Archive for the ‘From Martin Luther’ Category
Opening the Windows of Heaven so Grace Showers Down on us Again: 1% versus the 99%
I use the backs of my many dissertation drafts for scratch paper. Running off my new German book of 140 pages on them I came across this note that was not included in my dissertation:
“Here the source is opened through which new creation in terms of human nature pours into our existence from the open windows of heaven. Luther touches this source of all being and new creation twice.”
I thought I should try to find out what I was referring to, because I have dreamt of animals and all creation ascending out of an abyss at corners of a square in a mystical kind of way.
I found it via a footnote, number 333 on page 274 of my dissertation, Sword of the Spirit, Sword of Iron, and it comes from Luther’s reformation of the mass:
Szo hastu nit alleyn die kleynen tropff fruchtlin der mesz/ szondern auch den heubt brünnen des glaubēs/ ausz wilchem quillet und fleusset allis gut/ (Otto Clemen 1: 309:12) (Flugschrift Biv) WA 6:363.30-32
So now you don’t have only a little droplet of the fruit of the mass, but the fountainhead of faith, out of which everything good springs forth and flows. (My translation, cf. LW 35, page 92.)
Page 274 in my dissertation reads as follows:
“The mediating role of priests negated God’s gift in the Mass, by redefining the Mass as their sacrifice. In this way only droplets of grace became available, where a fountainhead of blessings should flow. Not only did the priestly sacrifice interfere with the divine gracious gift, but also with the offerings of the people. Confusing the divine gift with the priestly sacrifice short-circuited the offering of the people from becoming a circulation of grace in the form of spiritual gifts and material benefits for all. The sacrifice of the priest justified channeling the people’s offerings to the spiritual estate, while they should have circulated through the whole community. Where they were given for the needs of the poor, they were received by the churches, monasteries, foundations, and “hospitals,” and now the wrath of God made a war imminent.”
(CL 1:312:2-17) (pamphlet signature Civ – Cii) WA 6:366.33-367.12
Luther saw the words of institution, “This is my body, this is my blood, given and shed for you” as the circulation of God’s gifts for the whole community, which one class had detoured so that the lion-share came to them. That is the significance of the mass not being a sacrifice of the priests, but of Jesus Christ for all people. While Holy Communion has been very much compartmentalized and marginalized from the symbolic heart of what should characterize our whole society today, it was still very central to the society of Luther’s day.
Thus my dissertation continues:
In “The New Testament or the Holy Mass,” a very popular pamphlet, Luther is able to express justification-by-faith implications for the Mass, in very simple words, that in the particular historical context of that day became comprehensible to the common people. What could be more understandable than to write that God serves the people, not the people, God; that the Mass is God’s work, and not the good works or sacrifice of the priests; and that the Mass should include a collection for the poor, as well as a distribution of food and goods, so that “There should be no beggars among Christians.” Thus Luther claims that a spiritual offering is in order, and not the bodily offerings [to the priests] which have gone and become changed into churches, monasteries, “hospitals,” and the wealth of the spiritual estate. This kind of critique was certainly as radical as it was popular, if the numbers of editions of these pamphlets is such an indication, as well as the inability of Luther’s opponents, even to get their pamphlets published.
Just another note I found on the scratch paper:
“Gerald Strauss might have considered that the Reformation did take a very central institution, that is, the church and at least intend a universal democratization of the laity. The Reformation represents an inroad toward democracy, not at all able to fulfill modern expectations. But Strauss gives the impression that Luther’s opponents were more democratic than he and that is very much not so.”
Strauss criticizes Steven Ozment for his intellectual approach to the Reformation implying that the people of the day could not understand what it was about. Luther, however, a priest, committed class-treason, and spoke directly to the people and they understood perfectly well, to put it into today’s language: 1% were commandeering what needed to circulate through the whole community, the 99%. Then the “windows of heaven open” (Malachi 3:10) and not only for the tithe of the church but the taxation of the society for God’s grace to flow into the common-wealth.
Luther exclaimed, “There should be no beggars amongst us!” We have not said, “There should be no homeless amongst us!” and now even millions of middle class people are losing their homes.
May God’s gift, the life of Christ sacrificed for us, fill us with love and sharing so God once again opens the windows of heaven.
Praise God from whom all blessing flow! All creatures here below!
The Rose and the Cross
Excuse [me if this] may be obvious but I have litle knowledge of German – is Salvation by grace alone and through faith alone the same as Des Christen Hertz auf Rosen geht, wenn’s mitten unter’m Kreuze steht?
Thanks.
Responding to your question:
That German sentence, “Des Christen Hertz auf Rosen geht, wenn’s mitten unter’m Kreuze steht” translated literally, means, “The heart of a Christian walks on roses, even when it stands directly under the cross,” (more literally, “when it’s in the middle of the cross.”) So that could only indirectly refer to “salvation by grace through faith.” (I know that you have two “alones” in there. I could explain why Luther following William of Ockham emphasizes “alone” should you wish for me to.) To your point, however, the statement, deriving from Luther, really means that even under intense suffering, a Christian can rejoice, as if enjoying roses, walking on rose petals, promised a rose garden, and other such metaphors indicating that one is replete with blessings. St. Paul’s saying to rejoice in our suffering is one of the best ways of coping with it and gaining “more than a victory.”
Indirectly, it can also be based on justification, because, the power from on high blessing us with the righteous of faith, also helps us “bear all things, believe all things, hope all things and endure all things” (1 Cor. 13: 7). I do not believe that Luther “came upon the idea of justification by faith.” I believe that Luther experienced a “word event,” meaning that the Word of God, who is Jesus Christ, encountered him and brought about a marvelous change, not only in him, but in the church, a change which we call the Reformation.
I don’t know exactly where Luther says the statement, whether in a song or table talk, or a commentary, but he does have a white rose with a cross in the middle of it in his Christian seal or coat of arms. The Rosicrucians usurp the statement and make it masonic rather than Christian. Not the powers of our mind, but God’s loving grace from on high is what Christianity features.
lovejoypeace,
peter krey
Sayings of Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Sayings of Martin Luther (1483-1546)
Two of Luther’s sayings that cannot be documented:
It is better to be ruled by a wise Turk than a ignorant Christian.
Luther was asked, “What would you do if you knew the world would end tomorrow?”
“I would plant an apple tree.” he answered. (It sounds like it comes from his Table Talks.)
Rather than philosophy, Luther would have wanted to study theology: “I mean that theology which searches out the meat of the nut and the kernel of the grain and the marrow of the bones.” In a letter to John Braun, March 17th, 1509 (It’s not in Luther’s Works, vol. 48.)
“Faith is a mighty, active, restless, and busy thing, which immediately renews the person, gives a second birth, and leads the person into new ways and into new being.”
The context of this saying: “The real faith of which we speak, will not allow itself to be made out of our thought, because it is a pure work of God in us, without our being able to add anything we do to it. Thus St. Paul says in Romans 5:15: “It is God’s gift of grace won for us through Christ.” That is why it is such a mighty, active, restless, and busy thing, which immediately renews the person, gives a second birth, and leads the person into new ways and into new being. It is impossible for this same self not to do good works, continuously, [spontaneously] without interruption.” (WA 10.3: 285.24-30.)
From Otto Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, Erster Band, unter Mitwerkung von Albert Leitzmann, (Berlin: Verlag von Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1929). (To translate: Otto Clemen: Selected Works of Luther, volume 1, with help from Albert Leitzmann.)
These sayings come from Luther’s early pamphlet writings: from “A Sermon on the Preparation for Dying,” “The Sacrament of Repentance,” “The Sacrament of Baptism,” “A Sermon about the Very Worthy Sacrament of the True and Holy Body of Christ and the Brotherhoods,” “A Sermon on the Ban,” and “A Sermon about Good Works.” (1519-1520). (They are my translations. Sentences in [brackets] are words that are understood or are mine.) In some cases I polished the style. Why do I do that?
Luther once said that Melanchthon had style and substance, that he himself had substance but no style, and that Carlstadt had neither style nor substance! So that’s my rationale. But I always say when I am polishing his sayings.
Luther’s Sayings
Christ is nothing other than pure life. (page 165:line 22)
You have to let God be God! (166:27-28)
What we believe is what will happen to us. (169:30-31) and again (177: 5-6)
As much as you believe is as much as you have. (180:27-28) Glaubstu, so hastu!
The promises and accomplishments of the real God have to be great. (170:3-4)
What help [to you] are all signs [i.e., miracles], [if you are] without faith? (171:6)
If you believe in the signs and the Word of God, then God will keep an eye on you. (171:38-39)
High mountains are angels. (172:11)
Context for the saying above: Those who trust in God shall be unmoved, like Mt. Zion. It will remain forever. High mountains (those are angels) surround him and God himself encircles his people, until now and even unto eternity (Psalm 90). (10-13)
This holy, comforting Word of God, so rich with grace, has to be taken to the very bottom of each Christian person’s heart. (176:27-29)
The word does not exist for the sake of the priest, bishop, and pope; but the priest, bishop, and pope are there for the sake of the word, to honor it as those who bring to you your Word of God and the Good News that you are rid of your sin. (177:35-38)
There is no greater sin than when one does not believe in the article about the forgiveness of sin, as we pray daily through faith; and this is the sin called, “the sin against the Holy Spirit,” which strengthens every other sin and makes unforgivable [even] to the ages of eternity. (179:10-13)
To polish this saying: The unwillingness to forgive is the unforgivable sin.
For they want to confirm God’s Word through their works, which they should confirm by their faith: thus they set about placing supports under the sky, which they should be supported by, that is, they will not allow God to be merciful, but will have God only for a judge, who will give nothing for nothing, but only if it is first paid for. (180:13-17)
Polishing the saying: Believe in grace! The sky is what you’re supported by!
(Context the saying above: For what do they do other than their wanting to achieve certainty through their doing, together with wanting to establish and strengthen God’s Word through their works, which they should only confirm by faith; thus they set about placing supports under the sky, by which, however, they should be supported; that is, they will not allow God to be merciful, but will have God only for a judge, who will give nothing for nothing, but only if it is first paid for. (180:11-17)
The office of the keys is not meant to serve the clergy, but only us, the laity. (181:2-3)
They ban, threaten, and plague [everyone with the office of the keys], making out of a lovely comforting power, an exercise of pure tyranny. (181:10)
The whole church has to be full of the forgiveness of sin. (184:8)
The [Sacrament of Holy Body of Christ] means the completely unified and undivided communion of saints. (197:6-7) also (213:36)
Take heart with fresh new strength; you do not fight alone: great help and support surround you. (198:39-199:1)
Baptism is the beginning and entering into the new life. (200:19)
Somewhat polished: Baptism is the beginning of your entry into the new life.
[The sacrament of Holy Communion] is a certain sign, through which we are made one and embodied in Christ so that all our sorrow is held in common. (200:24-26)
Polished: Through communion we are embodied in Christ so all our sorrow is held in common.
On Holy Communion: As we are sorry to see, many masses are held, and in spite of it, Christian communion, which should be preached, practiced, and presented in the example of Christ, goes under, and to such an extent that we do not even know what the sacrament does and what it is used for. (201:18-23)
Sad to say that it is through many masses that communion (Gemeinschaft) is destroyed and wronged. (201:22-23)
Wherever love does not grow day by day, changing the person to become common with everyone, the fruit of this sacrament is not present. (202:16-18)
“Oh, this is a great sacrament,” says St. Paul, “in which Christ and the Church become one flesh and bone” (Ephesians 5:32). (202: 32-33)
We are made one with Christ by this sacrament and are embodied with all the saints. (203:6-7)
Context for the saying above: We are made one with Christ by this sacrament and are embodied with all the saints; so that Christ therefore accepts us, does things and leaves them undone, as if he was what we are and what concerned us, also concerned him, and more than they concerned us. And in return, we might also, therefore, accept him, as if we were what he is, so that our conformation to Christ finally happened, as John says. (203:6-11) [That is, “When Christ is revealed, we will be like him.” (1 John 3:3)].
We are conformed to Christ [by our mutual acceptance]. (203:11)
Christ and all the saints draw near you with all their virtues, sorrows, and graces (favors) to live with you, do and leave undone, suffer and die; and want to be completely yours and share all things with you in common. If you practice and strengthen this faith, you will sense what a joyful kingdom, wedding feast, and full life, your God has prepared for you at the altar. (204:20-25)
Through love you become changed into each other. (205:5-6)
One should regard Christ’s natural body as less significant than his spiritual body. (205:18-19)
[Externalism of Worship]
We do not see this opinion of Christ, and we go about daily giving and hearing masses and in this devotion, one day remains the same as another, and, yes, with each day becoming worse, without even feeling it. Thus look up! It is more necessary for you to regard first the spiritual and then the natural body of Christ and it is more necessary to believe in the spiritual than the natural body of Christ. (205:23-28)
For the natural without the spiritual is no help in this sacrament: a change must happen and be experienced and practiced through love. (205:28-29)
[The common or spiritual body of Christ – is internal. It is relational, reciprocal, and mutual trust.] (206)
Opus operatum and opus operantis are useless human words, more hindering than furthering [helpfulness]. (206:22-23)
With so many [private] masses we only raise up more disgrace. (206:35-36)
For us the sacrament is a ford, a bridge, a door, a ship, a stretcher on, in, through which we travel (through the Red Sea over the Jordan River) from this world to eternal life. (208:8-10)
[Like the aberrations of the temporal kingdom along with the diocese of a prince bishop, the brotherhoods formed another distortion of the communion that the sacrament intended.] So the communion of the saints, Christian love, and basic fellowship, which are established by this holy sacrament, go under for the sake of self-serving love. (209:39-210:1)
They just look out to get what’s theirs. (210:10)
What happens in love shapes up this way: it does not seek its own, nor its own interest, but that of the other and before all, that of the common [good]. (211:26-28)
[If you understand this sacrament,] then you have to grieve for the wretched state of today’s Christianity. If you do not find assurance in Christ and the saints and you do not regard, and are not moved by the wretched neediness of Christianity and each and every neighbor; then watch out and forget all your other good works, by which you think you are upright and want to be saved. They are certainly more hypocrisy, facade, deception, [that is,] window-dressing, than they are love and communion, because love fulfills the law. (212:4-11)
To make many laws is to string many wires to trip up poor folks. (225:11-12)
No one should ban or be banned from the Gospel and its preaching: the Word of God should remain free for everyone to hear. (226:5-7)
As a heathen said, “A spider web catches the small flies, but the millstones go right through it.” (282:41-283:1)
The little word, “testament,” is a brief summary that through Christ is filled with all the gracious favors and wonders of God. (303:29-30)
Now without trust one does not have a good conscience before God; the head of your works is chopped off, and all their life and goodness becomes nothing. (230:4-6)
When our hearts punish and bite us, [remember] that God is greater than out hearts. (230:30-31) See 1 John: “We reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us: for God is greater than our hearts.” (3:19-20)
See how very highly I lift up faith and pull all works into it and reject all works that do not flow out of it. (230:38-231:2)
The [first] commandment as the very first, the highest, and best is the one out of which all the others flow and [to which] they return and they are all judged and measured by it. (234:33-35)
From “A Sermon on the New Testament, that is, the Mass:”
For we poor people, since we live in our five senses, have to have, at least at first besides the words, an external sign that we can hold on to and gather around. That sign, itself, however, has to be a sacrament, that is, [something] outward that still contains and means the spiritual; so that through the external we are drawn into the spiritual. We grasp the outward with the eyes of our body and the spiritual, internal with the eyes of our heart. (303:4-10)
A Scholarly Note: Otto Clemen’s Selected Works of Luther are slightly closer to Luther’s pamphlets, the way they were first published, than the definitive edition of Luther’s Works from Weimar. Otto Clemen uses the virgula, that is, the slash for most of the punctuation, while the Weimar Edition uses modern punctuation, which often constitutes a step of interpretation. The virgulas were put in by the printers and they were not in Luther’s hand-written manuscripts, but when he proof-read the work of the printer, he probably checked them out for errors.
In another post I translated (303:4-10) above more literally and there I scanned a picture, not of Otto Clemen’s edition, but from a copy of the pamphlet itself. The virgulas or slashes used for punctuation can be seen there. Luther’s “New Testament, that is, the Mass” of 1520
More Luther Sayings, posted June 21, 2011 from “Judgment on Monastic Vows” and “To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.”
“Our works are no longer works of the law but of Christ working in us through faith and living in us in everything that we do” (“Judgment on Monastic Vows” LW 44:301).
“It seems better to have fallen openly than to have held one’s ground in secret godlessness” (LW 44:302).
“Even if all the monks radiated the sanctity of angels, nevertheless, the whole [monastic] institution is still mad and contrary to the commandments of God” (LW 44:328).
“As far as celibacy is concerned, who does not know that the inward and intrinsic tyrant in our members is no more within our power than is the ill will of an external tyrant?” (LW 44:339).
“It is just as great an impiety to pursue what is to your certain knowledge an error as it is to embrace as truth something about which you are uncertain” (LW 44:345).
“What I have to consider is not how confidently you speak, but how truly you speak” (LW 44:346).
“All vows should henceforth be optional and subject to a time limit” (LW 44:388).
“’The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. And so the son of man is lord even of the Sabbath.’ Christ said this. I beg you, let us not pass over these majestic words full of comfort and spiritual refreshment” (LW 44:389).
From Luther’s Treatise on Good Works
“God is not hostile to sinners, only to unbelievers” (LW 44:64).
“They never indicate the right use [of fasting], its limit, its fruit, its cause, and its purpose” (LW 44:76).
“Thus faith goes out into works and through works comes back to itself again, just as the sun goes forth to its setting and comes again at its rising” (LW 44:79).
“[In ‘Thy kingdom come,’ we pray for the proper Sabbath and true, quiet rest from our own works, so that only God’s works are done in us and that in this way God rules in us as in his own kingdom” (LW 44:80).
Luther’s Humor:
“You can’t get a happy fart out of a sad ass.” See Eric Gritsch, The Wit of Martin Luther, (Minneapolis: Foortress Press, 2006). page 114.
More Sayings of Luther: Concerning the Incarnation in Word-Art
“Luther Proclaims that Christ is truly God,” Christmas Day Sermon, 2009
Christmas Day, December 25th 2009
Isaiah 52:7-9 Psalm 98 Hebrews 1:1-4[5-12] John 1:1-14
Luther Proclaims that Christ is truly God
To prepare for this sermon I read Luther’s long 42 page sermon for Christmas Day and I am following many of his thoughts from it.[1] He called it the Gospel for the High Christ-mass; we would say for the Christmas Day Service. Luther felt that the Prologue of John is the clearest Gospel depicting the Godhood of Christ.
On Christmas Day, we do not relate the intimate details of the story about the birth of Christ: the baby Jesus, Mary, his mother, and father Joseph, being as helpful as he can be. Today we look at what this story means. What does it mean that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us? Today we think about what it means that Christ was born and lived and ministered among us, full of grace and truth.
The Gospel lesson is the introduction to the Gospel of John. John is not like the other three gospels. John starts at the beginning of everything, wants to think the story of Jesus all the way through and get to the bottom of it. He starts like the Bible in Genesis, “In the beginning….” In Genesis we read, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” In John we read, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and God was the Word.” John wants to tell us that the birth of Christ compares in significance to the creation of the whole world, because God was fulfilling the divine prophesies and promises pronounced in the Old Testament. God, Immanuel, God-self would come and dwell with people. Luther explained that the Old Testament is the sealed letter that the New Testament opens up for us, revealing the Gospel of Jesus Christ, whom the Old Testament promised.
In the creation story the Three Persons of the blessed Trinity can be distinguished in the very first words of the Bible. John actually thinks out the distinction of the First and Second Person in his first verses. But first, let’s take the light: John says, “The true light which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.” In Genesis, “God said, ‘Let there be light and there was light.’” Back to the Persons: if God spoke, then there are the Speaker and the Word and therefore the Word that God spoke, was with God before creation. Further God speaks from the heart, so the heart of God was in the Word. That Word is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Often we Christians say, “The Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,” instead of “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” Christ is the Word, the Word of God, the Christ of God, whose birth we celebrate today. Thus you see how high John’s presentation of Christ is.
Now the creation story continues with the spirit hovering over the face of the waters, the formless deep. Here you have the Blessed Third Person of the Trinity. So there is the eternal Father; the Son, begotten but not made; and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Notice how all three persons of the Godhead are involved in creation.
Now the Bible is not a book of science, but of theology and our faith in God. The science of that day needs to be updated by the science of our day, even if even today, we cannot hold a candle to the science God knows. So when you hear about the scientific Big Bang Theory of the beginning of the universe, then you have to realize that the Christ of God born on Christmas Day, was in eternity with the Father and the Holy Spirit before creation. This Word of God “created all things, made everything that was made and without him nothing was made that was made.” So the Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit launched this creation, this universe or multi-verse, as we sometimes say today, where in the first milliseconds, it became as big as a golf-ball, then in a few more seconds following, expanded into the galaxies of the universe light years apart.
Suddenly time, space, and light began, because God said, “Let there be light.” But it all sprang into creation through the Word of God. Imagine the awesome power of the Word of God, flinging the creation with its starry heavens into existence and providing this planet Earth for us to live on and dwell in as it orbits around the sun.
Oh, if we were able to weigh, with [the feeling] that we ought, what it means to be saying, “God is speaking,” “God is promising,” “God is threatening”! Who I ask would not be shaken to their very depths? This is a great word, a great sound, and one to be feared: “Behold the Word of God!”[2]
Here was the Light of the World before the light of the sun, moon, and stars; the Light of the World come to give us life and light by his life now coming into creation to be born amongst us. Yes, the Word of Heaven is now born a human being. That is the miracle of Christmas.
The eternal Father’s only child,
Now lying in a manger mild.
The maker of everything now asleep in a lowly crib; the One whom the universe could not contain, now a little bundle of love, hope, and joy lying helplessly in a cradle.
The Light that preceded our physical light came from the Word, the Word did not come from the light, according to Luther. And God spoke all things into existence by means of the Word.
So the Word of God is not a creature and has no beginning as creatures do, but existed before creation, beyond time in eternity. Time and creation cannot grasp the Word, because they began through the Word. Those who meditate say that we cannot peer into the light that gives us our conscious existence.
Thus Luther maintains that we cannot understand, but we can only proclaim that the Word became flesh – and “flesh” here means a human being. That is the good news that Isaiah is singing about, the event he is announcing, our salvation.
Again, the Word of God is spoken from God’s heart and thus Christ reveals to us what is in God’s heart and God needs to be received through the Word, this Word that became a human being. Luther tells a saying, “What fills the heart overflows out of the mouth.” So we can picture what God is like from God’s Word, from the Christ of God, just like we can tell what songbird is singing, by recognizing the bird’s song, Luther continues. In the same way we can tell who God is by hearing about Jesus Christ and getting to know his life.
If you have God’s Word within you, Luther maintains that you have God’s divine nature in you. Don’t let your reasoning get in the way. “Crawl into the God’s Word and remain in it like a rabbit hiding in the crevasses of some rocks,” because these matters are all hard to believe. Thus our reason militates against these beliefs. So let your reason take a walk, Luther says, and hide in God’s Word like the rabbit. Don’t make your faith go on a walk and don’t let your reason speculate about these divine matters or you will soon mingle and confuse your faith, reason, and God, not knowing what they are.
Reason first received its light from the Light of God, so it cannot grasp its source. Our lives received their life from the eternal life of God and our reasoning and our lives are like darkness compared with the source of our life and light. That is why the light shines in the darkness and the darkness does not comprehend it. Worse still, we love the darkness of our light and lives more than the Light that came into the world to enlighten us.
Our text follows a distinction made by St. Augustine that Luther rejects. Look at verse three: Augustine connects “What has come into being” to what follows and Luther maintains it belongs to what came before it. “All things came into being through him, that is, the Word, the Blessed second Person of the Trinity, and without him not one thing came into being, that came into being.” Our text reads, “What came into being in him was life and the life was the light of all people.” This interpretation lends itself to Augustine’s Platonic belief that all things had eternal forms and souls in the Christ of God before they later existed on earth.
Luther argued that John was not doing philosophy, but was proclaiming Christ. He was not taking us away from Christ and into ourselves, but taking us out of ourselves and into Christ. It is true that “In God we live, move, and have our being,” but John wants us to realize that from the life of Christ, which he is going to tell us about in his gospel, we receive the Light from above, the Light only receivable by faith, the Light that is the source of reasoning and the source of our lives. It is the Light that gives us the eyes that see, who it was born on this Christmas Day, it gives us the ears to hear the Word of God, and gives us the heart that has room for Christ.
Come into my heart, Lord Jesus.
There is room in my heart for Thee.
In the enlightenment of Christ, we already get to enter the Light, which comes down from above and enter the life that the Jesus Christ came to us to bring. His life is the source of life that will never die; even crucified, that life will rise again on the third day, because it is the life that overcomes death. It is the source of life in the Christ of God and in all who believe in his name and receive him. In this Word of Life we never taste death.
Luther mentions a certain contemporary of John called Cerinthus, who said that Christ did not exist before his mother, because he was a human being and a mother exists before her child. John angrily refutes Cerinthus and throughout his gospel he shows Jesus confronting his mother, because he wants to show that the Word of God, the Christ of God even existed before time and creation, let alone before his mother.
Now like Cerinthus, if we believe that Jesus Christ was merely a good man, then we consider him only according to the flesh, that is, as a human being, and “the flesh is of no avail.” A human being is like a dim reflection of the life and light of God, like our moon merely reflecting the light of the sun. That kind of belief is bankrupt and loses out on the whole shining Gospel of the grace and glory of Christmas.
If we believe that the Christ of God, the Word of God from heaven was God dwelling with us in the life of Jesus Christ here on Earth, then his flesh is food indeed, his blood is drink indeed, for it is nourishment received from the source of life and gives us a life lived in the Light of God. We receive heavenly life and light from him. With this faith, his flesh becomes the very bread of heaven.
When the “One through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made that was made,” that is, the Maker of heaven and earth, nourishes us, then the life, which is the light we are speaking about, enriches us with grace, so fills and renews us, that we too live in this marvelous light and life of God.
Verse thirteen shows that those who believe that Christ is truly God and walk in his Light are born of God. Then Christ will exchange our birth for his. Then Christmas will also be our birthday. Name your birthday! Your real birthday will be December 25th and Christ will take your day, which sometimes no one else would ever celebrate.
The Christ of God is a person who is the Son of God and the Son of Man, true God of true God and truly a human being, born of the Virgin Mary. If you take him as a mere human being, then you let the darkness of your reason throw a cloud over the miracle of Christmas and over the way all the saints rise up as the children of God, born not of the blood, or of the will of the flesh or of human will, but of God!
This flesh availeth very much, because this human being, who is God, the Word, has come to dwell with us and launch our salvation. He gives us the nourishment of eternal life, the source of light that changes us in the twinkling of God’s eye, from people bound in the cords of death to people looking forward to the heavenly welcome table, in the marriage feast with the Christ of God. His light cures our blindness and overcomes the darkness. Many are blind, live without this grace, and even persecute it. But thanks be to God, who opens our eyes and ears and hearts to see the salvation launched by the birth of Christ on this day. God gives those who receive him the new birth of the children of God, whose Name be praised for ever and ever, for sending his Christmas Son to save us.
Come into our hearts, Lord Jesus.
There’s room in our hearts for Thee.
Amen.
[1] Martin Luther: Ausgewählte Werke: Von Advent bis Epiphanias Evangelienpredigten der Kirchenpostille, herausgegeben von H.H. Borcherdt und Georg Merz, Dritte Auflage, Ergänzungsreihe, Vierter Band, (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1960), pages 140-182. This sermon can be found in any edition of Luther’s Advent and Christmas Postil. It is in the Weimar Edition, WA 10.I.j.180-247.
[2] WA 4:380.15-18. Quoted from James Samuel Preus, From Shadow to Promise, (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press, 1969), p. 253.
A Session with Prof. Robert Goeser, Luther’s Commentary on Galatians, LW 27, Friday, June 6th 2003
Goeser and Luther‘s Galatians: a New Perspective on Reality
Professor Robert Goeser and Dr. Peter D. S. Krey in “Advanced Luther Readings,” in the Session of Friday, June 6th 2003.
Transcribed and edited by Dr. Krey
June 7th – 8th, 2003
“I mean, does anybody read Luther? I feel like I‘ve never read these words before. I know I have. Look at all the marks I have on this page.” (I look and he seems to have his pencilled notes all over the margins, top, bottom and sides.) “I mean Lutherans themselves. Have they read these words? If they have, you never hear of it!“ Professor Robert Goeser‘s voice has become loud and intense.
We are looking at what stirred us in this week‘s reading of Luther‘s Lectures on Galatians of 1519. We have already gone through his second set of lectures of 1535, volume 26 of Luther‘s Works. Now we are in volume 27. “Look at page 290!” (WA II: 536) Prof. Goeser continues, “Where does Luther get that command of the language?“
I read Luther‘s words there: “They invent a love that is idle in the heart like wine in a barrel.“
“What writing! What a beautiful metaphor!” he exclaims.
I say, “Perhaps, we have to go back a page to see what Luther was referring to by love not being able to be idle. Luther is saying that a Christian is always en route.” We begin to read page 289 more extensively.
“He [or she] is son [daughter] or heir, not a slave,“ and similar expressions are not to be understood as having been fulfilled in us, but that Christ has fulfilled this in order that it may also be fulfilled in us; for they have all been begun in such a way that from day to day they are achieved more and more. For this reason it is also called the Passover of the Lord, that is a passing through (Ex. 12:11-12), and we are called Galileans, that is wanderers, because we are continually going forth from Egypt through the desert, that is, through the cross and suffering to the Land of Promise.
I throw in the observation: “Luther is not just saying that this is a story in the Old Testament. This is going on all the time in our own lives. We have to stop clinging to the comforts of life. And we dare not feel we are fulfilled, because Christ beckons to us from the fulfillment, which is the goal of our life. We have to wander out and be strangers in a strange land. (To draw upon another story.) We have to go out into the desert, experience the cross and suffering in order to make it into the Promised Land. We have to embark on our journey.“ Now to continue Luther‘s passage:
We have been redeemed, and we are being redeemed continually. We have received adoption and are still receiving it. We have been made sons [and daughters] of God, and we are and shall be sons [and daughters]. The Spirit has sent, is being sent, and will be sent. We learn and we shall learn.
And so you must not imagine that a Christian‘s life is a standing still and a state of rest. No, it=s a passing over and a progress from vices to virtue, from clarity to clarity, from virtue to virtue. And those who have not been en route you should not consider Christians either. On the contrary, you must regard them as people of inactivity and peace, upon whom the prophet calls down their enemies. Therefore do not believe those deceitful theologians (like Peter Lombard in his authoritative medieval book called Sentences) who say to you: AIf you have only one, even the first level of love, you have enough for salvation.@ – as with their stupid fancies they invent a love that is idle in the heart like wine in a barrel.
“Luther is speaking about life as a journey,” Goeser explains, “and saying that Christians have to be on a journey. They have to be en route, or they are not really understanding what it means to realize the fulfillment that Christ makes possible for human beings.“
In the pages this week I noticed Luther‘s very profound thinking and the way he is willing to bring an interpretation to passages that the great Bible commentators have not been able to understand. But it is hard to get to everything in a short, two-hour session with Goeser. So I decide to go to a passage about the “elements of the world“ (top of page 286). They are not the old earth, wind, water and fire, but the letters of the law. St. Paul calls the law the letter. Thus there is a sense where these “elements of the world“ are the outward things, externals. Now I am happy to point out to Goeser that Luther‘s internal world is one of the major themes of my dissertation, Sword of the Spirit, Sword of Iron. Luther speaks of the internal ban, internal communion, internal word, inward person, internal spiritual church, and on and on. And continuing on page 286 of LW 27 (WA II: 533-534), I point out how Luther again describes the externality of the medieval church.
Consider how it is possible for the apostle to be understood by those who call tonsures, vestments, places, seasons, churches, altars, ornaments, and all that ceremonial pomp spiritual things. Indeed, they are forced to deny that these are worldly things, unless they too want to be called worldly themselves, a notion from which they shrink most vigorously. But in denying that these things are worldly they at the same time shut themselves off from understanding the apostle, since he includes all these things in the term “world,“ as with contempt he calls the decrees and doctrines that have been established in these external matters “elements of the world.“ Yes, he includes even the outward works of the Decalog. Therefore in our age spiritual things are riches, tyranny, arrogance, liberty, or – on the highest level – prayers uttered without understanding and vestments and places appointed by the doctrines of men. But works of mercy and all other works and places of men are physical, even though they are holy to the highest degree when they arise from a spirit filled with faith(LW 27:286).
In my dissertation I discovered that the canon law was habitually referred to as the spiritual law and the priests were called the spiritual estate. But how could that ecclesiastical estate with all its property, vested interests and with all its legal and political concerns refer to itself as spiritual? And by what right did they preclude the lay-people from being spiritual? Luther‘s interpretation was better. There was only the Christian estate and they could be spiritual or not, have and live in their internal dimension, or just live for outward things, be lost in external inconsequentialities of life: having food, shelter, sex, and some fun, and not be interested in the journey beyond such superficial things.
I asked Prof. Goeser the question from Professor Thomas A. Brady, Jr., “How could the pope protect the interests of the church from the territorial princes, if he himself was not also a territorial prince?“ The sense of his question I would further interpret to be: How could the pope protect the interests of the universal church without temporal power, that is, without a clerical estate that watched over its interests? To deny the papacy political and legal power was to have a Docetic church, a spiritual church without a body. That question will have to be faced sometime.
Professor Goeser said that in terms of spiritual attachment to externals, which Luther found disconcerting, “The spiritual always seems to be related to the Episcopal organization and always to ordination today, whether it is Anglican or Roman Catholic.“ He continued by asking, “How can a non-papal church end up by being so profoundly spiritual and a papal church so unspiritual?“
“What was the crucial factor that determined the difference?“ I asked. I felt that he could not possibly think that the papacy put the fly in the ointment.
“The papacy comes very close to making the difference.“ he said. “The papacy is into power and control while spiritual reality is Luther‘s real concern. Luther has begged off the papacy because there is something that remains fake about it. How can it be called the truly spiritual realm or by definition be declared to be infallible authority? When it has that position, where can any critique set in? The authority of the papacy is set up in such a way that it cannot be challenged by laity or priests and they have to consider the Roman Catholic Church to be divine. The papacy is above anyone and anyone‘s critique. How can an institution make a claim to having the final truth? That is a claim which I do not buy and which I find very offensive.“
“Perhaps Philip Melanchthon was not right in the
statement he wrote beside his signature at the end of Luther‘s ‘Smalcald Articles.‘” I said. Here Melanchthon said among other things:
However, concerning the pope I hold that, if he would allow the Gospel, we, too, may concede to him that superiority over the bishops which he possesses by human right, making this concession for the sake of peace and general unity among Christians who are now under him and who may be in the future.[1]
His assertion that the papacy is established by human right would not at all be accepted by those who adhere to the concept of the Holy Catholic Church as an article of faith. Saying “if the pope would allow the Gospel,“ however, is still placing the papacy over the Gospel in a confusion about where the real authority lies.
Our discussion had gotten ahead of our mutual reading, so we went back to page 241 where another passage had stirred one of us because of the profound grace it expressed. Luther has just made the statement that “if anyone wants to be righteous it is necessary for him [or her] to believe in Jesus Christ with his [or her] heart.“
It follows that the [person] who is righteous through faith does not through himself [or herself] give to anyone what is his [or hers]; s/he does this through Another, namely, Jesus Christ who alone is so righteous as to render to all what should be rendered them. As a matter of fact they owe everything to him, since s/he has all things in common with Christ. His [or her] sins are no longer his [or hers], they are Christ‘s. But in Christ sins are not able to overcome righteousness. In fact, they themselves are overcome. Hence they are destroyed in him. Again, Christ‘s righteousness now belongs not only to Christ; it belongs to His Christian. Therefore the Christian cannot owe anything to anyone or be oppressed by his [or her] sins, since s/he is supported by such great righteousness (LW 27: 241, WA II: 503-504).
Luther gave these lectures in 1519, just before he wrote “The Freedom of a Christian Person,“ and the echoes of that paragraph are certainly in the section where he talks about the marvelous exchange, where the righteousness of Christ becomes the possession of the bride, who is our soul, and all her sins become those of Christ, who overcomes them, where all things are shared in common, and Luther starts speaking about the kind of grace that can lift anyone‘s self-esteem off the ground once again.
Professor Goeser fixed on the peculiar saying that the righteousness of Christ “now belongs to His Christian.“ Now the person had the righteousness of Christ and the person belonged to Christ. And when Professor Goeser read the last lines of that passage out loud once again, they were very simple words completely filled by grace. You didn‘t owe anything to anyone anymore, Christ rendered to all what should be rendered to them. “Therefore, the Christian cannot owe anything to anyone.“ In this way the reader is quite clearly addressed by forgiveness. And then the new reality can be taken to heart: you need not be oppressed by your sins anymore, because you are supported by such great righteousness. Thus when you stack the sins that give you a guilty conscience up against the mountainous righteousness of Christ, they melt away, because they cannot stand in the face of all that righteousness.
Prof. Goeser pointed out that “Luther is not using a special language. It is not recognizably theological or ecclesiastical. What Luther writes is common everyday language, ordinary language. It‘s normal communication. It is common, everyday language, but the quintessence of the spoken word. But what great power it has! His ordinary language is graced. If you are really doing ordinary language it embodies grace. You do not have to go to the papacy for the authority to say it. This ordinary language bears grace and you do not have find a bishop to authorize it nor ascend into language only scholars understand; it is near you on you lips and in your heart. (Romans 10.8 ) From Luther we are not getting something so extraordinary and powerful, but we get ordinary words that bear grace and reality and ordinary words are sufficient, and when they go beyond the ordinary they are insufficient. You cannot go beyond the ordinary for grace, you cannot go beyond the ordinary for this meaning.“
“The New Testament was not written in classical Greek, which is so difficult to understand, but by the common people in the common, everyday Greek, the Koiné.“ I put that in.
Goeser continued: “It is the ordinary language that bears grace and it is no longer a question of the papacy. It‘s the affirmation of the graced character of the natural. You cannot get something beyond the natural to be graced. It‘s the ordinary not the extraordinary that is the bearer of grace. These are simple words that are very offensive to the Roman Catholic Church, because it is a challenge to the heart of it, because it wants to make something special out of the faith speaking of the supernatural instead of the natural. Luther is saying that the natural is enough. The problem is only that we misuse the natural and the problem is not with the natural itself. His position opens up an enormous amount of change. The question is not, how can I become sacramental? The natural is the sacramental. That is why all the to-do over the pope and the church is offensive.“
Goeser then told about his Roman Catholic grandfather and the favorite uncle and the whole catholic side of his family to show his attachment to the people of the Catholic Church.
“The point, however, that Luther makes is that Christianity is about ordinary language and ordinary people, which precludes having a special spiritual estate that is set apart. A priest is no more and no less than a human being. A priest is not ontologically superior to a layperson. For a Roman Catholic there is no question that the priest is different. The being or nature of Protestant pastors has not changed; they merely have different responsibilities. The tonsure, the different garments and their celibacy to make Roman Catholic priests belong to another gender are all false externals and are not spiritual. In Luther‘s lectures on Galatians of 1519, he opens Christianity up. The ordained do not belong to a different human order. The idea of a celibate gender is really a way to separate the lay-people from the clergy. It is not just a question of practice, of having sex or not, but of making the priesthood part of a different order. Luther maintained that they were in the same order with the laity.“
I wondered out loud, “Is there no setting apart of the called for holy orders? Luther maintained that there was not a spiritual estate set apart from the lay estates, but that there was only one Christian estate, the priesthood of all believers, and the whole Christian estate was the spiritual estate, and even the laity had spiritual vocations and not merely the priests as a separate group. But sometimes it may be necessary to be called out and sometimes it may be necessary to be called back in. It is the process of detachment and return. Luther is fully into the process of return. Could Luther‘s theology be a corrective?“
Goeser did not pick up on that rather sweeping limitation of Luther‘s theology. I then continued, “Some Catholics argue that Lutherans do not even have a doctrine of ministry.“
“Lutherans have a different doctrine of the priesthood.“
Goeser argued. “While the Roman Catholic position wants many external differences between a priest and a lay person, the Lutheran position makes everyone an ordinary person, whether lay or priest, although if a Christian, then a member of the priesthood. Luther resisted the idea that ordination gave the person a different nature. It doesn‘t. Luther‘s ideas are still very radical.“
I said, “In the reading this time, Luther states quite explicitly that Christians have no distinguishing marks that set them apart. Then that holds for priests as well, because of his teaching of the priesthood of all believers.“ Meanwhile I was searching for the place. It was in the section where Luther explained “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female“ which is on page 280.
You are righteous, [says Paul], not because you are Jew and an observer of the Law, but because by believing in Christ you have put on Christ. Why then are you being dragged to Judaism by the false apostles? Just as in Christ there is no status for Jewish observance, so there is no other status either. It is characteristic of human and legalistic kinds of righteousness to be divided into sects, and for distinctions to be made according to works (WA II: 529-530).
“Luther encapsulated most of the history of Christianity in that last sentence.“ Goeser interrupted, before we could get to the marks of a Christian. “Human beings want to distinguish themselves. Luther is not attacking them, but merely describing the way humans are. They want to be distinguished by their works.“ But he continued with Luther‘s passage:
Some profess, advocate, and pursue this; others, that. In Christ, however, all things are common to all; all things are one thing and one thing is all things. Thus Paul says later in chapter 5:6: “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail, but faith and the new creature.“ For this reason the Christian or believer is a [person] without a name, without outward appearance, without a distinguishing mark, without status. Ps. 133:1 says: “Behold how good and pleasant it is when brothers [and sisters] dwell in unity!“ Where there is unity there is neither outward appearance nor a distinguishing mark. Nor is there a name. As the renowned martyr Attalus, on being asked concerning the name of his God, answered very well: “Those who are many are differentiated by names, he who is one does not need a name.“ And for this reason Scripture calls the church concealed and hidden. (Ibid.)
“Luther does not only declare that a Christian has no distinguishing marks, but is throwing in many other insights to boot. Luther provides a unitive vision of oneness behind the level of differentiation, much like one would hear among Buddhists.“ I said.
Professor Goeser did not react to my Buddhism remark, which really stems from my teaching “World Religions“ this semester, but considered the cluster of Luther‘s assertions around “no distinguishing marks.“
Goeser: “Those statement are really earth-shaking: ‘without a name, without outward appearance, without a distinguishing mark, without status.‘ Luther is saying things that are earth-shaking! A Christian needs outward marks so that people can tell they are Christians. Everybody wants outward marks in order to distinguish themselves. And we certainly can‘t let these marks go.“
“A Catholic commentary I just read stated that Luther was no scholar, but the many thoughts and insights in this paragraph seem ready to burst out of the words.“ I said.
“Luther does not write in scholarly language that draws attention to its intellectuality or nor does he write in theological language so difficult that a layperson could not understand it. But look at what he is saying. Where there is unity no one has need of a name. Those who are many have names, while the one has no need of a name. That is why he says the Christian is not only without distinguishing marks, but also without name. The church is also concealed and hidden in that internal unity. Look how he continues to support the fact that there can be no sects and no status.“ Goeser continued the passage:
and one observes very well that as often as the righteous are described, they are described without any term for sect or status, as in Ps. 1:6: “For the Lord know the way of the righteous.“ (He does not say “of the Jews, of men, of the aged, of children.“ And in Ps. 15:1 we read: “O Lord, who shall sojourn in thy tent?“ He answers (v.2): “He who walks blamelessly.“ (He does not say the Jew or the one of this or that profession.“) And in Ps. 111:1 it says: “In the company of the upright, in the congregation. (He does not say, “of priests, of monks, of bishops.“) One must pronounce the same judgment concerning every other status, because God does not regard the person. (Acts 10:34). Therefore there is neither rich nor poor, neither handsome nor ugly, neither citizen nor farmer, neither Benedictine nor Carthusian, neither Minorite nor Augustinian. All these things are of such a nature that they do not make a Christian if they are present or an unbeliever if they are lacking; but they are certainly undertaken and done for the purpose of training and improving a Christian (page 280-281).
Goeser exclaimed, “Look at that. ‘As often as the righteous are described they are described without any term for sect or status!‘ ‘And for this reason Scripture calls the church concealed and hidden.“ How can this man write like that? How come I can‘t write like that. I would give my life to be able to write a sentence like: ‘For this reason the Christian or believer is a [person] without a name, without outward appearance, without a distinguishing mark, without status.‘ It‘s not fair. How can one man be given all of that insight? My little daughter would always exclaim, ‘It‘s not fair.‘ It‘s just not fair that he could write like that. The one is she or he ‘who walks blamelessly‘. ‘God does not regard the person‘. Look at the last sentence. It has the definition of adiaphora in a nutshell. Yet it can be done for the improvement or training of a Christian.“
We turned to page 241-242 again because we covered the latter page with notes and exclamations all over the margins of both of our copies, notes such as: “Christus Victor, the great duel, the champion come to fight, strategizing for the coming battle, atonement not in terms of what is done or in terms of merits, but in terms of a cosmic battle.“ The difference between Luther‘s theology and medieval theology becomes very clear. The full paragraph on page 242 is an incredible paragraph and it is prefaced by the basic insight Luther had in his experience of justification by faith:
In the Scriptures the righteousness of God is almost everywhere taken in a sense of faith and grace, very rarely in the sense of sternness with which He condemns the wicked and lets the righteous go free, as is the custom everywhere nowadays (WA II: 504-505).
Goeser reread the sentence “the righteousness of God … in the sense of faith and grace, very rarely in the sense of sternness with which He condemns the wicked, etc.“ Goeser said, “Where did the Protestants forget this in the last 400 years? We certainly represent that sternness and condemnation of others more that the righteousness of grace and faith!“
The paragraph that then follows presents two parables in terms of the cosmic duel and our insufficiency up against the powers and principalities of this world, and then this passage identifies the one who is our Champion, that for our victory we need to rely upon Christ, and the whole paragraph is framed in the most profound understanding of faith as the source of invincible strength. The paragraph enters one internal level of meaning after another, going from the inner to the inner most, to the very heart.
But if rendering of ourselves to everyone what is his [or hers] must be called the righteousness of faith, then it is better to understand that we do this through a renunciation – as they call it – of all goods, as the Lord teaches in Luke 14:28ff. In the parable of the man building a tower and of the one who is going to fight someone stronger that him/herself (vv. 31ff.) For those who, in reliance on their own strength, seek to justify and save themselves through the works of the Law build a tower – after the example of those who began the Tower of Babel – and with their paltry supplies of works go to meet Christ, who will be the all-powerful Judge. He counsels them to reckon up the costs first. They will find that they do not have the ability. Therefore let them give up all presumptuous claims to wisdom, virtue, and righteousness; and while He is still far away, let them ask for peace as they despair of themselves and in complete faith cast themselves on the mercy of the King who will come. For this is how Christ concluded that same parable: ASo, therefore, whoever of you does not renounce all that he has cannot be my disciple@ (Luke 14:33). This means you will not be a Christian unless you cast away your own righteousness entirely and rely on faith alone. (Ibid.)
“Look at that interpretation! ‘Renounce all that you have!‘ Luther says, ‘cast away your own righteousness entirely‘. You cannot be a Christian unless you cast away your own righteousness entirely and rely on faith alone. What a sentence! It just isn‘t fair. I would give my life to write just one sentence like that and he just throws them off one after another as if they were nothing. It is not fair!“ Professor Goeser is not one to worry about repeating himself.
Luther is of course referring to three different stories or parables in the Scripture: first, the Tower of Babel, where in a Promethean spirit, the people tried to storm heaven by their own strength and fail in their powerful self-assertion against heaven; then, perhaps, one of Christ‘s allusions to the Tower of Babel story, but in a context of renunciation of a false reliance, according to Luther; and thirdly, the calculation and recognition that in a coming battle, one‘s earthly forces are insufficient; thus, relying on one‘s own strength guarantees failure.
Luther‘s words are transparent, because the cosmic duel of the Christ leading the forces of heaven against the evil one can be seen in the depths. Without the Champion coming to fight for us, for his believers, for his Christians, we do not have a chance, because the one in the world is more powerful by far than we are. But Christ, the One in us, is stronger than the one in the world. He can bind the strong man and plunder his house. If on our own strength we set out to do battle it cannot be won. In Luther‘s experience of justification by faith, we have to consider our own “righteousness as refuse” in comparison to the righteousness we receive from on high. We have to see our own strength as nothing and rely on the incomparable strength of God that comes from faith in Christ by grace.
“When Luther speaks of despair in one‘s own ability,“ I said, “that goes all the way back to the Eighteenth thesis of his Heidelberg Disputation“:
18. It is certain that a [person] must utterly despair of his [or her] own ability before s/he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.[2]
“And in a way Luther is more comprehensively Socratic. Socrates only proposed a renunciation of one‘s own knowledge, because he knew that he knew nothing, while Luther advises us to >give up all presumptuous claims to wisdom, virtue, and righteousness… while He is still far away‘. And from Luther I learned that one has to make another move beyond the intellect. Socrates says, ‘The more you know the more you know you don‘t know‘ and from Luther I learned, ‘The more righteous you are, the more conscious and aware you become of how sinful you are.‘” I said.
Professor Goeser then observed, “Luther is not just providing a doctrine of justification by faith but a whole new concept of reality. It is not a doctrine to Luther but an experience. In the abstract disputations of St. Thomas Aquinas, one will search in vain for such a living interpretation of the experience of the human condition.“
“Studying Immanuel Kant, I find that many of Luther‘s insights come up in his philosophy. I see Kant‘s autonomy clearly conceived by Luther on page 284, where Luther refers to ‘slavish fear of punishment‘ and ‘love of a reward’ which Kant would term heteronomy. And for the most part, theologians have used philosophers as the basis for their theology, for example, Augustine and Plato, St. Thomas and Aristotle, or to take a recent example, Moltmann and Ernst Bloch. But Ulrich Asendorf argues that the theology of Luther was the basis for Hegel‘s very fruitful philosophy.[3] And some of Luther seems like sheer existentialism.“
Goeser responded: “This ‘despair with the self‘ is what I consider the quintessence of existentialism. Later in Lutheran orthodoxy, what Luther had was lost to a kind of generalized experience, and Pietism went over into affect which Luther, however, never disconnected from intellect.“
“We Lutherans often do not understand Luther, because our familiarity with his words, somehow obscures the radical nature of what he says, and we remain in our ‘dogmatic slumbers.‘ Those who criticize him from outside our tradition, have usually never read him – that, of course, goes for many Lutherans as well. They have never read him.“ I offered.
“What we are reading and experiencing here is not just a question of Lutheranism, nor of a question of Luther‘s being German. It is a question of a great thinker dealing with the human condition.“ Prof. Goeser concluded. “Let’s read 50 pages more for next week.”
Dr. Peter D. S. Krey
Change versus Improvement according to Luther
From my Dissertation March 10, 2001
Luther speaks about change versus improvement:
“Often have I said that change and improvement are two different things (but who will believe me until they experience it?): one lies in human hands and God‘s ordaining; the other in God‘s hands and gracious favor.“
From Luther’s Commentary on Psalm 101, written in 1534.
WA 51:258.22‑24.
I you do not know the way scholars refer to the Weimar Edition of Luther’s Works,
“WA 51:258.22‑24” means:
Volume 51 in the Weimar Edition of Luther‘s Works, page 258, lines 22-24.
The quotation in Luther’s Early New High German:
Denn ich hab nu offt gesagt (wer wolt mir aber gleuben, bis mans [23] erfare?), Das Endern und Bessern sind zweierley. Eines stehet jnn der menschen [24] hende und Gottes verhengen, Das ander jnn Gottes henden und gnaden.
WA 51:258.22-24.
As taken from my dissertation:
The direct action of God is so important, because God alone brings improvement, while humans bring only change. In Luther‘s Commentary for Psalm 101 (1534), a Fürstenspiegel, ( a mirror for princes) for the elector John Frederick, the Magnanimous, he wrote:
“change and improvement are two different things: one lies in human hands and God‘s ordaining; the other in God‘s hands and gracious favor.“[1]
Now directly from the WA:
Denn ich hab nu offt gesagt (wer wolt mir aber gleuben, bis mans erfare?), Das Endern
Und Bessern sind zweierley. Eines stehet jnn der menschen hende und Gottes verhengen,
Das ander jnn Gottes henden und gnaden.
To put that in modern German:
„Denn ich habe nun oft gesagt (wer wollt mir aber glauben, bis man’s erfahre?):
Das Verändern und Verbessern sind zeierlei. Eines steht in der Menschen Hände und Gottes Verhängen. Das Andere in Gottes Händen und Gnaden.“ [2]
[1] H. H. Borcherdt and George Merz, editors. Martin Luther: Ausgewählte Werke, vol.5, 2nd ed.,(Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1936), p. 428. Also see WA 51:258.22-24.
[2] I first read this passage in the Borchert and Merz edition of Luther’s Works. It was the one produced right before World War II. But it can also be found in the WA, that is, volume 51 in the Weimar Edition of Luther‘s Works, page 258, lines 22‑24.
