/ LW58:323; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:653, 31/ LW24:211; 1 Pet., WA12:
    26, 18/ LW30:3; Kirchpost.G., W 112:1567.39f/ CS3/1:53; Promodisp.
    Pall, WA39I:202, 2–5. It is said to be the article on which the Church
    stands or falls, according to Luther in Stuf., WA40III:352, 3. The
    Reformer says much the same in Gal. (1535), WA40I:588, 12/
    LW26:386, in claiming that God’s mercy is the chief point of all Scripture.
    He speaks of faith in Christ in this way in Ibid., WA40I:2, 4/ LW27:145.
    The saints of the Old Testament were saved by faith, according to com-
    ments in Adv., WA10!/2:4f., 27ff./ CS3/2:12.
    2. Promodisp. Pall., WA39I:205, 2: “Articulus iustificationis est magister et
    princeps, dominus, rector et iudex super omnia genera doctrinarum, qui
    conservat et gubernat omnen doctrinam ecclesiasticam et reigit consci-
    entiam nostrum coram Deo.”
    3. Disp.Just., WA39I:87, 3/ LW34:157.
    4. Pred. (1533), WA37:71f., 1ff.; Matt.5–7, WA32:348, 15/ LW21:59.
    5. Ps.51, WA40II:328, 17/ LW12:311: “Nam Theologiae proprium subiectum
    est homo peccati reus ac perditus et Deus iustificuns ac salvator hominis
    peccatoris.”
    9 JUSTIFICATION  195

    6. Ep. 1. Joh., WA20:693, 31/ LW30:265.


    7. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:527, 33/LW17:345.
    8. Worm., WA7:87f., 1ff./ LW32:112–113.
    9. Hspost. W213II:2007.8/ CS6:115
    10. Gal. (1135), WA40I:128f., 34ff./ LW26:63–64. The article is believed
    with difficulty, he says in Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:433, 16/
    LW17:222.
    11. Promodisp. Pall., WA39I :205, 23.
    12. Disp. Just., WA39I :82, 10ff./ LW34:151; Gal. (1535), WA40I:40f, 28ff./
    LW26:414; Ps.51, WA40II:4219f., 37ff./ LW12:376; Ev.Joh.16, WA46:
    45, 4/ LW 24:347.
    13. TR (1532), WATR2:454, 4: “Cuius rei certum exemplum habete, quod
    vulgus dormit, quando articulum iustificationis praedicamus, und heus-
    tet; ad historias autem arrigent aures.”
    14. Matt.5–7, WA7:558, 30/ LW21:311: “Uusz dem mugen eir erkennen
    und richten, wie vol itzt die welt falscher prediger unnd heyligenn sein,
    die dem armen volck von gutten wercken viel predigenn.”
    15. Gal. (1535), WA40I:234, 24/ LW26:133.
    16. 2 Ps., WA5:165, 33.
    17. Ibid., WA40I:282, 18/ LW26:166: “Itaque cum disputandum est de
    iustitia Christiana, prorsus abiicienda est persona.”
    18. TR (1533), WATR1:29fff., 19ff./LW54:110.
    19. 2Ps., WA5:485, 5.
    20. Magn., WA7:571, 5/ LW21:324–325; cf. Dict.Ps., WA3:269, 16.
    21. Gal. (1535), WA40I:72, 29/ LW26:26; Pred. (1538), WA46:658, 3;
    Ps.51, WA40II:421, 21/ LW12:376–377.
    22. Rom., WA56:270, 9/ LW25:258.
    23. Dict. Ps., WA3:226, 10/ LW; Latom., WA8:106, 10/ LW32:227.
    24. Stuf., WA40III:354, 3; cf. Vor. N.T., WADB7:8f., 10ff./ LW35:369.
    25. Latom., WA8:106, 10/ LW32:227.
    26. Rom., WA56:202, 15/ LW25:186: “Quare (vt [sic “ut”] supra) medios
    accipio inter impios gentiles et fideles gentiles, Qui per aliquam bonam
    operationem erga Deum, quantum ex natura potuerunt, mereurunt gra-
    tiam ulterius dirigentem eos. Non quod gratia pro tali merito data eis
    sit, cum tunc non fuisset gratia, Sed quia ad eam sese gratis recipiendam
    sic preparauerent.”
    27. Ibid., WA 56:198, 17/ LW25:181; Ibid., WA56:233, 26/ LW25:218;
    Ibid., WA56:254, 23/ LW25:241; Dict.Ps., WA4:262, 27/ LW11:397;
    Ibid., WA4:261, 32; 262, 2/ LW11:396.
    On faith formed in love, see Sent.Lom., WA9:90, 32; the concept
    seems rejected in Ibid., WA9:72, 4.
    28. Dict. Ps., WA4:91, 3; Ibid., WA4:111, 3/ LW11:263; cf. Rom., WA56:485f.,
    20ff./ LW25:478; Serm. S.P.P., WA2:248, 9/ LW51:58; Kirchpost.G.,
    196  M. Ellingsen

    W211:661.25/ CS1/2:280. Other times when just describing faith or Christian


    life or exhorting faith, the Reformer merely speaks of humility as a Christian
    characteristic, to whom God gives grace. Note Dict.Ps., WA3:124, 5/
    LW10:118; also see references in Ch. 10.
    29. Dict. Ps., WA4:309, 6/ LW11:419
    30. Disp. Heid., WA1:361, 12/ LW31:51: “Patet quod novi desparatio, sed
    spes potius praedicatur, quando non esse peccatores praedicatur. Illa
    enim praedicatio peccati est praeparatio ad gratiam seu potius agnito
    peccati et fides talis praedicationis.”
    cf. Serm.S.Thom., WA1:114f., 31ff./ LW51:22–23.
    31. Kirchpost.G., WA211:1026.23/ CS2/1:281: “Darum wird der Heilige
    Geist niemand gegeben, den eben denen, die da stehen in Betrübniss
    und Angst…”
    Cf. Ibid., WA211:1029.29/ CS2/1:283–284.
    32. TR (n.d.), WATR1:483, 14: “Ah, quam magna est iustitiae pars, velle
    iustum esse.”
    Cf. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:266, 11/ LW17:9; Ev.Joh.6–8,
    WA33:286, 19/ LW23:181.
    33. For Scholastic use of the concept of Preparation for Grace, see Thomas
    Aquinas, Summa Theologica, I–II. Q.114, Art.2. For him his prepara-
    tion is not the result of something we have merited, in contrast to the
    Nominalists who taught meritum de congruo, that we must do a pre-
    paratory act of the will in order to receive grace. See Gabriel Biel, Super
    primu -quartum librum sententiarum, cu inuentario ad notametis maf-
    ginalibus (Colophon, 1532), II, Dist, 28, art.3.
    34. Quest. Vol.hom., WA1:146, 17ff.; Rom., WA56:502f./ LW25:397. For
    Luther’s rejection of these Scholastic images, see 2.Ps., WA5:22, 6ff./
    LW14:284; Gen., WA44:771, 3ff./ LW8:261–262; Dip.hom. 17,
    WA39I: 175, 36/ LW34:138; Schmal.Art. III.1, WA50:223, 1/ BC:
    311.8.
    35. Disp. Just., WA39I:90, 13/ LW34:159–160: “Fides quidem appellatur
    opus in suo loco, sed debemus vitare in ista doctrina, ne fides appelletur
    opus, et adsuefieri debemus, ut loguamur secundum scripturam.”
    Luther makes this claim grudgingly in ibid., WA39I:98, 24/ LW 34:167–
    168. Also see Serm.heil.Leid, WA2:140, 27/ LW42:13. Whenever the
    Reformer exhorts faith, is is not presented as God’s Work, but as something
    we do.
    Stuf., WA40III:50, 24: “Ad hunc modum fidei natura discenda est,
    quod scilicet sit voluntas seu notitia seu expectatio pendens in verbo
    Dei, quod verbum ostendit et monstrat invisibilia auxilia…” In Serm.
    dr.guit., WA7:801, 14/ LW44:241, Luther claimed that we must deny
    ourselves to get grace.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  197

    Regarding earning merits, see TR (1532), WATR2:455.7. On being


    humble first, see Magn., WA7:554f., 30/ LW21:347, 339. The con-
    text for these remarks is a willingness to suffer (Ibid., WA7:585, 1/
    LW21:307).
    36. Thes. Wel., WA39I:45, 21/ LW34:110; cf. Kirchpost.G., WA12:557f./
    CS, 2/2:185. Grnd., WA7:422, 2/ LW32:76; Gal. (1535), WA40I:229,
    22/ LW26:130; Hspost., W213II:1698.16/ CS5:325.
    37. Dict.Ps., WA3:423f., 17ff./ LW10:360–362; Rom., WA56:417, 21/
    LW25:409; Brief. Card.Al., WABR1:68, 25/ LW48:46–47; Res., WA1:
    591, 31/ LW31:187–188.
    38. Res., WA1:591, 31/ LW31:187–188.
    39. Rom., WA56:442, 3/ LW25:434; Dict.Ps., WA3:541, 18/ LW11:25;
    Rom., WA56:419, 19/ LW24:411. For the importance of repentance
    in The Ninety-Five Theses, see WA1:233, 10/ LW31:25–26. The idea
    that the whole of Christian life is repentance may reflect the Reformer’s
    dependence on John Tauler, who rejected the idea that penance be lim-
    ited to Confession. See Volker Leppin, “Luther’s Roots in Monastic –
    Mystical Piety,” in Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, L’Ubamir Batka, eds.,
    The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology (Oxford: Oxford
    University Press, 2014), p. 56.
    40. Wein., WA10I/1:581, 2/ LW51:175.
    41. En.51, WA40II:360, 13/ LW12:333; cf. Res., WA1:596, 5/ LW31:195;
    Lib.christ., WA7:64, 5/ LW31:364.
    42. En.51, WA40II:360, 13/ LW12:333.
    43. Gal. (1535), WA40I:228, 27/ LW26:129: “Nos autem loco charitatis
    istuis ponimus fidem …”
    44. Kirchpopst.G., W211:1611.81/ CS3/1:100: “Der Glaube empfähet
    Gut, die Liebe gibt Gut.”
    45. Antinom. (3), WA39I :521f., 5ff.; cf. texts addressing similar contexts
    concered with sin or exhortation to faith. Disp.just., WA39I :83, 18/
    LW34:152–153; Ibid., WA39I: 95, 17/ LW34:164–165; Dup.just.,
    WA 2:146, 8/ LW 31:298; Lib.christ., WA7:59f., 37ff./ LW31:358;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I:40f., 20ff. /LW26:4–5; Ibid., WA40I:368, 26 /
    LW26:232–233; Kirchpost.G., W211:1930.18.
    46. Wein., WA10I/1:343f., 24/ CS, 3/2:238; cf. Ibid., WA10I/1:113, 14;
    Kirchpost.E, W212: 136.25/ CS, 3/2:151.
    47. Gal. (1519), WA2:495, 2/ LW27:227: “Interim autem, dum iustificatur
    et sanatur; non imputatur ei, quod reliquum est in carne peccaturu…”
    Cf. Rom., WA56:272, 3/ LW25:260; Wider Hans., WA51:520, 7/
    LW41:218; Kirchpost.E., W212:625.15/ CS4/1:335; Promodisp. Pall,
    WA39I :252, 8.
    198  M. Ellingsen

    We see Luther construing Justification as a process when doing


    apologetics in Disp.just., WA39I :96f., 24ff/ LW 34:166–167, though
    he may be rejecting that conclusion. Also see Serm.Bu., WA2:718,
    19/ LW35:15 (where he still speaks of rendering satisfaction); Grnd.,
    WA7:343,27/ LW32:28; Rom., WA56:217, 8/ LW25:202–203; Ibid.,
    WA56:272f., 17ff./ LW25:260–261; Disp.just., WA39I:83, 16/ LW34:
    152; Ibid., WA39I:98, 7/ LW34:167.
    48. Disp.just., WA39I : 83, 16./ LW 34:152: “Iustificari enim hominem
    sentimus, hominem nondum esse iustum, sed esse in ipso motu seu
    cursu ad iustitiam.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA39I:98f., 7ff./ LW34:167, 168. Luther here may be referring
    to the infusion of the qualities in the faithful as Sanctification. Also see Gal.
    (1535), WA40II:24, /LW27:21; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:252.5.
    For a proponent of these positions, see Karl Holl, “Zur Verständigung
    über Luthers Rechtfertigungslehre,” Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, XXXIV
    (1923), 165ff.
    49. Rom., WA56:379, 2ff./ LW25:268–369. For a proponent of the later
    dating of The Tower Expereince, see Ernst Bizer, Fides ext auditu:
    Wine Untersuching űber die Entdecking der Gerechtigkeit Gottesduch
    Martin Luther (3rd ed.; Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, 1966), esp.
    p. 19; cf. Alister McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Oxaford and
    Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1990), pp. 90, 117ff. For advocates of a
    later date, see Uuras Saarnivaara, Luther Discovers the Gospel (St. Louis:
    Concrodia Publishign House, 1951), pp. 123ff. Also see Oscar Bayer,
    Martin Luther’s Theology, trans. Thomas Trapp (Grand Rapics MI: Wm.
    B. Eerdmans, 2008), p. 47.
    50. Grnd., WA7:345, 12/ LW32:28.
    51. Pred. 1523), WA12:497, 30ff.; Dict.Ps., WA3:52f.,42ff./ LW10:62; Ibid., WA3:56,
    35/ LW10:68; Gen., WA44:771, 3ff./ LW8:261–262; 2.Ps., WA5:22, 6ff./
    LW14:284; Rom., WA56:275, 17/ LW25:262; Ibid., WA56:382, 21/ LW25:
    372; Ibid., WA56;502, 14ff./ LW25:496–497.
    52. See Roman Catholic Church – Lutheran World Federation, “Joint
    Declaration On the Doctrine of Justification” (1997); Otto Pesch, Die
    Theologie der Rechtfertigung bei Martin Luther und Thomas von Aquin (4
    vols; Mainz: Walbergerger Studien der Albertus-Magnus- Akademie, 1967);
    Harry J. McSorley, Luther: Right Or Wrong? (New York: Newman Press,
    1969).
    53. Rom., WA56:172, 3/ LW25:151: “Et hic iterum ‘Iustitia Dei’ non
    ea debet accipi, qua ipse Iustus est in seipso, Sed qua nos ex ipso
    Iustificamur, quod fit per fidem euangelii.”
    9 JUSTIFICATION  199

    Cf. Ibid., WA56:36, 1/ LW25:30; Ibid., WA56:37, 18/ LW25:31;


    Ibid., WA56:215, 16/LW25:201; Ibid., WA56:262, 19/ LW25:249.
    54. Vor.Lat., WA 54:185f., 21ff./ LW 34:336–337: “Ego autem, qui me,
    utcunque irreprehensibilis monachus, vivebam, sentirem coram Deo esse
    peccatorem inquietissimae conscientiae, nec mea satisfactione placatum
    confidere possem, non amabam, imo obediam iustum et punientem pec-
    catores Deum, tacitaque sin non blaspehmia certe ingenti murmuratione
    indignabar Deo… intelligere eam, qui iustus dono Dei, vivit nempe ex
    fide, et esse hanc sententiam, revelari per euangelium iustitiam Dei scili-
    cet passivam, qua nos Deus misericors iustificat per fidem…”
    On the passivity of faith, see Gut.Werk., WA6:244, 3/ LW44:72;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I: 40f., 28/ LW26:4.
    55. Adv. (1522), WA10I/2:35f., 24ff.: ”Das wortt rechtfertigung, soll hie nit
    vorstanden warden von der gerechtichkeyt damit got richtet, wie man
    nennett die gestrenge gerechtichkeyt gottis… sondern es soll die gnade
    heyssen, damit er uns rechtfertigung macht.”
    56. Disp. Schol. Theol., 69, 81, WA1:227f., 24ff./ LW31:14; Lib.christ.,
    WA7:64, 5ff./ LW31:364.
    57. Gal. (1535), WA40I:47, 15/ LW26:8: “Nihil ergo facimus nos, nihil
    operamur ad hanc iustitiam consequendam? Respondeo: “Nihil…”
    Cf. Disp.just., WA39I:836, 10/ LW34:153; Vor. Lat., WA54:186,
    3/ LW34:337.
    58. Gal. (1535), WA40I:40, 15/ LW26:4; Rom., WA56:3, 6/ LW25:3.
    59. Kirchpost.G., W211:1837.6/ CS3/1:329–330: “Darum so heist
    einer nicht ein Christ daher, das er viel thue; sondern darum, dass er
    von Christo was nehme, schőpfe und lasse sich nur geben. Wenn einer
    nicht mehr nimmt von Christo, so ist er kein Christ mehr, so dass der
    Christen Name nur in Nehmen bleibe und nicht im Geben oder Thun,
    und dass ser von niemand nichts nehme den von Christo.”
    Cf. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:527, 31/ LW17:345.
    60. Disp.Schol.Theol., WA1:226, 8/ LW31:12: “Non efficimur uisti iusta
    operand, sed iusti facti operamur iusta.”
    61. Dup.just., WA2:145, 7/ LW31:297; Disp.just.,WA39I:109, 1 /
    LW34:178; Rom., WA56:269ff., 21ff./ LW25:258ff.; Jes. (1527–
    1530), WA31II:88, 2/ LW16:123; Ibid., WA31II:85, 30/LW16:120.
    While explaining a fresh understanding of his spiritual pilgrimage in
    2.Ps., WA5:144, 1, Luther claims that we are clothed in righteousness.
    62. Dict.Ps., WA3:462f., 24ff./ LW10:404; Ibid., WA3:466, 27/
    LW10:408.
    63. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:526, 1/ LW17:342: Nam credere est iusti-
    ciam germinare.”
    64. Dict..Ps., WA3:175, 9/ LW10:146; Rom., WA56:158, 10/ LW25:136.
    200  M. Ellingsen

    65. Gal. (1535), WA40 I:45, 24/ LW26:7; Ibid., WA40 I:47f., 30ff./
    LW26:7, 9; Ibid., WA40I: 41, 3/ LW26:5; Ibid., WA40I:424f., 26ff./
    LW26:6; Ibid., WA40I:46, 20/ LW26:8; Dup.just., WA2:145, 9/
    LW31:297.
    66. Dict.Ps., WA3:42f., 32ff./ LW10:47; Ibid., WA3:462f., 32ff./ LW10:
    404.
    67. Rom., WA56:52, 7/ LW25:46 [imputare]; Promodisp. Pall., WA39I:228,
    7; Ibid., WA39I:230, 8; Gal. (1535), WA40I:364, 24/ LW26:229f.; Ibid.,
    WA40I:387, 18/ LW26:245. Also see Rom., WA56:41, 2ff./ LW25:35
    [where Luther uses both reputare and imputare]; Ibid., WA56:268f.,
    27ff./ LW25:257 [reputare]; Disp.just., WA39I:97, 16/ LW34:166–167.
    Additional references available in nn.199, 200.
    68. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia (418/420), I.XXV.28; Bernhard
    Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development,
    trans. and ed. Ray A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress 1999), p. 261. This
    challenges the critical perspective of Augustine’s lack of influence on Luther
    offered by Julius Kostlin, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften,
    Vol.1 (5th ed.; Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1903), p. 138, and Alister E.
    McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification
    (2nd ed.; Cambridge and New York: Cambridege University Press, 1998),
    pp. 25–27, 47; Alister E. McGrath, The Intellectual Origins of the European
    Reformation (Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), esp. p. 177.
    69. Disp.just., WA39I:83, 22/ LW34:153.
    70. Grnd., WA7:345,/ LW32:28; Latom., WA8:111f., 29ff./ LW32:235f.;
    Schmal.Art., III.13, WA50:250, 15ff./ BC325.1–2.
    71. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:439, 5ff./ LW17:230, 22.
    72. Gal. (1535), WA40I:589, 25/ LW26:387.
    73. Rom., WA56:334, 15/ LW25:322: “Quia Apostolus loquitur, vt signifi-
    cet sonet hominem potius ausserri peccato remanente velut relicto et
    hominem expugari a peccato potius quam econtra.”
    74. Rom., WA56:248, 25/ LW25:235.
    75. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I;219, 7; Ibid., WA39I;250f., 24ff.; Antinom. (1),
    WA39I;374, 18; Ibid., WA39I;392, 1; Antinom.(3), WA39I;529, 3; Gal.
    (1519), WA2:477, 29/ LW27:202; Promodisp.Fab., WA39II:274, 19; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:534f., 35ff./ LW26:349; Wein., WA10I/1:467, 1/ CS3/2:
    281; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:659f., 37ff./ LW23:404. Also see pp. 66–67, n.
    259.
    76. Res., WA1:593, 4ff. / LW31:189ff.; Lib.christ., WA7:54f., 31ff./
    LW31:351.Also see Gal. (1535), WA40I:443, 23/ LW26:284; 2.Ps.,
    WA5:608, 6; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:435, 11/ LW17:225; Ibid.,
    WA31II:525, 24/ LW17:342; Ibid., WA31II:434, 2/ LW17:223; Pred.
    (1522), WA10III:356, 17; Ibid., A10III:358, 7; Kirchpost.E., W212L266f.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  201

    56/ CS3/2:289; Hspost., W213II:2603.16/ CS7:226–227; Wein.,


    WA10I/1:72, 9/ LW52:15.
    77. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:741, 37/ LW30:294.
    78. Wein, WA10I/1:72, 15/ LW52:15: :… das eyn iglicher Christen mag
    sich diesser gepurtt Christi nitt weniger frewen und ruhmen, den, alsz
    were auch, gleych wie Christus leyplich von Marien gebornn.”
    79. Rom., WA56:298, 22/ LW25:286; Capt. Bab., WA6:514, 12/ LW36:
    38–39.
    80. Thes.Wel., WA39I:45, 33/ LW34:110.
    81. Ps.51, WA40II:422, 27/ LW14:377–378: “Sed nos de gratia aliter doce-
    mus et credimus, nempe quod Gratia sit continua et perpetua operatio
    seu exercitatio, qua vapimur et agimur Spiritu Dei…”
    Cf. Vor. N.T., WADB7:8, 10/ LW35:369; Latom., WA8:106, 10/ LW32:
    227.
    82. Pred. (1522), WA10III:239, 13.
    83. Wein., WA10I/1:232, 22/ CS1/1:206; Disp.just., WA39I:83, 28/ LW34:
    153. For more on faith as comprerhension or apprehension, see Thes.
    Wel., WA39I:45, 21/ W34:110.
    84. Gal. (1535), WA40I :228f., 33/ LW26:129.
    85. Ibid., WA40I :229f., 22ff./ LW26:130; Gal. (1519), WA2:502, 29/ LW27:
    239.
    86. Kl. Kat., I.2. WA30I:243, 14/ BC 351:2; Dtsch. Kat., I.1, WA30I:133,
    2/ BC386.2; Vor. N.T., WADB 7:11, 16/ LW35:370.
    87. Latom., WA8:114/ LW32:239.
    88. Som. Post. (Cruc.), WA21:487f., 39ff.
    89. Kirchpost.G., W211:1103f.28/ CS2/1:360.
    90. Rom., WA56:299, 2/ LW25:286.
    91. Gal. (1535), WA40I: 233, 18/ LW 26:132.
    92. Wein., WA 10I/1:125/ CS, 3/2:164.
    93. Latom., WA8:112, 1 /LW32:235–236: “Ecce fides non satis, sed fides
    quae se sub alas Christi recondat et in illius iustitia glorietur.”
    94. Wein., WA10 :281, 11/ LW52:96; 1 Pet., WA12:313, 1/ LW30:59; cf.
    Disp.just., WA39I:83, 26/LW34:153.
    95. Latom., WA8:114, 20/ LW32:239.
    96. See Note 93, above. Also see Kirchpost.G.,W211:102f.28/ CS2/1:360;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I:232, 23/ LW26:132; cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:229,
    22/ LW26:130.
    97. Vor.Ps., WA40II:560, 15/ LW12:262: “Sicut autem, qui in medio flumine
    mersus forte apprehendit ramum arboris, quo se quamvis aegre sustentat,
    ne pereat, Ita nos quoque in mediis peccatis, morte, turbationibus appre-
    hendimus Christum infirma fide, ea tamen fides, quantulacunque sit,
    tamen servat nos et dominatur morti ac conculcat diabolum et omnia.”
    202  M. Ellingsen

    cf. Pred. (1525), WA17I:72, 17


    98. Ev.Joh., 6–8, WA33:37, 9/ LW23:28.
    99. See Note 97.
    100. Pred. (1522), WA10III:308, 16; Wein., WA10I/1:518, 5/ LW52:157.
    101. I Pet., WA12:313, 1/ LW30:59: “Das sich keyner auff seyn eygene
    frümicheyt, sondern auff Christi gerechtickeyt verlusse, und auff alles
    was Christus hat.”
    102. Wieder, WA26:172, 19/ LW40:260: “Gottes wort ist grösser und furnem-
    licher denn der glaube, Sintemal nicht Gottes wort auff denn glawben,
    sondern der glawbe auff Gottes wort sich bawet und gründet, Dazu der
    glawbe ist wanckelbar und wondelbar. Aber Gottes wort bleibt weiglich.”
    103. Unter.Visit., WA26:228, 181/ LW40:304.
    104. Krichpost.G., W211:1091.16/ CS2/1:347: “Nun muss es an den Tag
    kommen; den die Sonne lässt ihren Ausgang darum nicht, ob ich faul
    bin und gern wollte eine Stunde oder zwei noch schlaffen.”
    Cf. Kirchpostr.G., W211:720.4/ CS1/2: 347–348.
    105. Hspost., W213II:2005.3/ CS6:113: Nun ists wahr, das Glaubens Predigt
    ist eine sehr liebliche, füsse Predigt; aber eine subtile, hohe und fährli-
    che Predigt, sonderliche Herzen. Denn wenn man den Glauben predigt,
    so ists von eitel Gnade gepredigt… Predigt man aber den Glauben und
    die Gnade nicht, so fallen die Leute auf eigene Werke und müssen end-
    lich verzweifeln.”
    106. 1.Pet., WA12:271, 9/ LW30:15; Vor. N.T., WADB7:10, 6/ LW35:370;
    cf. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:286, 19/ LW23:181 (though in this homiletical
    context of exhortation Luther claims that we get the gift of faith when
    we ask for it); Gal. (1535), WA40I:41f., 5ff./ LW26:4–6.
    107. Wein, WA10I/1:152, 1; cf. Ibid., 10I/1:186, 1/ LW52:45; Dr.Sym., WA50:
    273, 10ff./ LW34:216.
    108. Kirchpost.G., W211:1088.8/ CS2/1:344: “So kannst du ihm nun
    nicht nachlaufen, er läuft dir…” Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:130, 12/ LW26:
    101.
    109. Pred. (1522), WA10III:355, 24.
    110. Disp. Heid., WA1:365, 9/ LW31:57: “ut facit iustus, bonos, saprenes,
    rabiustas et se effluit potious et bonum tiibuit.”
    111. Vor. N.T., WADB7:10, 6/ LW25:370–371: “Aber glaub ist eyn got-
    tlich werck ynn uns, das uns wandelt und neu gespirit aus Gott… O es
    ist eyn lebendig, schefftig, thettig, mechtig ding umb den glawben, das
    unmuglich ist, das er nicht on unterlas solt guts wircken…”
    Cf. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 4.
    112. Capt. Bab., WA6:530, 16/ LW36:62: “Est enim optus dei, non hominis,
    sicut Paulus docet. Caetera nobiscum et per nos operator, hoc unicum
    in nobis et since nobi operature.”
    9 JUSTIFICATION  203

    Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:130, 12. LW26:64; Ibid.,WA40I:164, 18/


    LW26:88; Ibid., WA40I: 610, 15/ LW26:401–402; Adv., WA10I/2:39,
    22/ CS1/1:27; Vor. N.T., WADB7:7, 14/ LW35:368; Ibid., WADB7:
    10, 6/ LW35:370.
    113. Ps.51, WA40II:410, 14/ LW12:368” Tota enim ratio iustifiandi quoud
    non passive est.”
    114. See Note 35 for the quotation.
    115. Kirchpost.E., W212:497.16/ CS4/1:200–201; Ibid., W212:493.8/ CS4/
    1:197.
    116. See Ch.5 on the Sprit working faith.
    117. Kirchpost.E., W212:106.11/ CS3/2:119.
    118. TR (1543), WATR5:250, 26/ LW54:456–457.
    119. Schlus., WA30II:496, 26/ LW40:464: “Darnach dencke, as die schlüs-
    sel oder vergebung der sunden nicht stehet auff unser rew oder wir-
    digkeit… Rewen soltu (das ist war), Aber das darumb die vergebunge
    der sunden solt gewis warden und das schlüssels werck bestettigen, das
    heisst den glauben verlassen und Christum verleugnet…”
    120. Vor.Lat., WA 54:186, 16/ LW 34:337: “Postea legebam Augustinum de
    spiritu et litera, ubi praeter spem offindi, quod it ipse iustitiam Dei simi-
    liter interpretatur: qua nos Deus induit, dum nos iustificat.”
    See Philip Melancthon, The Augsburg Confession (1530), 20.1213;
    Hans-Ulrich Delius, Augustin als Quelle Martin Luthers (Berlin: Walter
    deGruyter, 1884); Bernhard Lohse, “Die Bedeutung Augustins fur den
    jungen Luther,” Kerygma und Dogma 11 (1965):116–135; Walther von
    Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, trans. Hebert J. A. Bouman
    (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg, 1976), p. 66; Eric Gritsch, Martin –
    God’s Court Jester: Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
    1983), pp. 12, 16, 73; Lewis Spitz, Luther and German Humanism
    (Variorum: Aldershot, 1996), pp. 93–101; Heiko A. Oberman, Luther:
    Man between God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart
    (New York and London: Doubleday, 1992), esp. p. 180; Leif Grane,
    Modus Loquendi Theologicus: Luthers Kamp um der Erneuerung der
    Theologie (1515–1518) (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), pp. 60–62.
    121. Julius Kostlin, Martin Luther: Sein Leben und seine Schriften, Vol.1 (5th
    ed.; Berlin: Alexander Duncker, 1903), p. 138; Alister E. McGrath,
    Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (2nd ed.;
    Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp.
    25–27, 47. Also see Jaroslav Pelikan, Reformation of Church and Dogma
    (1300–1700), Vol.4 of The Christian Tradition (Chicago: University of
    Chicago Press, 1984), pp. 140–141, 252–253, where others who felt
    Augustine was not the principal ancestor of the Reformation are listed.
    204  M. Ellingsen

    122. Augustine, De spiritu et littera (412), 9.15: Justiti, inquit, Dei manifes-


    tata est: non dixit, Justitia hominis, vel justitia proppriae voluntatis; sed
    justitia Sei, non qua Deus Justus, est, sde qua hominem, cum justificat
    impium…”
    123. See the references in Notes 67–69 and my “Augustinian origins of the
    Reformation reconsidered,” Scottish Journal of Theology 64 (1) (2011):
    13–28.
    124. Disp.just., WA39I:83, 24 /LW 34:153: “Iam certum est, Christum seu
    iustitiam Christi, cum sit extra not et aliena nobis, non posse nostris
    operibus comprehendi.”
    125. Gal. (1535), WA40I:589, 8/ LW26:387: “Ideo nostra theologia est certa,
    quia point nos extra nos: non debeo niti in conscientia mea…, sed in
    promissione divina, veritate, quae non potest fallere.”
    126. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:140, 35/ LW51:29–30.
    127. Kirchpost.E., W212:93.30/ CS3/2:106: “...er genugsam zeigt, dass viel
    Dinges sei, das usn zur Gorge treibt; aber in dem allen sollen wir nichts
    sorgen, sondern das Gebet uns halten, und das Gott befehlen und bit-
    ten, was uns fehlt.”
    128. Pred. (1528), WA27:223, 8: “Du must nicht conscientiae tuae und fulen
    plus credere quam verbo quod de domino praedicatur, qui suscipicit
    peccatores, quos videbis, quam laudet et mit grossen freuden celestum,
    quando ita potest pugnare cum conscientia, ut dicas: du leugst, Christos
    hat war, non tu.”
    129. Wein., WA10I/1:332, 4/ CS3/2:229: “Denn es soll hie nit furcht oder
    worcker seyn, das er frum und gottis kind sey auss gnaden…”
    Cf. Hspost., W213II:2125.14/ CS6:221.
    130. See p.164, n.31.
    131. Gal. (1535), WA40I:575, 31/ LW26:377–378.
    132. Ev.Joh.304, WA7:106, 3/ LW22:384–385.
    133. Lib.Christ, WA7:58, 4/ W31:356: Ex iis clare videre potest quilibet, quo
    modo Christianus homo liber est ab omnibus et super onmia, ita ut nul-
    lis operibus ad hoc indigeat, ut iustus et saluus sit, sed sola fides haec
    ominia largitur aborde.”
    134. Gal. (1535), WA40I:578, 25/ LW26;379.
    135. Kirchpost.G, W211:694.38/ CS1/2:317; Stuf., WA40III:343, 24.
    136. Disp.Heid., WA1:365, 11/ LW31:57: “Ideo enim peccatores sunt pul-
    chri, quia diligunter, non ideo diligunter, quia sunt pulchri. Ideo amor
    hominis, futig peccatores, malos.”
    137. Hspost., W213II:1732.8/ CS5:347.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  205

    138. Jes. (15 27–1530), WA31II:92, 6/ LW16:129: Nunc habeo, quo nitar


    et fidam in quem respiciam, videlicet deum iam non iratum et per-
    cucientem, sed salvantem ex omini periculo et malo.”
    139. Ev.Joh. (3–4), WA47:106, 31/ LW22:384: “Dan ob dich deine sunde
    und gewissen gleich plagen und drucken, und du dich fur Gottes ger-
    ichte furchtest, So wisse, es sey nun umbgekeret, und das Gerichte sey
    hinweg.”
    140. Kirchpost.G., W211:705.25/ CS1/2:330: “Muss doch das Herz gleich
    vor sich selbst erschreden, und denken: Meinst du auch, dass es wahr
    sei, dass die Majestät so Himmel und Erde geschaffen, sollte sich meines
    Glendes so hoch annehmen und mich so gnädlich ansehen… wie kann
    solche Gnade und Schatz von menschlichen Herzen, ja, von einigen
    Creatur begriffen werden?”
    141. Fast., WA17II:244, 25.
    142. Hspost., W213II:2557.20/ CS7:190.
    143. Antinom.(2), WA39I:435, 18.
    144. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:589, 29 / LW24:41.
    145. Kirchpost.E., W212:262.44/ CS3/2:283: “Wieweil den Gott seine
    Gnade gibt solchen Wirken und durch ihren eigenen Fleiss Bereitern,
    so muss Christus ein Hansbutzen bleiben. Was dürfen sein, wenn sie die
    Gnade in ihrem eigenen Namen und Thun mőgen erlangen?”
    146. Dict.Ps., WA3:191, 1/ LW10:162: “Quia nullus benedict Dominum, nisi
    qui sibi displicet et se maledicit et euidues solus placet.”
    147. Gal. (1535), WA40I:545, 30/ LW26:356: “Quae fides est pertinacissi-
    mus intutus qui nihil aspicit praeter Christum victorem peccati et montis
    et largitorem iustitiae, salutis et vitae aeternae.”
    148. Pred. (1539), WA47:668, 9/ LW55:9–10 (for Angst).
    149. Pred. (1523), WA12:688, 24.
    150. Jes. (1527–1529), WA25:387f., 39ff.; cf. Fast. (1518), WA1:275, 4/ LW51:
    46; Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:755, 18/ LW30:300; Kirchpost.G., W211:680.2/ CS1/
    2:303; Stuf., WA40III:335, 20.
    151. Wein., WA 10I/1:101, 13/ CS, 3/2:146: “Glewbistu aber, szo ists nitt
    müglich, das davor deyn hertz nitt sullt fur freuden ynn gott lachem,
    frey, sicher und mütig werden. Denn wie mag wyn hertz trawrig odder
    unlustig bleyben, das da nit zweyffellt, Gott der sey yhm fruntlich und
    halte sich gegen yhm als eyn gutter frund, mit dem er sich alsz mit yhm
    selbs allisz dings vol vormüge?”
    152. Kirchpost.G., W211:750, 6/ CS1/2:381: “Wenn aber Christus kommt,
    lässt er äuserliche Widerwärtigkeit bleiben, stärkt aber die Person, und
    macht aus Blődigkeit ein unerschrocken Herz, aus dem Zappeln keck…”
    153. See the 2nd and 3rd quotations on p.177.
    206  M. Ellingsen

    154. Gal. (1535), WA40I:131f, 25ff. / LW26:66: “Et verum est doctrinam


    Euangelii adimere hominibus omnem gloriam, sapientiam, iusti-
    tiam etc. et ista tribuere soli Creaturi qui ex nihilo omnia facit. Multo
    autem tutius est tribuere nimium Deo, quam hominibus.” See Ibid.,
    WA40I:588, 12/ LW26:386.
    155. Kirchpost.G., W211:198.120/ CS1/1:217: “Ich sehe nicht, was sie mőgen
    anzeigen, dazu Christus noth sein, wenn ich durch meine Werke mag
    Gottes Gnade erlangen.” Gal. (1535), WA40I:237, 26/ LW26:135;
    Hspost., W213II:2498.20f./ CS7:138.
    156. BR (1516), WABR1:35, 29/ LW48:13: “Christus enim non nisi in prec-
    catribus habitat.”
    157. See Note 136 for the quotation.
    158. Jes., WA31II:330, 28/ LW17:88: “Nostra gloria igitur est in nostris ocu-
    lis et mundi aspectu vilescere. Oportet nos revera in nostris oculis et
    tocius mundi nihil esse… In illa desperacione extrema audimus: “Tu es
    preciosus ante oculos meos.’ Quia tibi es nihil, ideo mihi eris gloriosus.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA31 :165, 9/ LW16:230–231.
    159.  Rom., WA56:159, 4ff./ LW25:137: “Sed omnino Christianus verus
    ita debet nihil proprium habere, ita omnibus exutus esse… Idcirco in
    istus omnibus sic oportet se habeere in humilitate, quasi adhuc nihil
    habeat, et nudam misericordiam Dei expectareeum pro Iusto et sapiente
    reputantis.”
    160. Hspost., W213II:1917.15/ CS6:36.
    161. Kirchpost.G., W211:714.50/ CS1/2:340; cf. Wein, WA10I/1:27, 11/
    CS3/2:119.
    162. TR (1537), WATR3:443f., 23ff./ LW54:240.
    163. Formula of Concord (1580), SD III.17–18; Martin Chemnitz, Loci
    Theologici (1591), II.250; Caspar Brochmann, Universae Theologiae
    Systema (1633), 574.
    164. Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification,
    ed. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), esp. pp. 43ff.; Tuomo
    Mannermaa, “Justification and Theosis in Lutheran-Orthodox
    Perspective,” in Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation
    of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids,
    MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1998), pp. 25–41; Tuomo Mannermaa,
    Hat Luther eine trinitarische Ontologie? Luther und die trinitarische
    Tradition (Erlangen: Luther-Akademie Ratzenburg, 1994), pp. 43–60;
    Regin Prenter, Spiritus Creator, trans. John M. Jensen (Philadelphia:
    Muhlenberg Press, 1952), pp. 8, 10–11, 28–29; Paul Althaus, The
    Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia:
    Fortress Press, 1966), pp. 234–235.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  207

    Among critics of the Finnish approach include Timothy Wengert,


    “Review of Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (eds.), Union with
    Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther’s Theology,” Theology
    Today 56 (1999):432–434, and Aaron O’Kelley, Did the Reformers
    Misread Paul? (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2014), esp. pp. 71–73.
    165. Res., WA1:557, 25/ LW31:129; BR (1516), WABR1.79, 58/ LW48:
    35–36. For other examples where Luther relies on Mystical insights
    in contexts related to despair or exhorting Christian living, see Rom.,
    WA56:413, 18/ LW25:404–405; Ibid., WA56:377f., 24ff./ LW25:
    367–368; Dict. Ps., WA3:124, 29ff./ LW10:119–120. Also see references
    to being willingness to be resigned to hell in Chapter IX. Cf. Johannes
    Tauler, Predigten, V.146, 21.
    The influence of Mysticism on the “young” Luther has been a domi-
    nating interest among many Luther-scholars. John Dillenberger, God:
    Hidden and Revealed (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1953), con-
    ducted a thorough survey of the attitude of scholarship on this issue
    until the mid-1950s. Among those who have considered the matter
    are Rudolf Otto, Westostliche Mystik (Gotha: Leopold Klotz, 1926),
    pp. 277ff.; Hermann Hering, Die Mystik Luthers in Zusammenhang
    seiner Theologie und in ihrem Verhaltnis zur altern Mystik (Leipzig: J.
    C. Hinrichs, 1879); Julius Kostlin, The Life of Martin Luther, trans.
    John Morris (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication Society, 1883),
    esp. pp. 87–88; William Braun, Die Bedeutung der Concupiszenz in
    Luthers Leben und Lehre (Berlin: Trowitsch, 1908), p. 295; Siegfried
    Lommatzsch, Luthers Lehre vom ethisch-religiosen Standpunkt aus und
    mit besonderer Berucksichigung seiner Theorie vom Gesetz (Berlin, 1879),
    p. 141; Karl Holl, “Die Rechtgeritgungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung
    uber den Romberbrief mit Rucksicht auf die Frage der Heilsgewissheit,”
    Gesammelte Aufsatze zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol.1 (Tubingen: J. C. B.
    Mohr, 1932), pp. 148–149.
    With the notable exception of Bengt Hoffman, Luther and the
    Mystics (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1977), more recent
    Luther-research has tended to stress the Reformer’s discontinuity with
    Mysticism. See Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross,
    trans. Herbert Bouman (4th ed.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing
    House, 1976), p. 166; Roland Bainton, Here I Stand (New York:
    Abingdon Press, 1950), pp. 42–43; Heiko Oberman, Werden und
    Wertung der Reformation (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1977), pp. 110–112;
    Robert N. Wilkin, “The Doctrine of Repentance in Church History”
    (2004), at http://bible.org/seriespage//-doctrine-repentance-church-
    history, accessed July 18, 2015; Scott Hendrix, “Martin Luther’s
    208  M. Ellingsen

    Reformation of Spirituality,” in Harvest in Martin Luther’s Reflections,


    ed. Timothy Wengert (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2004), p.
    255.
    166. Vor.D.T., WA1:378, 21/ LW31:75; cf. Theologia Germanica (n.d.), III:
    “Das got alle menschen an sich même, de da sint und ie wâren, und
    in allen vormenschet wurde und st in im vorottet, und geschehe es nit
    auch an mir…”
    It should be noted that Luther is critical of Mysticism when addressing
    polemics, a move that explains his use of the Forensic View of Justification
    in such contexts. See Rom., WA56:299, 25ff./ LW25:287; TR (1533),
    WATR1:302f., 30ff./ LW54:112; Capt.Bab., WA6:561f., 34ff./ LW36:
    109. It could be argued that in these cases only particular kinds of
    Mysticism were critiqued. But the point is that scholars on both sides of
    this dispute are correct regarding Luther’s writing in different contexts.
    167. Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:28, 2732: “Ideo Deus fit homo, ut homo fiat
    Deus. Ideo virtus fit informa, ut infirmitas fiat virtuosa.” Also see Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:20, 29.
    168. Pred. (1525), WA17I:438, 14ff/ CS, 4/2:279–280: “Und wir so erful-
    let werden ‘mit allerley Gottes fulle,’ das ist auff Ehreische weyse soviel
    geredet: das wir erfullet warden auff alle weise, damit er voll macht und
    voll Gotttes werden…”
    Cf. Fast. (1525), WA17II:74, 25ff. (uttered while seeking to instill
    confidence); Wein., WA10I/1:100, 8/ CS3/2:145–146.
    169. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA 21:458, 11–12/ CS, 2/1:316: “Das ist je ein
    treffliche schone und (wie S. Petrus sagt ii Petri 1.) der teweren und
    aller grossesten Verheissungen eine, uns armen, elenden Sundern ges-
    checkt, das wir auch Gottlicher natur teilhaftig werden sollen und so
    hoch geadelt, das wir nicht allein durch Christum sollen von Gott gelei-
    bet werden, sein gunst und Gnad als das hohest, tewrest Heligthumb
    haben, sondern yn, den Herrn selbs…”
    Cf. Ps.101, WA41:98, 31ff./ LW13:243; Gal. (1535), WA40I:182,
    15/ LW26:100.
    170. Wein., WA10I/1:518, 7/ LW52:157.
    171. 
    Gregory of Nyssa, De Instituto Christiano (385), II, Deum. For such
    an assessment of the Eastern position, see Christoforos Stavropoulos,
    “Partakers of Divine Nature,” in Eastern Orthodox Theology: A Contemporary
    Reader, ed. Daniel B. Clendenin (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1995),
    pp. 190–191.
    Cf. Johannes Tauler, Predigten, V.146, 21; Theologia Germanica (n.d.), III.
    172. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:698, 29/ LW30:268” Similes erimus, non iidem…” cf.
    Ander Ep.Pet., WA14:19, 1ff. / LW30:154–155, where Luther claims
    that partaking of the divine nature is merely to share God’s qualities.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  209

    173. Kirchpost.E., W212:765.13/ CS4/2:146; Gal. (1535), WA40I:285, 5/


    LW26:168.
    174. Lib.christ., WA7:54, 31 / LW31:351: “Tertia fidei gratia incompara-
    bilis est haec. Quod animam copulat cum Christo, sicut sponsam cum
    sponso. Quo sacramento (ut Apostolus docet) Christus et anima effici-
    untur una caro. Quod si una caro sunt verumque inter eos matrimonia...
    huius unici figurae sint tenues, Sequitur, et omnia eorum communia
    fiera tam bona quam mala…”
    Cf. Adv., WA10I/2:31, 19/ CS1/1:28; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:
    432, 4/ LW17:221; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:232f., 24/ LW23:149.
    175. Betra.Leid.Christ., WA2:138, 19ff./ LW42:10
    176. Heb., WA57III :125, 2ff./ LW29:132. Luther claims here that though
    God uses suffering to make us perfect it is not the suffering itself that
    makes perfect, but how suffering makes Christ the perfect Example and
    Author of salvation.
    177. Kl.Proph., WA13:694f., 23/ LW18:410–411: “Regnum Christi mysticus
    caminus est pergans scoriam veteris Adae… Christus non tantum depu-
    rator sed etiam depuration ipsa est, non tantum faber sed et iguis, non
    tantum fullo sed et sapo… Hoc sentiunt Christiani, qui minus afficinn-
    tur opibus, minus metuunt mortem et contemnunt omnia saecularia, Ea
    vis est ignis et sapo.”
    178. Hspost., W213II:1420f.14/ CS5:82.
    179. Kirchpost.E., W212:887.46/ CS4/2:279: “Ist nun die Summa: Ich werde
    geneidriget oder erhőhet, miss mich, wie du willst, reiss mich hierher oder
    dorthin, so finde ich Christum da. Denn er hat alle Dinge in seinen Händen,
    im Himmel und Erden… Darum wenn er in meinem Herzen wohnt, so
    bleibt der Muth stehen; wo ich hinkomme und fahre, kann ich nicht ver-
    loren werden. Denn wo Christus, mein Herr, bleibt, da bleibe ich auch.”
    Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:282f., 33ff./ LW26:167.
    180. 2.Ps., WA 5:72, 38ff. / LW 14:347; Ibid., WA5:128, 37ff.; 166, 12ff.;
    Heb., WA 57III:91, 20; Dup.just., WA 2:147, 15ff./ LW31:300–301;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I:285f., 24/ LW26:168; Gal. (1535), WA40I:285f.,
    24ff./ LW26:168–169; Gal. (1519), WA2:535, 24/ LW27:289; Res.,
    WA1:593, 14/ LW31:190; 2.Ps., WA5:608, 16; Ibid., WA5:605, 11; Lib.
    Christ.,WA7:25f, 26ff./ LW31:351–352; Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:742ff.,
    15ff./ LW35:49ff.; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II: 332, 21/ LW17:90–91;
    Gut.Werk., WA6:207, 25/ LW44:26–27; 1 Pt., WA12:281, 19/
    LW30:26; Gal. (1535), WA40I:540, 17ff./ LW26:352; Kirchpost.G.,
    W211:1808.13/ CS3/1:300; Ibid., W211:1748ff., 5ff./ CS3/1:238–
    242; Krichpost.E., W212:162f.32ff./ CS3/2:180.
    181. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:522, 2/ LW23:325.
    182. Lib.christ., WA7:54, 31/ LW31:351; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:204, 12.
    210  M. Ellingsen

    183. Lib.christ., WA 7:63, 33; 69, 12/ LW 31: 368, 371; Gal. (1519),
    WA2:502, 12 /LW 27:238; Gal. (1535), WA40I:283, 7–9 / LW 26:167.
    Cf. Butz., WA 18:529, 13/LW14:204.
    184. Gal. (1535), WA40I:229, 15/ LW26:129–130.
    185. Antinom (2), WA39I:435, 18.
    186. Pred. (1525), WA17I:438, 14.
    187. Lib.christ., WA7:53, 15ff./ LW31:349; Pred. (1522), WA10III:271, 11.
    188. Ev.Joh, 14–15, WA45:591, 27ff. /LW24:143: “Das ist (sage ich) das heu-
    btstück dadurch der mensch ausser und uber sich ynn Christum feret…
    Darnach gehets wider von oben herab also: Wie ich ynn Christo bin, also
    ist wider umb Christus ynn mir. Ich hab mich sein angenomen und bin
    inn in gebrochen aus der sund, tod, und Teuffels gewalt getretten.”
    189. Gal. (1535), WA 40I: 285f, 24/LW 26:168: “Verum recte docenda est
    fides, quod per eam sic conglutineris Christo, ut ex te et ipso fiat quasi
    una persona quae non possit segregari… Ita, ut haec fides Christum et
    me arcticus copulet, quam maritus est uxori copulatus.”
    190. Ibid., WA 40I:48, 8/ LW26:9: “Das ist argumentum huius Epistolae,
    hoc agit, nos dilgenter instituat, confortet in cognition perfecta huis ius-
    ticiae. Amissa hac doctrina et articulo amisimus amnia.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA 40I:110, 1/ LW27:87; Ibid., WA 40I:40, 15/ LW26:4.
    191. Ibid., WA 40I:235, 21/ LW26:134: “Quia inquantum est Christianus,
    est supra legem et peccatum. Habet enim in corde suo tanquam gem-
    mam in annulo Christum, legis Dominum.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA 40I:229, 28 / LW26:130 (though there is also a refer-
    ence to God counting us righteous).
    192. Ibid., WA 40I: 235f., 31 /LW 26:134: “Hinc Christianus etiam maior
    est toto mundo, quia hoc parvum, ut videtur, parvitas huius doni est
    maior mundo, quia ipse Christus maior.”
    193. Lib.christ., WA 7:69, 14/LW 31:371: “per fidem sussum rapitur supra
    se in deum…”
    194. Gal. (1519), WA 2:535, 24/ LW27:289: “Quia per fidem efficitur
    Christianus unus spiritus et unum Christo.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA2:503f., 20ff./ LW27:241; Kirchpost.G., W211:1130.
    18/ CS2/1:388.
    195. Dup. just., WA 2:146, 14/ LW31:298; Res., WA 1:593, 14/
    LW31:190; cf. Schmal.Art., III.XIII (though reference is made to our
    not being “reckoned” as sinful); Gal. (1535), WA40I:285, 5/ LW26:
    168: “Sed fides facit exte et Christo quasi unam personam.”
    196. Serm. (1514–1517, WA 1:140, 15/ LW51:29.
    197. 2.Ps., WA5:128f., 39ff.
    198. For examples of the Finnish School’s tendency to synthesize the Forensic
    view of Justification with the Union with Christ model, see Simo Peura,
    9 JUSTIFICATION  211

    “Christ as Favor and Gift: The Challenge of Luther’s Understanding of


    Justification,” in Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of
    Luther,” eds. Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson (Grand Rapids, IM: Wm.
    B. Eerdmans, 1998), esp. p. 56; Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in
    Faith: Luther’sView (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), pp. 55–61.
    199. Disp.just., WA 39I:83, 16ff. / LW 34:153–154; Gal. (1535), WA40I:233,
    22/ LW26:132.
    200. Serv.arb., WA18:772, 11/ LW33:271.
    201. Ps.51, WA 40II :352f., 33ff. / LW 12:328; cf. Gal. (1535), WA 40I: 370,
    19ff. /LW26:233–234; CS6:101–102. For a reference to a divine tri-
    bunal, see Pred. (1531), WA34II:140, 6; Gal. (1535), WA40I:229, 28/
    LW26:130.
    202. 2Ps., WA5:204, 26; Rom., WA56:287, 16/ LW25:274; Ibid., WA56:
    269, 27/ LW25:257; Gal. (1535), WA40I:229, 29/ LW26:130.
    203. Hspost., W213II:1817.32/ CS5:430 (a Christian life context); Ev.Joh.
    14–15, WA45:654, 8/ LW24:212; cf. Disp.just., WA39I:95, 23/ LW34:
    164; Ibid., WA39I:83, 35/ LW34:153 (addressing apologetics and
    polemics); Gal. (1535), WA40I:233, 25/ LW26:132–133.
    204. Rom., WA56:272, 17/ LW25:260. God’s righteousness is said to be like
    an umbrella, covering us from the heat of God’s wrath, in Disp.just.,
    WA39I:90, 13/ LW34:170.
    205. Matt.5–7, WA32:368, 7/ LW21:82: “er sie gar aus dem register tilget,
    un nimer mehr gedencket.”
    Cf. Kirchpost.E., W212:438.5/ CS4/1:136.
    206. Hspost., W213II:1920.25/ CS6:39.
    207. Disp.just., WA39I:109, 1 /LW34:178: “Extra nos esse est ex nostris viri-
    bus non esse. Est quidem iustitia possessio nostra, quia nobis donata est
    ex misericordia, tamen est aliena a nobis, quia non meruimus eam.
    Cf. Ibid., WA 39I:83, 22 / LW 34:153; TR (n.d.), WATR6:71, 17; Jes.
    (1527–1529), WA 25:336f., 24ff.; Ps.51, WA 40II :352f., 33ff. / LW 12:328;
    Dup.just., WA2:146, 29/ LW31:299; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:86, 19/ LW16:
    121; Ibid., WA31II:88, 2/ LW16:123; Gal. (1535), WA40I:229, 25/ LW26:130;
    Disp.just., WA39I:83, 23/ LW34:153. On our righteousness as Christ’s righteous-
    ness, see also Gal. (1519), WA2:491, 17/ LW27:222.
    208. Rom., WA56:158, 10/ LW25:136: “Deus enim nos non per domesti-
    cam, Sed per extraneam Iustitiam et sapientiam vult saluare, Non que
    veniat et nascatur ex nobis, Sed que aliunde veniat in nos, Non que
    in terra nostra oritur, Sed que celo venit.” For the context, see Ibid.,
    WA56:3, 6/ LW25:3.
    209. Ev.Joh.16, WA 46:44, 34 / LW24:347: “Das ist jhe eine Wunderliche
    Gerchtigkeit, das wir sollen gerecht heissen oder Gerchtigkeit haben,
    212  M. Ellingsen

    welche doch sein werck, sein gedancken und kurtz gar nichts in uns,
    sondern gar ausser uns in Christo…”
    Cf. Gal. (1535), WA 40I:41, 3/ LW26:4; PS.51, WA40II:410, 1/
    LW12:368.
    210. Gal. (1519), WA2:49f., 37ff./ LW27:227; Serm. Tauf., WA2:732, 9/
    LW35:35–36.
    211. Rom., WA56:199, 16/ LW25:182: “ita Deum quoque electurum esse
    eos et placentiam in illis habi furum Non inteligentes, quod contra Deus
    non nisi animam contemptibilerm et eligentem abiici in domo Dei ac se
    spreta alios eligentem in eisque placentem eligat atque complaceat.”
    212. Serv.arb., WA18:719, 25/ LW33:191; also see Ibid., WA18:614f.,
    40ff./ LW33:36–37.
    213. Rom., WA56:400, 1/ LW25:389–390.
    214. Disp.Schol.Theol., 32, WA1:225, 25/ LW31:11.
    215. Serm. Breit., WA2:690, 10/ LW42:105.
    216. Serv.arb., WA18:685, 1/ LW33:139; Gen., WA43:463, 5/ LW5:50;
    Serv.arb., WA18:689, 18/ LW33:145.
    217. Serv.arb., WA18:753, 36/ LW33:242: “Non disputamus, quid operante
    Deo possimus, sed quid nos possimus, videlicet an iam creati ex nihilo
    aliquid nos faciamus vel conemur illo generali motu onmipotentiae, ut
    paremur ad novam creaturam spiritus.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA18:618, 11ff./ LW33:41, on how Predestination fol-
    lows from his view of Providence.
    218. TR (1533), WATR1:234f., 24ff./ LW54:90–91: “Geht nit ad praedes-
    tionem, sed das er iustitiam legis ernidder legt.”
    219. Gal.(1535), WA40I:139f., 30ff./ LW26:71–72.
    220. Rom.,WA56:404, 28/ LW25:394; Ibid., WA56:165, 19/ LW25:145;
    Ibid., WA56:387, 4/ LW25:377; Serv.arb., WA18:632f., 27ff./ LW33:
    61–62.
    221. Sterb., WA2:690, 10/ LW42:105; Vor. N.T., WADB 7:24, 1/ LW35:378;
    cf. TR(1537), WATR3:492, 4/ LW54:249.
    222. Rom., WA56:400, 1/ LW25:389; Ibid., WA56:182, 10/ LW25:163; Cf.
    Vor. N.T., WADB7:25, 1/ LW35:378.
    223. Ibid., WA56:3, 6/ LW25:3: “Summa est intention Apostoli in ista
    Epistola est omnen Iustitiam et sapientiam propriam destruere et pec-
    cata/atque Insipientiam/, que non errant (i.e. propter talem Iustitiam
    non esse putanbantur a nobis), rursum statuere augere et magnificare
    (i.e. facere, vt [sic “ut”] agnoscantur adjuc stare et multa magna esse) ac
    sic demim pro illis /vere/ destruendis Christum et Iustitiam eius nobis
    necessaries esse.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:394, 28/ LW25:385.
    9 JUSTIFICATION  213

    224. Ibid., WA56:429, 11/ LW25:421: “Quin etiam eodem verbo subindicat


    seipsum esse authorem reprobationis aliorum.” Ibid., WA56:182, 14/
    LW25:163: “Hec enim duo quomodo consonent et quo Iudicio Iusta
    sint, sc. Quod Deus vult me obligari et omnes, et tamen non dat gra-
    tiam, nisi cui velit, Nec vult omnibus, Sed electionem in illis sibi rese-
    ruat: hec, inquam, in futuro videbimus.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA56:381ff., 14ff,/ LW25:371–378; Ibid., WA56:397ff.,
    7ff./ LW25:387–390.
    225. Ibid.(1515–1516), WA56:181f., 24ff./ LW25:162–163.
    226. Serv.arb., WA18:689f., 32ff./ LW33:146; Ibid., WA18:707, 12/
    LW33:172; Ibid., WA18:707f., 32ff./ LW33:173–174; Ibid., WA18:720f.,
    28ff./ LW33:192–193; Ibid., WA18:616, n.1/ LW33:39; Ibid. (1525),
    WA18:754, 1/ LW33:242–243; Ibid., 18:78f, 1ff./ LW33:289–290; Ibid.,
    WA18:713, 25ff./ LW33:282; Ibid., WA18:7782f., 36ff./ LW33:272.
    227. Ibid., WA18:719, 4/ LW33:190: “Scilicet hoc offendit quam maxime
    sensum illum communem seu rationem naturalem, quod Deus mera vol-
    untate sua homines deseart, induret, damnet, quasi delectetar peccatis et
    cruciatibus miserorum tantis et aeternis, qui preaedicatur tantatae mis-
    ericordiae et bonitatis etc.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA18:707f., 32ff./ LW33:173–174; Ibid., 18:713, 25ff./
    LW33:182. LW33:146; Rom., WA56:404, 13/ LW25:394.
    228. 1.Pet., WA12:262, 8ff./ LW30:6: “Sei sind erwellt (spricht er)… Gott
    wirt nict alle menschen ynn hymel lassen… Es ligt nicht an unserm wil-
    len, sondernn an Gottes willen und erwellung.”
    229. Rom., WA56:385, 23/ LW25:375–376; I Tim., WA26:35, 13/
    LW28:261; Gen., WA43:263f., 42ff./ LW4:177.
    230. Serv.arb., WA18:633, 7ff./ LW33:62–63: “Ut ergo fidei locus sit, opus
    est, ut omnia quae creduntur, abscondantur. Non autem remotius
    absconduntur, quam sub contrario obiectu, sensu, experientia… Sic
    aeternam suam clemntiam et misericordiam abscondit sub aeterna ira.
    Iustitiam sub iniquitate. Hic est fidei summus gradus, credere illum esse
    clementem, qui tam paucos salvat, tam multos damnat, credere iustum,
    qui sua voluntate nos necessario damnabiles facit…”
    Cf. Ibid., WA18: 633, 15/ LW33:62–63; Ibid., WA18:706, 8ff./
    LW33:171; Ibid., WA18:685, 27/ LW33:140; 2.Ps., WA5:175, 3ff.; 1
    Pet., WA12:262, 8/ LW30:6; Ex., WA16:116f., 17ff.; Rom., WA56:92,
    3/ LW25:82; Ibid., WA56:182, 14/ LW25:163; Ibid., WA56:386, 8/
    LW25:376; Ibid., WA56:429, 11/ LW25:421; Ibid., WA56:392f., 25/
    LW25:382f.
    231. Serv.arb., WA18:719, 4/ LW33:190.
    232. Ibid., WA18:709, 6/ LW33:175; Ibid., WA19:616,n.1/ LW33:39.
    233. Ibid., WA18:719, 4/ LW33:190; cf. Wein., WA10I/1:210f., 18ff./
    LW52:63.
    214  M. Ellingsen

    234. Serv.arb., WA18:719, 9/ LW33:190: “Et quis offendertur? Ego ipse non


    semel offenses sum usque ad profundum et abyssum desperationis, ut
    optarem nunquam esse me creatum hominem, antequam scirem, quam
    salutaris illa esset desperation et quam gratiae propinqua.”
    235. Ibid., WA18:785, 26/ LW33:292.
    236. Rom., WA56:387f., 27ff./ LW25:378.
    237. Wein., WA10I/1:210, 11/ LW53:62: “Item, szo macht auch sagen: der
    ewige wille macht willen den unwillen, unnd der unwille begreysst yhn
    nit.”
    238. Kl.Proph., WA13”114, 24/ LW18:112: “euangelium salutis… perveniet
    etiam ad gwentes et praedicabitur ubique in toto orbe terrarium, postes
    nullum erit vel locorum vel personarum discrimen.”
    239. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA21:490f., 35ff.: “…Und wer weis, ob ich dazu
    erwelet bin? Antwort: Sihe doch die wort an wie un von wem er redet:
    ‘Also hat Gott die Welt geliebet,’ Item: ‘Auff das alle, die an yn gleu-
    ben.’ Du heisset die Welt nicht allein S. Petrus, Paulus, sondern das
    ganz menschlich Geschlecht, alles miteinander, und wird hie seiner aus-
    gechlossen, Fur alle ist Gottes Son gegeben…”
    Cf. Rom., WA56:309, 7ff./ LW25:296; Gal. (1535), WA40I:139f., 30ff./
    LW26:71–72. We even find this teaching suggested in Serv.arb., WA18:782f.,
    30ff./ LW33:287–289, as Luther seeks to comfort despair. Also see Vor.
    N.T., WADB7:23f., 26ff./ LW35:378, as when only focusing on the inter-
    pretation of Scripture Luther merely refers to Predestination, with no refer-
    ence to or election to reprobation. The many references to faith as a Work of
    God, cited above in Notes 106, 112, also suggest Single Predestination, as no
    reference to God withholding faith is made in these texts.
    240. Haus., WA52:142, 12: “So dagegen ihene, die Gott däfur halten, das er
    nicht jederman die selikeyt gonne, entweder verzweysslete oder sichere,
    gottlose leute…”
    241. Jon., WA19: 200f., 33/ LW19:48: “Das heyst den ausser der gnaden
    reich bleyben und widder die gnaden Sundigen, wenn man so frum wird
    ynn etlichem werck odder wesen, das man nicht vergebung noch gnade
    dazu bedarff, sondern on gnade und vergebung das werck selbs fur gut
    gnug und reyn gnug helf… das ist denn sunde ynn den heyligen geyst,
    die nicht kan vergeben werden, das ist, sie hat nicht gnade, da durch sie
    möcht vergeben werden, wie alle ander sunde haben, die an solchen zusatz
    geschehen.”
    242. 1Tim., WA26:36, 1/ LW28:262: Quando ero salute distingnimus in
    hominess fideles et infides, sie ex istis locis conclude, quod intelligat
    hune locum de gernerali i.e. omnes hominis salvat ipse fideles fu non
    fideles etiam Bo, quia tribuit victoriam etiam impiis regibus…”
    9 JUSTIFICATION  215

    243. Krichpost.G., W211:1107.38/ CS2/1:364.


    244. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:653, 11/ LW22:134; Wein., WA10I/1:503.15/ CS3/2:

    309.
    245. Ser.Bereit., WA2:690, 10/ LW42:105–106; BR(1532), WABR12:136,
    41; BR(1539), WABR11:166, 14.
    246. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA 45:612, 6/ LW24:165; Ibid., WA45:14, 15/ LW24:
    58; Ev.Joh.16, WA46:545, 6/ LW22:10.
    247. Gen., WA43:460, 26/ LW5:46): “Si credus in Deum revelatum, et recipis
    verbum eius, paulatim etiam absconditum Deum revelabit…. Qui filium
    reiicit, amittit cum revelato DEO etiam non revelatum. Si autem firme
    fide revelato Deo adhaeseris, ita ut cor tuum sic sentiat te non omissurum
    Christum, etiamsi omnibus spoliatus fueris: tum certissime praedistinatus
    es, et absconditum Deum intelliges: imo iam de praesent intelligis.”
    248. Ab.Chr., WA26:509, 13/ LW37:372; Kurz.Bek., WA54:143f., 17ff./ LW38:
    290–291; Gen., WA44:677, 27/ LW8:134; TR (1540), WATR5:9, 7/
    LW54:397.
    249. 1 Pet., WA12:367ff., 17ff./ LW30:112–115; Ibid., WA12:375f., 22ff./
    LW30:120–121); Torg., WA37:35–72.
    250. Kurz Bek., WA54:154., 17ff./ LW38:302–303; TR (1532),
    WATR2:103, 14/ LW54:152.
    251. Gen., WA42:621f., 40ff./ LW3:103–104: “Cum igitur Deus natura mis-
    ericors sit, non ideo deteriore conditione eos esse sinet, quod, vel cir-
    cumcisionem in veteri Testamento, vel baptos, um in novo conseququi
    non potuere.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA42:626, 26ff./ LW3:110; Ibid., WA42:647, 35/ LW3:
    140; Ibid. (1539–1541), WA43:361, 24/ LW4:314.
    252. Ibid. (1539), WA43:90, 5/ LW3:300; Ibid. (1539–1541), WA43:388,
    22/ LW4:350.
    253. Brief. Rech., WA10II:322, 2/ LW43:51.
    254. Ibid., WA10II:325, 3/ LW43:54: “Das were wol eyn ander frag, ob Got
    etlichen ym sterben oder nach dem sterben den glawben sont geben
    und also durch den glawben sont selig machen. Wer wollt daran zweyf-
    feln, das er das thus kunne. Aber das ers thue, kan amnnichtbewzysen
    Den… wol lesen, das er todten zuvor widder auff erweckt hat und also
    den glauben geben.” Ibid., WA10II:323f., 27ff/ LW43:53.
    255. TR (1537), WATR3:492, 4/ LW54:249.
    256. Gal. (1535), WA40I:679,20/ LW26:453: “Discendus est igitur diligen-
    tur articulus iustificationis; is salus erigere contra infinita illa scandala et
    consolari nos potest in omnibus tentationibus et persecutionibus.”
    257. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:590, 29/ LW24:142: “Zuletzt werdet jr auch das
    lernen. Das ich werde ihn euch sein. Denn ir werdet nicht allein solche
    216  M. Ellingsen

    tröstliche zuversicht oder sicherheit, unverzagt hertz und unerschrocken


    mut haben durch mich gegen dem Vater, das er euch gnedig sey und so
    wenig mit euch zörne als mit mir. Sondern wenn jr solchs wisset und
    habt, so werdet jr des auch gewis sein, was jr redit, predigt, lebt und
    thut, das sol recht und gut, ja mein selbst wort und werck sein und
    heissen.”
    258. Kirchpost.G., W211:694.38/ CS1/2:317.
    259. TR (1532) WATR 1:100, 23/ LW54:21: “Unser Herrgot muss ein frommer
    man sein, das er die buben kan lieb haben. Ich kan es nit thun, und din doch
    selb ein bub.”
    260. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA22:106, 18/ CS4/2:157: “Das ist der Welt unart,
    wenn man von vergebung der sünden on unser verdienst, aus latuer
    gnaden gegeben, predigt, das sie entweder saget, man verbiete gute
    werck oder wil daraus folgern und schliessen, das man moge fort in sun-
    dern leben und thun, was man wolle, So doch hie billlich sol das wider-
    spiel folgen, das durch diese lere die Leute willig wurden guts zu thun,
    Gotte zu lobe, dand und heren…”
    261. Kirchpost.E., W212:786.1/ CS4/2:168: “den die Sunde wird je nicht
    dazu vergeben, dass Man sie thus soll, sondern dass sie aufhőren sole…”
    262. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:662, 5/ LW24:220.
    263. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA 33:107,3: “Es sind unser wenig, die diesen Artikel wis-
    sen und verstehen, und ich handele in darumb fűr und fűr, das ich seer
    fűrchte, wenn wir das heubt gelegt haben, er werde balde vergessen sein
    und wider dahin fallen…”
    CHAPTER 10

    The Christian Life (Sanctification)

    Sanctification (holiness) is the doctrine pertaining to the Christian life,


    what it looks like. The Reformer defines Sanctification as bringing us to
    the Lord.1 As we shall observe, Luther like all the Reformers typically
    distinguished, but related Sanctification and Justification, just as he did
    with faith and works.
    Luther contends that Sanctification, holiness in our lives, is a work
    of grace, a work of Christ. He states that “Through His holy and pure
    life Christ has sanctified our shameful and sinful life.”2 We have already
    noted that Sanctification is a Work of the Spirit.3
    When exegeting texts, Luther typically referred to holiness in a man-
    ner compatible with his Reformation breakthrough, as an alien reality
    which does not entail the eradication of our sin. He writes:

    If mercy is this abundant, then there is no holiness in us. Then it is a ficti-


    tious expression to speak of a “holy man…” Those whom we call “holy”
    are made holy by an alien holiness, through Christ, by the holiness of free
    mercy… Therefore let us keep quiet about holiness and holy people. We
    know that those have been made holy who have become conscious sinners
    instead of unconscious sinners. They do not presume to have any right-
    eousness of their own – for it is nonexistent – but begin to have an enlight-
    ened heart.4

    In that sense, Luther can claim that for a Christian “all your life… is
    throughout divine.” Christ is in our works.5

    © The Author(s) 2017 217


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_10
    218  M. Ellingsen

    Not surprisingly, then, when Luther is addressing concepts that lead


    him to affirm salvation sola gratia, there seems to be a passivity involved
    in Luther’s view of the Christian life at some points (esp. when address-
    ing Pelagian abuses). He claims that when grace is given our role is not
    acting, keeping still.6 In that spirit (with a word for our time when peo-
    ple think being “spiritual” takes the place of being Christian) Luther
    notes that making good people is not what the Gospel is about. It is
    more than piety. It is about receiving:

    To make good people does not belong to the Gospel, for it only makes
    Christians. It takes much more to be a Christian than to be pious. A per-
    son can easily be pious, but not a Christian. A Christian knows nothing to
    say about his piety, for he finds in himself nothing good or pious… So one
    is not called a Christian because he does much, but because he receives
    something from Christ, draws him and lets Christ only give to him.7

    As Luther puts it elsewhere: “Good works do not make a man good,


    but a good man does good works.”8 We have already noted his claim
    when exhorting works in a sermon that our sins are forgiven not with
    the design that we should continue in them but should cease committing
    them.9
    Works are just the fruits of faith, Luther claims.10 Put symbolically, the
    tree comes before the fruit.11 This is a clear indication that Sanctification
    for Luther is distinct from Justification (though he does not seem to
    posit a separation).
    The Reformer asserts that the love of God has us do works of love.12
    No good can come about without grace.13 Luther proclaims in a sermon:

    We cannot give God anything; for everything is already His, and all we
    have comes from Him. We can only give Him praise, thanks, and honor.14

    In such homiletical contexts Luther refers to faith as a living thing which


    makes a man a new creature, converts him, and changes his conduct.15
    Elaborating on these points he writes:

    Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty this faith, so it is impossible that it


    should not do good. It does not ask if good works should be done, but
    before one asks, has done them and is always active.16
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  219

    Elsewhere Luther writes:

    God is satisfied with my faith… Therefore He wants me to do my works


    to benefit my neighbor… He doesn’t need my works at all… God is rich
    enough Himself without me and my works. He lets me live on earth, how-
    ever, so that I may show the same kind of friendship to my neighbor that
    God has graciously shown to me.17

    When justified by grace we do good works, for Christ does all in us.18

    The love of God which lives in man loves sinners, evil persons, and weak-
    lings in order to make them righteous, good, wise, and strong. Rather
    than seeking good, the love of God flows forth and bestows good.19

    Grace is not cheap; it leads to good works. The Reformer writes, while
    engaged in polemics: Grace is not alone; it comes in such a way that faith
    and love are joined to it. It creates a new man so that I believe in Christ.20

    Works are absolutely necessary in Luther’s view, but do not save.21 In


    faith we cannot help but do them. The Reformer makes a similar point in
    a sermon:

    Therefore faith is something very powerful, active, restless, effective, which


    at once renews a person and again regenerates him, leads him altogether in
    a new manner and character of life, so that it is impossible not to do good
    without ceasing.22

    For Luther, then, Christian life is all about nothing more than faith
    and love.23 But, he adds, if we compare faith and works it is like compar-
    ing a sun to candle-light.24 Luther’s contextual approach on this matter
    of the role and status of good works is made explicit by the Reformer:

    When the matter under consideration is not justification, we cannot praise


    highly enough the good works God prescribed … But the works that are
    done outside faith, though in appearance they seem to be very holy, are
    under sin and the curse of God.25

    Luther adds when dealing with living the Christian life that all the works
    of one made righteous by faith are righteous.26 But elsewhere when
    engaged in polemics it is noted that having been made righteous we do
    220  M. Ellingsen

    righteous deeds and that the passive righteousness given in Justification


    leads to active righteousness.27 The works that follow then are truly
    pleasing to God.28
    Jews and Turks are highly praised for their external works. Luther
    adds that they may surpass many times Christians in that regard.29 But
    these external good works are not works of love that justify, he claims. As
    Luther makes clear in a polemical context, apparently good works do not
    justify any more than a monkey who might imitate certain human actions
    can be said to be good deeds. Likewise only those made righteous can do
    righteous deeds.30

    What the Christian Looks like


    As noted previously, the whole of Christian life is one of repentance.31
    Repentance is hatred of self.32 It must continue to death.33 Of course
    we have already noted how at some points Luther’s discourse on repent-
    ance could be regarded as playing a role in our Justification. And it is
    true that in some cases it is not as clear if his discussion of repentance is
    referring to Sanctification as a process or to Justification. Of course if the
    latter, this would fit the pattern we have already identified insofar as in
    these texts Luther was dealing with exhortation to Christian life. And we
    have observed that it was in these contexts that he continued to employ
    Roman Catholic images in describing Justification.34
    These commitments are manifested in the Reformer’s identification
    of humility as a characteristic of the Christian life.35 If not humbled so
    that we retain our self-confidence, it is easier to presume that there are
    some works through which we may obtain salvation.36 This a displeas-
    ure with the self, Luther notes (points made especially when concerned
    with those taking sin too lightly).37 Related to this is Luther’s reliance
    on the Mystical concept of the Christian being willing to be resigned to
    hell (resignatio ad infernum) should it be God’s Will. He speaks this way
    when exhorting Christian life.38
    When explaining God’s working with the hard-hearted Luther com-
    forts with the Mystical image of contending that God takes the faithful
    to hell before He brings them back.39 But as we noted in the last chap-
    ter, the Reformer renounces Mysticism when exhorting faith. When con-
    cerned about sloth in the Christian life he would even inflict suffering on
    ourselves if we do not have actual sufferings in our time.40 In address-
    ing contexts when he seeks to offer comfort, he claims that Christians
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  221

    are called to suffer, expect trouble.41 Suffering is said to be part of the


    Christian life.42
    It seems that God can use the suffering we experience to work good
    in our lives:

    Happy is the Christian who… can say: “See I am being fertilized and cul-
    tivated as a branch on the vine. All right, dear hoe and clipper, go ahead.
    Chap, prune, and remove unnecessary leaves. I will gladly suffer it, for
    these are God’s hoes and clippers. They are applied for my good and
    welfare.43

    Living the Christian life comes with some cost:

    To love does not mean, as the sophists imagine, to wish someone well, but
    to bear what is burdensome to you and what you would rather not bear.44

    It is the sole purpose of all suffering of Christians to promote our Christian


    life and to bear fruit for a fuller knowledge and a stronger confession of
    the Word, a more certain hope…45

    Luther says while preaching against reason that the Christian is a hero
    who constantly deals with impossible things.46 Elsewhere he claims that
    we are involved in a work of cleansing.47
    In other contexts concerned with the Christian life Luther speaks of
    a sacrificial lifestyle.48 These sacrifices make us priests.49 This is a life of
    offering God thanks.50 Since all Christians are priests in this sense Luther
    speaks of the Priesthood of All Believers.51 Luther describes the life of
    thanks we priests offer to please God:

    We cannot give God anything, for everything is already his, and all we have
    comes from Him. We can only give Him praises, thanks, and honor.52

    Baptism in the Christian Life


    The Christian life and our common priesthood is related to Baptism.
    This commitment links to Luther’s concept of living your Baptism.53
    The Reformer does not expressly refer to sacrifice, but it is implied in
    claiming that in Baptism we slay sins and so are all priests.54 Sin remains
    after Baptism; but in Baptism we die to sin and rise with Christ.55 This
    222  M. Ellingsen

    prepares the Christian for death, as when we live this way we have been
    dying his whole life, dying since Baptism:

    A Christian is a person who begins to tread the way from his life to heaven
    the moment he is baptized in the faith… He is prepared at all times,
    whether death comes today, tomorrow, or in one, two, or ten years; for in
    Christ he has already been transported to the other side. We cannot be safe
    from death for a minute; in Baptism all Christians begin to die, and they
    continue to die until they reach the grave.56

    The Hiddenness of the Christian Life


    Luther distinguishes godly men and Christians. Godly men are worthy of
    praise, but a Turk can be this and not a Christian. The Christian depends
    on Christ.57 Interpreting a text in one of his sermons Luther proclaims:

    But the inner man cannot be forced to do out of his own free will, what he
    should do, except by the grace of God change the heart and make it willing.58

    We are not righteous in ourselves; the righteousness is hidden.59 We note


    again how Luther teaches that the Christian life is hidden while address-
    ing polemical contexts and sometimes when offering comfort.60 The
    Reformer writes:

    Outwardly Christians stumble and fall from time to time. Only weakness
    and shame appear on the surface, revealing that Christians are sinners who
    do that which displeases the world. Then they are regarded as fools, as
    Cinderellas, as footmats for the world, as dammed, impotent, and worth-
    less people. But this does not matter. In their weakness, sin, folly, and
    frailty there abides inwardly and secretly a force and power unrecognizable
    by the world and hidden from its view, but on which for all that carries off
    the victory; for Christ resides in them and manifests Himself to them.61

    No surprise, Luther contends. We can count on having the devil and


    the world as our enemies and count on experiencing every misfortune
    and grief. Where God’s Word is preached the cross will not be far away.62

    It takes much more to be a Christian than to be pious [to have faith]. A


    person can easily be pious but not a Christian. A Christian knows noth-
    ing to say about his piety [faith], for he finds in himself nothing good and
    pious …63
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  223

    … If you do not want to have the Gospel or be a Christian, then go out


    and take the world’s side. Then you will be its friend and no one will per-
    secute you. But if you want to have the Gospel an Christ, then you must
    count on having trouble, conflict, and persecution wherever you go.64

    Christians are people who go against the grain, Luther claims:

    For whoever is not disposed willingly to despise all things and to be pre-
    pared to suffer, will not bless and praise God for long, but will take offense
    at Him quickly. To be sure, some praise and bless Him, as long as He does
    what they desire and as long as He allows them what they want. But then
    He is not Christ, neither does He do Christ’s Work with them, but He is
    what they are and desire.65

    To live right in the present world, mark you, like living in a saloon,
    chastely in a brothel, godly in a gaiety ball, uprightly in a den of murders.66

    From Christ all good things flow into us.67

    Blessed with Freedom
    Luther contends that we have been overwhelmed with Christ’s riches.
    Because we have this abundance of good things we will want to give our-
    selves as Christ to our neighbors.68 We can give away our works to oth-
    ers, needing no benefit from them because we do not need the works in
    order to be godly.69 We are like children who receive an inheritance. It
    came as a gift, and yet we must co-labor to increase it.70
    All our skills and possessions are gifts of God, according to Luther.71
    In that sense we are passive practicing the Christian life.72 He speaks of
    how we are changed by grace from our lowly state as clay to become
    lovely jugs:

    Thus in all temptations let us firmly believe that we are not mere [dirt] of
    the streets but clay of the Potter, God Who will reshape us. We are the clay
    of the Potter, not the mire [dirt] of the streets.73

    The Christian is intoxicated with the things of God:

    Since the promises of God are holy, true, righteous, free, and peaceful
    words of goodness, the soul which clings to them with a firm faith will
    224  M. Ellingsen

    be so closely united with them and absorbed by them that it will not only
    share in all their power but will be saturated by them.74

    Luther says that the Christian life is like a sandwich—inside a new person
    in Christ flanked by the Word on one side and works on the other.75 As
    he puts it in the same sermon:

    When I am baptized or converted by the Gospel, the Holy Spirit is


    Present. He takes me as clay and makes of me a new creature, which is
    endowed with a different mind, heart, and thoughts, that is, with a true
    knowledge of God and a sincere trust in God’s grace. To summarize, the
    very essence of my heart is renewed and changed. This makes me a new
    plant, one that is grafted on Christ the Vine and grows from Him.76

    Christianity, then, is not just a garment, but a free, spontaneous way of life:

    Christ wants to indicate that Christianity is not put on like a garment, nor
    does it consist in the adoption of a new manner of living… It is a new
    birth brought about by God’s Word and Spirit; there must be an entirely
    new person from the bottom of the heart. Then, when the heart is born
    anew in Christ, fruits will follow naturally, such as confession of the
    Gospel, works of love, obedience, patience, chastity, and others.77

    Another way Luther put it is to claim that being justified by grace, Christ
    Himself does all the works we do in us.78
    At numerous points in his corpus Luther expressly claims we are free
    from the Law.79 It is abolished, he claims. For where laws rule “there is
    no end of commands and percepts.”80

    Just as a living person cannot refrain moving about, eating, and drinking
    and laboring, it being impossible that such activities should cease while he
    lives, no one need command and drive him to do such works… so nothing
    more is required in order that good works may be done in faith.81

    To the slothful Luther would urge that this freedom be used in a dis-
    ciplined way.82 Faith preserves believers’ consciences so they know they
    are free from preoccupation with the self.83
    About this freedom, Luther comments:

    … faith liberates us from the Law. Not a physical liberation, effected by


    separating us from the Law, by removing us from its jurisdiction; but
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  225

    freedom that we satisfy the demands of the Law; we satisfy it by knowing


    and possessing the Holy Spirit, Who brings us to love the Law.84

    Luther claims that the Law ceases when Christ comes.85 As we have pre-
    viously noted, in his view we are free in the sense that the Law no longer
    condemns.86 Of course we could not have fulfilled it anyway:

    Observe, no one is able to fulfill the Law until he is first liberated from it…
    All who perform good works simply because commanded, and from fear of
    punishment or expectation of reward are under the Law. Their piety and
    good deeds result from constraint and not from a willing spirit.87

    In response to concerns about minimizing sin, Luther claims that we


    are free from the Law and act spontaneously through the Spirit.88 The
    forgiven sinner is dead to the Law, no longer owing it obedience.89

    In a 1526 sermon Luther claimed that “love makes and keeps


    Commandments and breaks them again… Only faith has the right to com-
    mand love…”90But love does not look on what is right nor does it con-
    tend, it is present only to do good, and so it does even more than it is
    obliged to do, and goes beyond what is right.91

    Relying on the concept of Justification as Union with Christ, on the


    image of being married to Jesus, Luther helps further explain how our
    freedom leads to good works, while articulating the logic of faith:

    It further follows from this that a Christian man living in this faith has no
    need of a teacher of good works, but he does whatever the occasion calls
    for, and all is well done… We may see this in an everyday example. When a
    husband and wife really love one another, have pleasure in each other, and
    thoroughly believe in their love, who teaches them how they are to behave
    to one another, what they are to do or not to do, say or not to say, what
    they are to think?92

    Elsewhere he elaborates further on this point:

    A Christian is already one with Christ and already has participation in Him.
    He is member of the member, and flesh of the flesh, just as a wife shares
    in the name and property of her husband. So the Christian in his entire
    being becomes a participant with God… So we are altogether Christ’s,
    since Christ has called us, and all our works are not our own but Christ’s.93
    226  M. Ellingsen

    Drawing on this image of Justification that Christ lives in us leads the


    Reformer to affirm that we do not govern ourselves but are led by the
    Holy Spirit (Spirit of Christ):

    Besides the righteous man himself does not live; but Christ lives in him,
    because through faith Christ dwells in him and pours His grace into him,
    through which it comes about that a man is governed not by his own spirit
    but by Christ’s.94

    The vacuum created in us when Christ overturns the Law is filled by


    the Holy Spirit.95

    Because we have received grace does not mean that we are to sit in
    idleness.96

    Therefore “not under the Law” does not mean liberty to do evil and
    to neglect good as we feel inclined. It means doing good and avoiding
    evil, not in consequence of fear, not from restraints and requirements
    of the Law, but from a pure and willing spirit. Freedom from the Law
    involves a spirit which would voluntarily do only good, as if the Law did
    not exist and our nature were prone to do good. It is a freedom paral-
    leled by that of the body, which willingly eats drinks, assimilates, sleeps,
    moves, and performs all natural functions. No law, no compulsion, is
    neccessary.97

    We do works to please God.98 To this point the Reformer adds:

    We cannot give God anything; for everything is already His, and all we
    have comes from Him. We can only give Him praise, thanks, and honor.99

    Such love is not about us (another sense in which we live our lives as a
    sacrifice):

    A Christian loves his neighbor as a brother; he makes no difference between


    persons or things. He does not consider whether he is serviceable or
    not, whether he is wise or unwise. As for the rest, the world loves differ-
    ently… But God loved all, even His enemies, without making any differ-
    ence. Therefore, we too should love as brothers, even those who are not
    lovable.100
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  227

    About this love Luther adds:

    To love does not mean, as the sophists imagine, to wish someone well, but
    to bear someone else’s burdens, that is, to bear what is burdensome to you
    and what you would rather not bear.101

    But if you want to do right and have rest, let your neighbor’s malice and
    viciousness smother and burn itself out.102

    Explaining the faith in a sermon Luther claims:

    A believer must be pious and must lead a good outward life. But the first
    part, faith, is more essential. The second is never the equal of faith, although
    it is more highly prized by the world, which ranks good works above faith.103

    Luther contends that Christians are both lords and servants.104 We


    become lords in Baptism, lords who can overcome death and sin, for
    heaven and all creation serve the Christian’s interests.105 And yet to this
    the Reformer adds “a Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and his
    neighbor.”106 All good things become common. Luther writes:

    Remember that all the good things of God should flow from one man
    to another, and become common to all, so that each one may be as con-
    cerned for his neighbor as for his own self. All good things come to us
    from Christ Who has received us into His own life as if he had been what
    we are. From us they should flow to those who are in need of them.107

    To this Luther adds, “As Christ has become the common posses-
    sion of us all … we should also become common possession of one
    another.”108 Christians see that the poor are served with our posses-
    sions.109 These commitments in turn led the Reformer to concern about
    the poor and those in need in other contexts, commitments we have
    already observed in the Reformer’s Theology of the Cross and construal
    of God’s Providential activity.110

    Luther claims that the liberated Christian gives God the glory.111 But
    a good life is also useful to others. The Reformer proclaims:

    Hence direct all the good you can do and your whole life to the end
    that it be good; but it is good only when it is useful to people and not to
    228  M. Ellingsen

    yourself. You need it not, since Christ has done and given for you all that
    you might seek and desire for yourself …112

    The world would be full of worship if we served our neighbors.113 This


    entails, as he asserts in a specialized exhortation to Christian faith con-
    text, that good works are more important than Indulgences.114 Luther
    reminds us that Christians and Christ are one Body. The hands with
    which we toil are Christ’s hands.115 We become Christs to each other.116
    As a result, the world is like an inn, and we are just using its goods with-
    out getting attached to it:

    Thus they live in the world at all times… and concern themselves with the
    affairs of the home and of the state, govern commonwealths and rear fami-
    lies… and yet they are aware that they are exiles and strangers, like their
    ancestors. They make use of the world as an inn from which they must
    emigrate in a short time, and they do not attach their heart to the affairs of
    this life. They tend to worldly matters with their left hand, while they raise
    their right hand upward to the eternal homeland. No matter how they may
    be treated in this inn, it is satisfactory to them; for they know that eternal
    mansions have been prepared by the Son of God.117

    We are just guests on earth.118 We should use temporal goods “the


    way a guest does in a strange place, where he stays overnight and leaves
    in the morning.” He does not “take possession of the property as
    though it belonged to him by right …”119
    It is good to note here that Luther does not advocate a monastic-like
    renunciation of all goods, the practice of poverty. He did advocate giving
    up everything related to the First Table of The Ten Commandments, but
    that everything possessed concerning the Second Table be acquired and
    managed in order to give opportunity to obey these mandates.120 Thus
    we owe gratitude to God for all blessings, even vision, hands, and feet.121
    In fact, thanks are praise are said to be all we can offer God.122

    The Spontaneity of Good Works


    Luther famously writes on the subject,

    He [the Christian] ought to think: “Although I am an unworthy and


    condemned man, my God has given me in Christ all the riches of right-
    eousness and salvation without any merit on my part… Why should I not
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  229

    therefore freely, joyfully, with all my heart and with an eager will do all
    things which I know are pleasing and acceptable to such a Father Who has
    overwhelmed me with His inestimable riches? I will therefore give myself
    as a Christian to my neighbor, just as Christ offered Himself for me; I will
    do nothing in this life except what I see is necessary, profitable, and salu-
    tary to my neighbor, since through faith I have an abundance of all good
    things in Christ.”123

    We become Christs to each other. Good works naturally follow, Luther


    adds while describing faith.124 Good works are spontaneous; they happen
    without our planning or consciously willing them.125 Christian love itself
    is spontaneous, Luther proclaimed in a sermon:

    A Christian should not draw his love from the person as the world does…
    But Christian love should well up from within the heart, should flow con-
    stantly like a fresh brook or rivulet; it will not be checked, dried up, and
    exhausted. Christian love says I do not love you because you are pious or
    wicked; for I do not draw my love from piety, as from an outside well, but
    from my own well, namely the Word that has been sunk in my heart.126

    For where the Gospel is truly in the heart, it creates a new man who does
    not wait until the Law comes, but being so full of joy in Christ, and of desire
    and love for that which is good, he gladly helps and does good to everyone
    wherever he can, from a free heart, before he ever thinks of the Law.127

    We, however, declare with Peter that faith is a power of God… Then good
    works follow from faith as a matter of course. Therefore one should not
    say to a believing Christian: “Do this or that work! For he does good
    works automatically and unbidden.128

    The comfort of grace disposes us to lead godly lives.129 When the


    Gospel enters the heart, evil inclinations depart.130 Where the heart is
    right, Luther comments, there is no need of commands.131 It is impos-
    sible for faith not to be doing works incessantly.132

    Oh it is a living, busy, mighty thing, this faith. It is impossible for it not to


    be doing good works incessantly.133

    God makes us willingly do His will.134 His grace makes us restless to


    do good, Luther says in a sermon:
    230  M. Ellingsen

    There is a spirit of restlessness amid the greatest calm, that is, in God’s
    grace and peace. A Christian cannot be still or idle. He constantly strives
    and struggles with all his might, as one who has no other object in life
    than to disseminate God’s honor among the people.135

    Luther says we are now inflamed with sweet concupiscence of love.136


    Loved first, we cannot but love God.137 Exposed to Christ, we cannot
    but want to do good:

    If you see in the crucified Christ that God is so kindly disposed toward
    you that He even gives His own Son for you, then your heart in turn must
    grow sweet and disposed toward God.138

    From Christ the good things flow into us and flow from us to those in
    need.139 We have a surplus of good from Christ that we cannot but give
    away.140 Our union with Christ in Justification has implications for our
    spontaneous actions:

    Thus we, too, have been joined with Christ into one Body and Being, so
    that the good or the evil that happens to me also happen to Him. When
    I strike you or harm you, or when I show you honor, I strike Christ, I do
    Him harm, I show Him honor; for whatever happens to a Christian hap-
    pens also to Christ Himself; He has a stake in it.141

    In Christ we join a common brotherhood, because we have a common


    inheritance.142
    In a comment with rich implications for Social Ethics and Christian
    responsibility for the poor Luther writes (in 1519):

    Furthermore, if there is anything in us it is not our own; it is a gift of God.


    But if it is a gift of God, then it entirely a debt we owe to love, that is, to
    the law of Christ. If it is a debt owed to love, then I must serve others with
    it. Thus my learning is not my own; it belongs to the unlearned and is the
    debt I owe to them… Thus my wisdom belongs to the foolish, my power
    to the oppressed. Thus my wealth belongs to the poor, my righteousness
    to the sinners.143

    We are bound to each other, suffering with each other like the body.144
    Luther asks how we could hate or harm another human being who has
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  231

    a body like God.145 All we do for Christians is not because of what they
    are as people for their own sakes, but because Christ is in them. He is to
    be honored.146
    Consequently Christians should not expect anything in gratitude
    for their good deeds, Luther cynically obsverves.147 As he put it in one
    sermon:

    You just keep on saying, My good deed was wasted on him, so bring on
    another needy person and I’ll help him too.148

    The Reformer notes that as Christ took on our burdens, so should we


    do likewise. Our conscience is so happy because of Christ that we cannot
    restrain ourselves.149
    Luther writes:

    See, according to this rule the good things we have from God should flow
    from one to the other and be common to all, so that everyone should “put
    on” his neighbor and conduct himself toward him as if he were in the oth-
    er’s place.150

    It is evident in these contexts that for Luther God’s actions prompt our
    love.151Now as I have often said, faith and love constitute the whole char-
    acter of the Christian. Faith brings man to God, love brings man to his
    fellow… For whoever believes has every thing from God and is happy and
    rich.152

    But love does not look on what is right nor does it contend, it is present
    only to do good, and so it does even more than it is obliged to do and
    goes beyond what it is right.153

    Righteousness creates works, Luther claims.154 A good tree cannot


    help but bear good fruit.155 We are like apple trees offering first fruit to
    everyone.156
    In this connection Luther offers a reflection on the purpose of life
    while articulating the hope of the Resurrection and grace while on earth:

    We have no other reason for living on earth than to be of help to others. If


    this were not the case, it would be best for God to kill us and let us die as
    soon as we are baptized and have begun to believe.157
    232  M. Ellingsen

    The Christian’s whole purpose is to be useful to humankind.158

    … a Christian lives not in himself but in Christ and the neighbor.159

    This does not consist in seeking Godly upright individuals, but in mak-
    ing them godly and bold.160

    For he would praise and honor God with his voice, must condemn all the
    praise and honor of the world and say that all the works and words of man
    are nothing with all the honor they have from them, and that God’s Work
    and Word alone are worthy of praise and honor.161

    Whoever wants to be a Christian must clearly understand the fact that all
    his good deeds, faithfulness and service to others will only result in ingrati-
    tude, and he must guard against letting that fact move him to quit doing
    good deeds and helping others.162

    Luther claims that all that a Christian does is nothing but fruit, that
    everything such a person does is easy for him, that nothing is too ardu-
    ous.163 Grace compels Christians to be diligent in seeking good.164
    Faith cannot stop doing good works. They are like eating and drink-
    ing; such activities never cease.165 If faith is present, works follow.166
    There is a sense in which works are necessary, but Luther hastens to
    add that they do not save (adding that faith is more important than
    works).167 The Reformer writes:

    34. We confess that good works must follow faith, yes, not only must, but
    follow voluntarily, just as a good tree not only must produce good fruits
    but does so freely. (Matthew 7:18)168

    Critiquing efforts to make faith a work and following reason, Luther


    speaks of the spontaneity of good works (a commitment growing out of
    the concept of Justification as Union with Christ) in a context in which
    he was exhorting faith with Pelagian tendencies still in view. In remarks
    already cited the Reformer expressly compares Justification and the rela-
    tionship with Christ that God has created to a good marriage, so good
    that it would be absurd for a third party to teach them how to behave to
    each other. Love spontaneously leads them to loving deeds.169 Christians
    are indeed free from the Law, Luther asserts elsewhere.170
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  233

    For if faith in the heart is sincere, it does not have need of any teacher of
    good works; it knows in itself what must we done… After a man has been
    justified by faith it is inevitable that the fruits of justification follow, since a
    good tree is not able not to bear good fruits…171

    We observe a rejection of the Third Use of the Law at several points.


    We noted times when he only taught Two Uses. Dealing with the
    Christian life at one point he claims that preaching is not meant to teach
    people how to manage their lives. Reasonable people can find their own
    way.172 We have already noted Luther’s claims that it is impossible for
    faith not to be doing good, for it is a busy, active thing.173
    There is a clear Situational Ethic espoused by Luther when he was not
    exhorting living the Christian life.174 Not the Law, but only love should
    guide our ethical decisions, even is love and Law are in conflict. He
    writes in such contexts:

    Since then all Law exists to promote love, law must cease where it is in
    conflict with love.175

    … love commands all the other Commandments.176

    We are not to obey the laws of men, for we are lords over them, Luther
    claims.177 He even advocates secrecy about bigamy.178 He writes:

    Thus in their wars the saints frequently deceived their enemies, but those
    are lies one is permitted to use in the service of God against the devil and
    the enemies of God.179

    In a sermon on Christian freedom Luther actually proclaimed:

    If you are a Christian, your have the power to dispense with all
    Commandments so far as they hinder you in the practice of love.180

    But the Reformer seems to deny all this, as he claimed that all works
    must be in accord with God’s Word. He denies this freedom when
    exhorting Christian living.181

    Simul Iustus et Peccator


    The Reformer claims that all Christians are saints:
    234  M. Ellingsen

    We are all saints, and cursed is he who does not want to call himself a saint.
    However, you do not owe this to yourself but to the will of God, Who
    would be your Father. To call yourself a saint is, therefore, no presumption
    but an act of gratitude and a confession of God’s blessings.182

    Luther explains why we need to hold this affirmation along with an


    awareness of our sin:

    Don’t waste any time denying your sins. For if you do that, you quickly
    reach the point where you want to repay your debt… That is why we
    should refuse to listen when our heart speaks to us in terror and unbelief.
    We should instead listen to what God says, for He is greater than your
    heart or mine.183

    For a person cannot praise God unless he understands that there is nothing
    in himself worthy of praise but that all that is worthy of praise is of God
    and from God.184

    There is not a single good work that is without sin, Luther con-
    tends while polemicizing with one of his Catholic opponents James
    Latomus.185 It is clear that we are simultaneously saint and sinner (para-
    doxically 100% of each), an affirmation made again and again when not
    exhorting Christian living.186 Even saints are still sinners.187
    These insights keep us humble, for we are just maggots, but can be
    proud of Christ’s goodness.188

    We are all saints, and cursed is he who does not want to be called a saint…
    However, you do not owe this to yourself but to the Will of God, Who
    would be your Father. To call yourself a saint is, therefore, no presumption
    but an act of gratitude and or confession of God’s blessings.189

    Christians are spiritually dead and spiritually alive.190 Sometimes Luther


    speaks of this reality in terms of the Christian being divided between
    times—that of the Law and of the Gospel.191 Original Sin cannot be
    taken away.192 Indeed, Luther adds, Christians are sinners, and so they
    do works of the Law, not good works, “but these works of the Law
    are in God’s judgment not considered as works of the of the Law even
    though this is their natural character.”193 Christians are always struggling
    against sin, Luther says in different contexts.194
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  235

    As we noted earlier, Luther once claimed that “man rather then sin is
    taken away.” We are not changed, but placed or looked at in a new con-
    text.195 Christians are holy and pure, but also full of greed and pride.196
    They remain in sin and so must repent, even daily struggling with their
    sin.197 But this struggle does not feel so dire for the faithful. For them the
    Law may accuse or terrify but it is not able to damn them or drive to despair.
    As a result, Christian repentance is more joyful for them.198 In either case,
    this repentance is a work of God’s Word.199 There is something about our
    nature that does not allow us to rejoice in the good things we have.200
    When dealing with Christian life (early in his career) Luther spoke of
    the Christian as partly sinner and partly righteous.201 This idea is also
    connoted by the Reformer’s use of the image of Justification as healing
    the sick man), which he employed when dealing with Christian life.202
    But as late as 1533 in a similar context Luther spoke of our being
    “partly sinner and partly righteous:”

    Even though we are clear in Christ if we remain in Him, still we are not
    completely clean in our lies; for we are encumbered with this mortal frame
    and with many daily frailties and shortcomings.203

    Cleansing is life-long, Luther observes, and so we have not overcome the


    fear of death.204
    Even in 1535 when dealing with the ongoing struggle with sin (liv-
    ing the Christian life) he compares Christ to leaven in a lump, entailing
    that we are partially sinful and partially righteous, that Christian life is
    a process.205 Luther even speaks of our becoming one cake with Christ
    (another apparent reference to deification).206
    A life of good works, blameless conduct, and outward respectability
    is the greatest, most dangerous stumbling blocks, Luther claims. They
    are pagans and fools. They persecute faith for the sake of their works. He
    says this in response to Catholic abuses.207 We continue to be plagued by
    despair.208
    When encountering hard times Luther speaks of the Christian life as
    a struggle between Christ and Satan.209 We can fight the devil with joy,
    he claims.210 We can conquer in this struggle because we hold fast to
    Christ’s victory over evil.211 We are also in a struggle to drive out from
    ourselves the image of God’s wrath and to grasps the image of His
    mercy, but this is done only by the Spirit.212 Getting married also helps
    236  M. Ellingsen

    in this regard, Luther advised.213 This fight can be accomplished with a


    fart.214 Or we can tell the devil to kiss his ass.215
    When articulating the logic of faith Luther claims that we can tram-
    ple sin under foot.216 Though sin remains it does not count against us.
    And so there is no need to despair.217 Luther adds that when we feel
    Anfechtung we should rejoice, because such despair is not characteristic
    of the reprobate.218
    Christian freedom is not tied to any specific work, Luther contends
    while preaching. All works are the same to a Christian.219 As we have
    already noted that for Luther the Christian life is hidden (a reference
    made when addressing despair or combating legalism).220 Christians
    then become defiant of the world.221 Righteousness is said to be hidden
    from the righteous.222 The Christian life and one under the Law do the
    same works, Luther claims, but the self-righteous are like day-laborers of
    another’s property. The righteous in Christ are doing the work like a son
    for his Father.223 But he also adds that the Christian is above the Law
    and free from it.224
    In a manner which well illustrates his Theology of the Cross and
    the hiddenness of the Christian life, the Reformer contends that
    freedom from the Law entails that “externally there is not much dif-
    ference between the Christian and another socially upright human
    being. The works of the Christian are cheap in appearance,” he
    says.225 He also affirmed the good things in life—like music and
    wine.226

    Third Use of the Law?


    We have already noted how controversial this topic is in Luther stud-
    ies. Luther insists that we still need the Law due to sin.227 Of course we
    have already noted times when Luther exhorted Christian life that some-
    thing like a Third Use of the Law appeared in his thought (see Chap.
    2). The Second Disputation against the Antinomians expressly teaches
    this, though modern research has undermined the authenticity of the
    text.228 On at least on one occasion, when dealing with issues related
    to Christian life, but with a strong concern for affirming Christian free-
    dom, Luther distinguished “sincere exhortation” (trewe vermanung)
    from “command” (Gepott).229 Perhaps Luther’s comments suggesting
    mandated behavior falls into this category of “sincere exhortation,” but
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  237

    since he does not make this distinction elsewhere except in The Bondage
    of the Will, as he responds to critiques about the character of Scripture,
    it seems that the mandates are evidences of his reliance on a Third Use
    of the Law. 230 Another time when he might be drawing on this distinc-
    tion between exhortation and command is when he insists in one of his
    sermons, while exhorting faith with attention to the Christian life, that
    good works are not commanded, that they follow of themselves from
    faith.231
    One might also suggest that Luther intends this distinction in what he
    says about the Decalogue in The Large Catechism:

    They [The Ten Commandments] are the fountain from which all good
    works must spring, the true channel through which all good works must
    flow. Apart from these Ten Commandments no deed, no conduct can be
    good and pleasing to God….232

    In much the same spirit, commenting on the Law while critiquing


    Catholic critics, Luther seems to present Law as a description of what the
    faithful do spontaneously:

    … The commands of the New Testament are directed to those who are
    justified and are new men in the Spirit. Nothing is taught or commanded
    there except what pertains solely to believers, who do everything spontane-
    ously, not from necessity or contrary to their own will.233

    Elsewhere Luther claims that it is the Law’s function “to order that
    sort of new life which those who have become saints and new men ought
    to enter upon.”234 It is also evident in one of the Reformer’s hymns,
    “Das sind die hylgen zehn gebott.”235
    These comments could be taken as suggesting that the
    Commandments merely describe good works, do not exhort them.
    But then what are to we make of Luther failing to make this point, but
    merely exhorting works in the comments that follow?
    There are a lot of examples of the Reformer using the Law as a guide
    to Christian living, especially when he exhorts the living of the Christian
    life or when addressing weaknesses of the flesh as noted in the first chap-
    ter. In his First Lectures on Psalms he speaks of the Gospel including
    teaching a way to live (a point made while dealing with the tropological
    238  M. Ellingsen

    view of Scripture—Christian life).236 In another work aimed at get-


    ting readers to take the Commandments seriously and encourage good
    works, he speaks of the command to forgive others.237 As late as in a
    1539 sermon exhorting good conduct the Reformer mandates various
    behavioral directives.238 We have already noted that the Reformer was
    self-conscious about the times when he taught love and works—when
    the issue was Christian living and not the logic of faith.239 He also seems
    to offer such Christian directives in teaching the need for restitution.240
    He teaches that we need exhortation and admonition in how we live.241
    Luther calls for obedience when addressing the Christian life.242
    When dealing with abuses of Christian freedom, the Reformer exhorts
    adapting ourselves to what promotes the Neighbor’s welfare.243 Yet the
    Reformer seems to see such exhortation and so a Third Use of the Law
    as contextual, something you need to do in some contexts but not in
    others:

    This makes it difficult to preach to people. No matter how one preaches,


    things go wrong; the people always hedge. If one does not preach on faith,
    nothing but hypocritical works result. But if one confines one’s preaching
    on faith, no works ensue.244

    Consequently, Luther urges being a good example for purpose of


    gratitude leading others to believe245 Christ is treated as an example
    when exhorting Christian living.246 He also speaks of Christ as both an
    example and also our leader (when dealing with exhortation to faith and
    comforting).247 Or He is portrayed as Gift and Example: He may be
    Example in a time of rejoicing, but not in times of tribulation.248 Indeed
    when dealing with Christian freedom Luther even expressly rejects the
    concept of Christ as an Example.249
    Luther also speaks of God never failing to give good to us as an exam-
    ple.250 In Theses Concerning Faith and Law the Reformer claims that
    “since we are inconstant in spirit and flesh was with the spirit, it is neces-
    sary, also on account of inconstant souls, to adhere to certain commands
    …”251
    Related to the Use of the Law in guiding Christian living is Luther’s
    contending that works are an external sign that we are in a state of
    grace (emerging when he speaks of the Christian life, responds to
    Antinomianism, or seeks to clarify the rule of love).252 They certify our
    election, he claims in this context.253 If no works, there is no faith.254
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  239

    And there is no faith without love, he added.255 Thus Luther elsewhere


    when exhorting Christian living, dealing with sloth, or comforting
    despair makes the case that works are an external signs guaranteeing the
    believer’s certainty that grace is his.256 When dealing with sloth he notes
    that works prove our faith.257 Much like John Calvin, perseverance in the
    face of suffering is also advocated.258
    When addressing the Christian life Luther claims that it takes no skill
    to begin to love, but staying in love takes skill and virtue.259 But the
    Reformer notes, while exhorting Christian living, that Christians have an
    inner peace when enduring tribulations.260
    In contrast to earlier claims in other contexts about the hiddenness of
    the Christian life, Luther claims while exhorting Christian life that faith
    makes us in every respect a god.261 Dealing with Sanctification, he claims
    that:

    It is characteristic of a Christian life to improve constantly and to become


    purer … But we can never become completely pure.”262

    Another example of Luther’s teaching growth in grace, while addressing


    issues related to the Christian life while still affirming our sinfulness, is
    evident in his Defense and Explanation of the All the Articles:

    This life, therefore, is not righteousness but growth in righteousness, not


    health but healing, not being by becoming, not rest but exercise. We are
    not what we shall be, but we are growing toward it; the process is not
    finished, but it is going on. This is not the end, but it is the road. All does
    not gleam in glory, but is being purified.263

    We can make progress in the Christian life, Luther says when exhort-
    ing Christian living.264 The gifts of the Spirit are said to increase in
    us everyday, he claims, while urging that sin be resisted.265 The Spirit
    increases holiness, he claims (when teaching Sanctification in the
    Catechisms).266 In such contexts, as we have already noted, Luther
    teaches that we are only partially sinner and partially saint.
    Perfection is affirmed by Luther when reflecting on the Christian life,
    though it must be regarded as God’s free gifts shining in us, he says.267
    Yet when dealing with legalism he seems to reject (in harmony with our
    being totally saint and totally sinner) the possibility of progress in the
    Christian life seems critiqued:
    240  M. Ellingsen

    But human righteousness tries first of all to take away sins and change
    them and also to preserve man as he is; thus it is not righteousness but
    hypocrisy, Therefore, as long as a man lives and is not taken away and
    changed by the renewing power of grace, he can in no way do anything to
    prevent his being under sin and the Law.268

    It is evident that most of the characteristic themes of Pietism (growth


    in grace, striving for perfection, and the Law as a guide for Christian
    life) are actually rooted in Luther’s thought. But most of the time the
    Reformer abandons these themes and they recede in favor of a sense
    that we can never avoid sin and a rejection of the Third Use of the
    Law. It is interesting to note that the themes characteristic of Pietism
    most regularly appear when Luther addressed the very issue that con-
    sumed Pietism, living the Christian life. And the Reformer’s use of these
    themes in this context makes sense. The contextual of Luther’s use of
    these insights helps explain why both sides of the historic traditions of
    interpreting Luther on Sanctification are right and wrong. We return to
    Luther’s contextually rooted comments on our inability to prevent being
    under sin.

    Sin Bravely
    In the same spirit Luther speaks of the Christian life, when dealing with
    an undue sense of holiness and propriety in his audience, in terms of
    Sinning Bravely:

    If you are a preacher of grace then preach a true and not a pretended
    grace; if grace is true you must bear a true and not a pretended sin. God
    does not save pretended sinners. Be a sinner and sin bravely, but believe
    more bravely, and rejoice in Christ Who is the victor over sin, death, and
    the world.269

    Therefore it is the sweetest righteousness of God the Father that He does


    not save imaginary, but rather real sinners, sustaining us in spite of our sins
    and accepting works and our lives which are all deserving of rejection until
    He perfects and saves us.270

    The real saints, he says, are stout sinners.271 Luther in turn claims that
    Christ is the greatest sinner.272 The greater the iniquity the greater the
    grace, he claims.273
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  241

    Vocation
    Luther taught that Vocation, our job or station in life, is a spiritual call-
    ing.274 Consistent with his emphasis on grace, he insisted that the good
    works done in vocation are given by God.275

    Man must and ought to work, ascribing to work, ascribing his sustenance
    and the fullness of his house, however, not to his own labor but solely
    to the goodness and blessing of God… God will not give him anything
    because of his labor, but solely out of His goodness and blessing.276

    God uses our vocation as a mask for doing good (a point made earlier in
    the Chapter on Creation and Providence).277
    All callings are said to be equal before God.278 For in God’s Kingdom
    there is no inequality.279 Every station is said to be consecrated.280
    Luther writes:

    Differences of rank and position in human society are entirely in agree-


    ment with God’s Will; but any ungodly incumbent of ever so honorable
    a position will not find his position a help in the attainment of salvation.
    A believing cobbler will be saved just as well as a believing king or great
    emperor.281

    He adds:

    Hence when a maid milks the cows or a hired man hoes the field – pro-
    vided that they are believers, namely, that they conclude that this kind of
    life is pleasing to God and was instituted by God – they serve God more
    than all the monks and nuns.282

    While just describing the Christian life with an appreciation of


    Christian freedom, Luther notes that in our vocations we should fulfil
    the commands of our masters as they are God’s commands.283 Service in
    our vocation is a devotional conduct, he claims.284

    The Christian as Evangelist


    Luther was not without concern about evangelism and mission work, as
    the following quotations reveal:
    242  M. Ellingsen

    The godly rejoice when the Gospel is widely spread, many come to faith,
    and Christ’s Kingdom is increased in this way.285

    The noblest and greatest work and the most important service we can per-
    form for God on earth is bringing other people, and especially those who
    are entrusted to us, to the knowledge of God by the holy Gospel.286

    We still live on earth for no other purpose than to be helpful to others.


    Otherwise it would be best for God to take away our breath and let us die
    as soon as we are baptized and have begun to believe. But he lets us live
    here in order that we may lead other people to believe.287

    A life of bearing burdens (done spontaneously) is said to encourage oth-


    ers to believe.288 Luther also notes that a love nurtured by faith changes
    the lives of our neighbors.289 A concern for evangelism even seems to
    reflect in Luther’s doctrine of God, as he once claimed while explicat-
    ing a text that “God has always been accustomed to collect a Church
    for Himself even from among the heathen.”290 We cannot foresee the
    fruits of such efforts, he says, but just do our duty and leave the results
    to God.291

    Joy in the Christian Life


    Luther once well reflected at table on the joy of Christian life:

    God wants us to be happy; He hates sadness.292

    Therefore a Christian, as a child of God, must always rejoice, always sing,


    fear nothing, always be free from care, and always glory in God.293

    Luther claimed that “joy is the natural fruit of faith.”294 In faith we


    cannot do otherwise than laugh for joy.295 He proclaims in two of his
    sermons:

    Therefore such a believer is so filled with joy and happiness that he does
    not allow himself to be terrified by any creature and is the master of all
    things; he is afraid only of God, his Lord, Who is in heaven – otherwise he
    is afraid of nothing that might happen to him.296
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  243

    The Gospel should instill such amazement in us that we too would exult
    and proudly assert: I have been baptized in Christ; there is no doubt, that
    through the Lord Jesus, I became a lord and can overcome death and sin,
    and heaven and all creation must serve my best interests.297

    It is not as if God wanted these works done just for their own sake; he
    wants them done gladly and willingly.298

    Christians are people who are joyfully moved to the Law by the Holy
    Spirit.299
    Faith expands the heart and emotions, Luther claims.300 Spiritual joy
    is said to be painful to the devil.301 Our hearts are too limited fully to
    grasp this ocean of immediate joy.302 Believers are said to be so happy as
    to have no fear.303

    We do things gladly, Luther contends, because it is a pleasure to please


    God.304 For we are confident we please God, and then every work, as small
    as picking up a leaf, is good.305 Grace truly makes us happy and bold.306
    The knowledge of God’s love makes us happy, Luther claims.307 As he puts
    it elsewhere, to the extent one is a Christian he is joy.308For our Lord has
    every right to insist on receiving the honor of gratitude we owe to Him for
    all His blessings.

    7. This we should do gladly and willingly, because in any case, it is some-


    thing that doesn’t require any pain or trouble.309

    When the heart is cheerful, all aspects of life, even the Cross and
    Resurrection, look happy.310
    We have already noted some of Luther’s comments on the joy of
    Christian life.311 Luther adds to this that when assailed by gloom or a
    troubled conscience “you should eat, drink, and talk with others. If you
    can find help for yourself by thinking of a girl, do so.”312

    Prayer
    Prayer contributes to the Christian’s joy, Luther claims:
    244  M. Ellingsen

    Prayer helps us very much and gives us a cheerful heart, not on account of
    any merit in the work, but because we have spoken with God and found
    everything to be in order.313

    The Reformer regards prayer as the lifting of the heart to God.314 It puts
    us in touch with the
    Master of Scripture.315 Of course, Luther adds, we don’t always pray
    the right way:

    God must often say: If I gave you what you ask for, I would be a fool as
    you are. We often pray in this foolish manner.316

    Luther adds: “It is not necessary that God always hear according to my
    will, for then He would be my prisoner.”317
    In a sermon on dying, the Reformer was open to invoking angels and
    the Mother of God.318 She along with the saints might be invoked he
    claimed, when speaking of praise.319 But when critiquing Catholic abuses
    in the Sacramental system Luther rejected the invocation of the saints—
    conceding that they may pray for us.320 To regard Mary as Mediatrix
    diminishes Christ, Luther contends, in a polemical context aimed at
    defending grace.321 But Mary is deemed an example, both positively and
    in terms of serving as an example of our own sin.322
    Luther adds that Christians are constantly in prayer, just as the pulse
    beats in a living person323:

    A Christian is always praying, whether he is sleeping or working; for


    his heart is always praying, and even a little sigh is a great and mighty
    prayer.324

    The more we persist in prayer, the better God likes it, Luther claims.325
    When dealing with the Christian life he speaks of prayer as a requirement
    (Third Use of the Law).326 This constancy in prayer seems to have con-
    tinued his spiritual discipline form his years as a monk.327 But he broke
    with monastic styles of prayer in recommending we not use repetition,
    except for novices.328
    The Reformer notes why prayer was needed in his context, perhaps
    still relevant for today. For faith, hope, and love were languishing, he
    lamented. The world thus needs prayer without ceasing.329 We can have
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  245

    confidence in prayer, Luther claimed, for in the Presence of God our


    prayers are answered before we call.330 In fact, he claims that God puts
    into our mouths the very words we use when we pray.331

    More on Joy
    Luther used joy as a mark of the Christian life, when describing Christian
    life in a sermon.332
    He writes:

    We cannot but cheerfully give all things to God in view of the love He has
    shown.333

    For whoever believes has everything from God, and is happy and rich.

    Therefore he needs henceforth nothing more, but all he lives and does he
    orders for the good and benefit of his neighbor…334

    This leads to a life of thankfulness.335

    Thus a Christian man who lives in this confidence toward God knows all
    things, can do all things, ventures everything that needs to be done, and
    does everything gladly and willingly.336

    This knowledge and confidence in God’s grace make men glad and bold
    and happy in dealing with God and with all creatures. And this is the work
    that the Holy Spirit performs in faith… It is impossible for it not to be
    doing good works incessantly.337

    This joy leads to boldness, to an attitude that there is nothing to fear


    from any creature.338 But a Christian does not depend on having a good
    time and living it up like world does, Luther says.339 He even more pow-
    erfully describes how good and joyful it is to be Christian, how easy it is
    to live as a Christian:

    The life of such a person and whatever he does, whether great or small
    and no matter what it is called, is nothing but fruit and cannot be without
    fruit… Everything such a person does comes easy to him, not troublesome
    or vexatious. Nothing is too arduous for him or too difficult to suffer and
    bear.340
    246  M. Ellingsen

    How can the heart avoid being free, joyous, and cheerfully obedient in
    God and Christ? What work can it encounter or what suffering endure
    to which it will not respond singing and leaping in love and praise for
    God?341
    His last recorded words remind us of our dependence on God’s grace,
    what his doctrine of Sanctification is really all about, both when stress-
    ing freedom and spontaneity when proclaiming the faith as well as when
    exhorting Christian behavior with the Third Use of the Law when con-
    cerned with how Christians are to live:

    We are beggars, This is true.342

    Christian life involves “a growing confidence in God and a diminishing


    confidence.”343

    Notes
    1. Dtsch. Kat., II.3, WA30I:187, 8/ BC436.39.
    2. Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:53ff., 23: “durch seinen heiligen, reinen
    gang unsern schendlichen, sundlicher gang geheilifet…”.
    3. Kl.Kat., WA30I:367f., 4ff./ BC356.6; see references in the Chapter on
    Holy Spirit.
    4. Ps.51, WA40II:347f., 28ff./ LW12:324–325: “Si igitur et miseratio sic
    multa, nulla est sanctitas apud nos, et vere fictus terminus est, dicere
    hominem sanctum, sicut fictus terminus est, Deum esse lapsum in pec-
    catum, quia hoc nusquam est in rerum natura… Quos autem nos sanc-
    tos appellamus, ii sunt sanctificati aliena sanctitate, per Christum, quae
    est sanctitas gratuitae misericordiae… Ergo taceamus de sanctitate et
    sanctus, Sanctificatos autem scimus eos ess, qui ex peccatoribus insensa-
    tis fiunt peccatores sensati, qui non praesumunt de su isuticia, quae nulla
    est, sed incipiunt habere illuminatum cor, ut agnoscant se et Deum…”
    cf. Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:53ff., 23ff., for alien holiness.
    5. Pred. (1525), WA17I:438, 28: … deyn gantzes lebengar Gottisch sey.”
    This quote suggests Luther’s endorsement of deification, noted in the
    previous chapter. Luther speaks of divinized works in Gal. (1535),
    WA40I:287, 33/ LW26:170; Ibid., WA40I:289, 16/ LW26:171; Ibid.,
    WA40I:290, 24/ LW26:172.
    6. Rom., WA 56:379, 2/ LW25:368.
    7. Som.Post., WA10I/2:430f.,30ff./CS3/1:329–330: “Fromme leut machen
    gehört dem Euangelio nicht zu, sonder us macht nur Crysten, Es ist vil
    mer ein Christ sein den fromm sein, Es kan einer wol fromm sein, aber
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  247

    nicht ein Christ. Ein Christ weisst von seyner frommkeit nichts zusagen,
    ehr findet in im nichts gutts noch frommes, sol er fromm sein, so mus er
    sich nach einer anndern und frembde frommkeit umbsehen… Darumb
    so heisst einer nicht ein Christ daher, das er vil thu es ist etwas höhers
    da, sonndern darumb, das er von Christo was näme schopffe, unnd lass
    im nur geben.”
    Cf. Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:57, 26; Ev.Joh.16, WA46:44, 34/
    LW24:247.
    8. Gut.Werk.,WA7:61, 26 /LW31:361: … Bona opera non faciunt bonum
    virum, sed bonus vir facit bona opera.”
    9. See p.194, n.261 for this quote.
    10. 1 Pet., WA12:289, 34/ LW30:34; Gut.Werk., WA6:204, 31/ LW44:24.
    11. Ps.51, WA40II:433, 19/ LW12:385; cf. Act.Aug., WA2:44, 14.
    12. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:768, 4/ LW30:308–309.
    13. Wein., WA10I/1:54, 16/ CS3/2:138.
    14. Ibid., WA10I/1:714, 12: “Wyr konnen auch sonst nichts gott gebenn;
    denn es ist schon alles seyn, unnd wyr habens alls von yhm, alleyn lob,
    danck und ehre konnen wyr yhm geben…”.
    15. Kirchpost.G., W211:1489.9/ CS2/2:341.
    16. Vor. N.T., WADB7:10, 9/ LW35:370–371: “O es ist eyn lebendig,
    schefftig, thettig mechtig ding umb den glawben, das unmuglich ist,
    das er nicht an unterlas solt gutss wircken, Er faget auch nicht, ob gutte
    werck zu thus sind, sondern ehe man fragt, hat er sie thann, und ist ym
    thann…”
    Cf. Kirchpost.G., W211:1583.23/ CS3/1:71. Also see n.122, below.
    17. Pred. (1526), WA20:513f, 32: “Also wie Gott genug hat an meninen
    glauben… also wil er auch, das ich alle meine werck herunter wende
    nur auff den nehisten… Er ist selbs reich genurg on mich und or neiner
    werg. Darumb lest er aber mich auff erdrich leben, das ich solche
    freudnschaff wider beweise dem nehisten, wie mir Got gendiglich thun
    hat.”
    Cf. Pred. (1526), WA20:513, 11.
    18. Thes.Wel., WA39I:46, 18 / LW34:111.
    19. Disp.Heid., WA1:365, 8/ LW31:57: “Orima pars patet, quia amor Dei
    in homine vivens diligit peccatores, malos, stultos, infirmos, ut faciut
    iustos, bonas, sapientes, robustos et sie effluit potius et bonum tribuit.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA1:354, 35/ LW31:41.
    20. I Tim., WA26:24, 18/ LW28:245: “Et non solum gratia, sed venit sic,
    ut fides et dilectio sit coniuneta, facit novum, hominem ut crederem in
    Christum, et efficacior, quia datur mihi fides, quae efficax per charitatem
    in Christo.”
    21. Disp.Just.,WA39I:96, 5/ LW34:165.
    248  M. Ellingsen

    22. Krichpost.G., W211:1458f.,9/CS2/2:306: “Darum ist er auch gar ein


    mächtig, thätig unruhig geschäftig Ding, der den Menschen gleich
    verneuent anderweit gebieret und ganz in eine neue weise und Wesen
    fuhrt, also dass unmőglich ist, der derselbige nicht sollte ohn Unterlass
    Guttes thun.”
    23. Gal (1525),WA40II:70, 24ff./ LW27:56.
    24. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:287f., 42ff./ LW23;181.
    25. Gal. (1535), WA40I:516, 18/ LW26:334: “Extra causam vero iustifi-
    cationis nemo potest verre bona opera satis magnifice commendare…
    Opera vero extra fidem facta, ut maxime in speciem sancta videntur, sub
    peccator et maledictio sunt.”
    26. Gut.Werk, WA6:211, 23/ LW44:32; cf. Kl. Proph., WA13:696, 3ff./ LW18:412.
    27.  Disp.Schol.Theol., WA1:226,8/LW31:12; Lib.christ., WA7:61, 26/ LW31:
    361; BR (1516), WABR1:70, 29/ LW48:25; Gal. (1535), WA40I:45, 24/ LW26:7;
    Dup.just., WA2:146f., 29ff./ LW31:299–300.
    28. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA45:662, 5/ LW24:220.
    29. Kichpost.G., W211:1860.22/ CS3/1:354.
    30. Rom., WA56:248f., 25ff./ LW25:235.
    31. Disp. indulg., 1, WA1:233, 10/ LW31:25. Also see p.170.
    32. Res., WA1:530, 25/ LW 31:84.
    33. Ibid., WA1:534, 11/ LW 31:89; Disp. Indulg., WA1:233, 10/ LW31:25
    (note the first of the Ninety-Five Theses); Rom., WA56:442, 15/ LW25:434.
    34. Kirchpost.G.,W211:707,33/CS1/2:315; Ibid., W211:713.,49/ CS1/2:340;
    Ibid., W211: 718f., 62/ CS1/2:347; cf. pp.168–171.
    35. Dict. Ps., WA3:431f., 38ff./ LW10:118; Ev.Joh.16–20, WA28:166f.,
    26ff/ LW69:92.
    36. Serv.arb., WA18:632f., 30ff./ LW33:62.
    37. Dict.Ps., WA3:429,7/LW10:368; Ibid., WA3:191,1/LW10:162; Ibid.,
    WA3:437, 31/ LW10:380; Ibid., WA3:512, 15/ LW10:455.
    38.  Ibid., WA3:431f., 38ff./ LW10:372; Rom., WA56:391, 17/ LW25:381.
    39. Kl. Proph., WA13:101, 24/ LW18:98.
    40. Dict. Ps., WA3:432, 26/ LW10:373.
    41. Ibid., WA3:44, 23/ LW10:48; 1 Pet., WA12:382, 4ff./LW30:127; Matt.5–
    7, WA32:340f., 36ff./ LW21:51;
    42.  Disp. Indulg., 93, 95, WA1:238,16ff./ LW31:33; Dtsch.Kat., III.6.,
    WA30I:209, 15/ BC454.106; 1 Pet., WA12:338, 21/ LW30:84.
    43. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:638, 13/ LW24:195: “Also ist dis wol ein sein
    tröstlich bilde, und wenn… er den sundte als sagen: Sihe, da werde ich
    getunget und geerbeitet als ein reben am weinstock, Wohler liebe hacken
    und hippen, hacke, scheite und blate nur getrost, ich wil dir gerne halten,
    Denn es sind Gottes hacken un hippen mir zu nutz und fromen…”.
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  249

    44. Gal. (1535), WA40II:144.20/ LW27:113: “Diligere autem non est, ut


    Sphistae nugantur, alteri bonum velle, sed ferre alterius onera, hoc est,
    illa ferre, quaetibi molesta sunt et non libenter fers.”
    45. Ev.Joh.14–15., WA45:639, 32/ LW24:196: “Solchen nutz schaffen alle
    leiden der Christen, das sie nur unser Christlich leben fűrden und frucht
    bringen zu volligerm erkentnis und stercker bekentnis des worts gewis-
    ser hoffnung und weiter aus breitung des Reichs Christi.”
    46. Pred. (1528), WA27:276, 31.
    47. Wider Hans., WA51:520,6/LW41:218; cf. Rom., WA56:272,3/ LW25:260;
    Latom., WA8:107, 22/ LW32:229.
    48. Dict. Ps., WA3:56, 13/ LW10:67; Rom., WA56:443, 10/ LW25:435;
    Fast. (1525), WA17II:6, 11.
    49. Fast. (1525), WA17II:6, 11; Miss.Mess, WA8:492, 16/ LW36:145.
    50. Ps., WA31I:76, 29/ LW14:51.
    51. For more detailed discussionand documentation of the Priesthood of All
    Believers, see Chap. 12.
    52. Wein., WA10I/1:714, 12/ LW52:277: “Wyr konnen auch sonst nichts
    got gebenn; den es ist schon alles seyn undd wyr habens alls von yhm
    alleyn lob, danck unnd wyr ehre konnen wyr yhm geben…”.
    53. Capt. Bab., WA6:535,10/LW36:69; Dtsch.Kat., IV, WA30I:220, 22/
    BC:465.65; Dict. Ps., WA3:47, 9/LW10:53. For the relation between
    Baptism and the Priesthood of All Believers, see Christ. Adel., WA6:407,
    13/ LW44:127; Inst.min., WA12:178, 26/ LW40:19.
    54. Serm. Tauf., WA2:735f., 29ff./ LW35:40–41; see below.
    55. Ibid., WA2:735, 12/ LW35:40;. Dtsch. Kat., IV.84/, WA30I:222, 10/
    BC466.84ff.; Serm. Tauf.,WA2:727, 20/ LW35: 29–30.
    56. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:507, 3/ LW24:51: “Ein Christen ist ein solcher
    mensch, der da als bald ansehet aus diesem leben gen himel zu gehen
    von dem an, wenn er aus der tauffe kompt, durch den glauben… Also
    das er jmer auff diesem weg erfunden werde und jnn der wahrheit
    gefüret, das leben zu erlangen, als der bereit sihet das user, da hin er
    tretten sold, Und also geschicht is, wo er unterwegen stürbe des heu-
    tigen oder morgenden tags oder uber zwey, zehen jar, Das er durch
    Christum schon hinüber gebracht sey. Denn wir doch seiner augen-
    blick fur dem tod konnen sicher sein und ynn der Tauffe alle Christen
    anfahen zu sterben bis jnn die greben.”
    57. Som.Post. (Cruc.), WA21:365, 12.
    58. Adv., WA10I/2:52, 13/ CS1/1:48: “Darumb alles gutts leben, on
    gnade, is eyttel gleyssen und scheyn, den es geht nur ym suszerlichen
    menschen, on lust unnd frey willen des ynnerlishchen menschen.”
    59. Rom., WA 56:269, 27/ LW25:258; Ibid., WA56:272, 17/ LW25:260.
    250  M. Ellingsen

    60. Matt.5–7, WA32:435,1/LW21:163–164 Also see Note 61, below. See


    Heidelberg Disputation or Von Loewenich; Disp. Heid., WA1:356f.,32ff./
    LW31:44; Ibid., 41, WA1:353, 21/LW31:39; Krichpost.E., W212:523.25/
    CS4/1:227–228; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:139f., 33ff./ LW16:197–198
    (noting that the world views Christians as cast-offs).
    61. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:228f., 33ff./ LW23:146: Dan eufferlich straucheln
    undt fallen Christen undt asuwendig anzusehen, so scheinet es, das
    die Christen Sunder findt undt thun, das der welt nicht gestellet. Do
    werden sie den fur Narren, Uschenbruddel, der welt fushader, fur ver-
    dampte, unvermugende leuthe gehalten, die do nichts thugen. Aber es
    schadet nicht, dan in der schwacheit, Sunden, torheit und gebrechlig-
    keit wohnet inwendig undt heimlich eine solche gewalt undt krafft die
    die welt nicht kan kennen, sondern ihr verborgen ist undt gleichwohl
    hindurch reisset, dan Christus wohnet in ihnen undt zeiget sich ihnen.”
    Luther claims that God’s strength cannot reign unless we are weak, in
    Gen., WA44:587, 12/ LW8:11.
    62. Dtsch. Kat., III.3, WA30I:202, 27ff./ BC: 448f.65.
    63. Kirchpostil.G., W211:1837.5/ CS3/1:329: “Es ist viel mehr ein Christ
    sein, den fromm sein. Es kann einer wohl fromm sein, aber nicht ein
    Christ. Ein Christ weisz von seiner Frőmmigkeit nichts zu sagen, er fin-
    det in sich nichts Gustes noch Frommes.”
    64. Magn., WA32:340f.,36ff./LW21:51: “Es heisst aber also: Wilta das
    Euangelion nicht haben noch ein Christen sein, so gehe hin und halt
    es must der welt, so verfolget dich niemand und bleibt yr freund. Wiltu
    aber da Euangelion und Christum haben, so mustu dich des erwe-
    gen das es ubel zugehe, unfrieded und verfolgung angehe, woe es hin
    kompt.”
    65. Wein, WA10I/1:389f., 18ff./ LW52:109: “Denn wer den Synn nitt hatt,
    das er willig alle ding vorachtet und allerley zu leyden berreytt ist, der
    wirt nit lang Christum benedeyen und loben, sondern sich bald an yhm
    ergen. Etlich sind wol, die yhn loben und benedeyen, weyl er thutt, was
    sie wollen, und lessit sie seyn, was sie wollen. Aber da ist er nit Christus,
    thut auch nit Christus werck mit yhnen, sondern er ist was sie seyen und
    wollen.”
    66. Kirchpost.E., W212:115.31/CS3/2:129: “Siehe, das heist mitten im
    Schenkhausse nüchtern, mitten in bősen Hause züchtig, mitten im
    Tanzhause gőttlich, mitten in der Morrdgrube rechtfertig leben.”
    67. Lib.christ., WA7:69,3/LW31:371; cf. Hspost., W213II:2633f.20/ CS7:253.
    68. Lib.christ., WA7:35f,, 32ff./ LW31:367; Pred. (1522), WA10III:168,
    19.
    69. Lib.christ, WA7:32, 27/ LW31:361–362.
    70. Kirchpost.G., W211:1093.21/ CS2/1:349.
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  251

    71. Hspost., W213II:2740.21/ CS7:348.


    72. Gut.Werk., WA6:244, 3/ LW44:72.
    73. Jes., WA31II:549, 13/ LW17:372: “Ita in fide creadamus nos in omni-
    bus tentacionibus non esse lutum platearum, sed figui, scilicet dei, qui
    nos reformet. Lutum figuli sumus, non platearum.”
    74. Lib.christ., WA7:53, 15/ LW31:349: “Cum autem haec promissa dei
    sint verb sancta, vera, iusta libera, pacata et universa bonitate plena,
    fit, ut anima, quae firma fide illis adheret, sic eis uniatur, immo peni-
    tus absorbeatur, ut non modo participet sed saturetur et inebrietur omni
    virtute eorum.”
    75. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:669, 35/ LW24:228.
    76. Ibid., WA45:667, 20/ LW24:226: “Wenn ich getaufft werde oder
    durchs Euangelium bekeret, so ist der Heilige geist da und nimpt mich
    wie einen thon und machet aus mir ein newe creatur, so itzt ander
    sinn, hertz und gedancken kriegt, nemlich recht erkentnis Gottes und
    recht hertzlich vertrawen seiner gnade, Summa: grund und boden
    meines hertzen wird vernewert und geendert, Das ich gar ein new
    gewechs werde, gepflantzet inn den Meinstock Christum und aus in
    gewachsen…”.
    77. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:668, 5/ LW24:227: “...anzuzeigen, das es mit der
    Christenheit also zugehet, das es nicht von aussen ein getragen oder
    als ein kleid an gezogen noch new weise und wesen angenomen sey…
    Sondern also, das es mus durch Gottes wort und geist new geborn und
    gar ein newer mensch sein aus grund des hertzens. Darnach aber, wenn
    das hertz also new geborn… ist inn Christo, da folgen den auch fűrchte,
    bekentnis des Euangelii, werck der liebe, gehorsam, gedultig, zuchting
    sein…”.
    78. Thes.Wel., WA39I:46, 18/ LW34:111.
    79. Jon., WA13:253, 20/ LW19:23; Lib.christ, WA7:53, 24/ LW31:349–350;
    Ibid., WA7:69,19/LW31:371; Gal. (1535), WA40I:235, 1/ LW26:134; Ess.9,
    WA40III:631, 1.
    80. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:553, 20/ LW24:101–102: “Denn es gehet doch
    alzeit also, wo man mit gesetzen regiret (sonderlich die gewissen), da
    hat es nimer sein ende noch mas mit gebetien und trieben…”.
    81. Pred.(1523), WA12:559, 21/ CS2/1:187: “Denn gleich wie eyn lebendig
    mensch sich nit kan enthalten, es muss sich regen, essen und trincken und zu
    schaffen haben, und nit muglich ist, das solche wreck konnen aussen bley-
    ben, weyl es lebt, das man eyn nit bedarff heyssen und treyben, solche werck
    zu thun… Alszo auch dedarff man nit mer darzu, das man gutte werck thu,
    den das man sage ‘Glaube nur, so wirstu es all is von dir selbs thun,’ darumb
    bedarffstu nit lange gutte wreck fordern von dem der glawbt.”
    252  M. Ellingsen

    82. Men., WA10II:72, 17/ LW35:131–132.


    83. Lib.Christ., WA7:70, 14/ LW31:372–373.
    84. Wein, WA10I/1:467, 1/ CS3/2:281: “Also erlosset uns glaub nit ley-
    plich vom gesetz, das wyr hieher das gesetz dortthyn fare, unnd alsso
    von eynander kommen, das wyr nymmmer unter yhm sehen, szondern
    das seynem fodden gnug durch uns geschehen ist, wyr konnen unnd
    haben nu, was es wollt von uns gewist unnd gehabt haben, Nemlich den
    heyligen geyst, der da macht, das wyr es lieb haben.”
    85. Vor. O.T., WADB8:25, 20/ LW35:244.
    86. Lib.christ., WA7:58, 4/ LW31:356. See p.200, n.75.
    87. Wein., WA10I/1:359f., 21ff/ CS3/2:251: “Es ist aber zu wercken, das
    niemant das gesetz mag erfullen, er sey denn vom gesetz, loss und nit
    mehr drunder… Alle, die da thun gutte werck darumb, das alsso gepot-
    ten ist, auss furcht der straff odder gesuch des loniss, die sind unter dem
    gesetz, mussen frum seyn und gutt thun, und doch ungerne…”.
    88. Dict.Ps., WA3:17, 1/ LW10:13; cf. Antinom. (1), WA39I:395, 16.
    89. Gal. (1535), WA40I:270, 1ff./ LW26:157f.
    90. Pred. (1526), WA20:510, 31: “Sie thut und macht gesetz und bricht sie
    widder, unangesehen der andern gebot, allein der glaube hat yhr zuge-
    bieten, sonst gepeut sie alle anderen gepotten.”
    91. Kirchpost.G., W211:1586.27/ CS3/1:75: “Aber die Liebe rechtet noch,
    rechtet nicht; sie ist nur darum da, dass sie wohl thus will; darum thus
    sie auch mehr, den sie schuldig ist, und fähret über das Recht.”
    92. Gut.Werk., WA6:207, 3ff./ LW44:26–27: “Darausz dann weiter folget,
    das einn Christen mensch, in diessem glauben lebend, nit darff eines
    lerers gutter werck, sondern was ym furkumpt, das thut er, und ist alles
    wolgethan… Das mugen wir bey einem groben fleischlichenn exem-
    pel sehen. Wen ein man odder weib sich zum andern vorsicht lieb und
    wolgefallens, und das selb fest glewbt, wer lernet den selben, wie er
    sich stellen sol, was er thun, lassen, sagen, schwigen, gedencken sol? die
    eynige zuvorsicht leret yhn das alles und mehr dan not ist. Da ist yhm
    kein unterscheidt in wercken. Thut das grosz, lang, vile, szo gerne, als
    das klein, kurtz, wenige, und widerumb, dartzu, mit frolichem, fridli-
    chem, sicherem hertzen und ist gantz ein frey geselle.”
    Cf. Jon., WA13:253,20/LW19:23; Gal. (1535), WA40II:72,20/
    LW27:57; Beid.Ges., WA10II:15, 11/ LW36:240.
    93. Jes. (1527–153), WA31II:332, 21/ LW17:90–91: “Christianus est iam
    unus cum Christo, habet iam participacionem cum illo. Membrum de
    membro. Caro de Carne, sicut uxor participat nomen et substanciam
    viri. Ita Christianus tota creatura, fit deo particeps… Ita totum sumus
    Christi vocacione Christi omniaque alia opera nostra non sunt nostra,
    sed Christi.”
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  253

    94. Gal. (1519), WA2:502, 12/ LW27:238: “Tum vivit iustus non ipse, sed
    Christus in eo, quia per fidem Christus inhabitat et influit gratiam, per
    quam fit, ut homo non sup sed Christi spiritu regatur.”
    95. Antinom.(2), WA39I:435, 483, 383, 388.
    96. Gen., WA43:605, 32/ LW5:256.
    97. Wein., WA10I/1:360f., 24ff/ CS3/2:252: “Darumb, nit seyn unter dem
    gesetz ist nit sso viel gesagt, das man frey loss sey, botzis zu thun, was
    man will, oder seyn gutt werck thun, szondern est ist szo viel gesagt, das
    man nit ausz furcht, tzwang und nodt des gesetz, sondern ausz freyer
    liebe und luftigenm willen guttis thue und bossis lasse, eben als were das
    gesetz nicht... Gleych, als das der leyb iffet, trinckt dewet, autzwirsst,
    schlefft, geht, steht, fisst und dergleychen naturlich werck thutt, ist yhm
    seyn gesetz nott, darff auch keyniss treybentz dazu.”
    98. Lib.christ., WA7:61, 12/ LW31:360.
    99. Wein., WA10I/1:714, 12 / LW52:277: “Wyr konnen auch sonst nichts got
    gebenn; den es ist schon alles seyn, unnd wyr habens alls vor yhm, alleyn lob,
    danck und ehre konnen wyr yhm geben…”.
    100. Ep. 1Joh., WA20:763, 23/ LW30:304: “Nam Christianus diligit proxi-
    mun ut fratrem, non fucit discrimen personarum vel rerum. Non cogi-
    tat, an sit officiosus vel minus, an sapiens vel insipiens. Certum mundus
    aliter diligit… Christus dilexit sine discrimine onmes, etiam inimicos
    suos, Quare et nos etiam non diligibiles ut fratres diligere debemus.”
    101. Gal. (1535), WA40II: 144, 20/ LW27:113: Diligere autem non est, ut
    Sophistae nugantur, alteri bonum velle, sed ferre alterius opera, hoc est,
    illa ferre, quae tibi molesta sunt et non libenter fers.”
    102. Matt.5–7, WA32:318, 5/ LW21:25: “Wiltu aber recht und ruge haben,
    so las deines anchbarn mut willen und frevel sich selbs dempffen und
    verlesschen….”
    103. Ev. Joh.3–4, WA47:1f.,17ff./LW22:275: “...das christliche leben in
    diesen zweien studen stehe, nemlich im glauben und darnach in guten
    wercken, das einer nach dem glauben sol from sein und ein eusserlich
    gutth leben furen. Es ist aber am ersten stuck an weisten gelegen, als am
    glauben, und ist das andere dem Ersten stuck nirgend gleich, wievol die
    welt hoher und mehr darvon heitt den vom glauben, zeucht die guten
    wreck dem Glauben fhur.”
    104. Lib.christ., WA7:49, 22/ LW31:344.
    105. Hspost., W213II:1504.10/ CS5:156.
    106. Lib.christ, WA7:38, 6/LW31:371: “Aus dem allenn folfte der beschluss,
    das eyn Christen mensch lebt nit ynn yhm selb, sondern ynn Christo
    und seynem hehstenn...”.
    107. Ibid., WA7:37, 33/ LW31:371: ”Sihe also mussen gottis gutter fliessen
    auss evnem zu den andern und gemeyn werden. das ein vglicher sich
    254  M. Ellingsen

    seynis nehsten also annehmen, als were erss selb. Muss Christo slies-
    sen sie vu uns, der sich unser hatt angenommen ynn seynem lebenn, als
    were er das gewefen, das wir sein. Russ uns sollen sie fliessen yn die, so
    ur bedurffen.”
    cf. Hspost., W213II:2633.19/ CS7:253.
    108. Adv., WA10I/2:89, 8/ CS3/2:59: “Wie nu Christus allen gemeyn
    worden ist, den Juden und heyden, wievol auss anderley und anderley
    ursach, Also soll wyr auch unternander gemeyn warden eyn iglicher sich
    des andern annehmen…”.
    109. Pred. (1523), WA11:76, 31.
    110. Adv., WA10I/2:168, 10/ CS1/1:11; Pred. (1526), WA20:517f., 28ff.;
    Dup.just., WA2:149, 6/ LW31:302–303; see Ch.V, nn.72–74.
    111. 2.Ps., WA5:103f., 37ff.; cf. Lib.christ., WA7:54, 1/ LW31:350; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:131, 21/ LW26:66.
    112. Kirchpost.G., W211:20.47/ CS1/1:36: “Darum alles Gute, das du thun
    kannst, und dein ganzes Leben richte dahin, dass es gut sei. Dann aber
    ist es gut, wenn es andern Leuten nütz ist und nicht dir selbst; den du
    bedarfft sein nicht dieweil Christus für dich gethan hat und gegeben
    alles, was du für dich such oder begehren magst heir und dort…”.
    113. Pred. (1532), WA36:340, 12/ LW51:260–265.
    114. Res., WA1:628, 12/ LW31:251.
    115. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:66f., 32ff./ LW24:226.
    116. Lib.christ., WA7:66, 3/ LW31:367–368. See the quote in n.124, below.
    117. Gen., WA42:441f., 40ff./ LW2:253: “Ad hunc modum omnibus tem-
    poribus in mundo vivunt, occupantur quidem Oeconomicis et civilibus
    studiis, gubernant Respublicas et familias aedificant… et tamen agnos-
    cunt se cum partibus esse exules hospites: utunter enim mundo tan-
    quam diversorio, ex quo emigrandum brevi sit, non appopunt cor ad
    huius vitae negocia, sed tanquam sinistra manu corporalia curant, dex-
    tram levant sursam ad aeternum patriam: ac si quando accidit, ut turbe-
    tur aliquid, vel in Republica vel Oeconomia, nihil aut parum moventur.
    Satis enim est eis, utcunque in hoc diversorio tractentur, quod norunt
    aeternas mansiones a filio Dei paratas.”
    Cf. 1Pet., WA12:290, 20/ LW30:34; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:19, 18/
    LW22:290–291.
    118. 1 Cor., WA12:138,7/LW28:52; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:715,7/ LW22:205;
    1 Pet., WA12:290, 25/ LW30:35: The goods we have do not belong to
    us.
    119. Matt.5–7, WA32:308, 5/ LW21:13: “…weil wir hie leben, nicht anders
    brauche den als ein gast an einem frembden ort, das er uber nacht ligt
    und des morgens davon zeucht, brauchet nicht mehr denn suter und
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  255

    lager zur notdurfft… noch sich yns gut setzen, als gebure es ym von
    recht…” Cf. Gen., WA42:414f., 40ff./ LW2:253.
    120. Disp.Wider.Kais., WA39II:40, 16ff.
    121. Hspost., W213II:2348.7/ CS6:424.
    122. Pred.2.Mos., WA16:444, 18; Ps.51. WA40II:452, 10/ LW12:397; Ps.,
    WA31I:76, 6/ LW14: 51.
    123. Lib.christ., WA7:65f.,36/LW31:367: “… et ita cogitar ‘En mihi indigno
    damnatoque homuntioni citra omne mentum mera gratuitaque mis-
    ericordia dedit deus meus in Christo omnes divitias iustia et salutis,
    ut amplus nulla re prorsus indigeam, nisis fide, quae erdat hoc se sic
    habere, huic ergo tali patri, qui me suis his inaestimabilius divitiis obruit,
    cur non liberaliter, hilariter, toto corde spontaneoque studio omnia
    facium, quaecunque sciero placita et gratia coram esse? Dabo itaque me
    quendam Christum proximo meo, quemadmodum Christus sese prae-
    buit mihi, nihil facturus in hac vita, nisi quod videro proximo meo nec-
    essarium, comodium et salutare fore, quandoquidem per fidem omnium
    bonarum in Christo abundans sum.’”
    124. Ibid., WA7:66, 25/LW31:367–368: “...ideo socut pater coelestis nobis
    in Christo gratis, auxiliatus est, ita et nos debemus, gratis per corpus et
    oper eius proximo nostro auxiliari et unusquisque altri Christus quidam
    fieri, ut simus mutuum Christi et Christus idem in omnibus…”
    Cf. Wein, WA10I/1:518, 5/ LW52:157–158.
    125. Deut., WA14:677, 25/ LW9:179 (here Luther speaks against those stress-
    ing obedience to God’s commands); Ibid., WA14:681, 28/ LW19:184; Kl.
    Proph., WA13:253, 20/ LW19:23; Ev. Joh.14–15, WA45:692, 34/ LW
    24:253; Wein., 10I/1:73f., 23ff. / LW52:16; Adv., WA10I/2:585,18/CS3/2:55;
    Vor.N.T., WADB6:10,1/ LW35:361; Gal. (1519), WA2:492, 32/ LW27:224;
    Kirchpost.E., W212:532f.14/ CS4/1:238; Serm.dr.gut., WA7:801,23/
    LW44:241; Ibid., W212:534.17/ CS4/1:240; Kirchpost.G., W211: 1270.65/
    CS2/2:96; Ibid., W211:1459.9/ CS2/2:306; Thes.Antinom., WA39I:354, 29.
    126. Pred. (1532), WA36:360, 5: “Denn ein Christ sol seine liebe nicht
    schaffen von den person, die die welt liebe thut… Dieser aber sol ein
    quellende liebe sein, von ynwedig aus dem hertzen getroffen wie ein
    frisches bechline odder wessenlin, das ymner fort fleusset und leisset
    sich nicht auffhalten noch trocken und versiegen, Die heisset also: Ich
    liebe dich nicht darumb, das du from odder bose bist, den ich schepsse
    meine liebe nicht aus deiner fromkeit als aus einem frembden brunnen,
    sondern aus meniem eigen quelbornlin, nemlich aus dem Wort,welchs
    ist ynn nein hertz gepsropsset…”.
    127. Krichpost.G., W211:125.21/ CS2/2:76: “Denn das Euangelium wo es
    recht im Herzen ist, soll einem solchen Menschen machen, der nicht
    so lange harrt, bis das Gesestz kommt; sondern ist so voll Freunden in
    256  M. Ellingsen

    Christo hat Luft und Liebe zum Guten, dass er gern jedermann helfe
    und wohlthue, wo er kann, aus freiem Herzen, ehe er einmal an des
    Gesetz, ehe er enimal an das Gesetz denst…”.
    128. 1 Pet., WA12:270, 27/ LW30:14–15: “Wyr aber sagen also, wie Petrus
    sagt, das der glaub ein Krafft Gottis ist. Wo Gott den glawben wirkt, da
    muss der mensch ander weytt geboren und eyn newe creatur werden,
    da müsen denn naturlich eyttel gutte werck ausz dem glawben folgen.
    Drumb darff man nicht zu eym Christen sagen, der do glewbt: ‘thue
    das oder eyrens werck,’ den er thut von yhm selbs und ungeheyssen eyt-
    tel gutte werck.”
    129. Kirchpost.E., W2:12:916f.17/ CS4/2:310.
    130. 1 Pet., WA12:296, 6/ LW30:41.
    131. Kirchpost.G., W211:744f.28/ CS1/2:374–375.
    132. Vor. N.T., WADB7:10, 9/ LW35:370.
    133. Ibid., WADB7:10, 9/ LW35:370: “O es ist eyn lebendig, schefftig, thet-
    tig, mechtig, ding umb den glawben, das unmoglich ist, das er nicht
    unterlas solt gutts wircken.”
    134. Kirchpost.G., W211:744f.28/ CS1/2:316.
    135. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:540, 19/LW24:88: “Das ist ein unrugiger Geist
    ynn der höhesten ruge (das ist ynn Gottes gnade und friede), das er
    nicht kan still noch műssig sein; Sondern ymerdar darnach ringt und
    strebt mit allen tresten als der allein darumb lebt, das er Gottes ehre und
    lob weiter unter die leutebringe.”
    136. Kirchpost.E., W212:937.4/ CS4/2:331.
    137. Kirchpost.G., W211:959f.2/ CS2/1:211.
    138. Gut.Werk., WA6:216, 31/ LW44:38: “Yn wilchem szo du sicht, das dir
    got szo hold ist, das er auch seining sun fur dich gibt, musz dein hertz
    fusz and got widderumb hold werden…”
    Cf. Hspost., W213II:1865.22/ CS5:474.
    139. Lib.christ., WA7:69, 3/ LW31:371.
    140. Ibid., W7:65, 5ff./ LW31:365–366.
    141. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:233,9/LW23:149: “Also sendit wir auch mit Christo
    in einen leib undt wesen kommmen undt vereiniget, das, was mich guts
    oder boses angehet, das gehet ihn auch an. Wenn ich dich schlage oder
    dir leidt thue oder dich ehre, so schlage ich Christum oder thue Christo
    selbst leidt oder ehre den was einem Christen geschicht, das geschicht
    Christo selbst.”
    Cf. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:222f., 33ff./ LW22:520.
    142. Kirchpost.G., W211:637.14/ CS1/2:254–255.
    143. Gal. (1519), WA2:606, 1 /LW27:393: “Si autem aliquid in nobis est,
    non nostrum sed dei donum est: si autem dei donum est, iam charitati
    totum debetur, id est legi Christi: si charitati debetur, iam non mihi
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  257

    sed aliis per ipsam serviendum est. Ita mea eruditio non est mea, sed
    ineruditiorum, quibus eam debo… sic sapientia mea stultus, sic potentia
    oppressis, sic divitiae pauperibus, sic iusticia peccatoribus, hae enim sunt
    formae dei, quas exinaniri oportet…”.
    144. Kirchpost.E., W212:742.12/ CS4/2:124.
    145. Hspost., W213II:1457.13/ CS5:113.
    146. Tit., WA25:74, 8/ LW29:99.
    147. Hspost., W213II:2351.14/ CS6:427.
    148. Ibid., W213II:2352.16/ CS6:428: “Du fahre fort, und sprich: Ich habe
    an den meine Wohlthat verloren, nur einen andern her und dem auch
    wohlgethan…”.
    149. Adv., WA10I/2:85, 26/ CS3/2:55.
    150. Lib.christ., WA7:69, 1/ LW31:371: “En, ista regula, ut quae ex doe
    habemus bona fluaut ex uno in alium et communia fiant, ut unus
    quisque proximum suum induat et erga eum sic se gerat, ac si ipse esset
    in loco illius.”
    151. Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:507, 20.
    152. Kirchpost.G., W211:1575.4/ CS 3/1:63: “Nun ist Glaube und Liebe
    das ganz Wesen eines Christenmenschen, wie ich oft gesagt habe. Der
    Glaube empfähet, die Liebe gibt; der Glaubde bringt den Menschen zu
    Gott, die Liebe bringt ihn zu den Menschen… Denn wer da glaubt, der
    hat alle Dinge von Gott, und ist selig und reich…”.
    153. Ibid., W211:1586.27/ CS3/1:75: “Aber die Liebe rechtet noch sechtet
    nicht; sie ist nur darum da, dass sie wohl thus will; darum thut sie auch
    mehr, denn sie schuldig ist, und fahret uber das Recht.”
    154. Disp. Heid., WA1:364, 6/ LW31:55–56.
    155. Kirchpost.G., W211:1489.8/ CS2/2:340; Promodisp. Pall., WA39I:254,
    27.
    156. Pred. (1532), WA36:456f., 34ff.
    157. 1.Pet., WA12:267, 3/ LW30:11: Das wyr auff erden leben, des
    geschicht nyrgent umb, den das wyr ander leutten auch helffen sollen.
    Sonst were esdas best, das uns Gott so bald wurgete und sterben liesse,
    wenn wyr getaufft weren und hetten angefangen zu gleuben.”
    158. Adv., WA10I/2 :69, 4/ CS3/2:36.
    159. Lib.Christ., WA7:69,12/LW31:371: “Concludimus itaque, Christianum
    hominem mon vivere in seipso, sed in Christo et proximo suo, aut
    Christianum non esse…”.
    160. Adv., WA10I/2 :69, 13/ CS3/2:36.
    161. Kirchpost.G., W211:1605.67/ CS3/1:94: “Denn wer Gottes Lob und Ehre
    mit der Stimme preisen will, der muss aller Welt Lob und Ehre verdam-
    men, und sagen, wie aller Menschen Werk und Wort nichts sei mit aller
    258  M. Ellingsen

    Ehre, die sie davon haben, sondern allein Gottes Werk un Wort sei Lob
    und Ehre würdig.”
    162. Hspost., W213II:2351.14/ CS6:427: Wer ein Christ sein will, der ewige
    sich frei dass, dass er mit aller seiner Wohlthut, True und Dienst werde
    Undank verdienen, und hüte sich davor, dass er sich damit wollte bewe-
    gen lassen und andern nicht merhr dienen noch helfen.”
    163. Ev. Joh.14–15, WA45:671, 25/ LW24:230
    164. Krichpost.E., W212:786.2/ CS4/2:169.
    165. Pred.(1523), WA12:559, 17/ CS2/1:187.
    166. Vor.N.T., WADB6:89,29/LW35:361; Ibid., WADB7:10, 9/ LW35:370;
    Pred. (1523), WA12:559, 8. See n.173, below.
    167. Disp.just., WA39I:96, 6/LW34:165; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:1f.,15ff./ LW22:275,
    as Luther also claims there are two parts to Christian life. Faith is more impor-
    tant than works.
    cf. Matt.5–7, WA32:352f., 35ff./ LW21:65.
    168. Thes. Wel., WA39I:46, 28/ LW34:111: “34. Fatemur oper bona fidem
    sequi debere, imo non debere, sed sponte sequi, Sicut arbor bona non
    debet bonos fructus facere, Sed sponte facit.”
    169. See Note 92, above, for the quote.
    170. See Thes. Antinom., WA39I:354 (teaching works are spontaneous with-
    out the Law). Also see p.200, n.75.
    171.  Kl.Proph., WA13:253, 20/ LW19:23: “Fides enim si sincera est in
    corde, non opus habet doctore aligua operumbonorum, per sese novit,
    quid fieri conveniat… Iustificato homine per fidem sequuntur necessa-
    rio fructus iustitiae, siquidem bona arbor non potest non bonas fructus
    ferrer…”
    Cf. Gal. (1519), WA2:478f., 37ff., LW27:204f.; Lib. Ex. Cath., WA7:760,
    20ff.
    172. We have already noted times when Luther only only taught Two Uses
    (see Ch. 2). Dealing with the Christian life at one point he claims
    that preaching is not meant to teach people how to manage their
    lives. Reasonable people can find their own way (Pred. [1532/1533],
    WA36:534f.,6ff./LW28:100,101; Serm. Tauf., WA2:717,6/ LW35:34).
    173. Vor.N.T., WADB7:10,9/LW35:370–371; Kirchpost.G., W211:1458f.9/
    CS2/2:306.
    174. Gen., WA43:531, 27/ LW5:150; ibid., WA43:59ff., 7ff./ LW3:257–262;
    Krichpost.E., W212:370,19/CS4/1:65–66; Pred. (1532), WA36:39f.,
    27ff.; Gen., WA43:167, 4ff./ LW4:44; Rom., WA56:419, 9/ LW25:408–
    409; Gal. (1535), WA40I:272, 14ff./ LW27:57–58.
    175. Kirchpost.G., W211:1678.9/ CS3/1:161: “Nun, weils den also ist, dasz
    allein die Gesetz allzumal Liebe aufrichten…”.
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  259

    176. Pred (1526), WA20:510, 29: “ Dis gebot der libe ist… ein regel und
    meisterin aller gesetz… allein der glawbe hat yhr zugebieten, sonst get
    sie alle anderen gepotten.”
    177. Wein., WA10I/1:578, 12/ LW52:173.
    178. TR (1540), WATR4:634, 12/ LW54:382.
    179. Gen., WA43:532, 8/ LW5:150: “Sic in bellis sancti saepe hostes fefel-
    lerunt, sed illa sunt mendacia, quibus licet uti in ministerio Dei adversus
    Diabolum et hostes Dei.”
    180. Kirchpost.G., W211:1682.20/ CS3/1:166: Und da hat du Macht zu
    dispensienen mit aller Geboten, wo du allein ein Christ biest, wenn sie
    doch in der Liebe hindern willen…
    181. Gut.Werk., WA6:204, 13/ LW44:23.
    182. Pred. (1530), WA32:91, 33ff.: “Wir sein alle heiligen and versucht ist
    der, der sich nicht Ein heilgen will rennenn… aber das nicht awss dir,
    sondern willen Gottesz, der dein vatter wil sein. Und dass ist seyne
    vermessenheit, sondernn ein dack parkeyt und Bekhendniss Gottes
    gutter.”
    Cf. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:616f., 27ff./ LW24:169.
    183. Hspost., W213II:2501.25/ CS7:140: “Er disputire nur nicht viel mit
    seinen Sünden. Denn wo er mit denselben disputirt, so kommt er dahin,
    das er Schuld bezahlen will.. Darum soll man nicht hőren, wa unser
    Herz dazu sagt aus Sagen und Unglauben; sondern hőren, was Gott
    sagt, den grösser ist den mein und dein Herz.”
    184. Dict. Ps., WA3:648, 6/ LW11:144: “Quia laudare tantummodo deum
    non potest, nisi qui intelligit in se nihil esse laude dignum, sed omne
    quod est laudis, dei et ex deo esse.”
    cf. Ibid., WA3:191, 1/ LW10:162.
    185. Latom., WA8:111, 24/ LW32:235.
    186. Rom., WA56:270, 9/ LW25:258; Ibid., WA56:343,16/ LW25:332; Ibid.,
    WA56:351f., 7/ LW25:340f.; Ibid., WA56:442, 17/ LW25:434; Latom.,
    WA8:94,25/LW32:211; TR (1532), WATR2:75, 1/ LW54:144–145;
    Rom., WA56:72, 18/ LW25:64; Ibid., WA56:70, 9/ LW25:63; Thes.
    Antinom., WA39I:354, 1; Hspost., W213II :1920.24/ CS6:39; Ev.Joh.3–4,
    WA47:33, 33/ LW22:304; Kirchpost.E., W212:322.17/ CS4/1:15; TR
    (1531), WATR2:331, 23; Gal. (1535), WA40I:368, 26/ LW26:232; Disp.
    just., WA39I:97, 3/ LW34;166; Gal. (1519), WA2:2:496f., 39ff./ LW27:230;
    Ps.51, WA40II:352f., 33ff/ LW12:328; Antinom (3), WA39I:521, 5; Ibid.,
    WA39I:563f., 13ff.; Ibid., WA39I:564, 1; Ibid., WA39I:492, 2; Rom.,
    WA56:347, 8/ LW25:336. As we shall subsequently note, sometimes Luther
    refers to simul isutus et peccator as partim-partim, just partially righteous and
    sinner.
    260  M. Ellingsen

    187.  I Pet., WA12:323f., 24ff./ LW30:69; Kirchpost.G., W211:531.20/


    CS1/2:131; Ev.Joh.16–20, WA28:177f., 28ff./ LW69:101.
    188. Pred. Gen., WA24:484, 23.
    189. Pred. (1530), WA32:91f., 32ff.: “Wir sein alle heilgen und versucht ist
    der, der sich nicht Ein heilgen wil nennen. Du bist vil mehr heilig den
    dass du Hanss oder Kuncz heyssest, aber das nicht awss dir, sondernn
    awss dem willen Gottesz, der dein vatter wil sein. Und dass ist keyne
    vermessenheyt, sondernn ein danckparteyt und Bekherdnisz Gottes
    gutter.”
    190. Kirchpost.E., W212:515.6/ CS4/1:220.
    191. Gal. (1535), WA40I:526f., 2ff./ LW26:342.
    192. Thes. Antinom., WA39I:354, 24ff.; Gut.Werk., WA6:276, 18/ LW44:114.
    193. Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:204, 20ff.: “40. Sed ea legis opera, reputatione
    Dei, non habentur pro operibus legis, etiamsi natura sint talia.”
    194. Gal. (1519), WA2:497, 27/ LW27:231–213; Antinom. (3), WA39I:494;Ps.68,
    WA8:21, 21/ LW13:21; Thes. Antimon., WA39I:350, 14ff.; Antinom. (1),
    WA39I:394ff., 27ff.
    195. Rom., WA56:334, 15/ LW 25:322.
    196. Gal. (1535), WA40I:538, 16/ LW26:350–351.
    197. Rom., WA56:275, 25/ LW25:262–263; Disp.just., WA39I:95, 10/
    LW34:164; Ibid., WA39I:98, 7/ LW34:167; Thes. Antinom.,WA39I:350,
    14ff.; Ibid., WA40II :348, 15ff.; Antinom.(2), WA39I:474, 11; Antinom.
    (1), WA39I:398;11;Serm.Tauf., WA2:731, 3/ LW35:34.
    198. Antinom, (1), WA39I:367, 3; Ibid., WA39I:398, 11.
    199. Kirchpost.G., W211:713f.49/ CS1/2:340.
    200. Gen., WA43:121f., 38ff./ LW3:343.
    201. Rom., WA56:442, 5/ LW25:434.
    202. Ibid., WA56:217, 8/ LW25:202–203; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:516,
    35ff./ LW17:331–332; Kichpost.E., W212:625.15/ CS4/1:335.
    203.  Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:684, 9/ LW24:244: “…Denn ob wir wil inn
    Christo rein sin, so wir anders inn ym bleiben, so sind wir doch unsers
    lebens halb naoch nicht gar rein, weil wir diesen fack am hals tragen,
    und bleibt noch mancherley tegliche schwacheit und gebrechen…”
    Antinom. (3), WA39I:542, 22 (dealing with Antinominan polemics).
    204. Kirchpost.G., W211:692.33/ CS1/2:315.
    205. Gal. (1535), WA40I:537f., 21ff./ LW26:350f.
    206. Pred. (1522), WA10III:425, 19: “Also das wir verklert werden von eyner
    klarheyt zu der andern, das wir teglich zunehmen und yhe klerer und
    klerer den herren erkennen, denn werden wyr verwandelt und verklet
    yynn das selbig byld, also das wyr alle eyn kuche werden mit Christo.”
    207. Wein, WA10I/1:405, 5/ LW52:120.
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  261

    208. Gen., WA44:277, 22/ LW6:371.


    209.  Ibid., WA42:56, 30/ LW1:74; Ep.Jes., WA19:140, 17; Wort., WA23:70,
    1/ LW37:17.
    210. TR (1533), WATR1:244f., 31ff./ LW54:96–97.
    211. Pred.(1522), WA10III:356, 24; Pred. (1532), WA36:694, 25; Promodisp.Scot.,
    WA39II: 170, 8; Pred. (1525), WA17I:71f., 39ff.; Thes.Antinom., WA39I:356, 9.
    212. Ps.51, WA40II:347f., 34ff./ LW12:321; Jon., WA19:229, 29/ LW19:79.
    213. Sch.Reisz., WA18:277, 26.
    214. TR (1531), WATR1:48, 3/ LW54:16; Ibid. (1533), WATR1:205, 1/ LW54:78.
    215. TR (1533), WATR1:276, 12/ LW54:106.
    216. Hspost., W213II:2016.29/ CS6:123.
    217. Rom., WA56:270, 9/ LW25:258f.; cf. Hspost., W213II:1723.8/ CS5:347.
    218. Rom., WA56:387f., 27ff./ LW25:378.
    219. Wein., WA10I/1:137, 14/ LW52:37.
    220. Rom., WA56:392, 29ff./ LW25:382–383; Ibid., WA56:246, 12ff./ LW25:232–
    233); Oper.Ps., WA3:183, 32/ LW10:155–156; Serv.arb., WA18:651, 21/
    LW33:87–88; Kirchpost.E., W212:523.25/ CS4/1:227–228: While offer-
    ing comfort, he claims here that the world does not understand the Christian
    life; Kirchpost.E., W212:542f.2/ CS4/1:249; Matt.5–7, WA33:312f., 37ff./
    LW21:19; Disp.Heid., WA1:357, 15/ LW31:44; Matt.5–7, WA33:312f., 37ff./
    LW21:163–164 – responding to Catholic critics; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:228f., 34ff./
    LW23:146 – claims here we are regarded as fools
    221. Kirchpost.G., W211:1038, 10/ CS2/1:292.
    222. 2.Ps., WA5:45, 30ff./ LW14:309.
    223. Wein., WA10I/1:336, 2/ CS3/2:232.
    224. Gal.(1535), WA40I:235, 18/ LW26:133–134.
    225.  Ibid., WA40I:573, 25 /LW26:376: “Nec foris multum interest inter
    Christianum atque hominem civiliter bonum. Nam opera Christiani in
    speciem vilia sunt.”
    226. TR (1538), WATR3:636, 3; TR (n.d.), WATR6:348, 17; TR (1533),
    WATR1:193, 4/ LW54: 71–72.
    227. Thes.Antinom., WA39I:354, 19ff.
    228.  Antinom. (2), WA39I:485, 16. For such critiques of this text’s
    authenticity, see Werner Elert, “Eine theologische Falschung zur
    Lehre vom tertius usus legis,” Zeitschrift fur Systematische Theologie
    und Religionsphilosophie 1 (1948):168–170; Gerhard Ebeling, Word
    and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
    1963), pp. 62–78; Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology:
    Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. and ed. Roy A.
    Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), pp. 182–183.
    262  M. Ellingsen

    229. 1 Pet., WA12:333, 12/ LW30:79. Cf. Wilfred Joest, Gesetz und frei-
    heit: das problem des Tertius usus legis being Luther und die neutesta-
    mentliche Paainese (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1951), esp.
    p. 198; Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, trans. Robert
    Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), p. 271. They distinguish
    “Commandment” and “Law,” a distinction they claim to find in Luther.
    230. Serv. arb., WA18:693, 1/ LW33:150.
    231. Kirchpost.G., W211:744f.28/ CS1/2:374–375.
    232. Dtsch.Kat., I.Con., WA30I:178, 22/ BC:428.311: “die zehn gepot…
    ynn welchen quellen und gehen mussen alles was gute werck sein sollen,
    also das ausser den zehn geboten kein werck noch wese gut und Gott
    gesellig kan sein…”.
    233. Deut., WA14:677, 251/ LW9:179: “Breviter respondetur: prae-
    cepta novi testaneinti ferri super iustificatus et novos hominess in
    spiritu. Nihil enim ibi docetur aut mandatur, quod non pertineat ad
    fideles tautum, qui omnia faciunt sponte, non necessitate aut invita
    voluntate.”
    234. Antinom. (2), WA39I:485, 22: :Lex est retinenda, ut sciant sancti, quaen-
    tam opera requirat Deus, in quibus obedientiam excercere erga Deum
    possint.”
    Cf. Antinom. (3), WA39I:542, 5; Lib. Ex. Cath., WA7:760, 1ff.;
    Promodisp.Fab., WA39II:274, 21.
    235. Lied., WA35:426f.
    236. Dict.Ps., WA3:463, 21/ LW10:405.
    237. Matt.5–7, WA32:368, 7/ LW21:82–83; Ibid., WA32:299f., 1ff./ LW21:3–5.
    238. Pred. (1539), WA47:757–772/ LW51:291–299.
    239. See p.5.
    240. Wellt. Uber., WA11:279, 5/ LW45:127.
    241. Kirchpost. E., W212:910f.3ff./ CS4/2:305; Kirchpost.G., W211:1886.4/
    CS3/1:382; Pred. (1522), WA10III:1ff., 15ff./ LW51:70ff.
    242. Gen., WA42:670, 3ff./ LW3:170.
    243. Krichpost.E., W212:442.13/ CS4/1:140.
    244. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:688f., 36ff./ LW24:249: “Darumb ist es schwer,
    den leuten zu predigen, Denn wie man ynen predigt, so wil es nicht
    recht geben, fallen ymer seiten aus, Predigt man nicht vom glauben, so
    werden eitel heuchel werck draus, Treibt man aber den glauben allein,
    so wollen keine werck hernach...”
    245. Gal. (1535), WA40I:570, 18/ LW26:373.
    Thes. Wel., WA39I:47, 5/ LW34:112; Gen., WA42:610, 20/ LW3:87;
    246. 
    Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:523, 1/ LW23:326; Ps.2, WA5:53, 15/ LW14:320–321;
    Gal. (1535), WA40I:389f., 27ff./ LW26:246–247; Gal,. (1519), WA2:543,
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  263

    6ff./ LW27:300; Adv., WA10I/2:85, 3/ CS3/2:54 (acknowledging in this


    context that a spontaneous response could also occasion good works).
    247. 1 Pet., WA12:372, 6/ LW30:117.
    248. Gal. (1535), WA40II:42, 19/ LW27:34; Wein., WA10I/1:11f., 1ff. Also see
    Pred. (1525), WA17I:74, 15, as Luther speaks of Chrst as Sacrament and
    Example. For an example of Luther denying Christ’s role as an Example
    when focusing on exhortation to faith, see Gal. (1535), WA40I:389, 20/
    LW26:247.
    249. Lib.christ., WA7:58, 31/ LW31:357.
    250. Matt.5–7, WA32:404, 14/ LW21:126–127.
    251. Thes.Wel., WA39I:47, 37/ LW34:113: “Tamen quia interim sumus inae-
    quali spiritu, et caro adversatur spiritui, necesse est etiam propter vagos
    spiritus, certis mandatis et scriptis apostolarum adhaererer, ne laceretur
    ecclesia.”
    252. Gal. (1535), WA40I:577, 20/ LW26:378–379; Disp.nup., WA39I: 292f.,
    25ff.; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:703, 1/ LW24:264–265; Ibid., WA45:700f.,
    25ff./ LW24:262; Promodisp. Kopp., WA39II: 248, 10; Disp.just. WA39I:92,
    4/ LW34:161; Ibid., WA39I:96, 11/ LW34:165; Ibid., WA39I:114, 15/
    LW34:183; Thes. Wel., WA39I: 46, 20/ LW34:111; Matt.5–7,WA32:423,
    28/ LW21:150.
    Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:408, 27ff./ LW26:260; Gen., WA44:112,
    6ff./ LW6:150; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:703, 1; Pred. (1525),
    WA10III:295, 13; Gen., WA44:112, 24/ LW6:150; Kirchpost.G.,
    W211:744.28/ CS1/2:374; Ibid., W211:1488f.8/ CS2/2:340; Dtsch.
    Kat., III.5, WA30I:207, 30/ BC453.95; Hspost., W213II:2125f.16ff./
    CS6:222 (while offering comfort and teaching Christian life). See Pred.
    (1522), WA10III:225, 18.
    253. Gen., WA42:669, 22/ LW3:169; Gut.Werk., WA6:217, 25/ LW44:39–
    40; Pred. (1522), WA10III:95, 13; Ibid., WA10III:226, 12; Promodisp.
    Pall., WA39I:204, 8ff.; Matt.5–7, WA32:423f., 19ff./ LW21:149f.
    254. Thes. Wel., WA39I:46, 20/ LW34:111.Disp.just., WA39I:92, 7/
    LW34:161; Ibid., WA39I:114, 7/LW34:183.
    255. Fest., WA17II:275, 27.
    256. Gal. (1535), WA40I:408, 27ff./ LW26:260; Ibid., WA40I:577, 20/
    LW26:3780379; Disp.Just., WA39I:96, 9/ LW34:190; Ev.Joh.14–15,
    WA45:703, 1/ LW24:264–265; Ibid., WA45:700f., 25ff./
    LW24:262. Pred. (1522), WA10III:225, 15; Disp.nup., WA39I:293,
    8; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:204, 14ff.; Deut., WA14:627, 17/
    LW9:86.
    257. Krichpost.G., W211:1699.32/ CS3/1:182.
    264  M. Ellingsen

    258. Gen., WA44:112, 23/ LW6:150; cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian
    Religion (1536/1559), Bk.III, Ch.XXIV/7; Ibid., Bk.II,Ch.III/11.
    259. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:685, 25/ LW24:246.
    260. Adv., WA10I/2:186, 10/ CS3/2:110.
    261. Wein., WA10I/1:518, 6/ LW52:157.
    262. 1 Pet., WA12:273, 13/ LW30:17: “Also ist umb eyn Christlich leben
    gethan, das es ymmer zu nehme und reyner werde… Aber weyl wyr
    noch ym fleysch sind, so sondern wyr nymmer gantz reyn seyn.”
    Cf. Ep. 1. Joh., WA20:789, 23/ LW30:321; 1 Pet., WA12:273, 13/
    LW30:17. Luther also affirms this when teaching the importance of
    repentance in Kirchpostil.G., W211:694.38/ CS1/2: 317.
    263. Grnd., WA7:336, 30/ LW32:24: “Das alsso ditz lebenn nit ist. eyn
    frumkeytt szondernn eyn frumb werden: nit eyn gesundheyt szondernn
    eyn eyn gesund werdenn: nit eyn weszen szundernn eyn werden: nit eyn
    ruge szondernn eyn ubunge. Wyr seynss noch nit. wyr werdenss aber Es
    ist noch nit gethan vnnd geschehen es ist aber ym gang vnnd schwanck.
    Est ist nit das end. es ist aber der weg es glüwet unnd glintzt noch nit
    alliss es fegt sich aber alliss.”
    264. Gal. (1535), WA40II:240, 7/ LW27:32; Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:190f., 37ff./
    BC438.57; Ps.68, WA8:20, 9/ LW13:20; Ibid., WA8:12,/ LW13:11.
    265. Vor.N.T., WADB7:8f., 10ff./ LW35:369.
    266. Dtsch.Kat., 2.3, WA30I:190f., 37ff./ BC:418.57.
    267. Rom., WA56:159, 8/ LW25:137; Matt.5-7, WA32:406,18/ LW21:129.
    268. Ibid., WA56:334f., 28/ LW25:323: “Iustitia Vero humana studet tol-
    lere et mutare peccata primum et conferuare ipsum hominem; ideo non
    est Iustitia, Sed hipocrisi. Ergo donec homo ipse viuit et non tollifur ac
    mutatur per renouationem gratie, Nullis operibus potest facere, Vt sub
    peccato et lege non sit.”
    269. BR (1521),WABR2:372, 82/ LW48:281–282: “Si gratiae praedicator
    es, gratiam non fictam, sed veram praedica; si vera gratia est, verum,
    non fictum peccatum ferto. Deus non facit salvos ficte peccatores. Esto
    peccator et pecca foriter, sed fortius fide et gaude in Christo, qui vic-
    tor est peccati, mortis et mundi. Peccandum est, quamdiu hic summus;
    vita haec non est habitation iustitiae… ab hoc non avellet nos peccatum,
    etiamsi millies, millies uno die fornicemur aut occidamus… Ora Fortier,
    etaim fortissimus peccator.”
    Cf. BR(1516),WABR1:35, 24ff./ LW48:12–13; Kirchpost. G.,
    W211:1514.44/CS2/2:367–368.
    270. Disp.Heid., WA1:WA1:370,9/ LW31:63: “Haec est dulcissima dei Patris
    misericordia, quod non fictos, sed veros peccatores salvat, sustinens nos
    in peccatis nostris et acceptans opera et vitam nostrum omni abiectione
    digna, donec nos perficiat atque consummet.”
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  265

    Cf. Latom., WA8:107, 35/ LW32:229.


    271. Ev.Joh.16–20, WA28:177, 28/ LW69:101.
    272. Gal. (1535), WA40I:433f., 26ff./ LW26:277: “Et hoc viderunt omnes
    Prophetae, quod futures esset omnium maximus latro, homicida, adul-
    ter, fur scrilegus, blasphemus, etc. quo nullus maior unquam in mundo
    fuerit…”.
    273. 1 Tim., WA26:24, 21/ LW28:245.
    274. Kirchpost.G., W211:221.7/ CS 1/1:242; Matt.5–7, WA32:519–520/
    LW21:265–266; Serm.Tauf., WA2:735, 20/ LW35:40 (41 – says it is an
    estate in whch we slay sin); Stuf., WA40III:280, 18; Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:517f.,
    30ff./ LW23:323–324; Christ. Adel., WA6:408, 26/ LW44:130; Capt.
    Bab., WA6:541, 6/LW36:78; Matt.5–7, WA32:405f., 29ff./ LW21:237;
    Ps., WA31II:437, 7/ LW14:115; Haus.,WA52:395, 12; Kirchpost. E.,
    W212:298.25/ CS3/2:322; Hspost., W213II:2538f.13f./ CS7:174; Gal.
    (1535), WA40II:152f., 39ff./ LW27:119; Pred. Kind., WA30II:568f., 32ff./
    LW46:246.
    275. Gen., WA43:340, 3ff./ LW4:285.
    276. 127.Ps., WA15:366f., 15ff./ LW45:324ff.: “Erbeytten mus and soll man,
    aber die narung und des hauses fulle ja nicht der erbeyt zu schreyben,
    sondern alleyn der guete und dem segen Gottes… Sie thuts nicht, Gott
    muss es thun. Drumb erbeyte also, das du nicht umb sonst erbeytest.”
    277. Ps., WA31I:436, 7/ LW14:114–115.
    278. Ibid., WA31I:234, 15/ LW14:15; 1 Pet., WA12:336, 18/ LW30:82; Ibid.,
    WA12:349, 12/ LW30:95; Pred.Kind., WA30II:569, 26/ LW46:246;
    Serm. Tauf., WA2:735f., 19ff./ LW35:40–41; Gen., WA43:342, 4/
    LW4:288; Serm.hoc.Sak., WA6:370, 7/ LW35:100–101.
    279. Hspost., W213II:2073.25/ CS6:175.
    280. Matt.5–7, WA32:327, 15/ LW21:35; Hspost., W213II:1649f.7f./ CS5:281.
    281. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:698, 30/ LW22:187: “Wievol Gott die Stende inder
    Welt haben wil, und das auch ein unterscheid der Stende sey, aber wer
    nicht from ist dem hilsst gar nichts zur seligkeit, ob er gleich in ehrli-
    chen Emptern der Stende ist. Es wird ein Schuster so wol selig als ein
    Konig oder grosser Keiser…”
    282. Gen., WA43:106, 2/ LW3:321: Ancilla igitur cum mulget vaccas, servus
    cum pastinat argum, modo fidelis sit, hoc est, ut statuat placere Deo
    tale vitae genus, et a Deo instutum esse, Deo magis servit, quam omnes
    monachi et monachae, qui de suo vitae genere eerti esse non possunt.”
    283. 1 Pet., WA12:336, 26/ LW30:82.
    284. Wein., WA10I/1:534, 11/ CS3/2:322; Dtsch.Kat., I.Con, WA30I:178f.,
    10ff./ BC428f.311ff.
    285.  Gal. (1535), WA40II:118, 15/ LW27:93–94: “Item laetantur pii,
    quando Euanglium late sparigitur et multi ad fidem acceunt atque ita
    Christi Regumn augetur.”
    266  M. Ellingsen

    286. Haus., WA52:415, 8: “Darumb ist das das hőchste und groste werck und
    sürnembste Gottesdienst, den wir auff erden thun kőnnen, das wir andere
    leut und sonderlich die uns befohlen sin, zum erkentnuss Gottes und dem
    heyligen Euangelio bringen.” cf. Wein., WA10I/1:714f., 12ff./ LW52:277.
    287. 1Pet., WA12:267, 3/ LW30:11: “Das wyr auff erden leben, das geschicht
    nyrgent umb, den wyr ander leutten auch helffen sollen. Sonst were es das
    best, das uns Gott so bald wűrgete und sterben liesse, wenn wyr getaufft
    weren und hetten angefangen zu glewben. Aber darumb lesset er uns hie
    leben, das wyr ander leutt auch zum glawben bringen, wie er uns thau
    hatt.”
    288. Adv., WA10I/2:85, 23/ CS3/2:55.
    289. Matt.5–7, WA32:406, 1/ LW21:128.
    290. Gen., WA44:678, 27/ LW8:135: “Semper enim solitus est Deus ex gen-
    tibus etiam sibi Ecclesiam colligere.”
    291. Ibid., WA44:78, 14/ LW6:105.
    292. TR (1531), WATR1:52‚29: “Vult Deus, ut simus laeti, et odit
    tristitiam.”
    Cf. Pred. (1546), WA51:194, 10/ LW51:392; Kirchpost.E.,
    W212:318.10/ CS4/1:11–12; Matt.5–7, WA32:314f., 39ff./ LW21:21; Gal.
    (1535), WA40I:51.14/ LW26:11.
    293. Heb., WA57III:176, 3/ LW29:177: “Quare Christianum sicut filium Dei
    oportet semper gaudere, semper cantare, nihil timere, semper securum
    esse et de Deo gloriari.”
    294. Adv., WA10I/2:170, 24/ CS3/2:93: “Disse freud ist eyn frucht und
    folge des glaubens…”.
    295. Wein., WA10I/1:101, 12/ CS3/2:146.
    296. Pred. (1532), WA12:442, 23: “Darumb stehet ein solcher glaubiger
    mensch, ynn solcher freud und fröligkeit, das er sych vor seyner creatur
    letzt erschrecken, ist aller dingen herr, unnd furcht such allein vor Gott,
    synem herrn, der ym hymmel ist, sunft furchtt er sych nichts vor kennen
    ding das yhm mocht zu hadnen stiffen.”
    297. Hspost., W213II:1504.10/ CS5:156: “Solche Verwunderung sollten
    wir über dem Euangelium auch haben, dass wir drüber hoffährtig und
    frőlich würden und rühmeten: Ich bin ein Christ und getauft, zwei-
    fle derhalben gar nichts, ich werde durch den Herrn Jesum, dass der
    Himmel un allen Creaturen mir zu meniem Besten dienen soll.”
    298. Serm.dr.gut., WA7:800, 20: “Den got wil nit allein solch werck haben,
    sundern das sie mit luft und willen geschehen. Und wie kuft und wille
    nit drynnen ist, sein sy todt fur got…”.
    299. Antinom.(1), WA39I:389f., 2ff.
    300. Rom., WA56:368, 13/ LW25:358.
    301. Letz.Wort., WA54:36, 6/ LW15:275.
    10  THE CHRISTIAN LIFE (SANCTIFICATION)  267

    302. Ess.9, WA40III:652f., 5ff.


    303. Pred. (1523), WA12:442, 14.
    304. Gut.Werk., WA6:206, 29ff./ LW44:26.
    305. Ibid., WA6:205, 4/ LW44:24.
    306. Vor. N.T., WADB7:10, 16/ LW35:370.
    307. Ep. 1.Joh., WA20:756, 1/ LW30:300.
    308. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:63, 25ff./ LW17:389.
    309. Hspost., W213II:2348.6f./ CS6:424: “Denn es will unser Herr Gott,
    und nicht unbillig, die Ehre haben, dass wir ihm für alle seine Wohlthat
    danken sollen. 7. Solches sollten wir auch gern und williglich thun;
    denn es je ein Ding ist, das nicht viel Mühe und Arbeit forstet…”.
    310. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:461, 2/ LW17:258.
    311. See p.205, n.151 for this quotation. Also see Vor. N.T., WADB7:10,
    16/ LW35:371; Hspost., W213II:2125.15/ CS6:221.
    312. TR (1531), WATR1:49f., 28ff./ LW54:17–18: “Quando tentaris tristia
    aut desperation aut alio dolore conscientiae tunc, ede, bibe, quaere col-
    loquia; si potes te cogitatione puellae reereare, facito.”
    313. TR (1531), WATR1:49, 24/ LW54:17: “Denn das betten hilfft uns sehr
    und macht einem ein frolich hertz, non propter dignitatem operis, sed das
    wir mit unserm Herr Got geredt und yhm also haben heim gestellet.”
    314. Aus.Vat., WA2:85, 9/ LW42:25.
    315. Vor.Deut.Schr., WA50:659, 16/ LW34:286.
    316. Matt.18–24, WA47:366, 5: “...das Gott offt sagen mus: Wann ich euch
    gäbe, wie ihr bittet, so were ich ein narr, wie ihr seidt. So bitten wir offt,
    wenn wie gleich das Vater Unnser beten.”
    317. TR(1532), WATR2:628, 26: “Non est opus, ut Deus me semper oudiat
    secundum meam, den er were mein gefangener.”
    318. Serm.Bereit., WA2:696, 24/ LW42:113.
    319. Magn., WA7:574f., 24ff./ LW21:328–329.
    320. Schmal,Art., II.2, 25f., WA50 BC:305.25; Dol., WA30II:643f.
    321. Magn., WA7:568, 21/ LW21:322.
    322. Haus., WA52:150, 4; Ibid., WA52:682f., 33ff.; Pred. (1524), WA15:478,
    23; cf. Pred. (1523), WA12:413f., 36ff.; Wint., WA21:63f., 37ff.
    323. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:541, 27/ LW24:89.
    324. TR (1533), WATR 3:79, 1: Christianus semper orat, sive dormiat sive
    vigilet. Cor enim eius orat semper, et suspiriam est magna et fortis
    oratio.”
    325. Hspost., W213II:1681f.21/ CS5:310.
    326. Dtsch. Kat., III, WA30I:193, 17/ BC:441.8.
    327. TR (1533), WATR1:220, 9/ LW54:85; TR (1531), WATR2:11, 5; TR
    (1540), WATR4:654, 11.
    268  M. Ellingsen

    328. Aus.Vat., WA2:82f., 27ff./ LW42:21ff.


    329. Gut.Werk., WA6:240f., 26ff./ LW44:68–69.
    330. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:566, 16/ LW17:392.
    331. Dtsch. Kat., III, WA30I:196, 8/ BC443.22.
    332. Hspost., W213II:2056f.20/ CS6:160.
    333. Kirchpost.G., W211:1101.21/ CS2/1:357–358: “Welch Herz wollte
    nun sich nicht frőlich alles Guttes zu ihm versehen, so er sich mit solcher
    Liebe erzeigt…”.
    334. Ibid., W211:1575.4/ CS3/1:63–64: “Denn wend da glaubt, der hat alle
    Dinge von Gott und ist selig und reich: darum darf er hinfort nichts
    mehr, sondern alles, was er lebt und thut das ordnet er zu Gut und
    Nutz seinern Nächsten…”.
    335. Kirchpost.E., W212:937f.5/ CS4/2:331–332.
    336. Gut.Werk., WA6:207, 26/ LW44:27: “Alszo einn Christen mensch, der in
    diser zuvorsicht gegen got lebt, weisz alle ding, vormag alle dings, vormis-
    set sich aller ding, was zu thun ist, und thuts alles frolich und frey…”.
    337. Vor.N.T., WADB7:11, 16/ LW35:371: “Glaube ist ein lebendige erwe-
    gene zuuersicht auft Gottes gnade, so gewis, das er tausent mal drüber
    stürbe. Und solch zuuersicht und erkenntnis gőtlicher gnade machet
    frőlich, trotzig und lüftig gegen Gott und alle Creaturn, welchs der
    heilige Geist thut im glauben…” Ibid., WADB7:11, 9/ LW35:370: “O
    es ist ein lebendig, schefftig, thettig mechtigding umb den glauben, das
    unmüglich ist, das er nicht on unterlas solte guts wircken.”
    338. Pred. (1535), WA12:442, 10.
    339. Matt.5–7, WA32:312, 30/ LW21:19.
    340. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:671, 25/ LW24:230: “Denn ein solcher mensch,
    was er lebt und thut, es sey gros oder gering und heisse, wie es wolle, so
    sin des eitel frűchte, und kan on fruchte nicht sein… Und wird einem
    solchem alles, so er thut leicht und on faure erbeit oder verdries, ist ym
    nichts zu schwer oder zu gros, das er nicht leiden und tragen könne.”
    341. Wein., WA10I/1:367, 20/ CS3/2:257: “Wie mag eyn hertz sich hie
    enthalten, das es nit frey, frolic, luftig und willig werde ynn got und
    Christo, was mag fur werck odder leyden beggen, dareyn es sich nit mit
    lieb und lob gottis, singend und springend ergebe?”
    342. TR (1546), WATR5:318, 2/ LW54:476: “Wir sein pettler. Hoc est verum.”
    343. Jes. (1527–1529), WA25:180, 47: “Christiana igitur vita non haec est,
    quae auget ieiuniorum dies et alias huiusmodi nugas, sed quare augetur
    in fiducia in Deum et minuitur in fiducia in se…”.
    CHAPTER 11

    Church

    Luther claims that a 7 year-old child knows what the Church is—holy
    believers hearing the voice of the Shepherd.1 He affirms the Credal for-
    mula—one holy, catholic, Apostolic Church.2 Interpreting a text in a ser-
    mon, he describes the Church as a “mouth-house,” not a pen house.3
    The Reformer draws on a Medieval distinction between Christians
    who merit the title and members of the Church numerically (a distinc-
    tion between the visible church and invisible church).4 In the same way
    he posits a distinction between the spiritual assembly transcending space
    and time and the visible Church in the world.5
    There is no Church without the Word, Luther claimed.6 It is a crea-
    ture of God’s Word, and the Word also governs it.7 Where the Word is,
    there is the Church.8 Indeed, the Church subsists in the Word.9 The
    substance of the Church is the Word, Luther adds.10 It is the only per-
    petual and infallible mark of the Church.11
    The Reformer also contends that the Word of forgiveness is the
    Church’s true treasure.12 He contends that “God’s Word cannot exist
    without God’s people and God’s people cannot exist without God’s
    Word.”13
    To speak is to build the Church, the Reformer contends.14 In these
    texts, addressing the logic of faith the Church is construed in objective
    terms as a Work of God. In the context of a discussion of Sanctification,
    the Church is defined differently, in terms of believers. But he also
    teaches that there no salvation outside the Church.15 Yet in polemical
    circumstances against those defining the Church in terms of believers the

    © The Author(s) 2017 269


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_11
    270  M. ELLINGSEN

    Reformer takes a position more consistent with his stress on the Word.
    To those who say that they alone are the Church, Luther claims that they
    have “swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all.”16 Luther warns that
    the devil will always build his taverns near God’s house.17
    More typically, especially when explicating faith in polemics, the
    Church is defined in terms of the Gospel and the Sacraments which
    create it.18 In a related definition he speaks of the Church in terms of
    Gospel and Sacraments.19
    In 1539 while addressing chaos and corruption in the Church, the
    Reformer described seven marks or Sacraments of the Church—Word of
    God, Baptism, Lord’s Supper, Calling and Ordaining Ministers, Prayer/
    Praise Thanks, and Enduring the Cross.20 But in 1541 he listed eleven
    marks that characterize the ancient Church, and so the true Church:
    (1) Baptism; Lord’s Supper; (3) The Keys; (4) Office of Preaching; (5)
    Confession of Faith; (6) Lord’s Prayer; (7) Honor due temporal power;
    (8) Praise of the estate of marriage; (9) Suffering of the true Church;
    (10) Renouncing of Revenge; and to some extent (11) Fasting.21 In gen-
    eral, though for Luther, the Church is a daughter of the Word, not the
    mother of the Word.22
    The Reformer also spoke of the Church as our Mother (while expli-
    cating the Creed).23 In contrast to what he says when exhorting
    Christian living, when addressing despair Luther claims that the collec-
    tive faith of the Church helps us out of our uncertainty. Because of the
    Church, when we suffer we do not do so alone; its strength bears us.24
    All Christians are to share all their goods with each other (including our
    possessions, but also our troubles).25
    The Church is also said to be an infirmary for the sick (point made
    while critiquing works-righteousness).26 The Gospel harmonizes people,
    Luther contends.27 Consequently he believes that sinners remain in the
    Church until the End Times.28 It is also holy and not holy.29 As he says
    it elsewhere: Just as the body having waste is a sign of health, so the
    Church is not healthy without impurities.30
    Forgiveness of sin is said to be what the Church is all about, Luther
    claims.31 All the Church has is given by the merit of Christ.32 It is holy,
    he contends, only in the sense that it has holy possessions and is a com-
    munity of forgiveness.33 Thus the Church is holy, Luther notes in polem-
    ical circumstances, but this is hidden, for the saints are concealed.34
    In the same spirit the Reformer contends that members of the
    Church are usually drawn form the lowly.35 Especially in his later
    11 CHURCH  271

    Genesis Lectures Luther claims that the Church is hidden. He claims


    it was hidden with the Patriarchs, for the true Church is the descendant
    of Abraham and his heirs.36 For the Church of the Patriarchs had both
    Word and Sacrament, he contends.37
    Luther also claims that the Church is holy because the Ministry is
    pure.38 But he also contends that an unbroken succession of Bishops
    going back to the Apostles did not matter much.39 For the Church has
    Apostolic Succession in its faithful proclamation of the Gospel, as the
    Apostles proclaimed it.40
    It is said that the prayers of the Church can lift punishment, Luther
    says.41 To find Christ, we need the Church.42 Given Luther’s herme-
    neutical insistence on interpreting Scripture in dialogue with the Rule
    of Faith, he claims that there is no true knowledge of God outside the
    Church.43
    We have already noted Luther’s contention that apart from the
    Church there is no Christ or salvation.44 This leads him to claim that the
    Church is the portal of salvation.45 Even when describing the Church in
    more objective terms, as the work of the Word, he affirms that outside
    the Church there is no salvation.46 In that sense the Church is the gate
    of heaven. Luther writes:

    … He Himself is our Father, Who speaks and deals with us and brings it
    about in the most intimate way that the Church is also the gate of heaven.
    And what is the most delightful, He comes first and appears to us on the
    ladder. He descends and lives with us.47

    In terms of everyday life in the Church, Luther shows real parish wis-
    dom in rejecting the validity of any arguments over external elements in
    worship.48 God wishes to work through human cooperation, he notes.49
    Luther writes:

    God could gather a Church without the Word, manage the state without a
    government, produce children without parents…; but He commands us and
    wants us to preach and to pray, and everyone to do his day in his station.50

    The Church can get along without us, the Reformer contends:
    272  M. ELLINGSEN

    It is not we who can sustain the Church, nor was it those who came before
    us, nor will it be those who after us. It was, and is, and will be, the One
    Who says: “I am with you always, even to the end of time.” As it says in
    Hebrews 13: “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and for ever.” And in
    Revelation 1: “Who was, and is, and is to come.” Truly He is the One, and
    no one else is, or even can be.
    For you and I were not alive thousands of years ago, yet the Church
    was sustained without us – and it was done by the One of Whom it says,
    “Who was” and “Yesterday”… The Church would perish before our very
    eyes, and we along with it (as we daily prove), were it not for that other
    man Who obviously upholds the Church and us. This we can lay hold of
    and feel, even though we are reluctant to believe it. We must give ourselves
    to the One of Whom it is said: “Who is,” and “today.”
    Again, we can do nothing to sustain the Church when we are dead. But
    He will do it of whom it is said: “Who is to come,” and For ever.”51

    Luther was concerned to retain the liturgy.52 He would have reforms


    in liturgy respect the weaker brethren and the responsibilities of temporal
    authorities.53 But, as we have already noted, he was open to diversity on
    worship matters.54 On the other hand, Luther rejected idolatrous prac-
    tices derived from pre-Christian European religions which continued to
    manifest themselves in the church of his day.55 Luther was also open to
    excommunication (the ban) in contexts addressing Christian life, much
    like his deployment of the Third Use of the Law. Its only purpose, he
    claimed, was to bring people back to God.56
    We find Luther describing the Church both in terms of believers (at
    least when exhorting Christian living) and most times describes it objec-
    tively as a Work of God. In all cases, Luther is inclined to talk about the
    Church and its activities with sensitivity to what is most effective for eve-
    ryday church life.

    Polity
    When addressing the everyday nature of church life and how it is to
    be organized, Luther continued to affirm a place for Bishops. But he
    seemed to transform/restore the office to referring to any chief pas-
    tor who took on the job of supervising other pastors.57 He was open
    to elected Bishops electing a superior who would hold visitations among
    them.58 But he also insisted that that Ordination by a Bishop was not
    required for a valid Ministry.59
    11 CHURCH  273

    In critiquing the Catholic hierarchy Luther insisted that congregations


    had a right to appoint preachers.60 The manner of appointment of clergy,
    whether Apostolic Succession of clergy was maintained, did not matter,
    Luther claimed.61 In short Luther’s polity was not highly organized. The
    Church was more a movement than an institution. Though as we shall
    note in the final chapter Luther did posit a role for the state in organiz-
    ing the church on its territory.
    Luther contended that God would grant help to the Church through
    the laity.62 His critique of Monasticism was largely based on the argu-
    ment that it contradicts faith, for many taking vows are said to believe
    that by their good lives they might earn salvation.63
    Regarding the papacy, his early support of the office should be
    noted.64 He defended the Papacy, claiming that the Pope did not sup-
    port the abuses occasioning The Ninety-Five Theses.65
    Though he did even send a deferential letter to the Pope during the
    early stages of the Indulgence Controversy, there is an anti-papal edge
    to some of the Theses.66 And yet Luther did recognize papal authority
    in defending The Ninety-Five Theses, claiming that the Pope and any
    Christian may intercede for departed souls.67
    On the other hand, in a controversy with papal authority, the budding
    Reformer claimed that a Council and Scripture have superior authority.68
    This assertion was in line with the Conciliarist position which had been
    used to try to resolve the Great Western Schism, but by Luther’s lifetime
    was under suspicion. In this spirit the Reformer claimed that Councils
    and Scripture can keep the Church from error.69 Along with this he
    claimed that the Pope can err.70 And in 1520, with faith at stake, Luther
    claims that the papacy is not divinely instituted.71
    In a dispute with papal authority the Reformer notes that Greek and
    African Christians had not been under papal authority, and yet none
    could deny that they were Christians without the Pope.72 But it should
    be noted that after the Reformation began he was still ready to acknowl-
    edge the Pope’s authority if he were to acknowledge that the sinner has
    free forgiveness through Christ and that his authority is not through the
    observance of church traditions.73 Luther would let the Pope be if he
    submitted to Scripture and abandons claims to inerrancy.74 He claims
    that he would kiss the Pope’s feet.75 In principle Luther had no prob-
    lems with Catholic polity.
    On the other hand, in polemical contexts he referred to the Pope
    as Anti-Christ.76 The Pope is identified as Vicar of the devil in such
    274  M. ELLINGSEN

    contexts.77 And the Pope’s staff is said to practice homosexuality.78 He


    denies the papacy any authority in 1520 polemics.79 Likewise in 1537
    he claims that Papists are not the Church.80 And in 1545 says he regrets
    how much he conceded to the Pope in his earlier writings.81
    These critiques are clearly related to their context, either polemics
    or the Reformer’s concern about being possibly being misinterpreted.
    For even late in his career against Anabaptists, Luther claimed that the
    Catholic Church remains the Body of Christ.82

    Concluding Findings
    Except in contexts when Luther was exhorting good works, Luther’s
    doctrine of the Church is in line with his grace alone emphasis. The
    Church is a creation of God’s grace through the Word (and sometimes
    the Sacraments). But the Reformer embodies real pastoral sensitivity (as
    is reflected in his theology as a whole) regarding daily church life. He
    seeks to avoid conflict on external matters not central to the Gospel.
    And for him, polity is merely a matter of pragmatically whatever works.
    We will see these commitments in action again in the next chapter as we
    examine his views on Ministry.

    Notes
    1. Schmal.Art., III.12, WA50:249f., 24ff./ BC:324f.2–3; cf.Konz., WA50:624f.,
    26ff./ LW41:143.
    2. Ab.Chr., WA26:506, 30/ LW37:367.
    3. Adv., WA10I/2:48, 5–6/ CS1/1:44.
    4. Dict.Ps., WA4:240, 6/ LW11:373; Gen., WA43:428f., 30ff./ LW4: 406–407;
    Bapst. Rom., WA6:296f,, 28ff./ LW39:70.
    5. Vor. N.T., WADB7:420, 4/ LW35:410–411; Konz., WA50:629,19/ LW41:149.
    6. Gen., WA42:424, 3/ LW2:229; Pot.let., WA30II :687, 35ff.; Inst.min.,
    WA12:191, 18/LW40:37.
    7. Jes. (1528–1531), WA31II:460,7ff./ LW17:257–258; Leip.Disp., WA2:430,
    6/ LW31: Capt.Bab., WA6:560f., 31ff./ LW36:107.
    8. Gen., WA42:422f, 37ff./LW2:229; Christ. ver., WA11:408,8/ LW39:305;
    Promodisp.Scot., WA39II:176, 8; Inst.min., WA12:191, 18/ LW40:37;
    Res.prop., WA2: 208, 25.
    9. Tract. Ec., WA1:3, 38; cf. Vor.Brent., WA30II:650, 19.
    10. Res.Cath., WA7:721, 9.
    11. Jes. (1527–1529), WA25:97, 32.
    11 CHURCH  275

    12. Disp.indulg., WA1:237, 22/ LW31:31.


    13. Konz., WA50:629, 34/ LW41:150: “Denn Gottes wort kan nicht on
    Gottes Volck, wiederumb Gottes Volck kan nicht on Gottes wort sein.”
    14. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:526, 1/ LW17:342.
    15.  Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:459,32/ LW23:288; Krichpost.G., W211:152, 27/
    CS1/1:170; 2.Ps., WA5:451, 1ff.; cf. Ab.Chris., WA26:507,119/ LW37:368;
    Bapt. Rom, WA6:292f., 37ff./LW39:65 (while critiquing the papacy). Also
    see nn.44, 46, below.
    16. Himm.Proph., WA18:66, 17/ LW40:83: “und der aller hőhet geyst,der
    den heyligen geyst mit feddern und mit all gefressen habe.”
    17. Krichpost.E., W212:813.2/ CS4/2:198.
    18. Bapt. Rom, WA6:301, 3/ LW39:75; Gen., WA43:582, 26/ LW5:223.
    19. Bapt.Rom., WA6:301,3/LW39:75; Grnd.Bull., WA7:410f.,8/ LW32:69;
    cf. Res.Cath., WA7:720, 32.
    20. Konz., WA50:628ff., 16ff./ LW41:148ff.
    21. Wid.Hans., WA41:479ff./ LW41:199ff.
    22. Gen., WA42:334, 12/ LW2:101.
    23. Kat.pred., WA30I:91, 19/ LW51:166; Gal. (1535), WA401:664, 18/ LW26:441;
    Ban., WA6:66, 18/ LW39:10.
    24. Con.lob., WA6:131, 16.
    25. Pred. (1523), WA12:486, 8; Ep. 1Joh., WA20:713f., 30ff./ LW30:278.
    26. Rom., WA56:275, 27/ LW25:263; Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:311f., 34ff./
    LW17:65–66.
    27. Kirchpst.E., W212: 812.1/ CS4/2:198.
    28. Gal. (1519), WA2:456, 17/ LW27:169.
    29. Antinom.(3), WA39I:515, 1.
    30. Hspost, W213II:1635.11/ CS5:268.
    31. Dtsch.Kat., II.3, WA30I:368, 1/ BC: 356.
    32. Res., WA1:615, 12/ LW31:229.
    33. Ambr.Cath., WA7:721, 1ff.; Konz., WA50:628f.,29ff./ LW41:148ff.; Dtsch.
    Kat., II.3, WA30I:190, 18/ BC:438.55.
    34. Serv.arb., WA18:657, 24/ LW33:88; Vor. N.T., WADB7:418ff., 36ff.
    35. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:700f., 25ff./ LW22:189ff.; 8.Ps., WA45:222, 12ff./
    LW12:112–113.
    36. Gen., WA42:575,14ff./LW3:37f.; Ibid., WA42:388, 15/ LW2:179; Ibid.,
    WA42:230,1ff./ LW1:312; Serv.arb. WA18:652, 23/ LW33:88. Also see
    Pelikan, Luther the Expositor, pp. 94–102.
    37. Gen., WA42:401, 21/ LW2:196; Ibid., WA44:111, 25/ LW6:149.
    38. Ibid., WA 44:249, 19/ LW6:333.
    39. Supp.ann., WA53:73f.
    40. Disp.potest., WA39I:191f., 25ff.
    41. Grnd, WA1:535, 23/ LW31:91.
    276  M. ELLINGSEN

    42. Wein., WA10I/1:140, 8/ CS1/1:169.


    43. Dict.Ps., WA3:268, 37. Also see n.15, above.
    44. Ab.Chr., WA26:507, 28/ LW37:368.
    45. Dict.Ps., WA4:25, 12/ LW11:176.
    46. Wein.,WA10I/1:140,8; cf.Dtsch.Kat.,III.3,WA30I:190,32/ BC:438.56.
    47. Gen., WA43:601, 7/ LW5:250: “... et ipse pater nowter, qui nobiscum
    loquitur, agit, operatun familiarissime, ut Ecclesia sit etiam porta coeli.
    Ideo enim nobiscum habitat, ut intermus in regnum coelorum. Et quod
    est dulcissimum, ipse prior venit et apparet nobis in Scala, descendit et
    conversatur nobiscum, loquitur et operator in nobis.”
    48. Serm. H.M., WA6:355, 4/ LW35:80–81.
    49. Gen., WA44:648, 32/ LW8:94: “Sic filios potuisset facere absque Adam.
    Sicut Adam initio nihil prorsus egit, cum formaretur ex limo terrae,
    neque Heua, cum ex costa Adae conderetur. Sed postea dixit: ‘Crescite et
    multiplicamini.’ Quasideceret: Nunc vobis cooperantibus creabo liberos.
    Sic in aliis actionibus omnibus communis vitae. Ich soll den paum nicht
    mit der nasen von einander hauen, sonder soll ein art, oder segen nemen.
    Arbor non est caedenda stiplua aut culmo, sed secure, Deus dedit prop-
    terea rationem homini, dedit sensus et vires. His utere tanquam mediis et
    donis Dei.”
    50. Gen., WA43:391,3/LW4:354: “Posset Ecclesiam congregare sine Verbo,
    gubernare politiam sine Magisterium, generare liberos sine parentibus…
    sed mandat nobis, et vult, ut praedicemus, ut oremus, et quilibet suo loco
    officium faciat…”.
    51. Vor.Deut.Schr., WA54:470, 8: “Denn wir sind doch nicht, die da kuen-
    den die Kirche erhalten unser Vorfarn sind es auch nicht gewesen, unser
    Nachkommen werdens auch nicht sein [Matth.28.20] Sondern der
    ists gewest, ists noch, wirds sein, der spricht, Jch bin bey [Hebr.13, 8]
    Euch bis an der Welt ende. Wie Ebre geschreiben stehet, Jhesus Christus
    [Off.1, 8], Heri, et hodie, et in secula. Und Apo.1. Der es war, der es ist,
    der es sein wird. Ja, so heisst der Man, und so heist kein ander Man, und
    sol auch deiner so heissen Denn du und ich sind vor tausent jaren nichts
    gewest, Da dennoch die Kirche on Uns ist erhalten worden, Und hats der
    muessen thun, der da heisst, Qui erat, und Heri… Und unser halben die
    Kirche fur unsern augen und wir mit jr, muesten zu grunde gehen (wie
    wir teglich erfaren) wo nicht ein ander Man were, der beide die Kirche
    und uns scheinbarlich erhielte, Das wirs moechten greiffen und fuelen,
    ob wirs nicht wolten gleuben, und muessens Den thun lasssen, der da
    heisst, Qui est, und Hodie. Eben so werden wir auch nichts dazu thun,
    das die Kirche erhalten werde, wenn wir tod sind, Sondern der wirds,
    thun, der da heisst, Qui venturus est, und in secula…”
    Cf. Wider Antinom., WA50:477, 1/ LW47:118.
    11 CHURCH  277

    52. Pred.(1522),WA10III:14f.,24ff./LW51:76–77; FormMiss., WA12:205f.,


    12ff./ LW53:19ff.
    53. Pred. (1522), WA10III:9, 9/ LW53:68.
    54. Rom., WA56:496,4/LW25:489; FormMiss., WA12:214,14/ LW53:30f.;
    Christ.vorm., WA18:417f., 37ff./ LW53:46.
    55. Gut.Werk., WA6:210,10/LW44:30–31; cf.Scott H. Hendrix, Recultivating
    the Vineyard: The Reformation Agendas of Christianization (Louisville:
    Westminster John Knox, 2004).
    56. Ban., WA6:66, 12/ LW39:10; Schluss., WA30II:502, 22.
    57. I Tim., WA7:630f., 10ff./LW28:281–283; Uber., WA7:630f.,10ff./ LW39:154–
    156; Unter. Visit., WA26:196f., 1ff./ LW40:269–271; Christ.ver., WA11:412,
    16/LW39:310–311; Christ.Bish., W53:231–260; BR (1521), WABR2:349, 23/
    LW48:235; BR (1528), WABR3:373,1/ LW49:87; BR (1528), WABR4:597,
    5/ LW49:214; BR (1530), WABR5:237, 1/LW49:264; Ibid., WABR5:414,
    1/LW49:334; Ibid., WABR5:631,1/ LW49:420; BR(1539), WABR8:568, 1/
    LW50:188; BR (1545), WABR11:29, 2/ LW50:247; Ibid., WABR11:115, 1/
    LW50:262; Ibid., WABR11:143, 1/ LW50:271;BR (1546), WABR11:292, 1/
    LW50:309.
    58. Inst.min., WA12:194, 14/ LW40:41.
    59. Christ. Adel., WA6:407ff., 10ff./ LW44:127–130.
    60. Christ. ver., WA11:408–416./ LW39:305–314.
    61. Sup.ann., WA53:73f.
    62. Christ. Adel., WA6:404, 14f./ LW44:123.
    63. Vot.monast., WA8:595, 19/ LW44:280; Ibid., WA8:579, 11/ LW44:254;
    Christ. Adel., WA6:438,25/LW44:172–173; cf. Schmal.Art., II.3, WA50:211,
    14ff./ BC:306.1–2.
    64. Disp. indulg., 42, WA1:235, 20/ LW31:29; Res., WA1:627, 25/ LW31:250;
    Serm. (1514–1517), WA1:69, 11/.
    65. Disp. indulg., 38,42,51,WA1:235,12ff./ LW31:29f.
    66. Res., WA1:529, 22. See the anti-papal edge in The Ninety-Five Theses 9,
    38, 42, 50, 55, 74, 91, WA1:22ff, 22ff./ LW31:10ff.
    67. Res., WA1:564, 16/ LW31:157.
    68. Act. Aug., WA2:8, 10/ LW31:262; Disp.Ec., WA1:161, 35/ LW31:318;
    cf. Act.Aug., WA2:22, 6/ LW31:284.
    69. Konz., WA50:613, 27ff./ LW41:130–131.
    70. Worm., WA7:838, 4/ LW32:112–113; Christ.Adel., WA6:411f., 38/
    LW44:133–136 (also teaching laity can interpret the Bible).
    71. Disp.Ec., WA2:161, 35; Bapt. Rom., WA6:286ff., 31ff./ LW39:57.
    72. Wider Pap., WA54:229, 24/ LW41:291: “Denn er noch nie ist uber die
    Bisschove in Affrica, Graecia, Asia, Egypten, Syria, Persia etc. gewset,
    wirds auch nimermehr werden, Ja er hat auch des Welschendlands
    278  M. ELLINGSEN

    Bisschove zu der Zeit nicht unter sich gehabt, sonderlich Meilan und
    Ravenna.”
    cf. BR (1519), WABR1:422, 68/ LW31:322; Act. Aug., WA2:20, 4/
    LW31:281.
    73. Gal. (1535), WA40I:357,18/ LW26:224: ”... Papa, ego voli tibi oscu-
    lari pedes teque agnoscere summum pontificem, si adoraveris Christum
    meum et permiseris, quod per ipsius mortem et resurrectionem habea-
    mus remissionem peccatorum vitam et aeternam, non per observationem
    tuarum traditionum. Si hoc cesseris, non adimam tibi coronam et potiam
    tuam.”
    74. Bapt. Rom., WA6:322, 5/ LW39:101–102.
    75. Gal (1535), WA40I:181, 7/ LW26:99.
    76. War.Papst., WA7:179, 25/ LW31:394; Gal. (1535), WA40I:406, 25/
    LW26:259; Vor.Emp., WA8:678,4/ LW45:60; Wied., WA26:147, 34/
    LW40:232; Schmal.Art., II.4, WA50:219, 16/ BC309.10ff; Capt.Bab.,
    WA6:537, 2/LW36:72; Mis.Mess., WA8:482, 28/ LW36:134; Serm.H.M.,
    WA6:374,28/ LW35:106–107; Res.Cath., WA7:722f., 28ff.; Ver.Kor.,
    WA53:394f., 31ff.; Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:678, 23/ LW22:163–164; BR(1518),
    WABR1:359, 28/ LW48:114; X-13 BR (1520), WABR2:195,13.
    77. Wider Pap., WA54:283, 35/ LW41:357.
    78. Ibid., WA54:222, 19/ LW41:282.
    79. Capt.Bab., WA6:498, 1/ LW36:12.
    80. Schmal.Art., III.12, WA50:249,24ff./BC:324.1; Wider Hans., WA50:487,
    7/ LW41:199.
    81. Vor.Lat., WA54:179f., 34ff./ LW34:328.
    82. Wider Hans., WA26:147f., 35ff./ LW40:232–233.
    CHAPTER 12

    Ministry

    Luther viewed Ministers as all who bring the Word. As such they
    are messengers or angels.1 The minister’s words are Christ’s words.2
    Ministry involves Word and Sacrament.3 On the other hand, the
    Reformer could also speak of the Minister as a mere servant.4 Ministers
    may be said to be masks of God, just channels.5 The one who plants or
    waters is not anything. It is God Who gives the growth.6
    Personal qualifications are not then criteria for Ordination for Luther.
    As he puts it:

    But God follows this method and chooses poor sinners, such as Saint Paul
    and we were, to fend off the arrogance and conceit of such wiseacres. For
    He do not wish to use such self-assured and presumptuous spirits for this
    work, but people who have been through the mill, have been tested and
    crushed… No, God must always retain the honor…7

    In much the same spirit he writes:

    I cannot foresee the fruit of my teaching, which people are to be converted


    and which are not… who are you, after all, to search out these things? Do
    your duty and leave the result to God.8

    Luther was then likewise concerned to keep pastors from being too
    harsh and unkind to the fallen. He would have them be moved by
    “motherly feelings.”9 He describes what a good preacher must do:

    © The Author(s) 2017 279


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_12
    280  M. ELLINGSEN

    First, he takes his place; second he opens his mouth and says something;
    third,
    he knows when to stop.10

    In addition the Reformer called for their industriousness and their being
    well-versed doctrinally.11
    When most who have heard of Luther think of his views on the
    Ministry they are likely to focus on the latter strand, to think of his affir-
    mation of the Priesthood of All Believers (1 Peter 2:9). On this matter
    Luther writes, highlighting the authority the universal priesthood confers
    on all Christians:

    Not only are we the freest of kings, we are also priests forever, which is
    far more excellent than being kings, for as priests we are worthy to appear
    before God to pray for others and to teach one another divine things.12

    Baptism admits us to the priesthood, Luther claims.13 The Reformer


    most notably endorses this vision in The Babylonian Captivity of the
    Church:

    We are all priests, as many of us as are Christians. But priests, as we call


    them, are ministers chosen from among us. All that they do is done in our
    name.14

    All that the ordained ministry does, it does in the name of the universal
    priesthood on behalf of the Church.
    This theme appears frequently in Luther, particularly in his earliest
    writings, especially when he is engaged in a polemic against papal author-
    ity or when he addressed questions about how one lives the Christian
    life. Ordination takes place only through the authority of the univer-
    sal priesthood, often through congregational actions, not through
    the Bishop’s authority to ordain.15 The argument is quite familiar. All
    Christians have been made priests in their baptisms. They are priests in
    the sense that Christians have been made people who deny themselves
    on behalf of their neighbor. In so doing they crucify (sacrifice) their old
    natures. It is this sacrifice which makes them priests.16 Luther also claims
    that we have all been made priests in order to proclaim forgiveness of
    sins to each other.17
    12 MINISTRY  281

    Since all Christians are priests, all share the same gifts and tasks.
    The ministry of Word and Sacrament thus belongs to all. However, if
    every Christian preached and administered the Sacraments there would
    be chaos. Thus Luther’s commitment to good order in the Church
    demanded that certain individuals be set aside to carry out these tasks.
    Preaching and administering the Sacraments are tasks that belong to
    all Christians. Every Christian is a theologian, he claimed.18 Yet the
    ordained minister is the one called to carry out these tasks publicly for
    the good of the congregation.19 Thus the main task of the pastor (the
    ordained priest) is not performing sacrifices but preaching, Luther claims
    while critiquing the Catholic Sacramental system. Holders of this office
    are better identified as ministers than as priests. They should be regarded
    as servants, the Reformer contends while teaching Christian living and
    critiquing Catholic polity.20 But, he added when dealing with church
    practice, they must have a call issued by a group of Christians or with
    the consent of a pastor.21 With this model for Ministry, authority comes
    from below, from the universal priesthood. From this line of thinking the
    denial of clerical celibacy, openness to the marriage of clergy, follows.22
    It is common to say that Luther hold a functional view of the
    Ministry—that on his grounds ministers are set apart from the laity sim-
    ply on the basis of the special work which pastors do.23 Yet even in doing
    that, pastors are involved in a representative activity. All that pastors do
    they do in the name of the Christian communities they represent. Of
    course the pastors’ performance of these special tasks does not release lay
    people from the same responsibilities. As priests, all Christians are called
    to speak the Word of God, share in the Sacraments, and participate in
    the Body of Christ. But pastors do this publicly as representatives of the
    whole community.24
    Luther is insistent that no one may assume the role of representative
    of the universal priesthood except by the community’s (the Church’s)
    consent by call of a superior.25 For the Reformer this entailed, as we have
    noted, that ordinary Christians are empowered to contradict and defy
    Bishops, scholars, or Council, for they have authority to confer authority
    on their leaders.26
    The problem with this model is that if pastors are to be representing
    the congregation it seems that one can never stand over-against a con-
    gregation, exercising authority over it on behalf of the Word of God. Of
    course Luther was at no point suggesting that the Church is an autono-
    mous entity. He never intended that the pastor be a mere functionary
    282  M. ELLINGSEN

    of the congregation’s wishes and wants. But then the problem is that
    someone must have the authority to judge if the church is not being the
    Church. The Reformer began developing an alternative model for minis-
    try in order to make this clear.

    An Authoritative Strand of Ministry

    The second strand of Luther’s view of Ministry predominates later in


    his career. Instead of talking about the authority of the office as derived
    from the universal priesthood, Luther argues that the Ministry’s author-
    ity is given directly by God. It is instituted by Christ Himself.27 Preachers
    are necessary, he claimed, even though some say they are not necessary
    and that their salaries could be used for better purposes.28 When pastors
    speak the Word, they proclaim with the authority of the Apostles, for the
    Gospel continues the true Apostolic Succession.29 This is true because
    God actually does the preaching when pastors preach—a point made
    when explaining the power of God’s Word. Luther has God say:

    … When the Word of Christ is preached, I am in your mouth, and I pass


    with the Word through your ears and into your heart. So then we have a
    sure sign and know that when the Gospel is preached, God is Present and
    would have Himself found there.30

    The character of the minister does not impede the Word, the first
    Reformer claims. “But the Word leads to Christ, though it be preached
    by a sinner.”31 He goes on to speak of the power of the Word:

    There is nothing around or in us that can do greater good or greater harm


    in temporal or spiritual matters than the tongue, although it is the smallest
    and weakest member.32

    These facts set the minister apart from the universal priesthood. As
    such, Luther is quite clear at some points in distinguishing clergy
    from laity.33 In The Large Catechism he spoke of the honor laity owe
    clergy.34 His attributing sacramental status to Ordination and identify-
    ing Ministry as one of the holy possessions or marks of the Church
    when addressing polity questions in face of chaos and corruption
    or depicting the logic of Christian faith further indicates that the
    Reformer embraced this second view of the Ministry.35 (Since Luther
    only made these claims in the contexts noted, it should be pointed
    12 MINISTRY  283

    out that he rejects Ordination’s status as a Sacrament in other con-


    texts when articulating the first strand.) It is quite evident that a lead-
    ership style in which clergy take charge, assume a prophetic role, has
    legitimate roots in Luther’s own theology, no doubt the result of his
    Catholic and biblical roots.
    Contrary to the assessment of some scholars, this second view of
    ordained ministry is not merely the product of development in Luther’s
    thought.36 Nor can it be substantiated, as several scholars have con-
    tended, that the universal priesthood is subordinated to the strand stress-
    ing the office’s divine institution.37 In fact, as in the case of the other
    doctrines considered, these apparently conflicting theological options are
    compatible.38 This is evident when we observe that Luther employed the
    model of Ministry as authoritative, as ruling over the congregation, early
    in his career, as early as 1520 in his Treatise to the Christian Nobility of
    the German Nation.39 By the same token, the dominance of this second
    view of the ordained ministry in his later period does not represent repu-
    diation of the priesthood of all believers. Luther continued to speak of
    the authority of the ordained ministry as grounded in the Priesthood of
    All Believers as late as 1535.40
    We can account for the dominance later in Luther’s career of this
    strand of Ministry as divinely instituted and so as having authority over
    the Church by the different pastoral concerns which dominated in this
    period. The new emphasis seems to be connected with the turmoil in
    Wittenberg (1521) which ensued as a result of the Reformation, the
    Peasants Revolt (1524–1526), and the horrible condition of the local
    churches which the Saxon Visitation of these parishes revealed (1527–
    1528). In short, Luther articulated his view of Ministry as divinely insti-
    tuted in situations when it became apparent that the common life of the
    Church was not proceeding smoothly, when there was chaos or a con-
    cern to maintain traditional practice. The idea of the universal priesthood
    carried to extreme was not maintaining or keeping the Church’s order.
    To do so in these contexts, to be overly concerned with popularity and
    friendship, is to shirk one’s duty.41
    As we have seen on other doctrines, there is a consistent pattern in
    Luther’s thought. In the case of Ministry, the time to emphasize the
    Pastor’s authority is when the concern is to keep order, when thinking
    about or addressing everyday church life. But when combating cleri-
    calism, legalism, or giving attention to Sanctification, a stress on the
    Priesthood of all Believers, on the functional character of the office of
    the Ordained Minister, is the way to go.
    284  M. ELLINGSEN

    Notes
    1. Kl. Proph., WA13:538, 12/ LW18:377.
    2. Pred. (1533), WA381, 4; Pred. (1540/1545), WA49:140, 10.
    3. Pred. Kind., WA30II:527, 17/ LW46:220.
    4. Matt.18–24, WA47:368, 32.
    5. Gen.,WA44:714,32/LW8:185; Ibid.,WA43:182,30/LW4:66; Jes. (1527–1529),
    WA25:255,20; Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:521,4ff./ LW24:66–67. Luther speaks of
    pastors as mere instruments in 2.Ps., WA5:257, 15ff.
    6. Ps.,WA31I:86f., 30ff./ LW14:56.
    7. 15.Kor., WA36:514, 16/ LW28:86–87: “So thut es Gott auch darumb,
    das er solche arme sünder dazu erwelet wie S. Paulus und gewest sind,
    das er solcher Klüger vermessenheit und dünckel wehre, Denn er wil
    nicht solche sichere, vermessene geister dazu haben, sondern solche leute,
    die zuvor wol durch die rolle gezogen, versucht und gebrochen sind und
    solchs wissen und bekennen mussen… das er [Gott] allziet den rhum und
    trotz behalte…”
    8. Gen., WA44:78, 10/ LW6:105: “Ego non possum praevidere fructum
    doctrinae meare, qui sint convenrtendi qui non… Tu enim quis es, qui
    haec quaeris? Fac tuum officium, et evenum Deo permitte.”
    9. Gal. (1535), WA40II:143, 18/ LW27:112.
    10. Matt.5–7, WA32:302, 24/ LW21:7: “Denn das sind die drey stuck,
    wie man sagt, so zu einem guten prediger gehoren: zum ersten das er
    aufftrette, zum andern das er das maul auffthu und etwas sage, zum drit-
    ten das er auch konne auffhoren.”
    11. Verm., WA30II:598, 33; Pred. (1525), WA17I:232, 15.
    12. Lib.christ., WA7:57, 24/ LW31:355: “Nec solum leges omnium liber-
    rimi, sed sacerdotes quoque sumus in aeternum, quod longe regno excel-
    lentius, quod per sacerdotium digni sumus coram deo apparere, pro aliis
    orare et nos invicem ea quae dei sunt docere.” cf. 1 Pet., WA12:317, 6/
    LW30:63; Capt. Bab., WA6:566, 26/ LW36:116.
    13. 1.Pet., WA12:317,10/LW30:63; Christ. Adel., WA6:407,22f./, LW44:127;
    Widder., WA8: 253, 23/ LW39:237.
    14. Capt.Bab., WA6:564, 11/ LW36:113: “Quare onmes sumus sacerdotes,
    quotquot Christiani sumus. Sacerdotes vero quos vocamus ministri sunt
    ex nobis electi, qui nostro. Nomine omnia faciant, et sacerdotium aliud
    hihil est quam ministerium.”
    Cf. Christ. Adel., WA6:408, 11/ LW44:128; Mis.Mess., WA8:486, 27/
    LW36:139 Lib.christ., WA7:56ff.,15ff./LW31:343–356; Christ. Adel.,
    WA6:407, 13/ LW44:127; Ibid.,WA6:408, 11/ LW44:129f.; Serm. H.M.,
    WA6:370, 24/ LW35:100.
    12 MINISTRY  285

    15. Christ. Adel., WA6:407, 22ff./ LW44:127–128; Ibid., WA6:408, 26ff./


    LW44:129–130; Ibid., WA6:409, 1 / LW44:130; Inst.min., WA12:179,
    15ff./LW40:20–21; Ibid.,WA12:189,17/LW40:34;Uber., WA7:628ff.,
    6ff./ LW39:151ff.; Widder, WA8:253, 3ff./ LW39:236–237; Christ.
    Ver., WA11:414,1ff./ LW39:312; Ibid., WA11:410, 29/ LW39:308.
    16.  Mis.Mess., WA8:492, 21ff./ LW36:145–146; Fast. (1525), WA17II:7,
    1ff.; Serm. H.M., WA6:369, 11ff./ LW35:99–101; Rom., WA56:443,
    10/ LW25:435.
    17. Kirchpost.G., W211:765.43/ CS1/2:398.
    18. Inst.min., WA12:190, 1/ LW40:35; Pred. (1535/1536), WA41:11, 9.
    19.  Inst.min., WA12:189, 17ff./LW40:34–35; Widder, WA8:253,29/
    LW39:237. See the next chapter for Luther’s openness to baptizing or giving
    absolution.
    20. Mis.Mess., WA8:494,24/LW36:148; Inst.min., WA12:189,28/ LW40:34.
    21. 82.Ps., WA31I:211, 17/ LW13:65.
    22. BR (1530), WABR5:458,6/LW49:367; Ibid.,WABR5:631, 12/ LW49:420–
    421.
    23. Christ. Adel, WA6:408, 26ff./ LW44:129–130.
    24. Capt.Bab.,WA6:564,15/LW36:113;Inst.min.,WA12:189,21/ LW40:34.
    25. Inst.min.,WA12:189,17/LW40:34; Ibid.,WA12:193f.,33ff./ LW40:40;
    Capt.Bab.,WA6:566,26/LW36:116;Christ.ver., WA11:413, 17/ LW39:311.
    26. Christ. ver., WA11:409f., 24ff./ LW39:307.
    27. Ab.Chr., WA26:504, 30/ LW37:364; Pred.Kind., WA30II:526f., 16ff./
    LW46:219; Konz, WA50:647, 8/ LW41:171; Verm., WA30II:598, 32/
    LW38:101; Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:381, 13; Gal. (1535), WA40I:59,
    16/ LW26:17; Ab.Chr., WA26:504, 30/ LW37:364.
    28. Pred.Deut, WA28:626, 10.
    29. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:421, 4/ LW24:66; Promodisp.Scot., WA39II:176f.,
    20ff.
    30. 
    Ex., WA16:210, 17ff.: “Denn Gott hat gesagt: wenn das wort vom
    Christo grepredigt wird, denn bin ich in deinem Munde und ich gehe
    mit dem Wort durch deine ohren in has hertz. Darumb so haben wir ein
    gewis zeichen und wissen, wenn da Euangelium gepredigt wird, so ist
    Gott gegenwartig da, er wil sich daselbt finden lassen, daselbst hab ich ein
    leiblich zeichen, dabey ich Gott erkennen und finden moge.”
    Cf. Verm.Christ., WA8:682f., 12ff.
    31. Kirchpost.G., W211:1524.20/ CS2/2:379: Aber das Wort führt von sich
    selbst herzu, ob es gleich von einem Sünder gepredigt wird.”
    32. Dtsch.Kat., I.VIII.291, WA30I:174, 21/ BC:425: “Denn es ist nichts an
    und ym gantzen menschen, das mehr und weiter beide guts schaffen und
    schaden thuen kan ynn geistlichen und weltlichen sachen, den die zunge,
    so doch das kleinste und schwechste gelied ist.”
    286  M. ELLINGSEN

    33. Brief. Schieich., WA30III:525, 10/ LW40:391–392; PS., WA31I:211, 1/ LW13:65;


    Capt. Bab., WA6:566,27/LW36:116; Lib.christ.,WA7:58, 19/ LW31:356.
    34. Dtsch Kat., I.4, WA30I:155, 3/ BC408.158.
    35. Konz., WA50:632f., 35ff./ LW41:154. He rejects the rite’s Sacramental sta-
    tus in Capt.Bab.,WA6:560,20/LW36:106;BR(1521), WABR1:594f.,19.
    36. Such an argument has been advanced by Lowell C. Green, “Change
    in Luther’s Doctrine of the Ministry,” The Lutheran Quarterly 18
    (1966):174, 178–179. For good surveys of secondary literature on
    this topic, see John Reumann, “Ordained Minister and Layman in
    Lutheranism,”Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, IV, eds. Paul C.
    Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979), pp. 230ff.;
    Helmut Lieberg, Amt under Ordination bei Luther und Melanchthon
    (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1962).
    37. Such an argument has been offered by Brain Gerrish, “Priesthood and
    Ministry in the Theology of Luther,” Church History 34 (1965):416,
    409; Arland J. Hultgren, “Forms of Ministry in the New Testament –
    and Reflections Thereon,” Dialog 18 (1979):209.
    38. For a similar position, see Robert H. Fisher, “Another Look at Luther’s
    Doctrine of the Ministry,” The Lutheran Quarterly 18 (1966):268–269.
    He argues that the two views of Ministry belong together in Luther inso-
    far as God establishes he Ministry through the call of the universal priest-
    hood.
    39. Christ. Adel., WA6:441, 22/ LW44:176; cf. 1 Pet., WA12:387,1ff./ LW30:132–
    133. For the Priesthood of All Believers, see Capt.Bab, WA6:566, 26/
    LW36:116.
    40. Ps.110, WA41:204ff., 3ff./ LW13:329–334.
    41. Matt.5–7, WA32:466, 12/ LW21:201–202.
    CHAPTER 13

    Sacraments

    Luther refers to the Sacraments along with the Word as Means of


    Grace.1 He defines Sacraments as the Word added to an element.2 They
    are promises with signs attached to them.3 Along with the Word they
    are said to be God’s masks (ways in which God is Present but hiding
    Himself).4
    The Reformer seems to take a more typical Protestant view against the
    Real Presence tradition of the Catholic Church when he claims that it is
    faith in the Sacrament, not the Sacrament, which justifies. It is not life-
    giving without faith.5 He rejects the Catholic idea that the Sacraments
    work ex opera operato.6 Faith receives the Sacraments, he insists.7
    Regarding Baptism, Luther insists that it is not the Sacrament, but
    faith, that justifies.8 Likewise regarding The Lord’s Supper—designat-
    ing faith as a constitutive element.9 The Reformer contends in these
    polemical contexts that even Confession requires faith.10 But when his
    concerns shift, as we shall see, this emphasis on faith as necessary for the
    Sacraments’ nature is diminished.

    How Many Sacraments?


    In polemics with the Catholic Church the Reformer denies seven, opt-
    ing for only two, like most Protestants.11 On some occasions he opts for
    three (including Confession as the third).12 In The Babylonian Captivity
    he claims that there is just one Sacrament in three Sacramental signs.13
    On one occasion Luther noted that Prayer might be called a Sacrament.14

    © The Author(s) 2017 287


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_13
    288  M. ELLINGSEN

    He was willing to refer to Extreme Unction as a Sacrament in a ser-


    mon on preparing to die.15 On at least one occasion, extrapolating
    on the nature of the Church, the Reformer even embraced all seven
    Sacraments.16 How many Sacraments for Luther? The answer seems to be
    that it depends on the context, and how far away from polemics with the
    Catholic Church he is.

    Baptism
    Luther defines Baptism as water used in accord with God’s Word. Both
    are necessary.17 The Baptismal sign is the entire liturgical action of being
    thrust into the water in accord with God’s Word.18
    For Luther, Baptism signifies the desire to die to sins. God then begins
    to make us a new person. The Spirit poured in us begins to slay nature
    and sin and prepare us for death.19 The Reformer preferred immersion.20
    Baptism is said to be a “bath of the new birth in the Holy Spirit.”21
    Baptism is not a work we do, but a treasure offered in the Word.22
    Christ is identified as the One Who baptizes.23 We are born again in
    Baptism, Luther affirms.24 In Baptism we are drowned in grace.25 We are
    made pure and guiltless.26 It is the “bath of the new birth in the Holy
    Spirit.”27 Luther teaches that the Spirit is given in Baptism.28
    Baptism is called a covenant of comfort by Luther.29 It leads to eternal
    life.30 But a person can be saved without Baptism, Luther insists, for if
    faith one has all that is given in Baptism.31 Sin does not break the power
    of Baptism. He writes:

    The ship remains one, solid, and invincible; it will never be broken into
    separate “planks.” In it are carried all those who are brought to the har-
    bor of salvation, for it is the truth of God giving us his promise in the
    Sacraments. Of course, it often happens that many rashly leap overboard
    into the sea and perish; these are those who abandon faith in the promise
    and plunge into sin. But the ship itself remains intact and holds its course
    unimpaired. If any one is able somehow by grace to return to the ship, it is
    not on any plank, but in the solid ship itself that he is born to life.32

    The Reformer does teach that Sin remains after Baptism. It is just not
    imputed.33
    When we sin, the Reformer notes, remembering our Baptism is some-
    thing to rely on.34 But when articulating the importance of personal faith
    13 SACRAMENTS  289

    (Sanctification) he taught that Sacraments have no power without faith.35


    We need faith to grasp them, to be of benefit to us.36
    However, in a polemic with Anabaptists on infant baptism, Luther
    claims that Baptism is valid even when there is no faith, a point he makes
    numerous times elsewhere.37 Like money Baptism is unaffected by not
    using it.38 Baptism is valid, even if done for illicit reasons.39
    As previously noted, Luther teaches that Christian life is a daily
    Baptism.40 Penance is said to be a return to Baptism.41 Baptism is a daily
    garment to wear.42 It is a garment; Christ Himself is the garment.43
    The dying and rising signified by Baptism can take place in various
    vocations and callings in which Christians find themselves.44 Luther
    writes:

    He [the Christian] takes comfort in the fact that through Baptism he is


    engrafted into Christ… Why should such a one fear death? Though it
    come anytime, in form of pestilence or accident, it will always find the
    Christian ready and well prepared, be he awake or asleep; for he is in
    Christ Jesus.45

    Luther believed that Baptism makes it possible to perform great things,


    even greater than what Christ did.46 One who baptizes is a priest and
    bishop. But he should not exercise the office without the consent of the
    community.47 Because of the universal priesthood, Luther taught that
    every Christian may baptize or give absolution.48

    Infant Baptism
    Luther concedes that there is no biblical basis for the practice (while
    insisting there is nothing in the Bible to authorize baptizing of only
    adults).49 He argues for infant baptism by appealing to the Church’s his-
    toric practice—that God would not deceive the Church so long were the
    practice not His Will.50
    Against those teaching believer’s Baptism, the Reformer claimed that
    they render their salvation uncertain, for we can never be certain of our
    own faith. If Baptism is based on our faith, then Baptism and faith have
    been made uncertain.51 Faith has been made a work.52 Luther also claims
    that infants should be baptized because they also belong to the promised
    redemption brought about by Christ.53
    Faith continues in sleep without reason, he contends, and so we might
    baptize infants who do not engage in outward expressions, but can have
    290  M. ELLINGSEN

    faith without being aware of it.54 He also taught infant faith on some
    occasions.55 On one occasion, while dialoguing with papal condemna-
    tions, taught that we baptize infants on the faith of the parents.56
    Dealing with personal faith, Luther teaches that infants have faith,
    affected through their sponsors like the infant lives through and gets
    life from the mother.57 However, he also taught that we do not baptize
    because of infant faith, but because of God’s command.58 In addition,
    he teaches that infants are baptized on the faith of the Church.59 The
    Catholic stress on the objective character of grace, that it works regard-
    less of our response, seems intact in Luther’s thinking.

    The Lord’s Supper


    For the Reformer the entire Sacramental sign of the Eucharist includes
    the eating and drinking of the elements—and so again like in Baptism
    includes the eating and drinking of the elements.60 He affirms the
    Real Presence—Christ in and under the elements.61 He authorizes
    this position by appeal to Tradition, common consent.62 This entails
    that Luther must affirm the ubiquity of Christ’s Body, that He can be
    Present everywhere at one time in the dispersed locations celebrat-
    ing the Eucharist. The Alexandrian commicatio idiomatum permits
    this, for on its grounds as God is omnipresent so must this be true of
    Christ’s Body.63
    Luther rejects transubstantiation.64 But it is said to be a less grievous
    error than is the symbolic view:

    Before I would drink mere wine with the Enthusiasts, I would rather have
    pure blood with the Pope.65

    In this connection he rejects private Masses.66 He also refused to spec-


    ulate on the duration of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (when
    Communion ends).67
    Luther affirms the manducatio oralis (the belief that we actually swal-
    low Christ, receiving Him bodily through our mouths).68 Christ is also
    said to be offered with the bread to the mouth of the believer and unbe-
    liever alike (manducatio impiorum).69 To make these points Luther
    was forced to teach about the Father’s Right Hand. He claims that it is
    where the Son resides and that it is not a specific place but “the almighty
    13 SACRAMENTS  291

    power of God which at one and the same time can be nowhere and yet
    must be everywhere.”70
    Luther was not always consistent in stressing Christ’s Presence in
    the Sacrament. Early in his career when critiquing transubstantia-
    tion he expressed an openness to respecting different opinions.71 And
    in some treatises related to the implications of the Sacrament for living
    the Christian life he did not take a position in Christ’s Presence. In one
    such treatise he went so far as to stress that the spiritual body is more
    important than the natural body of Christ in the Sacrament.72 In fact
    he expressed an openness to calling the elements symbols when pressed
    with rational speculation or seeking to depict a proper Christian response
    to Sacrament.73 The Reformer was also open to saying like Bucer and
    Calvin that the Body of Christ is not just in one place.74
    In order to make this point Luther returns to his definition of the
    Right Hand of the Father as not a particular place, but as “the almighty
    power of God, which can simultaneously be nowhere and everywhere.”
    Likewise Luther claims that Christ’s Body is everywhere.75
    Luther rejects the Mass as Sacrifice in dialogue with Catholicism, for
    it implies that Christ did not do all it took to save us on Good Friday.76
    But when dealing with issues related to Christian life he was open to call-
    ing the Sacrament a sacrifice in the sense that it makes us people called to
    sacrifice ourselves in service.77
    The Reformer also teaches Communion in both kinds.78 Yet in polem-
    ics on the practice, he did not advocate forcing this on recipients, but
    pastorally to instruct and not to take a position against the multitude.79
    Regarding preparation for receiving the Sacrament, Luther asserts that the
    true preparation for the Sacrament is believing the words that it is for us.80
    We must feel the need to receive, he asserts. Thus we should not withhold
    those with the desire for the Sacrament.81 For the Sacrament does not depend
    on our worthiness, Luther contends.82
    Indeed, when concerned with Sanctification and being a true
    Christian, he claimed that showing love and serving others need not be
    evidenced before receiving The Lord’s Supper.83 The Sacrament is of
    no benefit to those with no misfortune or anxiety, Luther maintains.84
    We have already noted that he taught manducatio impiorum—eating
    Christ to one’s detriment if receiving Him without faith.85 Luther was
    open to a compromise on this in his dialogue with Martin Bucer in The
    Wittenberg Concord as he accepted the idea of the reception of Christ
    by the unworthy (indigni).86
    292  M. ELLINGSEN

    Regarding who should receive the Sacrament, Luther praised Cyprian


    of Carthage for giving Communion to children.87 Whether old or
    young, it does not matter when receiving the Eucharist, he claimed.88
    He adds that Paul did not say that children could not come to the
    Altar, yet there is no urgency in Luther’s view about children receiving it.89

    Luther believed that when Christ’s Body is eaten we have life in us.90
    He claimed that just as there are many kernels in the bread, so every
    being is an individual kernel, and we are all one body or lump. This
    keeps Christian united in one mind.91 The Reformer says that the signifi-
    cance of the Sacrament is that we receive all the members of the Body,
    actually receive Christ and each other.92 Its significance is that we are
    changed into one another and made a community of love.93
    Speaking of the significance of the Sacrament for everyday life he
    wrote:

    But our Lord Christ desires that just as your greed speaks to you and
    preaches to you endlessly of money and goods, or power and honor, in the
    same manner you would let yourself be drawn and led into that life, and
    think on your Redeemer, Who died on the Cross for you; and so set your
    heart on fire, that you desire to be with Him, being weary of this world.94

    Confession
    We have already noted Luther’s openness to retaining Confession and
    the other additional Catholic rites as Sacraments, when not engaged
    in polemics with Catholic legalism. Even in his Catechism Luther calls
    Confession voluntary.95
    The Reformer described Confession as “the mutual conversation and
    consolation of brothers and sisters.”96 We must all confess that we are
    sinners, Luther taught. It is the cornerstone of how to become Christian.
    Without it, there is no rejoicing in forgiveness or comfort.97
    The Sacrament/Rite provides healing medicine.98 It consoles.99
    Luther rejected compulsory oral confession of sins.100
    No one can ever be sure of the integrity of his own Confession, Luther
    contends.101 Regarding contrition, Luther criticizes reliance on it or our
    spirituality. Contrition is the fruit of faith in the Word, he contends.102
    But we must be prepared to hate sin, Luther asserts.103
    The Reformer had problems with never being able to make adequate
    satisfaction for sin.104 He also had problems with the enumeration of sin.105
    13 SACRAMENTS  293

    Because he could not love God (an awareness of his Anfechtung and con-
    cupiscence), Luther’s Confession of sin was always imperfect in his view.106

    Critiquing the Catholic Sacramental system, Luther critiqued its


    claimed objectivity, contending “you have as much as you believe,” that
    the Sacrament does not depend on the priest or our own actions.107
    Luther’s alleged subjectivity emerges here against Catholic claims that
    the Sacraments work by working. In absence of clergy, laity might
    administer the Sacrament and give absolution, Luther claims.108 As late
    as 1539 he urged maintaining private Confession.109
    It is clear that the Sacraments played an important role in Luther’s
    view of Sanctification. And there are many obvious affinities between his,
    Roman Catholic and (even more) with Eastern thinking.

    Notes
    1. Schmal.Art.,III.7. WA50:246, 24/ BC:323.10.
    2. Ibid., III.6, WA50:241, 11/ BC:320.1; cf. Kl.Kat., IV.1 WA30I:255,20/
    BC:359.1–2.
    3.  Capt.Bab.,WA6:572,10/LW36:124; Serm.Tauf., WA2:727, 22/
    LW35:30; Capt. Bab., WA6:550, 25/ LW36:92; Anbet.Sak.,
    WA11:454, 21/ LW36:302–303; Serm.Bu., WA2:715, 10/ LW35:11.
    4. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:522, 11/ LW24;67.
    5. Res., WA1:544, 33ff./ LW31:106–107; cf. Capt. Bab., WA6:533, 21/
    LW36:67.
    6. Capt. Bab., WA6:533, 14/ LW36:66–67.
    7. Ibid., WA6:532, 25/ LW36:65; Ibid., WA6:550, 18/ LW36:92.
    8. Ibid., WA6:532f., 36ff./ LW36:66.
    9. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:749, 30/ LW35:60.
    10. Res., WA1:544f., 40ff./ LW31:107; Ser.Bu., WA2:715, 28/ LW35:11.
    11. Anbet.Sak., WA11:454,19/ LW36:302; Serm.hoch.Sak., WA2:744, 1/
    LW35:67.
    12. Capt. Bab., WA6:546,1/ LW36:86; Ibid., WA6:501,33/ LW36:18;
    Cont. Lov., WA54:427, 26 /LW34:356.
    13. Capt.Bab., WA6:502, 5/ LW36:19.
    14. Ibid., WA6:571f., 1ff./ LW36:123f.
    15. Serm.Bereit., WA2:692, 22/ LW42:108.
    16. Konz., WA50:643, 6/ LW41:166.
    17. Kl.Kat., IV.1, WA30I:308, 1/ BC:359.1–2.
    18. Serm. Tauf., WA2:727, 25/ LW35:30.
    19. Ibid., WA2:730, 26/ LW35:33.
    20. Ibid., WA2:727, 1/ LW35:29.
    294  M. ELLINGSEN

    21. Kl.Kat., IV.3, WA30I:310, 20/ BC: 359.10.


    22. Dtsch.Kat., WA30I:216, 31/ BC:461.37.
    23. Capt. Bab., WA6:530, 19/ LW36:62–63; Winck., WA38:239, 28/ LW38:199.
    24. Kl. Kat., IV.3, WA30I:311f., 27ff./ BC:359.9–10; Thes. Wel., WA2:48,
    16/ LW34:113; Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:13, 13/ LW22:285; Tauffbuch.,
    WA19:541, 14/ LW53:109.
    25. Serm.Tauf., WA2:727, 15/ LW35:29.
    26. Ibid., WA2:729, 28/ LW35:32.
    27. Kl.Kat., V.3, WA30I:381, 9/ BC:359.9: “Denn on Gottes wort ist das
    wasser, schlecht wasser und seine Tauffe, Aber mit dem wort Gottes ists
    eine Tauffe, dast ist, ein gnadenreich wasser des lebens und ein bad der
    newen geburt ym heiligen geist…”
    28. Serm. Sak., WA19:496, 20/ LW36:345.
    29. Serm. Tauf., WA2:730, 20/ LW35:33.
    30. Gen., WA43:526, 2/ LW5:141–142.
    31. Pred. (1522), WA10III:142, 17.
    32. Capt. Bab., WA6:529,24/ LW36:61: “Manet illa una, solida et invicta
    navis, nec unquam dissolvitur in ullas tabulas, in qua omnes vehuntur,qui
    ad portum salutis vehuntur, quae est veritas dei in sacramentis promit-
    tens. Hoc sane fit, ut multi e nave temere in mare prosilant et pereant:
    hi sunt, qui deserta promissionis fide in peccatum sese praecipitant.
    Verum navis ipsa permanent et transit integra cursu suo, quod, si qua
    gratia ad navem reverti potest, nulla tabula sed solida ipsa nave feretur ad
    vitam…”
    Cf. Dtsch.Kat., IV, WA30I:221f.19ff/ BC466.77ff.
    33. Rom., WA56:273f.,9ff./ LW25:261; Serm. Tauf., WA2:728,10/ LW35:30,
    33; Ibid., WA2:730, 12/ LW35:33; Grndg., WA7:343, 31/ LW32:28.
    34. Serm. Tauf., WA2:733, 18/ LW35:37.
    35. Kirchpost.G., W211:488, 24f./ CS1/2:81; Capt.Bab., WA6:527f., 37ff./
    LW36:58–59.
    36. Dtsch. Kat., IV, WA30I:216, 19/ BC:461.36; Gen., WA44:719, 24/ LW8:
    192.
    37. Dtsch. Kat.,IV, WA30I:218f.,24ff./ BC 463.52,54; Pred. (1533/1534),
    WA37:640f., 26ff.
    38. Pred. (1538), WA46:154, 11; Wied., WA26:159ff., 25ff./ LW40:246–
    248.
    39. Res., WA1:544,4/ LW31:105; Dtsch.Kat., IV, WA30I:219,5/ BC:463.55;
    Winckel., WA38:242, 1/ LW38:203.
    40. Dtsch. Kat., IV, WA30I:220, 21/ BC465.65; Capt. Bab., WA 6:528,
    20/ LW36:59; Serm. Tauf., WA2:728, 16/ LW35:30.
    41. Serm.Tauf., WA2:733,27/ LW35:38; Capt. Bab., WA6:528, 13/ LW36:59;
    cf. Kl.Kat., IV.4, WA30I:382f., 8ff./ BC:360.12.
    13 SACRAMENTS  295

    42. Dtsch.Kat.,IV, WA30I:222.10/ BC466.84ff. See Chapter on Sanctification.


    43. Gal. (1535), WA40I:541, 30/ LW26:353.
    44. Gen., WA42:369,3ff./LW2:153–155; Ibid., WA43:672f.,25ff./ LW5:354–
    355; Serm.Tauf.,WA2:731f.,30/LW35:33–34; Capt.Bab.,WA6:535, 17/
    LW36:69.
    45. Kirchpost.E., W212:907.20/ CS4/2:299: “…trőstet sich dass en durch
    die Taufe Christo eingeliebet… was will sich solcher Mensch fürchten
    vor dem tode? Er komme, welche Stunde er wolle, durch Pestilenz oder
    andern plőtzlichen Unfall, schlasend oder machend, so ist er allzeit
    bereit und wohlgeschickt; den er wird allezeit in Christo erfunden.”
    46. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:536, 16/ LW24:83.
    47. Christ.Adel., WA6:408,13/ LW44;129.
    48. Ibid., WA6:407f.,13ff./ LW44:127,129; Grnd., WA7:382,4/ LW32:51.
    49. Wied., WA26:169, 26/ LW40:258.
    50. Dtsch. Kat., IV.49, WA30I:218, 6/ BC:462f.49ff.; Wied., WA26:167f.,
    36ff./LW40:255–257; Ibid., WA26:155,29/LW40:241; Ibid., WA26:169,
    20/ LW40:256–257.
    51. Wied., WA26:154,31/ LW40:240; Ibid., WA26:164,18ff./ LW40:252;
    Ibid., WA26:171f.,10ff./ LW40:260.
    52. Ibid., WA26:161, 3/ LW40:248.
    53. Schmal.Art., III.5, WA50:241f., 28ff./ BC:320.
    54. Fast., WA17II:86, 5./ CS1/2:89.
    55. Pred. (1522), WA10III:310, 15; Anbet.Sak., WA11:453, 2/ LW36:301;
    Wied., WA26:156, 20ff/ LW40:242–243.
    56. Grnd., WA7:320, 15/ LW32:14.
    57. Fast., WA17II:82, 22/ CS1/2:84.
    58. Ibid., WA17II:82, 22ff/ CS1/2:84–85.
    59. Ibid., WA17II:78, 30; Anbet.Sak., WA11:452, 2/ LW36:301.
    60. Kl.Kat., V, WA30I:314.17/ BC: 362.2; Serm.hoch.Sak, WA2:742, 15/
    LW35:49.
    61. Kl.Kat., V/ WA 30I:317, 18/ BC. 362.2; Dtsch. Kat., V, WA 30I:223,
    22/ BC467.8; Wort., WA23:22, 33/ LW37:112; Ab. Chr., WA26:386,
    22ff./ LW37:258–259; Serm.Sak., WA19:490, 5/ LW36:341.
    62. Send.Al., WA30III :552, 8.
    63. Wort., WA22:151/ LW37:68f. Also see p.107, n.62.
    64. Capt. Bab., WA6:508, 7 /LW36:29.
    65. Ab.Chr., WA26:462, 4/ LW37:317: “Und ehe ich mit den schwermern
    wolt eytel wein haben, so wolt ich ehe mit dem Papst eytel blut halten.”
    66. BR (1536), WABR7:35,11/LW50:131; Winck.,WA38:205,32/ LW38:158;
    Serm. H.M., WA6:375, 30/ LW35:108.
    296  M. ELLINGSEN

    67. BR (1541), WABR10:349f., 14ff. Luther’s openness on this point reflects


    in his openness on the question of whether the Sacrament should be
    adored in Anbet.Sak., WA11:447, 26/ LW36:295.
    68. Wort. WA23:205, 13/ LW37:100–101.
    69. BR (1531), WABR6:216, 8/ LW50:7–8; Dtsch. Kat., V, WA30I:225,
    15/ BC468.16.
    70. Wort., WA23:133, 22/ LW37:57: “... die almechtige gewalt Gotts, welche
    zu gleich nirgent sein kan und doch an allen orten sein mus, Kirgent kan
    sie an einigem ort sein, spreche ich.”
    Cf. Ab.Chr., WA26:325ff., 24ff./ LW37:213ff.
    71. Capt. Bab., WA6:512, 4/ LW36:35.
    72. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:752, 1/ LW35:62.
    73. Mar. Ges., WA 30III:142, 15/ LW38:34; Serm. hoc.Sac., WA2:751,12/
    LW35:62; Anbet.Sak., WA11:449, 3/ LW36:296.
    74. Mar. Ges.,WA 30III:142,9/LW38:34; Ab.Chr., WA26:326,5/ LW37:214.
    75. Also see n.70. Ab.Chr., WA26:326, 5/ LW37:214; Ibid., WA26:329,
    27/ LW37:216; Wort., WA23:133,19/ LW37:56.
    Cf. Wort., WA23:145, 14/ LWLW37:64.
    76. Wort., WA23:270, 20/ LW37:142; Capt. Bab., WA6:512, 7/ LW36:35;
    Serm. H.M., WA6:367, 13/ LW35:97; cf. Miss.Mess., WA8:511, 22/
    LW36:168–169; Anbet.Sak., WA11:441, 32/ LW36:288; Schmal.Art.,
    III.2, WA50:200, 8/ BC:301.1.
    77. Serm. H.M., WA6:368f., 1ff./ LW 35:98ff.
    78. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:743,3/ LW35:30; BR (1530), WABR5:631,12/
    LW49:421; Capt.Bab., WA6:507,6/ LW36:27; Gl.Ed., WA30III:346ff.,
    36ff./ LW34:79ff.; Trost. Christ., WA23:417, 17/ LW43:156; Christ.
    Adel., WA6:502f., 18f./ LW36:20–21.
    79. Beid.Ges., WA10II:29f., 27ff./ LW36:254f.
    80. Kl.Kat., V, WA30I:391f., 5ff./ BC363.10
    81. Capt. Bab., WA6:504, 7ff./ LW36:21.
    82. Pred. (1522/1523), WA12:504f.; Kirchpost.G., W211:658f., 20/ CS1/
    2:278.
    83. Beid.Ges.,WA10II:39, 1/ LW36:264.
    84. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:746, 16/ LW35:55.
    85. Ab.Chr., WA26:353f., 8ff./ LW37:238; Dtsch.Kat., V, WA30I:231, 4/
    BC:474.69.
    86. BR (1534), WABR12:159, 19ff.
    87. Serm.H.M, WA6:377, 6/ LW35:111
    88. Konz., WA50:631, 12/ LW41:152.
    89. TR (1532), WATR1:157, 17/ LW54:58.
    90. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:241f., 40ff./ LW23:154.
    91. Hspost., W213II:1927.17/ CS6:45.
    13 SACRAMENTS  297

    92. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:748,7ff./LW35:50–52,59; Ibid., WA2:748,32/ LW35:59;


    Ibid., WA2:752f., 26ff./ LW35:65–67; Anbet.Sak., WA11:441, 11/ LW36:287.
    93. Serm.hoc.Sak., WA2:748, 24/ LW35:58.
    94. Hspost., W213II:1930, 25/ CS6:47: Da wolle nun unser lieber Herr
    Christus wiederumb gern bas haben, dass gleichwie bein Seizwonst der
    sagst und predigt imerdar von Geld und Gut, von Gewalt und Ehre, du
    dich auch also hierber kieszest ziehen und fuhren in jenes Leben, und
    gebrachtest am deinen Erloser, die für dich am Kreuz gestorben ist, und
    zundetest dein Herz also an, das du gern bei ihm wdrest, dieses Lebens
    hier müde wurbest…”
    95. Dtsch.Kat.,VI, WA30I:233, 20/ BC:476.1.
    96. Schmal.Art.,III.4, WA50:241, 1/ BC: 319.
    97. Hspost., W213II:1917.15/ CS6:36.
    98. Dtsch.Kat., VI, WA30I:237, 11/ BC:479.26.
    99. Schluss., WA30III:503,29ff./ LW40:373; Ibid., WA30III:506,23/ LW40:376f.
    100. Serm.poen., WA1:322, 21ff.
    101. Disp. Indulg., 30/ WA1:234, 35/ LW31:28; Grnd., 14, WA7:385ff., 7ff/
    LW32:53–54.
    102. Capt. Bab., WA6:544f., 21ff./ LW36:83–84.
    103. Ibid., WA6:159, 21/ LW39:30.
    104. Vor.Lat., WA54: 185, 21/ LW34:336; Gen., WA44:468, 5/ LW7:227;
    Schmal.Art., III.3, WA50:229f., 31ff./ BC:314f.16ff.
    105. Serm.Bu., WA2:721,32/LW35:20–21; Capt.Bab., WA6:545,9/ LW36:84–
    85; Gal. (1535), WA40II:15, 15/ LW27:13; cf. Serm.Bu., WA2:721, 22/
    LW35:20 – claiming it is enough to confess sins which frighten us.
    106. Vor.lat, WA54:185f., 21ff./ LW34:336–337.
    107. Serm.Bu., WA2:719.7/ LW35:16; cf. Ibid., WA2:715, 30/ LW35:11.
    108.  Ibid., WA2:716, 27/ LW35:12 (even women and children); Ibid.,
    WA2:722, 16/ LW35:21; Capt. Bab., WA6:541, 1/ LW36:87.
    109.  TR (1537), WATR4,:261,1/ LW54:334; cf. Kr. Trk., WA30II:118,
    14ff./ LW46:172.
    CHAPTER 14

    Eschatology

    Luther clearly maintained a Realized Eschatology, along with a lot of


    modesty about what can be known about the future. The End is at hand;
    we live in End Times, in worst of all times, Luther believed, what with all
    the corruption in the Church and in view of Turkish/Muslim threats to
    Europe.1 The Reformer claimed that the End is present wherever there is
    faith or good works are done, that the Christian life as a struggle with sin
    is eschatological.2 This entails an urgency about the present moment that
    every hour must be used.3
    Forgiveness of sin is said to be already present, though it and other
    gifts are hidden, to be revealed only in the life to come.4 Luther hoped
    for the Last Day.5
    Luther does not engage in millennial expectations. For him, refer-
    ences to the millennium in the Book of Revelation refer not to the End
    of the world, but to the time of the Church.6 He rejects chiliasm (predic-
    tions of a violent End when Christ comes again).7
    True enough, Luther did speculate about when the world might end.8
    And he was open to use of images and metaphor in describing the resur-
    rected experience.9
    When merely interpreting texts the Reformer contends that the Last
    Day will be unexpected.10 Sometimes he claimed that signs of the End
    are not yet here.11
    Luther advises we not rejoice in the present reality, but in the hope
    of things to come.12 For him the beginning is nothing; the end is eve-
    rything. This Eschatological perspective entails that we must disregard

    © The Author(s) 2017 299


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_14
    300  M. ELLINGSEN

    external evidence when contemplating God’s Works and cling only


    to His words, lest our eyes or senses offend us.13 The Theology of the
    Cross is suggested here, as Luther articulates the logic of faith in dia-
    logue with reason.
    The Kingdom of Christ is said to be Present, but hidden, not having
    its place in the senses.14

    The Harsh Reality of Death: Dialoguing


    with Alternatives

    In Luther’s view, death is experienced as an evil because it is a function


    of God’s wrath.15 The best that can happen in death in Luther’s mind
    is to accept it.16 Luther himself prays for death as it sets free from
    sin.17
    At first the Reformer did not deny purgatory, not doing so until
    1530.18 He tells us that he was uncertain about purgatory.19 If purga-
    tory is to be discussed, he claimed, we must remain open to different
    ideas.20 Belief in purgatory can lead people to live as they please. Thus
    the doctrine is a deception he once claimed.21 In 1522 he did say it was
    not found in Scripture.22
    Like his contemporaries, Luther also believed in witches23 Likewise
    wandering spirits were part of his worldview.24 But as we have noted pre-
    viously, he opposed invocation of the saints as mandatory.25 God does
    not want the dead spirits to teach us, he contends.26 And he opposed
    soothsayers.27
    Luther well appreciated the fear that death brings:

    It is in the nature of things for us human beings to find the struggles


    before death worse than death itself.28

    Death is not something the Christian must fear, Luther claimed:

    These words of Paul are an Christian admirable picture of death, represent-


    ing it not as an awful thing, but as something comforting and pleasant to
    contemplate… For not all the life and health and delight and joy of the
    world can make man as happy as he will be when he dies with a conscience
    at peace with God and with the sure faith and comfort of everlasting life.
    Therefore truly may this death of the body be said to be only a falling into
    a sweet and gentle slumber.29
    14 ESCHATOLOGY  301

    The judgment has been abolished by God, Luther adds. Because of


    this, as we have already noted, the Reformer contends that instead of
    harboring fear for the Final Judgment we should yearn for it.30 All [even
    unbelievers] will rise to be judged, he teaches.31 Luther says that this will
    be a happy day.32

    Soul Sleep
    Addressing despair, Luther claims that in death our souls are in God’s
    hands.33 This sets the stage for the idea of soul sleep which he embraces
    as an alternative to the prevailing view of that in death the soul proceeds
    with consciousness to God in heaven or for judgment.
    Luther teaches that the godly sleep in death.34 In this sleep, he claims
    at times that the soul may experience visions and discourses of God. The
    soul is said to sleep in the bosom of God.35 The period of sleep will seem
    but an instant for them. (Recall how time for and with God is but an
    instant.36) Regarding discourses with the dead reported in the Bible,
    Luther suggests that these discourses may go on in the conscience.37 At
    least in most pastoral contexts Luther was critical of the idea that the
    soul escapes the body and migrates to heaven.38
    By contrast, when sharing Greek philosophical assumptions and
    offering comfort the Reformer spoke of separation of body and soul in
    death.39 And when comforting or reassuring readers in the loss of a fel-
    low Reformer Urbanus Rhegius Luther seemed open to his enjoying
    eternal life in heaven now:

    So we know that our Urbanus, who always lived in faithful appeal to God
    and faith in Christ, who faithfully served the Church, and adorned the
    Gospel with the chastity and piety of his manner of life is saved, has eternal
    life, and eternal joy in fellowship with Christ and the Church in heaven.
    There now he is clearly learning, judging, and hearing what he set forth
    here in the Church according to the Word of God.40

    How We Will End up: Why We Don’t Know Much


    In death a person passes to an entirely different life, with no obligation.41
    As already noted, temporal categories are said not to apply to the after-
    life, just as they do not to God.42 Luther claims that we are like babies
    in a mother’s womb, not knowing what lies ahead, when it comes to
    302  M. ELLINGSEN

    realities of heaven.43 This explains why he is relatively quite about the


    nature of heaven and Eschatology.
    All our wants will be satisfied in heaven he claims, while respond-
    ing to some engaged in rational speculation about the Word.44 He also
    contends while preaching that heaven is eternal happiness with God.45
    Returning to refuting rational speculation he even suggests that we
    might even be able to fly.46
    By contrast, hell, he contends is not a specific place; it is nothingness.47
    In hell we are deprived of the vision of God.48 The terror of death is
    experienced.49

    Who Is Saved
    We have already noted Luther’s positions that only some might be saved,
    but when comforting despair he even taught the hope that all might be
    saved.50 He expressed explicit belief that the Roman pagan Cicero might
    be saved.51 He also left open the possibility of the salvation of unbap-
    tized infants.52 Luther was even open to the salvation of animals.53 On
    the other hand, when speaking of the evils of the devil or when engaged
    in polemics he expressly rejected universal salvation.54 Just as his teach-
    ing of Predestination, Luther takes different positions on who is saved
    in different contexts—ess inclined to teach all are saved the more he is
    engaged in polemics or exhorting works.
    On a related matter, in The Large Catechism Luther addresses the
    Credal formula of Christ’s descent into hell. He claimed in this text
    devoted to teaching of how to live as a Christian that hell is not a place,
    but is merely a way of expressing the work of salvation.55 But elsewhere
    when merely explicating texts he claimed Christ actually preached to
    those in hell, or at least expressed openness to the concept.56 Luther also
    teaches that Christ destroys the devil’s reign by His descent into hell, but
    that hell still holds unbelievers, comments made while offering comfort
    but safeguarding against speculation.57 Now the devil can be beneficial
    too, a comment made while explaining faith (exhortation to faith).58
    Luther did express openness to God imparting faith after death while
    merely articulating the logic of faith59 He also says that with Christ’s
    descent into hell the grave is a garden for saints. Torture and suffering
    are a whistling for the dance for eternal life.60
    Luther claimed that no matter how bad things look, Christ and His
    saints nonetheless win the final victory.61 In his view, the resurrected
    14 ESCHATOLOGY  303

    body will be pure, healthy, strong, and beautiful.62 It will rise in greater
    beauty and glory. It will be the body of a human being as it was created,
    but the body will have a different appearance and use. It will not eat,
    procreate, keep house. It will not need the things pertaining to transient
    life.63 But the key to Luther’s Eschatology is to realize that this vision is
    already on the near horizon, already realized in a sense whenever faith
    and good works given by the Holy Spirit transpire.64 Consequently living
    the Christian life needs to be undertaken with urgency.

    Notes
    1. Adv., WA10I/2:95,17/ CS1/1:62–63; Ibid., WA10I/2:101,5/ CS1/1:67;
    Matt.18–24, WA47:621, 2ff.; BR (1522), WABR2:567, 34/ LW49:13;
    BR (15390, WABR9:175, 17; 1 Pet., WA12:293, 1/ LW30:38; Ibid.,
    WA12:376f., 31ff./ LW30:122; 2 Pet., WA14:67, 12/ LW30:193;
    Vor. O.T., WADB11II:129, 15/ LW35:315 (says times are wretched);
    Pred. (1529), WA29:617ff., 14ff.; Sup. ann., WA53:22ff., 1ff.; Vor. N.T.,
    WADB7:413f., 32ff./ LW35:405–306; Verm.Fried., WA18:292f.,14ff./
    LW 46:18–19; BR (1519), WABR1:307, 21ff./ LW48:104; TR (n.d.),
    WATR1:574, 8; Wider Pap., WA54:206–299/ LW41:263–376 (it is said
    that the anti-Christ Pope attacks Christendom); Wider Turk., WA30II:149ff.
    (on the Turkish threat).
    2. Ps.45, WA40II:517,13/ LW12;231; Kl.Kat., III.2, WA30I:301, 28/ BC:356f.8;
    Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:222f.,40ff./ LW23:143; Ps., WA31I:156,, 1ff./ LW14:88;
    Gen., WA43:208, 18/ LW4:101.
    3. TR (n.d.), WATR6:359, 16; Jon.,WA19:226,20/ LW19:226; Rath., WA15:32,
    4.
    4. Fast., WA17II:229, 24/ CS4/1:166.
    5. BR (1544), WABR10:703, 6/ LW50:245.
    6. Vor. N.T., WADB7:416, 32/ LW35:409; cf. TR (1532), WATR1:136,
    14; Matt.18–24, WA47:561, 14.
    7. Pred. (1535–1536), WA41I:120f., 18ff./ LW13:263f.
    8. Sup.ann., WA53:22, 2.
    9. Pred. (1532), WA36:267f.,28ff./ LW51:253; Pred. (1533/1534), WA37:151, 8.
    10. Adv., WA10I/2:93, 24/ CS1/1:61.
    11. Ibid., WA10I/2:93,21/ CS1/1:61; Vor. N.T., WADB7:419, 19ff./ LW35:410
    (making this point while exegeting).
    12. Dict.Ps., WA4:380.35/ LW11:518–519.
    13. Wein., WA10I/1:382, 19ff./ LW52:104.
    14. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:563, 11/ LW17:388.
    304  M. ELLINGSEN

    15. Promodisp. Heg., WA39II:366, 19; Ps.45, WA40II:513, 5ff./ LW12:228;


    Ps.90, WA40III:515f., 26ff./ LW13:94.
    16. Pred. (1522), WA10III:76, 3.
    17. Kurz Vat., WA6:14, 14; Sterb., WA2:685, 22/ LW42:99.
    18. Grnd., WA1:555ff., 29ff./ LW31:125; Grnd. Bull., WA7:450f., 11ff./,
    LW32:95ff.
    19. Pred. (1523), WA12:595f.,38ff.; Wein., WA10I/1:588f.,20ff./ LW52:180–
    181.
    20. Grnd.Bull., WA7:454, 19/ LW32:98.
    21. Wein., WA10I/1:40, 4/ CS3/2:128.
    22. Ibid., WA10I/1:582f., 19ff./LW52:180–181.
    23. Ibid., WA10I/1:591, 1/ LW52:182.
    24. Ibid., WA10 I/1:587f., 2ff./ LW52:178–179.
    25. Dol., WA30II:643, 14. See the discussion of Prayer in the Chapter on
    Sanctification.
    26. Wein., WA10 I/1:587, 3/LW52:179–180.
    27. Ibid., WA10 I/1:590, 15/ LW52:182.
    28. Hspost., WA213II:1765.34/ CS5:384: “Und zwar mit uns Menschen
    allen ists also gethan, das der Kampf vor dem Tod am hőchsten, und
    schwerer ist, den der Tod selbst.”
    29. Kirchpost.E., W212:768f.24ff/ CS4/2:150–151: “Darum sind diese
    Worte St. Pauli ein sein schőn christlich Gemälde, so uns den Tod nicht
    schrecklich, sondern trőstlich und lieblich vorstellt und bildet… Denn so
    frőlich kann alles Leben, Gut Lust und Freude dieser Welt nicht machen,
    als mit gutem Gewissen sterben, im gewissen Glauben und Trost des
    ewigen Lebens; dass wohl mit Wahrheit solch Sterben des Liebes heisst
    nichts anderes den in einen santen, füssen schlaf gelegt…”
    Cf. Rom., WA56:357, 18/ LW25:347.
    30. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:106, 31/ LW22:364.
    31. Kl.Kat., II.3, WA30I:250,14/ BC:356.6; Ab.Chr., WA26:509,13/
    LW37:372.
    32. Vor.Rheg., WA53:401, 24; BR (1522), WABR2:567, 24/ LW49:12.
    33. Adv., WA10I/1:117f., 17ff/ CS 1/1:83.
    34. 
    Gen., WA44:519,14/ LW7:296; BR (1530), WABR5:240,64/ LW49:270; Hspost.,
    W213II:2549.19/ CS7:183; Kirchpost.G., W211:1864.34/ CS3/1:358; Gen.,
    WA43:360f., 42ff./ LW4:313. Pred. (1532), WA36:237f., 23ff./ LW51:231ff.;
    BR(1522), WABR2:442, 4/ LW48:360–361; Fast (1525), WA17II:235,17/
    CS1/2:179; cf. Gen., WA43:361, 14/ LW4:314.
    35. Gen., WA43:360,27/ LW4:313; Pred. (1522), WA10III:194,10/ CS2/2:28–
    29; cf. Wein., WA10III:197ff., 19ff.
    36. Pred. (1532), WA36:349, 8. See Note 42, below and p. 133, n.112.
    37. Krichpost.G., W211:1205.24/ CS2/2:27–28.
    14 ESCHATOLOGY  305

    38. TR (1542–1543), WATR5:218f., 31ff./ LW54:446–447.


    39. Promodisp.Pet., WA39II:354,25; Pred. (1532), WA36:241,26/ LW51:234.
    40. Pref. Proph., WA53:400,14: “Quare et Urbanum nostrum, qui in vera
    invocatione Dei et fide Christi assidue vixit et fideliter servivit Ecclesiae
    et Euangelium castitate et pietate morum ornavit, sciamus beatum esse et
    habere vitam et laeticiam aeternam in societate Christi et Ecclesiae coelis-
    tis, in qua non ea coram discit, ceruit et audit, de quibus hic in Ecclesia
    iuxta verbum Dei disseruit.”
    Cf. Gen., WA43:481, 23/ LW5:76; BR (1532), WABR6:301,6/ LW50:51;
    Pred. (1532), WA36:441,12/ LW51:234 (as here Luther seems to combine in
    a mixed context eternal life with soul sleep).
    41. Grnd., WA1:545,29/ LW31:108.
    42. Pred. (1523), WA12:596,26; Pred. (1522), WA10III:194,10/ CS2/2:28–
    29. Cf. Note 36, above.
    43. TR (1533), WATR3:276, 26; Gen., WA43:362, 27/ LW4:316.
    44. Pred. (1532/1534), WA36:595, 24/ LW28:144.
    45. Pred. (1533), WA37:151, 8.
    46. Pred. (1532/1534), WA36:594f., 40ff./ LW28:143; Ibid., WA36:657,
    30/ LW28:188.
    47. Kl. Proph., WA13:232, 19.
    48. Gen., WA43:362, 11/ LW4:315.
    49. Kl. Proph., WA13:232, 17.
    50. Send. Rech. WA10II325, 3/ LW43:54; Das were wol ein ander frag,
    ob Got eitlichen um sterben oder nach dem sterben den glawben sont
    geben und also durch den glawben sont selig machen. Wer wollt daran
    zweyffaln, das er das thun kunne. Uber das ers thue, kan nicht beweisen.
    Denn… wol lesen, das er todten zuvor widder auff erweckt hat und also
    den glawben geben.”
    51. TR (1532), WATR2:457, 20; Ibid. (1538), WATR4:14, 3.
    52. Gen., WA42:621f., 40ff./ LW3:103–104; Ibid., WA43:362, 7/ LW4:315.
    53. 1 Tim., WA26:79f., 35ff./ LW28:325, 326; Pred. (1532), WA36:596,
    19/ LW28:144 (just seen as a delight to the eyes).
    54. TR(1540), WATR5:9,7/ LW54:397; Ab.Chr., WA26:509,16/ LW37:372;
    Gen., WA44:677, 13ff./ LW8:134–135.
    55. Dtsch. Kat., II.3, WA30I:186, 33/ BC434.20.
    56. 1 Pet., WA12:368, 27/ LW30:114; Ibid., WA12:368, 10/ LW30:113; Gen.,
    WA42:323, 11/ LW2:86; Bet., WA10II :392, 14/ LW43:27. See Chap. 9.
    57. Torg., WA37:66, 1ff.
    58. Haus., WA52:296, 21.
    59. BR (1532), WABR2:422, 23/LW48:361.
    60. Torg., WA37:70, 37ff.
    306  M. ELLINGSEN

    61. Vor. N.T., WADB7:419f., 37ff./ LW35:410–411.


    62. Pred. (1532/1534), WA36:678, 27/ LW28:202.
    63. Pred. (1544), WA49:429f., 25ff.
    64. See Note 2.
    CHAPTER 15

    Social Ethics

    Luther’s Social Ethic cannot be understood apart from his Two-


    Kingdom Ethic, which in turn grows out of the distinction between
    Law and Gospel. Luther self-consciously appropriated Augustine’s
    views on the two cities.1 Given the Reformer’s Law–Gospel distinction
    and his Augustinian belief that the state must coerce obedience and jus-
    tice through the threat of punishment, the Reformer could not abide
    any view that would suggest that the Gospel be legislated by the state
    or made law of the land.2 Were that to transpire, the Gospel would be
    transformed into the Law, thus forfeiting Justification by Grace.
    The Reformer begins by dividing human beings into two classes,
    those belonging to the Kingdom of God and those belonging to the
    kingdom of the world.3 Thus church and government must remain
    distinct.4 Luther criticizes the mingling of secular and spiritual
    realms.5
    Law and Gospel are distinct, church and government are distinct, but
    not separate. As we shall observe, earthly government in Luther’s view
    is not purely secular; it belongs to God. And the Christian lives in both
    realms. It is true that as free the Christian need not be compelled by law
    to be subject to secular government:

    It is not that you must obey the law out of necessity, but you must do so
    to please God and to serve your neighbor.6

    © The Author(s) 2017 307


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_15
    308  M. ELLINGSEN

    Yet Luther does advocate obedience to government:

    We should be subject to power and do what they order, so long as they do


    not bind our conscience, so long as they give commands that pertain to
    external matters only, even though they deal with us as tyrants.7

    We should be obedient to government because we need it. The pur-


    pose of government is to bring about external peace.8 Without such
    order, law, and government authority there would be nothing but blood-
    shed in the world. It is a necessary antidote for our sinful world.9 Thus we
    cannot do without worldly government.10 It uses the sword and coercion
    to achieve this.11 While the main task of the Church is to battle sin.12
    Secular government and the civil righteousness it demands is good.13
    But of course, as we have noted, such righteousness is mired in sin. To
    the question of how these could then be divine ordinances, good crea-
    tions of God, Luther claimed:

    I said before that our righteousness is doing in the sight of God. Now
    if God chooses to adorn dung, he can do so. It does not hurt the sun,
    because sends its rays into the sewer.14

    Luther concedes that a worldly kingdom cannot exist without inequality—


    some lords, some subjects, he says (in response to Peasant egalitarianism).15
    If all the world were Christian the state would be unnecessary, Luther
    notes.16 But this is not the case. “The masses are and will be un-Christian,
    even if they are all baptized and Christian in name.”17 Along the lines of
    this distinction of the Kingdoms. Luther proclaims in one of his sermons:

    … it is necessary to make a distinction between God and men, between


    spiritual and temporal things. In earthly, human affairs man’s judgment
    suffices. For these things he needs no light but that of reason. Hence God
    does not in Scriptures teach us how to build houses, to make clothing, to
    marry, to wage war, to sail the seas, and so on. For these, our natural light
    is sufficient.18

    Reason’s legitimate role is not just confined to government, for Luther,


    but it is the innovator of art, medicine, and power.19
    There is no such thing as a Christian government, Luther claimed.
    Evil would reign.20 The secular realm should not encroach on God’s
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  309

    Kingdom.21 And yet, as we shall soon note, even on this commitment


    Luther was contextual.
    The Reformer clearly appeals to reason (and so the natural law) as the
    proper norm for government. In his 1534 Commentary on Psalm 101 he
    wrote:

    To be sure, God made the secular government subordinate and subject to


    reason, because it is to have no jurisdiction over the welfare of souls or
    things of external value but only over physical and temporal goods, which
    God places under man’s dominion, Genesis 2:8. For this reason nothing
    is taught in the Gospel about how it is to be maintained and regulated,
    except that the Gospel bids people honor it and not oppose it. Therefore
    the heathen can speak and teach about this very well, as they have done.
    And to tell the truth, they are far more skillful in such matters than the
    Christians; Christ Himself says (Luke 16:8) that the children of this world
    are wiser than the children of light.22

    He makes a similar point in one of his sermons:

    In external and worldly matters let reason be the judge. For there you
    can calculate and figure out that a cow is bigger than a colt… God has
    endowed you with reason to show you how to milk a calf…23

    This entails a critical use of biblical commandments, keeping those


    which embody the natural law, so some laws good for the Hebrew peo-
    ple should not bind other people.24
    Luther endorses the natural law as necessary for such peace and
    order.25 It is accessible to reason.26 All human life, family life, and gov-
    ernment should be regulated by the natural law.27 Thus for Luther the
    laws of the land should conform to the natural law.28 He speaks of the
    temporal law in tension with the spiritual law.29 On another occasion he
    seems to understand good government as guided by the common good.30
    Likewise when dealing with human accomplishments and their activities
    he speaks of government as part of the good created order, an extension
    of the family (and not just as an emergency measure to deal with sin).31
    Nevertheless, the Reformer was a realist about politics. At times he
    was even willing to appeal to German nationalism or the wisdom of the
    world in order to persuade his audience.32 Luther’s political realism led
    him to recognize the self-seeking coercive character of government and
    its rulers:
    310  M. ELLINGSEN

    A worldly kingdom, however, prefers to make enemies of friends by taking


    and demanding what is good… For how would a worldly king maintain
    himself if he did not demand or take anything from his subjects and friends
    but instead tolerated every evil, punished nothing, and let everyone ridi-
    cule him and make a fool of him.33

    Alas, there have been few wise and upright princes, Luther claims.34
    There is nothing wrong with political power, he observes. But it is
    bad to seek honor and glory and well-being rather than honor God and
    do one’s duty.35 This entails that one need not be a Christian to be an
    effective ruler, on Luther’s grounds:

    The question has been properly raised whether a prince is better if he is


    good and imprudent or prudent yet also evil. Here Moses certainly
    demands both, it is better for him to be prudent and not good than good
    and not prudent, for the good man would actually rule nothing but would
    be ruled only by others, and at that only by the worst people.36

    On this point the first Reformer adds:

    A prince can indeed be a Christian that he must rule; and in so far


    as he rules, he is not called a Christian but rather a prince. The per-
    son is a Christian, but the office or principality has nothing to do with
    Christianity.37

    Elsewhere Luther makes the case for how well non-Christians can govern.38
    The Reformer envisages a place for use of force in government.39 In
    the political realm it is not God’s Word and love, but force and coercion
    which are the means of rule.40 But this distinction he posits between
    church and government entails that none should be constrained by
    force to join the Reformation.41 Thus there can be no coercion of reli-
    gious beliefs by government.42 This distinction between the Kingdoms
    was contextual, like most things in Luther’s thought. Much in the tradi-
    tions of the Middle Ages and state churches in European Lutheranism he
    claimed once in the midst of addressing chaos that the government has a
    legitimate role in protecting the Church.43
    Of course the Reformer was critical of political authorities seeing
    themselves as heads of Christendom, comments made while critiquing
    rulers overstepping their bounds.44 But when dealing with the reali-
    ties of the German situation and exhorting faithfulness of rulers Luther
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  311

    was willing to allow that the state is not meddling if the princes inter-
    vene in church matters when the hierarchy is leading the Church astray,
    give orders to praise God, repress the godless, and support pastors.45 Of
    course he is quick to insist that this does not entail mixing the spheres.46
    In this spirit Luther writes:

    Whatever the world has it has by the blessing of the Church.47

    And yet he asserted, while offering comfort critiquing Peasants who


    claimed that the Word of God was not sufficient in what it accomplishes,
    that everything God grants the world is because of Christians.48 He
    adds, “we [even] have the establishment of the Church before there was
    any government of the home and of the state.”49 Indeed, the Church is
    said to have existed and been justified from the beginning of the world.50

    Political Engagement
    At times Luther seems to opt for something like a political passivity for
    obedience to government by Christians and by the Church, especially
    when stability was threatened by the Peasants or by Muslim invasions or
    when dealing with matters related to the practice of the Christian life.51
    He advocated striking and slaying the Peasants when critiquing their the-
    ology.52 We have no right to take military actions against superiors, he
    claimed.53 Such harsh attitudes towards others when purity of doctrine
    was at stake typifies Luther’s thought elsewhere.54
    This openness to Christians in government using violence against
    adversaries of government fits Luther’s endorsement of something like
    a just war.55 To be sure, he found war evil.56 Starting a war is wrong,
    he stated.57 A just war must be a defensive war.58 Of course in this and
    other government roles, it is necessary, Luther insisted, that this should
    be undertaken with a true Christian heart.59 Yet, he insisted, war is a sec-
    ular matter.60 And yet he did regard fighting the Turks as holy.61
    Such political passivity was not the Reformer’s only position. His com-
    mitment to the natural law as norm for political judgments led him to opt
    for critical views on the laws of the land. In one of his sermons he wrote:

    Men must adapt themselves to laws and regulations wherever possible and
    where the laws are beneficial. But where laws prove detrimental to men’s
    interests, the former must yield.62
    312  M. ELLINGSEN

    Luther has a balanced position on the matter critiquing government.


    On one hand he insisted that only when the Gospel is at stake should
    critiques of the rulers be offered.63 We should not say no to a public
    official, he once claimed.64 But he found it appropriate for preachers to
    exhort and critique rulers.65 He himself did criticize princes for exploit-
    ing subjects through taxes.66 In these instances even a revolt (at least dis-
    rupting order) might be valid.67
    On the other hand, Luther claimed that the main task of theologi-
    ans is to urge obedience.68 And although he was open to criticizing rul-
    ers when they sinned, he critiqued backbiting and critiquing the princes
    too.69 Luther was at some points (see above point) even willing to coun-
    tenance nonviolent resistance as a witness against injustice, to speak of
    conscience outweighing legal statutes.70 Luther advocated conscientious
    objection against unjust wars.71
    But early in his career he even was apparently willing to countenance
    the possibility of a Christian rebellion against injustice.72 This openness
    to resisting government when it contradicts the Word or justice is a func-
    tion of Luther’s realization that all structures are marred by sin. It is
    idolatry, he claims, to assume the person with whom I do business is an
    honest man.73

    Luther on Economics and Poverty

    The economic systems as we know them, the exploitation of nature,


    and the quest for wealth are in Luther’s view functions of the Fall.74
    Consequently, the Reformer’s view of government displayed a clear bias
    for caring for the poor, evidenced in his critique of the economics of
    his day which worked to the advantage of the rich at the expense of the
    poor.75 On several occasions he dialogued with the biblical reference in
    John 12:8 that we will always have the poor among us by rejecting pov-
    erty, and that is why we must resist this evil.76 He insisted that Christ’s
    Kingdom is also for the poor.77
    God is said to be the God of none but the lowly and oppressed.78

    God’s justice is different from that of the world, which does not pun-
    ish greed but rather regards it as a virtue. God, however, does not want
    the poor thrown off their property but that they be helped by a grant or
    loan.79
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  313

    Even sin is described by Luther in terms of economic justice. In a lecture


    he claimed:

    Many live for themselves. Meanwhile they neglect the poor, devote them-
    selves to prayer, and consider themselves saints. Yet it is not enough to
    have harmed one’s neighbor; God also demands positive uplifting of the
    needy through love.80

    Luther’s very definition of justice in Lectures on Deuteronomy makes that


    clear:

    This is the highest and most difficulty virtue of rulers, namely justice and
    integrity of judgment. For it is easy to pronounce judgment on poor and
    common people; but to condemn the powerful, the wealthy, and the friendly,
    to disregard blood, honor, fear, valor, and gain, and simply to consider the
    issue – this is a divine virtue. Nor does any ruler do this unless by the Holy
    Spirit he is given the courage through faith in God. Therefore the world is
    full of princes; but who shall find a faithful one? says Solomon (Prov.20:6).
    How often this statement is repeated by the prophets when they are accused
    of oppression and injustice toward the poor, the orphans, and widows!81

    The Reformer speaks of a role for the prince to support pastors and
    the poor.82 In The Large Catechism he makes a similar point about gov-
    ernment officials being responsible “to establish and maintain order in all
    areas of trade and commerce in order that the poor not be burdened and
    oppressed.” But their job is also to restrain “open lawlessness.”83
    In his sermons which exhort or lay out the logic of faith, he claimed
    that the Gospel is only for the poor (though in explicating the Gospel
    at this point, he referred only to spiritual poverty), that we find Christ
    in the neediest neighbor, that he never forsakes the needy.84 Christ is
    said to accept the lowliest and chooses those the world rejects. Christ’s
    Kingdom is also for the poor.85
    In fact, the Reformer notes in a sermon that the truly humble person
    associates with the simple spontaneously.86 But when exhorting Christian
    life, in characteristic fashion, Luther claimed that such behavior does not
    happen spontaneously but is said to be threatened and rewarded by God.87
    Luther went beyond these reflections to advocate on behalf of the estab-
    lishment of community chests for administering relief for the poor.88 This
    flows from his explanation in The Small Catechism of the Commandment
    not to kill. It is said to mandate that we are to “help and support them
    314  M. ELLINGSEN

    [our neighbors] in all of life’s needs.”89 He interprets the Ninth and Tenth
    Commandments this way elsewhere in a sermon.90
    Luther goes so far in one sermon to claim that all personal property,
    with the exception of what is need for the personal use, is unjustly pos-
    sessed and so should be used to help others.91 In his interpretation of
    the Seventh Commandment he calls on governments to help citizens.92
    He also claimed that Christians should critique government in order that
    “the possessions of the lower class may not be drained by usury…”93 But
    when dealing with the works-righteous propensities of the Peasants, he
    made clear that he was not opting for a classless society, with all lords
    and no serfs or for the abolition of private property.94 And he was also
    realistic in his policies of giving relief to the poor, insisting that there
    be strict regulations for the masses, lest they take advantage of generos-
    ity. In at least one text he seems to have argued that one who refuses to
    work should not be helped.95 This realism is evident in Luther’s proposal
    to abolish begging in cities, barring newcomers while ensuring that the
    poor in the town are taken care of.96 At least while articulating salvation
    by grace, he was not a proponent of the abolition of class distinctions.97
    On the other hand, Luther was critical of free-market capitalism. He
    claimed society would be better off (more godly) if farm work increased and
    mercantile activity decreased.98 For him, “charging for a loan was contrary
    to the natural law.99 This followed from his belief that money is unproduc-
    tive, not as valuable as real work.100 This reticence about such loans was not
    apparently based on these (outmoded) economic views rooted in Aristotle,
    but by his sense that we need to protect the needy, the orphan, and the
    poor, who are the ones most disadvantaged by contracts which cost them
    interest on loans.101 He was critical of the market where the poor are daily
    defrauded.102 About such capitalist dynamics Luther wrote:

    The world is defiant and courageous when its moneybags and bins are full.
    There is such pride and defiance that the devil could not get along with a
    rich peasant. Another person boasts of his nobility… One who has a little
    more power, honor, knowledge, favor, money, or goods refuses to yield to
    another person. But if we look at this aright, we find nothing but a foolish
    or childish reliance, without any stability.103

    Such financial maneuvering does not seem to bring happiness:

    When people have devoted all their care and effort to scraping together
    possessions and great wealth, why have they accomplished in the end?
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  315

    You will find that they have wasted their effort and toil… They themselves
    never found happiness in their wealth, nor did it ever last to the third gen-
    eration.104

    And yet, Luther insisted, “the desire for wealth clings and cleaves to
    our nature all the way to the grave.”105 The Reformer was also critical of
    the rich, claiming:

    Riches are the most insignificant things on earth, the smallest gift God
    can give a man… That’s why our Lord God generally gives riches to crude
    asses to whom He doesn’t give anything else.106

    Day and night everybody’s concern is how to make a living. And this stim-
    ulates greed to the point where no one is content… Everyone wants to get
    on better and have more.107

    We are blessed when content with our own lot. With desire, we have no
    rest.108 But Luther did approve if people climbed to higher positions.109
    In view of these commitments, it is not surprising that in a 1524 trea-
    tise he proposed that prices on commodities be set by a combination of
    government regulation and the free market:

    But in order not to leave the question entirely unanswered, the best and
    safest way would be to have the temporal authorities appoint in this matter
    wise and honest men to compute the costs of all sorts of wares and accord-
    ingly set prices which would provide from him an adequate living… Since
    this kind of ordinance therefore is not to be expected, the next best thing
    is to let goods be valued at the price for which they are bought and sold in
    the common market, or in the land generally.110

    In both his Catechisms Luther makes clear his critique of the free mar-
    ket. This point is further elaborated in The Large Catechism, as he even
    refers to the market as the scene of daily defrauding the poor as higher
    prices are imposed.111 Given these suspicions at a number of points in his
    career the Reformer endorsed Medieval sanctions against Zinskauf con-
    tracts (the late Medieval equivalent of interest-bearing loans), a position
    no longer viable in his context.112
    Recognizing that this was a losing battle, the Reformer began to
    concede the validity of Zinskauf as long as the rate was government
    ­regulated.113 He proposed different interest rates in his career, all well
    below the 30–40% fees characteristic in Germany during this era.114 He
    316  M. ELLINGSEN

    opted for 10% interest (with a sliding rate legislative proposals depending
    on the prosperity of the yield or with legislating a jubilee year of release
    of all debts) to as low as 5%.115
    These proposals were in tension with his claim in a 1540 remark at
    table that it is not proper for a preacher to proscribe government regu-
    lations concerning the price of food and taxes.116 Among some of the
    Reformer’s other economic proposals include his openness to a 10%
    income tax, forbidding monopolies and strictures on foreign trade which
    effectively robs nations.117
    Luther’s concern to reflect the interests of the poor is evident in his
    harsh condemnation of declaring false bankruptcies in order to save for-
    tunes, a practice apparently rampant in the 1520s.118 For the Reformer,
    while addressing the nature of the Christian life, the goal for economics
    seems to have been to establish a way of life in the middle—aiming at a
    sort of system that would be good for the emerging middle class. As he
    put it in his Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, great poverty,
    no less than great wealth, is dangerous.119
    In fact, the Reformer went on record as believing in general govern-
    ment regulation of the economy. In his Large Catechism he wrote:

    To restrain open lawlessness is the responsibility of princes and magistrates.


    They should be alert and resolute to establish and maintain order in all
    areas of trade and commerce in order that the poor may not be burdened
    and oppressed…120

    These corporate commitments matched, as we have observed, his own


    views on the responsibility of every Christian for the poor.

    Attitude Towards Jews and Muslims

    The anti-Jewish sentiments of the Late Middle Ages reflected even in


    the young Luther. In his earliest lectures he called them wretched.121
    However, not much later he calls for their humane treatment.122 He
    called on Christians to love Jews.123 This may have been done in hopes
    that they would convert.124
    But then he harshly and infamously condemns Jews in 1543. He
    calls for the confiscation of their property and that they be given man-
    ual labor. The rationale seems related to his efforts to defend faith from
    efforts of Judaizers.125 Rabbi Josel of Rosheim sought an interview with
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  317

    Luther in 1537 to ease their oppressions.126 Luther claimed he felt per-


    sonally betrayed by Jews and would not intercede for them.127 In a final
    sermon, though, he called for efforts at converting the Jews, loving
    them, though not if they refuse to convert.128
    Regarding interactions with Muslims, Luther was happy to see Christian
    princes fight the Turks/Muslims.129 He had read the Qur’an in Latin.130
    He called it a new Bible.131
    Luther urged the printing of a Latin translation of the Qur’an, writ-
    ing a Preface for it.132 Calling it a damnable book, he felt its circulation
    would show the fallacies of Islam.133
    Nevertheless, Luther remarks positively about the piety of the
    Turks.134 He appreciated Islamic spiritual discipline.135 He praised their
    civic and social virtues.136 Yet he regarded Islam as a religion of no
    forgiveness, grace, and the Holy Spirit, calling it a religion of works-
    righteousness.137 All religions, Luther seems to contend, fall into this
    category. Christ distinguishes form all religions, for the forgiveness of
    sins and grace are greater than the whole world’s act of worship. 138
    Luther writes:

    There are entirely too many Turks, Jews, heathen, and non-Christians
    among us with open false doctrine and with offensive, shameful lives.139

    The Turks were identified on two occasions as the Anti-Christ.140

    Treatment of Africans and Slaves

    Political passivity was evident in the Reformer’s thinking on the sub-


    ject of slavery in 1531 as he claimed in contexts of exhortation with
    some polemics in view as earlier in 1525 against anarchist Peasants that
    Christian freedom may be enjoyed by both the one who is free and by
    the slave, that Christian freedom is not political freedom.141 But in 1523
    he expressed openness to slaves escaping if the master compelled them to
    renounce the faith or to do evil.142 Two years earlier he was even firmer
    in his insistence that slaves should be permitted to flee, going so far as to
    maintain that a good commonwealth will grant slaves their life and liveli-
    hood. He wrote:

    Seventhly (v.15), they shall not give up a fugitive slave to his master, but
    should allow him to live with them, where it pleases him; nor shall he flay
    318  M. ELLINGSEN

    him. This, too, is obscure. For it is not permissible to keep the property
    of another, but a slave is property of the neighbor, just as an ox or an ass,
    which also should be restored when found. Therefore it must be under-
    stood of a cruel master who seeks his slave to kill him; when he forbids
    surrendering the slave, this suggests cruelty. Being given up into the hands
    of someone suggests being up to death. He wishes, therefore, that the life
    of the slave be preserved and that subsistence be granted them, lest in a
    well-ordered commonwealth the masters have free license. To save their
    lives, slaves are permitted to flee and become free, since liberty is to be
    given for an eye that was knocked out (Ex. 21: 26). It is fitting that a good
    commonwealth grant to slaves their life and livelihood.143

    What is not clear here is what the slavery on which Luther comments
    refers. It is quite likely not the modern slavery which peoples of African
    descent endured, but may refer here to the vassals of Feudalism. It is by
    no means clear how aware Luther might have been regarding African
    slavery, especially since Germany had no colonies. Perhaps Luther did
    not know of African slavery. But he clearly had comments on (North)
    African culture and its people.
    While regarding the Egyptian religion as idolatry, Luther also had a high
    opinion of (North) African culture.144 Praising its wisdom and morality
    he wrote:

    The morals of the Egyptians were more virtuous and their decency greater
    than among the other nations; for although polygamy was permitted
    among them, they appear to have lived more chastely than those who
    observed the monogamy … Whether Abraham instructed the Egyptians
    concerning these sciences [astronomy and mathematical], or whether like
    Moses, of whom Stephen declares (Acts 7:22) that he was learned in all
    the wisdom of the Egyptians he himself learned these matters from the
    Egyptians is of no importance.145

    Luther also defended Egyptian culture’s practice of assigning women


    certain male roles (as defined in the West) and vice versa. While criti-
    quing cross-dressing except as a matter of survival or in plan, he claims
    this should be understood in a general way, namely that men and women
    should each be concerned about their own things.146

    The Black presence in the Bible is also affirmed, as Luther taught that one
    of the Wise Men was Ethiopian.147
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  319

    Luther taught the idea that African people are descended from the off-
    spring of Noah’s ungodly son Ham (Gen.10:6–9).148 But he firmly rejected
    the Medieval myth that African people were children of the devil.149
    The first Reformer did embrace the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox
    churches as models for his Reform, affirming that they were true
    churches without the papacy:

    And who dare deny that one can be a Christian who does not submit to
    the pope and his decretals. Thus for more than eight hundred years they
    have thrown out of the Church of Christ Christians in all the Orient and
    Africa who never were under the pope or even understood the Gospel in
    that sense.150

    Even more striking is an insight about the impact of Africa on Plato, an


    observation which was borrowed from Clement of Alexandria:

    It seems that perhaps in Egypt Plato picked up a few sparks of thought,


    seemingly from the discourses of the patriarchs and the prophets, and for
    this reason came closer to the truth.151

    Luther’s pride in his German heritage clearly did not impede his appre-
    ciation of other cultures.

    Homosexuality and Marriage

    Regarding these issues, Luther was a man of his times. For him, marriage
    is between man and woman. It was essentially a patriarchal affair in late
    Medieval Germany. Thus Luther claimed that a wife should live under
    the authority of her husband.152 Women are said to be frail.153
    The Reformer regarded marriage as a nursery for the state and for the
    Church.154 It nurtures members of both. In a comment most relevant
    for disputes over gay marriage today, while addressing flawed marriages,
    Luther claimed that marriage is a civic matter, not really the business of
    the Church.155 But earlier when exhorting Christian life he had spoken
    of it Sacramentally.156
    Dealing with matters related to the Christian life, Luther tends defin-
    ing marriage in terms of male–female relationships. And he seems to
    condemn homosexuality, at least at one point when addressing the pas-
    toral concern:
    320  M. ELLINGSEN

    The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch


    as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the
    female, which is implanted into nature by God and desired what is alto-
    gether contrary to nature.157

    But it is interesting that Luther fails to mention homosexuality as a sin


    when considering in other publications biblical passages usually cited
    as condemning homosexuality (Rom.1:26–27; I Cor.6:9; Lev. 18:22;
    20:13).158 But the Reformer’s openness to the state determining laws
    of marriage seems further undergirded by 1530 comments on marriage
    regarding the force that biblical teachings on sex and marriage should
    have in our context:

    My reply is this: One must deal prudently with the laws of Moses, for
    his rule in marriage matters is at a completely different character than
    ours… This is why Moses’ law cannot be valid simply and completely in
    all respects with us. We have to take into consideration the character and
    ways of our land when we want to make or apply laws and rules, because
    our rule and laws are based on the character of our land and its ways and
    not on those of the kind of Moses, just as Moses’ laws are based on the
    character of our land and its ways and not on those of the land of Moses,
    just as Moses’ laws are based on ways and character of his people and not
    those of ours.159

    In any case, the affection heterosexual spouses have for each other
    pleases God, he claimed.160 It would be good for marriage, Luther adds,
    if we looked at our spouses according to God’s Word, for then we would
    treasure him or her as a divine gift leading to love and honor.161
    Of course the Reformer was realistic about the challenges of mar-
    riages, contending that it leads partners to ask God’s help.162 All sex,
    even in marriage, is not free of sin due to temptation of the flesh.163
    Dealing with issues of Christian living, marriage, he says, “may be lik-
    ened to a hospital for incurables which prevents inmates from falling into
    a graver sin.”164 Marriage protects people from sexuality’s potentially
    destructive nature.165
    But when engaging Catholic polity or praising marriage he noted how
    natural sexual feelings are.166
    To be sure, inconveniences should be expected in marriage, the
    Reformer observed.167 In our own household, things do not go as we
    wish.168 Spouses should be a little blind to each other’s faults, Luther
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  321

    advised.169 We can never have everything the way we would like to have
    it. We put up with filth and discomfort caused by our bodies. Why not
    do the same for a spouse given by God, he asked.170
    As noted, Luther celebrated sex, not blaming the sexual impulse just
    on women. He spoke of conjugal rights to each other’s bodies.171 Sexual
    boredom is the work of the devil in his view.172 He counseled a woman
    who did not receive sex from her husband either to run away or have
    an affair.173 In the same connection, in accord with Medieval custom,
    Luther was willing to sanction premarital sex in the context of a commit-
    ted relationship among those engaged.174
    The Reformer was a strong proponent of marital fidelity and opposed
    to divorce. Divorce is not God’s Will he taught.175 But he was open to it
    on grounds of adultery and failure to have sex.176 Luther did support a
    secret bigamy in two instances where marital sex was either not fulfilling
    (in the case of Prince Philip of Hesse) or not producing a male heir (in
    the case of Henry VIII). 177 He even states his preference for bigamy to
    divorce.178
    On the other hand, when addressing the Bible’s openness to divorce
    he expressed a willingness for government to prescribe that certain peo-
    ple (queer, stubborn, and obstinate) not suited for married life be per-
    mitted to divorce.179 In addition to openness to divorce on grounds
    of adultery and the ignorance of a spouse taking a vow of chastity and
    refusal to have sex, in one case Luther added drastic incompatibility as
    legitimate grounds for divorce.180 But invalidity preventing sex was not
    deemed grounds for divorce.181
    The Reformer expressed love for children, calling them the greatest
    gift of marriage.182 But he was also open to killing malformed children,
    claiming they had no souls.183

    Women
    Luther’s love for Katie von Bora is well known and certainly should be a
    starting point for understanding his thinking about male–female relation-
    ships.184 Although their relationship had patriarchal elements (he prom-
    ised to give her money if she memorized the Catechism), he sought a
    gentleness with her which was not typical of male–female relationships
    in his context.185 He spoke of her as “preacher.”186 Also “Lord Katy.”187
    His concept of vocation elevated women’s work, giving it a spiritual
    character.188 But in 1510 when exhorting faith with polemics in view he
    322  M. ELLINGSEN

    claimed that Paul’s statement about unity of male and female (as well as
    pertaining to slave and free) in Galatians 3:28 is not compromised by the
    obedience of wives are directed to give to their husbands. The unity of
    faith need not be shattered by such subordination, for dissimilarities in
    outer stations should be maintained as long as “it not be stronger than
    the similarity of inward faith.”189 In a similar context and objecting to
    Anabaptist fanatics in 1535 Luther reiterated that there is a distinction
    of persons in the world, even spoke of inequality. Women cannot become
    men (this is his only perspective on male–female relations here). Yet he
    insisted that in the sight of God all are equal.190
    Dealing with the Christian life in 1532, Luther speaks of women
    as not created for ruling.191 Of course he did claim when exegeting
    that male and female were created equal.192 But, he adds, women are
    weaker.193
    On the other hand the Reformer was critical of the literature of the
    day which vilified women.194 He called for government to end prosti-
    tution.195 He was willing to advocate for the education of girls.196 He
    held that as part of the common priesthood that women are capable of
    preaching.197 But they should not do so unless called.198 He could see
    this happening if suitable males are not available.199 Commenting on
    issues related to the actual practice of ministry Luther claimed that in
    emergencies women might administer Sacraments.200
    The Reformer also provided biblical examples of women teaching and
    ruling.201 But Despite his openness to the validity of their doing ministry
    in emergencies, when dealing with strictly ecclesiastical concerns, Luther
    would exclude women from ordination, presumably on grounds of
    their distinct nature.202 He did concede, though, that women may even
    preach as well as men.203
    On Social Ethics, Luther was clearly a man of his times in some
    respects, and yet on many issues he sounds remarkably modern, someone
    with a perspective which could help us reform the Protestant establish-
    ments and Reformation theology in our century.

    Notes
    1. Ps.101, WA51:242, 1/ LW13:198; Wellt. Uber., WA11:245–280 (esp.
    249) / LW45:81–129 (esp. 88); Kr.leut, WA19:629, 14/ LW46:99–100;
    1 Pet., WA12:330f., 30ff./ LW30:76ff. Those of the world are under
    the Law, Luther claims in Wellt. Uber., WA11:251, 1/ LW45:90; Ibid.,
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  323

    WA11:262, 3/ W45:105. On the need for secular government to be


    under the Law, see Kr.leut., WA19:629, 17/ LW46:99.
    2. Wellt. Uber., WA11:251, 22/ LW45:91; Ps.101, WA51:239, 22/
    LW13:194; Gen., WA42:79, 8f./ LW1:103–104.
    3. Wellt. Uber., WA11:249, 24/ LW45:88.
    4. BR (1530), WABR5:492, 10ff./ LW49:383.
    5. Ps.101, WA51:240, 27/ LW13:196.
    6. 1 Pt., WA12:332, 24/ LW30:78: “... So sollt yhrs doch gleych wol von
    euch selbs willig und ungezwungen thun, nichts als müsset yhrs von
    nott wegen hallten, sondern Gotte zu gefallen und dem neysten zu
    dienst.”
    7. 1 Pt., WA12:334, 29/ LW30:80: “Der gewallt sollen wyr untethan seyn,
    und thun was sie heyssen, weyl sie unser gewissen nicht binden und nur
    von eusserlichen dingen gepieten wenn sie uns gleych mit faren also
    tyrannen.”
    Cf. Hspost., W213II:1589, 10/ CS5:228; Gal. (1535), WA40I:51,
    24/ LW26:11–12; Christ.Adel., WA6:409, 16/ LW44:130.
    8. Wellt. Uber., WA11:251, 12/ LW45:91; Kauf. und Wuch.,WA6:40, 8/
    LW45:279.
    9. Erm. Fried., WA18:306, 6/ LW46:27; Pred. Kind., WA30II:554, 21/
    LW46:237.
    10. Pred. Kind., WA30II:554f., 35ff./ LW46:237.
    11. Send.Buch., WA18:389f., 10ff./ LW46:70.
    12. Gen., WA42:79, 8/ LW1:103.
    13. Kr. leut., WA19:629, 21/ LW46:99–100.
    14. Disp.just., WA39I:116, 4/ LW34:84: “Dilutio M.Lutheri: Prius dixi, nos-
    trum iustitiam stercus esse coram Deo. Nunc si Deus vult exonare ster-
    cus, potest facere; nihil nocet soli, quod mittit radios suos in cloacam.”
    15. Erm. Fried., WA18:327, 2/ LW46:39.
    16. Wellt. Uber., WA11:249f., 36/ LW45:89.
    17. Ibid., WA11:251, 35/ LW45:91: “Das wirstu aber nymer mehr thun,
    den die wellt und die menge ist und bleybt unchristen, ob sie gleych alle
    getaufft und Christen heyssen.”
    18. Wein., WA10I/1:531, 5/ CS3/2:319: “... du must hie scheyden gott
    und den menschen, oder ewig und zeitlich Ding. In zeitlichen dingen
    und die den menschen angehen, da ist der mensch vornunfftig genug,
    da darf er seyness andern liechts denn der vornunfft. Darumb leret auch
    gott ynn der schrift nit, wie man hewsser bawen, kleyder machen heyrat-
    ten, kriegen, schiffen, oder berglichen thun soll, dass sie geschehen; den
    da ist das natürliche Licht genugsam zu.”
    Cf. Wein., WA10I/1:531, 6.
    19. Thes.Wel., WA39I:175, 9–10/ LW34:127.
    324  M. ELLINGSEN

    20. Wellt.Uber., WA11:252, 1. LW45:91–92; Ibid., WA11:251, 22/ LW45:91.


    21. Ibid., WA11:261, 27/ LW45:104; Ehe., WA30III:206, 6/ LW46:266;
    Christ.Adel, WA46:454, 6/ LW44:194ff.
    22. Ps.101, WA51:242, 1/ LW13:198: “Zwar so hat Gott das weltlich
    Regiment der vernunfft unter worssen und befolhen, weil es nicht der
    seelen heil noch ewiges gut, sondern allein leiblich and zeitlich gütter regi-
    ern sol, welche dem menschen God unterwirfft. Gen.2. Derhalben auch im
    Euangelio nichts davon geleret wird, wie es zu halten und Regirn sey, on
    das es gepeut, man solle es ehren und nich da wider sich setzen. Darumb
    konnen hic von die Heiden (wie sie den auch gethan) wol sagen und leren.
    Und die wahrheit zu sagen, find sie ynn solchen fuchen weit uber Christen
    geschicht, wie auch Christus selbs sagt, das die kinder dieser welt kluger sind
    weder die kinder des liechts.”
    Also see Pred.Kind., WA30II:562, 27/ LW46:242; Wellt. Uber.,
    WA11:280, 16/ LW45:129. Cf. Deut., WA14;553, 21ff./ LW9:19; Wellt.
    Uber., WA11:272f., 32ff./ LW45:119; Ibid., WA11:279, 24/ LW45:128;
    Ibid., WA11:280, 12/ LW45:129. See Pred. (1530), WA32:304, 21, on the
    use of reason, not Christology, for economics.
    23. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:127, 6/ LW23:84: “In eusserlichen und Weltkichen
    sachen da lafs man der Vernunfft yr urteil, den da kanst du wol ausrech-
    nen und gedencken, das die Ruhe grősser sey den das Kalb… Gott hat
    auch dazu die Vernunfft gegeben das man Rühe melcken und Bferde
    zeuman solle und wissen…”
    Cf. Ps.101, WA51:242, 1/ LW13:198; Wein., WA10I/1:531, 6/
    CS3/2:319–320.
    24. Him.Proph., WA18:81, 4/ LW40:97–98.
    25. Gen., WA42:374/6ff./ LW2:160; TR (1532), WATR2:338, 3; Mos.,
    WA16:380, 17/ LW35:168; Gen., WA44:704, 13ff./ LW8:171–172;
    Gal. (1535), WA 40I:72, 23/ LW27:57; Wellt.Uber., WA11:280, 24/
    LW45:128; Kr. leut., WA19:638, 28/ LW46:110–11 – accessible to all
    and necessary for peace and order in the world. Gal. (1519), WA2:580,
    18/ LW27:355; Kauf. und Wuch., WA6:49, 4/ LW45:292.
    26. Wellt. Uber., WA11:279, 30/ LW45:128.
    27. Ev.Joh.14–16, WA45:669, 9/ LW24:228.
    28. TR (1531), WATR2:338, 1.
    29. Vor. O.T., WADB8:18ff., 31ff./ LW35:241.
    30. Wellt. Uber., WA11:271f., 27ff./ LW45:118–120.
    31. Mos., WA16:380, 14/ LW35:168; Antinom. (3), WA39I:540f., 1ff;
    Cf. Mos., WA16:376f., 19ff./ LW35:167;Ps.117, WA31I:238,26/
    LW14:20; Himm.Proph., WA18:81, 20/ LW40:98.
    32. Dtsch.Ord., WA12:232f., 32ff.; Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:294, 8/ LW45:246;
    cf. Wellt. Uber., WA11;272f., 33ff./ LW45:119ff.
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  325

    33. Zach., WA23:539, 1/ LW20:200: “Aber das weltliche reich macht viel


    mehr feinde aus freeunden damit, das es gut nympt und fodder und
    nichts ubels leiden wil noch kan. Denn wie wilt ein welt könig bleiben
    wenn er nichts solt foddern noch nemen von den unterthanen odder
    freunden Und solt alles ubel leiden, nichts straffen, sich uderman essen
    und narren lassen?”
    34. Wellt. Uber., WA11:267f.30ff./ LW45:113.
    35. Hspost., W213II:899, 17/ CS7:49.
    36. Deut., WA14:553f., 21/ LW9:19: “Et sane quaesitum est, an melior
    sit bonus princeps et impwdens vel prudens, tamen et malus. Certe
    utrunque hic Mose requirit, tamen si utrunque haberi non potest,
    melior est prudens et non bonus quam bonus et non prudens, quod
    bonus prorsus nihil regat, sed solum, regatur nec nisi a pessimis.”
    Cf. Wellt.Uber., WA11:268, 11/ LW45:113.
    37. Matt.5–7, WA32, 440, 9/ LW21:170: “Ein Furst kan wol ein Christen
    sein, aber als Christ mus er nicht regieren: und nach dem er regeiret,
    heisst er nicht ein Christ sondern ein Furst Die person ist wol ein Christ,
    aber das ampt odder Furstenthumb gehet sein Christentum nicht an…”
    Cf. Gal. (1535), WA40I:287, 28/ LW26:170.
    38. Ev.Joh.14–16, WA45:688f., 34ff./ LW24:227–228, as Luther also
    claims that even non-Christians can govern.
    39. Wellt. Uber., WA11:254f., 27ff./ LW45:95; Ibid., WA11:255, 12/
    LW45:96.
    40. Zach., WA23:513f., 36ff./ LW20:172.
    41. Pred. (1522), WA10III:18, 19/ LW51:77.
    42. Wellt. Uber., WA11:269, 9/ LW45:115.
    43. Erm. Fried., WA18: 292f., 31ff./ LW46:18; cf. Wider Bau., WA18:390,
    6/ LW46:70.
    44. Kr. Trk., WA30II:120f., 32ff./ LW46:185–186; Ps.101, WA51:239, 27/
    LW13:194.
    45. Christ.Adel., WA6:413ff., 1ff./ LW44:134ff. (claiming rulers might con-
    vene Councils); Ibid., WA6:408, 8ff./ LW44:129;Konz., WA50:623, 15/
    LW39:141–142; Ps.101, WA51:240, 13/ LW13:195; Ibid., WA51:217,
    25/ LW13:168; 82.Ps., WA31I : 199, 3/ LW13:52; Ibid., WA31I :204,
    9ff./ LW13:57; Ps.101, WA51:240, 13/ LW13:59; Ibid., WA51:216,
    22/ LW13:166.
    46. Ps.101, WA51:239f., 22ff./ LW13:194–195.
    47. Gen., WA44:161, 27/ LW6:217: “Et quicquid habet mundus, haben
    beneficio Ecclesiae.”
    48. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:535, 27/ LW24:82; cf. Ibid., WA45:529, 30/
    LW24:76; Ibid., WA45:529, 16/ LW24:75; Ibid., WA45:523f., 19ff./
    LW24:69.
    326  M. ELLINGSEN

    49. Gen., WA42:79, 3/ LW1:103: “Haec esst insitutio Ecclesiae, ante quam


    esset Oeconomia et Politia; nom Heua nondum et condita.”
    50. Promodisp.Schmed., WA39II:188, 26/ LW34:304.
    51. Pred., 49 /LW58:226ff.; Rom., WA56:123f., 16ff./ LW25:109; Wellt.
    Uber., WA11:277f., 28ff./ LW45:125–126. Such a critique of Luther
    has been offered by Ernst Wolf, Barmen: Kirche zwischen Versuching und
    Gnade (München: CHR. Kaiser Verlag, 1970), esp. pp. 113–114. My
    reading of Luther is more in line with Hermann Kunst, Martin Luther
    und der Krieg (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1968), pp. 9–10.
    52. Wider Bau., WA18:361, 24/ LW46:54–55.
    53. Kr. leut., WA19:633f., 20ff./ LW46:104ff.
    54. Rom., 56:224, 24/ LW25:209; Gal. (1535), WA40I:234, 24/
    LW26:133; Ibid., WA40I:282, 18/ LW26:166; TR (1533),
    WATR1:294ff., 19ff./ LW54:110; Jud. Und Lug., WA53:417, 1ff./
    LW47:137.
    55. Kr. leut., WA19:647f., 28ff./ LW46:121f.; Ibid., WA19:651, 17/
    LW46:125; cf. Ibid., WA19:629, 6/ LW46:99.
    56. Dtsch.Kat., III.3, WA30I:205, 23/ BC:451.80.
    57. Kr. leut., WA19:646, 17/ LW46:118.
    58. Kr. Trk., WA30II:130, 11/ LW46:185.
    59. Wellt. Uber., WA11:261, 20/ LW45:104.
    60. Kr. Trk., WA30II:113, 1/ LW46:166f.
    61. Verm.Trk., WA51:619f., 31ff./ LW43:238; Kr.Trk., WA30II:120, 25/
    LW46:174–175.
    62. Kirchpost.E, W212:370.19, “Also muss es ja sein, dass die Leute sich
    nach dem Gesetz und Werk schicken, wo sie konnen und ihnen gut ist;
    schädlich aber wiederum, wo es ihnen schädlich ist, soll wahrlich das
    Gesetz sich beugen und weichen…” Cf. Ev.Joh.16–20, WA28:36, 2;
    Wellt. Uber., WA11:276f.27/ LW45:124–125.
    63. Kirchpost.G., W211:1814.25/ CS3/1:305; Gal. (1535), WA40I:180ff.,
    14ff./ LW26:98–100.
    64. 1 Tim., WA26:321, 1/ LW28:256.
    65. Pred. Kind., WA30II:537, 26/ LW46:226; TR (1540), WATR5:32, 29.
    66. Erm. Fried., WA18:299, 21/ LW46:22–23.
    67. Serv.arb., WA18:677f., 29ff./ LW33:54–55; Gal. (1535), WA40I:180f.,
    14ff./LW26:98–100; Wellt. Uber., WA11:277, 2/ LW45:124–125; BR
    (1530), WABR:5:258ff., 7ff.
    68. TR (1531), WATR1:40ff., 22ff.
    69. 82.Ps., WA31I:196ff., 29ff./ LW13:49–51.
    70. Wellt.Uber., WA11:277f., 2ff./ LW45:124–125; Ehe., WA30III:246,
    23/ LW46:318.
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  327

    71. Kr.leut., WA19:656f., 22ff./ LW46:130–131; BR (1542), WABR10:36, 156;


    Wellt. Uber., WA11:276f., 29ff.,/ LW45:124ff.; Gut.Werk., WA6:265, 15/
    LW44:100.
    72. Ep.Pr., WA6:347, 17ff. Luther even engages in something like this sort
    of protest in Wellt.Uber., WA11:262, 16/ LW45:105.
    73. Kirchpost.G., W211:1811.19/ CS3/1:302–303.
    74. Gen., WA42:53ff., 31ff./ LW1:71–73.
    75. Kauf. und Wuch., WA6:58ff., 26ff./ LW45:305–306.
    76. Deut., WA14:657, 30/ LW9:148; cf. Erm.Fried., WA18:293f., 14ff./
    LW46:19ff.
    77. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:701, 8ff./ LW22:190.
    78. Jes. (1527–1530), WA31II:72,27/ LW16:102; Gal. (1535), WA40I:487f.,
    32ff./ LW26:314.
    79. Jes. (1527–1529), WA31II:42, 35/ LW16:61: “Aliud iudicium est dei
    quam mundi, qui avariciam non punit, immo pro virtute habet. Deus
    autem non vult expelli pauperes a suis, sed iuvari donando aut mutuum
    dando.”
    80. Jes. (1527–1529), WA31II:13, 24/ LW16:19: “Hic mirnum inmodum
    peccatur, multi sibi vivunt interim ovacioni vacantes neglectis pauperibus
    et sancti sibi videntur. Atqui non sastis est lesisse proximum, sed deus
    eciam exigit affirmativas sublaciores indigencium per Charitatem…”
    81. Deut., WA14:553f., 31/ LW9:19: “Heac est summa et difficilima vir-
    tus principium, aequitas scilicet et simplicitus iudicii. Nam paupers et
    ignobiles iudicare facile est sed potentes, divites et amicos posthabito
    sanguine, honore, timore, favore, lucro damnare sola inspecta causa
    hoc virtutis divinae est nec hoc facit ullus princips nisi spiritu sancto
    per fidem dei animatus, ideo mundus plenus est principibus sed fidelem
    quis inveniet, ait Solomo? Quoties ista sententia in prohetis moderentur
    leges.”
    82. Ps., WA31I:200, 5/ LW13:53; Ibid., WA31I:204, 28/LW13:57; Ibid.,
    WA31I:207, 1ff./ LW13:60.
    83. Dtsch.Kat., I.7, WA30I:168, 15/ BC: 419.249.
    84. Adv., WA10I/2:159f., 20/ CS1/1:101; Ibid., WA10I/2:168f., 22ff/ CS1/1:
    111; Kirchpost.G., W211:783.11/ CS2/1:22; Wein., WA10I/1:139, 13/
    LW52:39.
    85. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:701, 12/ LW22:190.
    86. Magn., WA7:562, 6/ LW21:315; Kirchpost.G., W211:1464.21/
    CS2/2:311.
    87. Hspost., W213II:2746f.35ff./ CS7:354.
    88. Ord. gem. Kast., WA12:11–30/ LW45:169–194.
    328  M. ELLINGSEN

    89. Kl.Kat., I.14, WA30I :244,23: “Wier solle Gott fürchten und lieben,
    das wier unsern nechste an seinem leyb seynen schadë noch laud thun,
    sondern ynn helfen und fördern in allen Leibesnoten.”
    90. Kat.pred., WA30I:85, 8/ LW51:161.
    91. Pred. (1522), WA10III:275, 7.
    92. Dtsch.Kat., I.7, WA30I:168, 16/ BC:419.249.
    93. TR (1540), WATR5;32, 19.
    94. Erm. Fried., WA18:327, 6/ LW46:39; Wider Bau., WA18:358f., 33ff./
    LW46:51.
    95.  Mos. Dec., WA24:676f., 28ff.; 28 Art., WA18:536, 1ff.; Kauf. und
    Wuch., WA15:309f., 17/LW45:267–268; Matt.5–7, WA32:397, 15/
    LW21:118.
    96. Christ. Adel., WA6:450f., 22ff./ LW44:189–191.
    97. Ev.Joh.1–2, WA46:698, 33/ LW22:187.
    98. Christ. Adel., WA6:466, 40/ LW44:213.
    99. Gr. Serm. Wuch., WA6:49, 4/ LW45:292: “Czum andern is das wider
    das naturlich gesetze…”
    100. Wider Wich., WA51:360, 9.
    101. Ibid., WA51:372, 19.
    102.  Dtsch.Kat., I.7, WA30I:166f., 30ff/ BC418.240; cf. Kat.ped.,
    WA30I:78, 1/ LW51:156; Kl.Kat., I.7, WA30I:286f., 31ff./ BC:353.14;
    Kirchpost.G., W211:1811.19/ CS3/1:302–303.
    103. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:568, 17/ LW24:118: “Die welt hat yren trotz
    und mut, wenn sie beutel und fasten vol hat, da ist solcher stoltz und
    trotz, das der Teuffel nicht sünd mit ein reichen bauren umbkomen, Ein
    ander trosset auff seinen Adel… Und wil keiner dem andern weichen,
    wer etwo mehr gewalt, ehre kunst, gunst, gelt, oder gut hat. Aber wenn
    mans recht ansihet, so ists hichts denn ein narren oder kinder trotz, der
    keinen bestand hat.”
    104. Dtsch.Kat., I.1, WA30I:138, 19/ BC:391.43: “Dencke du selbs zurück
    odder frage yhm nach und sage mir: die alle yhr sorg und vleis darauff
    gelegt haben, das sie gros gut und gelt zusammen scharreten, was haben
    sie endlich geschaffet?… sie selbs yrhes guts nye sind fro worden und
    hernach nicht an die dritten erben gereicht hat.”
    105.  Ibid., I.1., WA30I:133, 30/ BC:387.5–9: “Denn man wird yhr gar
    wenig finden, die guts muts sehen, nicht trawren noch klagen, wenn sie
    den Mammon nicht haben, Es klebt und hengt der natur an bis ynn die
    gruben.”
    106. TR (1542–1543), WATR5:240f., 26/ LW54:452: “Divitiae is das aller-
    geringste ding auff erden, das kleineste donum das Gott einem men-
    schen geben kan… Drumb gibet unser Herrgott gemenglich divitaas
    den groben efelln, den er sonst nicht gan.”
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  329

    107. Hspost., W213II:2364.1/ CS7:16: Denn jedermannes grosste Gorge ist


    Tag und Nacht, wie er woll ernährt werden. Und fördert das den seiz
    sonderlich whohl dass seiner sich au den genügen lasst… jedermann
    wollte gern höher kommen und mehr haben.”
    108. 1 Tim., WA26:111, 16/ LW28:371.
    109. Pred (1533/1534), WA37:170, 34.
    110. Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:296, 11/ LW45:249–250:”Doch das wyr nicht
    gar dazu schweygen, were das die best und sicherste weyse, das welltli-
    che oberkeyt hic vernunfftige redlich leutte setzte und verordenete,
    die allerley wahr uberschlugen mit yhrer koste und setzen darnach das
    mas und zill, was sie gellten sollt, das der kauffman kund zukomen und
    seyne zymliche narung daran haben… Weyl denn dise ordnung nicht zu
    hoffen ist, ist der nehiste und beste vad, Das man die wahr lasse gellten,
    wie sie der gemeyn marckt gibt und nympt, oder wie lands gewonheyt
    ist zu geben und zunemen.”
    Cf. Ibid., WA15:302,13/ LW45:258; Ibid., WA15:307, 11/ LW45:264–
    265; Dtsch. Kat., WA 30I:167, 9.
    111. Kl Kat., I.7, WA 30I:245, 6/ BC:353.14; Dtsch. Kat., I.7, WA 30I:167,
    9/ BC:418f.243ff.
    112. Kl. Serm. Wuch., WA6:5, 3; Gr. Serm. Wuch., WA6:50ff./LW45:294–
    296; Wein., WA101/1:638f., 28ff./ LW52:215; Christ. Adel., WA6:466f.,
    13ff./ LW44:213ff.; BR (1523),WABR3:176, 5/ LW49:52–53. Cf.
    Wider Wuch., WA51:332f., 22ff.
    113. BR (1524), WABR3:307, 54; Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:321, 25/
    LW45:309.
    114. TR (1540), WATR 4:565f., 15ff./ LW54:369; Ibid. (1538), WATR4:115,
    6/ LW54:316–317; Gen., WA44:673, 1/ LW8:128.
    115. Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:321f., 25ff./ LW45:309–310; BR (1524), WA3:308, 8.
    116. TR (1540), WATR5:32, 22.
    117. BR (1524), WABR3:308, 8; Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:305, 22/ LW45:262;
    Ibid., WA15:293f., 34ff/ LW45:246.
    118. Kauf. und Wuch., WA15:309f., 17/ LW45:267–268.
    119. Matt.5–7, WA32:439,18/ LW21:169–170; cf. Pred. (1532), WA36:349, 20.
    120. Dtsch. Kat., I.7, WA 30I:168, 16/ BC419.249: “…aber das man sol-
    chem öffentlichen mutwillen steure, da gehören Fürsten und oberkeit
    zu, die selbs augen und den mut hetten ordnung zustellen und halten
    ynn allerley hendel und Kauff, auff das das armut nicht beschweret und
    verdrückt würde…”
    121. Dict. Ps., WA4:367,19/ LW11:500; Rom., WA56:246, 24/ LW25:232;
    cf. Wider sabat., WA50:336, 14/ LW47:96f.
    122. J.Christ.,WA11:314–316/ LW45:199–229 (esp. 200); BR (1537), WABR8:89, 9.
    330  M. ELLINGSEN

    123. J.Christ., WA11:336, 22/ LW45:229.


    124.  Ibid., WA11:325, 16/ LW45:213.
    125. Jud. und Lug., WA53:417ff., 1ff.; WA53:447f.11ff./ LW45:174–176,
    199–229.
    126.  For Rabbi Josel’s charges about Luther’s lack of support, see Marvin
    Lowenthal, The Jews of Germany (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
    1936), p. 161; BR (1538), WABR 8:90f..46ff. Cf. Oberman, Luther:
    Between God and the Devil, p. 293.
    127. See BR (1537), WABR8:89, 9/ LW38:67. But see the translation of
    this letter in LW38:62/ WABR8:89ff. in which Luther speaks of having
    been misused by Jews. See TR (1537), WATR3:441f., 20ff./ LW54:239.
    128. Pred. (1545/1546), WA51:195, 25ff./ LW58:458–459.
    129. Wellt. Uber., WA11:270, 4/ LW45:116.
    130. Vor.Kor., WA53:272, 16/ LW60:254.
    131. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA45:534, 3/ LW24:69.
    132. Vor.Kor., WA53:569ff., 3ff./ LW60:289ff.
    133. BR(1542), WABR10:162, 32ff.; cf. BR (1538), WABR8:255, 9.
    134. Ev.Joh.3–4, WA47:62, 1/ LW22:335.
    135. Vor Lib., WA30II:206, 3.
    136. Wider Turk., WA30II:189f., 26ff.
    137. Kr.Trk., WA30II:123,7/ LW46:177–178; Ibid., WA30II:128,22/ LW46:183;
    Vor Lib., WA30II:205ff., 23ff.; Gal. (1535), WA40I:603ff., 25ff./ LW26:396–
    401.
    138. Ps.51, WA 40II:451f., 35ff./ :W12:396f.
    139. Kr.Trk, WA30II:131, 5/ LW46:186: “Es sind unter uns Turcken, Juden,
    Heiden unchristen alzu viel, beide mit offentlicher, falscher lere und mit
    ergerlichem schendlichem leben.”
    140. Haus., WA52:549, 31; TR (1532), WATR1:135, 14.
    141. Ev.Joh.6–8, WA33:659, 13ff./ LW23:404; Wide Bau.‚ WA18:359; LW46:51–
    52 Pred., WA49 /LW58:231–232; Gal. (1519), WA2:530, 31/ LW27:281.
    See Note 15, above.
    142. I Cor., WA12:129, 2/ LW28:42.
    143. Deut., WA14:709, 23/LW9:232–233: “Septimo ne servum tradant fugi-
    tivum domino suo, sed sectum habitare sinant, ubi illi placuerit, neque
    deglubant. Obscura et haec est. Neque enim licet rem alterius retinere,
    Servus vero res est proximi sicut bos et asinus, quae etiam inventa resti-
    tui debet. Intelligi ergo oportet de domini feroci, qui ad mortem quaerit
    servum. Nam atrociter sonat, quod tradi eum prohibet. Tradi autem in
    manus alicius fere ad mortem tradi sonat. Vult ergo servis vitam servari
    et alioniam permitti, ne dominis onmia liceant in republica bene insti-
    tuta. Et pro vita servanda licnit fugere et liberum fieri, cum etiam pro
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  331

    oculo excusso libertas dononda sit, Ex.22. Sic enim decet bonam rem-
    publicam servis vitam et victum permittere.”
    144. Ev.Joh.14–15, WA46:22f., 42ff./ LW24:323.
    145. Gen., WA42:480, 7ff./ LW2:305: “Itaque apud Aegyptios sanctior dis-
    ciplina et honestas maior fuit, quam apud alias gentes: quanquam enim
    Polygamiae licentiam ususrparent, tamen castius vixisse apparet, quam
    qui Monogamiam retinuerent… Sive igitur Abraham Aegyptios docuit
    de his artibus, seu ipse, sicut Moses, de quo Stephanus testator, erudi-
    tum eum fuisse in omni sapientia Aegyptiaca, ab Aegyptiaca haec didic-
    erit, nihil refert.”
    146. Deut., WA14:701, 2/ LW9:219f.
    147. Dict.Ps., WA3:470, 5/ LW10:412–413.
    148. Gen., WA42:398ff., 30ff./ LW2:193ff.
    149. Ibid., WA42:401, 7ff./ LW2:197: “Fuit enim eius manus contra omnes
    tum Ecclesias, tum Politias, donee per tyranidem sibi paravit Imperium,
    quod tamen non ad ipsum sed ad Sem pertinebat, sicut etiam sacerdo-
    tium. Sed filium Diaboli oportuit partis similem esse, Satan enim homi-
    cida est.
    Porro potentem in terra esse, non est per se malum…”
    Cf. Ibid., WA42:288/ LW2:37.
    150. Acta Augustana (1518), WA2:20, 4/ LW31:281: “…Non veniet reg-
    num dei observatione, et Christianum esse posse audent negare, qui non
    sub Romano Pontifice decretisque eius oppressus fuerit. Ac sic plusquam
    octingentorum annorum Christianos totius orientus et Affricae nobis ex
    Ecclesia Christi eiiciunt‚ qui nunquam sub Romano Pontifice fuerunt
    nee Euangelium unquam sic intellexerunt.”
    Cf. Wider Pap., WA54:229, 24/ LW41:291.
    151. Gen., WA42:4, 16/LW1:4: “Plato fortasse, ut videtur, collegit in
    Aegypto scintillas, quasi ex Patrum ac Prophetarum sermonibus‚
    Ideoque access it propius.”
    Cf. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To the Heathen, VI; Clement
    of Alexandria, The Stromata, I.XV; VI.IV.
    152. Res., WA1:603, 4/ LW31:207.
    153. 1 Pet., WA12:346, 8ff./ LW30:91.
    154. Gen., WA42:178, 31/ LW1:240.
    155. TR(1538)‚ WATR4:111,16/ LW54:315; Matt.5–7, WA32:376f., 38/
    LW21:93
    156. Serm.ehe.St., WA2:168, 13/ LW44:10.
    157. Gen., WA43:57, 27/ LW3:255: “Sodomitarum singularis enormitas est,
    discendentium a naturali ardore et desyderia, quod divinitus implan-
    tatum est in naturam, ut masculus ardeat in foeminam, et appetetntium,
    quod contra natura, poenitus est, unde haec et perversitus?”
    332  M. ELLINGSEN

    Cf. Dtsch.Kat., I.6, WA30I:163, 14/ BC415.219.


    158. Rom.,WA56:183f.,5ff./LW25:164–166;Bet.,WA10II:383f., 16ff./ LW43:19–
    20; Serm.Ruch, WA46:764,1/ LW51:293; Gen., WA44:57f., 28ff./
    LW3:255.
    159. Ehe., WA30III :225, 15/ LW46:291: “Antwort ich: Man mus mut Mose
    gesetzen weislich faren, Denn es hat mit seinem regiment ynn ehesachen viel
    ein ander gestalt den mit unserm, Sonderlich ynn zwey stücken… Darumb
    kan sein gesetze auch bey uns nicht yn allen stücken rund und völlig gelten,
    Denn wir müssen unsers lands gestalt und wesen ansehen, wenn wir recht
    und gesetz stellen odder brauchen wollen, Weil unser gesetz und recht auff
    unser und nicht auff Moses lande und wesen gestalt, gleich wie Mose gesetz
    auff seines nicht auff unsers volcks wesen und gestalt gestellet sind.”
    160. Gen., WA43:350, 30/LW4:299; cf. Eel.Leb., WA10II:298, 25/ LW45:42.
    161. Matt.5–7, WA22:371f., 38ff./ LW21:87;Dtsch.Kat., I.6, WA30I:163,
    14/ BC414.219.
    162. Gen., WA43:294, 33/ LW4:221f.; Stuf., WA40III:275; TR (1537),
    WATR3:380, 11/ LW54:223.
    163. Serm.ehe.St., WA2:167f.,35ff./LW44:9; Gen., WA43:454, 10/ LW5:37f.
    164. Serm.ehe.St., WA2:168, 1/ LW44:9: “Derhalben ist der ehlich stand nu
    nit mehr reyn und an sund, Und die fleyschliche Anfechtung szo grosz
    und wutend worden, das der ehlich stand nu hynfurter gleych eyn spitall
    der ist, auff das sie nit yn schwerer sund fallen.”
    Cf. TR (1540), WATR5:43, 2.
    165. Eel.Leb., WA10II:299f., 17ff./ LW45:43ff.
    166. Bull.Bep.Bis., WA10II:156, 13/ LW39:297; Eel.Leb., WA10II:275, 15/
    LW45:18; Schrif. Reiss.. WA18:275, 19.
    167. Gen., WA43:203, 14/ LW4:94; cf. TR (1536), WATR3:367f., 32ff./
    LW54:218.
    168. Matt.5–7, WA32:313, 31/ LW21:20.
    169. Prae.Witt., WA1:457, 33; Gen., WA43:451, 13/ LW5:32.
    170. Matt. 5–7, WA32:381, 7/ LW21:98.
    171. 1 Cor., WA12:101, 11/ LW28:13.
    172. Matt.5–7, WA32:374, 6/ LW21:89.
    173. Capt. Bab., WA6:558f., 19ff./ LW36:103–104; Eel.Leb., WA10II:278f.,
    30ff./ LW45:20–21.
    174. Ehe., WA30III:226f., 36ff./ LW46:293; cf. Serm.ehe.St., WA2:169, 8/
    LW44:11. 33.
    175. Eel.Leb., WA10II:288, 2/ LW45:31.
    176. Ehe., WA30III:241, 3ff./ LW46:311; Ibid., WA30III:215, 6/ LW46:278.
    177. TR (1540),WATR4:634,12/ LW54:382; BR (1531),6:178,4/ LW50:31ff.
    178. Capt.Bab.,WA6:559,20/LW36:105; 1Cor.,WA12:119,12/ LW28:32; Eel.
    Leb., WA10II:278f., 30ff./ LW45:120–21; BR(1531), WABR6:179,26/
    15 SOCIAL ETHICS  333

    LW50:33;TR(1540),WATR4:625f.,24ff./ LW54:379; Ibid. (1540),


    WATR4:634, 12/ LW54:382.
    179. Matt.5–7, WA32:377, 37ff./ LW21:94.
    180. Capt. Bab., WA6:557ff., 33ff./ LW36:102–106.
    181. Eel.Leb., WA10II:291f., 15ff./ LW45:35.
    182. Ibid., WA10II:301, 16/ LW45:46.
    183. TR (1540), WATR5:8f., 35ff./ LW54:396–397.
    184. BR (1526), WABR4:109, 8/ LW49:154; Ibid. (1540), WABR9:168,
    1ff./ LW50:208–212.
    185. Gen., WA43:129f., 38ff./ LW3:354. For his patriarchal manner of relat-
    ing to her‚ see TR (1532), WATR3:211, 18/ LW54:191; Ibid. (1538),
    WATR4:121, 18/ LW54:317.
    186. BR (1545), WABR11:149, 1/ LW50:277; Ibid. (1529), WABR5:154,
    1/ LW49:236.
    187. Ibid. (1534), WABR7:91, 1/ LW50:80; Ibid. (1529), WABR5:154, 1/
    LW49:236.
    188. Christ. Adel., WA6:409, 1ff./ LW44:130.
    189. Gal. (1519), WA2:530, 34/ LW27:281: “Hoc solum quaeritur, ut iis
    personis non contra unitatem fidei sed pro unitate fidel serviamus, ut
    non sit fortior dissimilitudo externae conditionis quam similitudo inter-
    nae fidei…”
    190. Gal. (1535), WA40I:544, 20/ LW26:355–356.
    191. Pred.Sol., WA20:149,1/LW15:130; cf. Ibid., WA20:12f., 24ff./ LW15:10.
    192. Gen., WA42:87, 27/ LW1:115; Ibid., WA42:103,14ff./LW1:137.
    193. Ibid., WA42:51f., 24ff./ LW1:68–69; Ibid., WA42:114, 2/ LW1:151.
    194. Eel.Leb., WA10II:298, 15/ LW45:42.
    195. Christ.Adel., WA6:467, 18/ LW44:214–215.
    196. Ord. gem. Kast., WA12:25, 16/ LW45:188–189; Rath., WA15:47, 7ff./
    LW45:370–371.
    197. Widder., WA8:251, 10/ LW39:234; 1 Pet., WA12:308, 4/ LW30:54.
    198. 1 Pet., WA12:309, 3/ LW30:55.
    199. Miss.Mess., WA8:498, 12/ LW36:152.
    200. Konz., WA50:633,12/LW41:154; Inst.min.,WA12:181,30/ LW40:23;
    Grnd., WA7:383, 21/ LW32:52.
    201. Gen., WA43:415f., 42ff./ LW4:389.
    202. Konz., WA50:633, 16/ LW41:154–155.
    203. 1 Pet., WA12:389, 10/ LW30:135; Ibid., WA12:308f., 30ff./ LW30:54.
    CHAPTER 16

    Conclusion: How Luther Still Reforms Us


    Today

    The rich diversity of Luther’s thought and the contextual pattern with
    which he deploys it are readily apparent. Basically we can observe
    the pattern entails that when engaged in polemics and defending
    Justification By Grace Alone the Reformer is more inclined, like his men-
    tor Augustine, to construe various doctrines in more polar-dialectical
    fashion (distinguishing grace and works, Law and Gospel, only Two
    Uses of the Law, reason and faith, etc.).1 These elements of his Theology
    of the Cross remain largely in place when exhorting or explaining the
    logic of faith. But when exhorting Christian living or comforting despair
    then these tensions are smoothed out by the Reformer in dealing with
    the various doctrines.
    Luther conceded that Scripture talks about the various doctrinal
    themes in various ways.2 Perhaps because of his heavier emphasis on
    polemics with legalism, his inclination not to stress Sanctification as
    much, the heart of Luther’s theology is grace, an emphasis on giving
    God the glory. In a sermon while responding to Roman Catholic polem-
    ics he observed reflectively:

    I would rather people say that I preach too sweetly and that it hinders peo-
    ple from doing good works (even though my preaching does not do that),
    than that I failed to preach faith in Christ, and there was no help or conso-
    lation for timid, fearful consciences.3

    © The Author(s) 2017 335


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9_16
    336  M. Ellingsen

    Once when dealing with the Christian life he summarized what it was all
    about in a way that may typify the heart of his theology:

    Thus the most reliable index to a true Christian is this: If from the way he
    praises and preaches Christ the people learn that they are nothing and that
    Christ is everything.4

    And similarly, quoting his mentor Johann Staupitz, Luther wrote about
    his theology:

    It pleases me very much that this doctrine of ours gives glory and every-
    thing else solely to God and nothing at all to men; for it is as clear as day
    that it is impossible to ascribe too much glory, goodness, etc., to God…
    And it is true that the doctrine of the Gospel takes away all glory, wis-
    dom, righteousness, etc., from men and gives it solely to the Creator, Who
    makes all things out of nothing. Furthermore, it is far safer to ascribe too
    much to God than to man.5

    For a person cannot praise God unless he understands that there is nothing
    in himself that is worthy of praise but that all that is worthy of praise is of
    God and from God.6

    The diversity of the biblical witness forms a unity in view of this focus
    on sin and forgiveness, for it reminds us that Scripture really is all about
    these themes, especially when Scripture is read in a narrative fashion as
    Luther often did. Relationships are complex, and so are stories or nar-
    ratives about those relationships. Relational dynamics are not always
    consistent, moving from fidelity to mistrust and betrayal, from birth
    to death, youth to maturity, tenderness and toughness. This is why the
    Bible and a theology emerging from the Bible seems contradictory, when
    in fact they are no more contradictory than the apparent contradictions
    in the stories of our lives, no more contradictory than the Theory of
    everything in modern physics (which posits truth in the mix of distinct,
    sometimes contradictory theories which are all aspects of truth).7 The
    overall story of our relationship with God, the diversity in Luther’s the-
    ology makes sense and offers great comfort. The comfort that this per-
    spective offers was nicely articulated by Luther in one of his sermons:

    The sum of the matter is this: Depressed or exalted, circumscribed in what-


    soever way, dragged hither or thither, I still find Christ. For He holds in
    16  CONCLUSION: HOW LUTHER STILL REFORMS US TODAY  337

    His hands everything… Therefore so long as He dwells in my heart, I


    have courage where I go, I cannot be lost. I dwell where Christ my Lord
    dwells.8

    Luther’s Theology can reform the theology that wants to grow out of
    his heritage in offering this comfort, but also in offering a fresh model
    for Systematic Theology in our new century. We have with the Reformer
    a rich resource for doing Pastoral Theology, for meeting different peo-
    ple’s needs, an ecumenical approach to Christian faith since what is char-
    acteristic of most traditions of the Church is found in his thought. And
    in addition he has provided us not just with rich insights and images, but
    also guidance on the use of these insights, about for what purpose they
    are intended and might best address. Luther can help us get Systematic
    Theology out of the academy and into the pews and the streets, even on
    the net. And that reform in our present practices might just turn things
    around for the Western church in the twenty-first century.

    Notes
    1. For this pattern in Augustine, see my The Richness of Augustine: His
    Contextual & Pastoral Theology (Louisville, KY: Wetminister John Knox
    Press, 2005).
    2. Gal. (1535), WA40I:415, 26/ LW26:265; Promodisp.Pall., WA39I:237, 17.
    3. Haus., W213II:20007, 8/ CS6:115: “Ich will viel lieber hőren, dass man
    von mir sage, ich predige zu süss, und dass meine Predigt die Leute hin-
    dere an guten Wercken (wiewhohl meine Predigt solches nicht thut),
    denm dass ich den Glauben an Christum nicht predigen sollte, und wäre
    da seine Hülse noch Rath für die blőden geängsteten Gewissen.”
    4. Matt., WA32:354, 8/ LW21:66: “Darumb ist das allein das gewissest wreck
    eines rechten Christen, wenn er Christum so preisset und predigt, das die
    leut solchs lernen, wie nichts und Christus alles ist.”
    5. Much of this quote is found in p. 86, n.2. Gal. (1535), WA40I:131f., 22ff./
    LW26:66: “Hoc me, inquit, consolatur, quod haec doctrina nostra gratiae
    totam gloriam et omnia soli Deo tribuit, hominibus nihil. Deo autem (id
    quod luce clarius est) nimium gloriae, bonitatis etc. attrubui non potest…
    Et verum est doctrinam Evangelii adimere hominibus omnem gloriam, sapi-
    entaim, iustitiam etc. et ista tribuere soli Creatori qui ex nihilo ominia facit.
    Multo autem tutius est tribuere nimium Deo, quam hominibus.”
    6. Dict.Ps., WA3:648, 6/ LW11:144: “Quia laudare tantummodo deum non
    potest, nisi qui intelligit in se nihil esse laude dignum, sed omne quod est
    laudis, dei ex deo esse.”
    338  M. Ellingsen

    7. See Steven Hawking and Leonard Moldinow, The Grand Design (New
    York: Bantam Books, 2010), esp. pp. 8–9.
    8. Kirchpost.E., W212:887, 46/ CS4/2:279: “Ist nun die Summa: Ich werde
    geniedriget oder erhőhoet, miss mich, wie du willst, reiss mich hierher
    oder dorthin, so finde ich Christum da. Denn er hat alle Dinge in seinen
    Händen… Durum wenn er in meinem Herzen wohnt, so bleibt er Muth
    stehen; wo ich hinkomme und fahre, kann ich nicht verloren werden.”
    Appendix

    Charts Depicting the Patterns in Luther’s Contextual Use of Christian


    Concepts

    The Bible and Theological Method

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Literal interpretation
    1. Insistence on the infallibility of scripture Explaining the logic of Christian faith while
    polemicizing against criticisms of his posi-
    tion or defenders of tradition
    Describing how one becomes a Christian
    while polemicizing against Criticisms of his
    position
    2. Merely concerned to subordinate reason Exhorting faith
    to God’s word, using figural interpreta- Explaining the logic of Christian faith
    tion but not concerned about whether Exhortation to comfort
    the Bible is accurate in all details Dialoguing with science and philosophy
    3. Spirit-Letter distinction Engaged in polemics with critics
    Exhorting the Christian living or analyzing
    Christian feelings
    4. Theology of the cross Engaged in polemics
    Offering comfort
    *Allegorical interpretation Apologetics, aiming at stressing faith’s com-
    patibility with other disciplines
    Exhortation to Christian living

    © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 339


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9
    340  Appendix

    Law and Gospel

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Law and Gospel radically opposed Engaged in polemics
    (No Third Use of the Law)
    * Law and Gospel correlated Exhorting faith
    (No Third Use of the Law) Explaining the logic of faith
    *Law and Gospel correlated Exhortation to Christian living
    (Third Use of Law affirmed) Offering comfort from despair

    Authority

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Scripture alone Exhorting faith
    Defending grace alone
    *Scripture and tradition When making ecclesiastical
    decisions
    Describing the logic of faith

    Relating Reason and Faith

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Continuity Exhorting faith
    Describing the logic of faith
    Exhortation to Christian living
    Apologetics
    *Dialectical relationship Polemics

    God

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *God’s wrath subordinated to his love Exhorting faith
    Describing the logic of faith
    *God as unambiguously loving Comforting despair
    *Divine wrath and diving love in dialectical tension Polemics
    Exhortation to Christian living
    Appendix   341

    Holy Spirit

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *All good is the work of the Spirit Refuting Pelagianism
    Explicating the logic of Christian faith
    *Spirit cooperates with us in doing good All other contexts

    Creation and Providence

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Creation in 6 days Engaged in polemics
    Exhorting Christian living
    *As ongoing process Exhorting faith
    Explaining the logic of Christian faith.
    *All that happens in the world is a work of God Polemics with Pelagianism
    Reflecting temptations or despair in
    the Christian life
    *God creates all that is good, but human beings Exhortation to faith
    or the devil have distorted some of this good- Describing the logic of Christian faith
    ness Exhortation to Christian living
    Comforting despair

    Sin and Free Will

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Sin identified as concupiscence; in bondage Polemics with Pelagianism
    to sin Explaining the logic of Christian faith
    Exhorting faith
    *Concupiscence as merely the tinder of sin Comforting despair
    *External righteousness possible Exhortation to Christian living
    342  Appendix

    Atonement

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Classic view Exhortation to faith
    Explaining the logic of faith
    Comforting despair
    *Satisfaction theory Exhortation to Christian living
    Engaged in polemics
    *Moral influence theory Exhortation to Christian living (esp. with
    concern about comforting)

    Justification

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Justification by grace through Faith All contexts except narrow concerns with
    Christian living
    1. Faith saves Exhortation to faith
    Exhortation to Christian living
    2. Forensic justification Polemics with Pelagian works-righteousness.
    3. As union with Christ Exhortation to faith
    Explaining logic of faith
    Comforting the despairing
    *Deification Exhortation to Christian living
    Comforting despair
    *By grace and works with need to exhorta- Prepare for grace
    tion to Christian living Addressing despair

    Sanctification and the Christian Life

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Christian as simultaneously saint and Exhorting faith (often with [totus-totus]
    sinner Pelagianism in view)
    Engaged in polemics with Pelagianism
    Comforting despair
    *Christian life is hidden Engaged in polemics with Pelagianism
    *Situational ethic, with no reference to Law Exhorting faith
    as guide to Christian life Explaining the logic of faith.
    Appendix   343

    Spontaneity of good works Exhorting faith


    Explaining the logic of faith
    Engaged in polemics with Pelagianism
    *Law as guide to Christian living Exhortation to Christian living
    (Third Use of the Law) Comforting despair
    *Posits the possibility of growth in grace Exhortation to Christian living
    (with perseverance in faith a mark of cer-
    tainty of one’s salvation)

    Predestination and Faith

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Predestination
    1. Single predestination Explication of the logic of Christian faith
    Exhortation to faith
    Comforting despair
    2. Unconditional double predestination Engaged in polemics with Pelagianism
    3. Predestination based on foreknowledge Exhortation to Christian living
    4. Hope all might be saved Comforting despair
    *Faith as a work Exhortation to faith
    Exhortation to Christian living

    Church

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *God’s work (through Word and Exhorting faith
    Sacrament) Explaining the logic of Christian faith
    *Church defined as the people (its mem- Exhortation to Christian living
    bers) Rejecting papal authority
    344  Appendix

    Ministry

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Objective view of the office. Minister exercises Exhortation to faith
    authority over the laity Explication of the logic of faith
    *Supports apostolic succession and episcopal Addressing everyday life of the Church
    authority
    *Authority of the papacy affirmed Explicating the logic of faith
    *Ministry derived from the priesthood of all Exhortation to Christian living
    believers Polemics

    Sacraments

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Real presence of Christ in the elements Almost all contexts
    *Symbolic view Apologetics in dialogue with this view-
    point. Less emphasis on Christ’s pres-
    ence in the Sacraments when exhorting
    Christian life

    Eschatology

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Realized Eschatology Expositing the logic of faith
    Engaged in polemics with critics
    *Future Eschatology
    1. Believing soul departs for heaven Comforting despair
    2. Some souls go to purgatory Exhorting Christian living
    3. Soul sleep Exhortation to faith

    Social Ethics

    Doctrinal construal Context of use


    *Two-Kingdom ethic (natural law as norm for Almost all contexts
    political judgments)
    *Gospel norms the state (or at least the state Addressing political chaos
    protects the Church)
    Index

    A Bizer, Ernst, 198


    Adam, Alfred, 73, 119, 136, 137, 144, Bornkamm, Heinrich, 3, 12, 13, 56
    183, 276 Braun, Wilhelm, 52, 207
    Africa(ns), 9, 27, 48, 101, 107, 177, Brochmann, Caspar, 206
    273, 317–319 Bultmann, Rudolf, 147
    Allegory, 24–26, 54, 56, 119
    Althuas, Paul, 49
    Angels, 84, 99, 120, 122, 244, 279 C
    Animals, 120, 136, 302 Chemnitz, Martin, 206
    Aquinas, Thomas, 7, 8, 16, 19, 55, Christology
    130, 196 Alexandrian Christology, 101, 107
    Aristotle, 8, 9, 15, 17, 19, 22, 52, 314 descent into hell, 160, 161, 302
    Atonment Resurrection, 28, 29, 97, 161, 231,
    Classic View, 127, 157, 158, 160 243
    Satisfaction Theory, 157–160 Church
    Augustine, 1, 9, 15, 21, 23, 31, 85, as Mother, 270, 290
    135, 169, 173, 177, 182, 200, Crane, Leif, 16
    204, 307, 335 Creation, 10, 35, 81, 90, 112, 113,
    Aulen, Gustaf, 12, 161 119–122, 135, 137, 167, 176,
    227, 241, 243, 274, 308

    B
    Bainton, Roland, 53, 207 D
    Barth, Karl, 13, 50, 61 Deification, 84, 103, 182, 235, 246
    Bayer, Ernst, 198 Dieter, Theodor, 16, 91
    Biel, Gabriel, 8, 16, 90, 154, 196 Dillenberger, John, 52, 207

    © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 345


    M. Ellingsen, Martin Luther’s Legacy,
    DOI 10.1057/978-1-137-58758-9
    346  Index

    Dilthey, Wilhelm, 12 H
    Harnack, Theodosius, 162
    Heintze, Gerhard, 3
    E Helmer, Christine, 16
    Ebeling, Gerhard, 3, 12, 13, 62, 261 Hendrix, Scott, 53, 207, 277
    Elert, Werner, 3, 12, 13, 15, 51, 261 Hering, Hermann, 52, 207
    Erasmus, 23, 47, 49, 81, 122, 188, Hermeneutics (Theological Method;
    189 Scripture)
    Eschatology, 302, 303 narrative theology, 27, 32
    heaven, 301, 302 Hoffman, Bengt, 53, 207
    purgatory, 300 Holl, Karl, 52, 56, 62, 198, 207
    Realized Eschatology, 299 Holy Spirit, 25, 26, 44, 78, 83, 85,
    soul sleep, 301, 305 109–113, 169, 187, 190, 224,
    universal salvation, 187, 191, 302 226, 245, 270, 288, 317
    Human nature, 37, 42, 84, 99, 101,
    102, 181
    F
    Feuerbach, Ludwig, 61
    Fisher, Robert, 286 I
    Forde, Gerhard, 15, 51 Indulgences, 1, 38, 170, 179, 228
    Freedom, Christian, 21, 30, 37, 126, Islam/Muslims, 317
    143, 154, 182, 224, 225, 233,
    236, 238, 241, 246, 317
    J
    Joest, Wilfrid, 262
    G Judaism/Jews, 34, 71, 220, 316, 317,
    God 330
    gender of, 126 Justification
    hiddenness of, 189, 236, 239 as union with christ, 225, 232
    Trinity, 22, 26, 51, 84, 85, 101 forensic view, 186, 207, 210
    Grace, 2, 6–9, 12, 20, 23, 24, 30, 31,
    34–39, 42, 75, 76, 80, 85, 86,
    109, 112, 113, 120–122, 136, K
    141–147, 161, 168–174, 176, Kolb, Robert, 11, 53, 56, 57, 91, 197
    178–180, 182, 185, 186, 189, Kors, Allan, 132
    190, 192, 193, 196, 217–219, Kostlin, Julius, 200, 203, 207
    222–224, 226, 229, 231, Kunst, Hermann, 326
    238–240, 244, 246, 287, 288,
    290, 307, 314, 317, 335
    Green, Lowell, 286 L
    Gregory of Nyssa, 208 Language, 26, 28, 29, 31, 44, 47,
    Gritsch, Eric, 12, 203 111, 121, 122, 136, 181, 182,
    184, 187, 190
    Index   347

    Law-Gospel Dialectic, 40 Pope/Papacy, 21, 22, 172, 273, 290,


    Law, natural, 37, 41, 136, 309, 311, 319
    314 Predestination, 5, 48, 82, 122, 145,
    Law, third use of, 7, 41, 112, 159, 160, 176, 187–191, 212, 214
    233, 236, 238, 240, 244, 246, Prenter, Regin, 12, 117, 181, 206
    272 Providence, 8, 48, 80, 119, 121, 125,
    Law, uses of, 40, 335 143, 189, 212
    Lessing, Gotthold, 12
    Lindberg, Carter, 13
    Lommatzsch, Siegrieid, 52, 207 Q
    Lortz, Joseph, 16 Quantum Physics, 120
    Lowenthal, Marvin, 330
    Lutheran-Catholic Dialogue, 286
    R
    Reason, 6–8, 16, 19–21, 23, 26–28,
    M 37, 42–44, 46–49, 98–100, 102,
    Mannermaa, Tuomo, 181, 206, 211 103, 113, 136, 138, 140, 177,
    McGrath, Alister, 12, 15, 16, 69, 198, 185, 193, 221, 231, 232, 289,
    200, 203 300, 308, 309, 319, 324, 335
    Melanchthon, Philip, 13, 286 Ritschl, Albrecht, 129, 161
    Ministry, 6, 7, 29, 46, 83, 171, 271, Rosheim, Josel of, 316
    272, 279–283, 286
    Moltmann, Jurgen, 58
    Mysticism, 22, 23, 52, 53, 181, 183, S
    184, 207, 208, 220 Sacraments, 7, 82, 122, 270, 274,
    281, 287, 288, 292, 293, 322
    Baptism, 22, 42, 51, 109, 139, 160,
    O 175, 221, 227, 249, 270, 280,
    Obendiek, Harmannus, 132 287–290
    Obermann, Heiko, 12, 132, 203, 207 Confession, 48, 146, 180, 197, 221,
    Ockham, William of, 52 224, 234, 287, 292, 293
    Otto, Rudolf, 52, 207 Lord’s Supper, 192, 270, 287, 291
    Ozment, Steven, 15 Saint-Blanc, Louis, 53
    Sanctification, 6, 10, 25, 41, 98, 187,
    192, 193, 198, 217, 218, 220,
    P 239, 240, 246, 269, 283, 289,
    Pelikan, Jaroslav, 3, 15, 73, 203, 275 291, 293, 335
    Peura, Simon, 210 growth in grace, 239, 240
    Philosophy, 6, 19, 20, 23, 28, 43, 49, hiddenness of Christian Life, 45–47,
    83, 111, 135 82
    Pinomaa, Lennart, 92 Simul Iustus et Peccator, 233
    Plato, 52, 319 Sinning Bravely, 240
    348  Index

    spontaneity of, 112, 113, 228, 232 Theory of everything, 336


    Satan, 51, 124, 125, 127, 145, 158, Tillich, Paul, 12, 74, 90
    163, 235, 331 Time, 1, 4, 6, 10, 20, 22, 23, 27, 40,
    Schaff, Philip, vii 46, 48, 75, 80, 84, 102, 126,
    Schleiermacher, Friedrich, 90 139, 142, 143, 161, 170, 171,
    Schwarz, Hans, 11, 60 182, 187, 218, 220, 222, 234,
    Sin 238, 245, 269, 283, 290
    Bondage of the Will, 127, 137, 138, Tower Experience, 1, 12, 144, 172,
    143, 145, 237 181
    Concupiscence, 139, 143 Troeltsch, Ernst, 12
    Social Ethics
    economics, 123
    homosexuality, 274, 319, 320 V
    poverty, concern about, 227 von Hofmann, J.C.K., 50
    slavery, 317, 318 von Loewenich, Walther, 53, 69, 129,
    women’s equality, 318, 321, 322 203, 207
    Spitz, Lewis, 50, 203
    Staupitz, Johann von, 1, 22, 30, 336
    Suffering, 42, 44–46, 85, 100, 109, W
    124, 127, 138, 158, 161, 168, Wengert, Timothy, 13, 53, 207, 208
    170, 209, 220, 221, 230, 239, Witches, 158, 300
    246, 302 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 28, 59
    Wolf, Ernst, 326

    T
    Tauler, Johannes, 207, 208 Z
    Theology of the Cross, 12, 21, 34, 39, Zumkeller, Adolar, 15
    41, 45, 47–49, 53, 69, 81, 227,
    335

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi