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 osculari pedes teque agnoscere summum pontifcem, si adoraveris Christum meum et permiseris, quod per ipsius mortem et resurrectionem habeamus 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.
279 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 qualifcations 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: CHAPTER 12 Ministry © The Author(s) 2017 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 affrmation 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 authority or when he addressed questions about how one lives the Christian life. Ordination takes place only through the authority of the universal 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 (sacrifce) their old natures. It is this sacrifce 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 sacrifces but preaching, Luther claims while critiquing the Catholic Sacramental system. Holders of this offce are better identifed 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 simply 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 congregation, exercising authority over it on behalf of the Word of God. Of course Luther was at no point suggesting that the Church is an autonomous 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 ministry 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 offce as derived from the universal priesthood, Luther argues that the Ministry’s authority 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 frst 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 identifying 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 contexts when articulating the frst strand.) It is quite evident that a leadership 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 contended, that the universal priesthood is subordinated to the strand stressing the offce’s divine institution.37 In fact, as in the case of the other doctrines considered, these apparently conficting 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 repudiation 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 instituted in situations when it became apparent that the common life of the Church was not proceeding smoothly, when there was chaos or a concern 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 clericalism, legalism, or giving attention to Sanctifcation, a stress on the Priesthood of all Believers, on the functional character of the offce 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 offcium, 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 dritten 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 liberrimi, sed sacerdotes quoque sumus in aeternum, quod longe regno excellentius, 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 fnden lassen, daselbst hab ich ein leiblich zeichen, dabey ich Gott erkennen und fnden 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 status 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 Refections 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 insofar as God establishes he Ministry through the call of the universal priesthood. 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.
287 Luther refers to the Sacraments along with the Word as Means of Grace.1 He defnes 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 justifes. It is not lifegiving 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 justifes.8 Likewise regarding The Lord’s Supper—designating 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, opting 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 CHAPTER 13 Sacraments © The Author(s) 2017 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 sermon 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 defnes 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 signifes 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 identifed as the One Who baptizes.23 We are born again in Baptism, Luther affrms.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 harbor 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 something to rely on.34 But when articulating the importance of personal faith
13 SACRAMENTS 289 (Sanctifcation) he taught that Sacraments have no power without faith.35 We need faith to grasp them, to be of beneft 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 signifed by Baptism can take place in various vocations and callings in which Christians fnd 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 fnd 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 offce 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 historic 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 condemnations, 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 regardless 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 affrms 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 affrm the ubiquity of Christ’s Body, that He can be Present everywhere at one time in the dispersed locations celebrating 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 speculate on the duration of Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist (when Communion ends).67 Luther affrms the manducatio oralis (the belief that we actually swallow 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 unbeliever 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 specifc 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 transubstantiation 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 defnition 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 Sacrifce 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 calling the Sacrament a sacrifce in the sense that it makes us people called to sacrifce ourselves in service.77 The Reformer also teaches Communion in both kinds.78 Yet in polemics 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 Sanctifcation 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 beneft 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 signifcance of the Sacrament is that we receive all the members of the Body, actually receive Christ and each other.92 Its signifcance is that we are changed into one another and made a community of love.93 Speaking of the signifcance 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 fre, 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 concupiscence), 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 Sanctifcation. And there are many obvious affnities 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 promittens. Hoc sane ft, ut multi e nave temere in mare prosilant et pereant: hi sunt, qui deserta promissionis fde 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 Sanctifcation. 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 refects 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.
299 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, references 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 (predictions 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 resurrected 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 everything. This Eschatological perspective entails that we must disregard CHAPTER 14 Eschatology © The Author(s) 2017 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 dialogue 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 frst the Reformer did not deny purgatory, not doing so until 1530.18 He tells us that he was uncertain about purgatory.19 If purgatory 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 previously, 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 fnd 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, representing 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 fellow 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 afterlife, 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 satisfed in heaven he claims, while responding 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 fy.46 By contrast, hell, he contends is not a specifc 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 unbaptized 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 teaching 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 benefcial 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 fnal 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 Sanctifcation. 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 fde Christi assidue vixit et fdeliter servivit Ecclesiae et Euangelium castitate et pietate morum ornavit, sciamus beatum esse et habere vitam et laeticiam aeternam in societate Christi et Ecclesiae coelistis, 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.
307 Luther’s Social Ethic cannot be understood apart from his TwoKingdom 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 justice 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 Justifcation 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 CHAPTER 15 Social Ethics © The Author(s) 2017 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 purpose of government is to bring about external peace.8 Without such order, law, and government authority there would be nothing but bloodshed 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 creations 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 suffces. 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 suffcient.18 Reason’s legitimate role is not just confned 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 fgure 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 people 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 government 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 ridicule 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 frst 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 person is a Christian, but the offce 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 religious beliefs by government.42 This distinction between the Kingdoms was contextual, like most things in Luther’s thought. Much in the traditions 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 realities 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 intervene 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 suffcient 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 justifed 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 theology.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 typifes Luther’s thought elsewhere.54 This openness to Christians in government using violence against adversaries of government fts 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 secular matter.60 And yet he did regard fghting the Turks as holy.61 Such political passivity was not the Reformer’s only position. His commitment 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 benefcial. 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 offcial, he once claimed.64 But he found it appropriate for preachers to exhort and critique rulers.65 He himself did criticize princes for exploiting subjects through taxes.66 In these instances even a revolt (at least disrupting order) might be valid.67 On the other hand, Luther claimed that the main task of theologians is to urge obedience.68 And although he was open to criticizing rulers when they sinned, he critiqued backbiting and critiquing the princes too.69 Luther was at some points (see above point) even willing to countenance 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 function 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 poverty, 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 punish 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 themselves 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 defnition of justice in Lectures on Deuteronomy makes that clear: This is the highest and most diffculty 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 fnd 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 government offcials 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 fnd 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 refections to advocate on behalf of the establishment of community chests for administering relief for the poor.88 This fows 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 possessed 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 generosity. 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 unproductive, 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 defant and courageous when its moneybags and bins are full. There is such pride and defance 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 fnd nothing but a foolish or childish reliance, without any stability.103 Such fnancial 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 fnd that they have wasted their effort and toil… They themselves never found happiness in their wealth, nor did it ever last to the third generation.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 insignifcant 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 stimulates 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 treatise 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 accordingly 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 market. 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 contracts (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 regulations 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 refect the interests of the poor is evident in his harsh condemnation of declaring false bankruptcies in order to save fortunes, 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 government 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 refected 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 confscation of their property and that they be given manual 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 personally betrayed by Jews and would not intercede for them.127 In a fnal 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 fght 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, writing 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 worksrighteousness.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 identifed on two occasions as the Anti-Christ.140 Treatment of Africans and Slaves Political passivity was evident in the Reformer’s thinking on the subject 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 frmer in his insistence that slaves should be permitted to fee, going so far as to maintain that a good commonwealth will grant slaves their life and livelihood. 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 fay
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 understood 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 fee and become free, since liberty is to be given for an eye that was knocked out (Ex. 21: 26). It is ftting 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 defned in the West) and vice versa. While critiquing 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 affrmed, 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 offspring of Noah’s ungodly son Ham (Gen.10:6–9).148 But he frmly rejected the Medieval myth that African people were children of the devil.149 The frst Reformer did embrace the Ethiopian and Coptic Orthodox churches as models for his Reform, affrming 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 appreciation 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 fawed 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 defning marriage in terms of male–female relationships. And he seems to condemn homosexuality, at least at one point when addressing the pastoral 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 altogether 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 marriages, 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 fesh.163 Dealing with issues of Christian living, marriage, he says, “may be likened 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 flth 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 committed relationship among those engaged.174 The Reformer was a strong proponent of marital fdelity 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 fulflling (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 people (queer, stubborn, and obstinate) not suited for married life be permitted 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 relationships.184 Although their relationship had patriarchal elements (he promised 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 vilifed women.194 He called for government to end prostitution.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 establishments 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, nostrum iustitiam stercus esse coram Deo. Nunc si Deus vult exonare stercus, 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 heyratten, 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 regiern 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, fnd 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 ausrechnen 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 convene 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 benefcio 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 affrmativas sublaciores indigencium per Charitatem…” 81. Deut., WA14:553f., 31/ LW9:19: “Heac est summa et diffcilima virtus 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 fdem dei animatus, ideo mundus plenus est principibus sed fdelem 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 fnden, 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 allergeringste ding auff erden, das kleineste donum das Gott einem menschen geben kan… Drumb gibet unser Herrgott gemenglich divitaas den groben efelln, den er sonst nicht gan.”