Via Pieper’s “On the History of the Doctrine of Inspiration,” from Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, 275-76.

by David M. Whitford

In 1996, Bernhard Lohse wondered if the Luther presented by some would recognize the Luther described by others.2 Trying to recognize the “political” Luther would be especially difficult. On the one hand, Thomas Muntzer was but the first in a long line of polemicists, journalists, politicians, and scholars who have accused Luther of releasing the sword of secular authority from all control and thereby opening up centuries of authoritarian subjugation.3 On the other hand, Peter Frarin argued in 1566 that Protestantism equaled sedition, rebellion, and the subversion of civil order.4 In the criticism of Luther for being either too conservative or too liberal, one thing remained fairly constant: the source of Luther’s major shortcoming-his theology of the Two Kingdoms.5

Recently, however, Luther’s commitment to the Two Kingdoms has been called into question. James Estes has argued that beginning in 1530, Luther began to abandon the Two Kingdoms in favor of the more traditional idea of the cura religionis as advanced by his close associate and friend Philip Melanchthon.6 Melanchthon argued that the community was a Christian commonwealth and that the magistrate had a responsibility, as the custodian of both tables of the Law, to regulate the right order of true religion.7 Traditionally, Luther has been understood as having rejected the cura religionis in favor of his own dialectical doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in which the magistrate has certain functions and the church has other functions. Both are essential and complementary, but necessarily distinct. While it has often been argued that beginning in 1530 Luther began to reinterpret his Two Kingdoms doctrine to allow for a greater role in religion by civil authorities, Estes argues that Luther did not just reach different conclusions regarding the effect and interpretation of the Two Kingdoms, but that he largely abandoned it in favor of Melanchthon’s understanding of the cura religionis.8 This essay assesses the validity of such a shift by examining Luther’s Lectures on Genesis. The Lectures on Genesis provide an excellent resource for this reassessment because Genesis lends itself to discussions of law, sin, government, and authority.9 Further, the Genesis Lectures come at the end of Luther’s career and therefore provide an excellent window of comparison between the commitments of the “young” Luther (who is universally regarded as having rejected the idea of a cura religionis) and the “mature” Luther.10 This reassessment is important because there are few areas in Luther’s thought that have been as heavily criticized and critiqued as his understanding of the Two Kingdoms, secular authority, and religious freedom.

Luther used two terms when speaking of the Two Kingdoms.11 The first ought to be referred to as the Two Realms (Zwei Reiche Lehre) because it refers to the two spheres of one’s existence: before God and before humanity. The geistliche Reich (the spiritual realm) is one’s existence cor am deo (before God). The weltliche Reich (the worldly realm) refers to one’s existence coram hominibus (before humanity). The spiritual realm is eternal and everlasting; it is the realm of the Gospel, revelation, and faith. Two motifs run through Luther’s thought about the spiritual realm: freedom and equality. Freedom allows one to act in service for the benefit of others. Equality asserts that the spiritual realm is not governed hierarchically. In this realm all Christians are equal. Whereas the spiritual realm is eternal and proleptic, the secular is finite and fleeting. Here law and convention instead of service are definitive; it is the realm of reason and unbelief.

Contained within these Two Realms is Luther’s idea of Two Governments (Zwei Regimente Lehre). The Two Governments are the flip side of the coin to the Two Realms. The first (das geistliche Regiment) is the spiritual government of the church exercised through the proclamation of the Word of God and proper administration of the sacraments. The second (das weltliche Regiment) is the worldly government of emperors, rulers, and ruled, which is governed by law and enforced by coercion. The responsibility of the secular realm is to limit the effects of sin and malfeasance and thus to ensure that the unjust will not run rampant over the weak and downtrodden.12

Thus, Luther attempted in the 152Os to set a new course in the relationship between the church and the state. Instead of one being the subject of the other, they would each have clearly defined roles and spheres of influence that must be kept distinct.13 To investigate Luther’s commitment to the Two Kingdoms, we shall look for the consistent use of these themes in the Lectures on Genesis. We shall begin with his understanding of authority and government, for it is in Genesis, Luther argues, that human authority is established. The proper definition of authority is a cornerstone of the Two Kingdoms. If Luther fails to remain consistent here to the principles regarding authority he set forth in the 152Os, then he has indeed abandoned the Two Kingdoms in favor of the cura religionis.

Second, as an extension of the examination of authority, we must explore the dual nature of authority. In 1526, Luther boasted that “not since the time of the apostles have the temporal sword and authority been so clearly described or so highly praised as by me.”14 Now we must ask whether in praising it so highly, he gave it more authority than was warranted. all authority, for Luther, is derived from God. Thus, other authorities receive their sanction from God as well. Fathers, Burghermeisters, and princes are ordained by God for the maintenance of good and are thus due obedience (Romans 13:1-7). However, it is also divided between the secular and the spiritual. In the 1520s, Luther was very clear that the two should be neither confused nor combined. Collapsing the kingdoms and therefore advocating a landesherrliche Kirchenregiment in the Lectures on Genesis would clearly substantiate the claim of a transition to the cura religionis.

Finally, we must examine Luther’s understanding of Law and Gospel. The Genesis lectures are ideal for this purpose, not simply because it is in Genesis that Luther discusses the implications of the Fall, but because it is here in Genesis that Luther finds the Gospel proclaimed in its pristine, prelapsarian form. The Law and Gospel are a central dialectic in Luther’s thought.15 Luther notes two proper uses of the Law: the natural/civil/or political use and the theological. The Law in its political sense is a good gift of God in that it limits human sin and avarice and thus promotes the common good. Theologically, the Law reveals the utter uselessness and futility of salvation by works.16 Thus he rejects the ethical and moral approaches to God (and their attendant social/political structures). In their place, Luther offers God’s promise of salvation given freely in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.17

I. Authority in the Lectures on Genesis

Luther uses the phrases authority, government, or power of the sword repeatedly throughout the Lectures on Genesis; however, it is in reference to two pericopes that he offers his most detailed exploration of the subject. The first time he touches with any depth on the issue of authority is in Genesis 2:16-17. Genesis 2 is the second telling of the creation story and has as its focus the creation of Adam and Eve in the Garden. In verses 16 and 17, God commands Adam and Eve, “Eat from every tree in Paradise, but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil do not eat.” For Luther the pronouncement of this edict signals the institution of authority within the human community by establishing the authority of the church and the home. The church is brought into being by the proclamation of the Word (that is, the edict) to Adam. The authority of the home is established because Adam alone hears this Word and must then communicate it to Eve; thus husbands instruct their wives.

Absent from this prelapsarian institution of authority is any sense of restriction, punishment, or chastisement that attend authority after the Fall. In a sense, here, we see only the edifying use of authority:

Adam had need of this command concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil; namely, [so that] there should be an outward form of worship and an outward work of obedience toward God. . . . Who, then, is either so ignorant or so deranged as to conclude from this that no Law was given to Adam when he hears it stated that Adam was righteous? For nothing else follows from this than that the Law given to the unrighteous is not the same Law that was given to righteous Adam. Moreover, when a Law is given to righteous Adam, it follows that this is a different Law from the one which later was given to the unrighteous.18

The law “do not eat” provides Adam and Eve with parameters in which to live and serves to guide them in right living and the right worship of God.19 Thus, for Luther, authority is part of God’s original plan for creation. Creation is to have order and direction; however, there is no need of the convicting aspect of the law (its first use) or of the political use of the law as a deterrent to crime (its second use). These aspects only become essential to life after the Fall.

For Luther, the effects of the Fall are devastating in their totality. The imago Dei is shattered, and from then on, humanity is bound to sin. As an alleviation to this depraved state, God offers the law: now experienced, however, as judgment, conviction, and punishment. Once sin enters the picture, the aspect of the law as edifying fades into the background before its first two uses. In Genesis 9, Luther turns to examine these aspects of authority.

Genesis 9 records the postdeluge covenant between God and Noah. God begins by pledging, “never again to destroy all living creatures” and then commands Noah and his family to be “fruitful and multiply.” Because homicide threatens the latter command and flaunts the former promise, God further commands that those who take human life must give their own as punishment. For Luther, the imposition of the death penalty signals the establishment of the political use of the law (that is, the institution of governmental authority): “Here we have the source from which stem all civil law and the law of nations. If God grants to man power over life and death, surely he also grants power over what is less, such as property, the home, wife, children, servants, and fields. All these God wants to be subject to the power of certain human beings, in order that they may punish the guilty.”20 Had there been no Fall, there would be no murder or sin, and thus there would have been no need for government.21 All of government’s activity flows from its authority to wield the sword in order to punish the wicked. This understanding of governmental proper authority is wholly consistent with the “early” Luther. Throughout his life Luther understood the role of government to be a gift from God as “an outward remedy” to sin.22

Soon after Luther addressed the establishment of temporal authority, he turns to discuss its proper use by way of exegeting an example of its flagrant abuse. He uses the story of Nimrod as a backdrop for this discussion. Nimrod is the son of Cush and is portrayed in Genesis 10 as a great hunter and the founder of the Babylonian empire.23 Luther uses Nimrod as an example of authoritarian avarice, for “Nimrod was the first after the flood to strive for the sovereignty of the world.”24 Nimrod seeks his own glory and thus becomes the first postdeluge tyrant. He does so by overthrowing his brothers and cousins and usurping their authority. For Luther the most significant aspect of this usurpation is Nimrod’s rebellion against Shem.25

As the father of the Semite peoples, Shem is the embodiment of God’s priesthood. When Luther looks at Nimrod he sees many of his contemporaries; that is to say, men who are unsatisfied with what they have and seek to grab what does not belong to them: “Not satisfied with his tyranny in the state, he also wants to be lord in the church. He sets up new forms of worship, and he oppresses those who stand before God. Moses clearly distinguishes how a thing appears before God from how it appears before men. What is good and righteous before God the world always regards as evil and unrighteous.”26 In the Lectures on Genesis, the essential nature of tyranny is the inappropriate meddling of one kingdom (the prince-Nimrod) in the other (the church-Shem).27 This usurpation is especially troubling to Luther because it jeopardizes not just the lives of its victims but their very souls. For this tyrant, “does not hunt hares, deer, or boars, as the hunters do; but he lies in wait for the righteous, the holy, the prophets, and the priests of God. He hunts, traps, and kills those who are dear to God, who have faith, and in whom God Himself dwells through His Spirit.”28 The danger of mixing the two kingdoms is that it confuses Law and Gospel.

The theme of Law and Gospel recurs throughout the Genesis Lectures. However, Luther chooses the story of Jacob’s blessing of Joseph’s second son Ephraim rather than the first-born Manasseh in Genesis 48:17(29) for his most detailed exegesis of the topic. What is important about this story is that both men are “very spiritual men”; neither is a tyrant or an ally of the devil. Both are good, upright, God-fearing men, and yet the disagreement between them is great. How is such a situation possible, for this is not the first time it has occurred; Abraham disagreed with Sarah and Isaac disagreed with Rebecca. The answer lies in the distinction between the Law and Gospel, for in each case of disagreement one participant sides with human law, tradition, and natural right while the other places his or her trust in God’s promise.

God promised to make of Abraham a great nation. Prematurely, Abraham sought to accomplish this through his servant Hagar. Thus, Ishmael was Abraham’s first-born son, and Abraham sought to bless him. Sarah, however, denied the legitimacy of Ishmael and advocated for her son, Isaac. Choosing Ishmael represents tradition (for legally Abraham was right and Sarah was not); Isaac represents God’s promise that was, incidentally, made to both Abraham and Sarah. Likewise, Isaac and Joseph both seek the bestowal of blessing on their eldest sons (Esau and Manasseh, respectively). Luther finds much to praise in the actions of Abraham, Isaac, and Joseph. Human tradition and custom have much to offer and should not be cast aside:

The doctrine of the Law should be retained because it is necessary for the preservation of discipline. Therefore the Law should be kept very rigidly, just as Abraham upholds Ishmael, Joseph upholds Manasseh, etc. For the Law must not be cast aside because of the promise of grace; but it must be taught in order that discipline and the doctrine concerning good works may be retained, and in order that we may be instructed to know and humble ourselves after we have sinned. This is the true and necessary use of the Law. For in this life we need government and parents, who uphold discipline by means of rewards and punishments and who keep the Law and govern and direct their conduct in a godly and prudent manner according to the norm of the Law.30

Thus law has a powerful and fruitful role to play in human affairs, but its authority is not absolute. It is counterweighted by the Gospel.31

Human tradition advocates primogeniture, “but the divine blessing prefers the other son.” The Gospel comes contrary to our expectations. It is mercy when we ought to expect (because we deserve) condemnation. It is hope when we seem trapped in despair (Anfechtungen). Here in some of the last writings of Luther, we find again the Theology of the Cross. Because of humanity’s fallen condition, one can neither understand the redemptive word nor see God face to face; instead one sees only the backside.32 Thus, God reveals himself where it seems he should not be,33

But Jacob replies: “I understand, my son, that you are defending the right of primogeniture according to the Law, which you want to be preserved and honored. And it is also my wish that it be firm and immovable. But now it is not the time and place for the Law. No, this is the time and place for the divine blessing, which is not subject to laws or to our right or our wisdom.” Accordingly, he does not reject Joseph’s opinion but leaves the matter undecided; he does not abolish the Law but carries out the business of the promise.34

This understanding of the important distinction between Law and Gospel has important implications for Luther’s understanding of the relationship between the state and the believer. First, it reinforces the danger of mixing the Two Kingdoms.35 For example, if princes attempted to run states by the Gospel’s call to turn the other cheek, mass exploitation and sin would result, and if pastor’s governed the church by the sword, the message of free grace would be hopelessly lost.36 Second, this highlights the futility of attempting to coerce the conscience. The state may demand outward conformity, but it can never subjugate the will or the heart. God has given the secular prince the power of the sword for the maintenance of order and justice.37 Authorities ought to devote themselves to that and leave the proclamation of the Word to the church and the disposition of souls to God. The wisdom here is simple, yet profound: pastors make poor kings, and kings make poor pastors.38

II. Luther and the Cura Religionis

The consistency apparent in Luther’s discussion of authority, the distinction of the secular and the sacred, and the separation of the Law from the Gospel requires us to re-examine the proposed turn to the cura religionis in the 1530s. To accomplish this, however, we must examine one other aspect of Luther’s thought in the Genesis Lectures-natural law. Natural law is not a subject much discussed in reference to the Two Kingdoms. It is an unspoken assumption-there, yet not widely discussed. Why then is it crucial here? Simply put, the argument that Luther abandoned the Two Kingdoms in favor of the cura religionis stands or falls on the proper consideration of Luther’s conception of natural law.

The argument in favor of the turn to the cura religionis rests on Luther’s exegesis of Psalms 8239 and 101.40 Both Psalms lend themselves to the discussion of authority, government, and justice. Luther uses Psalm 8241 as an opportunity to instruct the authorities (a Furstenspiegel) of his time in the just administration of society because of its focus on the establishment of justice and the responsibility of the community to care for the needy and weak. Psalm 10142 is even more amenable to the instruction of authorities because it is a royal psalm of David on the nature of kingship and may, in fact, be an ancient Israelite oath taken by kings when they ascended to office.

Two events precipitated Luther’s writing of the exegesis of Psalm 82 in 1530. First, the exegesis is a response to the deplorable conditions witnessed in the 1529 Saxon church visitations. second, it is also a response to a 1530 controversy in Nuremberg concerning the right of secular government to enforce religious conformity.4′ These two events, however, cannot be separated from the impending Diet of Augsburg. On January 21, 1530, Charles V summoned an imperial Diet to meet in Augsburg on April 8th. The fundamental task to be addressed by the Diet was the Turkish threat. For Charles, the best way to meet the threat was to secure internal unity. Religious discord and internal political fraction are not the foundation stones upon which one hopes to lay a successful campaign against the “invading infidel.” The designation of the Turkish threat and the desire for unity as the central concerns of the Diet placed the evangelical princes in a particularly difficult situation by forcing them to defend their right to reform (ius reformandi) religion in their realms. These three events thus forced Luther to consider the prince’s responsibility to religion (that is, the cura religionis) and to defend the ius reformandi.

Luther begins with some general comments about the fundamental responsibilities of secular authority; he then moves on to discuss the role and function of princes specifically. Concerning authority, Luther argues first that it is established to provide order and maintain the peace (82:1). Second, it must wield the sword with justice and according to the statues and laws of the nation (82:1). Building on these general principles, Luther next examines the prince specifically. He begins by arguing that princes ought to be godly and ought to “repress the godless” (82:2). To accomplish this, the prince ought to see to it that “God’s Word is protected and supported” (82:2). Given this assertion, it seems on first reading that Luther plainly adopts the view that a prince should regulate religion and ensure religious conformity within his realm. However, the case is not as clear-cut as one might think. While Luther certainly makes statements that imply a fairly vigorous cum religionis,44 these statements cannot be understood separate from their context.

In Rhetoric classes, one learns early on that to accept the opposition’s first premise is folly. In this case, the discussion at hand seems to be the toleration of religious minorities and the inappropriate use of the sword in religious affairs. For example, Georg Frolich, the author of the 1530 Nuremberg tract Whether Secular Government has the Right to Wield the Sword in Matters of Faith, writes,

But the New Testament speaks of two kingdoms on earth, mainly the spiritual and the secular. The spiritual kingdom is the kingdom of Christ in which Christ is the king. Similarly, the secular realm also has its king, namely the emperor and other authorities. . . . From this it is clear that Christ does not wish the sword of the secular government to be used to root anything out of his kingdom, but wishes rather to do combat there solely by his word until the end of time.45

This quotation could easily have come from the pen of Luther, and Frolich intends it that way. he argues that “fighting for or against the true faith, the one as well as the other, constitute interference in Christ’s kingdom and rebellion against it”;46 thus religious minorities must be tolerated. However, Luther consistently rejected a priori categories, and does so here.

Though Frolich writes about tolerance for all religious minorities, the issue in Nuremberg was really about the toleration of Anabaptists.47 Refusing to fall into Frolich’s rhetorical trap, Luther does not discuss religious tolerance broadly conceived, but rather Anabaptism and religious radicalism in particular. Thus, Thomas Muntzer and Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt lurk in the background of this text. An awareness of this context then clarifies Luther’s language. How should a prince “support and defend God’s word?” Luther asks. He must punish sedition, rebuke blasphemy, and ensure that those who preach have proper authority to preach.

That heresy and disbelief lie beyond the jurisdiction of the prince is clearly true, and to attempt to force one to believe is foolishness. However, not all heretics are created equal. A simple heresy of works righteousness is not the same thing as the heresy of Anabaptism. Because Anabaptists call into question the legitimacy of government and attempt to place themselves beyond the authority of the magistrate, they are not “heretics only, but rebels, who are attacking the rulers and their government, just as a thief attacks another’s goods, a murderer another’s body, an adulterer another’s wife; and this is not to be tolerated.”48 Beliefs are private and untouchable, but actions and words have repercussions that must be clearly and forcefully addressed. The care of religion in this case is not so much the care of religion as it is the assurance that governmental authority is not overthrown; so that while from the outside it looks like the prince has overstepped his bounds and meddled in religion, he really has not.49

But, what of blasphemy? The civil government’s authority traditionally extends to the second table of the law. The commandment against Blasphemy is on the first table. How can Luther legitimately argue that punishing blasphemy is a civil affair? The answer to this question lies in Luther’s understanding of natural law. Luther uses the phrases, “natural law,” “laws of nature,” and “command of God” 583 times in the American Edition of his works. Their occurrences stretch from the very earliest writings to the very last. Across these thousands of pages and decades of work, one thing remains clear: blasphemy is not like the other prohibitions on the first table. Rather, blasphemy belongs with those aspects of the second table made known to all people.50 In 1525 in the tract, “How Christians Ought to Regard Moses,” Luther writes, “To be sure, the Gentiles have certain laws in common with the Jews, such as these: there is one God, no one is to do wrong to another, no one is to commit adultery or murder or steal, and others like them. This is written by nature into their hearts; they did not hear it straight from heaven as the Jews did.”51 Thus, for Luther, blasphemy, together with theft, murder, and adultery, was not simply a matter of conscience, but a matter of civil violation.

While we may view this position as incompatible with his Two Kingdoms, he certainly did not. For Luther, as well as all of his contemporaries (witness that Calvin’s Geneva burned Servetus to the universal acclamation of Christendom), blasphemy was of a completely different order than, for example, keeping the Sabbath. Not only was blasphemy a violation of natural law, but in the worldview that Luther inhabited, it also ran the risk of fierce divine punishment.52 When these two contexts are fully appreciated, Luther’s remarks in Psalm 82 are not the deep bow to the cura religionis they seem to be at first.

Close reading of Psalm 101 finds many of the same issues still in play. Nearly five years after the Psalm 82 commentary, Luther is nevertheless concerned about the same fundamental issues at stake in the late 1520s. Psalm 101 is dedicated to John Frederick of Saxony and was published in 1534. Luther wrote it following the death of John Frederick’s father and his ascension to the electoral office. At the time, John Frederick was a mature adult and a dedicated Lutheran. Luther’s thoughts, then, are not issued in the midst of a particular crisis or to an unseasoned leader, but are instead offered to a faithful prince as he accepts a weighty responsibility. As such, Psalm 101 is more tempered and measured.

Luther begins by warning John Frederick to avoid the major pitfall of authority-arrogance. Arrogance will lead to the belief that one is competent in affairs that one has no business meddling in:

[Many in authority] would have liked to see themselves alone be masters on earth . . . and in this that have truly succeeded, to such an extent that fifty percent or more of the secular leaders have forgotten their own duties and have occupied themselves with the church and with Masses, while the clergy have in the same measure given up their priestly duties and have busied themselves with hunting, waging war, and such utterly secular affairs.53

This sad state of affairs has led to a deplorable mixing of offices and thus a profound negligence of their rightful duties. With this sad state before him, then, Luther moves on to advise John Frederick in the wise administration of his office.

He begins by reminding John Frederick that kings and princes have been given a great responsibility and with it tremendous power. This power must be administered with “mercy and justice.” Too much justice (that is, law and punishment) will lead to tyranny. Too much mercy will fill the world with “wicked rascals.” John Frederick must seek “moderation in all things.” If he reigns in such a manner, he would truly be a blessing to his people. This course is not easy, however, and so Luther urges John Frederick to pray constantly for God’s grace.54

Luther then moves on to offer more specific advice. First, a ruler must rule discreetly, uprightly, and be attentive to God’s Word. In other words, the ruler must not place himself beyond the admonition of God’s Word. Too often, Luther felt, rulers ignored God’s Word and ruled according to their own wisdom. This neglects a great resource. Second, the ruler must punish blasphemy and those who despise God. Here he echoes his sentiments in Psalm 82, but here we also gain some insight as to why this is even necessary. For if knowledge of God is natural, why then do some fall into blasphemy instead of mere idolatry? The answer is that natural law and reason are not equally apprehended by all, for the world is full of “fools and children.” Thus God has created things in “such a way that men are not alike and that one should rule while the other should obey him.”55 Instruction, thus, as well as just punishment, is an end in the chastisement of blasphemers. Finally, the just ruler must punish lawbreakers and shun the company of the immoral. Nearly all the rest of Psalm is devoted to warning John Frederick against the “confusion and mingling of the secular and spiritual realms.”56

III. Conclusion

As Luther concluded his work on Genesis in the early fall of 1545, he had one final occasion to return to the issue of government and religion.57 The context is chapter 49. This is a pivotal chapter in the Pentateuch, for it is the deathbed blessing of the Tribes of Israel by Jacob. The text lends itself to a discussion of the Two Kingdoms, because of the blessing bestowed upon the House of Judah. Here, Judah is portrayed as the ruling house in the family of Jacob. Jacob prophesies that the scepter (or rule) of Judah shall not pass away until Shiloh shall come.

The text was understood in the early modern era in two ways. The beginning of the text was understood as a prophecy of David’s rule and kingdom. The end of the sentence was understood as a messianic prophecy (with Shiloh representing the Messiah) foretelling the Kingdom of Christ.58 This distinction between the kingdom of David and the Kingdom of Christ gave Luther a final opportunity to clarify the proper relationship between the weltliche Reich and the geistliche Reich. He begins by explaining that the Kingdom of David and the Kingdom of Christ cannot be the same because the historical record is clear: “The kingdom [of David] has fallen, the Jews have been dispersed and scattered over the whole world.” This kingdom of David “which was governed by arms, the sword, and violence has now ceased.” In its place, the Kingdom of Christ has been established. The Kingdom of Christ is not a kingdom of arms or the sword but “consists in hearing and obeying or believing the Word by which it is administered.” Luther writes, In the Word, therefore, there is a most powerful kingdom against death, sin, the devil, and all their tyranny, with power to save, to set free, and to defend for eternal salvation. About these things the rabbis know nothing. Nor do the papists or the Turks. But it is our duty to inculcate these matters diligently and to heed this striking difference between the kingdom of Christ and that of others, even David’s. For this is what Jacob means: “The kingdom of my son David, which cannot be administered without the sword and arms, will not endure; but the kingdom of . . . (Shiloh) will follow, and it will be governed by the Word alone.” Thus Christ says: “Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to the whole creation” (Mark 16:15). For that Word is most powerful. It is able to save from the hands of death and the devil as well as from the power of hell, and to translate into the kingdom of God. To this king, then, the nations shall listen; that is, they will be ruled by the Word. The work will be done through preaching. This will be the mark distinguishing the kingdom of Christ from the empires of the world, which are ruled by the sword and physical might. . . . For the Gospel is something heard (Euangelium enim est auditio). . . . It is not with the sword, not with fire, not with violence but with listening or hearing and with the doctrine of faith that . . . (Shiloh) will rule. And not only the Jews but all the peoples of the whole world will obey Him.59

Luther’s distinction between a kingdom of force and a kingdom of the Word was more germane to the political situation around him than at any other time since he began his Lectures on Genesis. As he wrote, the signs of impending doom for the Reformation were rising significantly on the horizon. Already by mid 1545, the emperor had (due largely to Philipp of Hesse’s bigamy) pacified the Schmalkaldic League, suppressed the Reformation in the duchy of Julich-Cleves, obtained the support of King Francis of France for a campaign against the Protestants, and secured his border with the Turks. For the first time in his reign, Charles was now in a strong enough position to fulfill the pledge to destroy Luther’s reforms that he had made in Worms in 1520.60

As this crisis edged toward the boiling point, Luther set out once again the fact that the conscience cannot be compelled. Force and might rightly belong to the weltliche Reich, but when force is used to compel belief, it corrupts the gospel into law. Luther’s point seems plain enough; the emperor may march into battle to destroy the Reformation, but he will ultimately fail because he has chosen the wrong weapon for this war. “The kingdom of Shiloh is a kingdom of the Word; for He calls and rules the peoples by the Word alone, without arms and force. But those who refuse to hear the Word do not belong to the kingdom of Christ. Therefore a people should allow itself to be drawn by the Word, not slavishly forced by scourges, prison, and floggings as men in worldly empires are compelled to obedience by force.”61

While it is certainly true that the cura religionis and the landesherrliche Kirchenregiment came to dominate religious and political life in the Holy Roman Empire following the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, I see no strong evidence to support the view that this would have been welcomed or much appreciated by Luther.62 For Luther, the involvement of princes in religious affairs was always a matter of emergency. He never intended it to be a permanent state of affairs, and, as we have noted here, he repeatedly resisted efforts to coerce religious uniformity and belief by force.63

Notes

1. This essay was originally presented at the Tenth International Congress for Luther Research in Copenhagen, Denmark in August 2002.
2. Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. and ed. Roy A. Harrisvillc (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1999), 3-6.
3. The list of detractors is far too large to list here. For Muntzer, see “A Highly provoked Vindication and Refutation of the unspiritual, soft-living, Flesh in Wittenberg, whose robbery and distortion of Scripture has so grievously polluted our wretched Christian Church,” in The Collected Works of Thomas Muntzer, trans. and ed. Peter Matheson (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1998), 324-50. For a recent example of this argument, see Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The Christian between God and Death (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1999).
4. Peter Frarin, An Oration against the Unlawful Insurrection of the Protestants of our Time (Antwerp, 1566). This tract is available through Early English Books Online ( www.eebo.org).
5. For a recent example of this, see Allster E. McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd. ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 209 f.: “Luther reinforced [the princes'] political authority by grounding it in divine providence. God governs the world, including the church, through the princes and magistrates. The church is in this world, and so must submit itself to the world order. . . . The way was [thus] opened to the eventual domination of the church by the state, which was a virtual universal trait of Lutheranism. The failure of the German church to oppose Hitler in the 1930s is widely seen as reflecting the inadequacies of Luther’s political thought.”
6. See, James Estes, “The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church: Melanchthon As Luther’s Interpreter and Collaborator,” Church History 67:3 (1998): 463-84.
7. Estes rightly notes that a comprehensive examination of Melanchthon’s thought regarding the civil magistrate has yet to be written. For general introductions, see Franz Lau, “Melanchthon und die Ordnung der Kirche,” in Phillip Melanchthon: Forschungsbeitrage zur verhindertsten Widerkehr seines Todestages, ed. Walter Ellinger (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1961); Timothy Wengert, Human Freedom, Christian Righteousness: Philip Melanchthon’s Exegetical Dispute with Erasmus of Rotterdam (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998); and again Timothy Wengert, LHZU and Gospel: Philip Melanchthon’s Debate with John Agricola of Eisleben over Poenitentta (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1997).
8. See Estes, “Godly Magistrate,” 473 f.
9. In the course of reassessing Luther’s commitment to the Two Kingdoms, this essay also contributes to the continuing conversation regarding the veracity of the Lectures on Genesis. In 1936, Peter Meinhold (Die Genesisvorlesung und ihre Herausgeber [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1936]) argued that Luther’s Lectures on Genesis could not be trusted to present an accurate representation of the “late” Luther. He argued that followers and supporters of Philip Melanchthon edited the Lectures in an attempt to bolster their arguments against Gnesio (or “True”) Lutherans in the theologically volatile years following Luther’s death. By examining the degree to which Luther either continued to use the Two Kingdoms doctrine as a framework for discussing religion and the state in the Genesis Lectures or abandoned it in favor of the cura religionis, we cannot only assess the degree to which the late Luther is consistent with the young Luther but also test Meinhold’s thesis. The degree to which government could regulate religion was fundamental to the disagreements between Melanchthon and the Gnesio-Lutherans, especially during the conflicts over the Augsburg (1548) Interim and the so-called Leipzig Interim. If, as this essay argues, there is a consistent use of the Two Kingdoms throughout the Genesis Lectures, then Meinhold’s thesis is undermined because if editors had manipulated the text to serve their theological debates, a natural (indeed crucial) area for revision would have been the discussion of religion and the state. One must also ask why, if the editors did manipulate the text, did staunch Gnesios find the Genesis Lectures worthy of translation. Robert Kolb (Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer 1520-1620 [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1999], 145 f.) notes that Basilius Faber, one of the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries, translated into German and introduced the Genesis Lectures. For a further discussion of the reliability of the Genesis Lectures, see Bernhard Klaus, “Die Lutheruberlieferung Veit Dietrichs und ihre Problematik,” in Zeitschrift fur bayerische Kirchengeschichte 53 (1984): 33-47. See also, Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532-1546, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993), 136-41. Here quoting from page 136, “These great lectures are unquestionably monumental documents of Luther’s mature theology, and they also reflect his participation in the developments, problems, and conflicts of the last decade of his life.” Brecht then goes on to explain the concerns regarding the Genesis Lectures and concludes, “Nevertheless, the bulk of this commentary, with its amazing richness of features and allusions, undoubtedly does come from Luther, and his spirit is evident in it. Despite the subsequent alterations, this monumental work may still be regarded as primarily his work and thus as a useful source.” See also, Ulrich Asendorf, Lectura in Biblia: Luthers Genesisvorlesung (1535-1545) (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1998). See 33 f., for a discussion of Meinhold’s thesis. See 248 f., for a discussion of the Two Kingdoms in the Lectures on Genesis.
10. In this regard this essay also contributes to the debate about how much Luther really changed his positions regarding the status and role of the civil magistrate in ordering the religious life of the community. In Tyranny and Resistance: The Magdeburg Confession and the Lutheran Tradition, (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 2001), I argued for an overall consistency in Luther’s thought, while others such as Cargill Thompson (Luther’s Political Thought) have argued for a dramatic change. By comparing some of Luther’s statements on secular authority written in the 1520s to ones written in the 1540s, this essay furthers the discussion of whether or not Luther did indeed remain consistent or whether he changed his position dramatically over time. Thus we hope to test Helmar Junghans’ thesis that what appears to be a change in position may not in fact be one. He writes, “Luther often took up questions of the day and dealt with them. The manner in which the questions were formulated changed in the course of his life. Accordingly, he wrote repeatedly about the same subject, but not always with the same goal nor always with the same tone. Emphases were shifted. Taken out of context, some of his remarks appear to be contradictory and to signal great changes.” See, Helmar Junghans, “The Center of the Theology of Martin Luther,” in And Every Tongue Confess: Essays in Honor of Norman Nagel on the Occasion of His Sixty-fifth Birthday, eds. Gerald S. Krispin and Jon D. Vieker, (Chelsea, Mich.: Bookcrafters, 1990), 180.
11. I have chosen to continue using the phrase Two Kingdoms for two reasons. First, it is far better known and has far more literature devoted to it than do the more technically precise terms (Realm and Government); thus our discussion here can be more easily placed within that body of work. But, also, just as importantly, I believe the idea of the Two Kingdoms nicely apprehends the polyvalent nature of Luther’s thought on the Two Realms and the Two Governments. If we allow ourselves to be too distracted by the technicalities of Reich verses Regiment, we will fail to see the forest for the trees. The two ideas form a cooperative whole that can best be maintained by continuing to speak of Two Kingdoms. The literature on the Two Kingdoms is vast; some of the most important works on the subject include Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1972), and his “Luthers Lehre von den beiden Reichen im Feuer der Kritik,” Lutherjahrbuch 24 (1957): 40-67; Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms in the Context of His Theology (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1966); Thomas Brady, “Luther and Society: Two Kingdoms or Three Estates? Tradition and Experience in Luther’s Social Teaching,” Lutherjahrbuch 52 (1985): 197-224; W. J. D. Cargill Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther, and his “The ‘Two Kingdoms’ and the ‘Two Regiments’: Some Problems of Luther’s Zwei-Reiche-Lehre,” Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1969): 164-85; Ulrich Duchrow and Wolfgang Huber, eds., Die Ambivalenz der Zweireicheslehre in lutherischen Kirchen des 20. Jahrhunderts, (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, 1976); Gerhard Ebeling, “The Necessity of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” in Word and Faith, trans. James W. Leitch (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1963), 386-406. More recent examinations include Robert J. Bast, “From Two Kingdoms to Two Tablets: The Ten Commandments and the Christian Magistrate,” Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte 89 (1998): 79-95; William H. Lazareth, Christians and Society: Luther, the Bible, and Social Ethics, (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 2001); Karl-Heinz zur Muhlen, “Two Kingdoms,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 4:184-88, and David M. Whitford, “Martin Luther’s Political Encounters,” in The Cambridge Companion to Martin Luther, ed. Donald McKim, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 178-92.
12. On Temporal Authority (1523): “[God] has subjected [the wicked] to the sword so that, even though they would like to, they are unable to practice their wickedness, and if they do practice it they cannot do so without fear or with success and impunity.” Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia, 1955-86), 45:91, (hereafter LW); and D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe, 60 vols. (Wiemar: Bohlau, 1883-1980), 11:251 (hereafter, WA).
13. On Temporal Authority (1523): “For this reason one must carefully distinguish between these two governments. Both must be permitted to remain; the one to produce righteousness, the other to bring about external peace and prevent evil deeds. Neither one is sufficient in the world without the other. No one can become righteous in the sight of God by means of the temporal government, without Christ’s spiritual government. Christ’s government does not extend over all men; rather, Christians are always a minority in the midst of non-Christians. Now where temporal government or law alone prevails, there sheer hypocrisy is inevitable, even though the commandments be God’s very own. For without the Holy Spirit in the heart no one becomes truly righteous, no matter how fine the works he does. On the other hand, where the spiritual government alone prevails over land and people, there wickedness is given free rein and the door is open for all manner of rascality, for the world as a whole cannot receive or comprehend it” (LW 45:92, WA 11:252).
14. Whether Soldiers, too, Can Be Saved, LW 46:95. Translation altered; compare to “das sint der Apostel zeit das weltliche schwerd und oberkeit nie so klerlich beschrieben und herrlich geprciset ist . . . als durch mich” (WA 19:625).
15. “Advent Church Postils,” (1521), WA 7:502, 34 f.: “Quando autem pene universe scriptura totiusque Theologiae cognitio pendet in recta cognitione legis et Euangelii (Nearly the entire Scripture and the knowledge of all theology depends upon the correct understanding of law and gospel.)” Though nearly identical, this is not the Advent Postil on Matthew 11:2-10 translated in The Sermons of Martin Luther (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1996) 1:87-113. That sermon, which is for the same day and scripture, is later and considerably expanded.
16. Treatise on Good Works (1520): “Now this only indicates a few tasks for the government. But there are so many additional good works that every moment of their lives they have an abundant number of tasks and opportunities to serve God. But these works, like the others, should also be done in faith, in fact, as an exercise of faith, so that nobody thinks he is pleasing to God on account of what he does, but rather by a confident trust in his favor he does such tasks for a gracious and loving God and to his honor and praise alone. And in so doing, he serves and benefits his neighbor” (LW 44:97, WA 6:262 f.).
17. The best explication of the freedom of the Gospel is found in Luther’s Lectures on Galatians (2:21); the best example of his commitment to the principle of the freedom found in the gospel is in his response to the Wittenberg Disturbances. There in the Invocavit Sermons (LW 51:67-100, WA 10/3:1-64) we see that for Luther when the Gospel (or Karlstadt’s proposed church reform) is transformed from gift to requirement, the essence of the Gospel is sacrificed and abandoned. Luther’s disagreement with Karlstadt had little to do with the types of reform, or even really the speed of implementation. Where Luther found fault was in how the reforms were implemented and why. Luther himself had argued for Communion to the laity in both kinds; he was really indifferent about images and was open to clerical marriage. Karlstadt’s reforms were not the problem. For Luther, all of these reforms were opportunities for the congregation-not commands. Because of Karlstadt’s understanding of Christian Identity (see, Whether One Should Proceed Slowly), these reforms were not optional but necessary. Regardless of how well intentioned the reform, for Luther, if it was forced upon the conscience it was not a reform at all but a new law.
18. LW 1:109, WA 62:82.
19. That is to say, the Third Use of the Law. Luther never used the phrase triplex usus legis in this manner, but its essence is here depicted. For the paradigmatic expression of the Third Use, see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2.7. In a sense Luther also expresses here the idea Karl Earth attempted to capture in his famous “Gospel and Law”; see Community, State, and Church: Three Essays. Intro.Will Herberg (Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1960), and Church Dogmatics II/2 (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 1957), chapter 8.
20. Genesis 9:6, LW 2:139, WA 42:361.
21. Genesis 2:16-17, LW 1:104, WA 62:79.
22. Genesis 9:6, “This text is outstanding and worthy of note; for here God establishes government and gives it the sword, to hold wantonness in check, lest violence and other sins proceed without limit. If God had not conferred this divine power on men, what sort of life do you suppose we would be living? Because he foresaw that there would always be a great abundance of evil men, He established this outward remedy, which the world had not had thus far, in order that wantonness might not increase beyond measure. With this hedge, these walls, God has given protection for our life and possessions” (LW 2:141, WA 42:361). This sentiment is exactly in keeping with his position in On Temporal Authority in 1523: “Hence, a man who would venture to govern an entire country or the world with the gospel would be like a shepherd who should put together in one fold wolves, lions, eagles, and sheep, and let them mingle freely with one another, saying, ‘Help yourselves, and be good and peaceful toward one another. The fold is open, there is plenty of food. You need have no fear of dogs and clubs.’ The sheep would doubtless keep the peace and allow themselves to be fed and governed peacefully, but they would not live long, nor would one beast survive another” (LW 45:91 f., WA 11:251 f.).
23. Genesis 10:8-11: “Cush became the father of Nimrod; he was the first on earth to become a mighty warrior. He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, ‘Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD.’ The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, Erech, and Accad, all of them in the land of Shinar. From that land he went into Assyria, and built Nineveh, Rehoboth-ir, Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah; that is the great city,” NRSV.
24. Genesis 10:8-9, LW 2:196, WA 42:400.
25. Luther makes n great deal out of the derivation of Nimrod (dwrmn) from dr’m (marad). Marad means to “fall away” or to “rebel.” See, LW 2:197, WA 42:400.
26. Genesis 10:8-9, LW 2:198, WA 42:401. Translation altered; compare to, “non contentus tyrannide in Republica, etiam in Ecclesia vult dominari, Erigit novos cultus, eos qui coram Deo sunt, opprimit. Nam Moses diserte distinguit duos conspectus, alterum coram Deo, alterum coram hominibus. Quod igitur coram Deo bonum et iustum est, id mundus semper iudicat malum et iniustum.”
27. The connection between tyranny and the usurpation of another’s jurisdiction was by the 1540s commonplace and is an allusion to the Saxon theory of resistance developed by Gregor Bruck and presented to Luther and others at Torgau in 1530. See David M. Whitford, Tyranny and Resistance, and “From Speyer to Magdeburg: The Development and Maturation of a Hybrid Theory of Resistance,” in Archiv fur Reformationsgeschichte, forthcoming.
28. Genesis 10:8-9, LW 2:197, WA 42:401.
29. Genesis 48:17-19: “When Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. Joseph said to his father, ‘Not so, my father! Since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.’ But his father refused, and said, ‘I know, my son, I know; he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations,’” NRSV.
30. Genesis 48:16-17, LW 8:170, WA 44:703.
31. Genesis 48:16-17: “The kingdom of grace is one thing, and the kingdom of the Law is another thing. The Law checks sin, shows the rod, and announces the wrath of God and punishment to those who sin. This is the proper office of the Law. It serves to restrain evil, stubborn, and smug sinners. But the kingdom of grace is a kingdom of mercy, of pardon, of redemption, and of liberation from sins and the punishments for sins” (LW 8:170, WA 44:703).
32. See Exodus 33 where Moses seeks to see the Lord face to face, but instead sees only his backside. See also Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation (1518): “He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross” (LW 31:40, WA 1:354).
33. See Theses 3 and 4 of the Heidelberg Disputation. Jos. E. Vercruyse, in “Gesetz und liebe, Die Struktur der ‘Heidelberg Disputation’ Luthers (1518),” Lutherjahrbuch 18 (1981):
34. Genesis 48:16-17. LW 8:175, WA 44:706.
35. An early example of the tragedy that results from mixing the Two Kingdoms is the Flood. When discussing the reasons for the Flood, Luther attributes primary causality to the mixing of the Kingdoms. Luther writes, “Moses is explaining the kind of power on which [giants of old] relied, namely, secular or worldly power. They despised the ministry of the Word as a worthless occupation. Therefore they seized upon a worldly occupation, just as our papists have done. . . . [These giants of old must be compared with the small church] who have neither prestige nor wealth but do have the Word. This is their only wealth, but it is wealth that the world both despises and persecutes. By contrast the nepiliym, or giants, not only usurp the glorious name of the church on the grounds that they are descended from the patriarchs, but they also wield authority. They are the lords, and with their power they oppress the wretched church. . . . Thus this passage presents a description of the sins besetting that age, namely, that they were men alienated from the Word and given over to their lusts and reprobate minds, men who sinned against the Holy Spirit with persistent impenitence, the defense of ungodly acts, and assaults on the acknowledged truth. Nevertheless, in the midst of all their blasphemous conduct they retained a reputation and distinction not only as secular government but also as church, as though they had been elevated by God to the position of angels. But when things had come to such a pass, when Noah and Lamech, together with their forefather Methuselah, were teaching in vain, God gave these people over to the desires of their own hearts (Ps. 81:12) and kept silence until they would face the Flood in which they were refusing to believe” (LW 2:36-38, WA 42:285-87).
36. Genesis 49:3: “This had to be done in this way, especially among the people of the Old Testament. Although there is mercy in this nation and forgiveness of sins, yet there is no pure mercy or the pure kingdom of the Gospel and grace; but there is also a part of the political kingdom, where there must also be examples of punishments. Here the executioner must wield the sword and make use of the gallows and the wheel to frighten and warn the others, even when the sin is forgiven. Thus although a thief is pardoned, nevertheless he is brought to the gallows. The sin of those who must suffer capital punishment is forgiven by God, but the executioner does not forgive it by not demanding the punishment ordained by the laws. The executioner does not forgive them; he gives them their just deserts. Thus Paul says: ‘He does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute His wrath, that is, to inflict punishment, on the wrongdoer’ (Rom. 13:4). Yet the thief and the murderer, etc., are not condemned if they repent and believe in Christ. Nor do they feel the shame of the gallows after death. But their descendants should look at this and reflect: ‘If you steal, you, too, will suffer like punishment/ This doctrine is necessary and must by all means be retained in the world. They say that as often as Emperor Maximilian passed a place of public execution, he uncovered his head and saluted it with these words: ‘Hail, holy justice!’ For if there were no punishments and executions, we would achieve nothing with our sermons and the forgiveness of sins, and the populace would abuse the doctrine of the mercy of God for boundless license to sin” (LW 8:205, WA 44:728 f.). For an early example of this line of thinking, see On Temporal Authority (1523): “If anyone attempted to rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all temporal law and sword on the plea that all are baptized and Christian, and that, according to the gospel, there shall be among them no law or sword-or need for either-pray tell me, friend, what would he be doing? he would be loosing the ropes and chains of the savage wild beasts and letting them bite and mangle everyone, meanwhile insisting that they were harmless, tame, and gentle creatures; but I would have the proof in my wounds” (LW 45:91, WA 11:251).
37. See Genesis 9:6: “In this connection the following difference must be maintained between the authority of God and that of human beings: even if the world should be unable to bring a charge against us and we should be guiltless before the world, God still has the power to kill us. For sin, with which we were born, makes us all guilty before God. But hviman beings have the power to kill only when we are guilty before the world and when the crime has been established. For this reason courts have been established and a definite method of procedure has been prescribed. Thus a crime may be investigated and proved before the death sentence is imposed. Therefore we must take careful note of this passage, in which God establishes government, to render judgment not only about matters involving life but also about matters less important than life. Thus a government should punish the disobedience of children, theft, adultery, and perjury. In short, it should punish all sins forbidden in the second Table” (LW 2:140, WA 42:360).
38. Genesis 48:20: “Therefore our theology and the New Testament should give special emphasis to this part of the heavenly doctrine, although the Law must be taught too. But the kingdom of God does not consist in the Law; it consists in the Word of the promise. Today it is commonly said: ‘He loves the Word. he loves the Word of the Gospel, or the ministry/ But in the papal decretals and canons you will not find even a syllable about the Word. They thunder only about the confession of sins, contrition, satisfaction, obedience to the pope, and the observance of monastic rules. But there is the deepest silence concerning the promises. Accordingly, the papal kingdom was a horrible devastation of the church, and even now promise is an unheard-of word to the pope and the cardinals. But although our kingdom of the New Testament should stress the doctrine of the Law to preserve discipline and civil obedience and the honor due to magistrates and parents, the kingdom of God does not consist in these things; it consists in the Word, that is, in the promise, which is the true and proper ministry of the New Testament” (LW 8:181, WA 44:711).
39. WA 31/1:189-218, LW 13:41-72.
40. WA 51:200-264, LW 13:145-224.
41. “A Psalm of Asaph. God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: ‘How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked/ They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I say, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like men, and fall like any prince/ Arise, O God, judge the earth; for to thee belong all the nations!” NRSV.
42. “I will sing of loyalty and of justice; to you, O Lord, I will sing. I will study the way that is blameless. When shall I attain it? I will walk with integrity of heart within my house; I will not set before my eyes anything that is base. I hate the work of those who fall away; it shall not cling to me. Perverseness of heart shall be far from me; T will know nothing of evil. One who secretly slanders a neighbor I will destroy. A haughty look and an arrogant heart I will not tolerate. I will look with favor on the faithful in the land, so that they may live with me; whoever walks in the way that is blameless shall minister to me. No one who practices deceit shall remain in my house; no one who utters lies shall continue in my presence. Morning by morning 1 will destroy all the wicked in the land, cutting off all evildoers from the city of the Lord,” NRSV.
43. See James Estes, “The Role of Godly Magistrates in the Church,” 474. For the Nuremberg documents, see James M. Estes, Whether secular Government has the right to Wield the Sword in Matters of Faith: A Controversy in Nurnberg, 1530, (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 1994). See also Lazarus Spengler’s letter to Veit Dietrich (WA 31/1:183-84). The best timeline seems to imply that Luther began to work on the exegesis in late 1529 following the visitations. By March 17, 530 we know (via Spengler’s letter) that a draft version was underway. The events in Nuremberg (which began in the early spring of 1530 and were reported to Wittenberg by March 17) may have caused Luther to revisit the exegesis. The text was completed before Luther left for Coburg on April 3, 1530. By June 2 the first edition had sold out.
44. For example, in exegeting verse two he writes, “For if God’s Word is protected and supported so that it can be freely taught and learned, and if the sects and false teachers are given no opportunity and are not defended against the teachers who fear God, what ercater treasure can there be in a land?” (LW 13:52. WA 31/1:199).
45. Whether Secular Government has the Right to Wield the Sword in Matters of Faith, in Estes, Controversy in Nurnberg, 42 f. In the Controversy in Nurnberg volume, the author of the text in question is referred to as “Anonymous Nurnberger.” Only recently has Estes (in a magnificent example of historical detective work) identified Freilich as the author. See James Estes, “Introduction,” Godly Magistrates and Church Order: Johannes Brenz and the Establishment of the Lutheran Territorial Church in Germany, 1524-1559 (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2001), 17, n. 27. Full details for the attribution of authorship will be published in Lazarus Spengler, Schriften 3 (Gutersloh: Gutersloher Verlagshaus, forthcoming).
46. Frolich, Secular Government, 45.
47. Estes, Nurnberg Controversy, 12, n. 11.
48. “Psalm 82:4,” LW 13:61, WA 31/1:208.
49. See Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology, 319: “What induced him to [appeal to the temporal arm for aid] was no longer the idea that a territory had to be confessionally self-contained, but that Thomas Muntzer had called for a general uprising, and for this reason the debate with him had to be carried on not merely theologically, but also politically and militarily. To exercise tolerance toward Muntzer would have spelled outright surrender on the part of the Saxon church and the elector. With his two-kingdoms doctrine Luther with full and objective right opposed Muntzer and his revolutionary spiritual Christianity with ‘rationality,’ with the legitimacy of the temporal power and its function in establishing order.” Lohse sees a difference, however, between Muntzer and the Anabaptists. Lohse argues that Luther’s response to Anabaptism calls into question his own presuppositions. I am not convinced, however, that Luther saw any difference between Thomas Muntzer and Michael Sattler. Both were equally dangerous. Luther, I think, would have argued that this suspicion was confirmed in Munster.
50. In The Ethics of Martin Luther, Paul Althaus (29) claims that natural law included both tables of the law. I remain unconvinced. While in Against the Heavenly Prophets (LW 40:98, WA 18:81), Luther does state that the Natural Law is confirmed and restated in the Decalogue of Moses, I do not believe that this is the same thing as stating the content of the one is identical to the content of the other.
51. LW 35:164, WA 16:372. This sentiment is expressed throughout Luther’s career; other examples include in the 1537′s Die erste Disputation gegen der Antinomer (First Disputation Against the Antinomians), “Decalogus vero haeret adhuc in conscientia. Nam si Deus nunquam tulisset legem per Mosen, tamen mens humana naturaliter habet hanc notitiam, Deum esse colendum, proximum diligendum.” (The Decalogue is lodged in the conscience. If God had never given the Law of Moses, the mind of man still has the knowledge that God is to be worshiped and our neighbor is to be loved.) WA 39/1:374, and from ca. 1543, Lectures on Genesis 32:12, “Thus all men naturally understand and come to the conclusion that God is some kind of beneficent divine power, from whom all good things are to be sought and hoped for. God is One who promises, and He is truthful, that is, He makes promises to all men in the law of nature, which says: ‘Call upon God, or worship Him”‘ (LW 6:113, WA 44:84). This text is particularly interesting because Luther differentiates between the simple idolatry and blasphemy. Idolatry is misplaced worship; blasphemy is outright disregard or contempt for God’s person. For Luther, blasphemy was far more serious.
52. For an interesting contemporary account of the dangers befalling those who anger God, see Basilius Manner’s Eedencken vonn dem Kriege/ der Anno /ec. sechs/siben/ vnd viertzig im land zu Meissen vnd Sachsen gefulejhrt ist/wo fur erzuhalten sey/gestatt (Basel, 1557), which highlights the disasters that befell those who sided against the Protestants in the Schmalkaldic War; see especially F1^sup r^-F4^sup v^. For a discussion of this pamphlet, see Robert Kolb, “The Legal Case for Martyrdom: Basilius Monner on Johann Friedrich the Elder and the Smalkald War,” in Reformation und Recht: Festgabe fur Gottfried Seebaß zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Irene Dingel, Volker Leppin, and Christoph Storhm (Gutersloh: Chr. Kaiser, 2002), 144-60. I wish to thank Prof. Kolb for providing me with a copy of the essay before it was published.
53. Psalm 101, “Preface,” LW 13:146, WA 51:201.
54. Psalm 101:1, LW 13:152f., WA 51:206.
55. Psalm 101:1, LW 13:159, WA 51:212.
56. Psalm 101:5, LW 13:196, WA 51:240.
57. Luther began his Genesis Lectures in June of 1535; by January 1545 we know from a letter he sent to Wenceslaus Link that he had begun chapter 45. He completed the entire project on November 17, 1545. Given this time frame, he was probably on chapter 49 sometime in September or early October 1545.
58. For a contemporary example of this exegetical tradition, see John Calvin’s Commentary on Genesis: “For (as I have just hinted) the origin of the kingdom in David is not here promised, but its absolute perfection in the Messiah.”
59. Genesis 49:10, LW 8:239, WA 44:758. Translation altered; compare to: “Est igitur regnum polentissimum in verbo contra mortem, peccatum, et Diabolum, et universam tyrannidem eorum cum potentia ad salvandum, liberandum et defendendum in salutem aeternam. . . . De his Rabini nihil sciunt, nec Papistae, nec Turcae. At nostrum est ista inculcare sedulo, et hanc insignem differentiam regni Christi et aliorum, etiam Davidis, observare. Hoc enim vult Iacob: Regnum filii mei Davidis, quod sine gladio et armis non potest administrari, non durabit, sed sequetur regnum Schilo, quod solo verbo gubernabitur. Sicut inquit Christus: ‘Ite in orbem universum, et praedicate Euangelium omni creaturae,’ Id enim verbum potentissimum est, quod potest salvare de manibus mortis et Diaboli, ac potentia inferorum, et transferre in regnum Dei. Huic igitur regi erit audientia populorum, hoc est, verbo regentur. Es wirt mit predigen zugehen, erit nota discernens regnum Christi a mundi imperiis, quae reguntur gladio et vi corporali. . . . Euangelium enim est auditio. . . . Non gladio, non flamma, non vi, sed audientia sive auditu et doctrina fidei regnabit Schilo, et obedient ei non solum Iudaei, sed omnes populi totius orbis terrarum.”
60. Deutsche Reichstagsakten: Jungere Reihe, Hrsg. durch die Historische Komission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1962-), 2:594-96; English trans. Oscar Thulin, A Life of Luther, (Philadelphia, Penn.: Fortress, 1966), 66: “You know that I am descended from the most Christian emperors of the noble German nation, from the Catholic kings of Spain, the archdukes of Austria and the dukes of Burgundy. . . . I am determined to support everything that these predecessors and I myself have kept. . . . For it is certain that a single friar errs in his opinion which is against all of Christendom and according to which all of Christianity will be and will always have been in error both in the past thousand years and even more in the present. For that reason, I am absolutely determined to stake on this cause my kingdoms and seigniories, my friends my body and blood, my life and soul,” and Deutsche Reichstagsakten, 2:645; English trans. De Lemar Jenson, Confrontation at Worms: Martin Luther and the Diet of Worms, (Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Press, 1973), 101: “For this reason, we forbid anyone from this time forward to dare, either by words or deeds, to receive, defend, sustain, or favor the said Martin Luther. On the contrary, we want him to be apprehended and punished as a notorious heretic, as he deserves.”
61. Genesis 49:10, LW 8:239, WA 44:758.
62. I believe that John Witte, Jr. has demonstrated with particular clarity and precision that the real development of the cura religionis can best be seen not among the theologians but among the jurists. See his Law and Protestantism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000); see especially chapter 1 where he lays out the ways in which the jurists move beyond and expand upon Luther.
63. Two events can serve here as examples. First in 1526, Luther refused to endorse Philip of Hesse’s Reformatio ecclesiarum Hassiae written by Lambert of Avignon at Philip’s behest. Even though the Reformatio sought to enact many evangelical positions, Luther rejected it and urged Philip not to enforce it because of coercive measures involved in it. (See D. Martin Luthers Werke: Briefwechsel, 15 vols. (Wiemar: Bohlau, 1930), 3:157-58 (hereafter WA Br). The second episode is from 1543, here Luther objected to Maurice of Saxony’s excommunication order because secular authorities were called upon to implement the order. (See WA Br, 10:436).

Via Church History, Volume 73; Issue 1; ISSN: 00096407. David M. Whitford is an associate professor of Philosopy and Religion at Claflin University.

v. 16) Moreover, he spoke a parable to them, saying: A certain rich man’s ground bore well; and he began reasoning with himself, saying, What shall I do, because I have not where I shall gather together my crops? And he said, This I will do: I will pull down my storehouses and greater will build and gather together there all my grain and good things. And I will say to my soul, Soul, thou hast many good things laid by for many years; continue to rest; eat, drink, continue to be of good cheer!

The antecedent of ‘autous,’ “them,” here and in v. 15, is found in v. 1: the disciples (the Twelve, the Seventy and others) who were surrounded by a packed crowd. In v.22 the discourse again turns to the disciples. The whole account is thus linked together. The word about covetousness is not at once grasped in its fullness. So Jesus, as he did at other times, makes it vivid by means of a parable which is a comparison and an illustration of his meaning and at the same time the full truth of what he says about covetousness. No name is given; rich men of this sort have no record in heaven, no names worthy to be remembered. All that could be said for him and of him was that he was rich. “Rich man” – that sounds important among worldly men; great deference is paid to “rich men”; money talks – poor men do not count. It sounds good to hear Jesus drop all this false show and present this man to us as he really is, nothing but “a certain rich man.”

There is, of course, no odium attached to his riches as such. It is no crime to be rich; Abraham was rich, but he was far more than “a certain rich man.” There was no hint of wrongful, ill-gotten riches; rather the contrary – the man owns a fine farm which was probably inherited or rightfully purchased. He is not pictured as an extortioner, an oppressor of poor laborers. He was honest, a man of standing and highly respected in the community; many envied him. His wealth has greatly increased; his land had produced well, so well that his place could not accommodate the new crop. This is a parable on covetousness and on the deadly vice in its most innocent looking form. The man is this painted in fair colors, and we may expand the picture as much as we like. Even his covetousness has nothing repulsive about it. He just lived for earthly things; they and they alone filled his life and his soul. That was all. The world has any number of duplicates.

v. 17) As the substantial and progressive man that he is, he sits down and considers the matter, the descriptive imperfect ‘dielogizeto’ picturing him as doing so. The aorist subjunctive in ‘ti poieso’ is deliberative, and the aorist does not refer to a line of action, which would require a present tense, but to a definite measure, what he is to do about storing this grain and produce. And we should at once note the “I” and the “my” that run through this conversation with himself and his soul; there are just twelve in these few words of his. They intend to mark the man’s selfishness, and this is his type of covetousness – a type that is repeated endlessly. He is in trouble; he has no place where to store this abundant gift – God is far from his thoughts. And he really only acts as though this was a trouble for him; secretly he is full of elation at his increase of wealth. When the selfish rich complain about the worry their growing riches cause them, the complaint is always hollow; not for one moment would they exchange places with the poorer man to whom such worry does not come.

Via Lenski’s Interpretation of Luke.

Christian worship that is evangelical is nothing but “that our dear Lord himself speaks to us through his holy Word and we respond to him through prayer and praise” (LW 51, 333). Nothing else should ever happen there. [So Luther preached at the dedication of the Castle church in Torgau Oct 5, 1544.] Christ says, “I forgive you,” and we say, “Amen.” A little child knows this. True worship depends upon getting a trustworthy word from God. You are at his mercy in that regard. So what exactly does our dear Lord say to you when he speaks? “In the former days, in many and various ways, God spoke to our ancestors by the prophets, but in these latter days he has spoken to us by the Son” (Hebrews 1:1). God who is extravagantly rich in his grace has given you the following specific words for your worship (that is, for you to trust):

First, the preached word: “Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, “was handed over to death for [y]our trespasses and was raised for [y]our justification” (Romans 4:25).

Second our Lord says: “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.” Third Christ says, “given and shed for you for the remission of sins.” Fourth “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained” (John 20:23) If these words were not enough, again Christ promises: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

True worship requires these specific words from God that sinners cling to for life. The true Sabbath—your only “true holy relic, above all holy relics.” (Large Catechism, 3rd Commandment, 91, 399, Kolb and Wengert): “By it all the saints have themselves been made holy…all our life and work must be based on God’s Word if they are to be God-pleasing or holy… for this Word is not idle or dead, but effective and living.” Worship is God daily putting the old sinner to death and raising the new saint and to both we say: Amen!

But the history of worship is the history of not trusting his word—it is always the most religious among us who run off looking for better words: producing heaps of human traditions and enthusiastic, spiritual personalities that we substitute for our Lord’s own holy word. That is, idolatry. Why? Because we don’t like God’s given words and prefer our own. Nor does the devil ever rest in this regard. One of Luther’s greatest writings on worship (commentary on Deuteronomy) highlights this temptation to false worship in the dramatic story of Baal Peor (Number 25):

The Israelites were encamped at Shittim across from Jericho; while waiting instructions to go in to the promised land, they took up with the native women of Moab “These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.” (Numbers 25:2-3). God instructed Moses to hang all the chiefs of the people who led them to this. And all Moab devotees of the Baal were killed. But One Israelite decided to flout this specific word from God, because he was in love I suppose, and brought his Midianite girlfriend into the camp, “in the sight of Moses and the whole congregation.”

[Now if this were a Hollywood movie, everyone would first be taken aback by the foreigner in their midst, and then we would learn that she was really a great person with a funny Midianite personality, and everyone would live together in diversity and peace—just like “South Pacific”—as if worshipping all Gods together makes for peace on earth.] But this story ends differently. Phineas, Grandson of Aaron the high priest, took up a spear, “and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.” (Numbers 25:8-9). From this I conclude: God is serious about this worship business! God must be given his due! It is as serious as the first commandment, in which all the others are found, “Thou shalt have no other God before me.” So when people go mucking with your hymnal and service book you ought to know. I also conclude that people constantly prefer something other than what God says, and inevitably in their search for better words they reverse the direction of worship—worship always becomes what we offer to God rather than what God commands and gives us. Beneficium becomes sacrificium. Or as Melanchthon once put it: we always prefer being “for” priests like the Levites—who sacrificed for sinners rather than “to” priests who stand up facing sinners and give God’s words to them (Apology XIII).

God’s own direction for worship follows the line of the incarnation—from heaven down to you while you are yet sinners. Lutherans are meant to help the whole world (ecumene) get the worship direction right by hanging tightly to God’s preached words: God comes down to us in his Son, then by sending his preacher—we don’t go up to him. So we are to help distinguish what religions constantly confused: proclamation is not prayer; faith is not love, gospel is not law, a gift cannot be both given and received at the same time—and yet churches and world are all tangled up in confusion over these by pursuing their own words in worship. Lutherans should be helping the whole world and its churches, but we have grown tired of being salt and want to be the meat, grown tired of being leaven and want to be the loaf in what today is called “an ecumenical spirit.”

I would much prefer starting in a different place than I do tonight, but like a doctor lancing a boil I must first do some messy work before things can get better and I can just tell you about Christ and what he has done for you. Some of the same forces in the ELCA that brought you Called to Common Mission (CCM) (and the Formula of Agreement) will soon make up their own form of blessing of same-sex unions. And again some of those same basic forces behind those two developments in our churches are now in the process of giving you a new hymnal. The number of people behind this new hymnal is small, but they are single-minded and determined to win the day by adhering to the sworn oath of the liturgical and ecumenical movements: lex orandi lex credendi—the way you pray is what you believe. “You don’t have to believe it, you just have to do it,” should sound familiar to you. “It doesn’t matter who puts his hand on you at ordination, just concentrate on your mission.” Over time the way you pray, your repeated ritual acts of liturgy produce new beliefs. CCM is already doing that with our young people, next will be the new hymnal. As the stepping-stone to a new hymnal we now have a series of books called “Renewing Worship.” These books (three of them already) are prepared by a very small group, the key members being experts who call themselves “liturgists.” These liturgists are not your normal academic types. They are prophets on a mission. They put most of us to shame for their willingness to work and sacrifice for their cause, because in their minds they are God’s own instruments to mend a broken church by instituting one eucharist in each place presided over by one authorized bishop so that when performed properly there will be one church–visible on earth as in heaven. This small group operates with three basic principles that run throughout the pinkish colored book published by the ELCA called Principles for Worship:

First, multiculturalism in song and liturgy is itself “mission.”

They believe they are harvesting the seeds that were sown during the “past three decades [that] have seen not only a growing ecumenical consensus, but also a deepened focus on the church’s mission to the world.” [A new movement!]

They believe in what they call “a renewed understanding of the central pattern of Christian worship” (this is an unfortunate search begun in a handful of monasteries by erstwhile monks searching for the original shape of all human worship in all religions—that original shape is then presumed to be brought to its pinnacle in what is called the action of the “eucharist”). These beliefs have present and future consequences for the way you worship. Lutherans have a very clear teaching about church that is “the assembly of saints in which the gospel is taught purely and the sacraments are administered rightly” (CA VII). But in this new material we get new “principles” of worship like this: “Because we cannot fully comprehend the mystery of God, the language of worship on the one hand points to and evokes the God who surpasses all understanding.”[1] Liturgy “points to and evokes God”—my, what have we Lutherans come to? We have become peeping Toms trying to catch God in a moment of unguarded mystery while unpreached! To the contrary, we already have a clear word from God that our sins have been laid on Christ—and that is to be given for you as a promise! Worship is not pointing and evoking mystery! It declares. The authority for teaching in these Renewing Worship books is given over to what they call the “worldwide ecumenical discussion” as in Principle L-8 where they attempt to explain why we should keep baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit since so many people don’t like to say “Father” anymore: “Most church bodies”, following Matthew 28, have baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Then they quote from ecumenical movement’s Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry document: “While a worldwide ecumenical discussion is now underway about such language [apparently with the outcome in some doubt!], we have no other name in which to baptize than the historic and ecumenically received name.” By what authority do we baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Scripture is gone; your confessions vanish—when someone questions the administration of the sacrament what authority do you call up? The worldwide ecumenical discussion now under way, and in the meantime we do “what most churches are doing”! The problems in this material are like Abraham going out on a starry night and numbering the stars! We cannot name them all, but the main problem with the ELCA’s Renewing Worship movement is that all these principles are built into one document that surpasses all others in authority: The Use of the Means of Grace statement accepted by the 1997 Churchwide Assembly of the ELCA. It’s argument is more pointed and directly opposed to the Confessions:

The Use of the Means of Grace begins with a quotation from the Apology XIII (in almost direct parallel with the introduction to the LBW): We believe we have the duty not to neglect any of the rites and ceremonies instituted in Scripture, whatever their number. . . .”

“Not neglecting any rites and ceremonies” (Principle 1) is a phrase that is then taken out of context to assert (Principle 2) that the Word and sacraments are “given to the church.” The church then must see that they are “not degraded by sin,” (Background 2C) and so exercises an authority over the sacraments: “As a church in this time, we seek to give and receive God’s Word and sacraments as full and reliable signs of Christ.” [The same thing can’t be received and given at the same time! God alone gives his word, the church receives it, and this is hardly “signs,” but Christ himself.]

Then we watch the given commands and promises of God fall like dominoes before the church’s own vaunted authority: Any changes in worship have to be for the purpose of “unity amidst diversity,”[2] not for “merely antiquarian or legalistic interests” [Goodbye Reformation and good riddance!] (Principle 4, Background 4A).

Then they give what they call the basic shape of liturgy in two parts: Part I: Word “read and preached” and Part II: “sacraments celebrated” (Principle 6) There is that word that turns the worship direction backward: from us to God. They are not longer given, but “celebrated.”

Principle 34: Nevertheless the two parts “form one act of worship” –so liturgy is a whole mystery action that we do.

Principle 36 introduces the term “eucharist” “to see that the whole meal is a great thanksgiving for creation and for creation’s redemption in Jesus Christ.”

Principle 40: Introduces a priest presiding at Holy Communion as a “witness that this sacrament is a celebration of the Church, serving, its unity…”and proclaims the Great Thanksgiving” (not Christ’s last will and testament).

Which finally leads to the purpose of this whole exercise: the holy grail of the Renewing Worship plan that they believe will re-unite the church into a visible whole: Principle 43: “The biblical words of institution declare God’s action and invitation. They are set with the context of the Great Thanksgiving. This Eucharistic prayer proclaims and celebrates the gracious word of God in creation, redemption, and sanctification.”[3]

The only thing that was missing from this worship laid out by the liturgical and ecumenical movement was to rejoin the historic episcopate so that we could become closer to the basic teaching: one Eucharist, one bishop, one church. There you have the foundation for your renewing worship materials. But if this is not bad enough, we have two flanks for this fight, not one: This liturgical movement that has separated from the Confessions, with its blessing of water before baptism, the required eucharistic prayer for joint communion services with Episcopalians, affirmations of baptism, removal of Lutheran catechetical hymns and the piling up of human traditions like the oil, the ever-present laying on of hands, and metaphors galore where once stood the name: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But it is worse yet; on the other side of us we have the host of American religions and the corrosive melting pot of culture that seeks God inside yourself on your various spiritual journeys. They do not want a preacher; they want a personal, spiritual guide with visible gifts. Spiritualism like this wants no baked God, it rejects baptism, and does not want to repent and be absolved, it rather seeks what it thinks are higher and better words than Christ gave us, swallowing the Spirit feathers and all—it seeks its own self that it expresses to the outside world and demands that others worship their right to do so. [Luther rightly called it Fanaticism] With a whole host of problems on each flank what do we do? Just what the earliest Lutherans did: we preserve the Reformation and unleash the Gospel by using the Small Catechism. We do what Luther saw was necessary for his poorly taught German churches: “First, the German service needs a plain and simple, fair and square catechism.”[4] Well, so does the American worship service. We sometimes observe that the Reformation was preserved by the catechism, and so it was and so it must be today. Though these forces are great, they are no greater—maybe even less—than those faced by the Reformers. Despair is not allowed, since God’s word alone will stand against them—even though we have three forces seeking to destroy true worship and the teaching of it in the catechism. The self-named liturgical movement and ecumenical movement have studiously removed the catechism from your hymnal in order to make worship no longer an “ear house,” that hears the law and gospel in public proclamation, but instead makes it an “eye house”—a koinonia mystery cult called simply: “the eucharist.” It doesn’t want you to have the Apostle’s Creed as God’s work alone given “for you” in the present. They want to join your work and God’s. At the same time, the American spiritualists have removed your catechism from worship because they don’t like categorical preaching and sacraments—because they leave no room for the free will to cooperate with the Holy Spirit. Fanatics hate the sacraments and so remove them for purpose that they call getting “seekers” in or so that worship is not such a “downer.” Our culture has also worked to remove your catechism because it hates the Ten Commandments. To combat these enemies in their own day, the Reformers did two things with worship:

They took out noxious elements that couldn’t possibly stand because they moved in the wrong direction—from us up to God in the mode of sacrificing and by dissolving the word of God into our own work as church (this happens when the words being given by God end up as sacrifice, thanksgiving that we make to remember God, or an action of the church mystically uniting us with God). So they removed praying to saints, encrusting baptism with all sorts of unnecessary and dangerous symbols, and most importantly the canon of the mass or eucharistic prayer wherever it buried Christ and the publication of his last will and testament. The Lutheran Churches should never forget what Luther did when he first made the liturgy a “local option”–for there the canon of the mass was removed, and when it was gone, so went the papacy. At the same time it made the freedom regarding worship and liturgy an accomplished fact—gone were ordo and structures or “patterns of worship” that are supposedly done in all places and times. At the same time, local traditions all must be tested—“weigh it in the pan of God’s Word,” Luther said. That means everything in worship is tested as to whether it brings home the down-to-earth gift of our crucified and risen Lord and makes possible the faithful “Amen,” to him. Where traditions go in the wrong direction and oppose our chief article they must go. And whenever traditions, however, venerable are required, so too they must go. That means, whenever liturgical “may-be’s” (human traditions) are turned into “must-be’s” they cease to be free (adiaphora).[5] Then the Reformers did another thing even more important: they put in the catechism—in prayer and song and direct proclamation to sinners that makes the justifying faith. They preached the faith, and then they taught it that it might be learned and retained. Our constant re-translating has ruined our memory. Our hymnals have grown too large so that we might represent every possible group and belief under the umbrella of the ELCA, but they have removed direct, catechetical hymns, especially Luther’s. They also remove any reference to your Confessions, including the Small Catechism. Why? Because such confessional unity is viewed as the obstacle to visible union with other churches, liturgy must unite by expunging confessional particularity! Instead they put slogans: consensus of the first five centuries, historic episcopate, and “ecumenical consensus.” Now to glimpse how this is done, we may start with the first petition of the Lord’s Prayer:“Hallowed be thy name: God’s name certainly is holy in itself, but we ask in this prayer that we may keep it holy.” How does this happen? God’s name is hallowed whenever his Word is rightly taught and we as children of God live in harmony with it. Help us to do this, heavenly Father! But anyone who teaches or lives contrary to the Word of God dishonors God’s name among us, Keep us from doing this, heavenly Father!”

True worship requires a prior, first and final word of God. Without which you endlessly seek vainly inside yourself for God. But we have such a first word from God: “I am the Lord your God,” This Lord says two things: You shall have no other God before me—demanding complete trust in his word–and so this commandment includes all the others. [Law] But this same God who demands so much also gives all, and so we have our Creed: “I believe that Jesus Christ—true God, Son of the Father from eternity, and true man, born of the Virgin Mary—is my Lord. He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned person, saved me at great cost from sin, death and the power of the devil—not with silver or gold, but with his holy and precious blood and his innocent suffering and death.” [Gospel: The faith we have not, he gives—at great cost to himself, but declared freely to the ungodly he chooses by the proclamation itself.]

This simple starting place for true worship reverses the direction of all human “patterns” as liturgists call them. The direction of all worship is from God downward through the means of preached word and sacraments. We call it—the sacramental reversal. In every way we resist seeking better words, especially by multiplying of “metaphors,” creation of our own creeds, the flowering of ever new symbols, blessings of everything that moves in the new ritual de jour—laying on of hands, (which you are supposed to see as having many, many uses, not only for passing on the historic episcopate)!

God’s word is not only first, it comes in several specific, given, historical forms, and so does our little “Amen,” our response of simple trust. God speaks to us presently, directly, publicly (sometimes even individually), through the reading of Scripture, preaching, baptism, the Lord’s Supper and absolution. The benefit of each is Christ himself as our righteousness apart from works of the law, that means: When worship takes this direction, Christ comes to forgive your sin—and remember where there is forgiveness of sin there is also life and salvation! Our “Amen,” our clinging to this word comes out in spoken prayer, song, praise, thanksgiving, confession and petition (asking God for help). In these we:

Thank Christ for his benefits.

Confess our unworthiness.

And ask for more grace, more grace, more and more and more.

By speaking the first and final word—God creates us anew in faith itself; that means his word creates the church. [The Word alone creates churches. Baptism is never initiation into Church, nor do we “renew it” with our vows, nor does the event of eucharist make the church as a “ritual action.”]

Preaching

Enthusiasts of either the Roman or American spiritualists sort seek God within themselves (or the church) rather than in God’s external, preached word. You must rather come to worship to receive these gifts from God. Liturgism’s current attempt seeks to make the Lord’s Supper the highest form of “celebration”—preaching serving as only an entrance to this “feast.” Instead, proclamation must come first, in its oral, public form as public absolution of the repentant, public preaching, and in its form in the sacraments themselves: Lord’s Supper and Baptism. That is why Luther once said, “To correct these abuses, know first of all that a Christian congregation should never gather together without the preaching of God’s Word and prayer, no matter how briefly…”[6] Preaching is nothing else than God’s word in human words. It is sacramental in the sense of having an actual, red-blooded human using his or her voice to speak words into the ears, according to Christ’s promise: “he who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16). Not just anything any preacher says is God’s word: The preacher must discern the law and gospel and not commingle them, for this reason preaching is always from the Bible text. In the law God sets out what is required of us, and what he holds against us—how he judges us. We hold the Ten Commandments ever near and help the flock know plainly God’s most salutary doctrine of life. The Gospel then raises us to new life from the condemnation of death by witnessing to the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for sinners. The Holy Spirit makes these preached words effective in the heart where and when he wills, “for I cannot by my own understanding or effort believe in Jesus Christ my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts and sanctified and kept me in true faith.’ The Gospel in a nutshell always needs a giver—a proclaimer doing what Luther called the right application of the pronoun “for you.”[7]

Baptism

Our catechism teaches as the Bible does, “Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God in water.” It is God’s act for us in which he delivers us from death and the devil, and gives everlasting salvation to all who believe what he has promised. The promise is the thing! “Shall be saved.” It is, of course, witnessed to by the community of believers, but is not initiation into the group of the holy either by magical rites [why we do not bless the water] or adults making vows of fidelity to God. Baptism is never over and done with, but needs no “renewal,” instead it means “that our sinful self, with all its evil deeds and desires should be drowned through daily repentance; and that day after day a new self should arise to live with God in righteousness and purity.” Use it, not renew it. Bring forward the gifts of baptism. It is not past oriented, but future—not wiping the slate clean but the object to which you cling in times of trouble so to cling to God himself for you.

The Lord’s Supper

It is nothing else but the Word of God in bread and wine. Faith feasts on this promise “given and shed for you for the forgiveness of sins.” For there Christ forgives your sin.

It is not eucharist—not our celebration that makes it what it is. That direction is wrong! The words of Christ at the Last Supper cannot be confused with prayer up to God.

Instead, the Lord’s Supper is Christ’s last will and testament, in which the maker of the will is Christ himself, who names his estate: “the forgiveness of sins,” and his heirs “given and shed for you”–who are after all his very betrayers. He also bestows this in the promise itself: “Given and shed for you,” beneficium, not sacrificium. With the seal of bread and wine. The direction is always from God to us, the act of his giving, his promising to sinners. Not prayer.

The Absolution (or Confession and Forgiveness)

Uses the keys of the kingdom given by God so that in human voice God’s forgiveness is given to sinners. Absolution brings forward the gifts of baptism, the Christian life being the daily return to the first promise of baptism. The declaration of forgiveness is the real thing in absolution by which God works repentance and does not count the trespass. The word accomplishes what it says—ending the sinner and creating the saint.

And so we do not despise this promise, but give it and use it—publicly and privately,

We do not think of starting our service here as “negative,” or “premature,” nor is it a mere prelude to the Lord’s Supper as if you must be made holy before receiving communion. For all these things that make worship we need an external preacher, outside ourselves bringing the external word. The ministry is instrumental in God giving us his words—the instrument of God to give these words. It is not part of our prayer or sacrifice of praise to God. This confusion makes “for” priests rather than “to” priests who believe they are mediators who sacrifice on our behalf—and is the great problem for worship life of the CCM and romantic liturgical movement—for they cannot distinguish our prayer from God’s proclamation and God’s word is lost in a fog of ritual holiness that is nothing more than a sect making its own form of worship. So the true church created by God’s word is commissioned by God to witness in word and deed that salvation is by Christ alone by giving the gospel in oral proclamation and the sacraments (CA 5). This is the right and duty of all believers (the priesthood of all believers). But to assist and enable the community in this proclamation there is the office of the pastor whose particular calling is the public proclamation of God’s word in preaching and administration of the sacraments (CA 14).

Finally, after all this, we come to Faithful Response to the Words: Our Amen.

God commands us to pray and promises to hear our prayers. Prayer is nothing but opening your sack wide and asking for help, calling out to God in expectation of his interceding graciously on your behalf (even with sighs and groans too deep for words, Romans 8). Thanksgiving delights in God’s benefits already given in Christ, and so waits with great anticipation for seeing what we now have in faith. Offerings and “thanksgivings” of prayer do not complete a great ritual circle or appease God’s anger—they are fruits of faith meant to help others.

So here is my plea: Lutherans, let’s get the direction right in worship, and refuse the religious sounding innovations of the Renewing Worship movement. The church and world cannot survive attempting to worship a mysterious God that is not preached by coaxing him out by our thanksgiving. So let us return to our catechism and from it learn again how God has come down to get you while your are ungodly. Ludwig Helmbold put it in this catechetical hymn (1594):

Lord God, keep us for evermore
in catechism doctrine pure—
that through your Luther is made known
for simple youth to make their own.

The Ten Commandment here we learn,
repent of sin, and so discern
to live by faith in you alone,
the Father, Son, and Spirit, one.
Our Father, source of heavenly grace
we pray to you before your face,
that we (baptized) may come to be
fulfilled in Christ eternally.
And when we fall, we seek relief
and make confession, with belief,
and take the Body and the Blood.
 Amen. God grant our end be good.[8]

Footnotes


[1] Principle L-5, Principles for Worship, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 2002.
[2] Changes in sacraments should be for “unity amidst diversity,” not for “merely antiquarian or legalistic interests” Principle 4, Background 4A, Principles for Worship.
[3] In application 43A: “The full action, from dialogue through the Lord’s Prayer, including the proclamation of the words of institution, is called the Great Thanksgiving. Our congregations, synods, and churchwide organization are encouraged to use these patterns of thanksgiving.” The reference is to the Apology again, article 24. 76—not actually printed out, but here is the full quotation: “There are also statements about thanksgiving [among the Fathers], like that very beautiful statement of Cyprian [pseudo-Cyprian] concerning those who receive the sacrament in godly fashion: ‘He says, In returning thanks to the Giver for such an abundant blessing, piety divides its thanks between what has been given and what has been forgiven.’ That is, piety focuses on what has been given and what has been forgiven; it compares the greatness of God’s blessings with the greatness of our ills, our sin and our death, and it gives thanks. From this the term ‘Eucharist” arose in the church. Nor is the ceremony itself a giving of thanks ex opere operato that can be applied for the benefit of others in order to merit the forgiveness of sins for them, etc. or in order to free the souls of the dead. The theory that a ceremony could somehow benefit either the worshiper or anyone else without faith conflicts with the righteousness of faith.” But the use in Means of Grace above misses that this thanksgiving either comes after or is simply the whole “ceremony.” “Remembrance” is not like seeing a play. It is not the “eucharistic prayer,” as it has come to be used in modern liturgical renewal. In fact that is what “conflicts with the righteousness of faith,” because it gets the direction wrong.
[4] LW 53, 64.
[5] But whenever local traditions and liturgies meet the criteria—free and true to the gospel—then they should not be altered by anyone without the consent of the congregation using them.
[6] Concerning Public Worship, Leisnig
[7] So, Luther’s catechetical hymn “Preserve us, Lord, by thy dear Word, from Turk and pope defend us, [perhaps we could update, fanatic and liturgist]…. (Translation from Robert Wisdom 1560, in Leaver, 397).
[8] Her Gott, erhalt uns für and für for Teaching Children the Catechism from Ludwig Helmbold (1594) (trans. Robin Leaver) In Robin Leaver, “Luther’s Catechism Hymns,” in Lutheran Quarterly XI, 4 Winter 1997, 405-6.

However, if people are not helped through the pure preaching of Christ, they are false prophets, though they be ever so wise, ever so talented, and ever so holy. For Christ says: “Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then I will profess unto them, I never knew you; depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Whenever false teachers have arisen, they have always failed in this respect. They have not preached how only Christ was made of God unto wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. But wherever this article remains pure, all the articles which are ruinous must disappear as the fog before the sun. If it is shown you through the preaching of a teacher how you can come to Christ, remain with him, suffer with him, and die blessedly through him; you hear a true prophet, for if you receive Christ, you receive enough; and if you have Christ, you have everything.

A pious life without pure doctrine does not make a teacher a true prophet; yet what a wonderful confirmation and ornament of pure doctrine is the pious life of an orthodox teacher. The good works of a false teacher are like the fleeting monthly rose of the bramble. The good works of a pure teacher are like the fruits of a good tree. For “a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

Most do not believe the pure doctrine which is preached, but at all times at least a few will become fruitful trees of righteousness and bring forth the fruits of the Spirit, such as “love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance.” (Gal. 5:22.23). Where false prophets rule, they also often show much love but a sectarian love. They love only those who belong to their denomination. Those whose hearts are filled with the true Gospel of the love of God, love all those whom Jesus Christ loves; they love all men, even the erring and the fallen, as their fellow-redeemed.

Now my dear brothers and sisters in Christ: “Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.” Amen.

Via Walther’s Sermon on Matthew 7:15-23.

The priest gave the Host – considered by Christians to represent the body of Jesus Christ – to an Alsatian cross called Trapper.

St Peter’s Anglican Church in Toronto has since been deluged complaints from Christians all over Canada.

Donald Keith, the dog’s owner, said he had taken his pet to the church because he had been told animals were welcome.
He said that because he was newcomer the vicar invited him up in person to receive communion.

“The minister welcomed me and said come up and take communion, and Trapper came up with me and the minister gave him communion as well,” said Mr Keith.

“Then he bent his head and said a little prayer,” Mr Keith said.

“I thought it was a nice way to welcome me into the church,” he said. “I thought it was acceptable.” He added: “There was an old lady in the front just beaming when she saw this.

“Ninety nine-point-nine per cent of the people in the church love Trapper and the kids play with him.” He said one member of the congregation was unhappy about the vicar giving the dog communion and complained to the archbishop, Colin Johnson.

The dog has since been banned from receiving the sacrament.

Read the full article at the Telegraph

Download .doc/.pdf

From Luther’s Prayers

Dear Father, here you teach us how we are not by deception to release, drain, extort, sell, depreciate our neighbor’s property, or get by force, but help him keep it, as we ourselves desire to keep ours. You are also a protection against the sharp ways and the trickery of the worldly minded. They will finally receive their punishment. Amen.

I thank you for this protection. Amen.

With sorrow and regret I confess my sin of coveting. Amen.

I ask for help and strength to become devout and to keep your commandments. Amen.

From Luther’s Small Catechism

The Tenth Commandment

You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

What is this?

We are to fear and love God, so that we do not entice, force, or steal away from our neighbors their spouses, workers, or livestock. But instead urge them to stay and remain loyal to our neighbors.

Gospel: Luke 12:13-21

Someone in the crowd said to (Jesus,) “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me.” 14 But he said to him, “Friend, who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?” 15 And he said to them, “Take care! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of possessions.” 16 Then he told them a parable: “The land of a rich man produced abundantly. 17 And he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have no place to store my crops?’ 18 Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, ‘Soul, you have ample goods laid up for many years; relax, eat, drink, be merry.’ 20 But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life is being demanded of you. And the things you have prepared, whose will they be? 21 So it is with those who store up treasures for themselves but are not rich toward God.

Second Reading: Colossians 3:1-11

So if you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth, 3 for you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life is revealed, then you also will be revealed with him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever you do is earthly: fornication, impurity, passion, evil, desire, and greed (which is idolatry). 6 On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient. 7 These are the ways you also once followed, when you were living that life. 8 But now you must get rid of all such things—anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive language from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have stripped off the old evil self with its practices 10 and have clothed yourselves with the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of its creator. 11 In what renewal there is no longer Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and free; but Christ is all and in all!

What does this mean?

Your life is hid with Christ in God. (Colossians iii. 3)

The Church is ruled by the Holy Spirit, and the saints are likewise ruled and quickened by Him (Romans viii.), and Christ is with His Church until the end of the world.

Yet we must ask whether it is certain that those who are called the Church are really the Church, or whether they have been astray all through their lifetime, and have at last come back to the right way. For mark that at the time of the Prophet Elijah all of the people of Israel who were in high place, those exercising authority with regard to ruling, teaching, and other offices, had fallen away into idolatry, so that Elijah thought that he alone had remained faithful. Yet the Lord had saved seven thousand! But who could see then and who knew that they were the people of God?

And what happened in the same time of the Lord Christ Himself, when all the Apostles were offended and fled, when the whole great and glorious people were united in betraying, rejecting, condemning, and crucifying Christ, and only one or two, such as Nicodemus, Joseph, Mary, and the thief on the cross were saved? But were not the many also called the people of God? Or was there no true people of God left? O yes, there was, but it had neither the name nor the honour.

And has it not been so from the beginning with the Church and the children of God (for the work of God is altogether different from the work and reason of man) that many have been called saints and the people of God, and they were not, while some, a little despised company, were not given the name but were the faithful?

On the Enslaved Will p. 78 ff. Via Day by Day We Magnify Thee, p. 354.

… the question is not only whether the discipline is doing good but whether it might actually be doing some harm. Could it be that systematic theology as usually practiced actually frustrates the proclamation of the gospel? Such questioning may lend solace to those who have always thought evil in their hearts of the discipline, but the intent herre is quite the contrary. As the stock rejoinder has it: Every Christian who thinks at all about the faith or about what he or she is going to say or do, does systematic theology. It is done either well or ill, but done nevertheless. So the question raised here is directed to anyone who thinks at all about the faith and contemplates saying or doing something about it. Anyone who does such thinking and contemplation has to do some sort of systematic theology and should be concerned about doing it properly.

Proclamation … is explicit declaration of the good news, the gospel, the kerygma. It is at once more specific and more comprehensive than preaching, even through, as will also be the case here, we often use the two terms interchangeably. Proclamation is more specific than preaching because not all that we ordinarily call preaching–teaching, edifying, ethical exhortation, persuasion, apologies for Christian living–is necessarily proclamation. At the same time, proclamation is more comprehensive because it occurs apart from formal preaching, most notably in the sacraments and the liturgy, but also in the everyday mutual conversation of Christians.

Proclamation belongs to the primary discourse of the church. Systematic theology belongs to its secondary discourse. Primary discourse is the direct declaration of the Word of God, that is, that is, the Word from God, and the believing response in confession, prayer, and praise. Secondary discourse, words about God, is reflection on the primary discourse. As primary discourse, proclamation ideally is present-tense, first-to-second person unconditional promise authorized by what occurs in Jesus Christ according to the scriptures. The most apt paradigm for such speaking is the absolution: “I declare unto you the gracious forgiveness of all your sins in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Proclamation is not “about:” something other than itself, for example, “I baptize you…” The deed is done, unconditionally. It is not an account of what happened in the past, such as, “God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son,” true as that is and, indeed, as much as it authorizes the primary discourse. Such accounts are past tense. Proclamation is present tense: I here and now give the gift to you, Christ himself, the body and blood of the Savior. I do it in both Word and sacrament. This is God’s present move, the current “mighty act” of the living God.

Via Forde’s Theology is for Proclamation, pp. vii-2. @Amazon

He says that he is speaking about the highest and greatest of vanities, that men are extremely vain in all their endeavors, because they are not content with the things that are in the present;

With this word, therefore, that attitude which is called “good intentions” is rejected, as is commonly said: “I meant it for the best.” But a good intention is nothing unless it is regulated by the Word of God and takes its beginning from faith. Other intentions, even those that appear to be very good, are deceptive and extremely harmful.

Christian wisdom, therefore, means to commit oneself to the power of God and to turn one’s cause over to Him who judges justly. A Christian can indeed, by the office of the Word, judge sin, but he should not raise his hand against it unless he is compelled to do so by God or commanded by the Word.

Often dinner parties are arranged to create a happy atmosphere, with foods and entertainment intended to make the guests happy. But usually it comes out just the opposite way, and only seldom does a good party result. Either there are gloomy and solemn faces present, or something else upsets all the arrangements, especially when there is such deliberation and planning about how much fun it will be. By contrast, it often happens that someone happens upon a most joyful dinner party by accident, that is, by the gift of God.

As it is a sin to invite anxiety and sorrow by our own counsels and also a sin to refuse to suffer them when they are imposed on us by God, so it is also to be condemned if we run away from happiness and do not accept it when it is given by God. This is what those sanctimonious killjoys do when they “disfigure their faces”

Look at the Roman republic, how the consuls and emperors who followed always revoked what had been done by those who had preceded them; they were bored with the present and the past, and they looked to the future. Why then do you afflict yourself with many cares, as though your descendants were going to approve of what you are doing or even were going to feel the same way?

Those pleasures are to be condemned which we by our own counsels seek to achieve for the future, and those labors are to be condemned which we strive to carry out by our own counsels. But those pleasures and labors which God gives are good, and they are to be used for the present without anxiety about either future afflictions or future pleasures. But who is capable of such things?

He proves that it is a gift of God to be content with the things that are present, for this is given to the man who pleases God with-out any preceding merits.

Via Luther’s Works, Volume 15, and some from the Confessional Gadfly.

1. We have been hearing of the glorious message of Christ’s resurrection, how that resurrection took place and how we must believe, for our own blessing, comfort and salvation. Now, that we may be sincerely thankful to God for this inestimable blessing, and that our attitude toward the doctrine of the resurrection may be one to truly honor and glorify it, we must hear also, and practice, the apostles’ teaching of its essential fruits, and must manifest them in our lives. Therefore, we will select Paul’s admonition to the Colossians (ch. 3), which has to do with this topic particularly.

Observe here, Paul exhorts Christians to be incited by the resurrection of Christ unto works truly good and becom-

Page 218 —————————

ing; the text declares unto us the supreme blessing and happiness the resurrection brings within our reach–remission of sins and salvation from eternal death. Lest, however, our wanton, indolent nature deceive itself by imagining the work is instantaneously wrought in ourselves, and that simply to receive the message is to exhaust the blessing, Paul always adds the injunction to examine our hearts to ascertain whether we rightly apprehend the resurrection truth.

HOW WE ARE RISEN WITH CHRIST.

2. By no means are we simply to assent to the words of the doctrine. Christ does not design that we be able merely to accept and speak intelligently of it, but that its influence be manifest in our lives. How is a dead man profited, however much life may be preached to him, if that preaching does not make him live? Or of what use is it to preach righteousness to a sinner if he remain in sin? or to an erring, factious individual if he forsake not his error and his darkness? Even so, it is not only useless but detrimental, even pernicious in effect, to listen to the glorious, comforting and saving doctrine of the resurrection if the heart has no experience of its truth; if it means naught but a sound in the ears, a transitory word upon the tongue, with no more effect upon the hearer than as if he had never heard.

According to Paul in the text, this nobly-wrought and precious resurrection of Christ essentially must be, not an idle tale of fancy, futile as a dead hewn-stone or painted-paper image, but a powerful energy working in us a resurrection through faith–an experience he calls being risen with Christ; in other words, it is dying unto sin, being snatched from the power of death and hell and having life and happiness in Christ. In the second chapter (verse 12), the apostle puts it plainly, “buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

3. If, Paul says, ye have apprehended by faith the resurrection of Christ and have received its power and consolation, and so are risen with him, that resurrection will surely

Page 219 —————————

be manifest in you; you will feel its power, will be conscious of its working within. The doctrine will be something more than words; it will be truth and life. For them who do not thus apprehend the resurrection, Christ is not yet risen, although his rising is none the less a fact; for there is not within them the power represented by the words “being risen with Christ,” the power which renders them truly dead and truly risen men.

So Paul’s intent is to make us aware that before we can become Christians, this power must operate within us; otherwise, though we may boast and fancy ourselves believing Christians, it will not be true. The test is, are we risen in Christ–is his resurrection effective in us? Is it merely a doctrine of words, or one of life and operating power?

4. Now, what is the process of the life and death mentioned? How can we be dead and at the same time risen? If we are Christians we must have suffered death; yet the very fact that we are Christians implies that we live. How is this paradox to be explained? Indeed, certain false teachers of the apostles’ time understood and explained the words in a narrow sense making them mean that the resurrection of the dead is a thing of the past according to Paul’s words in Second Timothy 1, 10, and that there is no future resurrection from temporal death. The believer in Christ, they said, is already risen to life; in all Christians the resurrection is accomplished in this earthly life. They sought to prove their position by Paul’s own words, thus assailing the article of the resurrection.

5. But we will ignore these teachers as being condemned by Paul, and interpret the words as he meant them, his remarks both preceding and following making it clear and unquestionable that he refers to the spiritual resurrection. This fact is certain: If we are, at the last day, to rise bodily, in our flesh and blood, to eternal life, we must have had a previous spiritual resurrection here on earth. Paul’s words in Romans 8, 11 are: “But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead shall give life also to your mortal

Page 220 —————————

bodies through his Spirit that dwelleth in you.” In other words: God having quickened, justified and saved you spiritually, he will not forget the body, the building or tabernacle of the living spirit; the spirit being in this life risen from sin and death, the tabernacle, or the corruptible flesh-and-blood garment, must also be raised; it must emerge from the dust of earth, since it is the dwelling-place of the saved and risen spirit, that the two may be reunited unto life eternal.

6. The apostle, then, is not in this text referring to the future resurrection of the body, but to the spiritual rising which entails the former. He regards as one fact the resurrection of the Lord Christ, who brought his body again from the grave and entered into life eternal, and the resurrection of ourselves, who, by virtue of his rising, shall likewise be raised: first, the soul, from a trivial and guilty life shall rise into a true, divine and happy existence; and second, from this sinful and mortal body shall rise out of the grave an immortal, glorious one.

So Paul terms believing Christians both “dead” and “alive.” They are spiritually dead in this life and also spiritually alive. Nevertheless, this sinful temporal life must yet come to an end in physical death, for the destruction of the sin and death inherent therein, that body and spirit may live forever. Therefore he says:

“If then ye were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God.”

7. In other words: Seek and strive after what is above–the things divine, heavenly and eternal; not the terrestrial, perishable, worldly. Make manifest the fact that you are now spiritually raised and by the same power will later be raised bodily.

8. But does this mean that we, as Christians, are no more to eat and drink, to till the ground, to attend to domestic or public duties, or to engage in any kind of labor? Are we to live utterly idle, practically dead? Is that what you mean, Paul, when you say we are not to seek the things of earth,

Page 221 —————————

though all these are essentially incident to life? What can you say to the fact that Christ the Lord is, himself, with us on earth? for he said before his ascension to heaven (Mt 28, 20): “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world”; and also the baptism which he commands, the sacrament and the office of Gospel ministry whereby he governs his Church here–these are things of earth.

9. Paul, however, explains in the succeeding verse what he means by “things that are upon the earth” and “things that are above.” He is not telling us to despise earthly objects. He does not refer to God’s created things, all which are good, as God himself considered them; nor has he reference to the Christian who, in his earthly life, must deal with the things of creation. He has in mind the individual without knowledge of God; who knows no more, and aims no further, than reason teaches, that reason received from parents at physical birth; who is an unbeliever, ignorant of God and the future life and caring not for them; who follows only natural understanding and human desire and seeks merely personal benefit, honor, pride and pleasure. The apostle calls that a worldly life where the Word of God is lacking, or at least is disregarded, and where the devil has rule, impelling to all vices.

Paul would say: Ye must be dead to a worldly life of this sort, a life striven after by the heathen, who disregard God’s Word and suffer the devil to have his way with them. Ye must prove the resurrection of Christ in you to be something more than vain words. Ye must show there is a living power manifest in you because ye are risen, a power which makes you lead a different life, one in obedience to the Word and will of God, and called the divine, heavenly life. Where this change does not take place, it is a sign ye are not yet Christians but are deceiving yourselves with vain fancies.

10. Under the phrase “things that are upon the earth”–worldly things–Paul includes not only gross, outward vices, sins censurable in the eyes of the world, but also greater immoralities; everything, in fact, not in accordance with the pure Word of God, faith and true Christian character.

Page 222 —————————

SPIRITUAL AND CARNAL WORLDLINESS.

11. In order to a better understanding of the text, we shall adopt Paul’s customary classification of life as spiritual and carnal. Life on earth is characterized as of the spirit, or spiritual; and of the flesh, or carnal. But the spiritual life may be worldly. The worldly spiritual life is represented by the vices of false and self-devised doctrine wherein the soul lives without the Word of God, in unbelief and in contempt of God; or, still worse, abuses the Word of God and the name of Christ in false doctrine, making them a cover and ornament for wicked fraud, using them falsely under a show of truth, under pretense of Christian love.

This is worldly conduct of the spiritual kind. It is always the worst, ever the most injurious, since it is not only personal sin, but deceives others into like transgression. Paul refers, in the epistle lesson for Easter, to this evil as the “old leaven” and the “leaven of wickedness.” And in Second Corinthians 7, 1, he makes the same classification of spiritual and carnal sin, saying, “Let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit.” By defilement of the spirit he means those secret, subtle vices wherewith man pollutes and corrupts his inner life in the sight of God; his sins not being manifest to the world, but deceiving human reason and wisdom.

12. If we would be Christians we must, first of all, be dead to conduct of this sort. We must not receive nor tolerate the worldly doctrine and corrupt inventions originating with ourselves, whether in the nature of reason, philosophy or law, theories ignoring the Word of God or else falsely passing under its name. For such are wholly of the world; under their influence man has no regard to God’s will and seeks not his kingdom and eternal life. They are meant merely to further the individual’s own honor, pride, renown, wisdom, holiness or something else. Though boast is made of the Gospel and of faith in Christ, yet it is not serious, and the individual continues without power and without fruit.

13. If we are risen with Christ through faith, we must set our affections upon things not earthly, corruptible, perishable, but upon things above–the heavenly, divine, eternal;

Page 223 —————————

in other words, upon doctrine right, pure and true, and whatever is pleasing to God, that his honor and Christ’s kingdom may be preserved. Thus shall we guard ourselves against

abuse of God’s name, against false worship and false trust and that presumption of self- holiness which pollutes and defrauds the spirit.

14. Under carnal worldliness Paul includes the gross vices, enumerating in particular here, fornication, uncleanness, covetousness, and so on, things which reason knows to be wicked and condemns as such. The spiritual sins take reason captive and deceive it, leaving it powerless to guard against them. They are termed spiritual sins not simply because of their spirit-polluting character, for all vices pollute the spirit, the carnal vices among them; but because they are too subtle for flesh and blood to discern. The sins of the flesh, however, are called carnal, or body-polluting, because committed by the body, in its members.

Now, as we are to be dead unto spiritual sins, so are we to be dead unto carnal sins, or at least to make continual progress toward that end, striving ever to turn away from all such earthly things and to look toward the heavenly and divine. He who continues to seek carnal things and to be occupied with them, has not as yet with Christ died unto the world. Not having died, he is not risen; the resurrection of Christ effects nothing in him. Christ is dead unto him and he unto Christ.

15. Paul’s admonition is particularly necessary at the present time. We see a large and constantly-increasing number who, despite their boast of the Gospel and their certain knowledge of the polluting and condemning power of spiritual and carnal sins, continue in their evil course, forgetful of God’s wrath, or endeavoring to trust in false security. Indeed, it is a very common thing for men to do just as they please and yet pretend innocence and seek to avoid censure. Some would represent themselves guileless as lambs and blameless; no act of theirs may be regarded evil or even wrong. They pretend great virtue and Christian love. Yet they carry on their insidious, malicious frauds, imposing falsehoods upon men. They ingeniously contrive to make

Page 224 —————————

their conduct appear good, imagining that to pass as faultless before men and to escape public censure means to deceive God also. But they will learn how God looks upon the matter. Paul tells us (Gal 6, 7) God will not, like men, be mocked. To conceal and palliate will not avail. Nothing will answer but dying to vice and then striving after what is virtuous, divine and becoming the Christian character.

16. Paul enumerates some gross and unpardonable vices–fornication, or unchastity, and covetousness. He speaks also of these in Ephesians 5, 3-5 and in First Thessalonians 4, 3-7, as we have heard in the epistle lessons for the second and third Sundays in Lent. He enjoins Christians to guard against these sins, to be utterly dead to them. For they are sensual, acknowledged such even among the gentiles; while we strive after the perfect purity becoming souls who belong to Christ and in heaven. It is incumbent upon the Christian to preserve his body modest, and holy or chaste; to refrain from polluting himself by fornication and other unchastity, after the manner of the world.

17. Similarly does the apostle forbid covetousness, to which he gives the infamous name of idolatry in the effort to make it more hideous in the Christian’s eyes, to induce him to shun it as an abominable vice intensely hated of God. It is a vice calculated to turn a man wholly from faith and from divine worship, until he regards not, nor seeks after, God and his Word and heavenly treasures, but follows only after the treasures of earth and seeks a god that will give him enough of earthly good.

18. Much might be said on this topic were we to consider it relative to all orders and trades in succession. For plainly the world, particularly in our day, is completely submerged in the vice of covetousness. It is impossible to enumerate the subtle arts it can invent, and the good and beautiful things it knows how to pass off whereunder it masks itself as a thing not to be considered sinful, but rather extremely virtuous and indicative of uprightness. And so idolatry ever does. While before God it is the worst abomination, before the world its appearance and reputation are superior. So

Page 225 —————————

far from being recognized as sin, it is considered supreme holiness and divine worship.

The very worship of Mammon wears an imposing mask. It must not be called covetousness or dishonest striving after property, but must be known as upright, legitimate endeavor to obtain a livelihood, a seeking to acquire property honestly. It ingeniously clothes itself with the Word

of God, saying God commands man to seek his bread by labor, by his own exertions, and that every man is bound to provide for his own household. No civil government, no, nor a preacher even, can censure covetousness under that guise unless it be betrayed in gross robbing and stealing.

19. Let every man know that his covetousness will be laid to the charge of his own conscience, that he will have to answer for it, for God will not be deceived. It is evident the vice is gaining ground. With its false appearance and ostentation, and its world-wide prevalence, it is commonly accepted as legal. Without censure or restraint, men are engrossed in coveting and accumulating to the utmost. Those having position and power think they have the right to acquire by violence as much as they can, daily making assessments and imposts, and new oppressions and impositions upon the poor. And the common rabble seek gain by raising prices, by extortion, fraud, and so on. Yet all desire not to be charged with wrong-doing; they would not they should be called unchristian on account of their conduct. Indeed, such excess of covetousness obtains that the public robbing and stealing, and the faithlessness and fraud, of the meanest hirelings, servants and maids everywhere can no longer be restrained.

20. But who would care to recount the full extent of this vice in all dealings and interests of the world between man and man? Enough has been said to induce every one who aims to be a Christian to examine his own heart and, if he find himself guilty of such vice, to refrain; if not, to know how to guard against it. Every individual can readily perceive for himself what is consistent with Christian character in this respect, what can be allowed with a good conscience;

Page 226 —————————

for he has Christ’s rule of dealing as we would be dealt with, which insures equality and justice. Where unfairness exists, covetousness must obtain to some extent.

21. If you will not desist from the vice of covetousness, then know you are not a Christian, not a believer, but, as Paul calls you, a base, detestable idolater, having no part in God’s kingdom; for you are living wholly to the world and without intent to rise with Christ. You will receive no blessing from the joy-inspiring and gracious revelation that Christ died and rose for sinners. You cannot say, “Therefore he died for me, I trust.” Truly, Christ died for you, but if you continue in your wickedness, using this revelation as a cloak for your mean covetousness, do not–such is the declaration of the text–by any means apply that comforting promise to yourself. Although Christ indeed died and rose for all, yet unto you he is not risen; you have not apprehended his resurrection by faith. You have seen the smoke but have not felt the fire; you have heard the words but have received nothing of their power.

THE NEW LIFE IN CHRIST.

22. If you would be able honestly to boast of this revelation as unto you, if you would have the comfort of knowing that Christ, through his death and resurrection, has blessed you, you must not continue in your old sinful life, but put on a new character. For Christ died and rose for the very purpose of effecting your eventual death with him and your participation in his resurrection: in other words, he died that you might be made a new man, beginning even now, a man like unto himself in heaven, a man having no covetous desire or ambition for advantage over a neighbor, a man satisfied with what God grants him as the result of his labor, and kind and beneficent to the needy.

23. In his desire to arouse Christians to the necessity of guarding against such vices as he mentions, Paul strengthens his admonition, in conclusion, by grave threats and visions of divine wrath, saying, “for which things’ sake cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience”; that is, upon the unbelieving world, which regards not the Word

Page 227 —————————

of God, does not fear or believe in it nor strive to obey it, and yet is unwilling to be charged with idolatry and other unchristian principles, desiring rather to be considered righteous and God’s own people.

In the last quoted clause Paul also implies that worldly conduct, the life of worldly lusts such as covetousness and other vices, is inconsistent and impossible with faith, and that the power of Christ’s resurrection cannot reach it. For this reason he terms them “sons of disobedience,” who have not faith and who, by their unchristian conduct, bring God’s wrath upon themselves and are cast out from the kingdom of God. God seriously passes sentence against such conduct, declaring he will reveal his wrath against it in bodily punishment in this world and eternal punishment in the world hereafter. Elsewhere Paul says practically the same thing (Eph 5, 6): “For because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the sons of disobedience.” See also Rom 1, 18.

24. Such is the admonition of Paul unto all who would be called Christians. He reminds them whereunto the Gospel of Christ calls them and what his resurrection should work in them– death to all life and doctrine not in harmony with God’s Word and God’s will–and that if they believe in the risen and living Christ, they, as risen with him, should seek after the same heavenly life where he sits at the right hand of God, a life where is no sin nor worldly error, but eternal life and imperishable treasures to be possessed and enjoyed with Christ forever.

25. But the revelation of Christ’s resurrection can be apprehended by nothing but faith. The things Paul here tells us of life and glory for Christians in the risen Christ are not apparent to the world; in fact, Christians themselves do not perceive them by external sense. Notice, he says, “Ye died, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” The world does not understand the Christian life and has no word of praise for it; it is hostile to the faith and cannot tolerate the fact that you believe in Christ and refuse to join hands with it in love for worldly lusts. A hidden life indeed is the Christian’s; not only hidden to the world, but, so far

Page 228 —————————

as external perception goes, to the Christian himself. Nevertheless, it is a life sure and in safe keeping, and in the hereafter its glory shall be manifest to all the world. For Paul says:

“When Christ, who is our life, shall be manifested, then shall ye also with him be manifested in glory.”

26. Here is comfort for Christians in this earthly life where, though they receive the doctrine of Christ and apprehend him by faith, their resurrection seems to the world and to their own perceptions untrue; where they must contend with sin and infirmities and moreover are subject to much affliction and adversity; and where consequently they are extremely sensible of death and terror when they would experience joy and life. In this verse Paul comforts them, showing them where to seek and surely apprehend their life.

27. Be of good cheer, he would say, for ye are dead to the worldly life. This life ye must renounce, but in so doing ye make a precious exchange. Dying unto the world is a blessed experience, for which ye will obtain a life far more glorious. Ye are now, through Christ’s death, redeemed from sin and from death eternal and are made imperishable. Upon you is conferred everlasting glory. But this risen life ye cannot yet perceive in yourselves; ye have it in Christ, through faith.

Christ is spoken of as “our life.” Though the life is still unrevealed to you, it is certain, insured to you beyond the power of any to deprive you of it. By faith in Christ’s life, then, are ye to be preserved and to obtain victory over the terrors and torments of sin, death and the devil, until that life shall be revealed in you and made manifest to men.

In Christ ye surely possess eternal life. Nothing is lacking to a perfect realization except that the veil whereby it is hidden so long as we are in mortal flesh and blood, is yet to be removed. Then will eternal life be revealed. Then all worldly, terrestrial things, all sin and death, will be abolished. In every Christian shall be manifest only glory. Christians, then, believing in Christ, and knowing him risen, should comfort themselves with the expectation of living

Page 229 —————————

with him in eternal glory; the inevitable condition is that they have first, in the world, died with him.

28. Paul does not forget to recognize the earthly environment of Christians and saints, for he says: “Put to death therefore your members which are upon the earth.” Though acknowledging Christians dead with Christ unto worldly things and possessing life in Christ, he yet tells them to mortify their members on earth, and enumerates the sins of fornication, covetousness, etc.

This is truly a strange idea, that it should be necessary for men who have died and risen with Christ and hence have been made really holy, to mortify worldly inclinations in their bodily members. The apostle refers to this subject in Romans 7: 5, 8, 23, and elsewhere, frequently explaining how, in the saints, there continue to remain various lusts of original sin, which constantly rise in the effort to break out, even gross external vices. These have to be resisted. They are strong enough utterly to enslave a man, to subject him to the deepest guilt, as Paul complains (Rom 7, 23); and they will surely do it unless the individual, by faith and the aid of the Holy Spirit, oppose and conquer them.

29. Therefore, saints must, by a vigorous and unceasing warfare, subdue their sinful lusts if they would not lose God’s grace and their faith. Paul says in Romans 8, 13: “If ye live after the flesh, ye must die; but if by the Spirit ye put to death the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” In order, then, to retain the Spirit and the incipient divine life, the Christian must contend against himself.

This cannot be accomplished by the monastic hypocrisies wherewith some expect to resist sin. For the pollution of sin is not merely something adhering to the clothing, or to the skin externally, and easily washed off. It is not something to be discharged from the body by fasting and castigation. No, it penetrates the flesh and blood and is diffused rough the whole man. Positive mortification is necessary or it will destroy one. And this is how to mortify sin: It must be perceived with serious displeasure and repented of; and through faith Christ’s forgiveness must be sought and

Page 230 —————————

found. Thus shall sinful inclinations be resisted, defeated and restrained from triumphing over you. More has been said on this topic elsewhere.

Via Luther’s Church Postil, taken from volume VII:217-230 of The Sermons of Martin Luther, published by Baker Book House (Grand Rapids, MI). It was originally published in 1909 in English by The Luther Press (Minneapolis, MN), as Luther’s Epistle Sermons, vol. 2. The pagination from the Baker edition has been maintained for referencing. This e-text was scanned and edited by Richard P. Bucher.