The Annotated Luther, Volume 5: Christian Life in the World [Annotated] 1451462735, 9781451462739

Citation preview

ILLUMINATING THE ESSENTIAL WRITINGS OF MARTIN LUTHER PRAISE FOR THE ANNOTATED LUTHER SERIES Hans J. Hillerbrand is professor emeritus, Duke University Department of Religion. He has served as president of the Society for Reformation Research and the American Society of Church History. His many publications include volumes on Christian history, Protestantism, and the Reformation. 

“As no other comparable series, The Annotated Luther provides the reader, whether lay or ordained, with a collection of the Wittenberg reformer’s most important writings that is at once learned and highly accessible. Here Luther’s works are presented in up-to-date translation with helpful introductions, explanatory notes, and engaging images. A must for the student and scholar of Luther alike!” Ronald K. Rittgers Valparaiso University

PRAISE FOR VOLUME 5

GENERAL EDITORS Hans J. Hillerbrand Kirsi I. Stjerna Timothy J. Wengert

“Luther believed that the Christian life could and should be lived out fully within the world. He taught that rulers, pastors, husbands and wives, business people, craftsmen, and soldiers all served God by fulfilling their responsibilities within their vocations. The Annotated Luther, Volume 5 provides contemporary translations of Luther’s treatises on marriage, schools, business and moneylending, soldiers and warfare, and politics as well as his views on the Jews and Turks. Luther’s attempts to relate the gospel to human activity in all spheres of life all repay careful study, even where they appear dated or wrong. The scholars who translated, introduced, and annotated them have done their readers a great service.” Stephen Burnett University of Nebraska-Lincoln “Judiciously selected and expertly introduced by leading scholars, the works in this volume reveal Luther’s views on a wide range of themes pertaining to Christian life in the world—from marriage to war to interactions with Turks and Jews. The writings presented here rank among Luther’s most important and profound works—as well as, sometimes, his most disturbing. With helpful introductions that illuminate the contexts in which Luther wrote, no other single volume offers a better starting point for students, pastors, and all readers interested in how Luther confronted the ever-present question, ‘How is the Christian to live in society?’” Vincent Evener Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

Religion / Reformation History / Theology

THE A N N O TAT E D LUTHER

5

T H E A N N O TAT E D L U T H E R Volume 5 of the Annotated Luther series presents a number of Luther’s writings that reveal the reformer’s view of Christian life as it intersects with the world. The topics range widely from Luther’s perspectives on marriage, schools and education, business and lending, war and serving as a soldier, the role of secular leaders, and his view of the Turks and the Jews.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD VOLUME 5

Each volume in The Annotated Luther series contains new introductions, annotations, illustrations, and notes to help shed light on Luther’s context and interpret his writings for today.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

“The Annotated Luther series provides a very welcome resource for meeting Luther again in the contemporary world. With language refreshed for our time, we can see more clearly Luther as a man who is actively grappling with a society undergoing dramatic challenges economically, religiously, and socially. By providing skilled commentary from scholars around the world and from diverse theological perspectives, this work will be of great help for modern Christians seeking to adapt and extend the insights from the Reformation to modern challenges.” Maria E. Erling Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

Hillerbrand

Volume 1: The Roots of Reform Volume 2: Word and Faith Volume 3: Church and Sacraments Volume 4: Pastoral Writings Volume 5: Christian Life in the World Volume 6: The Interpretation of Scripture

Hans J. Hillerbrand Editor

T H E A N N O TAT E D L U T H E R

Volume 5

Christian Life in the World

Additional Praise for Christian Life in the World “This volume of   T he Annotated Luther explores the work of Martin Luther as he engaged the pressing issues of his day. The writings in this volume, carefully edited and contextualized with introductions and supporting materials, present Luther’s thoughts on a range of topics, from the mundane to the controversial, from marriage and trade to the Peasants’ War and the Jews.” — Greta Kroeker | University of Waterloo

Additional Praise for The Annotated Luther Series “The Annotated Luther series represents a finely crafted synthesis between readable primary texts and some of the best secondary scholarship. A superb editorial team, under the leadership of Hillerbrand, Stjerna, and Wengert, has made seventy-five selections, ranging from major treatises to sermons and letters, and beautifully laid these out in six volumes, together with state-of-the-art analyses and explanatory notes. Luther the theologian, the biblical interpreter, the pastor, the social/political thinker—all are given their due, and the resulting multidimensional portrait combines balance with a newly sharpened focus. In sum, a signal achievement.” — Denis R. Janz | Loyola University New Orleans

T HE A N N OTAT ED L U T HER Volume 5

Christian Life in the World

VOLUME EDITOR

Hans J. Hillerbrand

GENERAL EDITORS

Hans J. Hillerbrand Kirsi I. Stjerna Timothy J. Wengert

Fortress Press Minneapolis

THE ANNOTATED LUTHER, Volume 5 Christian Life in the World Copyright © 2017 Fortress Press. All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in critical articles and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced in any manner without prior written permission from the publisher. Email [email protected] or write to Permissions, Fortress Press, PO Box 1209, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1209. Unless otherwise noted, Scripture quotations are from New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Fortress Press Publication Staff: Scott Tunseth, Project Editor; Alicia Ehlers, Production Manager; Laurie Ingram, Cover Design; Michael Moore, Permissions. Copyeditor: David Lott Series Designer and Typesetter: Ann Delgehausen, Trio Bookworks Proofreader: Paul Kobelski, The HK Scriptorium Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available. ISBN: 978-1-4514-6273-9 eISBN: 978-1-4514-7233-2 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z329, 48-1984. Manufactured in the U.S.A.

Contents Series Introduction  vii Abbreviations  xi Maps  xiv

Introduction to Volume 5

1

HANS  J. HILLERBRAND

Luther’s Will, 1542

9

HANS  J. HILLERBRAND

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage Revised and Corrected by Dr. Martin Luther, Augustinian at Wittenberg, 1519

17

MARJORIE   ELIZABETH   PLUMMER

On the Estate of Marriage, 1522

33

MARJORIE   ELIZABETH   PLUMMER

On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, 1523

79

JAMES   M. ESTES

On Business and Usury, 1524

131

HANS  J. HILLERBRAND

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved, 1526

183

JOHN  D. ROTH

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools, 1524 H. ASHLEY HALL

235

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, 1525

281

ASHLEY  N ULL

On War against the Turk, 1529

335

JOHN  D. ROTH

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, 1523

391

KIRSI   I. STJERNA

About the Jews and Their Lies, 1543

441

HANS    J. HILLERBRAND

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ, 1543 BROOKS    SCHRAMM

Image  Credits  667 Index of Scriptural References  671 Index of Names  681 Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others  691 Index of Subjects  699

609

Series Introduction Engaging the Essential Luther Even after five hundred years Martin Luther continues to engage and challenge each new generation of scholars and believers alike. With 2017 marking the five-hundredth anniversary of Luther’s 95 Theses, Luther’s theology and legacy are being explored around the world with new questions and methods and by diverse voices. His thought invites ongoing examination, his writings are a staple in classrooms and pulpits, and he speaks to an expanding assortment of conversation partners who use different languages and hale from different geographical and social contexts. The six volumes of The Annotated Luther edition offer a flexible tool for the global reader of Luther, making many of his most important writings available in the lingua franca of our times as one way of facilitating interest in the Wittenberg reformer. They feature new introductions, annotations, revised translations, and textual notes, as well as visual enhancements (illustrations, art, photos, maps, and timelines). The Annotated Luther edition embodies Luther’s own cherished principles of communication. Theological writing, like preaching, needs to reflect human beings’ lived experience, benefits from up-to-date scholarship, and should be easily accessible to all. These volumes are designed to help teachers and students, pastors and laypersons, and other professionals in ministry understand the context in which the documents were written, recognize how the documents have shaped Protestant and Lutheran thinking, and interpret the meaning of these documents for faith and life today.

The Rationale for This Edition For any reader of Luther, the sheer number of his works presents a challenge. Well over one hundred volumes comprise the scholarly edition of Luther’s works, the so-called Weimar Ausgabe (WA), a publishing enterprise begun in 1883 and only completed in the twenty-first century. From 1955 to 1986, fifty-five volumes came to make up Luther’s Works (American Edition) (LW), to which Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, is adding still more. This English-language contribution to Luther studies, matched by similar translation projects for Erasmus of Rotterdam and John Calvin, provides a theological and historical gold mine for those interested in studying Luther’s thought. But even these volumes are not always easy to use and are hardly portable. Electronic

vii

Series Introduction

viii

forms have increased availability, but preserving Luther in book form and providing readers with manageable selections are also important goals. Moreover, since the publication of the WA and the first fifty-five volumes of the LW, research on the Reformation in general and on Martin Luther in particular has broken new ground and evolved, as has knowledge regarding the languages in which Luther wrote. Up-to-date information from a variety of sources is brought together in The Annotated Luther, building on the work done by previous generations of scholars. The language and phrasing of the translations have also been updated to reflect modern English usage. While the WA and, in a derivative way, LW remain the central source for Luther scholarship, the present critical and annotated English translation facilitates research internationally and invites a new generation of readers for whom Latin and German might prove an unsurpassable obstacle to accessing Luther. The WA provides the basic Luther texts (with some exceptions); the LW provides the basis for almost all translations.

Defining the “Essential Luther” Deciding which works to include in this collection was not easy. Criteria included giving attention to Luther’s initial key works; considering which publications had the most impact in his day and later; and taking account of Luther’s own favorites, texts addressing specific issues of continued importance for today, and Luther’s exegetical works. Taken as a whole, these works present the many sides of Luther, as reformer, pastor, biblical interpreter, and theologian. To serve today’s readers and by using categories similar to those found in volumes 31–47 of Luther’s works (published by Fortress Press), the volumes offer in the main a thematic rather than strictly chronological approach to Luther’s writings. The volumes in the series include: Volume 1: The Roots of Reform (Timothy J. Wengert, editor) Volume 2: Word and Faith (Kirsi I. Stjerna, editor) Volume 3: Church and Sacraments (Paul W. Robinson, editor) Volume 4: Pastoral Writings (Mary Jane Haemig, editor) Volume 5: Christian Life in the World (Hans J. Hillerbrand, editor) Volume 6: The Interpretation of Scripture (Euan K. Cameron, editor)

The History of the Project In 2011 Fortress Press convened an advisory board to explore the promise and parameters of a new English edition of Luther’s essential works. Board members Denis Janz, Robert Kolb, Peter Matheson, Christine Helmer, and Kirsi Stjerna deliberated with

Series Introduction Fortress Press publisher Will Bergkamp to develop a concept and identify contributors. After a review with scholars in the field, college and seminary professors, and pastors, it was concluded that a single-language edition was more desirable than duallanguage volumes. In August 2012, Hans Hillerbrand, Kirsi Stjerna, and Timothy Wengert were appointed as general editors of the series with Scott Tunseth from Fortress Press as the project editor. The general editors were tasked with determining the contents of the volumes and developing the working principles of the series. They also helped with the identification and recruitment of additional volume editors, who in turn worked with the general editors to identify volume contributors. Mastery of the languages and unique knowledge of the subject matter were key factors in identifying contributors. Most contributors are North American scholars and native English speakers, but The Annotated Luther includes among its contributors a circle of international scholars. Likewise, the series is offered for a global network of teachers and students in seminary, university, and college classes, as well as pastors, lay teachers, and adult students in congregations seeking background and depth in Lutheran theology, biblical interpretation, and Reformation history.

Editorial Principles The volume editors and contributors have, with few exceptions, used the translations of LW as the basis of their work, retranslating from the WA for the sake of clarity and contemporary usage. Where the LW translations have been substantively altered, explanatory notes have often been provided. More importantly, contributors have provided marginal notes to help readers understand theological and historical references. Introductions have been expanded and sharpened to reflect the very latest historical and theological research. In citing the Bible, care has been taken to reflect the German and Latin texts commonly used in the sixteenth century rather than modern editions, which often employ textual sources that were unavailable to Luther and his contemporaries. Finally, all pieces in The Annotated Luther have been revised in the light of modern principles of inclusive language. This is not always an easy task with a historical author, but an intentional effort has been made to revise language throughout, with creativity and editorial liberties, to allow Luther’s theology to speak free from unnecessary and unintended gender-exclusive language. This important principle provides an opportunity to translate accurately certain gender-neutral German and Latin expressions that Luther employed—for example, the Latin word homo and the German Mensch mean “human being,” not simply “males.” Using the words man and men to translate such terms would create an ambiguity not present in the original texts. The focus is on linguistic accuracy and Luther’s intent. Regarding creedal formulations

ix

x

Series Introduction and trinitarian language, Luther’s own expressions have been preserved, without entering the complex and important contemporary debates over language for God and the Trinity. The 2017 anniversary of the publication of the 95 Theses is providing an opportunity to assess the substance of Luther’s role and influence in the Protestant Reformation. Revisiting Luther’s essential writings not only allows reassessment of Luther’s rationale and goals but also provides a new look at what Martin Luther was about and why new generations would still wish to engage him. We hope these six volumes offer a compelling invitation. Hans J. Hillerbrand Kirsi I. Stjerna Timothy J. Wengert General Editors

Abbreviations ANF ARG AWA BC Blickle

BSLK CA CCSL CH CIC CL CR CSEL DRTA. JR DWB FC Friedberg GCS Laube LC LSB LuJ LW LWZ MA 3

Ante-Nicene Fathers Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte Archiv für die Weimarer Ausgabe The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000) Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants’ War from a New Perspective, trans. Thomas A. Brady Jr. and H. C. Erik Midelfort, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985) Die Bekenntnisschriften der evengelisch-Lutherichen Kirche, 11th ed. The Augsburg Confession Corpus Christianorum Series Latina The Church History of Rufinus of Aquileia: Books 10 and 11, trans. Philip R. Amidon (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) Corpus Iuris Canonici, ed. Emil Louis Richter and Emil Friedberg, 2 vols. (Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1959) Luthers Werke in Auswahl, ed. Otto Clemen et al. (Bonn, 1912–1933; Berlin, 1955–1956) Corpus Reformatorum Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter Kaiser Karl V, ed. Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Gotha, 1893–) Deutsches Wörterbuch von Jacob und Wilhelm Grimm. In various editions, including online at Andover-Harvard Theological Library. Formula of Concord Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Emil Friedberg, 2 vols. (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–1881) Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1897–) Flugschriften der frühen Reformationsbewegung (1518–1524) (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1983) The Large Catechism Lutheran Service Book (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2006) Lutherjahrbuch (Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht) Luther’s Works [American edition], ed. Helmut Lehmann and Jaroslav Pelikan, 55 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, and St. Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986) The Latin Works and Correspondence of Huldreich Zwingli, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson, 3 vols. (New York, 1912; Philadelphia, 1922, 1929) Martin Luther, Ergänzungsbände Werke (Munich, 1954–)

xi

Abbreviations

xii MLBJP MLStA MPL MSA Neumann Noonan NPNF ODCC OER PE

Polnitz SC Schwiebert SD S-J STh TAL Thiele VD16

WA WA DB WA Br WA TR Wander

Brooks Schramm and Kirsi I. Stjerna, Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012) Martin Luther: Studienausgabe, ed. Hans-Ulrich Delius, 6 vols. (Berlin and Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1979–1999) Patrologiae cursus complets, series Latina, ed. J.-P. Migne, 1st ed., 217 vols. (Paris 1844–1855, 1862–1865) Philipp Melanchthon, Melanchthon’s Werke in Auswahl [Studienausgabe], ed. R. Stupperich, 7 vols. (Gutersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1951–1975) Max Neumann, Geschichte des Wuchers in Deutschland (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1865) The Scholastic Analysis of Usury (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957) Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed. Philip Schaaf and Henry Wace, series 1, 14 vols., and series 2, 14 vols. (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 1886–1900) The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F. L. Cross, 3rd ed. rev., ed. E. A. Livingstone (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand, 4 vols. (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996) The Works of Martin Luther. 6 vols. Edited by Eyster Jacobs Henry and Adolph Spaeth. (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915–1932). Repr. 1943 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg) Götz Freiherr von Polnitz, Jakob Fugger, 2 vols. (Tübingen: Mohr, 1949–1951) The Small Catechism Ernest George Schweibert, Luther and His Times: The Reformation from a New Perspective (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1950) Solid Declaration Luther’s Correspondence, 2 vols., ed. Preserved Smith and Charles M. Jacobs (Philadelphia, 1913–1918) Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica The Annotated Luther, 6 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015–2017) Ernst Theile, Luthers Sprichwörtersammlung: Nach seiner Handschrift zum ersten Male herausgegeben und mit Anmerkungen versehen von E. Thiele (Weimar, 1900) Verzeichnis der im deutschen Sprachbereich erschienenen Drucke des XVI Jahrhunderts (München: Bayerische Staatsbibliothek; Herzog August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel, Stuttgart: Hiersemann [1983–]) Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe [Schriften], 73 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1883–2009) Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Deutsche Bibel, 12 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1906–1961) Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Briefwechsel, 18 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1930–1985) Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: Tischreden, 6 vols. (Weimar: H. Böhlau, 1912–1921) Deutsches Sprichwörter-Lexikon, ed. K. F. Wander, 5 vols. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964)

Abbreviations

xiii

Mishnaic and Targumic Sources b. Yoma b. Sanh. m. Yoma Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. Tg. Eccl. Tg. Cant.

Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Yoma Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin Mishnah, Tractate Yoma Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Exodus Targum Ecclesiastes Targum Song of Songs

xiv

Series Introduction

Series Introduction

xv

LUTHER’S GERMANY

B altic S ea

denmark

Major political subdivisions

Wolgast

Hamburg Bremen

Amsterdam

n et Brussels

he

a rl

nd

p o m e r a n ia Stettin

Elb e

s Magdeburg Mansfeld • Eisenach Eisleben

Cologne

Marburg

Erfurt

poland

Wittenberg Torgau Leipzig

Breslau

Schmalkalden

luxemburg

Strassburg

Rh ine

Metz

Regensburg

D

france

Prague

Nuremberg

Worms

Od er

be anu

Zürich

swiss confederation

Augsburg

austria

Salzburg

Vienna

hungary

Milan

Venice

venetian dominion Florence

Adr iatic S ea

0

200 Miles

Introduction to Volume 5 HANS  J. HILLERBRAND

�

The topic is as old as the gospels in the New Testament. In the Gospel of Matthew we read that Jesus was asked whether it was right to pay taxes to the Roman occupation forces. Jesus’ response is well known: “Render to God what is God’s and to Caesar what is Caesar’s” (Matt. 22:21). This response, which seemed to draw a clear line between the spiritual and the secular realm, is assuredly one of Jesus’ better-known statements; it must have left the hearers somewhat baffled as to what, concretely, came under each heading. Elsewhere in the New Testament the apostle Paul addressed the topic of what it meant to be a Christian living in society, in terms of specific issues, such as the Christian and governmental authority—the response to a hostile Roman Empire—or the Christian and marriage, but at once placed those into the broad context that Christian believers knew they were in the end times. The early Christian community’s conviction that they were living in the end of days meant that it was not necessary to think through all theological or moral issues that being a Christian posed. The shortness of time until the end rendered the exposition of what the followers of Jesus should believe and do somewhat moot. Thus, Paul left the Corinthian congregation ambivalent about marriage, generally a long-term proposition. And his advisory seemed to be borne by the reality of the end

1

2

1. This concept of world history guided by Divine Providence in a universal war between God and the Devil is part of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, as most recently stated in the Second Vatican Council’s Gaudium et Spes document.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD times. Celibacy, he intimated, was the ideal, but then added that “it is better to marry than burn with desire” (1 Cor. 7:9), hardly a ringing endorsement of the married estate. In the centuries that followed, as Christian communities became more numerous and influential in Roman society, critical observers commented on the Christian aloofness from society. Christians stayed away from the venues of popular Roman entertainment. The refusal of Christians to serve in the Roman military or as judges appears to have been a universal principle that allowed the Roman state to view Christians as disloyal citizens who had to be forced to pledge loyalty to the emperor. At the same time, the Christian self-understanding underwent a change, in that a bifurcation occurred within the Christian community. While most Christians practiced faith to a degree, a smaller number strove for holiness and Christian perfection. This explains the rise of the monastic ideal, the commitment to live in poverty and celibacy, distant from the world and society, though always with a commitment to acts of Christian mercy in the world. In the Middle Ages, monasteries and convents were lodging places, hospitals, soup kitchens, and much more. The biblical rationales for the pursuit of perfection were undoubtedly the categorical pronouncements of Jesus, such as his challenge to the young “ruler” to sell all that he had and follow him. In addition, there were the strictures of the Sermon on the Mount. As has been pointed out frequently, an incisive change occurred when, early in the fourth century, the Christian religion first became a “licensed” religion and a few decades later was the sole authorized religion of the Roman Empire. The church concluded an alliance with the body politic. It was supported and defended by the Roman state, which had first become evident when Emperor Constantine (c. 280–337) convened the Council of Nicaea and his sister paid for building churches. And when the Roman Empire succumbed to the onslaught of the “barbarians,” the church miraculously survived and her principles became normative for European society. The privileged recognition of the Christian religion forced the church to rethink its traditional stance of aloofness, if not hostility, toward the society of which it was part. This was superbly done by St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430) in North Africa, who in his vastly influential work De Civitate Dei (On the City of God) 1 argued that from the beginnings of history, two powers stood in

Introduction to Volume 5 tension with one another: the community (“city”) of God and the community (“city”) of this world. Christians were citizens of both. Part of Augustine’s brilliance lay in the way he elucidated this reality.

A page from the 1475 printing of De Civitate Dei (The City of God), originally published in 426 ce

This broader topic included the question of whether true Christians may serve as soldiers. Until the fourth century Christians would have generally answered the question negatively; now, St. Augustine’s powerful reflections persuaded them that there were “just” wars in which a Christian might surely participate as soldier. This was a new understanding of the issues of

3

4 2. Conduct of war is clearly a matter of moral concern. Even when a nation is justified in waging war on another, there are moral limits on what it may do in prosecuting the war. Defining and enforcing such limits has long been a concern for international agreement and law. As the key phrases below indicate, it is very problematic if citizens of a land can use these criteria to form opinions about the justness of the case. 1. Proportionality—The proportion­ ality of the use of force in a war. 2. Discrimination—The combatants discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. 3. Responsibility—A country is not responsible for unexpected side effects of its military activity. 3. Thomas Aquinas was a Scholastic theologian in the Dominican order.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD war and peace.2 The right to go to war concerned the legitimacy of the concept of a “just” war, that a nation must give in order for it to have a moral right to wage war. Augustine’s presupposition was that the decision by a country or a ruler to go to war had to be based on a legitimate political and legal process. Augustine’s criteria were revised and expanded, notably by Thomas Aquinas 3 (1225–1274) in the thirteenth century, but the basic notion that it was proper for a Christian to participate in a “just” war continued to be universally affirmed. There was another fateful legacy for Luther in the realm of social ethics. It was a mode of thinking about the relationship of church and state in a society that allowed no public expression of religion than Christianity. Church and state had a symbiotic relationship, where each supported the other and where to be member of one meant one was also member of the other. The term of this relationship was corpus Christianum, the Christian body. The Ottoman Empire’s aggressive foray into southeast central Europe in the late 1520s brought their forces just outside the gates of Vienna. Because of this threat the deliberations on the religious issues of just about every diet were overshadowed by the emperor’s effort to get the estates to contribute financially to raising an army for defense. Both situations prompted Luther’s reflection as captured in the treatises On War against the Turks (1529) and Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526). Luther was heir to the medieval tradition. It is evident, from some of his earliest publications in the indulgences controversy, that his vision of a vitalized Christian faith had ramifications for the public square as well. In 1519 he published the first of several sermons on usury, a major point of controversy in business circles at the time. His treatise published in 1524, titled Business and Usury in this volume, addresses this subject. In his Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German People Concerning the Improvement of the Christian Estate (1520), a Luther started out with some theological reflection, but then went on to discuss at length the several areas in German society that desperately needed reform, such as the curricula at universities, but also the

a See TAL 1:369–465.

Introduction to Volume 5 curtailment of imports. Clearly, Luther understood renewal to have relevance for the market square in addition to church and theology. In this volume, he returns to this issue in To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (1524). Luther argued vigorously against those who considered a formal education unnecessary, and perhaps even an obstacle, to the Christian life. Luther’s religious piety and education led him to assert that the Holy Spirit inspired through diligent study and prayerful reflection. Further, he averred that personal revelation must be tested by the church. Only those who were properly trained for the office of ministry and those duly educated as doctors (i.e., teachers) of theology had the right to preach and teach publicly and with authority. At this same time in Luther’s Germany, a peasant rebellion rose against the ruling class, who were wealthy landowners. Luther judged the rebellion of the peasants to achieve their political and economic goals to be totally unacceptable because it was against the established order of societal living. Early on, Luther had expressed sympathy for the peasant grievances, but later he shied away from endorsing their actions. In his Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia (1525), Luther’s underlying notion was that God ruled and worked in the world in two ways—through the gospel for the believers, and through law for all humankind.b The gospel pertained solely to the relationship with God, while the law was God’s way to have harmonious and orderly structures that allowed humans to live in peace and fellowship one with the other. The Twelve Articles offered a summary of peasant grievances, with the important addendum, “if any were found to be incompatible with Scripture, they would be withdrawn.” Precisely at this point lay Luther’s fundamental misgiving. The Twelve Articles were in error, according to Luther, because the peasants mistakenly assumed that economic or political issues

b William J. Weight, Martin Luther’s Understanding of God’s Two Kingdoms: A Response to the Challenge of Skepticism (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010). Kurt Matthes, Das Corpus Christianum bei Luther im Lichte seiner Erforschung (Berlin: Curtius, 1929).

5

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

6

can be resolved with Scripture. But this was a new Luther speaking, not the author who had written To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation in 1520. c Nineteenth-century Lutheran theologians coined the term “orders of creation” to refer to the sphere that here was labeled “law.” These “orders,” such as government or marriage, were universally human and operated on principles that were secular. It thus becomes understandable, to cite one flagrant case in point, that many German Lutheran theologians remained silent in 1933, when the new Nazi government promulgated a law with the inoffensive title “for the restoration of a professional civil service,” even though it was evident that the purpose of the new law was to remove socialists and Jews. Several Lutheran theologians argued that governments could pass such a law. Some four centuries earlier Luther himself addressed the subject of the Jews and their teachings. The three treatises on this subject included in this volume reveal an evolution in Luther’s thinking. When the 1523 treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew was published, it was greeted with appreciation for its sympathetic tone. Luther hoped that “dealing in a kindly way with the Jews and instructing them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them would become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs.” Twenty years later, Luther’s treatises About [On] the Jews and Their Lies and On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ, both published in 1543, had an altogether different tone. Luther now treated the Jews with the “arrogance and scorn” that he had condemned in 1523. Several “explanations,” based on psychological, sociological, or theological grounds, are given for Luther’s tone and his shocking suggestions, but these do not soften the harsh and bitter tone. One hardly knows whether to be more astonished at the crudity of Luther’s language or at the cruelty of his proposals: let their synagogues be burned, their houses razed, their prayer books seized, let them be reduced to a condition of agrarian servitude, and—as a “final solution”—let them be expelled from the country. With these recommendations, Luther ventured away from even the most generous understanding of religion and embraced tenets of what might be called “cultural” c

See TAL 1:369–465.

Introduction to Volume 5 anti-Judaism. The fact that Luther was largely repeating the anti-Jewish commonplaces of the time and that much of his theological argumentation was borrowed from earlier Christian polemics against Judaism is a mitigating factor, though by no means an excuse for Luther’s views. Many of Luther’s colleagues rejected About the Jews and Their Lies, and the immediate effect of Luther’s severe proposals was minimal. d

d Sources consulted in this introduction include: Thomas Schirrmacher, “Why Ethics Needs Accurate Church History—Reflections on Books on Constantine the Great,” Evangelical Review of   Theolog y 39, no. 1 (2015): 76–78; Lisa Sowle Cahill, “Nonresistance, Defense, Violence, and the Kingdom in Christian Tradition,” Interpretation 38 (October 1984): 380–97; Carter Lindberg, “‘Canonization’ and Luther on the Early Profit Economy,” in The Reformation as Christianization: Essays on Scott Hendrix’s Christianization Thesis, ed. Anna Marie Johnson and David A. Maxfield (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 49–78; Kathryn D’Arcy Blanchard, “If You Do Not Do This You Are Not Now a Christian: Martin Luther’s Pastoral Teachings on Money,” Word & World 26, no. 3 (Summer 2006): 299–309; Jane Strohl, “Luther’s New View on Marriage, Sexuality and the Family,” Lutherjahrbuch 76 (2009): 159–92; John C. Raines, “Luther’s Two Kingdoms and the Desacralization of Ethics,” Encounter 31, no. 2 (Spring 1970): 121–48.

7

�

Luther’s Will 1542

HANS   J. HILLERBRAND

INTRODUCTION

This document is arguably one of the most personal statements Martin Luther ever made. It displays not the insightful theologian, nor the committed church reformer, nor the implacable foe of the papacy and of all who disagreed with him. It is simply the personal statement of a husband and father who realized that ill health and advancing years should mean not only a spiritual preparation for the last hour, but also the practical foresight about what then should be done with his property. a The topic of writing a will and testament had come up for Luther before, but he had not done anything about it. When the year 1542 turned, however, Luther must have suddenly realized that at his age—he was fifty-seven years old at the time—he was delinquent for not having legal provision for his property and thereby for the well-being of his wife, Katie,1 and their children.

1. Katherine von Bora (1499–1552).

a For studies on the “late Luther,” see Mark Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles: Polemics and Politics, 1531–1546 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), and especially the final volume of Martin Brecht’s monumental three-volume biography of Luther: Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 1532–1546, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999).

9

10

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

Clearly growing out of what must have been a sudden impulse, on Epiphany, 6 January 1542, Luther sat down and wrote his will. Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Caspar Cruciger (1504–1548), and Johannes Bugenhagen (1485–1558), his three theological colleagues and brethren, were present to co-sign the will. No public official or attorney lawyer was present to point to legal necessities; as a result, the document signed lacked proper legal form, a fact that led to unfortunate legal hassles. The opening sentences of the document make clear that Luther was fully aware that he was drafting a document that would not conform to proper legal norms and practices of the time. As far as he was concerned this was done for a good reason, thus providing us with an uncannily honest and profound characterization of Luther the human being and husband. Luther was concerned about Katie’s financial well-being in her widowhood, and he expressed this concern in touchingly loving words. And while A portion of Luther’s will, written on Epiphany in 1542. he emphasized that his sons would The signatures are of Philip Melanchthon, Caspar Cruciger, exercise filial responsibility toward and Johannes Bugenhagen, who served as witnesses. their mother, nonetheless Luther’s language does not avoid a tone of slight concern. In due time the Saxon elector John Frederick (1503–1554) was willing to honor Luther’s wishes and officially declared the will to be valid and acceptable, even after he had expressly noted that it lacked proper legal form. Upon Luther’s death, the elector must have had some second thoughts, however, for guardians were appointed for the children, precisely what Luther had hoped to

Luther’s Will

11

avoid, and which Katie resisted. For Katie the years of her widowhood were clearly a time of hardship, financially and legally, and her correspondence shows her as an energetic and determined individual. Luther’s will also provides us with insight into Luther’s financial circumstances. He was the highest-paid professor in the university, and while he did not address this fact in his will, he did specify both his assets and his debts (amounting to just about half of his assets). He also noted prominently the two realestate properties he had acquired, one at Zülsdorf and, in cryptic wording, “a dwelling, the house of Bruno which I have bought under the name of my man Wolf.”2

Portrait of John Frederick, elector of Saxony, by Titian (1550)

2. The reference is to Luther’s servant Wolf Seberger. It is not clear what happened: Did Luther wish for Seberger to have a dwelling or accommodations? Did he simply act as Luther’s representative?

12

3. In 1552, an outbreak of the Black Plague caused Katie to flee to Torgau from Wittenberg for the last time. The cart in which she was riding was involved in a bad accident near Torgau, and the injuries she sustained led to her death three months later.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD No inventory of Luther’s assets was compiled when he died in February 1546. We know a little bit about Katie’s financial circumstances as widow (she died in 1552), 3 and they were not that good. The will is found in the archives of the Hungarian Lutheran Church in Budapest, Hungary.

The gravestone and epitaph of Katharine von Bora in Marienkirche in Torgau

Luther’s Will

13

�

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MARTIN LUTHER b

Wittenberg, 6 January 1542

I

, MARTIN LUTHER, Doctor of Sacred Scripture, etc., acknowledge with this my own handwriting that I have given to my beloved and faithful wife Katherine as an endowment (or whatever one can call it) for as long as she will live, which she will be at liberty to manage according to her desire and best interest, and give it to her by means of this document on this present day; To wit, the small holding at Zülsdorf,4 which I purchased and made productive until the present day; Second, Bruno’s house, which I bought under the name of my footman Wolf; 5 Third, goblets and valuables, such as rings, necklaces, gratuities, gold and silver, which should be worth about a thousand gulden. I do this because, above all, as a pious and faithful spouse she has at all times held me dear, worthy, and well and with God’s rich blessings gave birth to and reared for me five living children (who are still living, God may grant them a long life). Second, that she should herself assume and pay off the debt, insofar as I am still indebted (what I do not pay off during my lifetime), which may be about four hundred fifty florin as far as I am able to ascertain. There could perhaps also be more.6

b This translation is based on the German text in WA, Br 9 (571) 572–74, and LW 34:295–97.

4. Luther had purchased a little farm from Claus Bildenhauer in Zülsdorf, about two miles south of Leipzig. The elector granted him six hundred florins and a quantity of wood to improve his property. Katie was fond of the estate and Luther referred to her as “Lady Zülsdorf.” 5. Luther had also purchased the house of Pastor Bruno Bauer in Dobien on 29 June 1541. Luther’s servant Wolf Seberger acted as his agent for the sale. 6. It is not clear whether Luther meant to say that the debt might be larger or that his assets might be greater. In either case, this sentence indicates that the worldly possessions of Luther were modest. One needs to keep in mind that Luther was a monk for some twenty years and what compensation he received for his preaching in the town church in Wittenberg was a pittance. Luther’s financial situation changed in September 1525, when Georg Spalatin (1484–1545), the elector’s righthand administrator, reorganized the Wittenberg University and provided an annual stipend of two hundred gulden for Luther, the highest in the university. However, most of it came in kind, which was greatly helpful for the ever-present renovations and maintenance work in the Augustinian monastery.

14

7. Luther astutely anticipated that at his death there might be problems, and indeed there were. Government officials insisted that the children had to have properly appointed guardians and Katie experienced severe economic hardships, the latter mainly caused by the War of Schmalkald, reducing the reformer’s widow to a beggar.

8. The Saxon elector John Fredrich had given the Augustinian monastery (das schwarze Kloster) in Wittenberg to Luther, a gift not altogether welcomed by Luther, who would have preferred a more modest home. John Frederick succeeded his father John as elector in 1532. He was considered a supporter of the Lutheran Reformation. He promoted the establishment of Lutheran consistory, or ruling body of the church. He was head of the Schmalkaldic League, a Protestant confederation in Germany.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD Third, and most important of all, that I do not want her to have to look to the children for a handout, but rather that the children should be obligated to her, honor her, and be subject to her as God has commanded.7 For I have surely seen and experienced how the Devil agitates and provokes the children, be they ever so pious, contrary to this commandment through evil and jealous gossips. This is especially true when the mothers are widows and the sons take wives and the daughters, husbands, and, in turn, mother-in-law daughter-in-law, daughter-in-law motherin-law! For I maintain that a mother will be the best guardian for her children and will use such a holding and endowment not for the harm or to the disadvantage of her children, but to their use and betterment, since they are her flesh and blood whom she carried under her heart. And even if after my death out of necessity or for some other reason (for I cannot limit God’s works and will) she would remarry, I have confidence, and wish herewith to have such confidence expressed, that she will act motherly toward our children and faithfully share everything with them, be it the endowment or something else, as is only right. And I hereby also humbly beg my most gracious lord, Duke John Fredrich, our elector, 8 to protect and facilitate the administration of this gift or endowment. I also ask all my good friends to be witnesses for my dear Katie and to help defend her, when some idle gossips want to trouble or defame her, as though she perhaps had a sum of ready cash on the side, which she would purloin or embezzle from our poor children. I bear witness that there is no ready cash except for the goblets and valuables listed above in the endowment. Indeed, such a reckoning can be manifest to everyone, since people know how much income I have had from my most gracious lord and beyond that I have not received as income one heller or kernel from anyone, except what was a gift, which is to be found cited above under the valuables and which in part is still tied up with the debt. And yet, with this income and with donations I have built and bought so much, and I ran such a big and burdensome household, that among other things I must acknowledge it as an extraordinary, remarkable blessing that I have been able to manage. The miracle is not that there is no ready money but that there is not a greater debt. I ask this for this reason that the Devil, since he can come no closer to me,

Luther’s Will shall no doubt persecute my Katie in all sorts of ways for this reason alone that she was, and (God be praised) still is, the married wife of Dr. Martin. Finally, I also ask everyone, since in this gift or endowment I am not using legal forms and terminology (for which I have good reasons), that they would allow me to be the person which I in truth am, namely, a public figure, known both in heaven and on earth, as well as in hell, having respect or authority enough that one can trust or believe more than any notary. For as God, the Father of all mercies, entrusted to me, a condemned, poor, unworthy, miserable sinner, the gospel of his dear Son and made me faithful and truthful, and has up to now preserved and grounded me in it, so that many in this world have accepted it through me and hold me to be a teacher of the truth, without regard for the pope’s excommunication, and the anger of the emperor, kings, princes, clerics, yes, of all the devils, one should surely believe me much more in these trifling matters; and especially since this is my well-known handwriting, the hope is that it should suffice, when one can say and prove that it is Dr. Martin Luther’s (who is God’s notary and witness in his gospel) earnest and well-considered opinion to confirm this with his own hand and seal. Executed and delivered on Epiphany Day, 1542. M. Luther I, Philip Melanchthon, attest that this is the opinion and will and hand of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther, our most beloved teacher and father. And I, Kaspar Cruciger, d., attest that this is the design and will and hand of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther, our most beloved father, wherefore I myself have signed with my own hand. And I, Johann Bugenhagen Pomeranus, d., likewise attest with my own hand. c

c

For biographical sketches of these associates of Martin Luther, see Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, 4 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).

15

The original revised title page from Martin Luther’s Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (Ein Sermon von dem Ehelichen standt vorendert und corrigiret durch D. Martin Luther Augustiner zu Wittenbergk), published by Rhau-Grunenberg in Wittenberg, 1519

�

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage

Revised and Corrected by Dr. Martin Luther, Augustinian at Wittenberg 1519

MARJORIE   ELIZABETH   PLUMMER

INTRODUCTION

Unlike many other works titled “sermon” published in the early sixteenth century, this work can be definitively traced to a sermon Martin Luther gave in Wittenberg on 16 January 1519, the second Sunday after Epiphany. In accordance with the liturgical calendar, Luther preached on the text of John 2:1-11, celebrating Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding at Cana in Galilee.1 Someone in the congregation that day transcribed the sermon and prepared these notes for publication. This unauthorized version appeared soon thereafter in Leipzig and Breslau. a The texts of these publications exhibit qualities consistent with their production from a sermon: no paragraph breaks or headings and more narrative examples to illustrate the points being made. Luther, unhappy with these versions and noting the “vast difference between using the spoken word to make something clear

1. Marriage was a common theme on the second Sunday of Advent in medieval sermons.

a Ein Sermon von dem elichen standt Doctoris Martini Lutter Augustiner zu Wittenburgk gepredigt im tausent funf hundert und neuntzehenden Jar (Leipzig: Wolfgang Stöckel, 1519). A second version appeared in Breslau in 1519. The work is reprinted in WA 2:213–19. This version begins with a brief mention of the content of the text of the wedding of Cana, but without Luther’s introduction.

17

18

2. The texts of these are essentially the same although the 1519 versions in Strassburg and Augsburg included elaborate borders on the title page, and the 1519 version from Basel used Predigt rather than Sermon in the title.

3. Thomas Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio, Gaetanus) (1469–1534) was Master of the Order of Preachers until 1517 and cardinal of Palermo. In 1518 he was serving as the papal legate for Pope Leo X (1475–1521) at the Diet of Augsburg when he met with Luther. 4. Johann Eck (Johannes Mayer) (1486–1543), Catholic theologian and professor of theology at the University of Ingolstadt. In late June and July 1519, Eck participated with Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) and Luther in a public disputation held in Leipzig.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD and having to use the written word,” produced a “revised and corrected” version of his sermon for publication in May 1519. This edited version subsequently was published in Wittenberg, Leipzig, Augsburg, Nuremberg, Basel, and Strassburg in 1519, and reprinted once in Wittenberg and twice in Augsburg in 1520.2 These texts focus more on the theological discussions of marriage and are organized in sections with numbered subsections to illustrate the main points. The argument is developed systematically with fewer narrative examples than the unofficial version and the text uses more formal language. The sermon on which this published work was based took place several months after Luther’s meeting with Cardinal Thomas Cajetan, 3 papal legate, in Augsburg in October 1518, and the revisions of his text appeared a couple of months before his meeting with Johannes Eck4 in Leipzig in 1519. During the months between these events Luther undertook a reconsideration of his theological position on a number of topics, including, in this case, marriage, and began to question papal authority over a whole range of subjects. Instead of mentioning the miracle of turning water to wine, as the unauthorized version did, or focusing on the relationship between Jesus and Mary, as he did in subsequent sermons on the wedding at Cana, b Luther used his edited version to outline his definition of marriage and describe the establishment of the estate of marriage. Luther’s work did not make the same doctrinal break on marriage from traditional church teachings as his subsequent writings on weddings and married life in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) c and On the Estate of Marriage (1522). d Perhaps most notably, Luther upholds marriage as b Luther preached and wrote on the wedding at Cana several times throughout his career, for instance in 1525 (WA 17/1:17) and 1528 (WA 21:62–65). It was a common text used by other sixteenth-century Lutheran theologians and pastors as well. For details, see Beth Kreitzer, “Wedding at Cana,” in Reforming Mary: Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 93–109. c See TAL 3:9–129. d See Susan Karant-Nunn, “Engagement and Marriage Ceremonies: Taming the Beast Within,” in Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany (London: Routledge, 1997), 7–42; Erich Margraf, Die Hochzeit Predigt der Frühen Neuzeit (Munich: Herbert Utz, 2005), 76–83.

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage

19

a sacrament and presents chastity as “better” if given “by the grace of God.” Thus, two markers of Luther’s later teachings on marriage as the highest estate and his rejection of clerical celibacy were not yet evident. In many ways this publication was a very traditional work on marriage that shared many common themes with the popular late medieval Book on Marriage [Ehebüchlein] (1472), first published by Albrecht von Eyb5 in the fifteenth century, and frequently republished throughout the early sixteenth century. 6 The close connection between Luther’s sermon and von Eyb’s book can been seen in the latter, which was republished in 1520 with the title, On the Estate of Marriage [Von dem Ehelichen Standt], by the same publisher in Augsburg that published Luther’s sermon.

Portrait of Albrecht von Eyb (1420–1475), jurist and humanist

5. Albrecht von Eyb (1420–1475), a German jurist and humanist residing in Bamberg and Eichstätt.

Title page of Albrecht von Eyb’s Sermon on the Estate of  Marriage (Uon dem Eelichen Standt) (Augsburg: Johann Schönsperger d. J., 1520). This reissued excerpt of von Eyb’s work published around the same time as Luther’s sermon in Augsburg emphasizes the wedding.

6. The work was published as On Whether a Man Should Take a Wife or Not [Ob einem mann sey zenemen ein eelich weib oder nit] in 1472, 1473, and 1474 in Augsburg and Nuremberg; 1495 in Augsburg and Leipzig; 1512 and 1517 in Augsburg. A short section of the work was published separately as On the Married Estate [Von dem Ehelichen Stand] in 1510 with a new introduction “On the Praise of Marriage” as godly and an “honorable thing” that contrasted to the earlier framework emphasizing pagan and ancient philosophers.

20

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD Luther’s work does introduce themes that characterize his later work on marriage and connects ideas found in popular works like von Eyb’s to theological doctrine. In particular, Luther emphasizes the centrality of marriage in social and spiritual life, arguing that married love and sexuality are natural and honorable if God-given. His focus on married love as different from physical sexual attraction or lust also introduces married love as necessary in the establishment of families for spiritual reasons. While he does declare procreation as the major purpose of marriage, Luther stresses that this is due to the role of a married couple in bringing up children rather than in giving birth to children. In the last section of the work, Luther elevates the role of parents in raising children to a form of good works and piety equivalent to the devotional piety: “your children are the churches, the altar, the testament, the vigils, and masses for the dead for which you make provision in your will.” The following translation and annotations of Ein Sermon von dem Ehelichen Standt vorendert und corrigiret durch D. Martin Luther Augustiner zu Wittenbergk are based in part on the 1519 Wittenberg version of the text, WA 2:166–71, and LW 44:5–14.

�

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage

The 1520 version of A Sermon on the Estate of  Marriage published in Augsburg by the printer Jörg Nadler uses Predigt rather than Sermon, both which mean sermon, in the title and has an elaborate title page with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden with the Serpent before the fall, picking up on the text from Genesis 2 discussed at the outset of Luther’s text.

21

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

22

e

A SERMON   ON THE ESTATE OF MARRIAGE REVISED AND CORRECTED BY DR. MARTIN LUTHER AUGUSTINIAN AT WITTENBERG 7

7. Throughout his career, Luther discussed and redefined the traditional social order based on the three estates or Stände (church, politics, economy/ household). Here, Luther was probably more consciously using married estate (eheliche Standt) in the same way that others such as Albrecht von Eyb had used it to discuss marriage. For additional details, see Elke Wolgast, “The Three Estates [Stände] as Organizing Principle of Society,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theolog y, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 403–4. 8. Luther makes an early assertion of his right to his spoken and written intellectual property here. 9. The original German distinguishes between the two means of communicating by discussing the “living voice” (lebendiger stimme) and the “dead writing” (todter schrifft). Luther’s distinction between the two gives an interesting insight into his understanding of the differences in his role as a preacher and his role as a theologian. 10. These two lines are not in the order of the text found in the medieval Latin Vulgate Bible or in modern translations. The reversal of these two passages places the emphasis on Adam seeking a spouse first and only then God providing a spouse. In later works on marriage, Luther stressed the imperative of marriage for most, if not all, individuals by highlighting the phrase “it is not good for Adam to be alone.”

A

Preface

SERMON ON THE ESTATE OF MARRIAGE has already been published in my name, but I would much rather it had not been printed. I know perfectly well that I have preached on the subject [of marriage], but have not yet put anything into writing f as I am about to do. For this reason I am determined to revise this same sermon, and improve it as much as possible. I ask every good soul to disregard the published first sermon and discard it. Further, if anybody wants to start writing my sermons for me, let him restrain himself, and let me have a say in the publication of my words as well.8 There is a vast difference between using the spoken word and the written word to discuss something in public.9

[On the Married Estate] 1. God created Adam and brought all the animals before him. Adam did not find a proper companion among them suitable for marriage [Gen. 2:19] so God then said [Gen. 2:18], “It is not good that Adam should be alone; I will make him a partner as helper.”10 And God sent a deep sleep upon Adam, and took a rib

e f

Two versions, Basel (1519) and Augsburg (Nadler, 1520), used the word Predigt instead of Sermon in the title. “To bring to the quill” (in die Federn bracht).

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage from him, and closed his side up again. And out of this very rib taken from Adam, God created a woman and brought her to him. Then Adam said, “This at last is bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh. This one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken.” Therefore a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh [Gen. 2:20-24]. All of this is from God’s word.11 These words teach us where man and woman come from, how they were given to one another,

Image of Adam and Eve before and after the fall with a preface from Luther’s A Sermon on the Estate of  Marriage (Ein Predigt von der Eelichen Standt) (Basel: Adam Peter, 1519)

23

11. Scripture. Throughout his printed sermon, Luther used only scriptural references, unlike the unofficial version that used contemporary examples to illustrate points.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

24

12. A hint at the spiritual dangers Luther shows below when discussing false love. 13. The genuine love one feels with a partner given by God before damaged by the fall, as explained above, and as opposed to other forms of love and lust, as explained below. 14. A wise man in the ancient Hebrew tradition. 15. Luther shows God as the sole source of a marriage partner. In later publications and marriage ordinances, Luther would stress the necessity of parental permission for men and women considered minors before a wedding takes place to secure a stable marriage. 16. A common medieval trope of youth as emotionally flighty, passionate, or impetuous.

for what purpose a wife was created, and what kind of love there should be in the estate of marriage. 2. If God does not give the wife or the husband, anything can happen.12 For the truth indicated here is that Adam found no marriageable partner for himself, but as soon as God had created Eve and brought her to him, he felt a real married love13 toward her, and recognized that she was his wife. Those who want to enter into the estate of marriage should learn from this that they should earnestly pray to God for a spouse. For the sage14 says that parents provide goods and houses for their children, but a wife is given by God alone [Prov. 19:14], everyone according to his need, just as Eve was given to Adam by God alone.15 And true though it is that because of excessive lust of the flesh lighthearted youth pays scant attention to these matters, marriage is nevertheless a weighty matter in the sight of God.16 For it was not by accident that Almighty God instituted the estate of matrimony only for humans, before all animals, and gave such forethought and consideration to marriage. To the other animals God says quite simply, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:22]. It is not written that God brings the female to the male. Therefore, there is no such thing as marriage among animals. But in the case of Adam, God creates for him a unique, special kind of wife out of his own flesh. God brings her to him and gives her to him, and Adam agrees to accept her. Therefore, that is what marriage is. 3. A woman is created to be a companionable partner to the man in everything, particularly to bear children. And that still remains, except that since the fall marriage has been blendedg with wicked lust. And now [i.e., after the fall] the desire of the man for the woman, and vice versa, is sought after not only for companionship and children, the purposes for which marriage was instituted, but also is now strongly sought after due to wicked lust. 4. God makes distinctions between the different kinds of love, and shows that the love of a man and woman is (or should

g Vormischt.

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage be) the greatest and purest of all loves. For God says, “A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife” [Gen. 2:24], and the wife does the same, as we see happening around us every day. Now there are three kinds of love: false love, natural love, and married love.17 False love is that which seeks [things] for selfish reasons, as a man loves money, possessions, honor, and women taken outside of marriage against God’s command. h Natural love is that between father and child, brother and sister, friend and relative, and similar relationships. But over and above all these is married love, that is, a bride’s love, which glows like a fire and desires nothing but the husband. She says, “I want nothing that is yours; I want neither your gold nor your silver; neither this or that. I only want you. i I want you entirely, or not at all.” All other kinds of love seek something other than the loved one: this kind [of love] wants only to have the beloved’s own self completely. If Adam had not fallen, the love of bride and groom would have been the loveliest thing.18 Now this love is not pure either, for admittedly a married partner desires to have the other, yet each seeks to satisfy his desire with the other, and it is this desire which now falsifies   j this [perfect] kind of love. Therefore, the married state is now no longer pure and free from sin. The temptation of the flesh has become so strong and consuming that marriage may be likened to a hospital for incurables19 that prevents inmates from falling into graver sin.20 Before Adam fell it was a simple matter to remain virgin and chaste, but now it [celibacy] is barely possible, and without special grace from God, quite impossible. k For this very reason neither Christ nor the apostles sought to make celibacy21 a matter of obligation. Indeed, they [Christ and the apostles] counseled [Matt 19:10; 1 Cor. 7:6-9] virginity and left it up to individuals to test themselves, so if unable to remain continent, one was free to marry, but if one could be continent by God’s grace, then celibacy is better.22

h 1 John 2:15-16 expresses a similar idea. i Ich will dich selb[st] haben, implying a desire for the essence or being of the person. j Felscht (gefälscht), or counterfeited. k 1 Cor. 7:7.

25 17. This division of love into three types draws on the ethical and theological discussions of love in Augustine and other late Roman and medieval theologians. It may also incorporate elements of the later humanist discussions of love, especially among neo-Platonist authors such as Francesco Petrarch (1304–1374), Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), Giovanni Mirandola (1463–1493), and Baldassare Castiglione (1478–1529), growing in popularity in early sixteenth-century Germany. The differences Luther notes also may reflect the multiple words for love in Greek and Latin. 18. Married love presented as perfect before the fall. 19. Spital der Siechen or Suechenhospital. These premodern institutions housed those suffering from a broad range of chronic and terminal diseases including plague, leprosy, and, by the sixteenth century, venereal diseases. The inhabitants were made comfortable and provided with the basic necessities by local authorities, but mostly to prevent the spread of disease. 20. Here Luther presents marriage as a preventative for sin. He presents marriage more positively in later works as having spiritual and worldly benefits. 21. Keuschheit can mean virginity, chastity, or celibacy. Given the context here and the juxtaposition with marriage, Luther likely intended the meaning of celibacy (unmarried and chaste) here. 22. Luther’s comments reiterate early church and medieval theological discourse on purity and sexuality, placing virginity, celibacy, and chastity above marriage and married sexuality.

26 23. Theologians and church fathers; predominately Augustine, De bono conjugali, here. Following Augustine, Luther identifies three main reasons for marriage: sacrament, fidelity, and offspring. 24. Luther’s use of his examples of baptism to define a sacrament shows his traditional view of grace, original sin, and infant baptism. His doctrinal shift began with the publication of his A Sermon on the Holy and Noblest Sacrament of Baptism (Ain Sermon von dem heiligen hochwirdigen Sacrament der Tauff ) in early 1520 (WA 2:727–36; see also TAL 1:203–23), and his discussion of baptism in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (TAL 3:9–129; LW 36:3–126). 25. A sacrament was one of the seven rituals in the medieval church signifying the presence of God’s grace. Here Luther presents a traditional medieval theological position on marriage as a sacrament. 26. Again, here, Luther presents marriage as a “mystery” or sacrament.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD Thus, the doctors23 have found three good and useful things about the married estate, by means of which the sin of lust, which flows beneath the surface, is counteracted and ceases to be a cause of damnation. First, [the doctors say] that it is a sacrament. A sacrament is a sacred sign of something spiritual, holy, heavenly, and eternal, just as the water of baptism, when the priest pours it over the child, means that the holy, divine, eternal grace is poured into the soul and body of that child at the same time, and cleanses that child from his original sin.24 This means that the kingdom of God, an inestimable benefit immeasurably greater than the water that conveys this meaning, is within the child. In the same way the estate of marriage is a sacrament.25 It is an outward and spiritual sign of the greatest, holiest, worthiest, and noblest thing that has ever existed or ever will exist: the union of the divine and human natures in Christ. The holy apostle Paul says [Eph. 5:29-31] that as man and wife united in the estate of matrimony and become two in one flesh, so God and man are united in the one person Christ, and so Christ and Christendom are one body. l It is indeed a wonderful sacrament, as Paul says [Eph. 5:32], that the estate of marriage truly signifies such a great reality. Is it not a wonderful thing that God is human and that [God] gives self to humanity and will be theirs, just as the husband gives himself to his wife and is hers? But if God is ours, then everything is ours. m Consider this matter with the respect it deserves. Because the union n of man and woman signifies such a great mystery, the estate of marriage has to have this special significance.26

l See also Eph. 5:22-23. m 1 Cor. 3:21-23. n Vormischung, rather than voreinigt above.

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage This means that the wicked lust of the flesh, which nobody is without, is a conjugal duty and does not deserve condemnation o when expressed within marriage, p but in all other cases outside the bond of marriage, it is mortal sin.27 In a parallel way the holy humanity of God covers q the shame of the wicked lust of the flesh. Therefore, a married person should have regard for such a sacrament, honor it as holy thing, and maintain self-control in conjugal duties, r so that those things that originate in the lust of the flesh do not occur [among us] as they do in the world of brute beasts. Second, [the doctors say] that marriage is a pact s of fidelity. The whole basis and essence of marriage is that each gives himself or herself to the other, and they promise to remain faithful to each other and not give themselves to any other. Because they bind and surrendert themselves to each other, the way is barred to the body of anyone else so that they must content themselves in the marriage bed with their one companion. u In this way God sees to it that the flesh is subdued so as not to rage wherever and however it pleases, and allows within such fidelity more than enough occasion than is necessary for the begetting of children.28 But, of course, a man has to control himself and not make a filthy sow’s sty of his marriage. At this point I want to say what kind of words v should be used when two people become engaged to each other.29 The matter has been dealt with at such length, in such depth, and in such concise fashion that I myself am much too inadequate to understand it all, but I am afraid that there are many who are as married people, whom before now we thought unmarried. 30

o p q r s

Vordamlich, or damnable. 1 Cor. 7:3-7. Ps. 32:1; Rom. 4:7. 1 Cor. 7:5. Vorbundniss (Verbündnis), underscoring the contractual nature of marriage bound by oath. t Gefangen geben, or surrender to captivity. u Rom. 7:2-3. v WA 9:216–17.

27 27. All sexuality outside of marriage is an eternally condemned, grave sin, while married sexuality is presented as forgivable by the grace of God. 28. Luther allows that sexual intercourse is allowed for more than procreation, but in moderation. 29. Medieval marriage was a two-step process beginning with the betrothal or engagement ceremony and then with the formal pledging of marriage at a wedding or nuptial rite. The duration and method of these steps varied by location and individual couple, leading to considerable debate on what constituted a valid form of each. For more details, see Susan Karant-Nunn, “Marriage and Engagement: Taming the Beast Within,” in The Reformation of Ritual: An Interpretation of Early Modern Germany (London: Routledge, 2005), 7–42, esp. 9–13. 30. This is referring to the contentious debates in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries over what constituted a valid marriage: consent or sexual intercourse. The lack of consensus and the papal acceptance of consensual marriage left many questions open as to whether a couple was married or not. See Charles Donahue Jr., “The Canon Law of the Formation of Marriage and Social Practice in the Later Middle Ages,” Journal of Family History 8 (1983): 144–58; James Brundage, Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987).

28

31. Verba de presenti, words in the present tense. 32. Verba de futuro, words in the future tense. 33. Luther here upholds both the consensual theory of marriage and customary rituals, including that betrothal or a promise of marriage was a valid marriage. 34. Clandestine or secret marriages and engagements were a widespread popular practice and were often done without witnesses. Legal disputes often emerged between couples regarding the use of future promises of marriage, especially when the implication that the promise was binding was contested by one part of the couple. 35. Like many of his contemporaries, Luther remained uncertain about clandestine betrothals and marriages due to the uncertainty of whether promises in the future and present tense were both valid and whether such promises needed to be witnessed. 36. Luther supports parental consent here, but also advises parents to raise their children better and to be open to discussion of marriage.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD Because the estate of marriage consists essentially in consent having been freely and previously given one to another and God is wonderfully merciful in all his judgments, I will leave it all to the care of God. The generally accepted formula is “I am yours, you are mine.”31 Though some hold to this [wording] most strictly, and believe that it is not enough when they [a couple] say, “I will take thee” or “I am willing to take thee”32 or use some other form of words. Nevertheless I would still prefer to consider the words in the sense in which they have been understood up to the present. 33 Similarly, when someone has made a clandestine [secret] marriage promise, 34 and subsequently takes another, either publicly or secretly, I am still not sure whether what we write about it or the judgment we make on it is altogether right. 35 My advice is that parents persuade their children not to be ashamed to ask their parents to find a marriage partner for them. Parents should make it clear from the start that they want to advise their children so that they in their turn may remain chaste and persevere in expectation of marriage. In return, children should not become engaged without the knowledge of their parents. 36 You are not ashamed, are you, to ask your parents for a coat or a house? Why be foolish then, and not ask for what is far greater, a partner in marriage? Samson did it. He entered a city and saw a young maiden who pleased him. Thereupon he immediately goes back home and says to his father and mother, “I have seen a young maiden whom I love. Dear parents, get me this girl for a wife” [Judg. 14:1-2]. Third, [the doctors say] that marriage produces offspring, for that is the end and chief purpose of marriage.w It is not enough, however, merely for children to be born, and so what they37 say about marriage excusing sin does not apply in this case. Heathen, too, bear offspring. But, unfortunately, it seldom happens

37. Luther offers a new interpretation of the role of producing offspring as not just the procreation of children. Here he begins a discussion of the spiritual role of parenthood that characterizes his later writings on family life.

w Augustine, De bono conjugali, chs. 11, 18, and 32.

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage that we bring up children to serve, praise and honor God, and want nothing else of them. People seek only heirs in their children, or pleasure in them; the serving of God finds what place it can. You also see people rush into marriage and become mothers and fathers before they know what the Commandments are or can pray. But this at least all married people should know. They can do no better work and do nothing more valuable either for God, for Christendom, for the entire world, for themselves, and for their children than to bring up their children well. In comparison with this one work, that married people should bring up their children properly, there is nothing at all in pilgrimages to Rome, Jerusalem, or to St. Jacob [James], 38 nothing at all in building churches, endowing masses, or whatever good works could be named. For bringing up their children properly is their shortest road to heaven. In fact, heaven itself could not be made nearer or achieved more easily than by doing this work. 39 It is also their appointed work. Where parents are not conscientious about this, it is as if everything were the wrong way around, like fire that will not burn or water that is not wet. By the same token, hell is no more easily earned than with respect to one’s own children. You could do no more disastrous work than to spoil the children, let them curse and swear, let them learn profane words and vulgar songs, and just let them do as they please. x What is more, some parents use enticements to be more alluring to meet the dictates of the world of fashion, so that they may please only the world, get ahead, and become rich, all the time giving more attention to the care of the body than to the due care of the soul. There is no greater tragedy in Christendom than spoiling children.40 If we want to help Christendom, we most certainly have to start with the children, as happened in earlier times.

x

Prov. 13:24.

29

38. The cathedral in Santiago de Compostela, in northwestern Spain, was believed to contain the relics of St. James the Greater. The location became one of the most popular pilgrimage sites in medieval Europe. 39. Establishes marriage as a godly estate and raising children as a good work gaining divine grace. Luther still considers the role of good works in salvation, although he does lower the value of traditional forms of piety and good works such as pilgrimages, work in building churches, etc., as lesser to raising children, thereby elevating the value of marriage and parenthood.

40. Raising children to be virtuous rather than successful in worldly affairs. These comments were expanded and thus developed Luther’s later questions about discipline and raising children and his discussion of the vocations of the Hausvater (housefather) and Hausmutter (housemother) in the estate of marriage (Ehestand).

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

30

41. Here Luther parallels his discussion of false married love.

This third point seems to me to be the most important of all, as well as being the most useful. For without a shadow of doubt it is not only a matter of marital duty, but can completely eclipse all other sins. False natural love 41 blinds parents so that they have more regard for the bodies of their children than they have for their souls. It was because of this that the sage said, “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them” [Prov. 13:24]. Again, “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far away” [Prov. 22:15]. Or again, “If you beat them with the rod you will save their lives from hell” [Prov. 23:14]. Therefore, it is of the greatest importance for every married person to pay closer, more thorough, and continuous attention to the health of their child’s soul than to the body which they have begotten, and to regard their child as nothing else but an eternal treasure God has commanded them to protect, and so prevent the world, the flesh, and the Devil from stealing children away and bringing them to destruction. For at their death and on Judgment Day they will be asked about their children and will have to give a most solemn account. For what do you think is the cause of the horrible wailing and howling of those who will cry, “O blessed are the wombs which have not bore children, and the breasts which have never suckled” [Luke 23:29]? There is not the slightest doubt that it is because they have failed to restore their children to God, from whom they received them to take care of them. O what a truly noble, important, and blessed condition the estate of marriage is if it is properly regarded! O what a truly pitiable, horrible, and dangerous condition it is if it is not properly regarded! And to those who bear these things in mind the desire of the flesh may well pass away, and perhaps they could just as well take on virginityy as the married state. The young people take a poor view of this and follow only their desires, but God will consider it important and wait on those who are in the right.

y

Jungfrawliche Stand, estate of virginity.

A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage Finally, if you really want to atone for all your sins, if you want to obtain the fullest remission z of them on earth as well as in heaven, if you want to see many generations of your children, then look but at this third point with all the seriousness you can muster and bring up your children properly. If you cannot do so, seek out other people who can and ask them to do it. Spare yourself neither money nor expense, neither trouble nor effort, for your children are the churches, the altar, the testament, the vigils, and masses for the dead for which you make provision in your will. It is they who will lighten you in your hour of death, and to your journey’s end.42

z

Ablass, or indulgence.

31

42. With his mention of indulgences and his dismissal of common forms of devotional piety, Luther repeats his assertion that the estate of marriage is a form of devotion greater than those traditionally practiced. In doing so, Luther elevates the estate of marriage to a superior form of piety.

Undecorated original title page from Luther’s On the Estate of Marriage (Von dem Eelichen Leben), published in Wittenberg, 1523

�

On the Estate of Marriage a

1522

MARJORIE   ELIZABETH  PLUMMER

INTRODUCTION

Published in late 1522,1 just three years after his Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519), On the Estate of Marriage illustrates Martin Luther’s break with doctrinal positions on celibacy, clerical marriage, and marriage as a sacrament held by the medieval church. It also shows Luther’s progress from participation in theological debate to his active involvement in the calling for implementation of reforms. In the interim between writing these two works, Luther had been condemned at the Diet of Worms in April 1521 and had spent from 4 May 1521 until 6 March 1522 living in the Wartburg.2 During that time, not only did Luther work on his translation of the New Testament, he also continued to engage in theological discussions through an active correspondence with his supporters in Wittenberg and beyond. Differences between Luther and Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt 3 on when and how to implement reform on monastic vows and clerical celibacy emerged in their response to the

1. The most likely date of publication is after late September 1522, from evidence in part from a letter from Duke George of Albertine Saxony (1471–1539). In response to a comment

Portrait of George, Duke of Saxony (1471–1539), painted in 1534. From the workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472−1553).

a A more accurate translation of the title would be Concerning [or About] Married Life [Von dem Eelichen Leben].

33

34 in a previous letter from Dietrich von Werthern (1468–1536), remarking that his wife would not let him read Luther’s book on marriage, Duke George jokes with him that this was because she was concerned that there was too much in Luther’s work on marriage Werthern might use to admonish her. Felician Gess, Briefe und Akte zur Kirchenpolitik Herzogs Georg von Sachsen (1905; repr. Cologne: Böhlau, 1985), 1:414–15 (1 January 1523); WA 10/2:267. 2. Wartburg Castle is located on a hill overlooking the city of Eisenach in Thuringia. Luther hid there in disguise, spending his exile working in isolation. He received letters and published works from his colleagues and supporters, so he was able to keep up with developments in Wittenberg and elsewhere. 3. Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541) was a theologian and professor at Wittenberg. An earlier supporter of Luther, he participated in the debate with Johannes Eck (1486–1543) in 1518 and was among the first reformers to implement some of Luther’s teachings. In 1521–22, Luther and Karlstadt began to disagree about the pace of reforms, eventually leading first to a distancing between the two men and finally to a complete ideological break in 1524. 4. Gabriel Zwilling (c. 1487–1558) had been a member of the Augustinian order in Wittenberg until he left the monastery in 1521 to help Karlstadt with reforms in Wittenberg. Unlike Karlstadt, Zwilling came to accept Luther’s theological position and reform leadership after Luther’s return in 1522, and was appointed as a preacher in Altenburg.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD marriage of Bartholomew Bernhardi (1487–1551), b a provost in Kemberg, near Wittenberg, in May 1521, and three other priests in the region married a few weeks later. Luther and Karlstadt disagreed sharply over whether showing that monastic vows and vows of celibacy were invalid necessitated an immediate call for marriage of all clergy and the dissolution of monasteries and convents. As the debate sharpened over the next six months, several Wittenberg clergy and professors, including Karlstadt, married. When disagreements between Karlstadt and Gabriel Zwilling4 on one side and Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) and Luther on the other reached a crisis, c Luther decided to return to Wittenberg in early March 1522 to lead reform in Wittenberg and Ernestine Saxony. Following the passage of an imperial mandate in late January 1522, episcopal and archepiscopal officials from Meissen, Merseburg, and Mainz investigated clergy engaged in provocative evangelical activities, including the marriage, first by questioning such clergy and then by conducting visitations. Bishop Johann of Meissen5 held the first of these visitations in early April 1522 in parts of his diocese located in Electoral Saxony, including the ducal residence towns of Colditz, Torgau, and Lochau (Annaburg). d Bishop Johann brought along Hieronymus Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt as an advisor and to preach sermons. During the summer, Bishop Johann threatened to enforce degrees of consanguinity6 in marriage in Zwickau7 and sought the arrest of several married clergy. At the same time, Dun­ gersheim, 8 along with Augustin von Alveldt9 and Hieronymus

b Dorothea McEwan, Wirken des Vorlarlberger Reformators Bartholomäus Bernhardi (Dornbirn: Vorarlberger Verlagsanstalt, 1986). c WA Br 2:467–70. Luther wrote that “Satan has fallen upon my flock in Wittenberg in my absence [(d)as tzu Wittemberg durch meyn abweßenn der Satan yn meyne hurtten gefallen ist].” d See documents, including descriptions of the sermons, found in Karl Pallas, “Briefe und Akten zur Visitationsreise des Johannes VII. von Meissen im Kurfürstentum Sachsen 1522,” Archive for Reformation History 5, no. 3 (1908): 217–312.

On the Estate of Marriage

35 5. Johann VII von Schleinitz (1470– 1537), bishop of Meissen (1518– 1537), was an important episcopal opponent of Luther and was active in implementing imperial mandates demanding that clergy supporting Luther be stopped quickly. 6. Consanguinity is the blood relationship between two individuals. Unlike contemporary incest regulations and taboos that restrict sexual relationships of close blood relatives, medieval consanguinity included relationship between individuals related by marriage or by ritual relationships such as godparentage and often extended out three to four degrees of relationship.

This title page, from Karlstadt’s To the Magdeburg Archbishop (Colmar, 1521) shows the wedding of Bartholomäus Bernhardi, witnessed by Luther and Elector Frederick. This image demonstrates a support for this marriage that neither Luther nor Frederick was ready to give in 1521. By 1522, Luther changed his position and publicly supported clerical and monastic marriage.

7. Luther mentioned Bishop Johann’s mandate in a letter to Nicholas Hausmann (c. 1478/9–1538), pastor in Zwickau, and recommended that Hausmann hand the bishop a short pamphlet, The Persons Related by Consanguinity and Affinity Who Are Forbidden to Marry according to the Scriptures, Leviticus 18 (1522), on the degrees of consanguinity Luther had just published. WA Br 2:585–86 (3 August 1522); LW 45:5–9. 8. Hieronymus Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt (1465–1540) was a German theologian, professor, and rector at Leipzig, and a Luther opponent. 9. Augustin von Alveldt [Alfeld] (c. 1480–1535) was a Franciscan monk located in Leipzig who became a vehement opponent of Luther during the early 1520s. In 1521, von Alveldt was involved in a debate on monastic vows held in Weimar against supporters of Luther. One of his first works was a reaction to Luther’s On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

36 10. Hieronymus Emser (1477–1527) was a lecturer on classics at Erfurt, theologian, and an advisor to Duke George of Albertine Saxony. He is one of the most prolific pamphleteers of Luther’s opponents during the early 1520s. His work included a 1522 German translation of Henry VIII’s pamphlet defense of the seven sacraments, including marriage, against Luther’s critique. Schutz vnd handthabung der Sibenn Sacrament Wider Martinum Luter (Leipzig, 1522), Oir–Riir.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD Emser,10 attacked Luther’s earlier publications and doctrinal positions on marriage from 1521 and 1522 in print, sermons, and theological debates. In response to both the challenges from among the more radical of the Wittenberg reformers and the intensifying responses from the bishop of Meissen and anti-Luther critics in Albertine Saxony, Luther gave a series of eight sermons in Wittenberg in

This title-page woodcut in a publication by Johann Agricola features caricatures of six Roman Catholics (from left to right): Hieronymus Emser (as a goat), Thomas Murner (as a cat), Girolamo Aleandro (as a lion), Augustin von Alveldt (as a donkey), Johann Eck (with fool’s cap), and Dam (as a pig).

On the Estate of Marriage mid-March e and undertook a preaching tour in the surrounding areas from 25 April through 6 May in Borna, Altenburg, Torgau, and Zwickau.f Although the content of these sermons survived only in fragments or not at all, surviving evidence indicates that Luther preached two sermons where marriage or married life was a topic: One in Zwickau on 30 April 1522 dealt with errors about the estate of marriage, g and one on 10 August 1522 when he discussed marriage issues. h These experiences brought Luther in direct contact with clergy and congregations seeking to reconcile the new teachings emerging out of the reform movement with their practical concerns about the implications of the doctrine debates on their lives. Marriage was one of the most pressing since it crossed between secular and spiritual concerns and thus had a direct impact on the clergy and laity. Luther also published a series of pamphlets during the period from March to the end of 1522 making his doctrinal positions and teachings more explicit to a broader audience. This text certainly counts as one of the better known of those works.11 Despite Luther’s statement in the introduction to this work about his reluctance to preach on the topic of marriage, On the Estate of Marriage cannot be pinpointed to a single event or sermon in the same way that his Sermon on the Estate of Marriage can be. Rather, it is a work that draws on a variety of ideas and texts previously published or presented in sermons as well as sections that appear to be original for this work. As such, it contains elements of both his writings and his sermons given in the period after his return to Wittenberg until its publication in late 1522. With clerical marriage drawing the attention of bishops on local communities and clergy and emerging questions increasing, Luther put together this document as a compilation of his advice given in a variety of circumstances. Luther reconsidered a number of topics and doctrines he had discussed in the Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, including clerical celibacy and marriage as a sacrament. This work is different from his earlier work on marriage in that here Luther more clearly delineates what he sees as the true e f g h

WA 10/2:1–64. WA 10/2:86–124. WA 10/3:106–8. Original handwritten text has been lost: WA 10.3:XIV. WA 10/3:257–68, esp. 265.

37

11. Eight editions of this work appeared in 1522 in Wittenberg, Strassburg, Augsburg, Basel, Erfurt, and Grimma, and three editions in Wittenberg and Augsburg in 1523.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

38

12. Canon law is the legal system based on regulations established during church councils and by canonists and theologians from the early church onwards. Based on a compilation of legal tradition, the ecclesiastical legal system was considerably expanded and the laws codified during the twelfth century. One of the earliest attempts to codify canon law was Gratian, Decretum, produced in the twelfth century. Cases 27–36 in the Decretum deal with marriage laws, as do several additions made under Gregory IX (r. 1227–1241). See Corpus juris canonici I, cols. 1,046– 1,292, and Corpus juris canonici II, cols. 1,065–68, 1,177.

divine definition and rules on marriage from doctrinal errors he sees in the church teachings and canon law on marriage. The tone of the work is still in the form of a debate as Luther presents specific positions on issues in canon law,12 Greco-Roman texts, and popular practice, and then uses Scripture to show how and why he disagrees with those positions. He is not always direct about the works he is using and tends to use broad statements to conflate specific disciplines such as “doctors,” “physicians,” or “pagan authors,” which can make discovering the sources of his references complicated. Luther consistently uses adages and proverbs as sources of popular opinions or as demonstration that his position is correct. He does not use contemporary examples as he had in the unedited Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, which may be an indication that if portions had been given as a sermon, Luther did considerable editing for publication.i Luther divides the work into three parts, each considering a different aspect of marriage. He does not repeat the themes of how one finds a spouse or focus on the theme of love as he had in his previous treatment of marriage, although he refers to the previous text throughout this work. Here Luther emphasizes that marriage is necessary for nearly all individuals by divine ordinance and nature, that marriage is indissoluble in all but very few instances, and that married life, especially the bearing and rearing of children, should be viewed positively as a vocation from God. In part one, broken into four parts, Luther explains who can marry and why. In the first two points, he briefly outlines the creation of men and women and the physical purpose of marriage for procreation in Genesis, thereby explaining a divine origin of the natural desire to marry and procreate. In the third case, Luther uses Matt. 19:12 to explicate those exempted from marriage, giving three legitimate (impotence or physical incapacity, castrates, and a divine gift of chastity) and one illegitimate reason, a personal choice or vow, which he attributes to the Devil. In the longest discussion on who can marry, Luther considers the diverse of rules about incest, or degrees of consanguinity.

i

See discussion on pp. 36–37 in this volume.

On the Estate of Marriage

39

This section follows the eighteen impediments outlined in the oft-reprinted penitential by Angelo Carletti di Chivasso,13 which Luther had previously discussed in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. In part two, Luther provides three reasons for divorce: impotence, adultery, and abandonment of table and bed.14 His argument throughout this section is that the separation or divorce of the couple should only happen as a last resort. He argues that the guilty party in adultery or abandonment has committed a capital crime with their actions and therefore deserves a punishment of death. Since he argues that most secular rulers are unwilling to implement this punishment, then divorce is the only possibility. He dismisses irreconcilable differences as a reason for divorce; although he does allow that such a couple may mutually agree to separate without possibility of remarriage. In part three, Luther concludes his work with a defense of marriage by demonstrating how it should be lived as a Christian vocation. In this section, Luther explains how “pagan” authors had denigrated marriage and how this had corrupted popular understanding of marriage as a vocation. His attack on GrecoRoman misogamous tracts is heavily influenced by a similar argument made by Jerome (c. 342–420) in his Against Jovinians.j This section displays Luther’s application of classical and contemporary texts, including works of theology and medicine, to an experience he had not yet had. Despite his powerful defense of marriage, Luther himself did not marry for another three years.

�

j

Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), Adversus Jovinianum [Against Jovinians], Book I, 41–49.

13. Angelo Carletti di Chivasso (1411–1495) was a member of the Order of Friars Minor in the Piedmont, a moral theologian, and an authority on canon and civil law. First published in 1486, his penitential work, or manual for confessors, went through thirty-one editions between 1486 and 1520. This popular work included a list of eighteen impediments to marriage in canon law. See Angelo Carletti di Chivasso, Summa angelica: De casibus conscientiae (Strassburg, 1520), fol. CLIIIv–CLXIv. 14. Divorce or separation of a couple is a topic Luther first addressed in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); see LW 36:103–5; TAL 3:108–9. Luther’s suggestion that a woman whose husband was impotent should seek a secret relationship with his brother to have children led to some of the most negative responses to his teachings by his critics, including Alveldt.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

40

A bishop officiating at the wedding of a couple in front of a church door. Title page from Luther’s On the Estate of Marriage (Von dem Eelichen Leben), published in Augsburg, 1523.

15. The introduction and following translation and annotations of Von dem Eelichen Leben are based in part on the original 1522 Wittenberg version of the text, WA 10/2:267–304, and on LW 45:13–49.

ON THE ESTATE OF MARRIAGE 15

Jesus

H

OW I DREAD preaching on the estate of marriage! I am reluctant to do it because I am afraid if I once get really involved in the subject it will make a lot of work for me and for others. The shameful confusion wrought by the accursed papal law has occasioned so much distress, and the lax authority of both the spiritual and

On the Estate of Marriage the temporal swords16 has given rise to so many dreadful abuses and false situations, that I would much prefer neither to look into the matter nor to hear of it. But timidity is no help in an emergency; k I must proceed. I must try to instruct poor bewildered consciences, and take up the matter boldly. This sermon17 is divided into three parts.

Part One: Who May Enter into Marriage In the first part we shall consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another.

Created Male and Female In the first place, in order to proceed in order, let us first direct our attention to Genesis 1[:27], “So God created humankind . . . male and female he created them.” From this passage we may be assured that God divided humanity into two sections, l namely, male and female, or a he and a she. This was so pleasing to him that he himself called it a good creation [Gen. 1:31]. Therefore, each one of us must have the kind of body God has created for us. I cannot make myself a woman, nor can you make yourself a man; we do not have that power.18 But we are exactly as God created us: I a man and you a woman. Moreover, God wills to have this excellent handiwork honored as divine creation, and not despised. The man is not to despise or scoff at the woman or her body, nor the woman the man. Instead each one should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is well pleasing unto God.

k “Für Noth hilfft kein schewen,” Wander, 3:1,047, no. 65. l Luther uses the term Teil (parts or sections) here. LW translates this as “classes,” which introduces a different sense from what Luther means here.

41 16. Overlapping legal jurisdiction developed with the complicated system of judicial courts under ecclesiastical and temporal control. Legal cases concerning marriage cases regarding adultery, disputed marriages, abandonment, age of marriage, consent, and other marriage matters could be brought either to the ecclesiastical or secular courts by the late Middle Ages due to the resulting overlapping jurisdiction in customary, Roman, and canon law. 17. Unlike his Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, no clear evidence exists on when and if this work was given as a formal sermon or series of sermons, although evidence does exist that some sections were clearly given as sermons.

18. This discussion represents Luther’s concept of gender and sexual identity expressed in physical terms. Recent scholarship on gender construction in late medieval and early modern Europe has shown that understanding gender strictly in physical terms of male and female was not as clear-cut as Luther’s statements might indicate. Legal court cases and discussions by medical doctors, for instance, accepted hermaphroditism as possible.

42

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

Created for Procreation

19. As in the Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519), Luther identifies procreation as a vital function of marriage, but here he emphasizes that purpose as an unavoidable imperative and places it before love or sexual need.

20. Here Luther strengthens his assertion that all individuals are to be married by showing it to be unavoidable without divine intervention. This argument based on a rejection of free will mirrors Luther’s arguments about faith in 1522. 21. Luther here positions marriage as both a divine and a natural imperative. His argument hinges on a natural drive to have children as unavoidable. 22. Medieval penitentials, or penance handbooks, used by clergy during confession, often used the term “secret sins” (stumen sünd) to indicate sodomy. See Helmut Puff, Sodomy in Reformation Germany and Switzerland, 1400–1600 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003). 23. Here Luther categorically refutes the medieval position elevating the spiritual status of celibacy above marriage, by showing that no one can remain unmarried, or celibate, without divine intervention. In doing so, he makes explicit his rejection of his earlier position on celibacy and virginity expressed in Sermon on the Estate of Marriage. See p. 25 in this volume.

In the second place, after God had made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply.19 Now this [ordinance] is just as inflexible as the first, and no more to be despised and made fun of than the other, since God blesses marriage and does something over and above the act of creation. Hence, just as it is not within my power not to be a man, so it is not my prerogative to be without a woman. Again, just as it is not in your power not to be a woman, so it is not your prerogative to be without a man. For it is not a matter of free choice or decision but a natural and necessary thing, that whatever is a man must have a woman and whatever is a woman must have a man.20 For this word that God speaks, “Be fruitful and multiply,” is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance [werck] that it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than eating and drinking, emptying the bowels and bladder, sleeping and waking.21 It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever individuals try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins,22 for this is a matter of nature and not of choice.

Those Exempted In the third place, God exempted three categories of individuals from this ordinance of creation, saying in Matt. 19[:12] that “There are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Apart from these three groups, let no individual presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous.23 For the Word of God

On the Estate of Marriage that created you and said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end.24 Don’t let yourself be fooled on this score, even if you should make ten oaths, vows, covenants, and adamantine or ironclad pledges.25 For as you cannot solemnly promise that you will not be a man or a woman (and if you should make such a promise it would be foolishness and of no avail since you cannot make yourself something other than what you are), so you cannot promise that you will not produce seed or multiply, unless you belong to one of the three categories mentioned above. And should you make such a promise, it too would be foolishness and of no avail, for to produce seed and to multiply is a matter of God’s ordinance [geschöpffe], not your power. From this you can now see the extent of the validity of all cloister vows.26 No vow of any youth or maiden is valid before God, except that of a person in one of the three categories that

Weddings of priests, monks, and nuns, showing the now public position of Luther’s supporters for the marriage of all. Title page from Johann Eberlin’s How Very Dangerous It Is That a Priest Does Not Have a Wife (Wie gar gefarlich sey), published in Strassburg, 1522.

43

24. As in the previous two sections, Luther shows that the divinely appointed imperative to marry precludes any individual free choice. Luther emphasizes that rejection of this inborn, divinely chosen nature will end in a rejection of faith and salvation. 25. Luther dismisses the efficacy of individual oaths made on issues that are matters of faith, thereby separating voluntary oaths, such as to a ruler, within the power of humanity and false oaths made on divine matters beyond the ability of humanity, and thus not binding. 26. Monastic vows were the required vows of poverty, chastity (celibacy), and obedience made by monks and nuns according to the Rule of St. Benedict.

44

27. Previously, Luther had resisted calls for the marriage of monastics, but here he specifically states that sexual drive is a sign of the error of the original vows. Luther calls for all clergy, including monks and nuns, to forsake their vows. In doing so, he goes beyond calling for the papacy to dissolve vows of celibacy, as he did in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), or a call for waiting for a church council before encouraging monastics to marry, as seen in his debates with Karlstadt when priests and monks began to marry in 1521 and early 1522. 28. Marriage and physical impediments: canon law prohibited individuals with physical impediments such as impotence and physical disabilities from marrying. Here Luther accepts these physical restrictions to marriage in instances where the physical disability had an impact on procreation and sexuality, which he argued was central to marriage.

29. Here Luther is referring specifically to the work Augustin von Alveldt dedicated to an extensive refuting of Luther’s writings on marriage. See Alveldt, Von dem elichen standt widder bruder Martin Luter Doctor tzu wittenberg (Leipzig, 1521), Civ r–v.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD God alone has himself excepted. Therefore, priests, monks, and nuns are duty-bound to forsake their vows whenever they find that God’s ordinance to produce seed and to multiply is powerful and strong within them.27 They have no power by any authority, law, command, or vow to hinder this that God has created within them. If they do hinder it, however, you may be sure that they will not remain pure but inevitably besmirch themselves with secret sins or fornication. For they are simply incapable of resisting the word and ordinance of God within them. Matters will take their course as God has ordained.

1. Eunuchs from Birth As to the first category, which Christ calls “eunuchs who have been so from birth,” these are the ones whom people call impotent, who are by nature not equipped to produce seed and multiply because they are physically frigid or weak or have some other bodily deficiency which makes them unfit for the estate of marriage.28 Such cases occur among both men and women. These we need not take into account, for God has himself exempted them and so formed them that the blessing of being able to multiply has not come to them. The injunction, “Be fruitful and multiply,” does not apply to them; just as when God creates a person crippled or blind, that person is not obligated to walk or see, because that individual cannot. I once wrote down some advice concerning such persons for those who hear confession. It related to those cases where a husband or wife comes and wants to learn what one should do: the one spouse is unable to fulfill the conjugal duty, yet [the other spouse] cannot get along without it because God’s ordinance to multiply still has power over [that spouse]. m Here theyn have accused me of teaching that when a husband is unable to satisfy his wife’s sexual desire she should run to somebody else.29 Let the topsy-turvyo liars spread their lies. The words of Christ and his apostles were turned upside down; should they not also turn

m See On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:103–5; TAL 3:108–9. n Dungersheim, Emser, and Alveldt, for example (see nn. 8–10, pp. 35–36.). o Verkertenlügner.

On the Estate of Marriage my words topsy-turvy? To whose detriment it will be they shall surely find out. What I said was this: if a woman who is fit for marriage has a husband who is not, and she is unable openly to take unto herself another—and unwilling, too, to do anything dishonorable— since the pope in such a case demands without cause abundant testimony and evidence, 30 she should say to her husband, “Look, my dear husband, you are unable to fulfill your conjugal duty toward me; you have deceived me for my young body and thereby imperiled my honor and my soul’s salvation; in the sight of God there is no real marriage between us. Grant me the privilege of contracting a secret marriage with your brother or closest relative, and you retain the title of husband so that your property will not fall to strangers. Consent to being betrayed voluntarily by me, as you have betrayed me without my consent.”31 I stated further that the husband is obligated to consent to such an arrangement and thus to provide for her the conjugal duty and children, and that if he refuses to do so she should secretly flee from him to some other country and there contract a marriage. 32 I gave this advice at a time when I was still timid. 33 However, I should like now to give sounder advice in the matter, and take a firmer grip on the wool of a man 34 who thus makes a fool p of his wife. The same principle would apply if the circumstances were reversed, although this happens less frequently in the case of wives than of husbands. It will not do to lead one’s fellow-man around by the nose q so wantonly in matters of such great import involving one’s body, goods, honor, and salvation. One has to be told to make it right.

2. Those Made Eunuchs by Others The second category, those who Christ says “have been made eunuchs by others” [Matt. 19:12], the castrates are an unhappy lot for though they are not equipped for marriage, they are nevertheless not free from evil desire. They seek the company of

p “Auf narrn seyll furet [To lead by a fool’s rope].” See “Narrenseil,” in Wander, 3:941, nos. 5 and 6. q “Mit der nassen umbfuren [To lead around by the nose].” See “Nase” in Wander, 3:956, nos. 126, 133, and 220.

45 30. The legal requirements in canon law necessary for the dissolution of a marriage due to physical impediments such as impotence were rarely pursued largely because of the difficulty in proving that the condition existed before. Even though the case Luther describes was not consummated, proof of that was often quite difficult. See Charles Donahue Jr., Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 19–20; Jacqueline Murray, “On the Origins and Role of ‘Wise Women’” in Cases for Annulment on the Grounds of Male Impotence,” Journal of Medieval History 16, no. 3 (1990): 235–49. 31. Here Luther is using the admonition in Deut. 25:25 to marry a deceased brother’s wife, although without the brother being dead physically. In this way, the wife can have children. 32. In other words, she should circumvent the need for papal law courts by practicing desertion, a common form of self-divorce in the Middle Ages. Ecclesiastical and secular authorities still viewed this as bigamy. See Richard Helmholz, Marriage Litigation in Medieval England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 59. 33. Here Luther distances himself from the advice he gave in his earlier work here by arguing that he had been unwilling to challenge the papacy and canon law directly. 34. “Bass ynn die wolle greyffen.” This adage meant to engage in battle or struggle with an individual with the determination and intent to triumph (i.e., like a shepherd holding on to a sheep to shear). See Hanns BächtoldStäubli, Handwörterbuch des deutschen

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

46 Aberglaubens IX, Spalte 814–17; Luther, WA 6:328/28 (1520).

women more than before and are quite effeminate. It is with them as the proverb says, “He who cannot sing always insists upon singing.” r Thus, they are plagued with a desire for women, but are unable to consummate their desire. Let us pass them by also; for they too are set apart from the natural ordinance to be fruitful and multiply, though only by an act of violence. s

3. Those Willingly Celibate

35. Although not directly quoting, Luther echoes 1 Cor. 7:7 here and elsewhere in that the choice to remain celibate is possible for some rare individuals whose spirituality is greater than their bodily drive to procreate. But, as he points out, such a choice is not truly free will or voluntary since it is rare, and this willingness to remain celibate should be considered a miracle (wunderwerck) inspired by divine intervention. 36. Luther considered himself in this category until 1525 when he married Katherine von Bora (1499–1552). He continues to allow that remaining unmarried is possible for some, like Nicholas Hausmann, in his later discussions of marriage and celibacy. 37. Human commands and vows: Luther categorizes both the voluntary vows of celibacy required of secular clergy upon ordination and the involuntary vows of celibacy made by monks and nuns when entering religious houses as being of human origin, not divine. He dismisses free will as possible in such cases, saying to believe so is inspired by the Devil.

The third category consists of those spiritually rich and exalted persons, bridled by the grace of God, who are equipped for marriage by nature and physical capacity and nevertheless willingly remain celibate. 35 These put it this way, “I could marry if I wish, I am capable of it. But it does not attract me. I would rather work on the kingdom of heaven, i.e., the gospel, and beget spiritual children.” Such persons are rare, not one in a thousand, for they are a special miracle of God. 36 No one should venture on such a life unless one be especially called by God, like Jeremiah [16:2], or unless one finds God’s grace to be so powerful within oneself that the divine injunction, “Be fruitful and multiply,” has no place in one.

4. Celibate by Virtue of Human Vows Beyond these three categories, however, the Devil working through humanity has been smarter than God, and found more people whom he has withdrawn from the divine and natural ordinance: namely, those who are enmeshed in a spiderweb of human commands and vows and are then locked up behind a mass of iron bolts and bars. 37 This is a fourth way of resisting nature so that, contrary to God’s implanted ordinance and disposition, it does not produce seed and multiply—as if it were

r s

“Wer nit singen kan, will ymmer singen.” See “Singen,” in Wander, 4:565–68, nos. 5 and 79. For more information on castrati and castration, see Larissa Tracy, ed., Castration and Culture in the Middle Ages (Cambridge, UK: Boydell & Brewer, 2013).

On the Estate of Marriage within our power and discretion to possess virginity as we do shoes and clothing! If men are really able to resist God’s word and creation with iron bars and bolts, I should hope that we would also set up iron bars so thick and massive that women would turn into men or people into sticks and stones. It is the Devil who thus perpetrates his monkey-tricks on the poor creature, and so gives vent to his wrath.

Who May or May Not Enter into Marriage with One Another In the fourth place,t let us now consider which persons may enter into marriage with one another, so that you may see it is not my pleasure or desire that a marriage be broken and husband and wife separated. 38 The pope in his canon law has thought up eighteen distinct reasons for preventing or dissolving a marriage, nearly all of which I reject and condemn. 39 Indeed, the pope himself does not adhere to them so strictly or firmly but that one can rescind any of them with gold and silver.40 Actually, they were only invented in order to be a net for gold and a noose for the soul, 2 Peter 2[:14]. In order to expose their folly we will take a look at all eighteen of them in turn.

1. Blood Relationship The first impediment is blood relationship.41 Here they have forbidden marriage up to the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity.42 If in this situation you have no money, and even though God freely permits it, you must not take in marriage your female relative within the third and fourth degrees, or you must put her away if you have already married her. But if you

47 38. In response to Alveldt and his other critics, Luther expresses his wish to reduce chances of marriage being ended. He identifies the papal impediments to marriage as one major reason for divisions since it prevents people from marrying and causes confusion. 39. In On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther explains that Summa angelica: De casibus conscientiae is “The Angelic Summa [engelische Sum]” but states that it should be called “The devilish Summa [teuffelische Sum].” Perhaps not surprisingly, the Summa angelica was among those books burned in Wittenberg on 10 December 1520. Babylonische Gefenckniss, Oiiv; LW 36:96. See the above discussion of Angelo Carletti di Chivasso, n. 13, p. 39. 40. Papal dispensations through court litigation or direct appeals were one way that couples sought to remove impediments to marriage or to remain married when an impediment had been transgressed during the Middle Ages. Couples also could use impediments to end a marriage. Whether attempting to marry, remain married, or separate, obtaining papal dispensations could be an expensive process for couples and their families. In On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther exclaims that this pursuit of money has “made merchants [kauffleute]” of those in Rome; LW 36:97; TAL 3:101. 41. Consanguinity or direct blood relatives; incest.

t

Many sections of this fourth point are derived from the section on matrimony found in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:92–117; TAL 3:96–120. While some of the wording is different, many of the main points and examples are not.

42. Canon law and Roman law differed on the definition of what constituted too close a relationship. At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the traditional prohibited degrees of consanguinity

48 were lowered to four degrees. The nobility tended to use the third degree of consanguinity after this decision causing significant confusion. 43. The canon lawyers and papacy.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD have the money, such a marriage is permitted. Those hucksters 43 offer for sale women who never have been their own. So that you can defend yourself against this tyranny, I will now list for you the persons whom God has forbidden, Lev. 18[:6-13], namely, my mother, my stepmother; my sister, my stepsister; my child’s daughter or stepdaughter; my father’s sister; my mother’s sister. I am forbidden to marry any of these persons.

Consanguinity chart of people forbidden to marry by blood and marriage. Martin Luther, The Persons Related by Consanguinity and Affinity Who Are Forbidden to Marry According to the Scripture, Leviticus 18 (Welche person verpotten sind zu eelichen in der heiligen gschrifft beyde der früntschafft und Mogschafft: Leui. 18), published in Basil, 1522.

On the Estate of Marriage From this it follows that first cousins may contract a godly and Christian marriage, and that I may marry my stepmother’s sister, my father’s stepsister, or my mother’s stepsister. u Further, I may marry the daughter of my brother or sister, just as Abraham married Sarah.44 None of these persons is forbidden by God, for God does not calculate according to degrees, as the jurists do, but enumerates directly specific persons. Otherwise, since my father’s sister and my brother’s daughter are related to me in the same degree, I would have to say either that I cannot marry my brother’s daughter or that I may also marry my father’s sister. Now God has forbidden my father’s sister but has not forbidden my brother’s daughter, although both are related to me in the same degree. We also find in Scripture that with respect to various stepsisters there were not such strict prohibitions. For Tamar, Absalom’s sister, thought she could have married her stepbrother Amnon, 2 Samuel 13[:13].

2. Affinity or Relationship through Marriage The second impediment is affinity or relationship through marriage. Here too they have set up four degrees, so that after my wife’s death I may not marry into her blood relationship, where my marriage extends up to the third and fourth degrees—unless money comes to my rescue! But God has forbidden only these persons, namely, my father’s brother’s wife; my son’s wife; my brother’s wife; my stepdaughter; the child of my stepson or stepdaughter; my wife’s sister while my wife is yet alive [Lev. 18:1418]. I may not marry any of these persons; but I may marry any others, and without putting up any money for the privilege. For example, I may marry the sister of my deceased wife or fiancée; the daughter of my wife’s brother; the daughter of my wife’s cousin; and any of my wife’s nieces, aunts, or cousins.v In the Old Testament, if a brother died without leaving an heir, his widow

u Luther produced a short volume that includes a section on consanguinity or “Freundschaft” using this same example. See Martin Luther, The Persons Related by Consanguinity and Affinity Who Are Forbidden to Marry According to the Scriptures, Leviticus 18 (1522), LW 45:7. v Luther uses these same examples in his section on affinity, or relationships by marriage, in his Persons Related, LW 45:7–8.

49

44. Equating Sarai and Iscah in Gen. 11:29 led to a biblical tradition, used by Luther, interpreting Sarah as Abraham’s niece rather than his stepsister as she is presented in Gen. 20:12.

50

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD was required to marry his closest relative in order to provide her deceased husband with an heir [Deut. 25:5-9]. This is no longer commanded, but neither is it forbidden.

3. Spiritual Relationship 45. The relationships established by godparents and godchildren at baptism, which then extended to each person immediate blood and marriage relationships. Most sixteenth-century reformers rejected this relationship as an impediment to marriage.

The third impediment is spiritual relationship.45 If I sponsor a girl at baptism or confirmation, then neither I nor my son may marry her, or her mother, or her sister—unless an appropriate and substantial sum of money is forthcoming! This is nothing but pure farce and foolishness, concocted for the sake of money and to befuddle consciences. Just tell me this: isn’t it a greater thing for me to be baptized myself than merely to act as sponsor to another? Then I must be forbidden to marry any Christian woman, since all baptized women are the spiritual sisters of all baptized men by virtue of their common baptism, sacrament, faith, Spirit, Lord, God, and eternal heritage [Eph. 4:4-6]. Why does not the pope also forbid a man to retain his wife if he teaches her the gospel? For whoever teaches another becomes that person’s spiritual father. St. Paul boasts in 1 Corinthians 4[:15] that he is the father of all of them, saying, “I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.” According to this he could not have taken a wife in Corinth; neither could any apostle in the whole world have taken a wife from among those whom he taught and baptized. So away with this foolishness; take as your spouse whomsoever you please, whether it be godparent, godchild, or the daughter or sister of a sponsor, or whoever it may be, and disregard these artificial, money-seeking impediments. If you are not prevented from marrying a girl by the fact that she is a Christian,w

w Luther discusses this in his section on marriage in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:100.

On the Estate of Marriage then do not let yourself be prevented by the fact that you baptized her, taught her, or acted as her sponsor. In particular, avoid that monkey business, confirmation, which is really a fanciful deception. I would permit confirmation as long as it is understood that God knows nothing of it, and has said nothing about it, and that what the bishops claim for it is untrue. They mock our God when they say that it is one of God’s sacraments, for it is a purely human contrivance.46

4. Legal Kinship The fourth impediment is legal kinship; 47 that is, when an unrelated child is adopted as son or daughter it may not later marry a child born of its adoptive parents, that is, one who is by law its own brother or sister. This is another worthless human invention. Therefore, if you so desire, go ahead and marry anyway. In the sight of God this adopted person is neither your mother nor your sister, since there is no blood relationship. She does work in the kitchen, however, and supplements the income; this is why she has been placed on the forbidden list!

5. Unbelievers and Heretics The fifth impediment is unbelief; that is, I may not marry a Turk, a Jew, or a heretic.48 I marvel that the blasphemous tyrants are not in their hearts ashamed to place themselves in such direct contradiction to the clear text of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7[:1213], where he says, “If a heathen wife or husband consents to live with a Christian spouse, the Christian should not get a divorce.” And St. Peter, in 1 Peter 3[:1], says that Christian wives should behave so well that they thereby convert their non-Christian husbands; as did Monica, the mother of St. Augustine. 49 Know therefore that marriage is an outward, bodily thing, like any other worldly undertaking. Just as I may eat, drink, sleep, walk, ride with, buy from, speak to, and deal with a heathen, Jew, Turk, or heretic, so I may also marry and continue in wedlock with him. Pay no attention to the precepts of those fools50 who forbid it. You will find plenty of Christians—and indeed the greater part of them—who are worse in their secret unbelief than any Jew, heathen, Turk, or heretic. A heathen is just as much a man or a woman—God’s good creation—as

51

46. Luther also points this same example out in his final section of Persons Related. In that work Luther makes explicit that there is nothing in Scripture supporting this assertion and hints that such deception is “much more the character of the beast [vil mer der Bestien Character]” with a reference to Revelation 13 (LW 45:8–9). 47. Canonical adoption, or cognatio legalis. Roman law and canon law both barred the marriage of someone adopted with the one doing the adopting, that person’s spouse, and their children. See, for instance, Justinian, Digest; Gratian, Decretum; and Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica. 48. Legal and social regulations on the validity of religiously mixed marriages remained complex and contradictory before and after the Reformation. After the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), medieval canonists discouraged mixed marriages between Christians and non-Christians. 49. Monica (c. 331–387) was the Christian mother of Augustine of Hippo (354–430). She married Patricius (c. 315–371), a non-Christian, but sought his conversion through obedience and faith in God. As a result of her faith, Augustine argued that both her husband, at the end of his life, and her son (Augustine), as an adult, converted to Christianity. Augustine, Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 9, 19–22; LW 36:100. 50. Canonists and jurists.

52 51. Lucy (d. 304) was an early Christian martyr in Syracuse during the persecutions under Diocletian in the early fourth century. One of the central elements in all the hagiographies is her blinding either when she refused marriage to a wealthy pagan or during her execution after she was denounced as a Christian. She is often portrayed in medieval iconography with her eyes on a plate. December 13 is Saint Lucy’s Day.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD St. Peter, St. Paul, and St. Lucy, 51 not to speak of a slack and spurious Christian.

Following her conversion to Christianity, Lucy of Syracuse was subjected to a series of tortures, all of which she miraculously survived. Here, the saint holds the dagger with which she was ultimately executed and a lamp, her attribute. Painting by Niccolò di Segna, fourteenth century.

52. Luther does not discuss this example, premarital sex or fornication, as a crime, although he did give the same examples for adultery and murder of a woman’s husband in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, LW 36:100; TAL 3:104. 53. This interpretation thereby equates sexual intercourse with relationships by affinity seen above in the second impediment.

6. Crime The sixth impediment is crime. They are not in agreement as to how many instances of this impediment they should devise. However, there are actually these three: 52 if someone lies with a girl, he may not thereafter marry her sister or her aunt, niece, or cousin; 53 again, whoever commits adultery with a woman may not marry her after her husband’s death; again, if a wife (or husband) should murder her spouse for love of another, she may not subsequently marry the loved one. Here it rains fools upon fools.

On the Estate of Marriage Don’t you believe them, and don’t be taken in by them; they are under the Devil’s whip. Sins and crimes should be punished, but with other penalties, not by forbidding marriage. Therefore, no sin or crime is an impediment to marriage. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, and had her husband killed besides. He was guilty of both crimes; still he took her to wife and begot King Solomon by her [2 Samuel 11]—and without giving any money to the pope! x I must pursue this subject a bit further. These wise guys posit the hypothetical case of a man who sins with his wife’s mother or sister. Had this happened before the marriage it would have been a crime that would prevent and break up the proposed marriage. Since it happened subsequent to the marriage, however, for the sake of the wife—who is innocent in the matter—the marriage may not be dissolved.54 Nevertheless, the husband’s punishment is to be that he shall lie with his wife but have no power to demand of her the conjugal duty. See what the Devil through his fools does with the estate of marriage! He puts husband and wife together, and then says, “Be neither man nor woman.” As well put fire and straw together and bid them not to burn! y If one were to impose upon the pope a command one-tenth as hard as this, how he would rage and storm, and howl about unlawful authority! Away with the big fools. You just let marriage remain free, as God instituted it. Punish sins and crimes with other penalties, not through marriage and fresh sins.

7. Public Decorum and Respectability The seventh impediment they call public decorum, z respectability. For example, if my fiancée should die before we consummate the marriage, I may not marry any relative of hers up to the fourth degree, since the pope thinks and obviously dreams that it is decent and respectable for me to refrain from so doing—

x y

z

LW 36:100; TAL 3:104. Luther used this example in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520), LW 44:176–77; TAL 1:425–26; On the Misuse of the Mass (1521), LW 36:206; and in a sermon he gave on 10 August 1522, on the eighth Sunday after Trinity Sunday, WA 10/3:265. Publica honestas.

53

54. Here Luther’s concern to avoid separation or divorce of any married couple is quite clear. Luther does not allow that the wife would be able to marry elsewhere. So, for her to retain her conjugal right and her honor, the marriage must remain intact to avoid the wife being punished.

54

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

55. Although Luther had already argued that monastic vows were given in error and against Scripture, he had previously argued that the monks and nuns should wait for a decision of a council before acting. Here Luther is unambiguous that monks and nuns without the gift of celibacy should leave their religious houses and marry.

unless I put up the money, in which case the impediment of public decorum vanishes. Now you have heard a moment ago a that after my wife’s death I may marry her sister or any of her relatives except for her mother and her daughter. You stick to this, and let the fools go their way.

56. Catherine [Katherine], Barbara, and Grethe [Margarethe] were common female names used as examples in sixteenth-century scholarly discussions; it is a coincidence that Luther eventually married a woman named Katherine. When Luther wrote this sentence, he was unmarried. Katherine von Bora, his future wife, and the other nuns in the convent of Nimbschen did not flee until April 1523. Although she arrived in Wittenberg shortly after that, she and Luther did not marry until 13 June 1525.

The eighth impediment is a solemn vow, for example where someone has taken the vow of chastity, either in or out of the cloister.b Here I offer this advice: if you would like to take a wise vow, then vow not to bite off your own nose; you can keep that vow. If you have already taken the monastic vow, however, then, as you have just heard, you should yourself consider whether you belong in those three categories that God has singled out. c If you do not feel that you belong there, then let the vows and the cloister go.55 Renew your natural companionships without delay and get married, for your vow is contrary to God and has no validity, and say, “I have promised that which I do not have and which is not mine.”

57. During the early medieval period, serfs could not marry outside of a manor without the formal permission of their lord. By the sixteenth century, such restrictions were rarely enforced. See Michael Sheehen, “Theory and Practice: Marriage of the Unfree and Poor in Medieval Society,” in Marriage, Family, and Law in Medieval Europe: Collected Works, ed. James Farge (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), 211–46.

8. A Solemn Vow of Chastity

9. Error The ninth impediment is error, as if I had been wed to Catherine56 but Barbara lay down with me, as happened to Jacob with Leah and Rachel [Gen. 29:23-25]. One may have such a marriage dissolved and take the other to wife.

10. Servitude The tenth impediment is condition of servitude. When I marry one who is supposed to be free and it turns out later that she is a serf, this marriage too is null and void.57 However, I hold that if there were Christian love the husband could easily adjust both

a See above discussion of the second impediment, p. 49. b Luther discussed monastic vows briefly in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church and To the Christian Nobility in 1520 and more extensively in De votis monasticis in 1521. c See above discussion of those exempted from marriage by Matt. 19:12 in part one, section II, p. 38.

On the Estate of Marriage of these impediments so that no great distress would be occasioned. Furthermore, such cases never occur today, or only rarely, and both might well be combined in one category: error.

11. Holy Orders The eleventh impediment is holy orders, namely, that the tonsure58 and sacred oil are so potent that they devour marriage and unsex a man.59 For this reason a subdeacon, a deacon, and a priest60 have to forgo marriage, although St. Paul commanded that they may and should be married, 1 Timothy 3[:2, 12], Titus 1[:6]. But I have elsewhere written so much about this that there is no need to repeat it here.d Their folly has been sufficiently exposed; how much help this impediment has been to those in holy orders is obvious to all.

12. Coercion The twelfth impediment is coercion, that is, when I have to take Grete to be my wife and am coerced into it either by parents or by governmental authority. That is to be sure no marriage in the sight of God. However, such a person should not admit the coercion and leave the country on account of it, thus betraying the girl or making a fool of her, e for you are not excused by the fact that you were coerced into it. You should not allow yourself to be coerced into injuring your neighbor but should yield your life rather than act contrary to love.61 You would not want anybody to injure you, whether that individual was acting under coercion or not. For this reason I could not declare safe in the sight of God a man who leaves his wife for such a cause. My dear fellow, if someone should compel you to rob me or kill me, would it therefore be right? Why do you yield to a coercion that compels you to violate God’s commandment and harm your neighbor?

d See To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520); On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); Ad schedulam inhibitionis sub nomine episcopi Misnensis editam . . . responsio (1520), WA 6:147; and Avoiding the Doctrines of Men (1522), LW 35:138. e “Auf narren seil füret und betruge.” See n. p, p. 45.

55 58. The tonsure worn by priest refers to a style of cutting or shaving the hair and scalp as a visible form of devotion. Often the top of the head was shaved and a ring of hair left to circle the entire head. 59. Following the practice in canon law, Luther and his contemporaries considered secular clergy (priests) and regular clergy (monks) in different categories as is evident by the separation of the discussion of monastic vows from the discussion of ordination. There is significant scholarly debate about when priests were required to vow celibacy at ordination, but priests certainly were expected to renounce marriage after the Fourth Lateran Council (1215). See Helen Parish, Clerical Celibacy in the West, c. 1100–1700 (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010). 60. Deacons (Evangelier) and subdeacons (Epistler), along with several other clerical grades of clergy, were consecrated and participated in ordination after the early medieval period. Considerable crossover did occur between the monastic orders and the secular clerical grades since some monks served as priests. Considerable disagreement existed over the number of clerical grades and what clerics were included in this canonical impediment. See Julia Barrow, “The Clerical Office, Grades of Ordination, and Clerical Careers,” in The Clerg y in the Medieval World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 27–70. 61. Luther argues here that the marriage should not be abandoned and the couple separated because of coercion. As he stated in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Luther did not support the ending of any marriage for reasons

56 not supported in Scripture. As is consistent with his previous arguments, Luther here places marriage and the continuation of marriage ahead of any impediments. He makes the point that the protest of coercion should have been made before the marriage, not after, and that once the marriage has been completed, it is until death. 62. “Im mit der axt gibt [To give with the axe].” An axe would have been a common weapon available for an aggrieved parent to persuade an unwilling groom into marriage with a daughter in the sixteenth century. 63. As in the above paragraph, Luther argues that the marriage should be accepted and legitimized, regardless of the circumstances, once it has been consummated. 64. Betrothal, or engagement, was considered to be a binding marriage in canon law after the twelfth century, whether a wedding was celebrated or a union was consummated. The works of theologians such as Hugh of St. Victor (c. 1066–1141) and Peter Lombard (c. 1096–1160), for instance, make this argument. Even after the establishment of a uniform canonical position on the matter, prevailing popular views and secular regulations were not uniform on whether an unconsummated future vow or promise of marriage (verba de futuro) should be considered binding or not. The debates among theologians and jurists as well as confusion between canon law and popular practice made betrothal and broken marriage promises a contentious issue in ecclesiastical and, increasingly, secular legal courts. 65. Engagements without consent were considered secret marriages, and therefore were not necessarily

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD I would freely absolve the girl however, for, as we will hear later, f you would be leaving her through no fault of her own. How about a situation where a man is so attached to a girl that she is bestowed upon him at the point of a gun? 62 Does the principle of coercion apply here? It does not, because the girl understands that coercion is involved, and is therefore not being deceived. In this case it is indeed proper that he be compelled to keep her, because of the fact that he has ruined her. 63 For Moses wrote that whoever lies with a girl shall keep her or, in the event that her father is unwilling, pay money in accordance with her father’s demand, Exodus 22[:16-17].

13. Betrothal The thirteenth impediment is betrothal, that is, if I am engaged to one girl but then take another to wife. This is a widespread and common practice in which many different solutions have also been attempted.64 In the first place, if such an engagement occurs without the knowledge and consent of the father and mother, or of the guardians, then let the [fiancée’s] father decide which girl is to remain as the wife.65 If she is betrayed it is her own fault, for she should know that a child is supposed to be subordinate and obedient to its father, and not become engaged without his knowledge. In this way, obedience to parental authority will put a stop to all these secret engagements that occasion such great unhappiness. Where this course is not followed, however, I am of the opinion that the man should stick to the first girl. For having given himself to her he no longer belongs to himself. He was therefore incapable of promising to the second girl something that already belonged to the first and was not his own.g If he does so nonetheless and carries on to the point where he begets children by her, then he should stick with her. For she too has been betrayed, and would suffer even greater injury than the first girl were he to leave her. He has therefore sinned against them both. The first girl, however, is able to recover from the injury done her because she is yet without children. 66 She should

f See below, p. 62. g Luther makes the same argument in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:100–101; TAL 3:104–5.

On the Estate of Marriage therefore out of love yield to the second girl and marry someone else; she is free from the man because he jilted her and gave himself to another. The man himself though should be made to suffer punishment and make amends to the first girl, for what he gave away really belonged to her.

14. Unfit for Marriage The fourteenth impediment is the one touched on already, when a husband or wife is unfit for marriage. h Among these eighteen impediments this one is the only sound reason for dissolving a marriage. Yet it is hedged about by so many laws that it is difficult to accomplish with the ecclesiastical tyrants.

15–18. Four Additional Impediments There are still four more impediments, such as episcopal prohibition, restricted times, custom, and defective eyesight and hearing.i It is needless to discuss them here. It is a dirty rotten business that a bishop should forbid me a wife or specify the times when I may marry,67 or that a blind and dumb person should not be allowed to enter into wedlock.68 So much then for this foolishness at present in the first part.

Part Two: Which Persons May Be Divorced In the second part, we shall consider which persons may be divorced.69 I know of three grounds for divorce.

Bodily and Natural Deficiencies The first, which has just been mentioned and was discussed above, is the situation in which the husband or wife is not

h See the above discussion of impotence on p. 62. i Luther did not discuss these four impediments in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church.

57 considered valid if one or both of the couple were under the age of consent. This remained Luther’s position on secret engagements and marriages throughout his career. 66. Unmarried women with children found it difficult to marry. This obstacle was one reason that courts tended to give custody of a child to the father in cases of a married man seducing an unmarried woman. Medieval ecclesiastical courts tended to favor upholding or encouraging formalizing sexual unions as a marriage in cases where two unmarried people produced a child. Luther’s ambiguous statement on the matter complicated judging disputed engagements or promises for later Lutheran consistory courts. 67. Weddings were not allowed during specific times of the year, including between Advent and Epiphany (December through early January), Lent and Easter (c. February through c. April), and during several other religious holidays in late spring. These restrictions made holding weddings difficult due to the limited number of months when marriages would be considered legitimate. Couples also faced similar restrictions on where they could marry. 68. Again, Luther favors allowing marriage for the greatest number of people and reducing restrictions, whether for physical or legal reasons. 69. In 1520, Luther stated that canon law did not allow divorce, but that he did not think it was a good idea: “As to divorce, it is still a question for debate whether it be allowable. For my part I so greatly detest divorce that I should prefer bigamy to it; but whether it be allowable, I do not venture to decide.”

58 He went on to discuss fornication as the only justification for divorce (LW 36:105). In this work, he argues that impotence, adultery, and desertion of bed and table are the only reasons justifying divorce.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD equipped for marriage because of bodily or natural deficiencies of any sort. Of this enough has already been said.j

Adultery The second ground is adultery. The popes have kept silent about this; therefore we must hear Christ, Matthew 19[:3-9]. When the Jews asked him whether a husband might divorce his wife for any reason, he answered, “ ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? . . . Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal, and to divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’”k Here you see that in the case of adultery Christ permits the divorce of husband and wife, so that the innocent person may remarry. For in saying that he commits adultery who marries another after divorcing his wife, “except for infidelity,” Christ is making it quite clear that he who divorces his wife on account of infidelity and then marries another does not commit adultery. The Jews, however, were divorcing their wives for all kinds of reasons whenever they saw fit, even though no infidelity was involved. That covers so much ground that they themselves thought it was going too far. They therefore inquired of Christ whether it was right; they were tempting him to see what he would say concerning the law of Moses.l Now in the law of Moses God established two types of governments; he gave two types of commandments. Some are spiritual, teaching righteousness in the sight of God, such as love

j Impotence. See above discussion, nn. 28 and 30, p. 45–46. k See also Matt. 5:31; Mark 10:2-12. l Leviticus and Deuteronomy.

On the Estate of Marriage and obedience; people who obeyed these commandments did not thrust away their wives and never made use of certificates of divorce, but tolerated and endured their wives’ conduct.70 Others are worldly, however, drawn up for the sake of those who do not live up to the spiritual commandments, in order to place a limit upon their misbehavior and prevent them from doing worse and acting wholly on the basis of their own maliciousness. Accordingly, he commanded them, if they could not endure their wives, then they should not put them to death or harm them too severely, but rather dismiss them with a certificate of divorce. m This law, therefore, does not apply to Christians, who are supposed to live in the spiritual government.71 In the case of some who live with their wives in an un-Christian fashion, however, it would still be a good thing to permit them to use this law, just so they are no longer regarded as Christians, which after all they really are not. Thus it is that on the grounds of adultery one person may leave the other, as Solomon also says in Proverbs 18, “He that keepeth an adulteress is a fool.” n We have an example of this in Joseph too. In Matthew 1[:19] the gospel writer praises him as just because he did not put his wife to shame when he found that she was with child, but was minded to divorce her quietly. By this we are told plainly enough that it is praiseworthy to divorce an adulterous wife. If the adultery is clandestine, of course, the husband has the right to follow either of two courses. First, he may rebuke his wife privately and in a brotherly fashion, and keep her if she will mend her ways.72 Second, he may divorce her, as Joseph wished to do.73 The same principle applies in the case of a wife with an adulterous husband. These two types of discipline are both Christian and laudable. But a public divorce, whereby one [the innocent party] is enabled to remarry, must take place through the investigation and decision of the civil authority 74 so that the adultery may be manifest to all—or, if the civil authority refuses to act, with the knowledge of the congregation, again in order that it may not be

m Deut. 24:1-4. n Prov. 18:22 in the Vulgate (Douay version).

59 70. Luther argues that the laws of Moses show that the moral approach is to avoid marriage in all circumstances. 71. Luther here rejects incompatibility or mutual consent to separate as reasons for divorce for Christians. 72. This private resolution of adultery would not necessitate the automatic dissolution of the marriage or outside intervention. The role of the wronged spouse would be to help the adulterer to return to the proper behavior in marriage by teaching and forgiveness, not through public humiliation. In doing so, Luther argues that the spouse could help the adulterer return to a moral path. This discussion mirrors Luther’s discussion of preventing people from leading people to despair through punishment, using the example of Christ’s treatment of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11). 73. This approach would be private and would not allow the remarriage of either partner. While it resembles selfdivorce in the mutual decision to end conjugal relations, the couple would not necessarily physically separate, as Luther’s use of the example of Joseph’s actions upon discovering Mary pregnant suggests. 74. Canon law did not allow the remarriage of either spouse in cases of separation due to adultery (Gratian, Decretum, ch. 32, q. 7). Luther supports the remarriage of the innocent party in cases of adultery, arguing that conjugal relations had been ended through no fault of theirs. He supports here that public decisions over adultery when the wronged spouse would like to remarry should be under the jurisdiction of state authorities. In this way, Luther unequivocally dismisses the use of ecclesiastical authorities, church courts,

60 and canon law in making decisions over the separation of couples, punishment of adulterers, and decisions over who may marry if a marriage is dissolved. 75. Throughout the Middle Ages, adultery had been traditionally under the authority of ecclesiastical authorities, but by the late Middle Ages in practice cases of adultery were tried just as often in secular courts. Luther advocates that either the secular authorities or the community, or congregation (Gemein[de]), should make the decision based on evidence presented them in order to prevent false accusations or invented excuses for a divorce. 76. In other words, adulterers should be executed. 77. Luther uses the word geschieden here to mean “to have died,” but also hints at the other meaning of the term, divorce. By implying the dual meaning, he equates the rules for divorce for adultery being the same as those if one’s spouse died. The innocent party then would be allowed to remarry. 78. Rom. 7:2-3. Since the guilty spouse would be considered dead, the other spouse would not be considered an adulterer if they remarried. 79. Adultery, especially when committed by married women, was categorized as capital offense, punishable by death, in Roman legal codes. In secular medieval law, however, adultery could be punished by sentences ranging from whipping, disfiguring, or public shaming to imprisonment or enclosure in convents. Luther calls for capital punishment, or execution, for all adulterers, but recognizes that secular authorities were unlikely to adopt this punishment. He had already mentioned

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD left to each one to allege anything that one pleases as a ground for divorce.75 You may ask: What is to become of the other [the guilty party] if that individual too is perhaps unable to lead a chaste life? Answer: It was for this reason that God commanded in the law [Deut. 22:22-24] that adulterers be stoned, that they might not have to face this question.76 The temporal sword and government should therefore still put adulterers to death, for whoever commits adultery has in fact himself already departed 77 and is considered as one dead.78 Therefore, the other [the innocent party] may remarry just as though one’s spouse had died, if it is one’s intention to insist on one’s rights and not show mercy to the guilty party.79 Where the government is negligent and lax, however, and fails to inflict the death penalty, the adulterer may betake himself to a far country and there remarry if he is unable to remain continent. o But it would be better to put him to death, lest a bad example be set. Somep may find fault with this solution and contend that thereby license and opportunity are afforded all wicked husbands and wives to desert their spouses and remarry in a foreign country. Answer: Can I help it? The blame rests with the government. Why do they not put adulterers to death? Then I would not need to give such advice. Between two evils one is always the lesser, q in this case allowing the adulterer to remarry in a distant land in order to avoid fornication. And I think he would be safer also in the sight of God, because he has been allowed to live and yet is unable to remain continent. 80 If others also, however, following this example desert their spouses, let them go. They have no excuse such as the adulterer has, for they are neither driven nor compelled. God and their own conscience will catch up to them in due time. Who can prevent all wickedness? Where the government fails to inflict the death penalty and the one spouse wishes to retain the other, the guilty one should still in Christian fashion be publicly rebuked and caused to make amends according to the gospel, after the manner provided for

o Luther is consistent that marriage is necessary for all individuals except those excepted above. See p. 42ff. p Alveldt, Emser, and canonists, for example. q “Es ist ye under zwayen bösen ains besser.” See “Böse (das),” in Wander, 5:1,036–37, nos. 95, 96, and 113.

On the Estate of Marriage the rebuking of all other manifest sins, Matthew 18[:15-17]. For there are no more than these three forms of discipline on earth among men: 81 private and brotherly, in public before the congregation according to the gospel, and that inflicted by the civil government.

Conjugal Deprivation The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. 82 For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of infidelity ten times over. 83 Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” r Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. 84 If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:12—2:17]. Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7[:4-5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits their body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty that one is robbing the other of the body that individual had bestowed upon the other. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. 85 For this reason, the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to

r

“Wiltu nit nicht so will ain andere, will fraw nicht, so kum die magt.” See “Frau” and “Wollen,” in Wander, 1:1,138, no. 714 [Si nolit uxor, veniat ancilla] and 5:392, no. 120 [anescitque absens et novus intrat amor]. The proverb Luther cited for the husband to say to his wife to encourage her to return to sexual relations did shock his contemporaries and later historians. See, for instance, the reaction of Duke George of Albertine Saxony (Felician Gess, Akten und Briefen zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georg von Sachsen. 1. 1517–1524 [Leipzig: Tauber, 1905], 415 [1 January 1523]).

61 the execution of adulterers in a sermon held in Zwickau on 27 April 1522 (WA 10/3:86). 80. Here Luther makes a pastoral argument in support of allowing remarriage even for those that the ecclesiastical and secular courts would not allow to marry. He argues that this advice is necessary to prevent the adulterer from causing social disorder or committing greater sins and crimes. 81. In other words, canon law and ecclesiastical courts have no jurisdiction in cases of adultery. 82. Desertion by refusing conjugal duties or by living apart. 83. Luther argues that the failure to do one’s conjugal duty has the potential to force one’s spouse to commit adultery. 84. Luther advises a wronged spouse first to use private admonition, then, if that fails, to inform the congregation or community. In doing so, this provides the possibility of reconciliation or evidence for any subsequent legal action.

85. Luther presents sexual relations as key to the constitution and continuation of a marriage as he does throughout this work.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

62 86. Luther treats unwillingness, as opposed to inability, of women to have sex with their husbands very differently than he does impotence or frigidity in the first part of this discussion. Advocating death in such a case would have been unprecedented in canon or secular law.

death. 86 If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others?

Abuse and Irreconcilable Circumstances 87. Separation.

88. Luther reinforces that continuing in the marriage is evidence of faith. 89. Luther argues that remarriage is denied anyone using incompatibility as a justification for separation because the spouse has voluntarily left the marriage.

In addition to these three grounds for divorce, there is one more which would justify the sundering87 of husband and wife, but only in such a way that they must both refrain from remarrying or else become reconciled. This is the case where husband and wife cannot get along together for some reason other than the matter of the conjugal duty. St. Paul speaks of this in 1 Corinthians 7[:10-11], “To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband. But if she does separate, let her remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.” Solomon complains much in the Proverbs about such wives, and says he has found a woman more bitter than death [Eccles. 7:26]. One may also find a rude, brutal, and unbearable husband. Now if one of the parties were endowed with Christian fortitude and could endure the other’s ill behavior, that would doubtless be a wonderfully blessed cross and a right way to heaven. For an evil spouse, in a manner of speaking, fulfills the Devil’s function and sweeps clean the other spouse who is able to recognize and bear it. 88 If one cannot, however, let that spouse divorce the other before doing anything worse; that spouse remain unmarried for the rest of that individual’s days. 89 Should that spouse try to say that the blame rests not upon oneself but upon the other spouse, and therefore try to marry another, this will not do, for that spouse is under obligation to endure evil, or to be released from this cross only by God, since the conjugal duty has not been denied to that individual. Here the proverb applies, “He who wants a fire must endure the smoke.” s

s

“Wer des fewers haben will, muss den rauch auch leyden.” See “Feuer,” in Wander, 1:1,002, nos. 261 and 267.

On the Estate of Marriage

63

What about a situation where one has an invalid t spouse and has therefore become incapable of fulfilling the conjugal duty? May that person not take another [in marriage]? By no means. Let the individual serve the Lord in the person of the invalid and await God’s good pleasure. Consider that in this invalid God has provided your household with a healing balm by which you are to gain heaven. Blessed and twice blessed are you when you recognize such a gift of grace and therefore serve your invalid spouse for God’s sake. But you may say: I am unable to remain continent. That is a lie. If you will earnestly serve your invalid spouse, recognize that God has placed this burden upon you, and give thanks to him, then you may leave matters in his care. He will surely grant you grace, that you will not have to bear more than you are able. He is far too faithful to deprive you of your spouse through illness without at the same time subduing your carnal desire, if you will but faithfully serve your invalid spouse.

Part Three: Living in the Estate of Marriage In the third part, in order that we may say something about the estate of marriage which will be conducive toward the soul’s salvation, we shall now consider how to live a Christian and godly life in that estate.90 I will pass over in silence the matter of the conjugal duty, the granting and the withholding of it, since some filthpreachers have been shameless enough in this matter to rouse our disgust.91 Some of them designate special times for this, and exclude holy nights and women who are pregnant. I will leave this as St. Paul left it when he said in 1 Corinthians 7[:9], “It is better to marry than to burn”; and again [in v. 2], “To avoid immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Although Christian married folk should not permit themselves to be governed by their bodies in the passion of lust, as Paul writes to the Thessalonians [1 Thess. 4:5], nevertheless each

t

The term used is kranken, rather than untuchtig, to distinguish between illness and permanent incapacity of sexual function.

90. This section, unlike the previous two, is more concerned with exploring how married life should be conducted on a daily basis and on defending marriage as an institution. 91. These would include penitentials, pastoral manuals, discussions of canon law, and a variety of texts used by pastors, itinerant preachers, and confessors in sermons, confessions, and other interactions with the laity.

64

92. This statement is a reference to a statement made by Cicero (106–43 bce) after his divorce, contained in Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), Adversus Jovinianum [Against Jovinians], Book I, 48 (“Examples Showing Why Men Should Not Marry”); repeated in Walter Map, Dissuasio Valerii ad Ruffinum philosophum ne uxorem ducat [The Dissuasion of Valerius to Rufinus the Philosopher That He Should Not Take a Wife]. GrecoRoman philosophers and satirists such as Theophrastus (c. 371–287 bce), Lucretius (c. 99–c. 55 bce), and Juvenal (late first and early second century ce) emphasized that sexual passion, love, and marriage were incompatible with rationality, leading to the growth of a misogamous (antimarriage) and misogynist (antiwoman) satirical literary tradition during the late Republic and Empire. 93. Metellus Numidicus (160–91 bce) was a leader in the Roman Senate opposing the Roman general Gaius Marius (c. 157–86 bce). This story comes from a speech given by Metellus when he was a censor in 101–102, quoted in Aulus Gellius, Attic Nights, 1.6. 94. Luther presents the previous GrecoRoman misogyny and antimarriage writing as due to the fact that they were not Christian.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD one must examine oneself so that by one’s abstention one does not expose oneself to the danger of fornication and other sins. Neither should one pay any attention to holy days or work days, or other physical considerations. What we would speak most of is the fact that the estate of marriage has universally fallen into such awful disrepute. There are many pagan books that treat of nothing but the depravity of womankind and the unhappiness of the estate of marriage, such that some have thought that even if Wisdom itself were a woman one should not marry.92 A Roman official93 was once supposed to encourage young men to take wives (because the country was in need of a large population on account of its incessant wars). Among other things he said to them, “My dear young men, if we could only live without women we would be spared a great deal of annoyance; but since we cannot do without them, take to yourselves wives,” etc. He was criticized by some on the ground that his words were ill-considered and would only serve to discourage the young men. Others, on the contrary, said that because Metellus was a brave man he had spoken rightly, for an honorable man should speak the truth without fear or hypocrisy. So theyu concluded that woman is a necessary evil, and that no household can be without such an evil. These are the words of blind heathen, who are ignorant of the fact that man and woman are God’s creation.94 They blaspheme his work, as if man and woman just came into being spontaneously! I imagine that if women were to write books they would say exactly the same thing about men. What they have failed to set down in writing, however, they express with their grumbling and complaining whenever they get together.

u Greco-Roman authors. Here Luther is using the discussion in Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, Book I, 41–49, esp. 47–48. In his criticism of classical misogamy, Jerome gave Theophrastus, Cicero, Socrates, Sulla, Aristotle, Plutarch, Seneca, and Euripedes as examples. Misogamous and misogynist works that would have been available in print in Germany before 1522 would have included Juvenal, Satires (Satire 6), and Ovid, Remedii Amoris. Humanists also such as Sebastian Brant popularized some of these satirical texts. See Katharina M. Wilson and Elizabeth M. Makowski, Wykked Wyves and the Woes of Marriage: Misogamous Literature from Juvenal to Chaucer (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1990).

On the Estate of Marriage Every day one encounters parents who forget their former misery because, like the mouse, they have now had their fill.v They deter their children from marriage but entice them into priesthood and nunnery, citing the trials and troubles of married life.95 Thus do they bring their own children home to the Devil, as we daily observe; they provide them with ease for the body and hell for the soul. Since God had to suffer such disdain of his work from the pagans, he therefore also gave them their reward, of which Paul writes in Romans 1[:24-28], and allowed them to fall into immorality and a stream of uncleanness until they henceforth carnally abused not women but boys and dumb beasts. Even their women carnally abused themselves and each other. Because they blasphemed the work of God, he gave them up to a base mind, of which the books of the pagans are full, most shamelessly crammed full.w In order that we may not proceed as blindly, but rather conduct ourselves in a Christian manner, hold fast first of all to this, that man and woman are the work of God. Keep a tight rein on your heart and your lips; do not criticize his work, or call that evil which he himself has called good. x He knows better than you yourself what is good and to your benefit, as he says in Genesis 1 [2:18], “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” There you see that he calls the woman good, a helper. If you deem it otherwise, it is certainly your own fault, you neither understand nor believe God’s word and work. See, with this statement of God one stops the mouths of all those who criticize and censure marriage. For this reason young men should be on their guard when they read pagan books and hear the common complaints about marriage, lest they inhale poison.96 For the estate of marriage does not set well with the Devil, because it is God’s good will and work. This is why the Devil has contrived to have so much

v

“Des melhs wie die mauss nu sat sind [To a full belly all meat is bad].” See “Maus,” in Wander, 3:541–42, nos. 177, 197. w For a discussion of Luther’s use of homosexuality in his polemic, especially on marriage, see Helmut Puff, “The Close Encounter of Matrimony and Sodomy,” in Sodomy in Reformation Germany, 167–82. x See Luther’s above discussion that one should not criticize the body of the other, p. 41.

65

95. Luther and other reformers considered parental authority in their discussions on monastic vows because of their understanding of the role played by parents in compelling their children to enter into monasteries or take ordination. Luther argued that parental authority discussed in the Fourth Commandment did not extend to the right to force children into celibacy. He did remind parents that their role did extend to helping their children into marriage to avoid unchastity. See, for example, The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows (1521), LW 44:331; and That Parents Should Neither Compel nor Hinder the Marriage of Their Children and That Children Should Not Become Engaged without Their Parents’ Consent (1524), LW 45:390–91.

96. Here Luther makes an interesting antihumanist argument about GrecoRoman literature. He cautions young men from reading certain classical works considered antithetical to Christianity and warns them to avoid all forms of popular misogamy in conversation and in text.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

66 97. This statement foreshadows the emergence of the books on the marriage-devil (Eheteufel) produced in the sixteenth century.

98. Here Luther addresses the current popular misogamy prevalent in writings and discourse. Works such as Sebastian Brant’s Ship of Fools and Hans Sachs’s plays depict these tensions and unhappiness in marriage, as do many popular images.

99. Here Luther makes clear his differentiation between the pagan (and implicitly the church) teachings on marriage and the divine teachings on marriage recognized by those possessing true faith.

shouted and written in the world against the institution of marriage,97 to frighten men away from this godly life and entangle them in a web of fornication and secret sins. Indeed, it seems to me that even Solomon, although he amply censures evil women, was speaking against just such blasphemers when he said in Proverbs 18[:22], “He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord.” What is this good thing and this favor? Let us see. The world says of marriage, “Brief is the joy, lasting the bitterness.” y Let them say what they please; what God wills and creates is bound to be a laughingstock to them.98 The kind of joy and pleasure they have outside of wedlock they will be most acutely aware of, I suspect, in their consciences. To recognize the estate of marriage is something quite different from merely being married. He who is married but does not recognize the estate of marriage cannot continue in wedlock without bitterness, drudgery, and anguish; he will inevitably complain and blaspheme like the pagans and blind, irrational men. But he who recognizes the estate of marriage will find therein delight, love, and joy without end; as Solomon says, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing,” etc. [Prov. 18:22]. Now the ones who recognize the estate of marriage are those who firmly believe that God himself instituted it, brought husband and wife together, and ordained that they should beget children and care for them.99 For this they have God’s word, Genesis 1[:28], and they can be certain that he does not lie. They can therefore also be certain that the estate of marriage and everything that goes with it in the way of conduct, works, and suffering are pleasing to God. Now tell me, how can the heart have greater good, joy, and delight than in God, when one is certain that his estate, conduct, and work are pleasing to God? That is what it means to find a wife. Many have wives, but few find wives. Why? They are blind; they fail to see that their life and conduct with their wives is the work of God and pleasing in his sight. z Could they but find that, then no wife would be so hateful, so ill-tempered, so ill-mannered, so poor, so sick that they y z

“Ain kurtze freud ain lange unlust [leiden].” See “Freude,” in Wander, 1:1,166–68, nos. 40, 92. See Luther’s discussion of God’s role in choosing a spouse on pp. 23–24 in this volume.

On the Estate of Marriage would fail to find in her their heart’s delight and would always be reproaching God for his work, creation, and will. And because they see that it is the good pleasure of their beloved Lord, they would be able to have peace in grief, joy in the midst of bitterness, happiness in the midst of tribulations, as the martyrs have in suffering. We err in that we judge the work of God according to our own feelings, and regard not his will but our own desire. This is why we are unable to recognize his works and persist in making evil that which is good, and regarding as bitter that which is pleasant. Nothing is so bad, not even death itself, but what it becomes sweet and tolerable if only I know and am certain that it is pleasing to God. Then there follows immediately that of which Solomon speaks, “He obtains favor from the L ord” [Prov. 18:22]. Now observe that when that clever harlot,100 our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, “Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labor at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise.” What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels.101 It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat,

67

100. Here Luther begins an analogy showing a contrast in the interpretations of married life between immoral reason, or the clever harlot, and Christian faith, or the good wife.

101. This characterization of Christian faith, or the good wife, has echoes from the start of Prov. 31:10-31: “A capable wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels.” This passage shows the humility exhibited in marriage by the Christian of accepting the care of children as a godly work. Luther describes childrearing in his Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519) stating that “They [Christian parents] can do no better work and do nothing more valuable either for God, for Christendom, for the entire world, for themselves, and for their children than to bring up their children well” (p. 29 in this volume).

68

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD neither drudgery nor labor, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight.” A wife too should regard her duties in the same light, as she suckles the child, rocks and bathes it, and cares for it in other ways; and as she busies herself with other duties and renders help and obedience to her husband. These are truly golden and noble

102. Margaret of Antioch (third or fourth century), much like Lucy, was reportedly martyred during the Diocletian persecutions after she was denounced as a Christian when she refused to marry a local official. During the Middle Ages, Margaret was revered as the patron saint of pregnancy, labor, and childbirth. This was due in part to the legend that while she was in prison, the Devil in the form of a dragon tempted her to recant. After he swallowed her, Margaret reaffirmed her faith and escaped by irritating his stomach. Many churches and chapels dedicated to her throughout Europe included images of her stepping on the dragon she has defeated and, after the advent of printed media, images of Margaret were given to pregnant women. 103. As this speech demonstrates, Luther saw a woman’s primary vocation as bearing children and pain as the sign of that. He emphasizes the words of the midwife to the woman in labor, including her comforting any fear of death a woman might feel with a promise of salvation. For a discussion of Luther’s teachings on childbirth and more examples of his publications on the topic, see Susan Karant-Nunn and Merry Wiesner-Hanks, eds., “Childbirth,” in Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 171–85.

An early fifteenth-century pen-and-ink drawing depicts St. Margaret standing on a dragon (the devil).

works. This is also how to comfort and encourage a woman in the pangs of childbirth, not by repeating St. Margaret legends102 and other silly old wives’ tales but by speaking thus, “Dear Grete, remember that you are a woman, and that this work of God in you is pleasing to him. Trust joyfully in his will, and let him have his way with you. Work with all your might to bring forth the child. Should it mean your death, then depart happily, for you will die in a noble deed and in subservience to God. If you were not a woman you should now wish to be one for the sake of this very work alone, that you might thus gloriously suffer and even die in the performance of God’s work and will. For here you have the word of God, who so created you and implanted within you this extremity.”103 Tell me, is not this indeed (as Solomon says [Prov. 18:22]) “to obtain favor from the L ord,” even in the midst of such extremity?

On the Estate of Marriage Now you tell me, when a father goes ahead and washes diapers or performs some other mean task for his child, and someone ridicules him as an effeminate fool—though that father is acting in the spirit just described and in Christian faith—my dear fellow you tell me, which of the two is most keenly ridiculing the other? God, with all his angels and creatures, is smiling—not because that father is washing diapers, but because he is doing so in Christian faith. Those who sneer at him and see only the task but not the faith are ridiculing God with all his creatures, as the biggest fool on earth. Indeed, they are only ridiculing themselves; with all their cleverness they are nothing but Devil’s fools. St. Cyprian,104 that great and admirable man and holy martyr, wrote that one should kiss the newborn infant, even before it is baptized, in honor of the hands of God here engaged in a brand new deed.105 What do you suppose he would have said about a baptized infant? There was a true Christian, who correctly recognized and regarded God’s work and creature. Therefore, I say that all nuns and monks who lack faith, and who trust

Portrait of St. Cyprian (c. 1535), bishop and martyr, by Meister von Meskirch (1500−1543)

69

104. Cyprian (c. 210–258) converted to Christianity as an adult and became bishop of Carthage around 248–249, where he served until his martyrdom in 258. After his conversion, he wrote treatises and a series of pastoral letters, which made him one of the most important writers in Latin in early Christianity. 105. Luther refers to a letter Cyprian wrote to a bishop Fidus (dates unknown) on when an infant should be baptized after sixty-six bishops met in a council. The passage Luther is noting resolves a debate on whether a newborn’s feet are unclean: “When we kiss an infant, piety should tell each one of us that we ought to be thinking of the very hands of God from which that infant has so freshly come; in a sense, therefore, in a human being recently formed and newly born, we are kissing those hands of God when we embrace what God has made.” Cyprian, The Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, ed. G. W. Clarke (New York: Newman Press, 1983), 3:64, 109–12, here 111.

70

106. Here Luther contrasts the vocation of a mother to that of monks and nuns, arguing that the calling of the monastics is less significant than even the most sinful mother. 107. Here Luther argues that monastic vows have no basis in Scripture.

108. This comparison between a married woman and a cloister nun became a popular example in polemical pamphlets after 1523. See, for instance, Ayn bezwungene antwort vber eynen Sendtbrieff, eyner Closter nunnen, an jr Schwester in Eelich standt zugeschickt [A Forced Response to a Letter Sent by a Nun in a Convent to Her Married Sister] (Nuremberg, 1524).

109. Here Luther presents an extension of Augustine’s point in De bono coniugali (13–14), that the Christian wife can be certain of her salvation, by arguing that the monks and nuns do not have that certainty.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD in their own chastity and in their order, are not worthy of rocking a baptized child or preparing its pap, even if it were the child of a harlot.106 This is because their order and manner of life has no word of God as its warrant.107 They cannot boast that what they do is pleasing in God’s sight, as can the woman in childbirth, even if her child is born out of wedlock. I say these things in order that we may learn how honorable a thing it is to live in that estate which God has ordained. In it we find God’s word and good pleasure, by which all the works, conduct, and sufferings of that estate become holy, godly, and precious so that Solomon even congratulates such a man and says in Proverbs 5[:18], “Rejoice in the wife of your youth,” and again in Ecclesiastes 11[9:9], “Enjoy life with the wife whom you love all the days of your vain life.” Doubtless, Solomon is not speaking here of carnal pleasure, since it is the Holy Spirit who speaks through him. He is rather offering godly comfort to those who find much drudgery in married life. This he does by way of defense against those who scoff at the divine ordinance and, like the pagans, seek but fail to find in marriage anything beyond a carnal and fleeting sensual pleasure. Conversely, we learn how wretched is the spiritual estate of monks and nuns by its very nature, for it lacks the word and pleasure of God. All its works, conduct, and sufferings are unChristian, vain, and pernicious, so that Christ even says to their warning in Matthew 15[:9], “In vain do they worship me, teaching human precepts as doctrine.” There is therefore no comparison between a married woman who lives in faith and in the recognition of her estate, and a cloistered nun who lives in unbelief and in the presumptuousness of her ecclesiastical estate,108 just as God’s ways and humanity’s ways are beyond compare, as he says in Isaiah 55[:9], “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways.” It is a great blessing for one to have God’s word as this warrant, so that one can speak right up and say to God, “See, this thou hast spoken, it is thy good pleasure.” What does such an individual care if it seems to be displeasing and ridiculous to the whole world? Small wonder that married folk for the most part experience little but bitterness and anguish. They have no knowledge of God’s word and will concerning their estate, and are therefore just as wretched as monks and nuns since both lack the comfort and assurance of God’s good pleasure.109 This is why it is impos-

On the Estate of Marriage sible for them to endure outward bitterness and drudgery, for it is too much for an individual to have to suffer both inward and outward bitterness. If they inwardly fail to realize that their estate is pleasing in the sight of God, bitterness is already there; if they then seek an outward pleasure therein, they fail to find it. Bitterness is joined with bitterness, and thence arises of necessity the loud outcry and the writings against women and the estate of marriage.110 God’s work and ordinance must and will be accepted and borne on the strength of God’s word and assurance; otherwise they do damage and become unbearable. Therefore, St. Paul tempers his words nicely when he says, 1 Corinthians 7[:28], “Those who marry will have worldly troubles,” that is, outward bitterness. He is silent on the inner, spiritual delight, however, because outward bitterness is common to both believers and unbelievers; indeed, it is characteristic of the estate of marriage. No one can have real happiness in marriage who does not recognize in firm faith that this estate together with all its works, however insignificant, is pleasing to God and precious in his sight.111 These works are indeed insignificant and mean; yet it is from them that we all trace our origin, we have all had need of them. Without them no one would exist. For this reason they are pleasing to God who has so ordained them, and thereby graciously cares for us like a kind and loving mother. Observe that thus far I have told you nothing of the estate of marriage except that which the world and reason in their blindness shrink from and sneer at as a mean, unhappy, troublesome mode of life. We have seen how all these shortcomings in fact comprise noble virtues and true delight if one but looks at God’s word and will, and thereby recognizes its true nature. I will not mention the other advantages and delights implicit in a marriage that goes well—that husband and wife cherish one another, become one, serve one another, and other attendant blessings— lest somebody shut me up by saying that I am speaking about something I have not experienced,112 and that there is more gall than honeya in marriage. I base my remarks on Scripture, which

a “Sey mer gallen den hönnig.” Most of the popular sayings point to that it would not take much gall to spoil the honey: “Ein Löffel Galle kan einen Topf vol Honig vergällen” and “Es gehört nicht viel Galle dazu, einen ganzen Topf Honig zu verderben.” See “Galle,” in Wander,

71

110. Here Luther attributes the bad repute of marriage and bearing of children to the classical misogynous and misogamous literature and to the elevation of monastic vows as superior to married life being taught by Christian writers and canon law. He argues that if “married folk” heard the teaching on marriage found in the Scripture, they would have a different understanding of their vocation and be comforted rather than bitter. 111. Here Luther links faith to happiness in marriage as well as affirms the importance of faith.

112. Luther was not married in 1522.

72

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD to me is surer than all experience and cannot lie to me. He who finds still other good things in marriage profits all the more, and should give thanks to God. Whatever God calls good must of necessity always be good, unless men do not recognize it or perversely misuse it. I therefore pass over the good or evil that experience offers, and confine myself to such good as Scripture and truth ascribe to marriage. It is no slight boon that in wedlock fornication and unchastity are checked and eliminated. This in itself is so great a good that it alone should be enough to induce men to marry forthwith, and for many reasons. The first reason is that fornication destroys not only the soul, but also body, property, honor, and family as well. For we see how a licentious and wicked life not only brings great disgrace but is also a spendthrift b life, more costly than wedlock, and that illicit partners necessarily occasion greater suffering for one another than do married folk. Beyond that it consumes the body, corrupts flesh and blood, nature, and physical constitution. Through such a variety of evil consequences God takes a rigid position, as though he would actually drive people away from fornication and into marriage. However, few are thereby convinced or converted. Some, however, have given the matter thought and so learned from their own experience that they have coined an excellent proverb, “Early to rise and early to wed; that should no one ever regret.” c Why? Well because from that there come people who retain a sound body, a good conscience, property, and honor and family, all of which are so ruined and dissipated by fornication, that, once lost, it is well-nigh impossible to regain them—scarcely one in a hundred succeeds. This was the benefit cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7[:2], “To avoid immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” The estate of marriage, however, redounds to the benefit not alone of the body, property, honor, and soul of an individual, but also to the benefit of whole cities and countries, in that they

1:1,321–22, nos. 2, 3. Luther makes the point that couples must always see good in all aspects of marriage. b Unredlich. c “Früe auff steen und freyen das sol nyemand gerewen.” See “Aufstehen,” in Wander, 1:166, nos. 16, 65.

On the Estate of Marriage remain exempt from the plagues imposed by God. We know only too well that the most terrible plagues have befallen lands and people because of fornication.113 This was the sin cited as the reason why the world was drowned in the Deluge, Genesis 6[:1-13],

Title page of the French translation by Jean Chéradame (sixteenth century) of The French Disease (De morbo Gallico), a work on syphilis by Ulrich von Hutten

and Sodom and Gomorrah were buried in flames, Genesis 19[:124]. Scripture also cites many other plagues, even in the case of holy men such as David [2 Samuel 11–12], Solomon [1 Kgs. 11:113], and Samson [Judg. 16:1-21]. We see before our very eyes that God even now sends more new plagues.114 Many think they can evade marriage by having their fling [auss bubenn] for a time, and then becoming righteous.115 My dear fellow, if one in a thousand succeeds in this, that would be doing very well. He who intends to lead a chaste life had better begin early, and attain it not with but without fornication, either by the grace of God d or through marriage. We see only too well how they make out every day. It might well be called plunging into immorality rather than growing to maturity. It is the Devil who has brought this about, and coined such damnable sayings as, d See above discussion on the three types of individuals able to remain unmarried (celibate) and chaste by a divine gift of grace on pp. 46–47.

73 113. Luther could be referencing any number of plagues here. By the early sixteenth century, syphilis had spread throughout Europe and was already written about as an uncontrolled contagion by physicians and scholars. Ulrich von Hutten (1488–1533), for instance, wrote on syphilis in 1519 (De morbo Gallico). Erasmus (1466– 1536), for instance, described syphilis as follows in 1529: “the disease is transmitted not by one means alone but spread by other persons by a kiss, by conversation, by touch, by having a little drink together. And we observe that this disease is accompanied by a moral hatred, so that whoever is in its clutches takes pleasure in infecting as many as possible; they can fool others at night or take advantage of persons who don’t know them.” “A Marriage in Name Only or the Unequal Match,” in Erasmus, Colloquies, vol. 1, 842–59, esp. n. 12. 114. Here Luther perhaps alludes to the feared invasion of Turkish armies into Europe as an impending plague, but there were numerous other diseases and calamities in the early sixteenth century that could be on his mind. 115. “Mehr eyngebubet den ausgebubet.” See “Bube,” in Wander, 1:166, nos. 16, 65. Luther may be playing with the proverb that “Out of boys become men [Aus Buben werden Männer].” In this case, aus buben also can be understood as fornication. Thus Luther warns that in youth one believes that immorality can be a temporary stage of sowing wild oats, but here such Buben (boys or fornicators) discover that they end up stuck in this stage of youth or immorality through their fornication (hineinbuben).

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

74

116. Terence (c. 190–c. 159 bce), born in North Africa, was a Roman poet and playwright during the Roman Republic. He is best known for his comedies. Luther quoted “It is no great crime in a young man to wench [Non est flagitium, mihe crede, adulescentulem scortari],” from Terence’s play The Brothers, Act I, Scene ii, lines 21–22. Micio, the uncle and adopted father of the youth in question, Aeschinus, begins the play with a prologue describing how he himself had avoided marriage and lived a dissolute life while Demea, his brother, had married and lived a quiet life in the country. The rest of the play juxtaposes both the brothers’ attitudes to marriage and their childrearing techniques.

117. Lorenz Fries (c. 1490–1550), Johannes Lotzer (1505–1560), Johann Tallat [or Tollat] von Vochenberg (dates unknown), and Ulrich von Hutten (see n. 113 above), among others, authored medical texts in German circulating in the early sixteenth century, and translations of Hippocrates were also available. 118. Most of the medical texts available by 1522 were based on classical texts, especially Galen and Hippocrates, and moral theory. The resulting works emphasized physical health as the result of humoral balance, including appropriate sexual activity, and a moral life.

“One has to play the fool at least once”; e or, “He who does it not in his youth does it in his old age”; f or, “A young angel, an old devil.” g Such are the sentiments of the poet Terence116 and other pagans. This is heathenish; they speak like heathens, yea, like devils. It is certainly a fact that he who refuses to marry must fall into immorality. How could it be otherwise, since God has created man and woman to produce seed and to multiply? Why should one not forestall immorality by means of marriage? For if special grace does not exempt a person, his nature must and will compel him to produce seed and to multiply. If this does not occur within marriage, how else can it occur except in fornication or secret sins? But, they say, suppose I am neither married nor immoral, and force myself to remain continent? Do you not hear that restraint is impossible without the special grace? For God’s word does not admit of restraint; neither does it lie when it says, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. You can neither escape nor restrain yourself from being fruitful and multiplying; it is God’s ordinance and takes its course. Physicians117 are not amiss when they say: If this natural function is forcibly restrained it necessarily strikes into the flesh and blood and becomes a poison, whence the body becomes unhealthy, enervated, sweaty, and foul-smelling.118 That which should have issued in fruitfulness and propagation has to be absorbed within the body itself. Unless there is terrific hunger or immense labor or the supreme grace, the body cannot take it; it necessarily becomes unhealthy and sickly. Hence, we see how weak and sickly barren women are. Those who are fruitful, however, are healthier, cleanlier, and happier. And even if they bear themselves weary—or ultimately bear themselves out—that does not hurt. Let them bear themselves out. This is the purpose for which they exist. It is better to have a brief life with good health than a long life in ill health.h e

“Es muss ain mal genarret sein.” See “Narren (verb.),” in Wander, 3:936, no. 3. f “Wer nicht thut in der jugent, der thuts im alter.” See “Narren (verb.)” in Wander, 3:936, no. 3, and 2:1,048–50, no. 190, also nos. 141, 166, 176, 191, 193 (“Jugend”). g “Ain junger engel, ain alter teüffel.” See “Engel,” in Wander, 1:820, no. 7. h “Es ist besser kurtz gesund, dann lang ungesund leben.” See “Gesund,” in Wander, 1:1,634, no. 6.

On the Estate of Marriage But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worthwhile, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. God has entrusted to its bosom souls begotten of its own body, on whom it can lavish all manner of Christian works. Most certainly father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short, there is no greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is both spiritual and temporal. Whoever teaches the gospel to another is truly his apostle and bishop.119 Mitre and staff and great estates indeed produce idols, but teaching the gospel produces apostles and bishops.120 See therefore how good and great is God’s work and ordinance! Here I will let the matter rest and leave to others the task of searching out further benefits and advantages of the estate of marriage. My purpose was only to enumerate those which a Christian can have for conducting one’s married life in a Christian way, so that, as Solomon says, he may find his wife in the sight of God and obtain favor from the Lord [Prov. 18:22]. In saying this I do not wish to disparage virginity, or entice anyone away from virginity into marriage. Let each one act as one is able, and as one feels it has been given to one by God. I simply wanted to check those scandalmongers who place marriage so far beneath virginity that they dare to say: Even if the children should become holy [1 Cor. 7:14], celibacy would still be better. One should not regard any estate as better in the sight of God than the estate of marriage. In a worldly sense celibacy is probably better, since it has fewer cares and anxieties. This is true, however, not for its own sake but in order that the celibate may better be able to preach and care for God’s word, as St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7[:32– 34]. It is God’s word and the preaching that make celibacy—such as that of Christ and of Paul—better than the estate of marriage. In itself, however, the celibate life is far inferior.121 Finally, we have before us one big, strong objection to answer. Yes, they say, it would be a fine thing to be married, but how will I support myself? I have nothing; take a wife and live on that,

75

119. Here Luther begins his equating of the father (paterfamilias; [Haus] vater; housefather) and the mother (hausmutter; housemother) to church officials as he states that their function is to teach their children Scripture. This theme of the head of household as bishop is one that Augustine touched on in his commentaries on the Gospel of John (Augustine, Lectures on the Gospel of John, Tractate 51:13), a text Luther likely had read. Luther developed his presentation of the moral and pastoral role of parents in his later writings on household and marriage. See Harm Klueting, “Der Hausvater als Pfarrer und Bishop,” in Fides et pietas: Festschrift Martin Brecht zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Christian Peters and Jürgen Kampmann (Münster: LIT, 2003), 33–42. 120. Here Luther expands his criticism of the clergy and his discussion of the priesthood of all believers found in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), LW 36:111–13; TAL 3:114–16. 121. Here Luther makes his most concrete statement reordering the medieval ideas of spiritual purity by presenting marriage as unquestionably above virginity and celibacy in lived experience.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

76

122. Luther argues that money and financial concerns should not prevent marriage. He also warns against those seeking wives either for their dowry, beauty, or for their ability to work, but who themselves are not living Christian lives.

etc. Undoubtedly, this is the greatest obstacle to marriage; it is this above all that prevents and breaks up marriage and is the chief excuse for fornication. What shall I say to this objection? It shows lack of faith and doubt of God’s goodness and truth. It is therefore no wonder that where faith is lacking, nothing but fornication and all manner of misfortune follow. They are lacking in this, that they want to be sure first of their material resources, where they are to get their food, drink, and clothing [Matt. 6:31]. Yes, they want to pull their head out of the noose of Genesis 3[:19], “By the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread.” They want to be lazy, greedy rascals who do not need to work. Therefore, they will get married only if they can get wives who are rich, beautiful, pious, kind—indeed, wait, we’ll have a picture of them drawn for you.122 Let such heathen go their way; we will not argue with them. If they should be lucky enough to obtain such wives the marriages would still be un-Christian and without faith. They trust in God as long as they know that they do not need him, and that they are well supplied. An individual who would enter into wedlock as a Christian must not be ashamed of being poor and despised, and doing insignificant work. One should take satisfaction in this: first, that one’s status and occupation are pleasing to God; second, that God will most certainly provide for an individual if only one does one’s job to the best of his ability, and that, if an individual cannot be a squire or a prince, one can be a manservant or a maidservant. God has promised in Matthew 6[:25, 33], “Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. [. . .] strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” Again Psalm 37[:25] says, “I have been young and now am old, yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken, or their children begging bread.” If a man does not believe this, is it any wonder that he suffers hunger, thirst, and cold, and begs for bread? Look at Jacob, the holy patriarch, who in Syria had nothing and simply tended sheep; he received such possessions that he supported four wives with a large number of servants and children, and yet he had enough. i Abraham, Isaac, and Lot also became rich, as did many other holy men in the Old Testament. i

Genesis 28–33, esp. 32:10.

On the Estate of Marriage Indeed, God has shown sufficiently in the first chapter of Genesis how he provides for us. He first created and prepared all things in heaven and on earth, together with the beasts and all growing things, before he created man.j Thereby he demonstrated how he has laid up for us at all times a sufficient store of food and clothing, even before we ask him for it. All we need to do is to work and avoid idleness; then we shall certainly be fed and clothed. But a pitiful unbelief refuses to admit this. The unbeliever sees, comprehends, and feels all the same that even if he worries himself to death over it, he can neither produce nor maintain a single grain of wheat in the field. He knows too that even though all his storehouses were full to overflowing, he could not make use of a single morsel or thread unless God sustains him in life and health and preserves to him his possessions. Yet this has no effect upon him. To sum the matter up: whoever finds oneself unsuited to the celibate life should see to it right away that one has something to do and to work at; then let that individual strike out in God’s name and get married. A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen; 123 that’s when they are still in good health and best suited for marriage. Let God worry about how they and their children are to be fed. God makes children; he will surely also feed them. Should he fail to exalt you and them here on earth, then take satisfaction in the fact that he has granted you a Christian marriage, and know that he will exalt you there; and be thankful to him for his gifts and favors. With all this extolling of married life, however, I have not meant to ascribe to nature a condition of sinlessness. On the contrary, I say that flesh and blood, corrupted through Adam, is conceived and born in sin, as Psalm 51[:5] says. Intercourse is never without sin; but God excuses it by his grace because the estate of marriage is his work, and he preserves in and through the sin all that good which he has implanted and blessed in marriage.

j

Gen. 1:1-25.

77

123. Here Luther sets a rather low age of marriage, probably in part due to his concern about sexual activity of the young. Most church ordinances set a higher minimum age by the 1530s and 1540s.

The states of the Holy Roman Empire are depicted in this 1510 hand-colored woodcut by Hans Burgkmair der Ältere.

�

On Secular Authority To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed 1523

JAMES M. ESTES

INTRODUCTION

Following his return to Wittenberg from a ten-month “exile” in the Wartburg (4 May 1521 to 1 March 1522), Luther found himself confronted with (among other things) two different but related questions concerning secular government and its authority. The first question was posed by some who were troubled by the injunctions of Jesus and St. Paul not to resist evil or seek revenge but, rather, to turn the other cheek and leave vengeance to God (Matt. 5:38-41; Rom. 12:19). Did this not mean that secular authority was at odds with the gospel and that Christians were banned from participating in it? Luther and Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) had already discussed this question by letter during Luther’s absence at the Wartburg,1 and Luther continued to receive inquiries about it from others. a The second and more difficult question was posed by the attempts of the imperial government and a number of territorial princes to halt the spread of the reform movement. On what grounds could this use of secular authority be opposed? To answer this question, Luther had to reconsider, in the light of new circumstances,

1. Melanchthon’s letter is lost, but Luther’s reply to it (13 July 1521) is in LW 48:258– 62.

a See, for example, WA Br 2:600–601, 23–26 (Luther to Johann Freiherr von Schwarzenberg, 21 September 1522).

79

80

2. Luther’s argument in the treatise is much more complicated and difficult than this brief sketch of it can indicate. For a more detailed and nuanced summary of it, see James M. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2005), 17–30. 3. Summoned by the emperor, the imperial diet was an assembly of rulers of the constituent territories (principalities and free cities) of the Holy Roman Empire, empowered to make laws and vote taxes. 4. The bull of Pope Leo X (1475– 1521) that threatened Luther with excommunication.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD things he had said about secular authority and religious reform in 1520. In the spring and summer of 1520 Luther, having lost hope that the “spiritual authorities,” that is, pope and bishops, would provide the reforms that he deemed necessary, came to the conclusion that the only hope for the church lay in the timely intervention of Christian princes. Accordingly, he published the treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Improvement of the Christian Estate (August 1520), b in which he called upon the emperor and the German princes to summon a church council. Since this was not, in Luther’s view, part of the routine authority of secular princes, he had to offer a carefully argued justification for his appeal. A council, he wrote, was needed to reform the church, but the pope, who in church law had the sole right to call one, refused to do so, with the result that the church was going to wrack and ruin. This constituted an emergency in which any baptized Christian who was able to do so could, as a participant in the priesthood of all believers, summon a council. Since, however, the only Christians likely to be successful in so doing were the secular authorities, they had a special obligation to come to the aid of their fellow Christians by summoning the council that the pope had refused to provide. Nowhere in the treatise did Luther acknowledge the right of princes to “reform the church.” Except where purely secular matters were concerned, reforming the church was the job of “spiritual authority” acting by means of its chosen instrument, a church council.2 Not until the spring of 1521 did “the Christian nobility of the German Nation,” assembled in an imperial diet 3 at Worms, give their answer to Luther’s appeal. Much had happened in the interim. The incomplete and inept catalog of Luther’s “errors” in the bull Exsurge Domine4 (published in Germany in late September 1520) had done little to persuade anyone that Luther had strayed from the church. But the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (October 1520), c in which Luther eliminated five of the seven Catholic sacraments and denounced the Roman Mass as blasphemy, had persuaded many that Luther was indeed a heretic. When Luther, summoned to the diet to recant his errors, defib TAL 1:369–465; LW 44:123–217. c TAL 3:9–129.

On Secular Authority antly refused to do so, the devoutly Catholic emperor, Charles V (1500–1558), responded by publishing the Edict of Worms (26 May 1521), which placed Luther under the imperial ban, proscribed his works, and outlawed his supporters. While most German princes shied away from the difficult and unrewarding task of enforcing the edict, a small group of influential and zealously Catholic princes took immediate steps to do so. d It is thus small wonder that by 1522 Luther had come to the conclusion that princes are “generally the biggest fools or worst scoundrels on earth,” from whom one can expect “little good, especially in divine matters that concern the salvation of souls.”  e The enduring hostility of the emperor and his supporters among the German princes would prove a permanent block to the kind of national reform that Luther had called for in To the Christian Nobility. This meant that in the long run the Evangelical reform movement would survive only where it won the support and protection of territorial princes powerful enough to resist the imperial will. This was, however, by no means clear in the immediate aftermath of the Edict of Worms. For one thing, there were still no “Lutheran” princes. The elector of Saxony, Frederick the Wise (1463–1525), protected Luther but never ventured to defy the emperor by becoming an avowed supporter of the Evangelical movement, concentrating instead on maintaining peace and order without actively promoting religious change. The first avowedly Evangelical elector of Saxony would be Frederick’s brother, John the Steadfast (1468–1532), who succeeded him in 1525. In Hessen, the other homeland of the Reformation, Landgrave Philip (1504–1567) did not openly join the Evangelical cause until near the end of 1524. Meanwhile, the Edict of Worms notwithstanding, the reform movement continued to spread. Indeed, the years 1521–1526 were the classic period of the German Reformation as a spontaneous popular movement. Led by gifted preachers and pamphleteers, reform took root in one town after another and spilled over into the countryside. In 1522, Luther, impressed by what “the word alone” had accomplished, f reached the optimistic conclusion that the faithful dissemination of the word would by itself destroy the papal regime in two d More on them and their efforts below. e See p. 115 below. f LW 51:77–78 (Invocavit Sermons); see also TAL 4:7–45.

81

82

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

years.g Given this optimism about the irresistible spread of reform, and considering that wise and upright princes were in critically short supply, Luther had little motive in the period 1522–24 to view reform as a princely responsibility. He concentrated instead on justifying the right of Christian communities to reform themselves and call their own pastors if bishops or other prelates refused to do so, h as well as on denouncing as an unwarranted interference in matters outside their jurisdiction the efforts of hostile princes to prevent or punish such reforms. The immediate targets of Luther’s denunPortrait of Philip I, Landgrave of   Hesse, ciation were the princes who, in the wake of the by Hans Krell (c. 1534) publication of the Edict of Worms, had issued mandates forbidding their subjects to own or read his books,5 as well as the Imperial Regency Council (Reichsregiment), i which had issued a 5. The most important mandates decree (aimed primarily at Saxony) calling upon the German were those issued by Duke George of princes to impose severe penalties on those guilty of unauthorAlbertine Saxony (1471–1539) on 10 ized religious innovations such as communion in both kinds February 1522, and Duke William IV of and clerical marriage.6 He was also aware that in the NetherBavaria (1493–1550) on 5 March 1522. lands, where Charles V was the hereditary ruler, his adherents The text of Duke George’s mandate is were being jailed by the Inquisition and compelled to recant.7 By in Luther’s Correspondence, ed. Preserved September 1522, Luther had made up his mind to write a treatise Smith and Charles M. Jacobs, vol. 2 (Philadelphia: Lutheran Publication on the relationship between the gospel and “the secular sword.”  j Society, 1918), 86–88. The text of the On 24 and 25 October, he preached two sermons on the subject Bavarian mandate is in Sigmund Riezler, at Weimar in the presence of the future elector, Duke John. k Geschichte Baierns, 8 vols. (Gotha: F. A. Encouraged by the duke and others, he soon set to work turnPerthes, 1878–1914), 4:79–80. ing the contents of the sermons into a book. By this time Duke 6. The text of the decree (20 January George of Saxony and a number of other Catholic princes had 1522) is in StL 15:2,194–96. For Luther’s reaction on reading it, see LW 36:246; and for its influence on events in Saxony, see n. 26, p. 95 below. 7. On 5 December 1521, for example, Luther’s former student at Wittenberg, Jacob Proost (1486–1562), prior of the Augustinian house at Antwerp, was arrested and haled before an ecclesiastical court. On 9 February 1522 he saved his life by recantation.

g LW 45:67–69 (A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion). h On this, see That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture (May 1523), LW 39:303–14; cf. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of   God, 33–36. i See n. 19, p. 89–90. j See n. a, p. 79. k Texts in WA 10/3:371–85; see also TAL 4:47–103.

On Secular Authority forbidden their subjects to own or read Luther’s translation of the New Testament (published in September 1522), l thus supplying Luther with yet another target for his indignation. By Christmas 1522, he had completed the treatise, but it did not appear in print until the following year, probably in early March. m The treatise is divided into three parts. In the first, Luther marshals an array of scriptural evidence and rational arguments in support of the view that secular government is a divine ordinance, service to which is appropriate for Christians. If it were possible to have a society composed entirely of perfect Christians, government would not be necessary because everyone would do right automatically, entirely without compulsion. Since, however, no such ideal society will ever be found on earth, God has established secular government to restrain evildoers, thus making possible the peaceful and orderly conduct of human affairs (including the affairs of the church on earth). Even if Christians have no need of secular government for themselves, they are required to support it and, where appropriate, to serve in it, for the benefit of their neighbors. Luther himself was greatly pleased with his justification of secular government. Writing of it in 1526, he boasted that “not since the time of the apostles have the secular sword and secular government been so clearly described or so highly praised as by me.” n In the second part of the treatise, which he called the “main part,” Luther defines the limits of secular authority in such a way as to deny it any authority over faith and conscience. In so doing he provides the first extended treatment of what has come to be called the “doctrine of the two kingdoms” (Zwei-Reiche-Lehre). 8 On the one hand, there is “God’s kingdom under Christ,” and on the other, “the kingdom of the world under secular government.” Though secular government is an ordinance of God, it has no authority whatever in the spiritual realm, where Christ alone rules. Even in the hands of a pious Christian, secular government has authority only in the sphere that God has assigned to it, namely “life and property and external affairs on earth,” things that one is “able to see, know, judge, condemn, change, and modify.” Similarly, the clergy, those who have authority from l See notes 40–43, p. 114 below. m See WA 11:229–30. n LW 46:95; pp. 40–43 in this volume (Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved).

83 He managed to flee the country and in 1524 became a pastor at Bremen, where he remained until his death in 1562. See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521–1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 102.

8. The term appears to have been invented by the theologian Karl Barth, who first used it in 1922; see Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 38 n. 97.

84

9. For two well-documented controversies provoked by this use of Luther’s treatise, one in Nürnberg (1530) and the other in Strassburg (1534–35), see Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 98–119.

10. See especially Luther’s discussion of the terms church, Christendom, and Christian community in On the Papacy in Rome (June 1520), LW 39:65–71.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Christ to exercise the ministry of word and sacrament, have no business ignoring their assigned ministry by interfering in matters of government (as the pope claims the right to do). Great harm to both kingdoms results if the distinction between the two is not observed. But the greatest harm results when secular rulers exceed their authority by presuming to define what people may or may not believe and attempting to thwart reforms based on God’s word. This distinction between the two kingdoms, to which Luther and Lutheran theologians would remain firmly attached, was destined to be much misunderstood. Read in isolation from Luther’s other works, the second section of On Secular Authority could be cited as evidence that Luther had condemned any effort by secular governments to regulate the public exercise of religion. As early as 1530, such use was made of the treatise by those who felt threatened by the rapid development in Germany of territorial churches in which Evangelical governments sought to impose uniformity of doctrine and practice on their subjects and took action against dissidents.9 Luther had unwittingly invited such misunderstanding by failing to reiterate in On Secular Authority a point he had already made in 1520, namely, that the church on earth lies astride the boundary between the spiritual and the secular realms and has a foot in both. While the ministry of word and sacrament, for the exercise of which the clergy have authority directly from Christ, belongs to the spiritual realm, the external arrangements accompanying that ministry—ceremonies, vestments, buildings, property, income— are “external affairs on earth” and, thus, matters that human reason can “know, change, and modify.” Luther was emphatic that such things were matters of human choice, not divine prescription.10 Did not such matters fall by definition under secular authority? At this point, before the development of territorial churches under the aegis of friendly princes had really begun, that question had been neither clearly posed nor definitively answered. o In the third section of the treatise Luther offers some thoughts on how a prince should use his authority. His advice is mostly the standard stuff of books on secular rule written by theologians: Be a good Christian, pray for guidance, rule justly o See Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 14–17.

On Secular Authority and in accordance with equity, beware of courtiers and flatterers, preserve peace and avoid war, and so on. Completely absent, however, is the usual emphasis of such books on princely responsibility for the promotion of true religion.p For the time being, the complete absence of friendly princes who could be trusted with such a responsibility precluded that. The emphasis here is on keeping bad princes from impeding reform, not urging good princes to help with it. Not until 1525–28, after the appearance on the scene of princes whom he trusted, would Luther once again appeal to secular authorities for help with reform of the church. By this time the spontaneous, unregulated spread of the Reformation to every major community in Saxony had produced a degree of confusion and disorder inimical to the effective performance of the church’s ministry. Since the church in Saxony had no bishop to deal with this situation, Luther mounted a campaign to persuade the elector to establish a commission of theologians and jurists that would exercise the episcopal function of visitation in order to impose uniformity of teaching and practice on the churches in his domains and at the same time provide for the sound management of church property and income. While the regulation of the church’s material needs was ipso facto a matter of secular jurisdiction, the imposition of uniformity of doctrine and ceremonies was not. To justify the elector’s establishment of a visitation Luther employed essentially the same arguments that he had used in 1520 when calling on the emperor and the German princes to summon a council. Because the elector as prince had no authority in spiritual matters, Luther could only appeal to him as “Christian brother” to come to the aid of his fellow Christians in an emergency by inaugurating an ecclesiastical visitation. Since, however, Luther expected the elector as prince to enforce the established uniformity in the interest of public peace and order, it was clear that his distinction between the prince as prince (secular authority as such), without authority in spiritual matters, and the prince as Christian brother, entitled to intervene only in emergencies, no longer fit the situation as well as it

p Cf., for example, the most influential manual of princely rule at the time, Erasmus’s Education of a Christian Prince (1516), The Collected Works of Erasmus (Toronto, 1974–) 27:200–88, esp. 206–45 (notes in 28:508–34).

85

86

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD had at the beginning of the decade. q Luther himself was quick to see this and to rethink his position in the light of the need of the newly established Evangelical churches for the protection against the threats to their existence (internal disorder, armed Catholicism, Anabaptist subversion) that only friendly princes could provide. By 1530, he had come to the conclusion that the establishment and maintenance of true religion (which included measures to combat false religion) were the highest responsibilities of Christian princes. The story of how he arrived at this understanding of princely authority and how it could be reconciled with the necessary distinction between the two kingdoms is beyond the scope of this brief preface. Suffice it to say that Luther, in conversation with Philip Melanchthon, managed to do so in a way that satisfied Lutheran theologians for almost four centuries. r The present translation is a twice-revised version of that by J. J. Schindel in PE 3:228–73. The first revision was by Walther I. Brandt for LW 45:81–129. The Schindel/Brandt text has been revised again by James M. Estes. The German text used as the basis for revision is that in the Delius Studienausgabe 3:27–71, edited by Siegfried Mühlmann. One problem encountered in revising the translation was its abundance of passages, including many from older versions of the English Bible, that do not meet the current demand for “inclusive” language. Where Luther was clearly referring to persons who in the sixteenth century were by definition male (e.g., princes, bishops, lawyers, etc.) the question does not arise. But where he was clearly referring to human beings in general (Menschen), the traditional English “man/he,” “mankind,” and similar expressions have been replaced. In many cases this was relatively simple: “if any man,” for example, easily became “if anyone.” In other cases, however, especially where personal pronouns are

q See Luther’s preface to the Instructions of the Visitors to the Parish Pastors (1528) in LW 40:269–73 (where the title is incorrectly translated as Instructions for the Visitors of Parish Pastors). For the story of Luther’s campaign to bring about the visitation, see Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 42–52. r See Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, ch. 5. Luther’s views are most fully expounded in his commentaries on Psalms 82 (LW 13:41–72) and 101 (LW 13:145–224).

On Secular Authority

87

involved (she/he, him/her, his/hers), the solution has been pluralization, so that the inclusive “they/them/their” could be used. In all cases, solutions have been sought that are a good, idiomatic English equivalent of Luther’s vigorous, jargon-free German and do not in any way change the meaning. These changes have not been flagged in footnotes.

�

ON SECULAR AUTHORITY: TO WHAT EXTENT IT SHOULD BE OBEYED s

T

O THE ILLUSTRIOUS, highborn prince and lord, Lord John, Duke of Saxony, Landgrave of Thuringia, Margrave of Meissen, my gracious lord.11

Grace and peace in Christ. Once again,t illustrious, highborn prince, gracious lord, necessity and the entreaties of many, above all the wishes of your Princely Grace, impel me to write s

t

The title of the treatise in German is Von weltlicher oberkait, wie weit man ihr gehorsam schuldig sei. For PE 3, J. J. Schindel translated this as Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, which (apart from the failure to translate von) is accurate. For LW 45, Walther I. Brandt changed Secular Authority to Temporal Authority, which is inaccurate. Luther adheres to the German distinction between weltlich (“secular,” or in some contexts “worldly”) and geistlich (“spiritual”) as well as to that between zeitlich (“temporal”) and ewig (“eternal”), and it is appropriate to maintain these distinctions in a translation. Failure to do so creates difficulties when Luther exploits the dual meaning of weltlich as “secular” and “worldly”; see LW 45:113 n. 79, and cf. n. g, p. 114 below. Luther had previously addressed the problem of secular authority in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), TAL 1:369–465, and A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), LW 45:51–74.

11. Luther addressed this treatise to John the Steadfast, brother of Frederick the Wise. John, who was an enthusiastic supporter of the Evangelical movement, became elector in 1525.

88 12. I.e., those who had entreated Luther to write. 13. Volusian was a Roman official who, in the year 412, corresponded with St. Augustine concerning theological issues that troubled him (Letters 132, 135, 137). His doubts concerning the compatibility of Christ’s injunction of nonresistance with the proper function of secular government were discussed in an exchange of letters (also in 412) between Augustine and Marcellinus (d. 413), proconsul of Africa and dedicatee of the first two books of The City of God (Letters 136 and 138). 14. Luther’s favorite term for Scholastic theologians. 15. Catholic theologians held that Christ had established certain precepts or commandments that every Christian had to observe as the necessary condition of attaining everlasting life. These consisted essentially of the Ten Commandments as interpreted by Christian theologians. To these precepts binding on everyone Christ added certain counsels for those who wished to do more than the minimum required for salvation and to aim instead for Christian perfection (see Matt. 19:1622, and cf. 1 Corinthians 7). Freely to choose the path of perfection, it was argued, was to embark on a surer and faster path to eternal life than that followed by those who held to the minimum requirement of keeping the Commandments. Practically speaking, this search for perfection normally entailed living a life of poverty, chastity, and obedience in a religious community. Luther’s objection was to the clear assignment of the rigorous moral demands of the Sermon on the Mount and similar passages to the category of counsels for the few rather than to that

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD about secular authority and its sword, how it is to be used in a Christian manner, and to what extent one is obligated to obey it. For they12 are concerned by Christ’s injunction in Matthew 5[:39, 25, 40], “Do not resist evil, but make friends with your accuser; and if any one would take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.” And Romans 12[:19], “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” These texts were used long ago against St. Augustine [354–430] by the prince Volusian, who charged that Christian teaching permits the wicked to do evil, and is entirely incompatible with the secular sword.13 The sophists14 in the universities have also been perplexed by these texts, because they could not reconcile the two things. In order not to make heathen of the princes, they taught that Christ did not command these things but merely offered them as advice or counsel to those who would be perfect.15 So Christ had to become a liar and be in error in order that the princes might come off with honor, for they could not exalt the princes without degrading Christ—wretched, blind sophists that they are. And their poisonous error has spread thus through the whole world until everyone regards these teachings of Christ not as precepts binding on all Christians alike but as mere counsels for the perfect. It has gone so far that they have granted the imperfect estate of the sword and of secular authority not only to the perfect estate of the bishops, but even to the pope, that most perfect estate of all; 16 in fact, they have ascribed it to no one on earth so completely as to him! So thoroughly has the Devil taken possession of the sophists and the universities that they themselves do not know what and how they speak or teach. I hope, however, that I may instruct the princes and the secular authorities in such a way that they will remain Christians— and Christ will remain Lord—and yet Christ’s commands will not for their sake have to become mere counsels. I do this as a humble service to your Princely Grace, for the benefit of everyone who may need it, and to the praise and glory of Christ our Lord. I commend your Princely Grace with all your kin to the grace of God. May he mercifully have you in his keeping. At Wittenberg, New Year’s Day, 1523. Your Princely Grace’s obedient servant, Martin Luther Some time ago I addressed a little book to the German nobility, u setting forth their Christian office and function. But

On Secular Authority

89

how they responded to it is only too evident.17 I must therefore change my tactics and this time prescribe to them what they should omit and not do. I expect, however, that they will conform to this new effort exactly as they did to the first, and that they will remain princes and never become Christians. For God the Almighty has made our rulers mad; they actually think they can do—and order their subjects to do—whatever they please. And the subjects make the mistake of believing that they in turn are bound to obey their rulers in everything. It has gone so far that the rulers have begun ordering the people to get rid of certain books,v and to believe and conform to what the rulers prescribe. They are thereby presumptuously setting themselves in God’s place, lording it over men’s consciences and faith, and testing the patience of the Holy Spirit with their foolish notions. Nevertheless, they let it be known that they are not to be contradicted, and are still to be called gracious lords. They issue public proclamations, and say that this is the emperor’s command and that they want to be obedient Christian princes, just as if they really meant it and no one noticed the scoundrel behind the mask. If the emperor were to take a castle or a city from them or command some other injustice, we should then see how quickly they would find themselves obliged to resist the emperor and disobey him. But when it comes to fleecing the poor or exercising their arbitrary will on the word of God, it becomes a matter of “obedience to the imperial command.” Such people were formerly called scoundrels; now they have to be called obedient Christian princes.18 Still, they will not permit anyone to appear before them for a hearing or to defend himself, no matter how humbly he may petition. If the emperor or anyone else were to treat them this way, they would regard it as quite intolerable. Such are the princes who today rule the Empire in the German lands.19 This is also why things must be going so well in all the lands, as we see. Because the raging of such fools tends toward the suppression of the Christian faith, the denying of the divine word, and the blaspheming of the Divine Majesty, I can and will no longer just look at my ungracious lords and angry nobles; I must resist them, at least with words. And since I have not been in terror of

of commandments for everyone. Cf. pp. 91–92 below.

u See n. t above. v See p. 89 below.

19. This could well be a reference to the Imperial Regency Council

Pope Boniface VIII. In this illustration (1622) he wears a pallium and the papal triple tiara. To the left is his coat of arms.

16. The classic formulation of the view that the secular sword could be properly exercised only in subordination to the spiritual sword is found in the bull Unam Sanctam (1302) of Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303) (Friedberg 2:1,245). For the text, see Fordham Online Library, http://legacy.fordham.edu /halsall/source/B8-unam.asp. 17. I.e., with the Edict of Worms; see p. 81 above. 18. In his proclamation of 10 February 1522 (see n. 5, p. 82), Duke George of Saxony (1471–1539) had stated that it was his “Christian duty” to enforce the imperial edict of Emperor Charles, which had outlawed Luther and forbidden the reading or printing of his books.

90 (Reichsregiment), a committee set up to exercise executive authority in the empire during the emperor’s absence from Germany, which lasted from 1521 to 1530. It had a rotating membership drawn from the roster of German princes with a seat in the imperial diet. When it was the turn of zealous Catholics like Duke George, the council made hostile noises in the direction of the Reformation, but in the main it had little enthusiasm for the thankless task of enforcing the Edict of Worms. Luther was aware of the council’s decree of 20 January 1522 condemning unauthorized religious innovations; see nn. 5–6, p. 82 above. 20. In the bull of excommunication Decet Romanum Pontificem (3 January 1521). 21. Luther’s word is wasserblasen, literally “waterbubbles.” This was his derogatory German rendering of the Latin word bulla, which means both “bubble” and “[papal] bull,” a double meaning that he took delight in exploiting in his antipapal polemics (as in the Bulla Coena Domini of 1522, WA 8:712–13). With reference to persons, Luther used both bulla and wasserblase to mean a “blusterer” or a “windbag” who supported the pope and his bulls. For his use of the term to describe Duke George of Saxony, see WA 10/2:55 (Missive an Hartmut von Cronberg, 1522). 22. Until monks disappear from the world, i.e., forever.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD their idol, the pope, who threatens to deprive me of soul and of heaven,20 I must show that I am not in terror of his lackeys and windbags,21 who threaten to deprive me of body and of earth. God grant that they may have to rage until the gray cloaks perish,22 and help us that we may not die of their threats. Amen. First, we must properly justify the secular law and sword, so no one will doubt that it is in the world by God’s will and ordinance. The passages that justify it are the following: Romans 12,w “Let every soul be subject to authority and government, for there is no authority except from God; the authority that everywhere exists has been ordained by God. Whoever resists that authority resists God’s ordinance, and he who resists God’s ordinance will incur condemnation.” Again, in 1 Peter 2[:13-14], “Be subject to every kind of human ordinance, whether it be to the king as supreme, or to governors, as those who have been sent by him to punish the wicked and to praise the good.” This same law of the secular sword has existed from the beginning of the world. For when Cain slew his brother Abel, he was in such great terror of being killed in turn that God placed a special prohibition on it and suspended the sword for his sake, so that no one was to slay him [Gen. 4:14-15]. He would not have had this fear if he had not seen and heard from Adam that murderers are to be slain. Moreover, after the Flood, God reestablished and confirmed this in unmistakable terms when he said in Genesis 9[:6], “Whoever sheds human blood, by human hands shall that person’s blood be shed.” This cannot be understood as a plague or punishment of God upon murderers, for many murderers remain alive because of penance or pardon and eventually die by means other than the sword. Rather, it is said of the law of the sword, that a murderer is guilty of death and in justice is to be slain by the sword. Now if justice should be hindered or the sword have become negligent, so that the murderer dies a natural death, Scripture is not on that account false when it says, “Whoever sheds human blood, by human hands shall that person’s blood be shed.” The credit or blame belongs to mortals if this law instituted by God is not carried out; just as other commandments of God, too, are broken.

w Actually Rom. 13:1, Luther`s citation of which here differs slightly from that in his translation of the New Testament.

On Secular Authority Afterward it is also confirmed by the law of Moses, Exodus 21[:14], “For it anyone wantonly kills another, you shall take the killer from my altar to be executed.” And again, in the same chapter, “A life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a foot for a foot, a hand for a hand, a wound for a wound, a stripe for a stripe.” x In addition, Christ also confirms it when he says to Peter in the garden, “Whoever takes the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52], which is to be interpreted exactly like the Genesis 9[:6] passage, “Whoever sheds human blood,” etc. Christ is undoubtedly referring in these words to that very passage, which he thereby wishes to cite and to confirm. John the Baptist also teaches the same thing. When the soldiers asked him what they should do, he answered, “Do neither violence nor injustice to any one, and be content with your wages” [Luke 3:14]. If the sword were not a godly estate, he should have directed them to get out of it, since he was supposed to make the people perfect and instruct them in a proper Christian way.y Hence, it is certain and clear enough that it is God’s will that the secular sword and law be used for the punishment of the wicked and the protection of the good. Second. It speaks powerfully to the contrary that Christ says in Matthew 5[:38-41], “You have heard that it was said to your ancestors: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist evil; but if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other cheek also. And if anyone would sue you and take your coat, surrender your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go a second mile as well,” etc. Likewise Paul in Romans 12[:19], “Beloved, defend not yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.’” And in Matthew 5[:44], “Love your enemies, do good to them that hate you.” And again, in 1 Peter 2 [3:9], “Do not return evil for evil, or reviling for reviling,” etc. These and similar passages certainly make it appear as though in the New Testament Christians have no secular sword. For this reason too the sophists say that Christ has thereby abolished the law of Moses. Of such commandments they make “counsels” for the perfect. z They divide Christian teaching and x y z

Exod. 21:23-25. Luther omits “a burn for a burn.” Cf. Matt. 11:11-19. See n. 15, p. 88.

91

92

23. Cf. Gal. 3:28. By “sects” Luther means factions or rival schools of thought.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Christendom into two. One part they call the perfect, and assign to it such counsels. The other they call the imperfect, and assign to it the commandments. This they do out of sheer wantonness and caprice, without any basis in Scripture. They fail to see that in the same passage Christ lays such stress on his teaching that he is unwilling to have the least word of it set aside, and condemns to hell those who do not love their enemies. a Therefore, we must interpret these passages differently, so that Christ’s words may apply to everyone alike, whether perfect or imperfect. For perfection and imperfection do not consist in works, and do not establish any distinct external order among Christians. They exist rather in the heart, in faith and love, so that those who believe and love the most are the perfect ones, whether they be outwardly male or female, prince or peasant, monk or layperson. For love and faith produce no sects23 or outward differences. Third. Here we must divide the children of Adam and the whole human race into two parts, the first belonging to the kingdom of God, the second to the kingdom of the world. Those who belong to the kingdom of God are all the true believers who are in Christ and under Christ, for Christ is King and Lord in the kingdom of God, as Psalm 2[:6] and all of Scripture says.b For this reason he came, that he might begin God’s kingdom and establish it in the world. Therefore, he says before Pilate, “My kingdom is not of the world, but everyone who is of the truth hears my voice” [John 18:36-37]. In the gospel he continually refers to the kingdom of God, and says, “Mend your ways, c the kingdom of God is at hand” [Matt. 4:17; 10:7]; again, “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness” [Matt. 6:33]. He also calls the gospel a gospel of the kingdom of God; d because it teaches, governs, and upholds God’s kingdom. Now observe, these people need no secular law or sword. If all the world were composed of real Christians, that is, true believers, there would be neither need nor use for prince, king, lord, sword, or law. What purpose would they serve? For Christians a Cf. Matt. 5:17-22. b For example: Luke 1:33; 19:38; Rev. 17:14; 19:16. c Bessert euch. This was Luther’s translation in the 1522 and 1530 editions of the New Testament. In the complete Bible of 1545 the translation was changed to tut Buße, i.e., “repent.” d Mark 1:14 as rendered by Luther and the KJV. Later translations, like RSV, omit “of the kingdom.”

On Secular Authority have in their hearts the Holy Spirit, who both teaches and causes them to do injustice to no one, to love everyone, and to suffer injustice and even death willingly and cheerfully at the hands of anyone. Where there is nothing but the unadulterated doing of right and bearing of wrong, there is no need for quarrels, disputes, courts, judicial penalties, law, or sword. For this reason it is impossible that the secular sword and law should find any work to do among Christians, since they do of their own accord much more than all laws and precepts can demand, just as Paul says in 1 Timothy 1[:9], no law is given to the righteous but rather to the unrighteous. Why is this? It is because the righteous do of their own accord all that the law demands and more. But the unrighteous do nothing that the law demands; therefore, they need the law to instruct, constrain, and compel them to do good. A good tree needs no instruction or law to bear good fruit; e its nature causes it to bear according to its kind without any law or instruction. I would take to be quite a fool anyone who would make a book full of laws and statutes for an apple tree telling it how to bear apples and not thorns, when the tree is able by its own nature to do this better than anyone with however many books can describe and demand. In the same way, all Christians are by Spirit and faith so thoroughly conditioned that it is their nature to behave rightly and justly to a greater degree than one can teach them with all manner of laws, and they themselves need no statutes or laws. You ask: Why, then, did God give so many laws to the whole human race, and why does Christ prescribe in the gospel so many things for us to do? Of this I have written at length in the Postils24 and elsewhere.f To put it here as briefly as possible, Paul says that the law was given for the sake of the unrighteous [1 Tim. 1:9], that is, so that those who are not Christians may through the law be restrained outwardly from evil deeds, as we shall hear later.g Now since no one is by nature Christian or righteous, but altogether sinful and wicked, God through the law puts them all under restraint so they cannot wantonly exercise their wickedness in actual deeds. In addition, Paul ascribes to e f

Cf. Matt. 7:17-18. Chiefly in The Freedom of a Christian; see LW 31:349–50, 358; TAL 1:492–93, 502. g See pp. 94–95 (“Fourth”) below.

93

24. Luther’s Postils were collections of sermons on the Gospel and Epistle lessons for the Sundays and festivals of the church year. In March 1521, he had published an Advent portion in Latin, but at the Wartburg he abandoned the idea of a Latin postil in favor of one in German, the first two installments of which appeared in 1522: a ChristmasEpiphany cycle in March and an Advent cycle in late April. No further additions to the Postils appeared until 1525. The common misunderstanding of the gospels as new law books was one of Luther’s principal concerns in the Postils. See Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521–1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 15–18, and for relevant passages see LW 75:41–48, 140–46.

94

25. Luther had made this point even more forcefully in a letter of 13 July 1521 to Melanchthon. “If the sword were abolished,” he wrote, “how long would the church of God exist in this world, since, of necessity, the wicked are in the majority. Owing to the lawlessness of the wicked, no one could be safe from bodily harm or the destruction of his property” (LW 48:259).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD the law another function in Romans 7 and Galatians 2, h that of teaching people to recognize sin in order that it may make them humble unto grace and unto faith in Christ. Christ does the same thing here in Matthew 5[:39], where he teaches that we should not resist evil; by this he is explaining the law and teaching what the proper attitude of a true Christian should and must be, as we shall hear at greater length.i Fourth. All who are not Christians belong to the kingdom of the world and are under the law. For since there are few true believers, and still fewer who live a Christian life and who neither resist evil nor themselves do any evil, God has provided for them a different government beyond the Christian estate and kingdom of God. He has subjected them 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. It is just as when a dangerous wild beast is bound with chains and ropes so that it cannot bite and tear as it would normally do, even though it would like to; whereas a tame and gentle animal needs no restraint, but is harmless despite the lack of chains and ropes. If this were not so—seeing that the whole world is evil and that among thousands there is scarcely a single true Christian— people would devour one another, and no one could support wife and child, feed himself, and serve God.25 The world would be reduced to chaos. For this reason God has ordained two governments: the one spiritual, which through the Holy Spirit produces Christians and righteous people under Christ; and the other secular, which restrains the un-Christian and wicked so that—no thanks to them—they are obliged to remain quiet and maintain external peace. This is how St. Paul explains the secular sword in Romans 13[:3], when he says it is not a terror to good conduct but to bad. And Peter says it was sent for the punishment of evidoers [1 Pet. 2:14]. If anyone attempted to rule the world by the gospel and to abolish all secular law and sword on the ground 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 h Rom. 7:7; Gal. 3:19-25; cf. Rom. 3:20. i See pp. 95–96 below.

On Secular Authority 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. Just so would the wicked under the name of Christian abuse evangelical freedom, carry on their rascality, and insist that they were Christians, subject neither to law nor sword, as some are already raving and ranting.26 To such a one we must say: Certainly it is true that Christians, so far as they themselves are concerned, are subject neither to law nor sword, and have need of neither. But take heed and first fill the world with real Christians before you attempt to rule it in a Christian and evangelical manner. This you will never accomplish; for the world and the multitude are and will remain un-Christian, even if they are all baptized and Christian in name. Christians are few and far between (as the saying goes).j Therefore, it is out of the question that there should be a common Christian government over the whole world, or indeed over a single country or any considerable body of people, for the wicked always outnumber the good. 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. 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 secular government, without Christ’s spiritual government. Christ’s government does not extend over all people; rather, Christians are always a minority in the midst of non-Christians. Where secular government or law alone governs, there sheer hypocrisy is inevitable, even though the commandments be God’s very own. For without the Holy Spirit in j

See “Christ,” in Wander, 1:533–34, nos. 10, 26, 44.

95 26. Luther is referring to his Wittenberg colleague Andreas Karlstadt (1486– 1541), who during Luther’s absence at the Wartburg led a campaign for the abolition of the Catholic Mass, the removal of images from the churches, an end to clerical celibacy, and other reforms. On Christmas Day 1522, he defied an electoral ban by celebrating the first public Evangelical Mass. Reform turned disorderly when students and groups of citizens disrupted the celebration of Mass by Catholic priests and smashed images in several churches. Karlstadt had not counseled or condoned violence, but because his preaching was perceived as “tumultuous,” and because he claimed that “the community” had power to act when government failed to do so, he was made the scapegoat for everything that happened during the disturbances. He was the unnamed target of the eight Invocavit Sermons (9–16 March 1522), by means of which Luther resumed control of events in Wittenberg (LW 51:67–100; TAL 4:7–45). Complaining that the Mass and other traditional practices had been changed too suddenly and without the approval of the governing authorities, and that the resulting disorder served to discredit the cause of Evangelical reform, Luther decreed the temporary restoration of virtually all the old ceremonies, which were to remain in effect until such time as preaching had enabled the “weaker brethren” to understand why changes were needed and to accept them peacefully. This estrangement between Luther and Karlstadt would be intensified by (among other things) Karlstadt’s publication of a pamphlet against “proceeding slowly” with reforms that are “God’s will,” as well as a series of

96 pamphlets denying the real resence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist (1524). See Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought, 1517–1525 (Leiden: Brill, 1974), ch. 5; see also OER 1:178–80.

27. “Solomon” is the anglicized version of the Hebrew name Schelomo, which derives from shalom, the Hebrew word for “peace.” The German name Friedrich means literally “rich in peace.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD the heart no one becomes truly righteous, no matter how fine their works may be. On the other hand, where spiritual government alone governs land and people, there wickedness is given free rein and the door is open for all manner of knavery, for the world as a whole cannot receive or comprehend it. Now you see the intent of the words of Christ that we quoted above from Matthew 5, k that Christians should not go to law or use the secular sword among themselves. Actually, he says this only to his dear Christians, those who alone accept it and act accordingly, who do not make “counsels”  l out of it as the sophists do, but in their heart are so disposed and conditioned by the Spirit that they do evil to no one and willingly endure evil at the hands of others. If all the world were Christians, then these words would apply to all, and all would act accordingly. Since, however, they are un-Christian these words do not apply to them and they do not act accordingly, but are under another government in which those who are not Christian are kept under external constraint and compelled to keep the peace and do what is good. This is also why Christ did not wield the sword, or give it a place in his kingdom. m For he is a king over Christians and rules by his Holy Spirit alone, without law. Although he sanctions the sword, he did not make use of it, for it serves no purpose in his kingdom, in which there are none but the upright. Hence, David of old was not permitted to build the temple [2 Sam. 7:4-13], because he had wielded the sword and had shed much blood. Not that he had done wrong thereby, but because he could not be a type of Christ, who without the sword was to have a kingdom of peace. It had to be built instead by Solomon, whose name in German means “Friedrich” or “Peaceful”; 27 he had a peaceful kingdom, by which the truly peaceful kingdom of Christ, the real Friedrich and Solomon, could be signified. Again, “during the entire building of the temple no tool of iron was heard,” as the text says [1 Kgs. 6:7]; all for this reason, that Christ, without constraint and force, without law and sword, was to have a people who would serve him willingly.

k See pp. 91, 94 above. l See n. 15, p. 88. m Matt. 26:52-53; John 18:36.

On Secular Authority That is what the prophets mean in Psalm 110[:3], “Your people will act of their free volition”; and in Isaiah 11[:9], “They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain”; and again in Isaiah 2[:4], “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks, and no one shall lift up the sword against another, neither shall they put their efforts into war any more,” etc. Whoever would extend the application of these and similar passages to wherever Christ’s name is mentioned, would entirely pervert the Scripture; rather, they are spoken only of true Christians, who really do this among themselves. Fifth. But you say: since then Christians do not need the secular sword or law, why does Paul say to all Christians in Romans 13[:1], “Let all souls be subject to the governing authorities,” and St. Peter, “Be subject to every human ordinance” [1 Pet. 2:13], etc., as quoted above?n Answer: I have just said that Christians, among themselves and by and for themselves, need no law or sword, since it is neither necessary nor useful for them. But because true Christians live and labor on earth not for themselves alone but for their neighbors, they do by the very nature of their spirit even what they themselves have no need of but is needful and useful to their neighbors. Since, however, the sword is most beneficial and necessary for the whole world in order to preserve peace, punish sin, and restrain the wicked, Christians submit most willingly to the rule of the sword, pay their taxes, honor those in authority, serve, help, and do all they can to assist government, that it may continue to function and be held in honor and fear. Although they have no need of these things for themselves—to them they are not essential—they nevertheless concern themselves about what is of service and benefit to others, as Paul teaches in Ephesians 5[:21—6:9]. Just as they perform all other works of love that they themselves do not need—they do not visit the sick in order that they themselves may be made well, or feed others because they themselves need food—so they serve government not because they need it but for the sake of others, that they may be protected and that the wicked may not become worse. They lose nothing by this; such service in no way harms them, yet it is of great benefit to the world. If they did not so serve they would not be acting as

n See p. 90 above.

97

98

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Christians but rather contrary to love; they would also be setting a bad example to others, who in like manner would not submit to authority, even though they were not Christians. In this way the gospel would be brought into disrepute, as though it taught insurrection and produced self-centered people unwilling to benefit or serve others, when in fact it makes Christians servants of all. Thus in Matthew 17[:27] Christ paid the half-shekel tax that he might not offend them, although he had no need to do so. Thus you see in the words of Christ quoted above from Matthew 5o that he clearly teaches that Christians among themselves should have no secular sword or law. He does not, however, forbid one to serve and be subject to those who do have the secular sword and law. Rather, since you do not need it and should not have it, you are to serve all the more those who have not attained to such heights as you and who therefore do still need it. Although you do not need to have your enemy punished, your afflicted neighbor does. You should help him, that he may have peace and that his enemy may be curbed, but this is not possible unless authority and government are honored and feared. Christ does not say, “You shall not serve government or be subject to it,” but rather, “Do not resist evil” [Matt. 5:39], as much as to say, “Behave in such a way that you bear everything, so that you may not need government to help you and serve you or be beneficial or essential for you, but that you in turn may help and serve it, being beneficial and essential to it. I would have you be too exalted and far too noble to have any need of it; it should rather have need of you.” Sixth. You ask whether a Christian too may bear the secular sword and punish the wicked, since Christ’s words, “Do not resist evil,” are so clear and definite that the sophists have had to make of them a “counsel.” Answer: You have now heard two propositions. One is that the sword can have no place among Christians; therefore, you cannot bear it among Christians or hold it over them, for they do not need it. The question, therefore, must be referred to the other crowd, who are not Christians, whether you may bear it there in a Christian manner. Here the other proposition applies, that you are under obligation to serve and assist the

o See p. 96 above.

On Secular Authority sword by whatever means you can, with body, goods, honor, and soul. For it is a service that you do not need but is very beneficial and essential for the whole world and for your neighbor. Therefore, if you see that there is a lack of hangmen, bailiffs, judges, lords, or princes, and you find that you are qualified, you should offer your services and seek the position, so that essential government may not be despised and become enfeebled or perish. The world cannot and dare not dispense with it. The reason for this is that in such a case you would be entering entirely into the service of others with works that would be of advantage neither to yourself nor your property or honor, but only to your neighbor and to others. You would be doing it not with the purpose of avenging yourself or returning evil for evil, but for the good of your neighbor and for the maintenance of the safety and peace of others. For yourself and your goods you would conduct yourself according to the gospel and suffer injustice as a good Christian.p For yourself you would abide by the gospel and govern yourself according to Christ’s word [Matt. 5:39-40], gladly turning the other cheek and letting the cloak go with the coat when the matter concerned you and your cause. In this way the two propositions are brought into harmony with one another: at one and the same time you satisfy God’s kingdom inwardly and the kingdom of the world outwardly. You suffer evil and injustice, and yet at the same time you punish evil and injustice; you do not resist evil, and yet at the same time, you do resist it. In the one case, you consider yourself and what is yours; in the other, you consider your neighbor and what is his. In what concerns you and yours, you govern yourself by the gospel and suffer injustice toward yourself as a true Christian; in what concerns the person or property of others, you govern yourself according to love and tolerate no injustice toward your neighbor. The gospel does not forbid this; to the contrary, in another place it actually commands it. q From the beginning of the world all the saints have wielded the sword in this way: Adam and his descendants; r Abraham when he rescued Lot, his brother’s son, and routed the four

p Matt. 5:39-40. q Rom. 13:4. r See p. 90 above.

99

100

Daniel with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. The artist has inscribed the name of the prophet on the phylactery held in his hands. The letter p may abbreviate the Latin word for prophet. The Latin names of Daniel’s friends are inscribed below each: ANANI (Hananiah), MIS. (Mishael), and AZA. (Azariah).

28. St. Jerome (c. 347–420) and St. Augustine disagreed sharply over the question of the observance of Old Testament law. Jerome, citing Origen (c. 185–c. 254) and John Chrysostom (d. 407) (among others), argued that it was wrong. Augustine replied that it was neither required as necessary nor condemned as irreligious. Luther here sides with Augustine. For more on the subject, see Luther’s How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525), LW 35:155– 74; TAL 2:127–51.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD kings, as related in Genesis 14[:8-16], although he was a thoroughly evangelical man. Thus did Samuel, the holy prophet, slay King Agag, as we read in 1 Samuel 15[:33]; and Elijah slew the prophets of Baal, 1 Kings 18[:40]. So too did Moses, Joshua, the children of Israel, Samson, David, and all the kings and princes in the Old Testament wield the sword; also Daniel and his associates, Hananiah, Azariah, and Mishael, in Babylon; s and Joseph in Egypt,t and so on. Should anyone contend that the Old Testament is abrogated and no longer in effect, and for that reason such examples cannot be set before Christians, I answer: That is not so. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10[:3-4], “They ate the same spiritual food as we, and drank the same spiritual drink from the Rock, which is Christ.” That is, they had the same Spirit and faith in Christ as we have, and were just as much Christians as we are. Therefore, wherein they did right, all Christians do right, from the beginning of the world unto the end. For time and external circumstances make no difference among Christians. Neither is it true that the Old Testament was abrogated in such a way that it must not be kept, or that whoever kept it fully would be doing wrong, as St. Jerome [c. 347–420] and many others mistakenly held. Rather, it is abrogated in the sense that we are free to keep it or not keep it, and it is no longer necessary to keep it on penalty of losing one’s soul, as was the case at that time.28 Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7[:19] and Galatians 6[:15] that neither uncircumcision nor circumcision counts for anything, but only a new creature in Christ. u That is, it is not sin to be uncircumcised, as the Jews thought, nor is it sin to be circumcised, as the Gentiles thought. Either is right and permissible for him who does not think he will thereby become righteous or be saved. The same is true of all other parts of the Old Testament; it is not wrong to ignore them and it is not wrong to abide by them, but it is permissible and proper either to follow them or to omit them. Indeed, if it were necessary or profitable for the salvation of one’s neighbor, it would be necessary to keep all of them. For everyone is under obligation to do what is necessary and useful for one’s neighbor, be it something Old Testament or New, Jewish s Daniel 1. t Gen. 41:37-46. u 1 Cor. 7:19; Gal. 6:15; cf. 2 Cor. 5:17.

On Secular Authority or Gentile, as Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 12.v For love pervades all and transcends all; it considers only what is necessary and beneficial to others, and does not ask whether it is old or new. Hence the examples of the use of the sword also are matters of freedom, and you may follow them or not, except where you see that your neighbor needs it. In that case love compels you to do as a matter of necessity what would otherwise be optional and not necessary for you either to do or to leave undone. Only do not suppose that you will thereby become righteous or be saved—as the Jews presumed to be saved by their works—but leave this to faith, which without works makes you a new creature. To prove our position also by the New Testament, the testimony of John the Baptist in Luke 3[:14] stands unshaken on this point. There can be no doubt that it was his task to point to Christ, witness for him, and teach about him; that is to say, the teaching of the man who was to lead a truly perfected people to Christ had of necessity to be nothing less than New-Testamentish and evangelical.w John confirms the soldiers’ calling, saying they should be content with their wages. For if it had been unChristian to bear the sword, he ought to have censured them for it and told them to abandon both wages and sword, or else he would not have been teaching them Christian conduct properly. So likewise, when St. Peter in Acts 10[:34-43] preached Christ to Cornelius, he did not tell him to abandon his profession, which he would have had to do if it had prevented Cornelius from being a Christian. Moreover, before he was baptized the Holy Spirit came upon him [Acts 10:44-48]. St. Luke also praises him as an upright man prior to St. Peter’s sermon,29 and does not criticize him for being a soldier and the centurion of a pagan emperor [Acts 10:1-2]. It is only right that we too should permit and not censure what the Holy Spirit permitted to remain and did not censure in the case of Cornelius. A similar example is that of the Ethiopian captain, the eunuch in Acts 8[:27-39], whom Philip the evangelist converted and baptized and permitted to return home and remain in office, although without the sword he could not possibly have been so high an official under the queen of Ethiopia. It was the same too with the proconsul of Cyprus, Sergius Paulus, in Acts 13[:7-12]; v 1 Cor. 12:13; cf. 9:19-22. w Rendering literally Luther’s “new testamentisch vnd Euangelisch.”

101

29. Luther accepted the traditional identification of Luke as the author of Acts.

102 30. Maurice (250–c. 287) was the commander of a Roman legion (from Thebes in North Africa), which, according to legend, was composed entirely of Christians. Sent to Gaul to help put down a rebellion, they were massacred on orders of Emperor Maximian (c. 250–c. 310) when they refused to make the usual sacrifices to the pagan gods or to make war on fellow Christians in the area. Acacius of Cappadocia, a Christian centurion in the Roman army stationed in Thrace, was put to death at Byzantium (c. 303) in the reign of Diocletian (284–305). According to legend, Gereon was a soldier in the detachment of the Theban legion that was massacred (319) near Cologne on orders of Emperor Maximian for refusing to make the required sacrifices to the pagan gods. Luther inaccurately ascribed the martyrdom of these men to Emperor Julian the Apostate (r. 361–363), who sought the restoration of paganism as the state religion of Rome but did not attempt to destroy Christianity.

Bust of Emperor Maximian (c. 293)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

This engraving depicts the centurian Cornelius, of the Italian cohort, meeting the Apostle Peter and falling down at his feet worshiping him. From David Martin, Historie des Ouden en Nieuwen Testaments (Amsterdam, 1700).

St. Paul converted him, and yet permitted him to remain proconsul over and among heathen. The same policy was followed by many holy martyrs who continued obedient to pagan Roman emperors, went into battle under them, and undoubtedly slew people for the sake of preserving peace, as is written of St. Maurice, St. Acacius, St. Gereon, and many others under the emperor Julian. 30 Moreover, we have the clear and compelling text of St. Paul in Romans 13[:1], where he says, “Governing authority has been ordained by God”; and further, “Government does not bear the sword in vain. It is God’s servant for your good, an avenger upon him who does evil” [Rom. 13:4]. Be not so wicked, my friend, as to say, “A Christian may not do that which is God’s own peculiar work, ordinance, and creation.” Otherwise you must also say, “A Christian must not eat, drink, or be married,” for these are also God’s work and ordinance. If it is God’s work and creation, then it is good, so good that everyone can use it in a Christian and salutary way, as Paul says in 2 Timothy 4 [1 Tim. 4:4], “Everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected by

On Secular Authority

103

those who believe and know the truth.” Under “everything created by God” you must include not simply food and drink, clothing and shoes, but also authority and subjection, protection and punishment. In short, since Paul says here that government is God’s servant, we must allow it to be exercised not only by the heathen but by everyone. What can be the meaning of the phrase “It is God’s servant,” except that government is by its very nature such that through it one may serve God? Now it would be quite un-Christian to say that there is any service of God in which a Christian should not or must not take part, when service of God is actually more characteristic of Christians than of anyone else. It would also be right and proper if all princes were good, true Christians. For the sword and government, as a particular service of God, belong more appropriately to Christians than to anyone else on earth. Therefore, you should esteem the sword or government as highly as the estate of marriage, or husbandry, or Painting of St. Maurice (c. 1520) by Matthias Grünewald any other calling that God has instituted. Just as one can serve God in the estate of marriage, or in farming, or a trade, for the benefit of others—and must so serve if his neighbor needs it—so one can serve God in government, and should serve there if the needs of his neighbor demand it. For those who punish evil and protect the good are God’s servants and workmen. But one should also be free not to do it if there is no need for it, just as we are free not to marry or farm where there is no need for them. You ask: Why did Christ and the apostles not bear the sword? Answer: You tell me, why did Christ not take a wife, or become a cobbler or a tailor? If an office or vocation were to be regarded as disreputable on the ground that Christ did not pursue it himself, what would become of all the offices and vocations other than the ministry, the one occupation he did follow? Christ pursued his own office and vocation, but he did not thereby reject any other. It was not incumbent upon him to bear the sword, for he was to exercise only that function by which his kingdom is governed and that actually serves his kingdom. Now, it is not

104

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD essential to his kingdom that he be a married man, a cobbler, tailor, farmer, prince, hangman, or bailiff; neither is the secular sword or law essential to it, but only God’s Word and Spirit. It is by these that his people are ruled inwardly. This is the office that he also exercised then and still exercises now, always bestowing God’s Word and Spirit. And in this office the apostles and all spiritual rulers had to follow him. For they are so busily occupied with the spiritual sword, the Word of God, that to do their job properly they must perforce ignore the secular sword and leave it to others who do not have to preach, even though it is not contrary to their calling to use it, as I have said. For each one must attend to the duties of his own calling. Therefore, although Christ did not bear or prescribe the sword, it is sufficient that he did not forbid or abolish it but rather confirmed it; just as it is sufficient that he did not abolish the estate of marriage but confirmed it, though without himself taking a wife or setting forth a teaching concerning it. For he had to manifest himself wholly in connection with that estate and calling which alone expressly served his kingdom, lest from his example there should be deduced the justification or necessity of teaching and believing that the kingdom of God could not exist without matrimony and the sword and similar externals (since Christ’s example is necessarily binding), when in fact it exists solely by God’s Word and Spirit. This was and had to be Christ’s peculiar function as the supreme king in this kingdom. Since not all Christians, however, have this same office (although they could have it), it is fitting that they should have some other external office by which God may also be served. From all this it follows what the true meaning of Christ’s words is in Matthew 5[:39], “Do not resist evil,” etc. Namely that Christians should be so disposed that they will suffer every evil and injustice without avenging themselves, and will not seek legal redress in the courts but have no need whatever for secular authority and law for their own sake. On behalf of others, however, they may and should seek vengeance, justice, protection, and help, and do as much as they can to achieve it. Likewise, government should, on its own initiative or through the instigation of others, help and protect them too, without any complaint, application, or instigation on their own part. If it fails to do this, they should permit themselves to be despoiled and slandered; they should not resist evil, as Christ’s words say.

On Secular Authority Be certain too that this teaching of Christ is not a counsel for those who would be perfect, as our sophists blasphemously and falsely say, but a universally obligatory command for all Christians. x Then you will realize that all those who avenge themselves or go to law and wrangle in the courts over their property and honor are nothing but heathen masquerading under the name of Christians. It cannot be otherwise, I tell you. Do not be dissuaded by the multitude and common practice; for there are few Christians on earth—have no doubt about it— and God’s word is something very different from the common practice. Here you see that Christ is not abrogating the law when he says, “You have heard that it was said to them of old, ‘An eye for an eye’; but I say to you: Do not resist evil,” etc. [Matt. 5:38-39]. On the contrary, he is expounding the meaning of the law as it is to be understood, as if he were to say, “You Jews think that it is right and proper in the sight of God to recover by law what is yours. You rely on what Moses said, ‘An eye for an eye,’ etc. But I say to you that Moses set this law over the wicked, who do not belong to God’s kingdom, in order that they might not avenge themselves or do worse but be compelled by such outward law to desist from evil, in order that by outward law and rule they might be kept subordinate to government. You, however, should so conduct yourselves that you neither need nor resort to such law. Although secular government must have such a law by which to judge unbelievers, and although you yourselves may also use it for judging others, still you should not invoke or use it for yourselves and in your own affairs. For you have the kingdom of heaven; you should therefore leave the kingdom of earth to anyone who wants to take it from you.” There you see that Christ does not interpret his words to mean that he is abrogating the law of Moses or prohibiting secular authority. He is, rather, making an exception of his own people. They are not to use secular authority for themselves but leave [the use of] it to unbelievers. Yet they may also serve these unbelievers with their own law, since they are not Christians and no one can be forced into Christianity. That Christ’s words apply only to his own is made clear later on when he says they should love their enemies and be perfect like their heavenly x

See n. 15, p. 88.

105

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

106

Father [Matt. 5:44, 48]. But he who loves his enemies and is perfect leaves the law alone and does not use it to demand an eye for an eye. Neither does he restrain the non-Christians, however, who do not love their enemies and who do wish to make use of the law; indeed, he lends his help, so that these laws may hinder the wicked from doing worse. Thus the word of Christ is now reconciled, I believe, with the passages that establish the sword, and the meaning is this: Christians shall neither wield nor invoke the sword for themselves and their cause. In behalf of others, however, they may and should wield it and invoke it to restrain wickedness and to defend righteousness. Even as the Lord says in the same chapter [Matt. 5:3437], “Christians should not swear, but their word should be Yes, yes; No, no.” That is, for themselves and of their own volition and desire, they should not swear. When it is needful or necessary, however, and salvation or the honor of God demands it, they should swear. Thus, they use the forbidden oath to serve another, just as they use the forbidden sword to serve another. Christ and Paul often swore in order to make their teaching and testimony valuable and credible to others, y as men do and have the right to do in covenants and compacts, etc., of which Psalm 63[:11] says, “They shall be praised who swear by his name.” Here you inquire further whether bailiffs, hangmen, jurists, lawyers, and others of similar function can also be Christians and in a state of salvation. Answer: If government and its sword are a divine service, as was proved above, then everything that is essential government’s bearing of the sword must also be divine service. There must be those who arrest, charge, execute, and destroy the wicked, and who protect, acquit, defend, and save the good. Therefore, when they perform their duties, not with the intention of seeking their own ends but only of helping the law and government function to coerce the wicked, there is no peril in that; they may use their office like anybody else would use his trade, as a means of livelihood. For, as has been said, love of neighbor is not concerned about its own; it considers not how great or humble, but how useful and needful the works are for neighbor or community. You may ask, “Why may I not use the sword for myself and for my own cause, so long as it is my intention not to seek my y

Cf. Matt. 26:62-63; Heb. 6:16.

On Secular Authority own advantage but to punish evil?” Answer: Such a miracle is not impossible, but very rare and hazardous. Where the Spirit is so richly present it may well happen. For we read thus of Samson in Judges 15[:11], that he said, “As they did to me, so have I done to them,” even though Proverbs 24[:29] says to the contrary, “Do not say, I will do to him as he has done to me,” and Proverbs 20[:22] adds, “Do not say, I will repay him his evil.” Samson was called of God to harass the Philistines and deliver the children of Israel. Although he used them as an occasion to further his own cause, still he did not do so in order to avenge himself or to seek his own interests, but to serve others and to punish the Philistines [Judg. 14:4]. No one but a true Christian, filled with the Spirit, will follow this example. Where reason too tries to do likewise, it will probably contend that it is not trying to seek its own, but this will be basically untrue, for it cannot be done without grace. Therefore first become like Samson, and then you can also do as Samson did.

In this 1536 woodcut, Samson is depicted destroying the Philistines and burning their crops.

107

108

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

Part Two How Far Secular Authority Extends

31. A common term for an arrogant nobleman.

We come now to the main part of this treatise. Having learned that there must be secular government on earth, and how it is to be exercised in a Christian and salutary manner, we must now learn how long its arm is and how far its hand reaches, so that it does not reach too far and encroach upon God’s kingdom and government. It is absolutely essential for us to know this, for where secular authority is given too wide a scope, intolerable and terrible injury follows; on the other hand, it is also not without injury where it is restricted too narrowly. In the one case, it punishes too much; in the latter case, too little. To err in this direction, however, and punish too little is more tolerable, for it is always better to let a scoundrel live than to put a godly person to death. The world has plenty of scoundrels anyway and must continue to have them, but godly people are scarce. It is to be noted first that the two classes of Adam’s children—the one in God’s kingdom under Christ and the other in the kingdom of the world under secular government, as was said above—have two kinds of law. For every kingdom must have its own laws and statutes; without law no kingdom or government can survive, as everyday experience amply shows. Secular government has laws that extend no further than to life and property and external matters on earth, for God cannot and will not permit anyone but himself to rule over the soul. Therefore, where secular authority presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s authority and only misleads souls and destroys them. We want to make this so clear that everyone will grasp it, and that our fine Junkers, 31 the princes and bishops, will see what fools they are when they seek to coerce the people with their laws and commandments into believing this or that. When a human law is imposed upon the soul to make it believe this or that, as its human author may prescribe, there is certainly no word of God for it. If there is no word of God for it, then we cannot be sure whether God wishes to have it so, for we cannot be certain that something which he does not command is pleasing to him. Indeed, we are sure that it does not please him, for he desires that our faith be based simply and entirely on his divine word alone. He says in Matthew 18 [16:18], “On

On Secular Authority this rock I will build my church”; and in John 10[:27, 14, 5], “My sheep hear my voice and know me; however, they will not hear the voice of a stranger, but flee from him.” From this it follows that with such a wicked command secular government is driving souls to eternal death. For it compels them to believe as right and certainly pleasing to God that which is in fact uncertain, indeed, certain to be displeasing to him since there is no clear word of God for it. Whoever believes something to be right that is wrong or uncertain is denying the truth, which is God himself. He is believing in lies and errors, and counting as right that which is wrong. It is therefore the height of folly when they command that one shall believe the Church, the Fathers, and the Councils, though there be no word of God for it. It is not the church but the Devil’s apostles who command such things, for the church commands nothing unless it knows for certain that it is God’s word. 32 As St. Peter puts it, “Whoever speaks, let him speak as the word of God” [1 Pet. 4:11]. It will be a long time, however, before they can ever prove that the decrees of the councils are God’s word. Still more foolish is it when they assert that kings, princes, and the crowd of ordinary people must believe thus and so. My dear man, we are not baptized into kings, or princes, or even into the crowd, but into Christ and God himself. z Neither are we called kings, princes, or common people, but Christians. No one shall or can command the soul unless he is able to show it the way to heaven; but this no human being can do, only God alone. Therefore, in matters that concern the salvation of souls nothing but God’s word shall be taught and accepted. Again, uncouth fools though they are, they must confess that they have no power over souls. For no human being can kill a soul or give it life, or conduct it to heaven or hell. If they will not take our word for it, Christ himself will attend to it strongly enough where he says in the tenth chapter of Matthew, “Do not fear those who kill the body, and after that have nothing left that they can do; rather fear him who after he has killed the body has power to condemn to hell.”33 I think it is clear enough here that the soul is taken out of all human hands and is placed under the authority of God alone.

z

Cf. Rom. 6:3; Gal. 3:27.

109

32. Here, in the space of two sentences, Luther uses the word Kirche (church) in two different senses. Spelled with a capital “K” in the first sentence, it refers to the institutional church, governed by the pope and the rest of the clerical hierarchy, and claiming the authority of the church fathers and councils, all of which can err. In the next sentence, spelled with a lower-case “k,” the word refers to the spiritual communion of all true believers in God’s word, which does not err.

33. Luther quotes the passage as it is recorded in Luke 12:4-5, not as it is given in Matt. 10:28: “Do not fear those who can kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”

110

34. Leipzig was the capital of Albertine Saxony, which was ruled by Luther’s foe, Duke George the Bearded (see also n. 18, p. 89). Wittenberg was the capital of Ernestine Saxony, ruled by Luther’s protector Frederick the Wise. See the maps at the beginning of this volume. 35. Nyße wortz (Nieswurz) = hellebore (helleborus niger), a plant the ground roots of which were used by the ancients to treat insanity and other disorders.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Now tell me: How much intelligence must there be in the head of someone who imposes commands in an area where he has no authority whatsoever? Would you not judge him insane who commanded the moon to shine whenever he wanted it to? How well would it go if the Leipzigers were to impose laws on us Wittenbergers, or if, conversely, we in Wittenberg were to legislate for the people of Leipzig! 34 They would certainly send the lawmakers a thank-offering of hellebore35 to purge their brains and cure their sniffles. Yet our emperor and clever princes are doing just that today. They are allowing pope, bishop, and sophists to lead them on—one blind man leading the other—to command their subjects to believe, without God’s word, whatever they please. And still they want to be known as Christian princes, God forbid! Besides, we cannot conceive how any authority can or should act in a situation except where it is able to see, know, judge, condemn, change, and modify. What would I think of a judge who would blindly judge matters that he neither hears nor sees? Tell me then, how can a mere human being see, know, judge, condemn, and change hearts? That is reserved for God alone, as Psalm 7[:9] says, “God tries the hearts and minds”; and [v. 8], “The Lord judges the peoples.” And Acts 10 says, “God knows the hearts”; and Jeremiah [17:9-10], “Wicked and unsearchable is the human heart; who can understand it? I the L ord, who search the heart and mind.” A court should and must be quite certain and clear about everything if it is to render judgment. But the thoughts and inclinations of the soul can be known to no one but God. It is therefore futile and impossible to command or compel anyone by force to believe this or that. The matter must be approached in a different way. Force will not accomplish it. And I am surprised at the big fools, for they themselves all say De occultis non iudicat Ecclesia, the church does not judge secret matters. a If the spiritual rule of the church governs only public matters, how can foolish secular authority presume to judge and control such a secret, spiritual, hidden matter as faith?

a Luther cites a gloss to the Decretum Gratiani I. Dist. ii. c.xi, that did not make its way into Friedberg’s text. The canon (Friedberg 1:120) reads, “We indeed speak of open things, but God is the witness and judge of secret things.” For the gloss, see Decretum Gratiani emendatum et notationibus illustratum und cum glossis (Paris, 1612), col. 175.

On Secular Authority Furthermore, we all run our own risks in believing as we do, and we must ourselves see that we believe rightly. As nobody else can go to heaven or hell for me, so nobody else can believe or disbelieve for me; as nobody else can open or close heaven or hell to me, so nobody else can drive me to belief or unbelief. How one believes or disbelieves is a matter for everyone’s own conscience, and since this takes nothing away from secular government, the latter should be content to attend to its own affairs and let everyone believe this or that as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force. For faith is a free act, to which no one can be forced. Indeed, it is a work of God in the spirit, not something that external force can compel or create. Hence arises the common saying, b found also in Augustine, c “No one can or ought to be forced to believe.” Moreover, the blind, wretched people fail to see how utterly hopeless and impossible a thing they are attempting. For no matter how strictly they command, or how furiously they rage, they can do no more than force an outward compliance of the mouth and the hand; the heart they cannot compel, though they flay themselves in the attempt. For the proverb is true: “Thoughts are duty-free.” d Why do they persist in trying to force people to believe from the heart when they see that it is impossible? In so doing they only compel weak consciences to lie, to disavow, and to utter what is not in their hearts. They thereby load themselves down with dreadful alien sins, 36 for all the lies and false confessions that such weak consciences utter fall back upon him who compels them. Even if their subjects were in error, it would be much easier simply to let them err than to compel them to lie and to utter what is not in their hearts. It is, moreover, not right to prevent evil by something even worse. Would you like to know why God ordains that secular princes should blunder so grievously? I will tell you. God has given them up to a base mind [Rom. 1:28] and will make an end of them, just as he does of the spiritual Junkers. For my ungracious lords, the pope and the bishops, are supposed to be bishops and preach

b “Glaube,” in Wander, 1:1,697, no. 36; 5:1,352, no. 176. c Contra litteras Petiliani 2.184; MPL 43:315. d “Gedanke,” in Wander, 1:1,395, no. 44.

111

36. I.e., with the sins of others, in which one is complicit because of having commanded, advised, or approved them, or having consented to them. The term “alien sins” (peccata aliena) derives from the Vulgate rendering of 1 Tim. 5:22: “Do not participate in other people’s sins [peccatis alienis].”

112

37. To be hunted by noblemen, who in the process did damage to the lands and property of the peasants.

38. When Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 410 ce, pagan authors blamed the calamity on Rome’s having abandoned its pagan gods for Christianity. St. Augustine wrote The City of God to refute this charge.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD God’s word. This they leave undone, and have become secular princes who govern with laws that concern only life and property. How completely they have turned things topsy-turvy! They are supposed to be ruling souls inwardly by God’s word; so they rule castles, cities, lands, and people outwardly, torturing souls with unspeakable outrages. Similarly, the secular lords are supposed to govern lands and people outwardly. This they leave undone. They can do no more than strip and fleece, heap duty upon duty and tax upon tax, letting loose here a bear and there a wolf. 37 Besides this, there is no justice, integrity, or truth to be found among them. They behave worse than any thief or scoundrel, and their secular rule has sunk quite as low as that of the spiritual tyrants. For this reason God so perverts their minds that they also rush into the absurdity of trying to exercise a spiritual rule over souls, just as their counterparts try to establish a secular rule. They blithely heap alien sins upon themselves and incur the hatred of God and their subjects, until they come to ruin together with bishops, popes, and monks, one scoundrel with the other. Then they lay all the blame on the gospel, and instead of confessing their sin they blaspheme God and say that our preaching has brought about that which their perverse wickedness has deserved—and still unceasingly deserves—just as the Romans did when they were destroyed. 38 Here then you have God’s decree concerning the high and mighty. They are not to believe it, however, lest this stern decree of God be hindered by their repentance. But, you say: Paul said in Romans 13[:1] that every soul should be subject to the governing authorities; and Peter says that we should be subject to every human ordinance [1 Pet. 2:13]. Answer: Now you are on the right track, for these passages are in my favor. St. Paul is speaking of government and authority. Now you have just heard that no one but God can have authority over souls. Hence, St. Paul cannot possibly be speaking of any obedience except where there can be corresponding authority. From this it follows that he is not speaking of faith, to the effect that secular authority should have the right to command faith. He is speaking rather of external things, that they should be ordered and governed on earth. His words too make this perfectly clear, where he prescribes limits for both authority and obedience, saying, “Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, honor to whom honor is due,

On Secular Authority respect to whom respect is due” [Rom. 13:7]. Secular obedience and authority, you see, apply only externally to taxes, revenue, honor, and respect. Again, where he says, “Government is not a terror to good conduct, but to bad” [Rom. 13:3], he again limits governmental authority so that it is not to have control over faith or the word of God, but over evil works. This is also what St. Peter means by the phrase “human ordinance” [1 Pet. 2:13]. A human ordinance cannot possibly extend its authority into heaven and over souls; it is limited to the earth, to external dealings that human beings have with one another, where they can see, know, judge, evaluate, punish, and persuade. Christ himself made this distinction, and summed it all up very nicely when he said in Matthew 22[:21], “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s.” Now, if Caesar’s power extended into God’s kingdom and authority, and were not something separate, Christ would not have made this distinction. For, as has been said, the soul is not under the authority of Caesar; he can neither teach it nor guide it, neither kill it nor give it life, neither bind it nor loose it, neither judge it nor condemn it, neither hold it fast nor release it. All this he would have to do, had he the authority to command it and to impose laws upon it. But with respect to body, property, and honor he is indeed to do these things, for such matters are under his authority. David too summarized all this long ago in an excellent brief passage, when he said in Psalm 113 [115:16], “He has given heaven to the Lord of heaven, but the earth he has given to human beings.” That is, over what is on earth and belongs to the secular, earthly kingdom, human beings have authority from God; but whatever belongs to heaven and to the eternal kingdom is exclusively under the Lord of heaven. Neither did Moses39 forget this when he said in Genesis 1[:26], “God said, ‘Let us assign to the human race dominion over the beasts of the earth, the fish of the sea, and the birds of the air.’” There only external dominion is ascribed to mortals. In short, this is the meaning as St. Peter says in Acts 4 [5:29], “We must obey God rather than human authority.” Thereby, he clearly sets a limit to secular authority, for if we had to do everything that secular authority wanted there would have been no point in saying, “We must obey God rather than human authority.”

113

39. Luther held the traditional view that Moses was the author of the books of the Pentateuch.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

114

40. Duke George of Saxony (see n. 34, p. 110 above) was also the margrave of Meissen. 41. The ruler of Bavaria was Duke William IV (1493–1550), a stalwart opponent of the Reformation. 42. I.e., Brandenburg, ruled by Elector Joachim I (1484–1535), a vehement enemy of the Reformation. 43. This would include Austria, ruled by the emperor’s brother Archduke Ferdinand (1521–1564).

If your prince or secular ruler commands you to side with the pope, to believe thus and so, or to get rid of certain books, e you should say, “It is not fitting that Lucifer should sit at the side of God. Gracious sir, I owe you obedience in body and property; command me within the limits of your authority on earth, and I will obey. But if you command me to believe or to get rid of certain books, I will not obey; for then you are a tyrant and overreach yourself, commanding where you have neither the right nor the authority,” etc. Should he seize your property on account of this and punish such disobedience, then blessed are you; thank God that you are worthy to suffer for the sake of the divine word. Let him rage, fool that he is; he will meet his judge. For I tell you, if you fail to withstand him, if you give in to him and let him take away your faith and your books, you have truly denied God. Let me illustrate. In Meissen,40 Bavaria,41 the Mark,42 and other places,43 the tyrants have issued an order that all copies of the New Testament are everywhere to be turned in to the officials.f This should be the response of their subjects: They should not turn in a single page, not even a letter, on pain of losing their salvation. Whoever does so is delivering Christ up into the hands of Herod, for these tyrants act as murderers of Christ, just like Herod. If their homes are ordered searched and books or property taken by force, they should suffer it to be done. Outrage is not to be resisted but endured; yet we should not sanction it, or lift a little finger to conform, or obey. For such tyrants are acting as worldly princes are supposed to act, and worldly princes they surely are.g But the world is God’s enemy; hence, they too have to do what is antagonistic to God and agreeable to the world, so that they may not be bereft of honor but remain worldly princes.

e f

See p. 82 in the introduction. For Duke George’s mandate, see Akten und Briefe zur Kirchenpolitik Herzog Georgs von Sachsen, ed. Felician Gess, 2 (Leipzig, 1905): 386–87. For Bavaria, see Vitus Anton Winter, Geschichte der Schicksale der evangelischen Lehre in und durch Baiern, 2 (Munich, 1810), 189. For Brandenburg, see Paul Steinmüller, Einführung der Reformation in die Kurmark Brandenburg durch Joachim II (Halle, 1903), 22. And for Austria, see Johann Loserth, Die Reformation und Gegenreformation in den Innerösterreichen Ländern im XVI Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1898), 23 n. 1. g In this passage Luther exploits the double meaning of weltlich as “worldly” as well as “secular.”

On Secular Authority Do not wonder, therefore, that they rage and mock at the gospel; they have to live up to their name and title. You should know that since the beginning of the world a wise prince is a rare bird indeed, and an upright prince even rarer. h They are generally the biggest fools or the worst scoundrels on earth; therefore, one must constantly expect the worst from them and look for little good, especially in divine matters that concern the salvation of souls. They are God’s jailers and hangmen; his divine wrath uses them to punish the wicked and to maintain outward peace. Our God is a great lord. Therefore he must also have such noble, highborn, and rich hangmen and bailiffs, and he desires that everyone accord them riches, honor, and fear in great abundance. It pleases his divine will that we call his hangmen gracious lords, fall at their feet, and be subject to them in all humility, so long as they do not ply their trade too far and try to become shepherds instead of hangmen. If a prince should happen to be wise, upright, or a Christian, that is one of the great miracles, the most precious token of divine grace upon his land. For the usual course of events accords with the passage from Isaiah 3[:4], “I will make children their princes, and openmouthed fools 44 shall rule over them”; and in Hosea 13[:11], “I will give you a king in my anger, and take him away in my wrath.” The world is too wicked, and does not deserve to have many wise and upright princes. Frogs must have their storks. i Again you say, “Secular authority is not forcing anyone to believe but merely seeing to it externally that no one deceives the people by false doctrine; how could heretics otherwise be restrained?”  45 Answer: This the bishops should do, for this office has been entrusted to them and not to the princes. Heresy can never be restrained by force. One will have to tackle the problem in some other way, for heresy must be opposed and dealt with otherwise than with the sword. God’s word must do the fighting here. If it does not succeed, then secular authority will certainly not succeed either, even if it were to drench the world in blood. Heresy is a spiritual matter, which cannot be hacked to pieces with iron, consumed by fire, or drowned in water. God’s h “Fürst,” in Wander, 1:1,283, no. 31; 1,285, no. 61. i See “Frosch,” in Wander, 1:1,230, no. 34. The saying comes from the fable of Aesop in which frogs who insisted on having a king were granted a stork, who then ate them all.

115

44. Luther’s word is maulaffe, i.e., an ape with its mouth open, the picture of a complete fool. It is a vivid image but not an accurate rendering of the text of Isaiah, and it would not find its way into Luther’s version of the Old Testament, where the translation of this verse is similar to that in the KJV. 45. In 1525, Luther himself would employ a variation of this very argument in justifying the elector’s ban on the celebration of Mass by the canons of Altenburg. The elector, he said, was not forcing anyone to faith (the canons were free to believe whatever they liked) but merely forbidding “public blasphemy.” See Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God, 44.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

116

word alone avails here, as Paul says in 2 Corinthians 10[:4-5], “Our weapons are not carnal, but mighty in God to destroy every argument and proud obstacle that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and to take every thought captive in the service of Christ.” Moreover, faith and heresy are never so strong as when they are opposed by sheer force, without God’s word. For one counts it certain that such force has no just cause and acts contrary to justice, since it proceeds without God’s word and does not know how to further its cause except by naked force, as dumb animals do. Even in secular affairs force can be used only after the wrong has been legally condemned. How much more impossible is it to act with force, without justice and God’s word, in these lofty spiritual matters? See, therefore, what fine, clever nobles they are. They want to drive out heresy, but set about it in such a way that they only strengthen the adversary, rouse suspicion against themselves, and justify the heretics. Dear friend, if you wish to drive out heresy, you must above all find some way to tear it from the heart and completely turn the will away from it. With force you will not put an end to it, but only strengthen it. What do you gain by strengthening heresy in the heart, while weakening only its outward expression and forcing the tongue to lie? God’s word, however, enlightens the heart, and so all heresies and errors vanish from the heart of their own accord. This way of destroying heresy was proclaimed by Isaiah in his eleventh chapter [v. 4], where he says, “He shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked.” There you see that if the wicked are to be slain and converted, it will be accomplished with the mouth. In short, these princes and tyrants do not realize that to fight against heresy is to fight against the Devil, who fills men’s hearts with error, as Paul says in Ephesians 6[:12], “We are not contending against flesh and blood, but against spiritual wickedness, against the principalities that rule this present darkness,” etc. Therefore, so long as the Devil is not repelled and driven from the heart, it is agreeable to him that I destroy his goods with fire or sword; it’s as if I were to fight lightning with a straw. Job bore abundant witness to this when in his forty-first chapter he said that the Devil counts iron as straw, and fears no power on earth.j We learn it j

Job 41:25-34, esp. v. 27.

On Secular Authority also from experience, for even if one burns all Jews and heretics by force, no one is or ever will be convinced or converted thereby. Nevertheless, such a world as this deserves such princes, none of whom attends to his duties. Bishops are to ignore God’s word and not use it to rule souls; instead they are to entrust to secular princes the job of ruling souls with the sword. Secular princes, in turn, are to permit usury, robbery, adultery, murder, and other evil deeds, and even commit these offenses themselves, and then permit the bishops to punish with letters of excommunication, thus neatly putting the shoe on the wrong foot. They rule souls with iron and bodies with letters, so that secular princes rule in a spiritual way, and spiritual princes rule in a secular way. What else does the Devil have to do on earth than to deceive his people in this way and stage shrovetide revels?46 These are our Christian princes, who defend the faith and devour the Turk! 47 Fine fellows, indeed, whom we may well trust to accomplish something by such refined wisdom, namely, to break their necks and plunge land and people into misery and want. I would in all good faith advise these blind people to pay heed to a little phrase that occurs in Psalm 107[:40]: “Effundit

Engraving of the Siege of Vienna (1529) by Bartholomäus Beham (1502–1540)

117 46. Shrovetide referred to the three days immediately before Lent and was connected to confession. It also was connected with carnival feasting before the Lenten fast began. 47. The advance of the Ottoman Turks into eastern and central Europe had been under way since the late fourteenth century. Constantinople fell to them in 1453. By the early years of the sixteenth century they posed a threat to Hungary, most of which would fall under their control in 1526. Three years later they were narrowly turned back at the gates of Vienna, but would remain a serious threat to the Holy Roman Empire during the entire period of the Reformation and on through much of the seventeenth century. Pope Leo X (r. 1513–21) tried repeatedly (but without success) to persuade the rulers of Europe to mount a crusade against the Turks in Hungary (Pastor 7 ch. 5). Luther’s public denunciation (1518) of papally sanctioned crusades against infidels in defense of Christendom as “contrary to God” (LW 31:91) was among the views condemned in the bull Exsurge Domine (June 1520) and was widely misunderstood as rejection of war against the Turks under any circumstances. Luther would remain opposed to crusades in defense of the faith, but in 1529 he would uphold the right and duty of secular rulers to defend their subjects against the Turkish invaders. See On War against the Turk[s] (LW 46:161–205; also this volume, pp. 335–89).

118 48. “He pours contempt on princes.”

49. A clear indication of Luther’s awareness of the social and political injustices that would produce the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–25. Though he sympathized with the peasants’ grievances and blamed the princes for ruling unjustly, he had already said in his Sincere Admonition to All Christians against Insurrection and Rebellion (n. g, p. 82 above) that he would never concede the right of Christians to take up arms against their legitimate rulers.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD contemptum super principes.”48 I swear to you by God that if you fail to see that this little text is applicable to you, then you are lost, even though each one of you be as mighty as the Turk; and your fuming and raging will avail you nothing. A goodly part of it has already come true. For there are very few princes who are not regarded as fools or scoundrels; that is because they prove themselves to be so. The common man is learning to think, and the scourge of princes (that which God calls contemptum) is gathering force among the rabble and with the common man. I fear there will be no way to avert it, unless the princes conduct themselves in a princely manner and begin again to rule decently and reasonably. One cannot and will not endure your tyranny and wantonness much longer.49 Dear princes and lords, take care to conduct yourselves accordingly. God will no longer tolerate it. The world is no longer what it once was, when you hunted and drove the people like game. Abandon therefore your wicked use of force, give thought to dealing justly, and let God’s word take its course, as it should and must and will in any case; you cannot prevent it. If there is heresy somewhere, let it be overcome, as is proper, with God’s word. But if you continue to brandish the sword, take heed lest someone come and compel you to sheathe it—and not in God’s name. But you might say, “Since there is to be no secular sword among Christians, how then are they to be ruled outwardly? There certainly must be authority even among Christians.” Answer: Among Christians there shall and can be no authority; rather all are alike subject to one another, as Paul says in Romans 12[:10]: “Each shall consider the other his superior”; and Peter says in 1 Peter 5[:5], “All of you be subject to one another.” This is also what Christ means in Luke 14[:10], “When you are invited to a wedding, go and sit in the lowest place.” Among Christians there is no superior but Christ himself, and him alone. What kind of authority can there be where all are equal and have the same right, power, possession, and honor, and where no one desires to be the other’s superior, but each the other’s subordinate? Where there are such people, one could not establish authority even if he wanted to, since in the nature of things it is impossible to have superiors where no one is able or willing to be a superior. Where there are no such people, however, there are no real Christians either. What, then, are the priests and bishops? Answer: Their rule is

On Secular Authority

119

not a matter of government or power, but is rather a service and an office, for they are neither higher nor better than other Christians.50 Therefore, they should impose no law or decree on others without their will and consent. Their rule consists of nothing more than the inculcating of God’s word, by which they guide Christians and overcome heresy. For as was said, Christians can be ruled by nothing except God’s word, for Christians must be ruled in faith, not with outward works. Faith, however, can come through no human word, but only through the word of God, as Paul says in Romans 10[:17], “Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of God.” Those who do not believe are not Christians; they do not belong to Christ’s realm, but to the secular realm, where they are constrained and ruled by the sword and external government. Christians do every good thing of their own accord and without constraint, and find God’s word alone sufficient for them. Of this I have written frequently and at length elsewhere. k

Part Three Now that we know how far secular authority extends, the time has come to inquire how a prince should make use of it. This is for the sake of those princes—of whom there are very few indeed—who would like to be Christian princes and lords as well, and who desire to enter into the life to come. Christ himself describes the nature of secular princes in Luke 22[:25], where he says, “The princes of this world exercise lordship, and those that are in authority proceed with force.” For if they are lords by birth or by election they think it only right that they should be served and should rule by force. He who would be a Christian prince must certainly lay aside any intent to exercise lordship or to proceed with force. For cursed and condemned is every sort of life lived and sought for the benefit and good of one’s self; cursed are all works not done in love. They are done in love, however, when they are directed not toward one’s own pleasure, benefit,

k See, for example, the Treatise on Good Works (1520), TAL 1:257–367, and The Freedom of a Christian (1520), TAL 1:467–538.

50. See Luther’s comments on this in the section of The Babylonian Captivity of the Church devoted to the Sacrament of Ordination (LW 36:106–17; TAL 1:111–20).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

120

51. Fundamental to Luther’s view of law throughout his career was that laws should be enforced in conformity with the concept of “equity” (epieikeia in Greek; aequitas in Latin; Billigkeit in German). “The idea was that, since laws cannot be framed to cover all cases and problems, the severity of the law should be moderated, or indeed that the law should be set aside, if due consideration of the circumstances indicated that reason, justice, and humanity would best be served by so doing.” James M. Estes, “Luther’s Attitude toward the Legal Traditions of His Time,” LuJ 76 (2007): 77–110; here 79–80.

honor, comfort, and welfare but wholeheartedly toward the benefit, honor, and welfare of others. I will say nothing here of the secular dealings and laws of the government. For that is a large subject, and there are too many law books already, although a prince who is himself no wiser than his jurists and knows no more than what is in the law books will surely rule according to the saying in Proverbs 28: “A prince who lacks understanding will oppress many with injustice.” l For no matter how good and equitable the laws are, there are exceptions to them all, and they are not to be enforced where necessity dictates otherwise.51 Therefore, a prince must have the law as firmly in hand as the sword, and determine with his own reason when and where the law is to be applied strictly or with moderation, so that reason may prevail at all times and in all cases, and be the highest law and the master of all administration of the law. Similarly, even though the head of a family fixes both the time and the amount when it comes to matters of work and of food for his servants and children, he must nevertheless reserve the right to modify or suspend these regulations if his servants happen to be ill, detained, impeded, cheated, or otherwise hindered; he must not deal as severely with the sick as with the well. I say this in order that no one may think it sufficiently praiseworthy merely to follow the written law or the opinions of jurists. There is more to it than that. What, then, is a prince to do if he is not very clever and has to be guided by the jurists and the law books? Answer: This is why I said that the princely estate is a perilous one. If a prince is not clever enough himself to master both his laws and his advisers, then the maxim of Solomon applies, “Woe to the land whose prince is a child” [Eccles. 10:16]. Solomon recognized this too. This is why he despaired of all law—even of that which Moses through God had prescribed for him—and of all his princes and counselors, and turned to God himself and besought him for an understanding heart to govern the people [1 Kgs. 3:9]. A prince must follow this example and proceed in fear; he must depend neither upon dead books nor living heads, but cling solely to God, appealing to him constantly, praying for a right understanding, beyond that of all books and teachers, so as to rule

l

Prov. 28:16 (Vulgate).

On Secular Authority

121

his subjects wisely. For this reason I know of no law to prescribe for a prince; instead, I will simply instruct his heart and mind on what his attitude should be toward all laws, counsels, judgments, and actions. If he governs himself accordingly, God will surely grant him the ability to carry out all laws, counsels, and actions in a proper and godly way. First. He must take thought for his subjects, and devote himself wholeheartedly to them. This he does when he directs his every thought to making himself useful and beneficial to them; when instead of thinking, “the land and people belong to me, I will do what best pleases me,” he thinks rather, “I belong to the land and the people, I shall do what is useful and good for them. My concern will be not how to lord it over them and dominate them, but how to protect and maintain them in peace and plenty.” He should picture Christ to himself, and say, “Behold, Christ, the highest prince, came to serve me; he did not seek to gain power, goods, and honor from me, but considered only my need, and directed all things to the end that I should gain power, goods, and honor from him and through him. I will do likewise, seeking from my subjects not my own advantage but theirs. I will use my office to serve and protect them, listen to them and defend them, and govern to the sole end that they, not I, may benefit and profit from my rule.” Thus should a prince in his heart empty himself of his power and authority, and take unto himself the needs of his subjects, dealing with them as though they were his own needs. For this is what Christ did for us [Phil. 2:7]; and these are the proper works of Christian love. Now you will say, “Who would then want to be a prince? That would make the princely estate the worst on earth, full of trouble, labor, and unpleasantness. What would become of princely amusements—dancing, hunting, racing, gaming, Woodcut of Jesus bearing the cross, and similar worldly pleasures?” I answer: We are from 1530 printing of the German Catechism not here teaching how a secular prince is to live, (Deudsch Catechismus) by Martin Luther but how a secular prince is to be a Christian, so that he may also reach heaven. Who is not aware

122

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD that a prince is a rare beast in heaven?m I do not speak with any hope that secular princes will give heed, but on the chance that there might be one who would also like to be a Christian, and to know how he should act. Of this I am certain, that God’s word will not bow down or submit to princes; princes must rather submit themselves to God’s word. It is sufficient for me simply to point out that it is not impossible for a prince to be a Christian, although it is a rare thing and beset with difficulties. If they would so manage things that their dancing, hunting, and racing were done without injury to their subjects, and if they would otherwise conduct their office in love toward them, God would not be so harsh as to begrudge them their dancing and hunting and racing. But they would soon find out for themselves that if they gave their subjects the care and attention required by their office, many a fine dance, hunt, race, and game would have to be missed. Second. He must be wary of those high and mighty lords, his counselors, and so conduct himself toward them that though he despises none of them, neither does he trust any of them enough to leave everything to him. For God cannot tolerate either course. He once spoke through the mouth of an ass [Num. 22:28]; therefore, no man is to be despised, however humble he may be. On the other hand, he permitted the highest angel to fall from heaven; therefore, no man is to be trusted, no matter how wise, holy, or great he may be. One should rather give a hearing to all, and wait to see which one it is through whom God will speak and act. The greatest harm is done at princely courts when the prince surrenders his judgment to the high and mighty and the flatterers, and does not look after things himself. It is not just one person who is affected when a prince neglects his duty and plays the fool; on the contrary, land and people must bear the consequences of such foolishness. Therefore, a prince should trust his officials and allow them to act, but only in such a way as to keep the reins of government in his own hands. He must not

m Eyn furst ist [seltzam] willtprett im hymel (Luther omits the word seltzam [rare], though it is clearly understood). Wildbret was the word for a wild animal hunted as game, or the meat of same served as food. The rarer the game, the more prized it was. Another version of the proverb was: “A prince is as rare in heaven as a stag in a poor man’s kitchen.” “Fürst,” in Wander, 1:1,286, nos. 83, 119.

On Secular Authority be complacent or sluggish but be attentive and (like Jehoshaphat [2 Chron. 19:4-7]) ride through the land and observe everywhere what his officials and judges are doing. In this way he will learn for himself that one cannot place complete trust in any man. You have no right to think that someone else will take as zealous a regard for you and your land as you do yourself, unless he is full of the Spirit and a good Christian. A natural man cannot do it. n Since you cannot know whether he is a Christian or how long he will remain one, you cannot safely depend upon him. Beware especially of those who say, “Oh, gracious lord, does your grace not have greater confidence in me? Who is so willing to serve your grace?” etc. For he is certainly not guileless, and wants to be lord in the land and make a complete fool o of you. If he were an upright and devout Christian he would be glad to have you entrust nothing to him, and would praise and love you for keeping such close watch on him. For just as he acts in a godly way, so he is willing and content to have his actions made known to you or anyone else. As Christ says in John 8 [3:21], “He who does what is good comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.” That other one, however, would blind your eyes, and act under cover of darkness; as Christ also says in the same place, “He who does evil shuns the light, so that his deeds will not be punished” [John 3:20]. Therefore, beware of him. And if he complains about it, say to him, “Friend, I do you no wrong; God is unwilling that I should trust myself or any other man. Find fault with Him because He will have it so, or because He has not made you something more than a man. But even if you were an angel, I still would not fully trust you—Lucifer was not to be trusted—for we should trust God alone.” Let no prince think that he will fare better than David, who is an example to all princes. He had so wise a counselor, Ahithophel by name, that the text says: “The counsel which Ahithophel gave was as if one had consulted God himself [2 Sam. 16:23].” Yet Ahithophel fell, and sank so low that he tried to betray, slay, and destroy David, his own lord [2 Sam. 17:1-23]. Thus did David at that time have to learn that no man is to be trusted. Why do you suppose God permitted such a horrible example to occur n 1 Cor. 2:14 (Luther, KJV). o Again the word maulaffe; see n. 44, p. 115 above.

123

124

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD and be recorded? It could only be in order to warn princes and lords against putting their trust in any man, which is the most perilous misfortune that could befall them. For it is a truly lamentable thing when flatterers reign at court, or when the prince relies upon others and surrenders to them, and lets everyone do as he wishes. Now you will say, “If no one is to be trusted, how can land and people be governed?” Answer: You are to take the risk of entrusting matters to others, but you are yourself to trust and rely upon God alone. You will certainly have to entrust duties to somebody else and take a chance on him, but you should trust him only as one who might fail you, whom you must continue to watch with unceasing vigilance. A coachman has confidence in the horses and wagon he drives; yet he does not let them proceed on their own, but holds rein and lash in his hands and keeps his eyes open. Remember the old proverbs—which are the sure fruit of experience—“The master’s eye makes the horse fat”;  p and, “The master’s footprints fertilize the field best.” q That is, if the master does not look after things himself but depends on advisers and servants, things never go right. God also wills it that way and causes it to be so in order that the lords may be driven of necessity to care for their office themselves, just as everyone has to fulfill his own calling and every creature do its own work. Otherwise, the lords will become fatted pigs and useless people, who are of benefit to no one but themselves. Third. He must take care to deal justly with evildoers. Here he must be very wise and prudent, so that he can inflict punishment without injury to others. Again, I know of no better example of this than David. He had a commander, Joab by name, who committed two evil deeds when he treacherously murdered two upright commanders [2 Sam. 3:27; 20:10], whereby he justly merited death twice over. Yet David, during his own lifetime, did not have him put to death but commanded his son Solomon to do so without fail [1 Kgs. 2:5-6], doubtless because he himself could not do it without causing even greater damage and tumult. A prince must punish the wicked in such a way that he does not step on the dish while picking up the spoon, r and for p “Auge,” in Wander, 1:17, no. 45; “Herr,” 2:541, no. 148. q “Fussstapfen,” in Wander, 1:1,308, no. 1; “Herr,” 2:542, no. 159. r “Löffel,” in Wander, 3:224–26, nos. 55, 56, 73, 106.

On Secular Authority the sake of one man’s head plunge country and people into want and fill the land with widows and orphans. Therefore, he must not follow the advice of those counselors and braggarts who would stir and incite him to start a war, saying, “What, must we suffer such words and injustices?” He is indeed a bad Christian who for the sake of a single castle would put the whole land in jeopardy. In short, here one must go by the proverb, “He cannot govern who cannot wink at faults.” s Let this therefore be his rule: Where wrong cannot be punished without greater wrong, there let him waive his rights, however just they may be. He should not have regard to his own injury, but to the wrong others must suffer in consequence of the penalty he imposes. What have the many women and children done to deserve being made widows and orphans in order that you may avenge yourself on a worthless tongue or an evil hand that has injured you? Here you will ask: “Is a prince then not to go to war, and are his subjects not to follow him into battle?” Answer: This is a far-reaching question, but let me answer it very briefly. To act here as a Christian, I say, a prince should not go to war against his overlord—king, emperor, or other liege lord—but let him who takes, take. For government must not be resisted by force, but only by confession of the truth. If it is influenced by this, well and good; if not, you are excused, you suffer wrong for God’s sake. If, however, the antagonist is your equal, your inferior, or a foreign government, you should first offer him justice and peace, as Moses taught the children of Israel. If he refuses, then—mindful of what is best for you—defend yourself against force by force, as Moses so well describes it in Deuteronomy 20[:10-12]. But in doing this you must not consider your personal interests and how you may remain lord, but those of your subjects, to whom you owe help and protection, that such action may proceed in love. For because your entire land is in danger you must take the chance that with God’s help all will not be lost. And even if you cannot prevent some from becoming widows and orphans as a consequence, you must at least prevent everything from going to ruin until there is nothing left but widows and orphans. In this matter subjects are duty-bound to follow, and to devote their life and property. For in such a case one must risk s

Literally, “if one cannot look through one’s fingers.” “Finger,” in Wander, 1:1,019, no. 77.

125

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

126

his goods and himself for the sake of others. And in a war of this sort it is both Christian and an act of love to kill the enemy without hesitation, to plunder and burn and injure him by every method of warfare until he is defeated (except that one must beware of sin, and not violate wives and virgins). And when they have been defeated, mercy and peace should be granted to those who surrender and humble themselves. In such a case let the proverb apply, “God helps the strongest.” t This is what Abraham did when he smote the four kings, Genesis 14; he certainly slaughtered many, and showed little mercy until he conquered them. Such a case must be regarded as sent by God as a means finally to sweep the land clean and drive out the evil scoundrels. What if a prince is in the wrong, are his people bound to follow him then as well? Answer: No, for it is no one’s duty to do wrong; we must obey God (who desires the right) rather than men [Acts 5:29]. But what if the subjects do not know whether their prince is in the right or not? Answer: So long as they do not know, and cannot with all possible diligence find out, they may obey him without peril to their souls. For in such a case one must apply the law of Moses in Exodus 21, where he writes that a murderer who has unknowingly and unintentionally killed a man shall through flight to a city of refuge and by judgment of a court be declared acquitted. u Whichever side then suffers defeat, whether it be in the right or in the wrong, must accept it as a punishment from God. Whichever side fights and wins in such ignorance, however, must regard its battle as though someone fell from a roof and killed another, and leave the matter to God. It is all the same to God whether he deprives you of life and property by a just or by an unjust lord. You are his creature and he can do with you as he wills, just so long as your conscience is guiltless.v Thus in Genesis 20[:2-7] God himself excuses Abimelech for taking Abraham’s wife; not because he had done right, but because he had not known that she was Abraham’s wife. Fourth. Here is something that should probably be first, and concerning which we have spoken above.w A prince must also

t u v w

“Gott,” in Wander, 2:30, no. 656. See Exod. 21:13; Num. 35:6-29; Deut. 39:4-13. Cf. 1 Pet. 2:19. See pp. 120–21.

On Secular Authority act in a Christian way toward his God; that is, he must subject himself to him in entire confidence and pray for wisdom to rule well, as Solomon did [1 Kgs. 3:9]. But of faith and trust in God I have written so much that it is not necessary to say more here. Therefore, we will let that suffice and close with the essential point, namely that a prince has a fourfold obligation: First, to God he owes genuine confidence and earnest prayer; second, to his subjects he owes love and Christian service; third, toward his counselors and officials he must exercise untrammeled reason and unfettered judgment; fourth, toward evildoers he must show appropriate severity and firmness. In this way the prince’s office will be done properly, both outwardly and inwardly, which will please both God and the people. But he will have to expect much envy and sorrow on account of it; the reward for such conduct will very soon be the burden of the cross on his shoulders. Finally, I must add an appendix in answer to those who raise questions about restitution, that is, about the return of goods wrongfully acquired.52 This is a common concern of the secular sword, much has been written about it, and much unjust severity is sought in such cases. I will put it all in a few words, however, and toss into one heap all such laws and the harsh judgments based upon them, thus: No surer law can be found in this matter than the law of love. In the first place, when a case of this sort is brought before you in which one is to make restitution to another, the matter is soon settled if they are both Christians; neither will withhold what belongs to the other, and neither will demand that it be returned. If only one of them is a Christian, namely the one to whom restitution is due, it is again easy to settle, for he does not care whether restitution is ever made to him. The same is true if the one who is supposed to make restitution is a Christian, for he will do so. But whether one be a Christian or not a Christian, you should decide the question of restitution as follows. If the debtor is poor and unable to make restitution, and the other party is not poor, then you should let the law of love prevail and acquit the debtor; for according to the law of love the other party is in any event obliged to relinquish the debt and, if necessary, to give him something besides. But if the debtor is not poor, then have him restore as much as he can, whether it be all, a half, a third, or a fourth of it, provided that you leave him enough to assure a house, food, and clothing for himself, his wife, and his children. This much you would owe him in any case, if you

127

52. It is not clear who posed these questions to Luther. It may well have been Duke John, to whom the treatise is dedicated; see n. 11, p. 87.

128 53. Luther’s concept of natural law was that which Melanchthon described in the Loci communes of 1521. Reasoning on the basis of Romans 2:15, Melanchthon concluded that God had implanted in the hearts of all human beings, heathen as well as Christian, “certain common axioms and a priori principles in the realm of morals,” which served as “‘the ground rules’ for all human activity.” Of these the principal ones were that “God must be worshiped” and that human beings, “who are born into a life that is social,” must love one another and do no one harm, e.g., by stealing someone else’s property. Melanchthon’s description of natural law (worship God and behave decently toward others) was remarkably similar to his description of divine law as summarized in the two tables of the Decalogue (worship God truly and love your neighbor as yourself); MSA 2/1:55–64. Quotations taken from the translation by Lowell J. Satre in Wilhelm Pauck, ed., Melanchthon and Bucer, Library of Christian Classics 19 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 50–57. Later editions of the Loci, starting with the second in 1535, would describe the Decalogue as God’s own definitive summary of natural law; see CR 21:400–401. 54. Charles the Bold (1433–1477) was duke of Burgundy from 1467 to 1477. Luther had included this tale in the sermon at Weimar (25 October 1522) on which this treatise was based (WA 10/III/3:384, 22–33). Melanchthon tells the same tale in CR 20:531, No. XLII. The source for both appears to have been either (1) a Meisterlied by the Nürnberg mastersinger Hans Folz (c. 1437–1513), of which no printed version is known, or (2) an anonymous song thought to have been printed c. 1520–c. 1530. See Die Meisterlieder von

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD could afford it; so much the less ought you to take it away now, since you do not need it and he cannot get along without it. If, however, neither party is a Christian, or if one of them is unwilling to be judged by the law of love, then you may have them call in some other judge, and tell the obstinate one that they are acting contrary to God and natural law, 53 even if they obtain a strict judgment on the basis of human law. For nature teaches—as does love—that I should do what I would like to have done to me [Luke 6:31]. Therefore, I cannot strip another of his goods, no matter how clear a right I might have, so long as I am unwilling myself to be stripped of my goods. Rather, just as I would that another, in such circumstances, should relinquish his right in my favor, even so should I relinquish my rights. Thus should one deal with all property unlawfully held, whether it be secret or public knowledge, so that love and natural law may always prevail. For when you judge according to love you will easily decide and adjust matters without any law books. But when you ignore love and natural law you will never hit upon the solution that pleases God, though you may have devoured all the law books and the jurists. Instead, the more you depend on them, the further they will lead you astray. A good and just decision must not and cannot be pronounced out of books, but must come from a free mind, as though there were no books. Such a free decision is given, however, by love and by natural law, with which all reason is filled; out of books come extravagant and untenable judgments. Let me give you an example of this. This story is told of Duke Charles of Burgundy.54 A certain nobleman took an enemy prisoner. The prisoner’s wife came to ransom her husband. But the nobleman promised to give back the husband only on condition that she would sleep with him. The woman was virtuous, yet was eager to set her husband free; so she went to him and asked him whether she should do this thing in order to set him free. The husband was eager to be set free and to save his life, so he gave his wife permission. After the nobleman had slept with the wife, he had the husband beheaded the next day and gave him to her as a corpse. She submitted a complaint to Duke Charles, who summoned the nobleman and commanded him to marry the woman. When the wedding day was over, he had the nobleman beheaded, gave the woman possession of his property, and restored her to honor, thus punishing the crime in a truly princely way.

On Secular Authority

129 Hans Folz, ed. August L. Mayer (Berlin, 1908), 261–69; and Acht Lieder aus der Reformationszeit, ed. Johannes Bolte (Berlin, 1910), no. 5.

Portrait of Charles the Bold (c. 1454) by Rogier van der Weyden (c. 1400−1464)

Observe that no pope, no jurist, no law book could have given him such a decision. It sprang from untrammeled reason, which is above all the law in books, and is so excellent that everyone must approve of it and find it written in his own heart that it was just. St. Augustine relates a similar tale in The Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. x Therefore, we should keep written laws subject to reason, from which after all they have flowed, as from the spring of justice. We should not make the spring dependent on its rivulets, or make reason a captive of words.

x

De sermone Domini in monte I.16.50. An abridged version in German of the story told by Augustine was appended to an early reprint of Von weltlicher oberkeit in 1523; see WA 11:280–81.

Title page of 1525 printing of Luther’s On Business and Usury (Von Kauffshandlung und wucher)

On Business and Usury 1524

�

HANS  J. HILLERBRAND

INTRODUCTION

Luther’s treatise On Business and Usury (Von Kauffshandlung und wucher) was published before the end of June 1524.1 It constituted his effort to bring his understanding of the gospel to bear on economics in general and a major economic issue of the day in particular. The early sixteenth century, the time of the first notifiable inklings of early capitalism, was raising more and more the question whether the traditional prohibition on taking interest on loans could be sustained in light of its ever more brazen disregard. By business. Luther was astutely aware of, and concerned about, the nagging question that hovered over the theologians and businesspeople, namely, how to deal with the biblical prohibition of this practice of usury. In the short time span of five years, Luther addressed this topic no fewer than three times. In November 1519, he had published the Short Sermon on Usury (Kleiner Sermon vom Wucher), which was followed two months later by the Large Sermon on Usury (Grosser Sermon vom Wucher), and then, in 1524, the tract here reprinted in English translation. As if this was not enough, some fifteen years later, Luther took to the pen again and resumed sharing his thoughts about usury, this time with a wailing about the injuries that charging interest had caused the

1. Luther’s German word Kauffshandel is translated traditionally as “trade,” as, for example, in the Luther’s Works American Edition. However, the argument of Luther’s tract seems to make clear that Luther meant to address the big, overarching economic issues of his time, so that the word trade is too narrow to convey the breadth of Luther’s concerns. Accordingly, the present translation renders Kauffshandel as “business.”

131

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

132

A historiated border surrounds a central woodcut that illustrates a moneylender at work. This engraving adorns the title page of a sermon by Luther against usury. Woodcut by Hans Schäufelein (c. 1480–c. 1539).

German lands. In 1540, Luther published his Admonition to the Clergy That They Do Not Fail to Preach against Usury (An die Pfarrherrn wider den Wucher zu Predigen, Vermanung) in Wittenberg. In the beginning of the 1524 treatise Luther informed his readers that he had a been “urged and begged”  to comment on the happenings in the world of business. Jakob Strauss had published a popular treatise, Dass Wucher zu geben und zu nehmen unserm christlichen Glauben entgegen ist (That to Take or Demand Interest Is against Our Christian Faith) in Erfurt in 1524. It was violent and radical: Strauss argued that not to help a neighbor in need financially means the fires of hell.b Luther’s notions were clearly articulated in each of his relevant treatises. He rejected profit derived from financial transactions, especially the practice known as Zinskauf, a kind of mortgage loan arrangement, where the recipient of the funds (loan) would in perpetuity pay a certain percentage amount on a regular timed basis. In terms of a modern loan, this might easily entail interest rates of 50 percent and more. As far as Luther was concerned, behind the grievances, which could be expressed almost in quantitative terms, stood something more basic: the world had become too greedy. Luther wrote, “It found a cover

a The most likely source would seem to have been Georg Spalatin (1484– 1545), Luther’s favorite correspondent, who represented Luther’s interests to the Saxon elector and vice versa. See n. 5, p. 136. b See Stefan Laube, Flugschriften der fruehen Reformationsbewegung (Berlin, 1983), 1,073.

On Business and Usury under which greedy people can pursue their evil.” His treatises on interest sought to give the world of business and trade a human face. The great theme of religion and the marketplace continued to be discussed, first most prominently in early 1525, in The Twelve Articles of   the Peasants, which combined political, economic, and religious grievances. c Luther became involved because the insurrectionist peasants asked him to be arbiter, just as he had been “begged” to comment on usury in 1524. One may venture the observation that even though Luther’s response to The Twelve Articles disclaimed any competence to adjudicate the viability of the twelve peasant grievances and demands, Luther’s initial comment was that he lacked competence. But one suspects that his withdrawal had its ground in his fundamental disapproval of the insurrection of the peasants, a reality that had caused him fear and trembling ever since the spring of 1522, when he hastily returned to Wittenberg from the Wartburg to make sure that reform did not mean breakdown of law and order. In the broader stream of reform it was the Calvinist tradition that intimated most pointedly the connection between religious belief and economic values. Economically, it has been the consensus that early sixteenthcentury central Europe faced a continuing inflationary trend. Especially the basic commodities, such as wheat, seemed to be inflationary, though recent scholarship has tended to argue that the inflationary trend, except for wheat, was really not that dramatic. Nonetheless, it appears that throughout German lands economic hardship prevailed. Many understandably connected the rise of the trading companies and their phenomenal profits with the inflationary rise in prices. Regulating them had been discussed at several diets, especially that in Nuremberg in 1523 and that also in Nuremberg one year later. The diet in 1524 proposed drastic action but nothing came of the reform proposals; the influence of the great Augsburg companies at the diet and at the court of Emperor Charles V (1500–1558) was just too strong. The recess of the diet

c

See The Twelve Articles, Hans J. Hillerbrand, ed., The Protestant Reformation (New York: Harper & Row, 2008), 63–66; see also pp. 281–333 in this volume.

133

134

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD provided for the mildest of regulations. It was, perhaps, in view of this failure that Luther was asked to comment on the issue. In addition to the two tracts Luther had already published on usury in 1519 and 1520, his Open Letter to the Christian Nobilityd of that same year briefly touched on economic issues that needed to be addressed and reformed. He republished the longer treatise On Usury, added a new conclusion, and prefaced it all with reflections on economics and business. That treatise is printed here in English translation. It is one of the more interesting and informative of Luther’s writings, but its appeal is mainly historical, since many basic principles of early sixteenth-century economics have long ceased to be relevant in early twenty-first-century capitalist and global economics. Luther’s tract offers an interesting account of business practices in the early sixteenth century, which Luther discusses with many illustrations. Luther does not hesitate to proffer his own appraisal of them. It also gives a clear idea of Luther’s own economic conceptions. As stated earlier, the major economic and ethical issue looming over the myriad of specific problems of the marketplace was how to deal with the biblical prohibition to charge interest on a loan. This had been an issue for a long time but had grown more pertinent as time passed and the European economy became ever more capital oriented. Not surprisingly, Luther’s cardinal contribution was his insistence that all business should be pursued with biblical mandates and perspective in mind and be related to the law of Christ. The Golden Rule should be applied to all business ventures, including finance. Luther’s reflections on the rule clearly lacked both sympathy and understanding of the new economic developments that were taking place around him. Of course, backwater Wittenberg was hardly the locale to observe the tremendous changes that were ever more dynamically occurring in the Mediterranean and Atlantic regions. His views of financial matters was thoroughly medieval. He echoed the Scholastics, who in turn had echoed Aristotle, with the cardinal dogma that “nummus non paret nummum,” meaning that money (being a dead thing) does not produce anything. Rather, money is a consumer item, just as are wine, oil, and spices, which by usage will be consumed. One of the important functions of d LW 44:123–217; TAL 1:369–465.

On Business and Usury

135

money is to monitor the desirable economic equilibrium in society (aequalitas) so that neither excess (superfluum) nor poverty (extrema necessitas) prevails. The value of money, in short, derives from its use and consumption (res primo uso consumptibilis). While Luther offered opinions and advisories on broader economic topics, such as the exorbitant importation of costly wares from abroad (which he viewed most negatively), his main focus in the three writings was the topic of usury. That should not be surprising, for the issue of charging interest on a loan seemingly had become the dominant economic issue in the early sixteenth century. There was a widespread sense that the church and its theologians had not contributed to the resolution of the issue, and the Scholastic distinction of praeceptum (precept) as mandatory commandment for all believers or as mere counsel (consilium) to a few seemed hardly helpful. Luther’s treatise may be described as a devotional manual for Christian merchants; Luther outlines what should motivate them—the Golden Rule, the Sermon on the Mount, love of neighbor, no covetousness. Or, to say it differently: Luther focused on the motivation of Christian merchants and businesspeople as they engaged in that calling. Love of neighbor had to be as important as making a profit. He hereby came close to anticipating what a generation later Calvinism exhorted its followers: to pursue their worldly calling as if their eternal salvation depended on it.

�

BUSINESS    AND USURY 

2, 3

T

HE HOLY GOSPEL, now that it has come to light, rebukes and reveals all the “works of darkness,” as St. Paul calls them in Romans 13[:12]. For it is a brilliant light, which illumines the whole world and

2. This translation is based in part on the translation in LW 45:231–309 by Charles M. Jacobs and revised by Walther I. Brandt, which in turn was based on that in the Philadelphia Edition (PE 4:12–69). The German text is that of the Wittenberg printing of Hans Lufft (Von Kauffshandlung und wucher), reprinted with annotations in WA 15:(279) 293–313 and 321–22. The second half of the treatise, which is a reprinting of the 1520 Sermon on Usury, is found in WA 6:36–60. 3. The printed treatise was first cited in the Schutzschrift (Apolog y) of Thomas Müntzer, which was printed at Nürnberg in October 1524 (see Thomas Müntzer, Briefe und Schriften). Because of pronounced similarities between the supplement (308–310) and the 15 June and 18 June letters, we may conclude with Otto Clemen (CL 3:1) that the portion on trade was composed during the latter part of June 1524, and that the whole treatise came from the press in the late summer of 1524, certainly not later than September (WA 15:282).

136

4. “Finance” (fynantze) did not have the neutral meaning of modern times but carried evil connotations of usurious intrigue, fraud, and deception on the part of unscrupulous, profit-minded dealers. See Grimm, DWB, III, 1639–40.

5. The person most likely to have urged Luther to write on this topic would seem to have been Georg Spalatin (1484–1545), Luther’s favorite correspondent, who represented Luther’s interests to the Saxon elector and vice versa. 6. At issue was not only the use of spices, such as pepper, to season dishes, but frequently spices were used as a food preservative. The Portuguese king held the monopoly on the spice trade. See n. 11, p. 137. 7. In his Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520), Luther had blamed many of the economic ills of his day on the inactivity of government (see LW 44:212–16; TAL 1:461–65). Like many of his contemporaries he deplored commercial imports, while largely overlooking the compensating value of the export trade.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD teaches how evil are the works of the world, and shows the true works we ought to do for God and our neighbor. As a result even some of the merchants have been awakened and become aware that in their trading many a wicked trick and hurtful financial practice is in use.4 It is to be feared that the words of Ecclesiasticus apply here, namely, that business people can hardly be without sin [Ecclus. 26:29]. Indeed, I think St. Paul’s saying in the last chapter of the first epistle to Timothy fits the case, “The love of money is the root of all evil” [1 Tim. 6:10], and again, “Those who desire to be rich fall into the Devil’s snare and into many useless and hurtful desires that plunge individuals into ruin and perdition” [1 Tim. 6:9]. I suppose that my writing will be quite in vain, because the mischief has gone so far and has completely gotten the upper hand in all lands; and because those who understand the gospel are probably able in such easy, external things to judge for themselves what is fair and what is not, on the basis of their own consciences. Nevertheless, I have been asked and urged 5 to reflect on these financial evils and expose some of them so that, even though the majority may not wish to do right, at least some people—however few they are—may be delivered from the gaping jaws of avarice. For it must be that among the merchants, as among other people, there are some who belong to Christ and would rather be poor with God than rich with the Devil, as Psalm 37[:16] says, “It is better for the righteous to have a little than to have the great possessions of the wicked.” For their sake, then, we must speak out. It cannot be denied that buying and selling are necessary. They cannot be done away with, and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the commodities serve a necessary and honorable purpose. For even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk, and other goods in this way. These are gifts of God, which he bestows out of the earth and distributes among humankind. But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta and India and such places wares like costly silks, articles of gold, and spices6 —which serve only for ostentation but serve no useful purpose, and which drain away the money of land and people—would not be permitted if we had the right government and princes.7 But it is not my present purpose to write about that topic, for I expect that, like overdressing and overeating, it will end of itself when we have no more money. Until then,

On Business and Usury neither writing nor teaching will do any good. We must first feel the pinch of want and poverty. God has cast us Germans off8 to such an extent that we have to fling our gold and silver into foreign lands and make the whole world rich, while we ourselves remain beggars.9 England would have less gold if Germany let her keep her cloth; 10 the king of Portugal would have less if we let him keep his spices.11

137

8. On the other hand, Luther described with glowing words God’s blessings on German lands by providing an abundance of scholars. 9. The export of money and precious metals was generally assumed to be a major factor contributing to the widespread poverty and rising prices. Vigorous complaints were lodged at the diet (Reichstag) in 1522, 1523, and 1524 against the merchants and trading companies that paid out gold, silver, and copper for their import goods. Gustav Schmoller, Zur Geschichte der national-ökonomische Ansichten in Deutschland während der ReformationsPeriode (“Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft” [Tübingen], vol. XVI [1860]), 637. 10. Not many years later the general desire to protect the native textile industry led to official legislation both in England and Germany to restrict textile imports and wool exports. Ibid., 650–53. 11. Following Vasco da Gama’s discovery of the Cape route to India in 1498, Portugal held a virtual monopoly on the lucrative spice trade. In a complaint lodged at the Reichstag of 1523, the knights decried Portugal’s unwillingness to accept from Germany anything but money for its spices. Ibid., 638.

Usury and profiteering. This woodcut is attributed to Albrecht Dürer. It is an illustration from the book Stultifera navis (Ship of Fools) by Sebastian Brant, published by Johann Bergmann in Basel in 1498.

138 12. The Frankfurt fair was the greatest of several important German fairs, at which merchants gathered even from distant lands to sell their wares. 13. Refers to a heller, a small coin worth half a pfennig. 14. The modern concept of interest paid on a loan is not equivalent to Luther’s meaning here. He has in mind the medieval concept of a sale (Kauf ) rather than a loan and the Zins (or Rente) as a delayed cash payment on a purchase made for credit. For more, see LW 45:235–38.

15. Cf. Luther’s Large Catechism of 1529, where in speaking of the Seventh Commandment he describes how every merchant at the marketplace thinks he has a perfect right to set any price he pleases on what is his (BC, 418).

16. Luther’s thinking on natural law is consistently based on Rom. 2:14-15, “When the Gentiles, who do not have the law, nevertheless do the work of the law by nature, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness” (TAL 2:137, n. 23).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Count up how much cash is taken out of Germany, without need or reason, from a single Frankfurt fair,12 and you will wonder how it happens that there is still a penny13 left in German lands. Frankfurt is the gold and silver drain through which everything that springs and grows—or is minted or coined—flows out of Germany. If that hole were plugged we would not have to listen to the complaint that there are debts everywhere and no money, that all countries and cities are burdened with interest14 payments and milked dry by usury. But let that pass; it will go that way anyhow. We Germans must always be Germans; we never stop until we have to. It is my purpose here to speak about the abuses and sins of business, insofar as they concern the conscience. The matter of their detrimental effect on the purse we leave to the princes and lords, that they may do their duty in this regard. First. Among themselves business people have a common rule that is their chief maxim and the basis of all their sharp practices, where they say: “I may sell my goods as high as I can.”15 They think this is their right. Thus occasion is given for avarice, and every window and door to hell is opened. What else does it mean but this: I care nothing about my neighbor; so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, of what concern is it to me if it injures my neighbor in ten ways at once? There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love but also of natural law.16 How can there be anything good then in business? How can it be without sin when such injustice is the chief maxim and rule of the whole business? On such a basis trade can be nothing but robbing and stealing the property of others. When once the rogue’s eye and greedy belly of a merchant find that people must have his wares, or that the buyer is poor and needs them, he takes advantage of him and the price is raised. The businessman considers not the value of the goods, or what his own efforts and risk deserve, but only the other person’s want and need. He notes it not that he may relieve it but that he may use it to his own advantage by raising the price of his goods, which he would not have raised if it had not been for his neighbor’s need. Because of his avarice, therefore, the goods must be priced so high as the need of the other fellow will allow, so that the neighbor’s need becomes as it were the measure of the goods’ worth and value. Tell me, is this not an un-Christian and

On Business and Usury inhuman thing to do? Is that not equivalent to selling a poor man his own need in the same transaction? When he has to buy his wares at a higher price because of his need, that is the same as having to buy his own need; for what is sold to him is not simply the wares as they are, but the wares plus the fact that he must have them. Observe that this and similar abominations are the inevitable consequence when the rule is that I may sell my goods as dear as I can. The rule ought not to be, “I may sell my wares as dear as I can or will,” but, “I may sell my wares as dear as I ought, or as is right and fair.”17 For your selling ought not to be an act that is entirely within your own power and discretion, without law or limit, as though you were a god and beholden to no one. Because your selling is an act performed with your neighbor, it should rather be so governed by law and conscience that you do it without harm and injury to him, your concern being directed more toward doing him no injury than toward making money for yourself. But where are there such business people? How few merchants there would be, and how trade would decline, if they were to amend this evil rule and put things on a fair and Christian basis! You ask, then, “How dear may I sell? How am I to arrive at what is fair and right so I do not take increase from neighbor or overcharge him?” Answer: That is something that will never be governed either by writing or speaking; nor has anyone ever undertaken to fix the value of every commodity, and to increase or lower prices accordingly. The reason is this: goods are not all alike; one is transported a greater distance than another and one involves greater outlay than another. In this respect, therefore, everything is and must remain uncertain, and no fixed determination can be made, any more than one can designate a certain city as the place from which all wares are to be brought, or establish a definite cost price for them. It may happen that the same wares, brought from the same city by the same road, cost vastly more in one year than they did the year before because the weather was worse, or the road, or because something else happened that increased the expense at one time over that at another time. Now it is fair and right that a merchant take as much profit on his wares as will reimburse him for their cost and compensate him for his trouble, his labor, and his risk. Even a farmhand must have food and pay for his labor. Who can serve

139

17. The just price, a concept first employed in Roman law, was considered by the Scholastic theologians generally to be the market price. However, it only covered the cost of producing the goods; the profit margin differed but was added to the cost. Luther’s argument seems to suggest that he was prepared to have the iustum pretium include a profit based on the value of the goods.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

140

18. Public regulation of dealers in food goes back as far as ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome. The prefect of Constantinople set the price of fish each morning according to the size of the previous night’s catch. By 1202, the king was fixing the price of bread in England. Bread and wine were controlled in price, weight, and quality in most of medieval Europe. 19. Luther clearly saw this inactivity of the political authorities as the cause for the increasingly unacceptable business practices. 20. It is difficult to establish the value of a gulden in the Reformation period, particularly since the value of the various coins in terms of gold and silver—and in terms of their relationship to one another—varied from one German land to another and from one period and mintage to another throughout the Middle Ages.

or labor for nothing? The gospel says, “The laborer deserves his wages” [Luke 10:7]. But in order not to leave the question entirely unanswered, the best and safest way would be to have the political authorities appoint wise and honest men to compute the costs of all sorts of wares and accordingly set prices which would enable the merchant to get along and provide for him an adequate living, as is being done at certain places with respect to wine, fish, bread, and the like.18 But we Germans have too many other things to do; we are too busy drinking and dancing19 to provide for rules and regulations of this sort. Since this kind of ordinance therefore is not to be expected, the next best thing is to let goods be valued at the price for which they are bought and sold in the common market, or in the land generally. In this matter we can accept the proverb, “Follow the crowd and you won’t get lost.” e Any profit made in this way I consider honest and proper, because here there is always the risk involved of having to suffer loss in wares and outlay, and excessive profits are scarcely possible. Where the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, here one can truly give you no instructions but only lay it on your conscience to be careful not to overcharge your neighbor, and to seek a modest living, not the goals of greed. Some have wished to place a ceiling on profits, with a limit of one-half on all wares; some say one-third; others something else. None of these measures is certain and safe unless it be so decreed by the temporal authorities and common law. What they determine in these matters would be safe. Therefore, you must make up your mind to seek in your trading only an adequate living. Accordingly, you should compute and count your costs, trouble, labor, and risk, and on that basis raise or lower the prices of your wares so that you set them where you will be repaid for your trouble and labor. I would not have anyone’s conscience be so overly scrupulous or so closely bound in this matter that he feels he must strike exactly the right measure of profit to the very heller. It is impossible for you to arrive at the exact amount that you have earned with your trouble and labor. It is enough that with a good conscience you make the effort to arrive at what is right, though the very nature of trade makes it impossible to determine this e

Thu wie ander leute, so narrestu nicht. “Leute,” in Wander, 3:93, no. 1,148.

On Business and Usury exactly. The saying of the Wise Man will hold good in your case too: “A business person can hardly act without sin, and a tradesman will hardly keep his lips from evil” [Ecclus. 26:29]. If you take a trifle too much profit unwittingly and unintentionally, dismiss the matter with the Lord’s Prayer where we pray, “Forgive us our trespasses” [Matt. 6:12]. After all, no person’s life is without sin; besides, the time will come in turn when you get too little for your trouble. Just throw the excess in the scale to counterbalance the losses you must similarly expect to take.f For example, if you had a business with sales of a hundred gulden 20 a year, and you were to take—over and above the cost and reasonable profit you had for your trouble, labor, and risk—an excessive profit of perhaps one or two or three gulden, that I would call a business error which could not well be avoided, especially in the course of a whole year’s business. Therefore, you should not burden your conscience with it, but bring it to God in the Lord’s Prayer as another of those inevitable sins (which cling to all of us) and leave the matter to God. For it is not wickedness or greed, but the very nature and necessity of your occupation that forces you into this mistake. I am speaking here of good-hearted and Godfearing people, who would not willingly do wrong. It is like the marital “obligation,” which cannot be done without sin; yet because of its necessity, God winks at it, for it cannot be otherwise.g f

141

A woodcut depicting a number of trades and tools, including agriculture, architecture, and armor making. From a catalog published in 1529.

The rendering here of this obscure sentence is based on the suggestions of WA 15:813 n. 297, 12/13, and CL 3:5 n. 21. g Cf. Luther’s 1522 treatise on The Estate of Marriage, in this volume, pp. 33–77.

142

21. Presumably, Luther did not intend to imply that a merchant was entitled to no more than common day-labor wages. He was simply suggesting this as a starting point for calculating a just return for the merchant. The detail of Luther’s example suggests his familiarity with the “just price” debate in the Middle Ages, as well as one more illustration that he did not hesitate to proffer policy advice. 22. Property insurance, a contract unknown in Roman law and the early Middle Ages, was first developed in the fourteenth-century Mediterranean ports as a means to secure risks in maritime commerce. The idea of an owner transferring the risks of his property to an insurer for a fee quickly became familiar in all the commercial cities, and was accepted by the Scholastics as being nonusurious, except where it was used to guarantee a loan. For examples, see LW 45:252, n. 22.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD In determining how much profit you ought to take from your business and your labor, there is no better way to reckon it than by computing the amount of time and labor you have put into it, and comparing that with the effort of a day laborer who works at some other occupation and determine how much he earns in a day. On that basis figure how many days you have spent in getting your wares and bringing them to your place of business, and how much labor and risk was involved; for a great amount of labor and time ought to have a correspondingly greater return. That is the most accurate, the best, and the most definite advice and direction that can be given in this matter.21 Let those who dislike it, improve it themselves. I base my case (as I have said) on the gospel that the laborer deserves his wages [Luke 10:7]; and Paul also says in 1 Corinthians 9[:7], “He who tends the flock should get some of the milk. Who can go to war at his own expense?” If you have a better ground than that, you are welcome to it. Second. A common error, which has become a widespread custom not only among the merchants but throughout the world, is the practice of one person becoming surety for another.22 Although this practice seems to be without sin, and looks like a virtue stemming from love, nevertheless it generally ruins a good many people and does them irreparable harm. King Solomon often forbade it, and condemned it in his proverbs. In Proverbs 6[:1–5] he says, “My son, if you have become surety for your neighbor, you have given your hand on it; you are snared in the utterance of your lips, and caught in the words of your mouth. Then do this, my son, and save yourself, for you have come into your neighbor’s power: Go, hasten and importune your neighbor. Give your eyes no sleep, and your eyelids no slumber. Save yourself like a gazelle from the hand, and like a bird from the hand of the fowler.” Again, in the twentieth chapter, “Take a man’s garment when he has given surety for another, and take a pledge from him for the stranger’s sake” [Prov. 20:16]. Again, in the twenty-second chapter: “Be not one of those who give their hand on it and become surety for debts” [Prov. 22:26]. And he repeats in chapter twenty-seven: “Take a man’s garment when he has given surety for another, and take a pledge from him for the stranger’s sake” [Prov. 27:13]. See how strictly and vehemently the wise king in Holy Scripture forbids one’s becoming surety for another. The German

On Business and Usury proverb agrees with him, “Guarantors to the gallows”; 23 as much as to say: It serves the surety right when he is seized and has to pay, for he is acting rashly and foolishly in becoming surety. Hence, it is decreed according to Scripture that no one shall become surety for another, unless he is able and entirely willing to assume the debt and pay it himself. Now it does seem strange that this practice should be wrong and condemned, although a good many have learned by experience that it is a foolish thing to do, and have had subsequent misgivings about it. Why, then, is it condemned? Let us see. Standing surety24 is a work that is too lofty for a man; it is unseemly, for it is a presumptuous encroachment upon the work of God. In the first place, Scripture commands us not to put our trust and reliance in any man, but in God alone. For human nature is false, vain, deceitful, and unreliable, as Scripture says and experience daily teaches. He who becomes surety, however, is putting his trust in a man, and risking life and property on a false and insecure foundation. It serves him right when he fails, falls, and is ruined. In the second place, the surety is trusting in himself and making himself God (for whatever a man trusts in and relies upon is his god h ). But his own life and property are never for a single moment any more secure or certain than those of the man for whom he becomes surety. Everything is in the hand of God alone. God will not allow us a hair’s breadth of power or right over the future, nor will he let us for a single moment be sure or certain of it. Therefore, he who becomes surety acts in an un-Christian way; he deserves what he gets, because he pledges and promises what is not his and not in his power, but solely in God’s hands. Thus we read in Genesis 48 and 44 how the patriarch Judah became surety to his father Jacob for his brother Benjamin, promising to bring him home again or bear the blame forever [Gen. 43:8-9]. God nicely punished this presumption, and caused him to flounder and fail so that he could not bring Benjamin back until he gave himself up for him [Gen. 44:14-34] and then was barely freed by grace. The punishment served him right, for these sureties act as though they didn’t even have to h Cf. the similar statement made in Luther’s Large Catechism of 1529 in connection with the First Commandment (BC, 387).

143 23. The phrase Burgen soll man wurgen means that the bondsman or surety himself ought to be haled into court, in the manner of Matt. 18:28. The proverb is richly documented from German literature and law—most of the ancient laws holding the surety fully culpable even to the point of suffering death in the stead of the guilty person— “Burge,” in Wander, 1:513, no. 4. 24. This refers to one who agrees to pay a sum of money or perform some duty or execute some promise for another should that person fail to repay according to an agreement.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

144

consult God on the matter or give thought to whether they are even sure of a tomorrow for their own life and property. They act without fear of God, as though they were themselves the source of life and property, and these were in their own power as long as they themselves willed it. This is nothing but a fruit of unbelief. It is what James in the fourth chapter of his epistle rebukes as arrogance, saying, “Come now, you who say: ‘Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and trade and get gain’; whereas you do not know about tomorrow. What is your life? It is but a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say: ‘If we live, and God wills it, we shall do this or that.’ As it is, you boast in your arrogance” [Jas. 4:13-16]. Moreover, God has condemned this presumption about the future and disregard for him in a number of other places. For example, in Luke 12[:16-21], where the rich man had so much grain one year that he wanted to pull down his barns and build larger ones for storing his goods, and said to his soul: “Good soul, you have ample goods for many years; eat, drink, and be merry.” But God said to him: “Fool! This night your soul is required of you; and the things you have gathered: whose will they be?” So it goes with all who are not rich in God. He answers similarly the disciples in Acts 1[:7], “It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has in his own power.” And in Proverbs 27[:1], “Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not even know what today may bring forth.” Therefore, he has bidden us to pray in the Lord’s Prayer for no more than our daily bread today [Matt. 6:11], so that we may live and act in fear, and know that at no time are we sure of either life or property, but may await and receive everything from God’s hands, as true faith does. And truly we see it every day in many of God’s works, that things must work out a certain way whether we like it or not. Solomon devoted to this notion nearly his entire book called Ecclesiastes. He points out that all human undertakings and presumption are sheer vanity, and nothing but toil and evil, unless God is brought into the picture, so that humans fear him and he is content with the present and rejoices in it. i God is an enemy of that assured, unbelieving presumption which forgets him; therefore, he opposes it in all that he does, lets us fail and stumble, snatches away life and property when we least expect it, i

See, e.g., Eccles. 1:2-3, 14; 2:11, 21, 24-25; 3:11-14, 22; 5:18-20; 12:13.

On Business and Usury and comes at an hour we do not know [Matt. 24:50], so that the godless, as the Psalter says [Ps. 55:23], never live out half their days, but must always depart this life unexpectedly, just when they are getting under way, as Job also says in many places.j Perhaps you will say, “How then are people to have business dealings with one another if surety is improper? That way many would be left behind who might otherwise get ahead.” Answer: There are four Christian ways of exchanging external goods with others, as I have said elsewhere.25 The first wayk is to let them rob or steal our property, as Christ says in Matthew 5, “If anyone takes away your cloak, let him have your coat as well, and do not ask it of him again.” l This way of dealing counts for nothing among business people; besides, it has not been held or preached as common teaching for all Christians, but merely as counsel or a good idea for the clergy and those who pursue perfection, m though they observe it even less than do the business people. But true Christians observe it, for they know that their Father in heaven has assuredly promised in Matthew 6[:11] to give them this day their daily bread. If people were to act accordingly, not only would countless abuses in all kinds of business be avoided, but a great many people would not become merchants, because reason and human nature flee to the uttermost risks and damages of this sort. The second way  n is to give freely to anyone who needs it, as Christ also teaches in the same passage [Matt. 5:42; Luke 6:30]. This too is a lofty Christian work, which is why it counts for little among the people. There would be fewer businessmen and less business if this were put into practice. For those who do this must truly hold fast to heaven and look always to the hands of God, and not to their own resources or wealth, knowing that God will support them even though every cupboard were bare, because they know to be true what God said to Joshua, “I will not forsake you or withdraw my hand from you” [Josh. 1:5]; as the

j k l m

See, e.g., Job 4:20; 15:32-33; 18:14; 20:11, 22; 24:24. See Luther’s more extended statement of 1520 on pp. 159–81 below. Luke 6:29-30; cf. Matt. 5:40. On the Scholastic teaching that distinguished between general commands for all faithful and counsels for those who would be perfect, see p. 135. n See Luther’s more extended statement of 1520 on pp. 159–81 below.

145

25. In his Short Sermon on Usury of 1519 (WA 6:3–6) and again in his Long Sermon on Usury of 1520 Luther had specifically limited the designation “Christian” to only the first three of the four ways listed here.

146

26. This statement accords with the simplest understanding of the matter in both church and state. The first medieval definition of usury, in the Nyweger capitulary of 806, declares that usury is “where more is asked than is given” (Noonan, 15). Along with the bare definition there was always the assumption that usury occurred in loans. The usury prohibition was first extended in the twelfth century to a transaction that was explicitly in the form of a loan. 27. Luther was generally opposed to all forms of credit; only cash transactions precluded the possibility of usury.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD proverb has it, “God still has more than what he ever gave away.” o But that takes a true Christian, and he is a rare animal on earth, to whom the world and nature pay no heed. The third wayp is lending. That is, I give away my property, and take it back again if it is returned to me; but I must do without it if it is not returned. Christ himself defines this kind of transaction in what he says in Luke 6[:35], “Lend, expecting nothing in return.” That is, you should lend freely, and take your chances on getting it back or not. If it comes back, take it; if it does not, it is a gift. According to the gospel there is thus only one distinction between giving and lending, namely, a gift is not taken back, while a loan is taken back—if it is returned—but involves the risk that it may become a gift. Those who lend expecting to get back something more or something better than they have loaned are nothing but an open and condemned usurer, 26 since even those who in lending demand or expect to get back exactly what they lend, and take no chances on whether they get it back or not, are not acting in a Christian way. This third way too (in my opinion) is a lofty Christian work; and a rare one, judging by the way things are going in the world. If it were to be practiced universally, business of all sorts would greatly diminish and virtually cease. These three ways of exchanging goods, then, observe in masterful fashion this matter of not presuming the direction of the future, and not trusting in any person or in oneself but clinging to God alone. Here all transactions are in cash,27 and are accompanied by the word that James teaches, “If God wills, so be it” [Jas. 4:15]. For here we deal with people as with those who are unreliable and might fail; we give our money freely, or take our chances on losing what we lend. Now someone will say, “Who can then be saved? And where shall we find these Christians? Why, in this way there would be no trade left in the world; everyone would have his property taken or borrowed away, and the door would be thrown open for the wicked and idle gluttons—of whom the world is full—to take everything with their lying and cheating.” Answer: I have already said that Christians are rare people on earth. This is why the world needs a strict, harsh government that will compel and o See “Gott,” in Wander, 2:28, no. 617. p See pp. 175–78 (“Nineteenth” and “Twentieth”).

On Business and Usury constrain the wicked to refrain from theft and robbery, and to return what they borrow (although a Christian ought neither to demand nor expect it). This is necessary in order that the world may not become a desert, peace not vanish, trade come to a halt, and society be utterly destroyed; all of which would happen if we were to rule the world according to the gospel, rather than driving and compelling the wicked by laws and the use of force to do and to allow what is right. For this reason we must keep the roads safe, preserve peace in the towns, enforce law in the land, and let the sword hew briskly and boldly against transgressors, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 13[:4]. For it is God’s will that people who are not Christian be held in check and kept from doing wrong, at least from doing it with impunity. Let no one think that the world can be ruled without bloodshed; the secular order must and shall be red and bloody, for the world will and must be evil, and the sword is God’s rod and vengeance upon it. But of this I have said enough in my modest book on Secular [Temporal] Authority. q Borrowing would be a fine thing if it were practiced between Christians, for every borrower would then willingly return what had been lent, and the lender would willingly forgo repayment if the borrower were unable to pay. Christians are sisters and brothers, and one does not forsake another; neither is any of them so lazy and shameless that they would not work but depend simply on another’s wealth and labor, or consume in idleness another’s goods. But where people are not Christians, the temporal authorities ought to compel them to repay what they have borrowed. If the temporal authorities are negligent and do not compel repayment, the Christian ought to tolerate the robbery, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6[:7], “Why not rather suffer wrong?” But you may exhort, insist, and do what you will to the person who is not a Christian; he pays no attention because he is not a Christian and has no regard for Christ’s teaching. You still have a grain of comfort too in the fact that you are not obligated to make a loan except out of your surplus and what you can spare from your own needs, as Christ says of alms, “What you have left over, 28 that give in alms, and everything is clean for you.” Now if someone wishes to borrow from you an q See On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, pp. 79–129 in this volume.

147

28. Luther is quoting Luke 11:41 according to the Vulgate, which translates the ambiguous Greek words ta enonta by the Latin words quod superest. The sole prevailing interpretation of this obscure passage in the Middle Ages—going back to Jerome (c. 347–420) and Augustine (354–430)—suited the convenience of the reluctant giver and assigned an expiatory virtue to alms, “whatever is left beyond what is necessary for food and clothing, you owe to the poor.” In his own Bible translations, however, Luther had consistently avoided the traditional rendering, using von ewr habe in 1522 (cf. KJV’s “of such things as ye have”; “those things that are within,” NRSV) and von dem das da ist from 1526 on (literally, “of what there is”). WA DB 6:266–67.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

148

amount so large that you would be ruined if it were not repaid, and you could not spare it from your own needs, then you are not bound to make the loan. Your first and greatest obligation is to provide for the needs of your wife and children and servants; you must not divert from them what you owe them. The best rule to follow is this: If the amount asked as a loan is too great, just go ahead and give something outright, or else lend as much as you would be willing to give, and take the risk of having to lose it. John the Baptist did not say, “He who has one coat, let him give it away”; but, “He who has two coats, let him give one to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise” [Luke 3:11]. [. . .] r At this point, therefore, I want to tell of some of these tricks and evil practices which I have myself observed, and which good and pious people have described to me. This I do in order that one may realize how necessary it is that the rules and principles which I have set forth above be established and put into practice, if consciences are to be counseled and aided in matters of business, and also that all the other evil practices not specifically mentioned may be recognized and measured by these. How can one possibly enumerate them all? Through the three errors mentioned above as the fountainheads of evil, door and window are opened wide to greed and to wicked, wily, self-seeking nature; breathing space and room are afforded them; opportunity and power are given them to practice unhindered all manner of wiles and trickery, and daily to think up more schemes, so that everything stinks of avarice, indeed, is submerged and steeped in avarice as in a great new Deluge. First, there are some who have no conscientious scruples against selling their goods on time and credit for a higher price than if they were sold for cash. Indeed, there are some who will sell nothing for cash but everything on time, so they can make large profits on it. Observe that this way of dealing—which is grossly contrary to God’s word, contrary to reason and every sense of justice, and emanates from sheer wantonness and greed—is a sin against one’s neighbor; for it does not consider his loss, but robs and steals from him that which is his. The seller is r

What follows at this point in LW 45:259–61 is Luther’s explanation of the fourth way of exchanging goods, namely through buying and selling for hard cash or payment in kind.

On Business and Usury not trying to make a modest living, but wants to satisfy his lust for profits. According to divine law29 he should not sell his goods at a higher price on the time payment plan than for cash. Again, there are some who sell their goods at a higher price than they command in the common market, or than is customary in the trade; they raise the price of their wares for no other reason than they know that there is no more of that commodity in the land, or that the supply will shortly be exhausted, and people must have it. That is the rogue’s eye of greed, which sees only the neighbor’s need; not to relieve it, but to make the most of it and get rich at his expense. All such fellows are manifest thieves, robbers, and usurers.

Money Fool (or “Avarice”). From Das Ständebuch (The Book of Trades), published 1568, with text by Hans Sachs and woodcuts by Jost Amman.

149 29. By referring to “divine law” Luther meant to affirm what subsequently in Lutheran theology was dubbed the “first use” of the law, which guides and governs the lives of human communities everywhere.

150

30. In Germany, the first statutory prohibition of monopolies was adopted by the Diet of Trier-Cologne in 1512. After decrying the practice of merchants who built up monopolies of certain commodities, and condemning it as contrary to the common imperial law and to decency, the diet specifically forbade the practice on pain of confiscation of the monopolist’s goods. See the relevant text in Schmoller, Geschichte der national-ökonomische Ansichten in Deutschland, 500–501. The question of monopoly was a lively topic of current debate in the most recent Reichstags (see nn. 9 and 11, p. 137). 31. Gabriel Biel (c. 1420–1495) defended Joseph’s speculations in grain on the grounds that the increase of his selling price over his purchase price was due to actual changes in the market price produced by scarcity. See Biel, Treatise on the Power and Utility of Moneys, trans. Robert B. Burke (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1930), 33. Luther is here not altogether convinced: one would presume that the common people simply do not have the wherewithal to buy great quantities of a commodity for future use. 32. In this section Luther has in mind the attempts of several diets to pass antimonopoly legislation as early as 1512 (DRTA. JR 2:351f.). Luther is here also distancing himself from Biel, who insisted that monopolies were not evil.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Again, there are some who buy up the entire supply of certain goods or wares in a country or a city in order to have these goods entirely under their own control; they can then fix and raise the price and sell them as dear as they like or can. Now I have said above that the rule by which some may sell their goods as dear as they will or can is wrong and un-Christian. It is far more abominable that one should buy up a whole commodity for that purpose. Even the imperial and secular laws forbid this; 30 they call it monopolia, i.e., transactions for selfish profiteering, which are not to be tolerated in country or city. Princes and lords should punish it and put a stop to it if they really wanted to do their duty. For such merchants act as if God’s creatures and God’s goods were created and given for them alone, as if they could take them from others and set on them whatever price they chose. If anyone wishes to cite the example of Joseph in Genesis 41[:48-57; 47:13-26], how the holy man gathered up all the grain in the country and afterward, in a time of famine, bought with it for the king of Egypt all the money, cattle, land, and people—which certainly seems to have been a monopoly, or selfish profiteering31—this is the answer: Joseph’s transaction was no monopoly, but a common and honest purchase, such as was customary in that country. 32 For he prevented no one else from buying during the good years, but it was his God-given wisdom that enabled him to gather in the king’s grain during the seven years of plenty, while others were accumulating little or nothing. The text does not say that he alone bought up the grain, but that he gathered it into the king’s cities [Gen. 41:48]. If others did not do likewise, the loss was their own. The common people usually consume what they have without much concern for the future; and sometimes they have nothing to store up. We still see the same thing today. Where neither princes nor cities provide a reserve supply for the benefit of the whole country, there is little or no reserve in the hands of the common people, who live from year to year on their annual income. Accumulation of this sort is not self-interest or monopoly, but a good and proper Christian foresight for the good of the community and for others. It is not practiced in such a way that they seize everything for themselves, as these merchants do, but out of the yield of the common market, or the yearly income which everyone has, they set aside a store; others either will not or cannot accumulate anything, but get out of it only their daily living. Moreover,

On Business and Usury Scripture does not tell us that Joseph gathered grain in order to sell it as dearly as he pleased; the text clearly says [Gen. 41:36] that he did it not from greed but that land and people might not perish. But the greedy merchant sells for as much as he pleases, seeking only his own profit, and regardless of whether land and people thereby perish.

After interpreting Pharaoh’s dreams, Joseph is promoted to vice-regent in Egypt. He rides Pharaoh’s chariot throughout the land as the people in the streets praise him. Illustration by Pierre Eskrich (c. 1550−c. 1590).

The fact that Joseph by this means brought all the money and cattle—and all the land and people besides—into the king’s possession, certainly does not seem to have been a Christian act, since he ought to have given to the needy without return, as the gospel [Matt. 5:42; Luke 6:30-31] and Christian love instruct us. Yet he did right and well, for Joseph was administering the temporal government in the king’s stead. I have often taught thus, that the world ought not and cannot be ruled according to the gospel and Christian love, but by strict laws and with sword and force, because the world is evil. It accepts neither gospel nor love, but lives and acts according to its own will unless compelled by force. Otherwise, if only love were applied, everyone would eat,

151

152

33. Luther expressed similar ideas in On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, pp. 79–129 in this volume.

34. Luther repeatedly used Christian terminology when commenting on aspects of the Old Testament.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD drink, and live at ease at someone else’s expense, and no one would work. Indeed, everyone would take from another what was his, and we would have such a state of affairs that no one could live because of the others. 33 Joseph therefore did right because God so arranged it that he brought everything into his possession at a fair price equal to what prevailed at the time, and in keeping with temporal law allowed the people to remain under restraint and to sell themselves and all that they had. For in that country there was always a strict government, and it was customary to sell people like other goods. Besides, there can be no doubt that as a Christian34 and a righteous man he let no poor man die of hunger, but, as the text states [Gen. 41:36], after he had been placed in charge of the king’s temporal law and government he gathered, sold, and distributed the grain for the benefit and profit of the land and its people. Therefore, the example of the faithful Joseph is as remote from the conduct of the unfaithful, self-seeking merchants as heaven is far from earth. So much for this digression. We return now to the merchants’ tricks. Some of them, when they see that they cannot otherwise effect their selfish profiteering transactions and establish their monopolies because others have the same goods and wares, proceed to sell their goods so dirt cheap that the others cannot meet the competition, and are forced either to withhold their goods from sale, or to face ruin by selling them as cheaply as their competitors do. Thus, the greedy ones get their monopoly after all. Such fellows are not worthy to be called human beings or to live among people in a community; they are not even worth admonishing or instructing, for their envy and greed is so open and shameless that even at the cost of their own losses they cause loss to others, in order that they may have the whole place to themselves. The temporal authorities would do right if they took from such fellows everything they had, and drove them out of the country. It would scarcely have been necessary to tell of such practices, but I wanted to include them so that one might see what great villainy there is in trade and commerce, and to make evident to everyone what is going on in the world, in order that all may know how to protect themselves against such a dangerous class. Another fine bit of sharp practice is for one individual to sell to another, on promise of future delivery, wares that the seller

On Business and Usury does not have. It works this way: A merchant from a distance comes to me and asks me if I have such and such goods for sale. Although I do not have them I say Yes anyway and sell them to him for ten or eleven gulden, when they could otherwise be bought for nine or less, promising delivery in two or three days. Meanwhile, I go out and buy the goods where I knew in advance that I could buy them cheaper than I am selling them to him. I deliver them, and he pays me for them. Thus I deal with the other person’s own money and property without any risk, trouble, or labor, and I get rich. This is appropriately called “living off the street” on someone else’s money and goods, without having to travel over land or sea. 35 Another practice called “living off the street” is this: When a merchant has a purse full of money and no longer cares to venture on land and sea with his goods, but to have a safe business, he settles down in a large commercial city. When he hears that some merchant is being pressed by his creditors and lacks the money he must have to satisfy them, but still has good wares, he gets someone to act for him in buying the wares, and offers eight gulden for what is otherwise worth ten. If this offer is turned down, he gets someone else to make an offer of six or seven gulden. The poor man begins to be afraid that his wares are depreciating, and is glad to accept the eight gulden so as to get hard cash and not have to suffer too great a loss and disgrace. It may also happen that needy merchants themselves seek out such tyrants and offer their goods for ready cash with which to pay their debts. These tyrants drive hard bargains, and eventually get the wares at a low enough price; afterward they sell them at their own price. Such financiers are known as “cutthroats,” s but they pass for distinguished and clever people. Here is another piece of selfish profiteering: Three or four merchants have in their control one or two kinds of goods that others do not have, or do not have for sale. When these men see that the goods are valuable and are advancing in price all the time because of war or some disaster, they join forces and let it be known to others that the goods are much in demand, and that not many have them for sale. If they find any who have these goods for sale, they set up a dummy to buy up all such goods. When they have cornered the supply, they draw up an agreement s

The German wording is Gorgel stecher odder kelstecher.

153

35. The comparison is with the common beggar who manages to survive without any of the customary risks and effort.

154

36. The Fellowship of the Merchant Adventurers in London, organ of cooperation between the various dealers in English cloth, was formally recognized in 1486. Besides the original purpose of financing, equipping, and dispatching fleets from London to the quarterly marts, it soon extended its functions to include direction of the adventurers’ mercantile policy and critical control of their finances. It determined when, if at all, the ships were to sail and to which marts. In 1518 the governor of the company was powerful enough to defy even the mayor of London and fine two city aldermen for disobedience to his directives. See E. M. Carus-Wilson, “The Origins and Early Development of the Merchant Adventurers’ Organization in London as Shown in Their Own Medieval Records,” The Economic History Review 4, no. 2 (1933): 147–76 (published for the Economic History Society by A. & C. Black, London).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD to this effect: since there are no more of these goods to be had, we will hold them at such and such a price, and whoever sells cheaper shall forfeit so and so much. This practice, I am told, is carried to the crudest lengths primarily by the English merchants, especially in the sale of English or London cloth. It is said that for this trade they have a special council, like a city council, and all Englishmen who sell English or London cloth must obey this council on penalty of a fine. The council decides at what price they are to sell their cloth, and at what day and hour they are to have it on sale, and when not. The head of this council is called the governor, and is regarded as little less than a prince. 36 See what avarice can and dares to do!

Arms of the Merchant Adventurers Company of London, sculpted on the exterior of the Greenway Chapel, erected in 1517 against the south wall of St. Peter’s Church, Tiverton, Devon, by wealthy merchant John Greenway (d. 1529).

Again, I must report this little trick: I sell a man pepper or the like on six months’ credit, knowing that he has to sell it again immediately to get ready money. Then I go to him myself, or send someone else, and buy the pepper back from him for cash, but on such terms that what he bought from me on six month’s credit for twelve gulden I buy back for eight, while the market price is

On Business and Usury ten. Thus I buy it from him at two gulden less than the current market, while he bought it from me at two gulden above the market. So I make a profit going and coming, simply because he has to have the money to maintain his credit standing; otherwise, he might have to suffer the disgrace of having no one extend him credit in the future. People who buy on credit more than they can pay for (for example, a person is worth scarcely two hundred gulden and makes a deal involving five or six hundred gulden) practice or have to practice this sort of finance.t If those indebted to me cannot pay, then I cannot pay my creditors; so the mischief goes deeper and deeper, and one loss follows another the more I practice this kind of finance, until at last I see the shadow of the gallows and must either abscond or go to prison. So I keep my own counsel and give my creditors fair words, telling them I will pay my debts. Meanwhile, I go out and get as much goods as I can on credit and turn them into money, or get money otherwise on a promissory note, or borrow as much as I can. Then whenever it is most advantageous to me, or when my creditors give me no rest, I lock my house, get up and run away, hiding myself somewhere in a monastery, 37 where I am as free as a thief or murderer in a churchyard. Then my creditors are so glad I have not fled the country that they release me from a half or a third of my debts on condition that I pay the balance in two or three years, giving me letter and seal for it. Then I come back to my house and am a merchant who has made two or three thousand gulden by getting up and running away. 38 That is more than I could have made in three or four years if I knocked myself out hustling. Or if this procedure seems disadvantageous, when I see that I have to abscond I simply go to the emperor’s court or to his viceroy, where for one or two hundred gulden I can obtain a quinquernell, 39 that is, an imperial letter and seal granting me respite from all my creditors for two or three years on my plea that I have suffered great losses. So the quinquernells too make a pretense of being godly and right; actually, though, they are knaves’ tricks. Another little trick is customary in the trading companies. A citizen deposits with a merchant perhaps two thousand gulden for six years. The merchant is to trade with this and, win or lose,

t

Fynantzen; see n. 4, p. 136.

155

37. The church’s right of sanctuary, recognized by the state since about the fourth century as a part of the church’s ministry of charity (see Gerhard Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Ancient Church [New York: Scribners, 1883], 365–67) proved to be a public liability when used for purposes of fraud and deception. 38. As fraudulent bankruptcies increased in the early sixteenth century, penalties were made increasingly severe ranging from banishment or disfranchisement to death by hanging. Schmoller, Geschichte der nationalökonomische Ansichten in Deutschland, 591–92. 39. The quinquernell, providing for the debtor a five-year moratorium, was often granted—for good and sufficient financial reimbursement—by the emperor even in violation of agreements won by certain cities that their citizens should be exempt from its deleterious effects.

156

40. Luther’s 1520 treatise on usury, included as the second half of this composite 1524 treatise, dealt in part two with the objectionable zins contract.

41. In addition to actual robbery at sword’s point, traveling merchants had to pay transit tolls when crossing the lands of a knight or baron. These tolls were often tantamount to robbery.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD pay the citizen a fixed zinse of two hundred gulden a year. What the merchant makes over and above this is his own, but if he makes no profit he must still pay the zinse. In this way the citizen is doing the merchant a great service, for the latter anticipates a profit of at least three hundred gulden from the two thousand. On the other hand, the merchant is doing the citizen a great service, for his money would otherwise lie idle and bring him no return. That this common practice is wrong and is in fact usury, I have shown sufficiently in the treatise on usury. 40 I must give one more illustration to show how this spurious borrowing and lending lead to misfortune. Some people, when they see that a buyer is unreliable and does not meet his payments, are able to repay themselves neatly in this way: I get a strange merchant to approach him and buy up his wares to the amount of a hundred gulden or so, and I say to the stranger, “When you have bought up all his wares, promise him cash or refer him to a certain man who owes you money. When you have the goods, bring him to me as though I owed you money, and act as though you were unaware that he is in my debt. In that way I shall be repaid, and will give him nothing.” That is really practicing finance! It ruins the poor man entirely, together with all those to whom he may be in debt. But that is the way it goes in this un-Christian borrowing and lending. Again, they have learned to store their goods in places or under conditions where they will increase in bulk. They put pepper, ginger, and saffron in damp cellars or vaults where they will take on more weight. Woolen goods, silks, furs of marten or sable, they sell in dimly lit vaults or shops, keeping them from the air. This custom is so general that almost every sort of commodity has its special kind of air. There are no goods but what some way is known of taking advantage of the buyer, whether it be in the measure or the count of the dimensions or the weight. They know, too, how to give them an artificial color; or the bestlooking items are put at top and bottom and the worst in the middle. There is no end to such cheating; no merchant dare trust another out of his sight and reach. Now the merchants raise a great cry about the nobles or robbers,41 complaining that they have to transact business at great risk, and that for their trouble they are imprisoned, beaten, taxed, and robbed, etc. If they endured all this for righteousness’ sake, the merchants would surely be saints because of their sufferings.

On Business and Usury To be sure, it may happen that one of them suffers something that is an injustice in the sight of God, in that he has to suffer for another in whose company he is found, and pay for another man’s sins. But when such great injustice and un-Christian thievery and robbery are practiced by merchants all over the world, even against one another, what wonder is it that God causes this great wealth, wrongfully acquired, to be lost or taken by robbers, and the merchants themselves to be beaten over the head or imprisoned? God simply has to administer justice, even as in Psalm 11[:4-7] he has himself extolled as a righteous judge. Not that I would thereby excuse the highwaymen and bushwhackers, or approve of their thievery! It is the fault of the authorities; they are supposed to keep the roads safe for the benefit of the wicked as well as of the upright. It is also their duty to use their duly constituted authority in punishing the injustices of the merchants and preventing them from so shamefully skinning their subjects. Because the princes fail to do so, God uses the knights and robbers to punish the wrongdoing of the merchants; they must be his devils, just as he plagues the land of Egypt [Exodus 7–12] and the whole world with devils, or destroys it with enemies. Thus he uses one rascal to flog the other, but without thereby giving us to understand that the knights are any the less robbers than the merchants, even though the merchants rob everybody every day, while a knight robs one or two people once or twice a year. On the trading companies I ought to say a good deal, but the whole subject is such a bottomless pit of avarice and wrongdoing that there is nothing in it that can be discussed with a good conscience. Who is so stupid that he cannot see that the trading companies are nothing but pure monopolies? Even the temporal laws of the heathen forbid them u as openly harmful to the whole world, to say nothing of divine right and Christian law. They control all commodities, deal in them as they please, and practice without concealment all the tricks that have been mentioned. They raise or lower prices at their pleasure. They oppress and ruin all the small businessmen, like the pike, the little fish in the water, just as if they were lords over God’s creatures and immune from all the laws of faith and love.

u See n. 30, p. 150.

157

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

158 42. Die krünme ynn die beuge kome means, literally, “the bend comes to the crook,” i.e., things even themselves up. 43. The most notable example of such hastily amassed fortunes, of course, was that of the Fugger family in Augsburg, which skyrocketed its fortune by 1634 percent in one period of twenty-one years (PE 2:160 n. 2). Having attained monopolies in mining, commerce, and finance over the period of a couple generations they were able, by means of enormous cash outlays running into the equivalent of millions of dollars, to secure the imperial election of 1519 for Charles V. See Schwiebert, 41. Pölnitz, I:418–41.

Portrait (c. 1519) of Jakob Fugger (1459–1525) by Albrecht Dürer

Portrait (c. 1520) of Anton Fugger (1493−1560) by Hans Maier zu Schwaz

So it happens that all over the world spices must be bought at whatever price they choose to set, and they vary it from time to time. This year they raise the price of ginger, next year that of saffron, or vice versa; so that in the end it all comes out the same: 42 they do not have to suffer any loss, injury, or risk. If the ginger spoils or they have to take a loss on it, they make it up on saffron, and vice versa, so that they make sure of their profit. All this is contrary to the natural order, not only of merchandise, but of all temporal goods, which God wills should be subject to risk and uncertainty. But they have found a way to make safe, certain, and continual profit out of unsafe, uncertain, and perishable goods; though because of it all the world must be sucked dry and all the money sink and swim in their gullets. How could it ever be right and according to God’s will that an individual in such a short time should grow so rich that he could buy out kings and emperors?43 They have brought things to such a pass that everybody else has to do business at the risk of loss, winning this year and losing next year, while they themselves can always win, making up their losses by increased profits. It is no wonder that they quickly appropriate the wealth of the whole world, for a pfennig that is permanent and sure is better than a gulden that is temporary and uncertain. But these companies are always dealing with permanent and sure gulden for our temporary and uncertain pfennigs. Is it any wonder that they become kings and we beggars? Kings and princes ought to look into this matter and forbid them by strict laws. But I hear that they have a finger in it themselves,44 and the saying of Isaiah [1:23] is fulfilled, “Your princes have become companions of thieves.” They hang thieves who have stolen a gulden or half a gulden, but do business with those who rob the whole world and steal more than all the rest, so that the proverb remains true, “Big thieves hang little thieves.” v As the Roman senator Cato45 said, “Simple thieves lie in dungeons and stocks; public thieves walk abroad in gold and silk.” What will God say to this at last? He will do as he says through Ezekiel: princes and merchants, one thief with the other, he will melt together like lead and bronze [Ezek. 22:20] as when a city burns to the ground, so that there shall be neither princes nor merchants anymore. That time, I fear, is already at the door. We v

“Dieb,” in Wander, 1:589, no. 145.

On Business and Usury

159

do not think of amending our lives, no matter how great our sin and wrong. So, too, God cannot leave wrong unpunished. This is why no one need ask how he may with a good conscience be a member of a trading company. My only advice is this: Get out; they will not change. If the trading companies are to stay, right and honesty must perish; if right and honesty are to stay, the trading companies must perish. The bed is too narrow, says Isaiah, one must fall out, the covering is too small, it will not cover both [Isa. 28:20]. Now I know full well that this book of mine will be taken amiss; 46 perhaps they will toss it all to the winds and remain as they are. But it will not be my fault, for I have done my part to show how richly we have deserved it if God should come with his rod. If I have instructed a single soul and rescued it from the jaws of avarice, I have not labored in vain. Nevertheless, I hope (as I have said above) w that this thing has grown so high and so top-heavy that it can no longer carry its own weight, and they will finally have to give it up. Finally, let everyone look to himself. Let no one stop as a favor or service to me. Let no one begin or continue either, in order to spite and hurt me. This thing has to do with you, not me. May God enlighten us and strengthen us to do his good will. Amen.

Usury  47 First. It should be known that in our times (which the apostle Paul prophesied would be perilous [2 Tim. 3:1]) avarice and usury have not only taken a mighty hold on the whole world, but have had the nerve to seek out certain subterfuges by which they might freely practice their wickedness under the guise of fair dealing. Besides, things have come almost to the point where we regard the holy gospel as having no value. Therefore, it is necessary in these perilous times for everyone to be alert, to use proper discretion in dealing with temporal goods, paying diligent attention to the holy gospel of Christ our Lord. Second. It should be known that there are three different degrees or waysx of dealing fairly and righteously with temporal w This refers to his quote regarding merchant practice (LW 45:260) that has been deleted in this version. x See also n. 25 and pp. 145–46.

44. It would be intriguing to speculate where Luther picked up this news. Vigorous enforcement of the TrierCologne antimonopoly legislation of 1512 did not begin until the imperial attorney proceeded in 1523 against certain of the merchants of Augsburg. They hastened to secure the favor of the princes but received their main support from the emperor in return for a large share in their profits. Complicity between the merchants and the authorities was decried already at the Diet of Worms in 1521, and antedated the Fugger boast to having secured the election of Charles V as emperor. 45. Cato the Elder, Roman statesman and writer (234–149 bce). 46. The Short Sermon on Usury (WA 6:3–8), published in the fall of 1519, had already made a bad impression in some circles. This is what led Luther in December of the same year to enlarge upon the same theme in order “that Christ’s pure teaching may elicit further offense” (WA 6:33). 47. Usually cited in English as The Long Sermon on Usury to distinguish it from The Short Sermon on Usury of 1519 (see WA 6:3–8), this treatise first appeared in 1520 and was incorporated—together with a brief supplement—into the present composite treatise in 1524. Our translation and review are based on the original given in WA 6:36–60.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

160

48. Annas was the Jewish high priest and not a bishop. Luther has simply fallen into the medieval habit of applying current titles to men of a former age.

49. The officer who did the striking is not identified in John 18:22 with the Malthus of John 18:10, the victim of Peter’s sword.

goods. The first is that if anyone seizes some of our temporal property by force, we should not only permit it and relinquish that property, but be ready to let him take more if he wants to. Our dear Lord Jesus Christ says of this in Matthew 5[:40], “If anyone would sue you in court to take your coat, let him have your cloak as well.” This is the highest degree in this matter of dealing with temporal goods. It is not to be taken to mean, as some think, that we are to throw the cloak in with the coat. Rather, we are to let the cloak go also, and not resist or become impatient about it, or try to get it back. For he does not say, “Give him also the cloak,” but, “Let him have the cloak too.” This is what Christ did before Bishop Annas, 48 when he received a blow on the cheek [John 18:22]; he offered the other cheek, even both cheeks, and was ready to receive more such blows. Indeed, in his entire Passion we see that he never repays or returns an evil word or deed, but is always ready to endure more and more. Third. It is indeed true that he said to the slave, Malthus, who struck him,49 “If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong; but if I have spoken rightly, why do you strike me?” [John 18:23]. Some, even of the learned, stumble over these words, and think that Christ did not here offer the other cheek, as he had taught that we should do [Matt. 5:39]. But they do not view the words aright. For in these words Christ makes no threat; he does not avenge himself or strike back. Neither does he refuse the other cheek. Indeed, he does not even judge or condemn Malthus, but, as St. Peter writes of him, he did not threaten or think to recompense evil, but committed it to God, the just Judge [1 Pet. 2:23], as if to say, “Whether I have spoken rightly or you are right in striking me, God will find out, and the burden of proof is on you.” This is what Zechariah said when they were about to kill him, “Videat dominus et judicet”; “God will see it and judge.” y Christ did the same thing before Pilate, when he said, “He who delivered me to you has the greater sin” [John 19:11]. That is Christian and brotherly fidelity, to terrify him who does you wrong by holding up before him his wrongdoing and God’s judgment. It is your duty to say to him, “Very well; you are taking my coat and this and that; if you are not doing right, you will y

In 2 Chron. 24:22 the Vulgate actually reads requirat rather than judicet. Luther turns the Latin optative (cf. the NRSV, “May . . .”) into a straight future.

On Business and Usury have to answer for it.” You must do this, not primarily because of your own loss, nor to threaten him, but to warn him and to remind him of his impending ruin. If this fails to change his purpose, let go what will, and do not demand its return. It is in this sense then that the words Christ uttered before the judgment seat of Annas are to be understood. It follows that, like Christ on the cross [Luke 23:34], you must pray for and do good to him who does evil to you [Luke 6:27-28]. But we will postpone this now until the proper time. Fourth. Many think that this first degree is not commanded, and need not be observed by every Christian, but that it is a good counsel laid upon the perfect if they wish to keep it, just as virginity and celibacy are recommended [1 Cor. 7:25-28], not commanded. Therefore, they hold that it is all right for anyone to take back what is his, and to meet force with force to the best of ability and knowledge. They decorate this opinion of theirs with pretty flowers,50 and prove it with many (so they think) powerful arguments. In the first place, they point out that canon law (not to mention civil law) says, “Vim vi pellere jura sinunt”; z that is, the law allows that force be resisted with force. From this comes, in the second place, the common proverb about self-defense, that it is not punishable for what it does. a In the third place, they cite also some examples from Scripture, such as Abraham, David, and many others, of whom we read that they punished and repaid their enemies. In the fourth place, they bring in reason, and say, Solve istud [“explain this!”]: if this were a commandment, it would give the wicked permission to rob and steal until no one had anything left, indeed no one could be sure of one’s own life. In the fifth place, in order that everything may be proved conclusively, they cite the words of St. Augustine (354–430), who explains these words of Christ [Matt. 5:40] to mean that one must let the cloak go with the coat secundum preparationem z

A gloss to Decretum Gratiani I, lxiv, 6, reads, “Vim vi repullere licet” (“It is permissible to repel force with force”). This gloss is found in Decretum Gratiani emendatum et notationibus illustratum una cum glossis (Paris, 1612), col. 365. See also WA Br 5:261 n. 10. a Cf. Article 109 of the 1532 Constitutio criminalis Carolina quoted in MA 3 5:419 n. 136, 4. The rabbis (Beruchoth 58 and Sanhedrin 72) said that even homicide was unpunishable if committed in self-defense. “Nothwehr,” in Wander, 3:1,064, no. 3.

161

50. A reference to flowery speech, a special category within the rhetoric of that period to which Erasmus and the humanists, as well as Luther, objected.

162 51. In his Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, I, 19, 59, Augustine said that Matt. 5:40 was to be rightly understood as a precept “ad praeparationem cordis, non ad ostentationem operis” (“with regard to the preparation of the heart, and not . . . in the visible performance of the deed”). MPL 34:1,260. See Denis J. Kavanagh, trans., Saint Augustine: Commentary on the Lord’s Sermon on the Mount (Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1951) .

52. Officiales were the judges in the bishops’ courts.

53. A sixteenth-century German mile was the equivalent of about four and one-half modern English miles. LW 35:292, n. 134. 54. At the 1521 Diet of Worms, a list of 102 grievances against the abuses of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was presented to the emperor, in which there loomed large complaints against the church’s judicial process whereby cases were transferred to Rome which should have been settled in Germany. See Gerald Strauss, Manifestations of Discontent in Germany on the Eve of the Reformation (Bloomington: University of Indiana Press, 1971).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD animi,51 that is, one should be ready in one’s heart to do it. This noble and clear explanation they interpret and obscure with another gloss, adding that it is not necessary to give it outwardly and in fact; it is enough, they say, that we be inwardly, in the heart, ready and prepared to do so. As though we were willing to do something that we were not willing to do, and yes and no were the same thing! Fifth. See these are the masterpieces by which they have till now twisted, obscured, and entirely suppressed the doctrine and example of our dear Lord Jesus Christ, together with the holy gospel and all his martyrs and saints; so that nowadays those spiritual and temporal prelates and their subjects who follow these rules are the best Christians, though they resist Christ’s life, teaching, and gospel. Hence it comes that lawsuits and litigations, magistrates, notaries, officiales,52 jurists, and such fellows are as numerous as flies in summer. Hence it comes that there is so much war and bloodshed among Christians. And lawsuits must be taken on appeal to Rome, b for there a lot of money is the thing most needed; and the greatest, holiest, and most common occupation in all Christendom these days is suing and being sued, which means resistance to the holy and peaceful life and doctrine of Christ. This cruel game has finally come to the point where a poor person—but a Christian, whom God has redeemed with his blood—for the sake of the trifling sum of three or four pence (groschen) not only cited to appear many miles53 away, put under the ban, and driven away from wife, children, and family,54 but these bright fellows actually look upon this as a good thing to do, and even smile about it. So shall they fall who make a mockery of God’s commandments; so shall God blind and put to shame those who turn the brightness of his holy word into darkness with their “Vim vi repellere licet” and their “letting the cloak go secundum animi preparationem.”  c For to that extent the gospel is kept by the heathen also, indeed, even by wolves and all the unreasoning beasts; people do not have to be Christians to do that.

b A few months later Luther discussed this common grievance at greater length in An Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520). See TAL 1:369–465. c Latin translation: “power is to be repelled with power” and “after the proper preparation of the heart.”

On Business and Usury Sixth. Therefore, I want to do my part, and so far as I can warn everyone not to be led astray, no matter how learned, how mighty, how spiritual, or how numerous they all may be who have made and still make a counsel of this first degree, and no matter how many may be the flowers and colors with which they decorate it. d There is no evading it. This is simply a commandment that we are bound to obey, as Christ and his saints have confirmed and exemplified it for us in their lives. It is of no consequence to God that laws—be they canon or civil—permit force to be resisted with force. And what precious things the laws permit! They permit public brothels, although they are contrary to God’s commandment, and many other evil things that God forbids; they necessarily permit also sins and wickedness. The things that human laws command and forbid matter little, not to mention the things they permit or do not punish. Thus, self-defense is not punishable under human law, but in the sight of God it has no merit. Suing in the courts is condemned neither by pope nor emperor, but it is condemned by Christ and his teaching. When some of the Old Testament fathers punished their enemies, it was never at their own discretion or without an express command from God, who punishes sinners at times by means of both good and bad angels and humans. For this reason the fathers never sought their own revenge or profit therein, but only acted as obedient servants of God; just as Christ teaches in the gospel that at God’s command we must act even against father and mother [Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 14:26], whom he has commanded us to honor [Exod. 20:12; Matt. 15:4]. Yet the two commandments are not contradictory, but the lower is governed by the higher. So when God commands you to take revenge or defend yourself, you shall do it; but not before then. Seventh. Now it is true that God has instituted the temporal sword and in addition the spiritual power of the church, and has commanded both these authorities to punish the wicked and rescue the oppressed, as Paul teaches in Romans 13[:3-4], and as is taught in many other places, such as Isaiah 1[:23-26], and Psalm 82[:2-4]. This should be done in such a way, however, that no one would be the complainant in his own case, but that others, in brotherly fidelity and care for one another, would inform the rulers that this man is right and that one wrong. Thus, the d See n. 50, p. 161.

163

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

164

55. While Luther interpreted 1 Cor. 6:4 in this sense in his 1522 New Testament (cf. the KJV, “least esteemed in the church”), from 1530 on, his different understanding and rendering of the same verse were underscored by a marginal gloss referring the phrase to the heathen (cf. the NRSV: “those who have no standing in the church”). WA DB 7:100–101.

56. Rom. 3:17 is a quotation from Isa. 59:8, a passage which was familiar to Luther from the Vulgate Bible where it had been included as a part of Ps. 13:3. The passage is correctly omitted from the corresponding English versions, even as Luther similarly omitted it from Ps. 14:3 in his German Psalter. WA DB 101:138–39.

authorities would proceed to punish in a just and orderly way, on proof furnished by others. Indeed, the aggrieved party ought to request and insist that the case not be brought to trial; the others, in their turn, ought not to desist until the offense is punished. In this way affairs would be conducted in a friendly, Christian, and brotherly spirit, with more regard to the sin than to the injury. This is why St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 6[:7] for suing one another instead of allowing themselves to be injured and defrauded, although because of their imperfection he allowed them to appoint the least among them55 as judges. He did this to shame them [1 Cor. 6:5] into a knowledge of their imperfection. In like manner we must tolerate those who sue in court and are sued for temporal goods as weak and immature Christians; we dare not cast them off, because there is hope for their improvement, as the same apostle teaches in many places. e We ought to tell them, however, that such conduct is neither Christian nor praiseworthy but human and earthly, more of a hindrance to salvation than a help. Eighth. Christ gave us this commandment [Matt. 5:40] in order to establish within us a peaceful, pure, and heavenly way of life. Now for everyone to demand what is his and be unwilling to endure wrong is not the way to peace, as those blind men think, of whom it is said in the fourteenth psalm, “They do not know the way to peace.”56 That way passes only through suffering, as even the heathen know by reason, f and we by daily experience. If peace is to be kept, one party must remain quiet and suffer. Even though quarrels and litigation last for a long time, they must eventually come to an end—after the injuries and evils that would not otherwise have occurred, had the people kept this commandment of Christ from the start and not allowed the temptation with which God tries us to drive them from the commandment and overcome them. God has so arranged matters that those who will not let a little go for the sake of God’s commandment will have to lose a great deal, perhaps all, through lawsuits and war. It is no more than fair that a person who will not even for God’s sake or his own eternal merits give ten gulden e f

Cf., e.g., Acts 20:35; Rom. 14:1; 15:1-2; 1 Cor. 9:22; 1 Thess. 5:14. On Luther’s view of reason, see Brian Gerrish, Grace and Reason: A Study in the Theolog y of Luther (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962); Allister McGrath, Luther’s Theolog y of the Cross: Martin Luther’s Theological Breakthrough (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

On Business and Usury or six to his neighbor should be obliged in service of the Devil to give to the judges, proctors, and clerks twenty, thirty, or forty gulden. Thus, he loses both temporal and eternal goods where, had he been obedient to God, he might have had enough for both time and eternity. So too it must happen at times that great lords ruin an entire land through war, expending vast sums on the military, all for the sake of some small advantage or privilege. That is the perverted wisdom of the world; it fishes with golden nets, g and the cost is greater than the profit. Such fellows win little by squandering much. Ninth. It would also be impossible for us to become cleansed of our attachment to worldly goods if God did not ordain that we should suffer unjust losses, and thereby be trained to turn our hearts away from the false temporal goods of this world, letting them go in peace, and pinning our hopes on invisible and eternal goods. Hence, those who demand that which is theirs, and do not let the cloak go with the coat [Matt. 5:40], are resisting their own cleansing and the hope of eternal salvation, toward which God would train and drive them by means of such a commandment and unjust treatment. And even though everything were taken from us, there is no reason to fear that God will forsake us and fail to provide for us even in temporal matters; as it is written in Psalm 37[:25], “I have been young, and now am old; yet I have not seen the righteous forsaken or his children begging bread.” This is proven also in the case of Job, who in the end received much more than he had before, although all that was his had been taken from him [Job 42:10, 12]. In short, such commandments are intended to detach us from the world and make us desirous of heaven. Therefore, we ought freely and joyfully accept God’s faithful counsel, for if God did not give it, and did not let us experience injustice and trouble, the human heart could not maintain itself; it becomes too deeply enmeshed in temporal things and too firmly attached to them. The result is earthly satiety, and disregard of the eternal goods in heaven. Tenth. So much for the first degree of dealing with worldly goods. It is also the foremost and greatest; but, alas! it has not only become the least, but has even come to nothing, quite g This proverbial expression is documented in “Netz,” in Wander, 3:1,005–6, nos. 36, 607; and in Grimm, DWB, VII, 636.

165

166

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD unknown amid the fog and clouds of human laws, usages, habits, and customs. Now comes the second degree. It is that we are to give freely and without return to anyone who needs our goods or asks for them. Of this our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 5[:42], “Give to him who begs from you.” Although this degree is much lower than the first, it is nevertheless hard and bitter to those who have more taste for temporal than eternal goods; they have not enough trust in God to believe that he can or will sustain them in this wretched life. They therefore fear that they would die of hunger or be ruined entirely if they were to obey God’s command and give to everyone who asks of them. How then can they trust him to maintain them in eternity? As Christ says, “He who does not trust God in a little matter, will never trust him in something greater.” h Nevertheless, they go ahead and suppose that God will save them eternally. They even think that in this regard they have perfect trust in him; yet they will not heed this commandment of his by which he would train and drive them to learn to trust him in things temporal and eternal. Hence, there is reason to fear that he who will not listen to this teaching and follow it will never acquire the art of trusting, and that those who will not trust God in little temporal things must at last despair also in those matters that are great and eternal. Eleventh. This second degree is so small a thing that it was commanded even to the simple, imperfect Jewish people in the Old Testament, as it is written in Deuteronomy 15[:11], “Since there will never cease to be some in need on the earth, I therefore command you, ‘Open your hand to the poor and needy neighbor in your land.’” i Moreover, in the same place he commanded them very strictly that they must allow no one to beg, saying in Deuteronomy 15[:4], “There shall never be a beggar or someone who is starving among you.” Now since God gave this commandment in the Old Testament, how much more ought we Christians to be bound, not only to allow no one to starve or beg, but beyond that also to keep the first degree of this commandment and be prepared to let everything go that anyone would take from us by force. But now there is so much begging that it has even become an honor; it is not enough that men of the world beg, but even h Cf. Luke 16:10. i NRSV translation.

On Business and Usury the spiritual estate of priests practices it as a precious thing.57 I will not quarrel with anyone about it, but I think it would be more fitting if there were no more begging in Christendom under the New Testament than among the Jews under the Old Testament; I hold that the spiritual and temporal authorities would be discharging their duty properly if they did away with all the beggars’ sacks.58 Twelfth. There are three common practices or customs among individuals that stand in the way of this second degree. The first is that people give and present things to their friends, and to the rich and powerful who do not need them, but they forget the needy. And if they thereby obtain the favor, reward, or friendship of these people, or are praised by them as good and upright, they go confidently along, satisfied with human praise, honor, favor, or reward; failing to observe, meanwhile, how much better it would be if they did these things for the needy, and obtained therein the favor, praise, and honor of God. Of such people Christ says in Luke 14[:12-14], “When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your kinsmen or your neighbors or the rich, lest they also invite you in return, and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the sick, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. You will be repaid among the righteous when they arise from the dead.” Although this precept is so clear and plain that everyone sees and knows well that it ought to be so, yet we never see an example among Christians any more. There is neither measure nor limit to the entertaining, the high living, the eating, drinking, giving, and presenting; and yet they are all called good people and Christians, and the only thing it accomplishes is that giving to the needy is forgotten. O what a horrible judgment will fall upon these carefree spirits, when at the Last Day they are asked to whom they have given and done good! j Thirteenth. The second custom is the refusal to extend this giving to enemies or opponents. It comes hard to our false nature to do good to them who have done evil to us. But there is no getting around it, the commandment has reference to all people, “Give to him who begs from you” [Matt. 5:42]; it is clearly expressed in Luke 6[:30], “Give to everyone who begs from you.” j

Cf. Matt. 25:31-46.

167 57. The chief mendicant orders were the Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinian Hermits, and Carmelites.

58. See the introduction to Luther’s 1523 Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest (LW 45:161–62, 176), and in the ordinance itself (LW 45:185–86).

168

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

There is no exclusion here of enemies or opponents; indeed, they are included, as the Lord explains in the same passage where he says, “If you love only those who love you, what kind of goodness is that? Even the wicked love those who love them. And if you do good only to those who love you, what kind of goodness is that? Even the wicked do that. But you shall love your enemies, and do good to them; you shall lend to them, and expect nothing in return; and your merit will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked” [Luke 6:32–35]. These wholesome commandments of Christ have so fallen into disuse that individuals not only do not keep them, but have made of them a “counsel” which one is not bound to keep unconditionally, just as they have done with the first degree.k They have been In this image on the cover of 1545 printing helped in this by pernicious teachers of Luther’s Enchiridion: Der kleine Catechismus für die gemeine Pfarherr vnd Prediger (Handbook: who say that it is not necessary to lay The Small Catechism for Ordinary Pastors aside the signa rancoris,59 that is, the and Preachers), a man offers forgiveness signs and outward tokens of wrath to another upon confession. The artist and bitterness toward one’s enemy; it of this engraving is the monogrammist H.A. is enough, they say, that he is forgiven in your heart. Thus, they apply Christ’s commandment about external acts to the realm of thought alone, although he himself in clear words refers to action, saying, “You shall do good (not merely think good) to your enemies” [Luke 6:35]. Paul too in Romans 12[:20], in agreement with King Solomon [Prov. 59. This was the position of Gabriel 25:21-22], says the same thing, “If your enemy is hungry, feed Biel, following Bonaventura (1221– him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap 1274).

k See pp. 161–65.

On Business and Usury burning coals upon his head.” That is, you will load him with kindnesses so that, overcome with good [Rom. 12:21], he will be kindled with love for you. From the false doctrine has sprung the common saying, “I will forgive him, but I will not forget.” Not so, dear Christian! You must forgive and forget, as you would that God should not only forgive you and forget, but also grant you even more kindnesses than before. Fourteenth. The third custom has a beautiful, brilliant appearance, but it does the most harm to giving. There is considerable risk involved in speaking of it, for it concerns those who are supposed to be teaching and ruling others; and these are the very individuals who from the beginning of the world to its end can never bear to hear the truth or suffer others to hear it. The way things are now, they bestow the lofty title of “alms” and of “giving for God’s sake” solely on giving for churches, monasteries, chapels, altars, towers, bells, organs, paintings, images, silver and gold ornaments and vestments, and for masses, vigils, singing, reading, testamentary endowments, brotherhoods, 60 and the like. Giving has taken hold here, and the real stream of giving runs in the direction toward which men have guided it and where they wanted to have it. No wonder, then, that in the direction toward which Christ’s word guides it things are so dry and desolate; where there are a hundred altars or vigils there is not a single person who feeds a tableful of poor people or in other respects assists a needy household. Not what Christ has commanded, but what people have invented, is called “giving for God’s sake”; not what one gives to the needy, the living members of Christ, but what one gives to stone, wood, and paint, is called “alms.” And this giving has become so precious and noble that God himself is not enough to recompense it, but has to have the help of letters, 61 bulls, parchments, lead, plate, cords large and small, and wax in green, yellow, and white. If it makes no show, it has no value. It is all bought from Rome at great cost “for God’s sake,” and such great works are rewarded with indulgences here and there, over and above God’s reward. But that miserable work of giving to the poor and needy according to Christ’s commandment must be robbed of such splendid reward, and be content simply with the reward that God gives. The latter work is therefore pushed to the rear and the former is placed out in front, and the two when compared shine with unequal light.

169

60. Brotherhoods were associations of laymen, loosely following the monastic ideal.

61. Indulgence letters came into use about the turn of the fifteenth century. Elaborately ornamented with papal signatures and seals, they provided impressive tangible evidence of heavenly forgiveness and effectively boosted sales of the “sacred commodity.” Schwiebert, 305.

170

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

An elaborate document, dated 1500, establishing the indulgence to the faithful who visit the chapel of St. Jacob’s in the parish church in Kłodzko, Poland

62. The sale of indulgences for the purpose of building St. Peter’s basilica in Rome was the occasion for Luther’s writing his 95 Theses, and is specifically mentioned in theses 50 and 86 (LW 31:21, 30, 33; TAL 1:40, 45). 63. The Kirchwey, which was either the dedication of a church or the anniversary celebration of such an event, usually drew great crowds and was observed in anything but a spiritual fashion. 64. A jarmarckt was one of the numerous annual fairs held at stated times in

This is why even St. Peter of Rome must now go through the whole world begging for the building of his church, gathering great heaps of “alms for God’s sake” and paying for them dearly and richly with indulgences.62 This work suits him well, and he can easily attend to it, because he is dead; if he were alive he would have to preach Christ’s commandments, and could not attend to indulgences. Following studiously after their faithful shepherd, his lambs strayed about in the land with indulgences; wherever there is a parish festival63 or an annual fair64 these beggars gather like flies in summer and all preach the same song, “Give to the new building, that God and the holy Lord St. Nicholas65 may reward you.” Afterward they go to beer or wine, also “for God’s sake,” and the commissioners are made rich from the

On Business and Usury indulgences, also “for God’s sake.” But neither commissioners nor legates66 are necessary to tell us that we should give to the needy according to God’s commandment. Fifteenth. What are we to say to this? If we reject these works, the Holy See at Rome puts us under the ban,67 and learned scholars promptly denounce us as heretics, 68 because the place toward which the stream of money is directed makes a tremendous difference. Now we would not disallow the building of suitable churches and their adornment; we cannot do without them. And public worship ought rightly to be conducted in the finest way. l But there should be a limit to this, and we should take care that the appurtenances of worship be pure, rather than costly. The pity—and the thing we are complaining about—is that we are diverted from God’s commandments by such a stir and clamor, and that our attention is directed to things which God has not commanded, and without which his commandments can readily be kept. It would be satisfactory if we gave the smaller proportion to churches, altars, vigils, bequests, and the like, and let the main stream flow toward God’s commandments, so that among Christians charitable deeds done to the poor would shine more brightly than all the churches of wood and stone. To speak boldly, it is sheer trickery, dangerous, and deceptive to the simple-minded, when bulls, letters, seals, banners,69 and the like are displayed for the sake of dead stone churches, and the same thing is not done a hundred times more for the sake of needy, living Christians. Beware, therefore, O people! God will not ask you at your death and at the Last Day how much you have left in your will, whether you have given so and so much to churches—although I do not condemn this—but he will say to you, “I was hungry, and you gave me no food; I was naked, and you did not clothe me” [Matt. 25:42-43]. Take these words to heart, dear man! The important thing is whether you have given to your neighbor and treated him well. Beware of show and glitter and color that draw you away from this! Sixteenth. Pope, bishops, kings, princes, and lords ought to labor for the abolition of these intolerable burdens and impositions. It ought to be established and decreed, either by their own

l

Auff zierlichst.

171 various cities which drew merchants from great distances and accounted for a large portion of the year’s wholesale trade. PE 2:95 n. 2. 65. The reference is probably to the fourth-century Bishop Nicholas of Myra in Lycia, patron of mariners, regarded in Germany as the secret purveyor of gifts to children on December 6, his feast day. Catholic Encyclopedia (e-Catholic, 2000) vol. XI. 66. Commissarien and botschafften were those authorized from above to publish and sell indulgences. 67. Written already in December of 1519 and published at the beginning of 1520, this prophetic sentence anticipated by nearly six months the inevitable papal reaction to Luther’s attack on indulgences, which finally came in the form of the papal bull—Exsurge Domine, signed 15 June 1520—threatening excommunication in sixty days if Luther did not recant his errors. For Luther’s understanding of excommunication, see his Treatise Concerning the Ban, written about the same time as this treatise (PE 2:37–54). 68. On 29 August 1519, the University of Cologne condemned Luther’s writings as heretical; on 9 November 1519, fifteen members of the faculty of the University of Louvain did likewise. Schwiebert, 427–31. These early academic condemnations of Luther are intriguing since few writings of Luther’s could be used, mainly the 95 Theses (with their methodological complication that the theses were meant for debate) and Luther’s resolutions, the Explanation of the Theses. 69. Banners were a part of the indulgence hawkers’ paraphernalia. CL 1:237 n. 5.

172 70. Luther’s hope of reform through a general council was expressed more forcefully several months later in To the Christian Nobility (1520), LW 44:115–217; TAL 1:368–465.

71. The shrine at Santiago de Compostela in Spain, supposed burial place of the apostle James, was one of the most popular pilgrimage sites during the Middle Ages. 72. This was the position taken by Johann Eck’s 1518 Obelisks in which he had endeavored to refute Luther’s 95 Theses. Thomas had declared the giving of alms “in extrema necessitate” to be a matter of precept over against counsel (Karl Holl, “Der Neubau der Sittlichkeit,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kirchengeschichte, vol. 1, Luther, p. 166, n. 1). 73. The reference is to the objectionable qualifying addition to Christ’s command. 74. Matt. 7:12 and Luke 6:31 are repeatedly cited by Luther as “natural law.” In 1521 Melanchthon deduced from Rom. 2:15 a definition of natural law as a “common judgment to which all men alike assent, and therefore one which God has inscribed upon the soul of each man. Charles Leander Hill, trans., The Loci Communes of Philip Melanchthon (Boston: Meador, 1944), 112.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD mandate or in a general council,70 that every town and locality should build and furnish its own churches, towers, and bells, and make provision itself for its own poor. Then begging would cease entirely, or at least not be done according to the present unhappy custom whereby each locality begs for its churches and its poor in all the other towns. The Holy See at Rome should just be left in peace with its bulls; if it really wanted to attend to its duties it would have plenty of other things to do besides selling bulls and building churches, neither of which is its essential function. God has expressed it plainly in his law, Deuteronomy 15[:11], “The poor will never cease out of your city.” Thus, he has committed to every city its own poor; he will not have people running hither and yon with beggars’ sacks, as they now run to St. James71 and to Rome. Although I am too small a man to give advice to popes and to all the rulers of the world in this matter— and do not think myself that anything will come of it—nevertheless, people ought to know what the proper and needful course should be; it is the duty of the authorities to consider and to do what is necessary for the best government of the common people who are committed to their care. Seventeenth. A clever little trick has been invented which teaches in a masterly way how this commandment can be evaded and the Holy Spirit deceived. It is this: No one is bound to give to the needy unless they are in extreme want.72 In addition, they have reserved to themselves the right to discuss and determine what extreme want is. So we learn neither to help nor to give to the needy until they are perishing, starving, freezing to death, or fleeing because of poverty and debts. But this infamous gloss and supplement 73 are confounded by a single word, “What you wish another to do to you, do so to him.”74 No one is so foolish, however, as to be unwilling that anyone should give to him until such time as the soul is leaving the body or he has run away from his debts, and then help him when he is beyond help. But when it comes to churches, endowments, indulgences, and other things which God has not commanded, then no one is so keen or so diligent in figuring out whether we should give to the church before the tiles fall off the roof, the beams rot, the ceiling caves in, the letters of dispensation molder, or the indulgences rot with age; although all these things could wait more easily than people who are in need. In such matters every hour is instead one of “extreme want,” even though all the coffers and storerooms are

On Business and Usury full, and the buildings in good repair. Indeed, here one must forever be gathering treasure, not to be given or lent to the needy on earth, but for the Holy Cross, for Our Dear Lady, and the Holy Patron, St. Peter, who are in heaven. All this must be done with more than ordinary foresight, so that if the Last Day were never to come the church would be taken care of for a couple hundred thousand years! Thus, in case of need, the canonization of a saint 75 or a bishop’s pallium76 or the like can be bought at the fairm in Rome. I truly think that the Romans are indeed great fools not to sell canonization, pallia, bulls, and letters at an even higher price and get still more money for them, as long as these fat German fools come to their fair and obligate themselves to buy them; though, to be sure, no Antichrist 77 could collect these treasures

Fifteenth-century reliquary for a finger bone. Three angels elevate the hollow glass cylinder of this reliquary, a type of dramatic “display” reliquary that became popular in the late Middle Ages. Inside is the relic of an unknown saint, a small fragment of a bone, possibly from a finger, wrapped in a piece of cloth.

m Jarmarck is used here sarcastically; see n. 64, p. 170. Luther frequently uses the term in a derogatory sense to refer to deceitful trade practices. Grimm, Deutsches Wörterbuch 4, no. 2:2,246.

173 75. To possess the relics of a saint, or to have him as the local patron, gave a certain distinction and importance to a church, and proved a good drawing card for attracting generous pilgrims. Hence, local ecclesiastical authorities were willing to pay a considerable sum for the canonization of a departed bishop or other local dignitary. See Luther’s fuller treatment of the subject in his June 1520 To the Christian Nobility (TAL 1:433–38). 76. The pallium, a white scarf with black crosses, was the emblem of the archbishop’s office; at least in theory it was woven from the wool of sheep pastured on the property of the Vatican in Rome, and was obtainable only from the pope. Bestowal of the pallium is a very ancient custom; Gregory I (590–604) referred to it already in his time as an “old custom.” Canon 2. Decreti Magistri Gratiani Prima Pars, dist. C. Corpus Iuris Canonici, I, col. 352. Canon 1 prescribes that the archbishop-elect must secure the pallium from Rome within three months after his election; otherwise, he may not discharge any of the duties of his office (ibid.). In Luther’s time, huge fees, normally about ten thousand gulden for a German archbishop, were exacted for the bestowal of the pallium, which had originally been bestowed gratis. Archbishop in Mainz, Albert of Brandenburg (1490–1545) was charged a much higher pallium fee, and the resulting bargain between Pope Leo X (1475–1521), Albert, and the Fugger banking house that financed him led directly to the sale which precipitated the indulgence controversy with Luther. PE 2:89 n. 3. Schwiebert, 306–8. 77. Luther’s frequent reference to the pope.

174 78. The allusion is to the treasures amassed by the Antichrist in Dan. 11:39, 43.

79. According to tradition, Ambrose (c. 340–397), bishop of Milan, melted down gold vessels belonging to the church to redeem captives taken by the Goths. To the Arian reproach of sacrilege he answered, “If the Church possesses gold it is in order to use it for the needy, not to keep it.” Herbert Thurston and Donald Attwater, eds., Butler’s Lives of the Saints, 4 vols. (New York: Kennedy, 1956), 4:510–11.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD on earth78 more fittingly than the bottomless bag at Rome, into which they are all gathered and categorized. It would grieve me to the heart if these damned sums, taken from the needy to whom they properly belong, were spent for anything but Roman wares. St. Ambrose79 and Paulinus 80 at one time melted down the chalices and everything that their churches had, and gave it to the poor. Turn over the page, and you will find how things are today. It is fortunate for you, dear Rome, that even though the Germans run short of money, they still have chalices, monstrances, 81 and images enough; and all of them are still yours!

80. Paulinus (c. 354–431), bishop of Nola, was noted for his charity. He is supposed to have written “the life of Saint Ambrose . . . in a letter to Saint Augustine.” The Golden Legend of Jacobus de Voragine, I, 25. 81. The monstrance is a vessel in which the sacred host, i.e., the consecrated wafer, is exposed for the veneration of the faithful.

A woodcut of the seven sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church adorn the title page of this sermon by Luther on baptism, published in the Catholic city of Leipzig in 1520. The monstrance shown in the lower center signifies the Eucharist.

On Business and Usury Eighteenth. Now we come to the third degreen of dealing with temporal goods. It is this, that we should willingly and gladly lend without charge or zinss. o Of this our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 5[:42], “From him who would borrow from you, turn not away”; that is, do not refuse him. This degree is the lowest of all, and is commanded even in the Old Testament, where God says in Deuteronomy 15[:7-8], “If any among your brothers in your town becomes poor, you shall not harden your heart or shut your hand against him, but you shall open your hand wide and lend him whatever he needs.” They have allowed this degree to remain a commandment.p For all the doctors agree in this, that borrowing and lending shall be free, without charge or burden; 82 though they do not all agree on the question to whom we ought to lend. For, as was said about the previous degree of giving, q here too there are many who gladly lend to the rich or to good friends, more to seek their favor or because they are related to them than because God has commanded it, and especially if it is given the high title spoken of above, r namely, “for the worship of God,” or, “for God’s sake,” etc. Everybody gladly lends to the Holy Cross and to Our Dear Lady and the Holy Patron. But there is always trouble and labor about those to whom God’s command points; to them no one wants to lend, except in cases of extreme want where lending does no good, as was said above. s Nineteenth. Christ, however, excluded no one from his commandment; indeed, he included all kinds of people, even one’s enemies, when he said in Luke 6[:34], “If you lend only to those from whom you expect a loan in return, what kind of goodness is that? Even wicked sinners lend to one another, to receive as much again.” And again, “Lend, expecting nothing in return” [Luke 6:35]. I know very well that a good many doctors have interpreted these words as though Christ had therein commanded to lend in such a way as not to make any charge for it or seek any profit, but to lend gratis. 83 This opinion is doubtless not wrong, for he who makes a charge for lending is not lending, and neither n o p q r s

See p. 159 and pp. 145–46. See introduction, pp. 132, and n. 14, p. 138. See n. 15, p. 88 [On Secular Authority] in this volume. See pp. 166–67. See pp. 169–71. See p. 172.

175

82. The Scholastics unanimously condemned loans at interest as usury. They differed in their analysis of the various contracts devised to circumvent the unusual prohibition against usury, but generally came to regard many of them as something other than loans, often sales.

83. Augustine (354–430), Ambrose, and Jerome (c. 347–419) interpreted Luke 6:35 in this way.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

176

is he selling; therefore, this must be usury, because lending is, in its very nature, nothing else than to offer another something without charge, on the condition that one eventually get back the same thing or its equivalent, and nothing more. But if we examine the word of Christ closely, it does not teach that we are to lend without charge. There is no need for such teaching, since there is no other kind of lending except that which is without charge; if a charge is made, it is not a loan.t What he wants is that we should lend not only to friends, to the rich, and to those we like, who can repay us again by returning the loan, or by lending to us, or some other favor; but that we lend also to those who are unable or unwilling to repay us, such as the needy and our enemies. Just as in his teaching about loving and giving, u so also our lending is to be done without personal gain or advantage. This does not happen unless we lend to our enemies and to the needy. For all that he says is aimed to teach us to do good to everyone, that is, not only to those who do good to us, but also to those who treat us ill or cannot do us good in return. That is what he means when he says, “Lend, expecting nothing in return” [Luke 6:35], that is, you should lend to those who are neither willing nor able to lend to you in return. He who lends expects to receive back the same thing that he lent; if he expects nothing, then, according to their interpretation, it would be a gift and not a loan. It is such a little thing to lend to one who is a friend, or rich, or who may render some service in return, that even sinners who are not Christians do this. Christians therefore ought to do more, and lend to those who do not reciprocate, that is, to enemies and to the needy. And so that doctrine again falls to the ground which says that we are not bound to lay aside the signa rancoris,v as has been said above.w Even though they speak aright concerning lending, they still turn this commandment into a counsel, and teach us that we are not bound to lend to our enemies or to the needy unless they are in extreme want. x Beware of this!

t u v w

Cf. the similar statement of Gabriel Biel quoted in MA 3 5:421 n. 146, 9. See Matt. 5:44, 42; Luke 6:27-35. See p. 168 and n. 59. See p. 172, especially n. 72.

On Business and Usury Twentieth. From this it follows that they are all usurers who lend their neighbor wine, grain, money, or whatever it may be on such terms that they obligate him to pay zinssen on it after a year or a specified time interval; or burden or overload him with the obligation of paying back more than he has borrowed, or something else that is better than what he borrowed. In order that these men may themselves perceive how wrong their practice is— despite the fact that it has, unfortunately, become common—we will set before them three laws. First: This present passage in the gospel [Luke 6:35] that commands us to lend. Now lending is not lending unless it is done without charge and without any advantage to the lender, as has been said. Crafty avarice, to be sure, sometimes camouflages itself beautifully and pretends to accept the surplus as a gift, 84 but this is of no help if that gift is a basis for the loan, or if the borrower would rather not make the gift provided he could borrow gratis. The gift is particularly suspicious if it is the borrower who presents it to the lender—one who lacks to the one who has—for it is not natural to suppose that a needy person would present a gift to a wealthy man of his own free will; it is necessity that forces him to do so. Second: Charging for a loan is contrary to natural law. The Lord points this out in Luke 6[:31] and Matthew 7[:12], “As you wish that [others] would do to you, do so to them.” y Now beyond any doubt, there is no one who wants a man to lend him rye to be repaid with wheat, bad money to be repaid with good, or inferior wares to be repaid with good wares. Indeed, he would much rather that a man should lend him good wares to be repaid with bad, or at most with goods of like quality and without additional charge. Therefore, it is clear that such lenders are acting contrary to nature, are guilty of mortal sin, are usurers, and are seeking in their own profit their neighbor’s loss; they do not want to be treated this way in return by others, and are therefore dealing unfairly with their neighbor. Third: It is also against the Old and the New Law, which commands, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself [Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39]. Such lenders love themselves alone and seek only

x y

See pp. 172–75. See n. 74, p. 172.

177

84. In the Middle Ages many payments for loans, especially in the case of kings and states, were made as gifts to free the recipient from public odium or prosecution for usury. The Scholastics held acceptance of the gift to be lawful if it was not hoped for by the creditor, and not given by the debtor for the purpose of obtaining favors (Noonan, 104–5).

178

85. Roman jurists, followed by the early canonists, held that quod interest (literally, “that which is the difference”)—the single substantive interesse introduced by Laurentius Hispanus (d. 1248) became standard from about 1220 on—was distinct from usura in kind rather than degree. Usura was prohibited as a special payment on a loan. Interesse was allowed on the injured party’s damages on any contract due to the other party’s default, i.e., something purely compensatory (Noonan, 106). Interest as understood today—as due from the beginning of a loan— came very gradually to be defended by some canonists and theologians in the fourteenth century under the titles of damnum emergens (“loss or damage incurred”) and lucrum cessans (“profit ceasing or lost”) as a result of lending; the chief cause of the new attitude was the need to justify the financial practices of the Italian city states (ibid., 115, 121). A long step toward the formal approval of interest was taken by Pope Leo X’s bull Inter multiplices at the Fifth Lateran Council of 1516. Over Dominican and Augustinian objection, it sanctioned the montes pietatis (“mounts of piety”) which were in effect low-interest-charging public pawn shops, championed and fostered by Franciscans to protect poor Christians against the high-interest charging, truly usurious moneylenders (ibid., 299–300).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD their own; z they do not love and look out for their neighbor with the same fidelity as they love and look out for themselves. Twenty-first. No better or briefer instruction can therefore be given in this and in any other matters where dealing with temporal goods is concerned than that everyone who is to have any dealings with his neighbor should keep in mind these commandments: “What you wish another to do to you, do so to him” [Luke 6:31; Matt. 7:12], and, “Love your neighbor as yourself” [Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:39]; he should consider in addition what he would wish to have for himself if he were in his neighbor’s place. If he were to do this he would discover for himself all that he needs to know. There would be no need for law books or courts or complaints; all cases would be decided quickly and simply, since everyone’s heart and conscience would tell him how he would like to be dealt with, what he would like to have remitted, what given, and what forgiven. From this he would have to conclude that he ought to do the same for everyone else. Because we fail to keep our eyes on these commandments, however, and look only at the business deal and its profit or loss, we are bound to have innumerable books, laws, courts, lawsuits, blood, and all sorts of misery. From violation of God’s commandments must follow the destruction of God’s kingdom, which is peace and unity in brotherly love and faith. a And yet these wicked men go about, sometimes praying and fasting, sometimes giving alms; but in this matter, on which salvation depends, they are altogether heedless and carefree, as if this commandment did not apply to them at all, although without it they cannot be saved even if they performed all the other works of all the saints. Twenty-second. Here we are met with two objections. The first is this: If lending were to be done in this way, the interesse85 would be lost; that is, the profit that could have been made meanwhile from the goods that are loaned. The second is the extensive precedent: everywhere in the world it has become the custom to lend for profit, especially since scholars, priests, clergy, and the churches do it with a view to seeking to improve the churches, ecclesiastical property, and divine worship; there would other-

z Cf. 1 Cor. 13:5. a Cf. Rom. 14:17.

On Business and Usury wise be very few Christians in the world, and everyone would be reluctant to lend. Answer: There is nothing to this. In the first place, you have to lose the interesse and the profit anyway if the sum is taken from you, or if you give to someone outright. Why, then, do you seek to keep it in the matter of lending? He who decides to give or lend must waive the interesse in advance, or it is neither giving nor lending. In the second place, whether the practice be custom or not, it is not Christian or godly or natural, and no precedent can change that fact. For it is written, “You shall not follow a multitude to do evil [Exod. 23:2], but honor God and his commandments above all things.” b That the clergy and churches do this is so much the worse, for ecclesiastical property and churches have neither authority nor freedom to break God’s commandments, rob their neighbor, practice usury, and do wrong; by such means divine worship is not improved, but corrupted. The way to improve divine worship is to keep God’s commandments; even notorious scoundrels can improve church property. And even if the whole world had the custom of lending at such charges, the churches and the clergy should do the opposite; the more spiritual their possessions, the more Christian—in accordance with Christ’s command—should be the manner in which they lend them, give them, and let them go. He who does otherwise is doing so not to improve the churches or ecclesiastical property but for his own usury-loving greed, which decks itself out with such fine names. It is no wonder, then, that Christians are few, for here we see who are practicing really good works, although many blind and deceive themselves with their own self-chosen good works, which God has not commanded them to do. If anyone finds, however, that these conditions make it hard for him to lend to his neighbor, it is a sign of his great unbelief; he despises the comforting assurance of Christ, who says, “If we lend and give, we are sons of the Most High, and our reward will be great” [Luke 6:35]. He who does not believe this comforting promise and make it a guide for his works is not worthy of it.

b Cf. Deut. 5:29; 6:2; Eccles. 12:13; 1 John 5:2.

179

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

180

Part Two

86. Luther applied the term stul reuber to usurers, as those who perpetrate their robbery while seated on an office stool. In his Large Catechism of 1529 Luther derived the term from Stuhl (stool) and Räuber (robber). “Luther incorrectly derives the word from Stuhl (chair) and Räuber (robber); it comes rather from the Middle Low German Stôhl, meaning capital that is loaned out at interest” (BC, 417 n. 102). 87. Cf. Luther’s statement of about a year later describing How Christians Should Regard Moses (1525), in which the tithe and the jubilee year are praised as fine examples which Christians would be wise—though they are not bound— to follow. See LW 35:166–67; TAL 2:142–43.

[. . .] c Back in Saxony, Lüneberg, and Holstein, the business is conducted so crudely that one would scarcely be surprised if one man devoured another. There they not only take 9 or 10 percent or as much as they can get, but they have hitched onto it a special device, namely this: If a man lets me have a thousand gulden for zinss, I have to take instead of hard cash so many horses and cows, or so much bacon, wheat, etc. (that he cannot get rid of otherwise, or cannot sell for so high a price). So the money I get amounts to scarcely half the sum named, say about five hundred gulden in hard cash. Still I must pay zinss on a thousand gulden, although the goods and cattle are of no use to me, and may bring in scarcely one or two hundred gulden. Ei! These fellows are not highway robbers or swivel-chair robbers, 86 but common house thieves and rustlers. What shall we say about this? They are not men at all, but wolves and irrational beasts, who do not believe there is a God. In a word, there is no better advice for all this usury and unjust zinss than to hark back to the law and example of Moses. 87 We ought to bring all these interest charges again under the ordinance that the amount to be charged, sold, put up, or given shall be the tithe; or (in the case of need) the ninth, or eighth, or sixth. Then everything would be perfectly consistent, and all would depend on the grace and blessing of God. If the tithe turned out well in any year, it would bring the recipient of zinss a good sum; if it turned out badly, it would bring in but little. The creditor would thus have to bear both risk and good fortune as well as the debtor, and both of them would have to look to God. In this way the amount of the zinss could not be fixed, nor would that be necessary. Instead, it would always remain uncertain how much the tithe would yield, and yet the tithe itself would be certain. The tithe is, therefore, the best zinss of all. It has been in use since the beginning of the world, and in the Old Law is praised and confirmed as the fairest of all arrangements according to

c

At this point Luther adds a fairly short passage to the 1519 treatise. Before that, however, he offered a lengthy consideration of the phenomenon of Zinskauff. Since that practice has long been obsolete, it is here omitted (see LW 45:295–308).

On Business and Usury divine and natural law. Following that, if the tithe ran short or were not enough, one could take the ninth, and sell or pledge and encumber it according as a land or house is able. Joseph required the taking of the fifth in Egypt, or found it to have been both required and customary from of old [Gen. 41:34; 47:24, 26]. By this arrangement the divine law of equity always prevails, that the lender take the risk. If things turn out well, the fifth is a goodly amount; if things turn out badly, it is proportionately less, according as God gives; it is not a fixed and certain sum. Now that the zinss purchase is predicated on a fixed and certain amount—all years reckoned the same, good and bad alike— both land and people must necessarily be ruined. For the zinss contract changes and buys unequal years for equal years, and poor years for prosperous years. In fact, for something already given it buys a blessing that God has not yet given. That can never be right, for by that means one sucks up the other’s blood and sweat. It is no wonder that in these few years that the zinskauff has been in operation, say about a hundred years, 88 all principalities and lands have been impoverished and mortgaged and ruined. But if the contract or the zinss were based not on crops but on houses or places where manual labor is done, the purchase could once more be governed in accordance with the law of Moses by having a jubilee year in such cases, and not selling things in perpetuity. I think that since this business is in such a disorganized state we could have no better precedent or laws than the laws that God provided for his people and by which he governed them [Lev. 25:10ff.]. He is certainly as wise as human reason can be, and we need not be ashamed to keep and follow the law of the Jews in this matter, since it is useful and good. Emperor, kings, princes, and lords ought to watch over this matter, look after their lands and people, and help and rescue them from the gaping jaws of usury; it would make things that much better for them, too. The diets should be dealing with this as one of the most pressing matters; instead, they just let it lie, 89 and in the meantime serve the papal tyranny, burdening lands and people more and more heavily as time goes on. But they will necessarily go to destruction themselves one day, when the land can no longer endure them but has to spew them out. God give them his light and grace. Amen.

181

88. The Zinskauff had been gradually developed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries out of the earlier practice of Rentenkauff, which dated from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.

89. The failure of the diets of Nuremberg in 1522 and 1524 to take effective action against the monopolies was one of the factors that led Luther to publish this 1524 treatise. See nn. 30 and 32, p. 150–51.

A group of German soldiers known as Landsknecht—mercenary foot soldiers and pikemen who were an important military force in Germany and other European countries in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Etching c. 1530 by Daniel Hopfer (1470−1536).

�

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved 1526

JOHN  D.  ROTH

INTRODUCTION

In July of 1525, while attending festivities in Wittenberg honoring Prince John’s recent assumption of office as elector of Saxony,1 Luther came into conversation with Assa von Kram.2 A professional soldier, von Kram had recently participated in the bloody massacre of the peasants at the Battle of Frankenhausen. 3 He came now to Luther with a troubled conscience, wondering how he could be a follower of Christ while serving in a profession that required him to kill. Luther promised that he would offer a response. It would take Luther another year before he found time to write the text, which was ready for publication in October of 1526. After a delay of several months, the first edition of Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved appeared in Wittenberg on 5 January 1527. Six more editions followed that same year issued by printers in Leipzig, Nikolsburg, Strassburg, and Nürnberg. 4 The central themes of Luther’s treatise—the nature of political and religious authority; the obligations of a subject to a lord; Christian views of violence—were part of a longstanding debate within the Christian tradition going back to the time of the early church. In the face of persecution, early Christians struggled to interpret Christ’s enigmatic admonition to “give to the emperor

1. John of Saxony (1468–1532) was elector of Saxony from 1525 until 1532. He became heir to the electorate upon the death his brother, Frederick the Wise, on 5 May 1525. Two older brothers had previously died—Albert in 1484 and Ernest in 1513—clearing the way for his succession. Nicknamed John “the Steadfast,” he continued his brother’s policy of protecting Luther and the Reformation movement and, in 1527, established the “Evangelical” (or Lutheran) church as the state church in Ernestine Saxony, with himself serving as the summus episcopus (supreme bishop). John was also a key figure in the Schmalkaldic League of Protestant states formed in 1530 to protect the Reformation. 2. Assa von Kram—also known as Aschwin IV and Ascanius von Cramm (c. 1490–1528)—was from a noble family in Lower Saxony and served for

183

184 a time as a counselor to Duke Ernst of Braunschweig-Lüneberg (1497–1546). As a soldier he participated in the Battle of Marignano in 1515 on the side of the French. In 1519, he was in the service of Duke Heinrich (1468–1532), fighting on the side of the Lüneburgers at the Battle of Soltau. In 1525, he came into the service of Duke George of Saxony (1500–1539), and fought against the peasants in the Battle of Frankenhausen in May of that year. Von Kram died in June of 1528 in Switzerland. Luther considered him a close friend and lamented his early death, calling him “a very fine man” in one of his commentaries on the Psalms in 1534. Cf. Dieter Lent, Cramm, Asche (auch Assa, Ascanius) (Aschwin IV.) von, in: Braunschweigisches Biographisches Lexikon: 8. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Appelhans, ed. Horst-Rüdiger Jarck, Dieter Lent, et al. (Braunschweig: Appelhans, 2006), 161. 3. The Battle of Frankenhausen was fought on 15 May 1525 as one of the final battles of the Peasants’ War. Armies comprised mostly of mercenaries hired by Count Philip I of Hesse (1504–1567) and his father-inlaw, Duke George of Saxony, crushed the peasants, along with their leader Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489–1525). The princes’ troops were well equipped and well trained; the peasants, by contrast, had little training, poor organization, and few weapons apart from scythes and flails. The battle commenced on 15 May, when Philip’s troops, along with the Saxon army of Duke George, broke a truce that had been concluded the evening before, and launched a combined infantry, cavalry, and artillery attack. The result was a devastating defeat of the peasants. All told, as many as 100,000 peasants and artisans died between 1524 and 1525.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). What, exactly, belonged to the emperor? And what did Jesus mean when he told his disciples “Do not resist an evildoer,” or “If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also,” or “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven” (Matt. 5:39, 43-45)? The writings of the apostles also posed challenges. Paul, for example, instructed the Romans,

Assa von Kram, drawn by Lucas Cranach the Elder (c. 1525)

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved “Be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1). Yet Peter and other apostles openly defied political leaders in Jerusalem, saying, “We must obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29). a For Luther, these were not theoretical questions. In the early phases of the Reformation—when confronting the massive institutional power of the Catholic Church and the political and military strength of the Holy Roman Empire—Luther struck a defiant tone vis-à-vis those in authority. In his Letter to the Christian Nobility of 1520, Luther questioned the authority of the papacy in political matters, and he called on the princes of the German states to involve themselves in the reform of the German churches.b In his foreword to the Freedom of a Christian (1520), dedicated to Pope Leo X (1475–1521), Luther announced that he would “accept no rules for interpreting scripture” and developed an argument that the true Christian was “a perfectly free lord, subject to none” yet also “a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all.” c In December of the same year, he publicly burned the pope’s bull Exsurge Domine, along with copies of canon law, in defiance of the pope’s threat of excommunication. And in April of 1521, Luther’s refusal to recant his teachings and his insistence on the authority of his conscience, “captive to the Word of God,” led Charles V (1500–1558), the Holy Roman Emperor, to condemn Luther as a “notorious heretic” and to call for his immediate arrest.5 Instead of submitting to the emperor’s authority, however, Luther entered into the protective custody of his prince, Frederick the Wise (1463–1525). Thus, in his early writings, Luther was clear that social, political, and religious obligations should be judged according to the teachings of Scripture, that matters of faith could not be coerced, and, that Christians, like Peter, should “obey God rather than any human authority” (Acts 5:29).

a For a recent summary of early Christian texts on the question of war and violence, see The Early Church on Killing: A Comprehensive Sourcebook on War, Abortion, and Capital Punishment, ed. Ronald J. Sider (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012). b LW 44:123–217; TAL 1:369–465. c LW 31:344; see also TAL 1:488.

185 4. This included two printings in Wittenberg and two printings in Nürnberg. For a full listing of these imprints, see WA 19:618–19.

5. Among other things, the Edict of Worms (1521), issued by Charles V, pronounced Luther guilty of the crime of lèse majesté (high treason)—for Luther, the worst expression of political rebellion. The edict further accused Luther of inciting rebellion: “He [Luther] was rejoicing about the destruction of the Christians who, because of his doctrines and his perversity, were living in discord, trouble, and division. Luther also wanted, like the heretics, to pervert and interpret in an evil manner the authority of the holy gospel and to use it maliciously. (For example, where our Redeemer says, ‘I have not come to bring peace, but the sword,’ Martin says that there is no greater joy in the world for him than to see contention and factions because of the word of God.) In this manner does he cover up his new opinions concerning the word of God. He wanted to raise factionalism, dissension, discord, crimes, wars, and evil things among Christians, as we can readily see from the effects and the great damage to the common good of the Christian religion.”

186

6. For the full English version of the text, see LW 45:57–74. The basic outlines of Luther’s arguments in Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved were already clearly outlined in this tract of 1522. In brief, all forms of rebellion by ordinary people are damnable acts; the responsibility of the Christian subject is to endure, pray, teach the gospel, and trust in God.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD But almost immediately, Luther also became aware that these same principles—applied by other reformers in other contexts— could lead to unanticipated outcomes. This first became evident in October of 1521, during his enforced seclusion at the Wartburg (May 1521 to March 1522), when Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541), Luther’s mentor and colleague on the theological faculty at Wittenberg, summarily abolished the Mass, rejected clerical celibacy, and denounced images in churches, claiming that these practices had no basis in Scripture. In early December, townspeople and students in Wittenberg stormed the parish church and nearby Franciscan monastery, destroying religious images and statues as “papal idolatry.” Concerned that matters were getting out of hand, Luther wrote a tract called A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion, printed in early 1522, that marked his first sustained engagement with questions of political order.6

Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (c. 1480−1541) and the destruction of religious imagery (iconoclasm). Sixteenth-century woodcut.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved A few months later, Luther further developed these themes in On Secular Authority: To What Extent Must It Be Obeyed?7 Here he responded directly to the teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, arguing that Christ intended these teachings to apply only to relations among (true) Christians, not to society in general. d At the same time, Luther insisted that temporal authorities had no jurisdiction over matters of faith or conscience, “for faith is a free act, to which no one can be forced.”  e The unrest sparked by the Reformation in Wittenberg was only a minor episode compared to the storm brewing among artisans and peasants that became known as the Peasants’ War of 1524–25. The sources of the conflict were complex, reflecting deep discontent with the inequities of the feudal system, along with the imposition of new taxes, new laws restricting movement, and new restrictions on hunting and fishing. But the catalyst for the uprising—fusing regional unrest in Swabia, Franconia, and Thuringia into a mass uprising—was a list of demands written by Sebastian Lotzer of Memmingen (b. 1490) that became known as The Twelve Articles. Borrowing directly from the rhetoric and example of Luther, The Twelve Articles appealed to the authority of Scripture and conscience as the basis for their demands that European society be refashioned along principles that were truly biblical.f Without training, arms, or a clear military strategy, thousands of peasants demanded social reforms, and began to attack monasteries, manor houses, and other symbols of authority and oppression.

d See, e.g., LW 45:92–95. “If now the whole world were Christian,” Luther wrote, “. . . then these words [from Matthew 5 commanding Christians not to go to law or use the temporal sword] would apply to all, and all would act accordingly. Since the world is un-Christian, however, these words do not apply to all” (LW 45:92; this volume, 96). Later, he emphasized that Christ “clearly teaches that Christians among themselves have no temporal sword or law,” arguing that the commands of Jesus apply only to Christians (LW 45:95; this volume, 98). e LW 45:108; this volume, 111. “Therefore,” he wrote, “where the temporal authority presumes to prescribe laws for the soul, it encroaches upon God’s government and only misleads souls and destroys them” (LW 45:104; this volume, 108). f Cf. Peter Blickle, The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants’ War from a New Perspective, trans. Thomas A. Brady and H. C. Erik Midelfort (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991).

187 7. Luther completed the text around Christmas 1522, but the print version did not appear until sometime in early 1523. See also this volume, pp. 79–129.

188

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Luther was now forced to engage the question of civil authority and religious conscience directly. What emerged was a highly conservative political theology, one that distinguished sharply between the private and public roles of the individual Christian. No external human authority, he insisted, could violate the spiritual freedom of the individual conscience; but as subjects of political rulers, obedience and submission was an inviolate Christian principle. Similarly, in private relations among Christians, Christ’s teachings in the Sermon on the Mount prevailed. In carrying out the duties of public office as a soldier or magistrate, however, a Christian could legitimately exercise lethal violence. Luther’s primary concern in the spring of 1525 was the question of public order. In his first response to the peasants, Admonition to Peace, written early in 1525 as a critique of The Twelve Articles, Luther insisted that “no matter how right you are, it is not right for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but rather to suffer wrong and endure evil.” g By May, when the threat of the uprising was nearing its peak, Luther took on a vitriolic tone in his Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (May 1525). “Whoever is the first to put [a seditious person] to death does right and well . . . ,” he wrote. “Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remember that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel.” h This was the immediate context, then, for Luther’s response to Assa von Kram, a soldier anguished by the violence that he had witnessed—and, no doubt, participated in—against the peasants only a few months earlier. The text that emerged, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, revisits almost all of the points Luther had already made in his previous writings on temporal authority and the civic responsibilities of the Christian. Indeed, as a pastoral response to a consciencestricken soldier, the text is something of a disappointment since he does not deal in any depth with the teachings of Christ and simply assumes just-war principles without actually exploring their biblical foundations. Not until the very end of the treatise does he explicitly address the question of a soldier’s conscience regarding the killing of other human beings. Luther clearly comg LW 46:31; see also this volume, p. 318. h LW 46:50.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved posed the text hurriedly, writing in a familiar style that blended homespun proverbs with theological pronouncements, while drawing on an eclectic mixture of theological principles, biblical examples, current events, and his training in law and classical history. As with his previous writings on the theme, the central argument is a defense of political order, in which the office of the soldier plays a vital, divinely ordained role.i This role, however, is circumscribed by several conditions. It is never legitimate, Luther argues, for a subject to rebel against a lord, regardless of how oppressive that lord might be. A Christian soldier might legitimately defend himself against an equal, though he should do so cautiously, recognizing that all authority and honor ultimately belong to God alone. But a soldier is clearly justified in helping a lord put down a rebellion or defend his territory against an aggressor. Along the way, Luther responds to a series of specific questions—for instance, Can a soldier be a mercenary? Can a soldier serve more than one lord? Can one go to war in quest of fortune and fame?—and closes with a prayer that he commends to the Christian soldier. After so doing, he concludes, “commit body and soul into God’s hands, draw your dagger, and smite in God’s name.”

�

i

For a fuller treatment of Luther’s political theology, see, for example, Paul Althaus, The Ethics of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972), 43–82; John R. Stephenson, “The Two Governments and the Two Kingdoms in Luther’s Thought,” Scottish Journal of Theolog y 34, no. 4 (1981): 321–37; W. D. J. Cargill Thompson, The Political Thought of Martin Luther (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1984), 36–61; and Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theolog y: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1999), 151–59, 314–24.

189

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

190

WHETHER SOLDIERS, TOO, CAN BE SAVED 8

8. The text that follows is based on the translation from the German text, Ob Kriegsleute auch in seligem Stande sein können (WA 19:623–62) by Charles M. Jacobs that originally appeared in PE 5:32–74. That text was revised by Robert C. Schultz as “Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved, 1526,” in LW 46:93–137. My translation draws heavily on the work of Jacobs and Schultz, with revisions to the text based on a close review of the original German. I also have drawn on the Schultz edition and the German version of the text for some of the factual annotations. Most of the interpretive comments are my own. 9. Elector Frederick the Wise had died on 5 May 1525. On 13 to 16 July, the new elector, Prince John, of the Ernestine line of Saxony, was in Wittenberg to receive homage from his subjects there. John (1468–1532) was the brother of Frederick and a strong supporter of Luther and the larger Reformation cause. See the introduction, n. 1.

T

O THE WORSHIPFUL AND HONORABLE Assa von Kram, j knight, my gracious lord and friend, [from] Martin Luther.

Grace and peace to you in Christ, most honorable, dear sir and friend. Recently—at the time of the elector’s entry into Wittenberg9 — we had a conversation about the office of military service in which we discussed many matters involving questions regarding the conscience. As a consequence, you and several others asked me to put into writing my teaching on the matter because many soldiers are offended by their own occupation. Some have doubts; others have so completely given themselves up for lost that they no longer seek after God and throw both their souls and their consciences to the wind. I myself have heard some of them say that if they would think carefully about it, they would never again go to war. You might think that war is such an allconsuming reality that in the midst of conflict it would be difficult for a soldier’s mind to turn to God and the soul. In point of fact, however, it is precisely in the anguish and danger associated with death that we ought to think most about God and our souls. I agreed to your request and promised to write this book in order to give advice to these weak, feeble, and doubting consciences to the best of my ability, and to better instruct the blasphemers. For whoever fights with a good and well-instructed conscience can also fight well. This is especially true since a good conscience inevitably gives rise to courage and a bold heart. And if the heart is bold and confident, the fist is also more powerful, both man and horse are more energetic, everything turns out better, and every event and deed contributes to the victory that God then gives. On the other hand, a feeble and insecure conscience makes the heart fearful. Indeed, it is impossible:

j

See the introduction, n. 2.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved a bad conscience can only make men cowardly and fearful. As Moses said to his Jews, “If you are disobedient, God will make your heart fearful; you shall go out against them one way and flee before them seven ways. You shall become an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth” [Deut. 28:20, 25]. So it is that both man and horse are lazy and clumsy; they lack vigor for the attack and are defeated in the end. However, there are always some people with rough and blasphemous consciences—those known to be daredevils and roughnecks—for whom everything happens by chance, whether they win or lose. The outcome of the battle is the same for these rough animals as for those who have good or bad consciences. They are simply part of the army, but they contribute nothing to victory in war—they are only the shell and not the true core of the army. Accordingly, I now send you this instruction of mine, given according to the ability that God has granted me, so that you and others who would like to go to war without losing God’s favor and eternal life may know how to prepare and instruct yourselves. God’s grace be with you. Amen.

[Beginning Principles: On the Nature of Offices, Christian Righteousness, and Warfare] k In the first place, we must distinguish between an office10 and the person who holds it, between a task and the person who does it. An office or occupation can be good and right in itself and yet be bad and wrong if the person who does the work is evil or wrong or does not do the work properly. The occupation of a judge is a valuable and godly office, whether it be a trial judge or the executioner who imposes capital punishment.11 But when the office is assumed by someone without authorization, or when the person who holds it legitimately uses the office to gain riches or favor, then it is no longer right or good. The estate of marriage is also precious and godly, but there are many rascals and scoundrels within it. It is the same way with the office or k This and subsequent headings in brackets have been added to guide the reader, but do not appear in the original German text.

191

10. The word Luther uses here—Ampt (or Amt)—is a central concept in his theology. Often translated as “office,” it can also refer to one’s work, profession, or occupation. Luther understood all Christians to be equal in standing by virtue of their baptism; but they held distinct offices, which entailed different responsibilities. At the heart of the concept in Luther’s political theology was a distinction between one’s moral obligations as a private individual and the moral obligations associated with a public office (Amt) that served society by creating or maintaining order. Something that might be immoral for the private individual (e.g., killing another person) is not immoral if carried out as part of the legitimate duties associated with the public office. Properly understood, the office of the soldier is a divinely ordained vocation, necessary in a sinful world to protect the innocent and to punish evildoers. 11. Both of these roles are described here in German as judges (Richter)—the trial judge (Mundrichter) dealt with “oral judgment,” while the executioner (Scharfrichter) carried out the “judgment of the sword.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

192

12. Luther frequently faced the charge that his teachings helped to incite the Peasants’ War of 1525. See, for example, Jerome (Hieronymus) Emser (1477–1527), How Luther Has Prompted Rebellion in His Books (July 1525), which argued that Luther’s writing on the freedom from the law and the priesthood of all believers encouraged peasants to rise up against spiritual and temporal authorities. Johannes Cochlaeus (1479–1552) and Duke George of Albertine Saxony (see nn. 2–3, pp. 183–84)) also accused Luther of being responsible for the Peasants’ War and both called on Elector John to eradicate the Lutheran movement in his part of Ernestine Saxony.

Engraving of Johannes Cochlaeus

profession of the soldier—in itself it is right and godly; but we must see to it that the persons in this profession are those who are fitting and upright, as we shall hear. In the second place, I want you to understand that here I am not speaking about the righteousness that makes a person good in the sight of God. Only faith in Jesus Christ can do that; and it is granted and given us solely by God’s grace, without any works or merits of our own, as I have written and taught so often and so extensively in other places. Rather, I am speaking here about external righteousness, which resides in offices and works. In other words, to put it plainly, I am dealing here with such questions as these: whether the Christian faith, by which we are accounted righteous before God, is compatible with being a soldier, going to war, stabbing and killing, robbing and burning, as one does to enemies in wartime in accordance with military law. Is this work also sinful or unjust? Should it give us a bad conscience before God? Or must a Christian have nothing to do with this and instead only do good and love, and not kill or harm anyone? I say that this office or work, even though it is godly and right, can nevertheless become evil and unjust if the person engaged in it is evil and unjust. In the third place, it is not my intention to explain here at length how the occupation and work of a soldier are right and godly in themselves because I have written a great deal about this in my book Temporal [Secular] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed.l Indeed, I might boast here that not since the time of the apostles have the temporal sword and temporal government been so clearly described or so highly praised as by me. Even my enemies must acknowledge this. But the true reward that I have earned for this is that my doctrine has been critiqued and condemned as seditious and as encouraging resistance to rulers.12 God be praised for that! For because the sword has been instituted by God to punish the evil, protect the good, and preserve peace [Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14] it is powerfully and sufficiently proven that war and killing, along with all the things that accompany war and martial law, have been instituted by God. What else is war but the punishment of wrong and evil?

l

See the full text of On Secular Authority in this volume, pp. 79–129; LW 45:81–129.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved Why does anyone go to war other than a desire for peace and obedience? Now slaying and robbing do not seem to be an act of love. A simple man therefore thinks that this is not a Christian deed and that Christians should not do this. In truth, however, even this is a work of love. A good doctor, faced with a grave disease, must sometimes amputate or destroy a hand, foot, ear, or eye, to save the body. Looking only at the amputated organ he appears to be a cruel and merciless man. But looking at it from the perspective of the body, which the doctor wants to save, he is in truth a fine and upright man who is doing a good Christian deed as far as the work itself is concerned. In the same way, when I think of the work of a soldier who punishes the wicked, kills the evildoer, and creates so much misery, it seems to be an un-Christian work, completely contrary to Christian love. But when I think of how it protects the good— wife and child, house and farm, property and honor—and keeps and preserves the peace, then I see how precious and godly this work is; and I observe that it also amputates a leg or a hand, so that the whole body does not perish. For if the sword were not on guard to preserve the peace, everything in the world would be ruined by upheaval. Therefore, such a war is nothing other than a very brief turmoil that prevents an everlasting and immeasurable upheaval—a small misfortune that prevents a great misfortune. Much is written and said today about war as a great plague. All that is true. But one should also consider how much greater is the plague that war prevents. If, indeed, people were good and eagerly wanted to keep the peace, war would be the greatest plague on earth. But how do you account for the fact that the world is evil—that people do not want to keep the peace, but to rob, steal, kill, abuse women and children, and destroy property and honor? The small absence of peace called war or the sword must constrain a general, worldwide absence of peace that would destroy everyone. This is why even God honors the sword so highly that he says that he instituted it himself [Rom. 13:1] and does not want humans to say or assume that they have invented or instituted it. For the hand that wields and kills with this sword is therefore no longer a human hand, but God’s; and it is not humans, but God, who hangs, tortures, beheads, fights, and kills. All these are God’s works and judgments.

193

194

13. Luther is referring here to the defeat of peasants in the spring of 1525. Luther’s writings in the midst of the Peasants’ War—particularly his frequently reprinted pamphlet Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants—vigorously denounced the uprising and, indeed, all forms of rebelling, thereby anticipating many of the themes elaborated in this treatise, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved. In the earlier text, however, Luther’s concern was to assure Christian princes that they could kill rebellious peasants with a clear conscience. “A prince can win heaven with bloodshed better than other men with prayer,” he wrote. “Therefore, let everyone who can, smite, slay and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when you must kill a mad dog; if you do not strike him, he will strike you, and the whole land with you. . . . If you die in doing it, good for you! A more blessed death can never be yours” (LW 46:52–54). 14. The full verse in the NRSV reads: “Soldiers also asked him, ‘And we, what should we do?’ He said to them, ‘Do not extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and be satisfied with your wages.’” Luther frequently used this verse and references to David’s use of the sword in his other writings on civil authority. See, for example, a letter to Melanchthon of 13 July 1521 (WA Br 2:357–59) or his essay on Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (this volume, 79–129; LW 45:86–88).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD To sum up, in thinking about a soldier’s office we must not focus on the killing, burning, striking, hitting, seizing, etc. This is what children see with their limited and restricted vision when they regard a doctor as only a sawbones who amputates the hand or the leg, but do not see that he does this in order to save the whole body. So, too, we must look upon the office of the soldier or the sword with the eyes of an adult and see why this office slays and acts so cruelly. Then it will prove itself to be an office that is, in itself, godly—as needful and useful to the world as eating and drinking or any other work.

[Why Warfare Is Not Wrong in Itself] There are, however, some who abuse this office, and strike and kill people needlessly simply because of their own impulsive desires. But that is the fault of the persons, not of the office, for where is there an office or a work or anything else so good that self-willed, wicked people do not abuse it? They are like crazed physicians who would needlessly amputate a healthy hand just because they wanted to. Indeed, they are a part of that general disorder that must be prevented by just wars and the sword and be forced into peace. It always happens, and always has happened, that those who begin war unnecessarily are defeated. For ultimately, they cannot escape God’s judgment and sword. In the end God’s justice finds them and strikes, as happened to the peasants in their revolt.13 As a confirmation of this we have John the Baptist, who, apart from Christ, was the greatest preacher and teacher of all. When soldiers came to him and asked what they should do, he did not condemn their office or advise them to resign. To the contrary. According to Luke 3[:14], he affirmed them, saying, “Be content with your wages and do no harm by violence or injustice.”14 Thus, he praised the soldier’s profession; but at the same time he warned against and forbade its abuse. But the abuse does not affect the office. When Christ stood before Pilate he affirmed that war was not wrong when he said, “If my kingship were of this world, then my servants would fight that I might not be handed over to the Jews” [John 18:36]. Here, too, belong all the ancient stories of war in the Old Testament—the stories of Abraham, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, David, and all the

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

195

kings of Israel. If the waging of war and the military profession were in themselves wrong and displeasing to God, we would have to condemn Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and all the rest of the holy fathers, kings, and princes, who served God in this and whose deeds are highly praised in Scripture, as all of us who have read even a little in Holy Scripture know well. Thus, there is no need to offer further proof of it here. Perhaps someone will now want to say that the holy fathers15 15. Luther is referring here to the biblical patriarchs and rulers, not to the were a different matter altogether because God had set them early church fathers. apart from the heathen through his election and his word, and had instructed them to fight—therefore, their example is not sufficient for a Christian living under the New Testament. They had God’s command and fought in obedience to God, while we have no command to fight, but rather to suffer and endure and to renounce all such things. This objection is answered clearly enough in the New Testament by St. Peter and St. Paul who both commanded obedience to human ordinances and to the commandments of worldly rulers [Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13-14]. And, as we have already noted, St. John the Baptist instructed soldiers as a Christian teacher and in a Christian manner, yet nonetheless permitted them to remain soldiers, enjoining them only to be satisfied with their wages and not to use their position to abuse people or to act unjustly or violently to anyone. Therefore, even under the New Testament the sword is established by God’s word and commandment, and those who use it properly Peasants’ War in Germany. Engraving (1522) in the style of Hans Holbein the Elder, by Hans Lutzelburger and fight obediently serve God in (d. 1526). Naked peasants battling troops. this and are obedient to his word. Just think now! If we conceded on this point—that war was wrong in itself—then we would have to concede on all other points and allow that the use of the sword was entirely wrong. For if it is wrong to use a sword in war, then it would also be wrong to use a sword to punish evildoers or to keep the peace. And so every use of the sword would have to be wrong. For what is just war but the punishment of evildoers and the maintenance of peace?

196

16. Luther drew on the same comparison of a sword with a fox tail (Fuchsschwantz), using almost the same wording, in his An Open Letter on the Harsh Book (July 1525), a defensive restatement of the arguments that he made in Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (cf. LW 46:76).

17. According to Luther, his goal in this treatise was “to provide a sound basis for the civil law and sword so no one will doubt that it is in the world by God’s will and ordinance” (LW 45:85; see also this volume, p. 90). One central theme in On Secular Authority was a theological argument defending the legitimate use of the sword by civil authorities. At the heart of his argument was a somewhat surprising claim— an argument later picked up by the Anabaptists, whom Luther deplored— that most people in Christendom were, in fact, not Christians. Therefore, the so-called hard sayings of Jesus, like loving the enemy or avoiding suits at law, applied only to relationships among true Christian believers. But outside these relationships, the civil law and the ordering function of the sword were absolutely necessary to restrain evildoers.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD [1 Pet. 2:14]. If one punishes a thief or a murderer or an adulterer, it is a punishment upon a single evildoer. But in a just war one is punishing at once a whole crowd of evildoers who are doing harm in proportion to the size of the crowd. If one work of the sword is good and right, then they are all good and right, for the sword is indeed a sword, which the scripture calls “the wrath of God” in Romans 13[:4], and not some fox tail with which to tickle people.16 As for the objection that Christians have not been commanded to fight and that these examples are not enough, especially because Christ teaches us not to resist evil but rather to suffer all things [Matt. 5:39-42], I have already responded enough in my book Temporal Authority. Of course, Christians do not fight and have no worldly rulers among them. Their government is a spiritual government and, according to the Spirit, Christians are subjects of no one but Christ. Nevertheless, as far as body and property are concerned they are subject to worldly rulers and owe them obedience. If worldly rulers command them to fight, then they should and must fight out of obedience, not as Christians, but out of love as members of the state and as obedient subjects. Therefore, when Christians fight they do so not as individuals or for their own benefit, but in service and obedience to the authorities under whom they live. This is what St. Paul wrote to Titus when he said that Christians should obey the authorities [Titus 3:1]. You may read more about this in my book on Temporal Authority.17 That is the sum and substance of it. The office of the sword is in itself right. It is a divine, useful ordinance that God does not want us to despise, but to fear, honor, and obey under penalty of punishment, as St. Paul says in Romans 13[:1-5]. For God has established two kinds of government among humans. The one is spiritual—by the word and without the sword, through which people are to become good and righteous, so that with this same righteousness they may attain eternal life. He administers this righteousness through the word, which he has commended to the preachers. The other kind is worldly government—through the sword—so that those who do not want to be good and righteous to eternal life by the word may nonetheless be forced to become good and righteous before the world. He administers this righteousness through the sword. And although God will not reward this kind of righteousness with eternal life, nonethe-

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

197

less, he still desires that peace be maintained among humans and he rewards them with temporal blessings. For this reason he gives rulers so much property, honor, and power—that they rightly own it on behalf of others and that they may serve him by administering this temporal righteousness. Thus God himself is the founder of both kinds of righteousness—both spiritual and temporal—lord, master, protector, and rewarder. There is no human ordinance or authority in either, but each is a fully divine thing.

[Principles for Participating in Warfare] Since, then, there is no doubt that the profession and estate of the military is a just and godly thing in itself, we will now discuss the persons who are in this profession and its use, for it is most important to know who may legitimately use this office and how one is to use it. And here it becomes apparent that if one wants to establish certain and fixed rules and laws, there will be so many cases and so many exceptions that it becomes very difficult or even impossible to grasp everything precisely and equitably. This is true of all laws; they can never be formulated with complete certainty and justice. Cases arise that require exceptions. If we do not make exceptions but strictly follow the law we would be doing the greatest injustice of all. As the heathen author Terence has said, “The strictest law is the greatest injustice.”  m And Solomon teaches in Ecclesiastes [7:16; 10:1] that we should not carry justice to an extreme, but sometimes should not seek to be wise. Let me give an example. In the recent rebellion of the peasants there were likely some who were pulled into it against their will.18 This was especially true of wealthy people, for the rebellion struck at the rich, as well as the rulers, and it may be fairly assumed that no rich person favored the rebellion. In any case, some were involved against their will and intention. Some also yielded under pressure, thinking that they could restrain this mad mob and that their good advice would, to some extent, prevent the peasants from carrying out their evil purposes so that

m Cf. Terence, Self-Tormentor (Heautontimorumenos), scene 4, 1.48, and Cicero, On Moral Obligation (De officiis), 1, 10.

18. Luther addressed this possibility directly in his An Open Letter on the Harsh Book. But here he raises the possibility that peasants were forced to participate in the uprising mostly to reject the argument as a “distortion”—“Why did they let themselves be forced?” he asks, rhetorically (cf. LW 46:76).

198

19. Here again, Luther is repeating arguments that he made in his Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (LW 46:54); similar arguments also appeared in An Open Letter on the Harsh Book (LW 46:76–77). 20. The German word that Luther uses here—Junckerlin—has sometimes also been translated as “knightlets.” He uses it here in a derogatory way. 21. Luther found himself walking a very delicate line in his counsel to Christian nobles. Thus, in one breath he could assert in his An Open Letter on the Harsh Book that “If [Christian rulers] are not doing right in shedding blood and fulfilling the duty of their office, then Samuel, David, and Samson must have done wrong when they punished evildoers and shed blood.” But only a few paragraphs later he denounced other rulers who fail to demonstrate sufficient grace after the war was over as “furious, raving, senseless tyrants, who even after the battle cannot get their fill of blood, and in all their lives ask scarcely a question about Christ” (LW 46:83–84). 22. Here again, Luther is trying to strike some kind of balance. On the one hand, he needs to acknowledge that there may be instances in which some forms of rebellion (one could imagine he is thinking of himself here!) are legitimate. So he wants to avoid being bound by an absolute principle. But most of what follows in his actual argument is a clear rejection of virtually every form of resistance to temporal authority.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD they would not do so much evil. Indeed, they thought that they would be doing a service both to themselves and to the authorities. Several others became involved with the prior consent and approval of their lords, whom they consulted. There may have been other similar cases.19 For no one can imagine all of them, or consider them all within the law. Here is what the law says: “All rebels deserve death, and these three kinds of men were apprehended among the rebellious mob, caught in the very act.” What shall we do to them? If we allow no exceptions and follow the strict letter of the law in accordance with the external facts, they must die just like the others who are guilty of deliberate and intentional rebellion, although some of the men of whom we speak were innocent in their hearts and honestly tried to serve the authorities. Some of our minor knights,20 however, have refused to make such exceptions especially if the accused were rich. They thought they could take their property by saying, “You also were in the mob. You must die.” In this way they committed a great injustice to many people and shed innocent blood, made widows and orphans, and have taken their property besides.21 And yet they call themselves “nobles.” Nobles indeed! The excrement of the eagle can also boast that it comes from the eagle’s body even though it stinks and is useless; and so these men can also be of the nobility. n We Germans are Germans and remain Germans—that is, swine and senseless beasts. Now I say that in cases such as the three examples mentioned above, the law ought to yield and fairness reign in its place. For the law baldly states that, “rebellion is punishable with death. It is a crimen lese maiestatis—a sin against the rulers.” But fairness says, “Yes, dear law, it is as you say. But it can happen that two men do the same deed with different hearts and intentions.” 22 Judas, for example, kissed Christ in the garden. Outwardly this was a good work; but his heart was evil and he used a good work— which Christ and his disciples also did for one another with good hearts—to betray his Lord [Matt. 26:49]. Here is another example: Peter sat down by the fire with the servants of Annas and warmed himself among the godless, which was not good [Luke 22:55]. Now if we were to apply the law strictly, Judas would have

n This is a clever pun in German playing with the word for noble (Adel) and eagle (Adler).

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved to be a good man and Peter a rascal. But Judas’s heart was evil and Peter’s was good. Therefore, fairness in this case must take precedence over the law. Indeed, fairness not only acquits those who were among the rebels with good intentions, but considers them worthy of double grace. They are just like the godly man, Hushai the Archite, who, acting under David’s orders, joined and obediently served the rebellious Absalom with the intention of helping David and restraining Absalom, as it is all clearly written in 2 Samuel 15[:32-37] and 16[:16-19]. Outwardly considered, Hushai, too, was a rebel with Absalom against David; but he earned great praise and everlasting honor before God and all the world. If David had allowed this same Hushai to be condemned as a rebel, it would have been just as praiseworthy a deed as that which our princes and minor knights are now doing to equally innocent people—yes, to people who have deserved good. This virtue, or wisdom, which can and should direct and moderate the severity of law in accordance with each case, and which judges the same deed to be good or evil according to the differences in intentions and the heart, is called epieikeia in Greek. In Latin it is aequitas; I call it Billichkeit [fairness] in German. o Now because law must be framed with dry, succinct words, it cannot possibly encompass all the cases and problems. This is why judges and lords must be wise and pious here and mete out fairness in accordance with reason, allowing the law to take its course or setting it aside. The head of a household makes a law for his servants, telling them what they are to do on this day or that; that is the law. And the servant who does not keep this law must suffer punishment. But now one of them may be sick, or otherwise be hindered from keeping the law through no fault of his own. Then the law is suspended, and whoever would punish his servant for that kind of neglect of duty would have to be a demented lord of the house. Similarly, all laws that regulate human deeds must be subject to their mistress, justice, because of the innumerable, varied, and unknown circumstances that no one can anticipate or set down.

o Billigkeit. The sense here is that of being reasonable, or fair, or equitable.

199

200

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

[Under What Circumstances Can One Legitimately Engage in Warfare?] So then, we have this to say about people who live under military law or who are involved in fighting a war. First, war may be made by three kinds of people. When an equal makes war against his equal—that is, neither of the two persons is the vassal or subject of the other even though one may not be as great or glorious or mighty as the other. Second, an overlord may fight against his subject. Or a subject may fight against his overlord.

[1. Subjects May Never Go to War against Their Lords] Now let us take the third case first. Here is what the law says, “No one shall fight or make war against his overlord; for a man owes his overlord obedience, honor, and fear” (Romans 13[:1-7]). If you chop over your head, the chips fall in your eyes.p And Solomon says, “If you throw a stone into the air, it will land on your own head.” q That is the law in a nutshell. God has instituted it and humans have accepted it—for it is impossible both to obey and to resist, to be subject to your lords and to disdain them. But we have just said that justice ought to be the mistress of law, and where circumstances demand it, ought to guide the law, or even command and permit people to act against it. Therefore, a question arises here whether it could ever be just—that is, if a situation can ever develop in which someone acted contrary to this law—to be disobedient to rulers and fight against them, to depose them, or to put them in bonds. For there is a vice in us called fraud—that is, deception or trickery. When this vice hears that justice is superior to law, as has been said, then it becomes a foe of the law and looks day and night for some way to sell itself in the marketplace under the name and appearance of justice, so that the law comes to nothing and fraud becomes the sweet darling that does everything properly. This is how we get the proverb that says, “Inventa lege,

p Theile, 56 (no. 29: “wer vber sich hawet, dem fallen die span ynn die augen”). q Prov. 26:27.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved inventa est fraus legis,” “As soon as a law goes into effect, Mistress Fraud finds a loophole.”  r Because they knew nothing of God, the heathen did not know that temporal government is an ordinance of God (they thought of it as the fortunate creation of men) and therefore they jumped right in and thought that it was not only just, but also praiseworthy, to depose, kill, and drive out worthless and wicked rulers. This is why the Greeks promised jewels and gifts in their public laws to tyrannicides—that is, to those who would stab or otherwise murder a tyrant. In the days of their empire the Romans followed this very closely and killed nearly the majority of their emperors. As a result, in that praiseworthy empire almost no emperor was ever killed by his enemies; and yet few of them died a natural death in their own bed. Likewise, the people of Israel and Judah also brought down and killed some of their kings. s But these examples are not enough for us, for here we are not concerned with what the heathen or the Jews did, but what is the right and the just thing to do, not only before God in the Spirit, but also in the divine external ordinance of temporal government. Suppose that a people would suddenly rise up today or tomorrow and depose their lord or kill him. That certainly could happen—if God decrees that it should, the lords must expect it. But it does not follow from this that it is therefore right and just for the people to do it. I have never known of a case in which this was a just action, and even now I cannot imagine any. In their rebellion the peasants claimed that the lords would not allow the gospel to be preached and that they robbed the poor people.23 Therefore, the lords had to be overthrown. I answered this by saying that although the lords had done wrong in this, it would not therefore be just or right to also do wrong in return— that is, to be disobedient and destroy God’s ordinance, which is not ours to do.24 To the contrary, we ought to suffer wrong. And if a prince or lord will not tolerate the gospel, then we ought to go into another territory where the gospel is preached, as Christ

r s

Cf. “Recht,” in Wander, 3:1,532–33, no. 287: “Wenn ein Recht angeht, findet sich auch Frau Fraus.” Cf. 1 Kgs. 15:25-29; 16:8-10; and 2 Kgs. 9:27-28.

201

23. These were central concerns of the peasants in the widely circulated The Twelve Articles (see title page on p. 202) that summarized their grievances (LW 46:8–16). 24. Luther may be referring here to his Admonition to Peace, where he wrote, “The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse disorder and rebellion, for the punishing of wickedness is not the responsibility of everyone, but of the worldly rulers who bear the sword” (LW 46:25).

202

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

Title page of The Twelve Articles of   the Peasants, 1525

25. Luther made this same point in his Admonition to Peace (LW 46:37).

says in Matthew 10[:23], “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.”25 It is only right that if a prince, king, or lord becomes insane, he should be deposed and put under restraint, for he is no longer to be considered a human since his reason is gone. “That is true,” you say, “a raving tyrant is also clearly insane; or is to be considered even worse than an insane man, for he does much more harm.” Here an answer is problematic, for such arguments seem very impressive and seem to be in accord with justice and equity. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that madmen and tyrants are not the same, for a madman can neither do nor tolerate anything reasonable. There is no hope for him because the light of

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

reason has gone out. A tyrant, however, may do things that are far worse, but he still has a conscience and he still knows that he is doing wrong. There is also hope that he may improve, allowing someone to talk to him and instruct him, and that he might follow this advice. We can never hope that an insane man will do this for he is like a clod or a stone. Furthermore, it would have bad consequences or set a bad example. If it is considered permissible to murder or depose tyrants, the practice soon spreads and it would become commonplace to arbitrarily call men tyrants who are not tyrants, and even to kill them if the mob takes a notion to do so. Roman history shows us clearly how this can happen. They killed many of their emperors simply because they did not like him or he did not do what they wanted, that is, let them be lords and make him their fool.t This happened to Galba, Pertinax, Gordian, Alexander, and others.26

[Dangers of Mob Justice] We dare not encourage the mob very much. They go crazy too quickly; and in such cases it is better to take ten ells27 from it than to allow it a hands-breadth, or even a fingers-breadth. And it is better for the tyrants to wrong them a hundred times than for the mob to treat the tyrant unjustly even once. If injustice is to be suffered, then it would be better for subjects to suffer it from their rulers than for the rulers to suffer it from their subjects. For the mob has no moderation and does not even know what moderation is. And in every mob there are more than five tyrants hiding. Now it is better to suffer injustice from one tyrant, that is, from the ruler, than to suffer injustice from unnumbered tyrants in a mob. It is said that in ancient times the Swiss killed their overlords and made themselves free; 28 and the Danes have recently driven out their king.29 In both cases their subjects were driven to do this by the intolerable tyranny that they suffered. However, as I

t

The German here reads “. . . und lies sie herrn sein und hielte sich yhren knecht und maul affen.” My translation is based on C. F. Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm, DWB (Leipzig, 1854–1961), vol. 12 (“maulaffe bis maulbeerast”), Sp. 1,796–98.

203 26. Each of these emperors was deposed by rebellions of their own armies—Galba in 69 ce; Pertinax in 193; Gordian in 244; and Alexander in 235. 27. The ell was a unit of length, often used in measuring cloth. It was originally understood to be a cubit in length (the distance from elbow to the tip of the middle finger), which explains Luther’s references to hands-breadth and fingers-breadth. 28. The struggles of the Swiss to gain their freedom began with a protest in 1291 among subjects in the rural communes of Uri, Schwyz, and Unterwalden against the violation of traditional laws by their feudal lords. The protest expanded to become a war against the Hapsburgs of Austria, in which the Swiss won their freedom and established the Old Swiss Confederacy as an alliance among the valley communities of the central Alps. In 1401, the people of Appenzell and the city of St. Gallen banded together to oppose efforts by the abbot of the St. Gallen monastery to impose duties and taxes beyond those traditionally required. They were defeated in 1408. In 1489, the peasants of the city of Zurich revolted and the peasants of the St. Gallen region again joined the revolt. The peasant wars of the sixteenth century first broke out in Switzerland in 1513 and spread from there to southern Germany. In defending the legality of their struggle the peasants appealed to their original war of freedom in 1291. Cf. Günther Franz, Der deutsche Bauernkrieg, 6th ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1987), 3–9. 29. Luther is referring here to Christian II (1481–1559), who ruled as king of Denmark and Norway from 1513 until

204 1523 and of Sweden from 1520 until 1521. Christian II was sympathetic to the Reformation and tried, unsuccessfully, to implement reforms in the church there. Karlstadt spent some time in his court in 1521, and the king apparently even sought a visit from Luther. After his short reign in Sweden, he was deposed by the nobility. His reign in Denmark and Norway was also cut short when his uncle deposed him and forced him into exile to the Netherlands, where he settled in the imperial court of his brother-in-law, Holy Roman Emperor Charles V.

Portrait of Christian II of Denmark by an unknown artist, active c. 1475−1525

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD said above, I am not discussing here what the heathen do or have done, or anything that resembles their examples and history, but rather what one ought to do and can do with a good conscience. Doing this cannot in itself be wrong in the sight of God. I know well enough and I have read in many history books how often subjects kill or depose their rulers, as with the Jews, the Greeks, and the Romans. God permitted it and these nations even grew and prospered in spite of it. The final outcome, however, was always tragic. The Jews were ultimately conquered and destroyed by the Assyrians, 30 the Greeks were defeated by King Philip, 31 and the Roman nation by the Goths and the Lombards. 32 And, in truth, the Swiss have paid for their rebellion with great bloodshed, and they are still paying. One can easily predict what the final outcome will be. 33 The Danes have also not yet seen the end of their rebellion. 34 I think that there can be no stable government unless its rulers are honored, as with the Persians, the Tartars, and others like them. They were not only able to prevail against the full power of the Romans, but they ultimately destroyed the Romans and many other nations. 35 My reason for saying all this is that God says, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” [Rom. 12:19]. He also says, “Judge not” [Matt. 7:1]. And the Old Testament frequently and strictly forbids people from cursing or speaking evil about their rulers. Exodus 23 [22:28] says, “You shall not . . . curse a leader of your people.” Paul, in 1 Timothy 2[:1-2], teaches Christians to pray for their rulers, etc. Solomon in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes repeatedly teaches us to obey the king and be subject to him. u Now no one can deny that when subjects set themselves against their rulers, they avenge themselves and make themselves judges. This is not only against the ordinance and command of God, who reserves to himself the right of judgment and vengeance, but it also goes

30. Cf. 2 Kgs. 17:6. 31. The Macedonians under Phillip (d. 336 bce), the father of Alexander the Great, defeated the Greeks in the battle of Chaeronea in 338 bce. 32. The Lombard invasion of Italy began in the second half of the sixth century.

u E.g., Prov. 24:21 and Eccles. 10:20.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved against all natural law and justice. As it is said, “No man ought to judge his own case,”  v and, “The man who hits back is in the wrong.”  w

[Why Tyrants Must Be Endured] Now perhaps you will say, “How can anyone possibly endure all the injustices of these tyrants? You allow them too much; and through such teaching their wickedness becomes worse and worse. Are we supposed to suffer everyone’s wife and child, body and property to be so shamefully treated and endangered? How can we consider it honorable to live under these conditions?” My reply is this: My teaching is not intended for people like you who want to do whatever you think is good and will please you. Go ahead and do whatever you want! Kill all your lords! See what that accomplishes! My teaching is intended only for those who want to do what is right. To these I say that rulers are not to be opposed with violence and rebellion, as the Romans, the Greeks, the Swiss, and the Danes have done; rather, there are other ways of responding. In the first place, if you see that the rulers think so little of the salvation of their souls that they rage and do wrong, what does it matter to you if they ruin your property, body, wife, and child? They cannot harm your soul, and they do themselves more harm than they do to you because they damn their own souls, which must result in the ruin of body and property. Do you think that you are not already sufficiently avenged? In the second place, what would you do if your rulers were at war and not only your goods and wives and children, but you yourself were broken, imprisoned, burned, and killed for your lord’s sake? Would you kill your lord for that reason? Think

v

“Niemand,” in Wander, 3:1,028, no. 55: “Niemand soll in seiner eigenen Sache Richter sein.” w “Schlagen,” in Wander, 4:215, no. 64: “wer wider schlegt, der ist unrecht.”

205 33. Luther, of course, could not have anticipated this at the time he was writing this treatise, but Protestant forces were defeated by the Catholics at the battle of Kappel on 11 October 1531. 34. Christian II had written to Luther on 20 May 1525 that he expected a popular movement to restore him to the throne (WA Br 3:503–4). 35. The Tartars were one of several tribal confederations in the Mongolian plateau in the twelfth century. Luther may be conflating them with the Mongols under Genghis Khan (d. 1227), who successfully united many of the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia and started the Mongol invasions that resulted in the conquest of most of Eurasia.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

206 36. Maximilian I (1459–1519). Even before becoming emperor in 1493, Maximilian fought to reconquer Austria, which had come under Hungarian rule. In 1490, he entered Vienna; but he then soon turned his attention to a long series of wars in Italy and the Swiss Confederacy.

Portrait of Maximilian I (1519) by Albrecht Dürer (1471−1528)

of how many of his people Emperor Maximilian lost in wars throughout his lifetime. 36 No one did anything to him because of this. If he had destroyed them by tyranny no more cruel deed could be imagined. Nevertheless, he was the cause of their death— they were killed for his sake. Now what is the difference between such a raging tyrant and a dangerous war in terms of the many good, upstanding, and innocent people who are killed? Indeed, a wicked tyrant is more tolerable than a bad war, as you must admit if you reflect on it from your own reason and experience. I can easily believe that you would like to have peace and good times. But suppose God prevents this by war or tyrants? Now, consider and decide whether you would rather have war or tyrants, for you are guilty before God and have deserved both. However, we are the kind of people who want to be scoundrels and remain in sin; yet we also want to avoid the punishment of sin, and even resist punishment and defend our sin. We shall have about as much success at that as a dog has when he tries to bite a porcupine. x In the third place, if the rulers are wicked, what of it? God is still around, and he has fire, water, iron, stone, and countless other ways of killing. How quickly he can kill a tyrant! And he would do it, but our sins do not permit it, for he says in Job [34:30], “He permits a knave to rule because of the people’s sins.” We can easily see that a scoundrel is ruling. However, no one wants to see that he is ruling not because he is a scoundrel, but because of the people’s sin. The people do not recognize their own sin; they think that the tyrant rules because he is such a scoundrel—that is how blind, perverse, and mad the world is! That is also how things went in the peasant uprising, which wanted to punish the sins of the rulers as though they themselves were completely pure and guiltless. Therefore, God had to show them the log in their eye so they would forget about the speck in another man’s eye [Matt. 7:3-5]. In the fourth place, tyrants run the risk that, by God’s decree, their subjects will rise up, as has been said, and kill or depose

x

“Das wird uns gelingen wie dem hunde der ynn die stachel beysset.” The earlier edition interpreted Stachel as steel or iron. But Stachel could also mean the quills of a porcupine, and refer to a proverb, “The dog who bites the porcupine gets a bloody mouth.” Thiele, 379 (no. 426: “wie dem Hunde, der in die Stachel [eins Igels] beisst”).

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved them. For here we are instructing those who want to do what is right, and they are very few. By contrast, the great multitude remain heathen, godless, and un-Christian; and these, if God so decrees, rise up wrongfully against the rulers and create disaster as the Jews and Greeks and Romans often did. Therefore, you have no right to complain that our teaching has given the tyrants and rulers a license to do evil. No! That is certainly not the case. To the contrary, we teach that they ought to be secure, regardless of whether they do good or evil. However, we can neither give them this security nor guarantee it, for we cannot compel the multitude to follow our teaching if God does not give grace. We teach what we will, and the world does what it wills. God must help, and we must teach those who want to do what is good and right so that they may help uphold the masses. The lords are just as secure because of our teaching as they would be without it. But unfortunately, your complaint is unnecessary, since most of the crowd does not listen to us. The preservation of the rulers, whom God alone has appointed, rests with God and his hand alone. We also experienced this in the peasants’ rebellion. Therefore, do not be misled by the wickedness of the rulers; their punishment and disaster are nearer than you might wish. Dionysius, the tyrant, confessed that his life was like that of a man with a sword hanging by a silken thread over his head and a great glowing fire burning beneath him. 37 In the fifth place, God has still other ways to punish rulers, so that there is no need for you to avenge yourselves. He can raise up foreign rulers, like the Goths against the Romans, the Assyrians against the Jews, etc. Thus, there is vengeance, punishment, and danger enough hanging over tyrants and rulers, and God does not allow them to be evil in peace and joy. He is right behind them; indeed, he surrounds them and has them between spurs and under the bridle. This also aligns with the natural law that Christ teaches in Matthew 7[:12], “Whatever you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.” Obviously, no father would want to be driven out of the house, killed, or ruined by his own family because of his misdeeds, especially if his family avenged themselves maliciously and with force without having first brought charges to a higher authority. It ought to be just as wrong for subjects to treat tyrants in such a way. I must give an example or two of this. Note them well, for you will profit from them. We read of a widow who stood and prayed

207

37. Dionysius (c. 432–367 bce) of Syracuse was famous for a series of conquests in Sicily and southern Italy. His legacy in literature is that of a cruel and vindictive despot, whose cruel policies were the source of numerous uprisings.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

208

38. Aristotle, quoting Aesop, told a very similar story: “Aesop, when defending at Samos a demagogue who was being tried for his life, related the following anecdote. ‘A fox, while crossing a river, was driven into a ravine. Being unable to get out, she was for a long time in sore distress, and a number of dogfleas clung to her skin. A hedgehog, wandering about, saw her and, moved with compassion, asked her if he should remove the fleas. The fox refused and when the hedgehog asked the reason, she answered: “They are already full of me and draw little blood; but if you take them away, others will come that are hungry and will drain what remains to me.”’ You in like manner, O Samians, will suffer no more harm from this man, for he is wealthy; but if you put him to death, others will come who are poor, who will steal and squander your public funds” (Aristotle, Rhetoric, 2:20,6). 39. This story comes from Aesop’s “The Frog and the Stork” and was retold as “The Frogs Asking for a King,” in The Comedies of Terence and the Fables of Phædrus, trans. Henry Thomas Riley, vol. 1: The Fables of Phaedrus (London: George Bell and Sons, 1887), 366. Luther’s translation of this fable, published after his death, can be found in WA 50:440–60.

for her tyrant most devoutly, that God would give him a long life, etc. The tyrant heard this and was astonished because he knew very well that he had done her much harm and that such prayers were rare—people do not ordinarily offer up such prayers for tyrants. So he asked her why she prayed thus for him. She answered, “I had ten cows when your grandfather lived, and he took two of them. So I prayed that he might die and that your father might become lord. When that happened, your father took three cows from me. I prayed again that your father would die, and that you might become lord. Now you have taken four cows. That’s why I am praying for you; for I fear that whoever comes after you will take the last cow and everything that I have.” y The scholars, too, have a parable about a beggar with many wounds. Flies got into them and sucked his blood and stung him. Then a merciful man came along and tried to help him by shooing all the flies away. But the beggar cried out and said, “What are you doing? Those flies were almost so full that they did not bother me very much; now the hungry flies will come in their place and will plague me far worse.”38 Do you understand these fables? Changing a government and improving a government are two different things, as different as heaven is from earth. It is easy to change a government; but improving a government is difficult and dangerous. Why? Because doing so is not in our will or power, but only in the will and the hand of God. The mad mob, however, is not so much interested in how things can be improved, but only that things be changed. Then if things become worse, they will want something still different. Thus, they get bumblebees instead of flies; and in the end, they get hornets instead of bumblebees. They are like the frogs of old who didn’t want a log for their lord. So they got a stork instead, who pecked their heads and devoured them. 39 A mad mob is a desperate, accursed thing. No one can rule it as well as tyrants. They are like the leash tied to a dog’s neck. z If there were a better way to rule over them, God would have established some other form of government for them than the sword and tyrants. The sword illustrates well the nature of y z

WA 19:666 reports that this story is found in Johannes Agricola, Proverbs, no. 128. Cf. Thiele, 232–33 (no. 236: “Alte hunde sind nicht gut bendig zu Machen”).

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved the children under it—namely, people who, if they dared, would be desperate scoundrels. Therefore, I advise everyone who wants to act with a good conscience in this matter and do the right thing to be satisfied with their worldly rulers and not to attack them, recognizing that worldly rulers cannot harm the soul, as the clergy and false teachers do. Here we should follow the example of the good David, who suffered as much violence from King Saul as one could ever suffer, and yet would not lay a hand upon his king, though he could have often done so. a Rather, he commended the matter to God, let things go for as long as God desired, and endured to the end. If war or strife would now arise against your overlord, leave the fighting and struggling to those who want it. For as it has been said, if God does not restrain the mob, we cannot restrain them. But if you want to do what is right and have a secure conscience, set your weapons and armor aside and do not fight against your lord or tyrant. Rather, suffer everything that can happen to you. The crowd that does fight, however, will be surely brought to justice. “Yes,” you say, “but suppose that a king or lord has given an oath to his subjects to rule according to established principles and then does not keep the agreement. He thereby is guilty and forfeits his right to rule. It is said that the king of France must rule according to the parliaments, and that the king of Denmark must also swear to uphold certain articles, etc.”  40 Here is my answer: It is right and proper for rulers to govern according to laws, to administer them accordingly, and not to rule arbitrarily. However, I must also add that a king does not only promise to keep the law or the articles of his land, but God himself commands him to be righteous, which he promises to do so. What happens, then, if this king keeps neither God’s law nor the law of the land? Should you attack him, judge him, and take vengeance on him? Who commanded you to do that? Another ruler would then have to come between you, hear both sides, and condemn the guilty party; otherwise you will not escape the judgment of God, who says, “Vengeance is mine” [Rom. 12:19], and again, “Judge not” (Matthew 7[:1]). The case of the king of Denmark is an apt example here. Lübeck and the other coastal cities41 joined with the Danes to a Cf. 1 Sam. 24:1-7; 20:6-12.

209

40. Parlements were provincial appellate courts in France. Frederick I, who ruled Denmark from 1523 to 1533, replaced his nephew, Christian II, when the nobility forced him to abdicate. Beholden to the nobility, Frederick’s reign was marked by numerous rebellions.

41. A reference to the Hanseatic League, a commercial and defensive confederation of merchant guilds and the market towns especially around the Baltic Sea and the North Sea.

210 42. Luther is referring here to Christian II (see n. 40 above).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD depose him.42 I want here to express my response to this for the benefit of those who might have a bad conscience and for those who might want to reconsider and acknowledge what they have done. Let us assume that the king really was unjust before God and the world, and that the law was entirely on the side of the Danes and the Lübeckers. That is one consideration. But there is another thing—that is, that the Danes and Lübeckers have acted as judges and lords over the king, and have punished and avenged his wrongdoing, and have thus assumed the right of judgment and vengeance. This raises questions for the conscience. When the case comes before God, he will not ask if the king was unjust and you were just; that has become clear. Instead, he will ask, “You lords of Denmark and Lübeck, who commanded you to do these acts of punishment and vengeance? Did I command you, or did the emperor, or some other overlord? If so, then prove it with documents and seals.” If they can do so, then everything is fine. If not, then God will judge thusly: “You rebellious thieves have stolen from God. You have seized my office and have maliciously assumed divine vengeance for yourselves. You are guilty of treason against God.b You have sinned against divine majesty. For being unjust and condemning injustice are two completely different things in law—the execution of law in justice and the administration of justice ( jus et executio juris; justitia et administratio justitiae). Everyone is involved in justice and injustice. However, God alone is Lord over justice and injustice, and God alone passes judgment and administers justice. God alone commands rulers to act in his place. Therefore, let no one presume to do this, unless he is certain that he has a command from God or from God’s servants, the rulers. Imagine how things would be if everyone who was in the right took it upon themselves to punish everyone who did wrong— what would become of the world? The servant would strike his master; the maid her mistress; children their parents; and pupils their teacher. That would be a fine state of affairs! What need would there be, then, for judges and temporal rulers appointed by God? Let the Danes and Lübeckers consider whether they would think it right for their servants, citizens, and subjects to

b Luther uses the Latin here: lese majestatis divine.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved rebel against them whenever they were treated unjustly. Why, then, do they not do to others as they wish others would do to them, and not lord over others in a way they do not wish to be lorded over themselves, as is taught by Christ in Matthew 7[:12] and in natural law. To be sure, the Lübeckers and the other cities might excuse themselves by saying that they were not the king’s subjects but had dealt with him as enemies with enemies; as equals with equals. The poor Danes, however, were his subjects and they rebelled against their ruler without any command from God. And the Lübeckers commanded and assisted them. Thus, they burdened themselves with the sins of the others and became involved, entangled, and caught up in this rebellious disobedience against the authority of both God and king, not to mention their disregard for the emperor’s commands. I mention this as an example because we are considering the doctrine that a subject may not rebel against his ruler. 43 The story of the deposed king of Denmark is very significant and clearly serves here as a warning to others to take heed of this example. And may those who have done so, whose consciences have been touched, reform their ways and leave their iniquity before God comes and avenges himself against all his enemies and those who have robbed him. Not that all of them will change their ways. For the masses, as we have said, are not aligned with God’s word; they are a lost people who are being made ready for God’s wrath and punishment. But I will be satisfied if some take this to heart and do not involve themselves in the deeds of the Danes and Lübeckers. And if they have been involved, I hope they will extricate themselves and not take part in the sins of others. Each of us has more than enough of his own sins to answer for. At this point I have to pause and listen to my critics, who cry, “Look here, in my opinion you are just flattering the princes. Are you now creeping to the cross and seeking pardon? Are you afraid? etc.” Well, I just let these bumblebees buzz and fly away. If anyone can do better, let him. I have not undertaken here to preach to the princes and lords. I am also well aware that my flattery is not going to be received well and that I have not ingratiated myself with them, because it puts their whole social class in jeopardy, as you have heard. Besides, I have said enough elsewhere, and it is unfortunately all too true, that the majority of

211

43. Although I have translated these relationships as “subject” and “ruler,” the original German of unterperson (lower-ranking person) and oberperson (higher-ranking person) suggests that Luther is intending here to generalize his defense of hierarchy beyond political relationships to all social relationships, so that he considers resistance against any person in a position of authority to always be wrong.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

212 44. Luther had harsh words for princes in other writings as well. For example, even though his Admonition to Peace was directed primarily against rebellious subjects, he prefaced his stern words to the peasants with the charge that temporal rulers “do nothing but cheat and rob the people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. (LW 46:19). In Temporal [Secular] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), he was equally vitriolic, claiming that the temporal lords “behave worse than any thief or scoundrel” and “can do no more than strip and fleece, heap tax upon tax and tribute upon tribute . . .” (LW 45:109, also 84; cf. this volume, 112). 45. Here, again, Luther uses the word Unterpersonen, suggesting that he is not only referring to peasants, but everyone who is in a position of social, legal, economic, political, or spiritual inferiority.

46. Luther may be referring here to Florian Geyer (c. 1490–1525), a Franconian noble, who had been a professional soldier in the service of Albert of Prussia (1490–1568). An early convert to Protestantism, Geyer, along with several other minor knights, helped to form the Black Company, which fought on the side of the peasants at Würzburg and Rothenburg. It was his aim to establish a kingdom based on the gospel. He was killed following the battle of Ingolstadt.

the princes and lords are godless tyrants and enemies of God, who persecute the gospel.44 They are my ungracious lords and sirs, c about whom I am not very concerned. But I do teach that all of us should know how to conduct ourselves in regards to the overlords, and should do what God has commanded. Let the overlords look out for themselves and stand on their own feet. God will not forget the tyrants and those in authority. God is able to deal with them, as he has done since the beginning of the world. Furthermore, I do not want anyone to think that what I have written here applies only to peasants, as if they were the only ones of lower rank and the nobles were not also subjects. Not at all! What I say about subjects 45 is intended for peasants, citizens of cities, nobles, counts, and princes as well. For all of these have overlords and are the subjects of someone else. And if one is going to behead a rebellious peasant, then you should also behead a rebellious noble, count, or prince as well. One should be treated like the other, so that no one is treated unjustly. I believe Emperor Maximilian d could have sung a pretty little song about disobedient and rebellious princes and nobles who put their heads together to start a rebellion. And the nobles! How often have they complained, cursed, and conspired and sought to defy and rebel against the princes? Think of the furor the Franconian nobles alone have made about how little they care for the emperor or for their bishops.46 We are not supposed to call these minor knights e rebels or troublemakers, although that is exactly what they were. The peasants, on the other hand, are supposed to suffer and endure it. But unless my mind deceives me, then it is certainly true that God has punished the rebellious lords and nobles through the rebellious peasants—one scoundrel to punish the other.f Maximilian had to put up with these nobles and could not punish them, though he had to restrain the peasants c

Luther is here making a sarcastic play on words with “my gracious lords” (mein gnedige herrn), to turn it into a disrespectful address as “my ungracious lords” (mein ungnedige herrn). d See n. 36, p. 206. e Here again, Luther uses the term Junckerlin, referring to these “minor knights” in a derogatory way. f “Bube,” in Wander, 1:494, no. 14: “Buben straft Gott mit Buben.” Luther uses this same phrase elsewhere in his polemic, e.g., LW 46:32, 41.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved as long as he lived. I would be willing to wager that if it had not been for the peasants’ revolt, a rebellion would have broken out among the nobles against the princes and perhaps against the emperor as well—so critical was the situation in Germany. But since it was the peasants who revolted, they alone have become the villains.g As a result, the nobles and the princes walk away wiping their mouths, as though they had done nothing wrong. h But God is not deceived [Gal. 6:7]; he has used these events to warn the nobles that they should learn from this example and obey their rulers. Let this be my flattery of princes and lords! Here you say, “Are we, then, to suffer under a ruler who would be so evil as to allow his land and people go to ruin?” To say it as the nobles would, “Devil! St. Vitus’ Dance! Pestilence! St. Anthony! St. Quirinus! 47 I am a nobleman and am I supposed to allow a tyrant to shamefully ruin my wife and children, body and property?” I reply: Listen here! I am not trying to teach you anything. Go ahead! If you are so smart you do not need me! I do not have to worry about anything except watching while you sing this proud little song to the end.i To the others, who would like to keep their conscience clear, we have this to say: God has thrown us into the world under the reign of the devil. As a result, we have no paradise here. Instead, at any time we should expect all kinds of misfortune to body, wife, child, property, and honor. And if there should be one hour in which less than ten disasters happen, or indeed, an hour in which you can merely be alive, we ought to say, “Oh, what great goodness God has shown to me that a disaster did not happen to me during this one hour.” How is that possible? Indeed, under the devil’s power I should not have even one happy hour. That is what we teach our people. You, of course, may do something else. You may build yourself a paradise where the devil cannot enter so that you do not need to anticipate the rage of any tyrant. We will watch! Actually things are going too well for us.j We are so content that we do not recognize God’s goodness, nor do we

g The German reads “müssen sie alleine Schwartz sein”—literally, “they alone were the black ones.” h Thiele, 289–91 (no. 315: “Wischt das maul und geht davon”). Cf. Prov. 21:20. i Thiele, 167 (no. 159: “Das Lied hinaus singen”). j Cf. Thiele, 295 (no. 323: “Das futter sticht dich”).

213

47. These are all invocations to saints who, in Catholic popular tradition, are associated with the healing of specific illnesses. Thus, St. Vitus (c. 290–c. 303) cured epilepsy; St. Anthony (1195–1231) skin rashes; St. Quirinus (d. c. 117), healed the plague, among other things. Cf. Helen Roeder, Saints and Their Attributes (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1955), 32, 62, 102, 115, 221.

The reliquary holding the relics of St. Quirinus of Rome, located in the imperial city of Neuss, Germany

214

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD believe that God protects us or that the devil is so evil. We want to be wicked scoundrels and yet receive only good things from God. Enough has been said on this point—that is, that fighting and rebellion against our superiors cannot be right. How often people are in daily danger of doing this, just as they do all kinds of other evil and unjust things. But when it comes from God and he does not prevent it, the final outcome is not good and the people involved suffer, even though such rebels have good fortune for a while.

[2. Equals May Fight against Equals  . . . but Only in Self-Defense] Now we will move on to the second part—whether or not equals may fight and wage war against equals. I have understood this as follows: It is not right to start a war just because some ignorant lord has gotten the idea into his head. Indeed, I want to say from the outset that whoever starts a war is in the wrong. And it is only right that the one who first draws his sword is defeated, or even punished, in the end. This is what has usually happened in history—those who have started wars have lost them, and those who had to defend themselves have only seldom been defeated. Worldly government has not been instituted by God to break the peace and start wars, but rather to maintain peace and to avoid war. Paul says in Romans 13[:4] that the office of the sword is to protect and punish—to protect the good in peace and to punish the wicked with war. God does not tolerate injustice and he has so ordered things that warmongers must be defeated in war. As the proverb says, “No one has ever been so evil that he cannot find an even more evil person.” k And in Psalm 68[:30] God has the psalmist sing of him, “Dissipat gentes, quae bella volunt,” that is, “The Lord scatters the peoples who delight in war.” Beware, therefore—God does not lie! Take heed of my words. Make the broadest possible distinction between what you want to do and what you ought to do, between desire and necessity, between a lust for war and a willingness to fight. Do not be tempted to think of yourself as though you were the Turkish k Cf. Thiele, 78 (no. 51: “es ward nie Keiner so Böse, es kam noch ein Böser über ihn”).

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved sultan. Wait until necessity and obligation compel you to fight instead of doing so out of eagerness and desire. You will still have more than enough to do, and wars enough to fight; so that you can say with heartfelt sincerity, “How I would like to have peace; if only my neighbors wanted it too!” Then you can defend yourself with a good conscience. For God’s word says, “He scatters the peoples who delight in war” [Ps. 68:30]. Look at the real soldiers, those who have played the game of war. They are not quick to draw their sword; they are not contentious; they have no desire to fight. But when they are forced, so that they must fight, watch out! They are not playing games. Their sword is tight in the sheath, but if they have to draw, it does not return bloodless to the scabbard. Once again, those foolish idiots who are the first to fight in their thoughts, and even make a good start by devouring the world with words, and then are the first to draw their swords—these are also the first to run away and sheathe their swords. The Romans—the mighty Roman Empire—won most of its victories because they were forced to fight. That is, everyone wanted a chance at the Romans to prove their mettle. When the Romans were forced to defend themselves, they did so with vigor! Hannibal, the prince from Africa, hurt them so badly that he almost destroyed them.48 But how shall I say it? He started it; he also had to stop it. Courage (from God!) remained with the Romans even though they were losing. And where courage holds fast, deeds will surely follow. For it is God who does the deeds. God desires peace and is the enemy of those who start wars and break the peace. I must mention here the example of Duke Frederick, elector of Saxony, for it would be a shame if the sayings of that wise prince were to die with his body. 49 He endured many wicked plots on the part of his neighbors and many others, and had good reason to go to war; so that some other foolish prince in his position would have started ten wars. But Frederick did not draw his sword. He always responded with reasonable words and almost gave the impression that he was afraid and was running away from a fight. He let the others boast and threaten. And yet he also held his ground against them. When he was asked why he let them threaten him so, he replied, “I will not start anything; but if I have to fight, you will see that I shall be the one who decides when it is time to stop.” So even though many dogs bared their fangs at him, he was never bitten. He saw that the

215

48. Hannibal (247–181 bce) was a military commander from Carthage. Considered a brilliant strategist, during the Second Punic War he marched an army, which included elephants, over the Pyrenees and the Alps into Italy, where he won several significant victories over the Romans at Trebia, Trasimene, and Canna. 49. Frederick the Wise, Luther’s prince and protector, had died on 5 May 1525, more than a year before Luther wrote this tract. Although they had relatively little personal contact and did not agree on theological matters, Luther held Frederick in high esteem as a wise ruler and a man of peace.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

216

50. King Francis I (1494–1547) of France had tried and failed to become Holy Roman Emperor at the imperial election of 1519. The ascension of Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor marked the beginning of an intense personal rivalry between the two sovereigns. Throughout his reign, Francis devoted enormous energy to the conquest of Italy and to challenging the influence of Charles V. After several significant victories in Italy, Francis suffered a humiliating defeat at the Battle of Pavia (24 February 1525), where he was captured by the forces of Charles V. In the Treaty of Madrid, signed on 14 January 1526, Francis was forced to make major concessions to Charles V before he was freed several weeks later. 51. Luther is likely referring here to the ongoing wars in Italy against the armies of the Holy Roman Emperor. Although imperial troops had defeated Francis I in 1525, a new alliance formed that joined France, Milan, Venice, Florence, and the papacy against Charles V. The Holy Roman Emperor eventually emerged victorious, but when he was unable to pay his armies, the result was a mutiny in May 1527 that ultimately led to several days of looting and pillaging in Rome.

52. The Harz Mountains are the highest range in northern Germany, running across parts of Lower Saxony, SaxonyAnhalt, and Thuringia. Mansfeld, which Luther regarded as his hometown, was located in this region.

others were foolish and he could be indulgent with them. If the king of France had not started the war against Emperor Charles, he would not have been so shamefully defeated and captured.50 And now that the Venetians and Italians are setting themselves against the emperor and starting trouble,51 God grant that they finally must also be the first to have to stop. Although the emperor is my enemy, I still do not like this kind of injustice. Let the saying remain true, “God scatters the peoples who delight in war” [Ps. 68:30]. God confirms all this with many excellent examples in the Scriptures. He had his people first offer peace to the kingdoms of the Amorites and Canaanites and would not want his people to start a war with them. He thereby confirmed this as his principle. But when these same kingdoms started the war and forced God’s people to defend themselves, they were completely destroyed [Num. 21:21-30; Deut. 2:26-37]. Self-defense is a reasonable ground for fighting; therefore, all laws affirm that self-defense shall go unpunished and that he who kills another in self-defense is innocent in the eyes of everyone. But when the people of Israel wanted to start a war with the Canaanites without any cause, the Israelites were defeated, Numbers 14[:40-45]. And when Joseph and Azariah wanted to fight to gain honor for themselves, they were beaten [1 Macc. 5:55-60]. And Amaziah, king of Judah, wanted to start a war against the king of Israel simply because he desired to do so; but read 2 Kings 14[:8-14] to see what happened to him. King Ahab started a war against the Syrians at Ramoth, but lost both the war and his own life, 1 Kings 22[:2-40].  A nd the men of Ephraim intended to devour Jephthah and lost forty-two thousand men [Judg. 12:1-6], and so on. You find that almost always the losers were those who started the war. Even good King Josiah had to be slain because he started a war against the king of Egypt [2 Kgs. 23:29] so that the saying would hold true, “The L ord scatters the peoples who delight in war” [Ps. 68:30]. My countrymen in the Harz Mountains52 have a saying, “It is truly said that whoever strikes will be struck.”  l Why is this true? Because God rules the world with his might and allows no wrong to go unpunished. He who does wrong and l

Cf. “Schlagen,” in Wander, 4:215, no. 64: “wer wider schlegt, der ist unrecht.”

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved does not repent, and makes no amends to his neighbor, will be punished by God as sure as he lives. I believe that even Müntzer and his peasants would have to admit this.53

[Just Wars: Wars of Necessity vs. Wars of Selfish Desire] Let this, then, be the first thing to be said in this matter: No war is just, even if it is a war between equals, unless one has such authority and conscience that he can say, “My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.” In that case, the war—and not only war, but lawful defense—may be defined as a necessary resistance. For we must distinguish between wars that someone begins out of selfish desire and ego before anyone else attacks, and those wars of necessity and force that are provoked by an attack made by someone else. The first kind can be called wars of selfish desire; the second, wars of necessity. The first kind are of the devil; God does not give good fortune here. The second kind are human disasters—God help in these! Take my advice, dear lords. Avoid all war unless you have to defend and protect yourselves, and the office given to you compels you fight. Then let war come and join in. Be men, and test your armor. For it serves no purpose to fight a war with thoughts alone. The situation itself will be serious enough, and the teeth of those wrathful, defiant, proud men who chew iron m will be so blunt that they will scarcely be able to bite into fresh butter. The reason is this: every lord and prince is obliged to protect his people and to preserve the peace for them. That is his office; and that is why he has the sword, Romans 13[:4]. This should be a matter of conscience for him. And on this basis he should be certain that this work is right in the eyes of God and is commanded by him. I am not now teaching what Christians are to do. For your government does not concern us Christians. But we are serving you by telling you what you are to do before God in your office as a ruler. A Christian is a person to himself; he believes for himself and for no one else. But a lord and prince is not a person unto himself, but on behalf of others. It is his duty to serve them, that

m The German word here is “iron eater” (Eisenfresser).

217 53. Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489–1525) was born in Stolberg in the Harz Mountains. After an early career as a Catholic priest, he was attracted to the cause of the Reformation. In 1520, Müntzer, along with several other reformers in Zwickau (Saxony), developed a doctrine of the Spirit that made the written word of Scripture secondary to the direct revelation of God. Forced to flee Zwickau in April 1521, Müntzer made his way to Prague where he further developed a vision of the church as covenanted community. While Luther was at the Wartburg, Müntzer visited Wittenberg and stayed in the home of Karlstadt. In 1523–24, Müntzer became a highly popular preacher in the mining town of Allstedt. Large crowds flocked to hear his teachings, which became increasingly radical in their social and political critique. In July 1524, the two princes of Saxony, Duke John and Prince Elector Frederick the Wise, passed through Allstedt and invited Müntzer to explain his theology. In his famous “Sermon on Daniel,” Müntzer claimed that the authorities were given the sword to eradicate the ungodly; but, citing Daniel 7, he argued that if they did not do their duty the sword would be taken away from them. Shortly thereafter, Müntzer emerged as a key leader in the German Peasants’ War. Following the massacre of the peasants at the Battle of Frankenhausen in May 1525, Müntzer was captured and, on 27 May 1525 he was beheaded. Luther, who had faced sharp criticism for the harshness of his writings against the peasants, insists here that his position was vindicated. For him, the crushing defeat of Müntzer and the rebellious peasants was proof of God’s divine judgment.

218

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD is, to protect and defend them. It would indeed be good if he were also a Christian and believed in God, for then he would be saved. However, being a Christian is not princely, and therefore few princes can be Christians; as they say, “A prince is as rare as venison in heaven.”  n But even if princes are not Christians, they nevertheless ought to do what is right and good according to the outward ordinance of God. God desires this from them. If, however, a lord or prince does not recognize this duty and commandment, and allows himself to think that he is prince not for the sake of his subjects, but because of his handsome, blond hair—as though God had made him a prince so that he could rejoice in his power and wealth and honor, take pleasure and comfort in these things, and rely on them—then he belongs among the heathen. Indeed, he is a fool. That kind of prince would probably start a war over an empty nut o and consider nothing other than satisfying his own will. God restrains such princes by giving fists to other people, too, placing people on the other side of the mountain as well. p Thus one sword keeps the other in the scabbard. A sensible prince does not think only of himself. He is satisfied if his subjects are obedient. Though his enemies and neighbors boast and threaten and spew out many bad words, he thinks, “Fools always chatter more than wise men”; q “an empty sack holds many words”; r “silence is often the best answer.” s Therefore, he does not concern himself much about them until he sees that his subjects are attacked or finds the sword actually drawn. Then he defends himself as well as he can, ought, and n The German reads: “Wie man sagt: ‘Fürst wildbret ym hymel.’” My translation is based on the Thesaurus proverbiorum medii aevi = Lexikon der Sprichwörter des romanisch-germanischen Mittelalters, ed. Samuel Singer (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2002), 97. o “Nuss,” in Wander, 3:1,077, no. 137: “wegen einer tauben Nuss Handel anfangen.” p “Berg,” in Wander, 1:312, no. 8: “auf jenseit dem berg findent man auch leüt.” See also Thiele, 77 (no. 51: “Jhenest des berges sind auch leute”). q “Narr,” in Wander, 3:915, no. 879: “Narren und Kinder waschen [=schwetzen] allzeit mehr den weise Leut.” r “Wort,” in Wander, 5:408, no. 223: “Es gehen viel Wore in einen Sack und noch viel mehr heraus.” s “Schweigen,” in Wander, 4:436, no. 38: “mit schweigen kan man viel verantworten; 42: mit schweigen verantwort man vil.”

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved must. Otherwise, whoever is such a coward that he tries to catch and examine the cause of every word is like a man who tries to trap the wind in his coat.t If you want to know what peace or profit he gets out of that, ask him and he will soon confess. This is the first thing to be said in this matter. The second should be just as carefully observed. Even if you are absolutely certain that you are not starting a war but are being forced into one, you must still fear God and keep him before you. You should not march out saying, “Ah, now I have been forced and have good cause for going to war.” You ought not to fall back on this and plunge headlong into battle. It is indeed true that you have a very good reason to go to war and to defend yourself; but that does not give you God’s guarantee that you will win. Indeed, precisely such confidence may result in your defeat, even though you have a just cause for fighting the war. For God cannot endure such pride and confidence except in a person who humbles himself before God and fears God. God is pleased with the person who fears neither humans nor the devil, but is bold and confident, brave and firm against both, if someone else began the war and is in the wrong. But there is nothing to the idea that this will produce a victory, as though it were our deeds or power that did it. Rather, God wants to be feared and wants to hear our hearts sing a song like this, “Dear Lord my God, you see that I have to go to war, though I would rather not. I do not trust, however, in the justice of my cause, but in your grace and mercy. For I know that if I were to rely on my confidence and the justness of my cause, you would rightly let me fall as one whose fall was just, because I relied upon the justice of my cause and not upon your sheer grace and kindness.” Just listen now to what the heathen say in this case about this—the Greeks and Romans, who knew nothing of God and the fear of God. They thought that they were the ones who made war and won victories. But through many different experiences in which a great and well-armed people was often defeated by a small number of poorly armed people, they had to learn and freely admit that nothing is more dangerous in war than to be secure and confident. So they concluded that one should never t

“Wind,” in Wander, 5:261, no. 347: “Er will den Wind mit dem Mantel fangen.”

219

220

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD underestimate the enemy, no matter how small he may be; that one should surrender no advantage, no matter how small it may be; that one should never overlook any precaution, vigilance, or concern, no matter how small it may be—just as one should test every coin on the gold scale. Foolish, confident, heedless people accomplish nothing in war, except to do harm. They regarded the words “non putassem”— “I didn’t even think about it”—as the most shameful words a soldier could speak. These words indicate that he was a secure, confident, careless person, who in one instant, by one step, with one word, can do more damage than ten like him can repair, and then he will say, “Indeed, I did not think about it.” u The prince, Hannibal, badly defeated the Romans as long as they were confident and secure against him. Both history and daily experience offer innumerable similar examples. The heathen experienced and taught this, but they did not know how to account for its cause other than to blame it on Fortune, which is why they were always afraid of Fortune. However, as I have said, the actual cause of this is that God wants to demonstrate through such histories that he wants all to fear him and him alone, and that he will not tolerate confidence, contempt, temerity, or security in such things until we learn to receive from God’s hands all that we can and want to have as a gift of pure grace and mercy. It is therefore strange for a soldier who is fighting for a good cause to be confident and discouraged at the same time. How can he fight if he is discouraged? But if he goes into battle with complete confidence, the danger is even greater. This, then, is what he should do: Before God he should be discouraged, fearful, and humble, and commit his cause to him that he may dispose things, not according to our understanding of what is right and just, but according to his kindness and grace. In this way he wins God to his side with a humble, fearful heart. Toward other men he should be bold, free, and confident because they are in the wrong, and kill them with a confident and untroubled spirit. Why should we not do for our God what the Romans, the greatest fighters on earth, did for their false god, Fortune, whom u Cicero, “On the morality of assassinating tyrants,” in On Duties [De officiis], trans. Harry G. Edinger (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1974), 1:23.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

221

they feared? Whenever they did not do this, they fought in great danger and were even badly beaten. Our conclusion on this point, then, is that war against equals should be waged only in necessity and it should be fought in the fear of God. Such a war is forced upon us when an enemy or neighbor attacks and starts the war, and refuses to cooperate in settling the matter according to law or through arbitration or treaty, or when one endures and puts up with all manner of evil words and tricks, but he still insists on having his own way. I am assuming throughout that I am preaching to those who want to do what is right in God’s sight. Those who will neither offer to do what is right nor consent to it do not concern me. Fearing God means that we do not rely on the justness of our cause, but that we are careful, diligent, and cautious, even in the very smallest detail, even the slightest pipsqueak.v With all this, however, God’s hands are not bound so that he cannot bid us to make war against those who have not given us just cause, as he did when he commanded the children of Israel to go to war against the Canaanites. In such a case, God’s command is necessity enough. However, even such a war should not be fought without fear and caution, as God shows in Joshua 3 [7:1-5] when the children of Israel marched confidently against the men of Ai and were defeated. The same kind of necessity arises if subjects fight at the command of their rulers; for God commands us to be obedient to our rulers [Rom. 13:1], and his command is a necessity, though this too must be done with fear and humility. We shall discuss this further below.

[3. Lords May Go to War against Their Subjects  . . . If Their Subjects Are Rebellious] The third question is whether overlords have the right to go to war with their subjects. We have heard above that subjects are to be obedient and are even to suffer injustice from their tyrants. Thus, if things go well, the rulers have nothing to do with their subjects except to cultivate justice, righteousness, and good judgment. However, if the subjects rise up and rebel, as the peasants did recently, then it is right and proper to fight against them.54 That, too, is what a prince should do against his nobles and an v

“Pfeifen,” in Wander, 3:1,261, no. 46: “es ist kein Pfeifen wert.”

54. Again, Luther is writing with the memory of the Peasants’ War still fresh in his mind.

222 55. The deeply conservative weight of Luther’s position here is worth noting. Although modern readers should reject facile arguments that draw a straight line from Luther to Hitler, Luther’s strong defense of civil order—holding rulers accountable only to God and the practical implications of their own tyranny—had historical consequences. For a thoughtful consideration of one trajectory of Luther’s thought as it was appropriated in the early twentieth century, see James M. Stayer, Martin Luther, German Saviour: German Evangelical Theological Factions and the Interpretation of Luther, 1917–1933 (Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2000). Stayer traces the steps by which German Protestant theologians in the years following World War I elevated Luther as a national hero as part of a larger effort to establish a specifically German-Protestant national identity. This new cultural nationalism, evident particularly in the works of theologians like Emanuel Hirsch and Erich Vogelsang, merged Luther’s political theology and the nationalistic aspirations of the German people in ways that supported the rise of National Socialism.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD emperor against his princes if they are rebellious and start a war. But this must be done in the fear of God, not placing too much confidence on being in the right, lest God determine that the lords are to be punished by their subjects, even though the subjects are in the wrong. This has often happened, as we have noted above. For to be right and to do what is right do not necessarily follow or go along with each other. Indeed, they never go together unless God grants it. Therefore, although it is right that subjects sit still, patiently suffering everything and not revolting, nevertheless, it is not for men to decide whether they actually do this. For God has appointed subjects to care for themselves as individuals, has taken the sword from them, and locked it away. If they rebel against this, get others to join them, and break loose and take the sword, then they are worthy of condemnation and death before God.55 Overlords, on the other hand, are appointed for the sake of the community and not for themselves alone. They are to have the support of their subjects and they are to bear the sword. With regard to his overlord, the emperor, a prince is no longer a prince, but an individual in obedience to the emperor like all the others, each for himself. But when he is seen in relationship to his own subjects he is as many persons as he has people under him and attached to him. So the emperor, too, seen in relation to God, is not an emperor, but an individual person like all others before God. Compared with his subjects, however, he is as many times emperor as he has people under him. The same thing can be said of all other rulers—when compared to their overlord, they are not rulers at all and are stripped of all authority. When compared with their subjects, they are adorned with all authority. Thus, in the end, all authority comes from God, whose alone it is. For he is emperor, prince, count, noble, judge, and everything else, and he assigns these offices to his subjects as he wills, and then takes them back again for himself. Now no individual should set himself against the community or claim the community for himself, for in so doing he is chopping over his head, and the chips will surely fall in his eyes.w From this you can see that those who resist their rulers resist the ordinance of God, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 13[:2]. In 1 Corinthians 15[:24] Paul w Theile, 56 (no. 29: “wer vber sich hawet, dem fallen die span ynn die augen”).

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

223

also says that God will abolish all authority when he himself shall reign and return all things to himself. So much on these three points.

[Can a Christian Be a Mercenary?] Now come the questions. Since no king or prince can go to war alone (any more than he can administer the law courts alone— he must have people who serve him in war just as he must have counselors, judges, lawyers, jailers, executioners, and whatever else is necessary for the administration of justice), the question arises whether a man ought to hire himself out as a mercenary— dienstgelt or mangelt as they call it—and thereby offer to serve the prince as the occasion may demand, as is now customary. 56 To answer this question we must distinguish various types of soldiers. In the first place, there are some subjects who, though they have no obligation to their overlords, nonetheless stand by him with their body and property and obey their lord’s summons. This is especially true of the nobles and of those who hold fiefs from the authorities. For the properties held by counts, lords, and nobles were parceled out by the Romans and the Roman emperors in ancient times and were given in fief on the condition that those who possess them should always be armed and ready—the one with this many horses and men, the other with that many, according to the size of their holdings. These fiefs were the wages with which they were hired. This is why they are called fiefs and why these encumbrances still rest upon them. The emperor permits these holdings to be inherited, which was right and fine in the Roman Empire.57 However, the Turk, it is said, does not allow such inheritances and tolerates no hereditary principality, county, or knights’ holdings, but assigns and distributes them however, whenever, and to whomever he wishes. This is why he has a vast amount of gold and property and is absolute lord in the land—or, better said, a tyrant. The nobles, therefore, should not think that they have their property for nothing, as though they had found it or won it by gambling. The encumbrance on it and the feudal obligations make it clear from whom and why they have it—namely, as a loan from the emperor or the prince. Therefore, they ought not use it to finance their own ostentatious display or rowdiness, but to

56. The practice of hiring professional soldiers, or mercenaries, was common in early modern Europe. Cf. David Parrott, The Business of War: Military Enterprise and Military Revolution in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). See also the image of mercenary soldiers on p. 182.

57. Luther seems to be drawing on the work of Peter von Andlau (1420–1480), a legal scholar from the Alsace, who is often credited with providing the first systematic argument for the legal foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. His Libellus de Cesarea Monarchia (Treatise on the Sovereignty of the Emperor), published in 1460, described the emergence of the nobility and the estates of the Empire, laws of war, and the basic principles of feudal relationships. Luther likely encountered this text in his legal studies.

224

58. Luther is not speaking here about the office of the ruler or feudal lord in general but, rather, the responsibility of military service.

59. The problem of the “sturdy poor”—that is, people who were able to work but unemployed by choice or circumstance—was widespread in early sixteenth-century Germany.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD be armed and prepared to defend and protect the land in war and to maintain the peace. Now if they complain that they must maintain horses and serve the princes and lords while others have peace and quiet, I reply: Dear sirs, consider this. You have your pay and your fief, and you are appointed to this office and are well paid for it. But don’t others also have to work hard to maintain their little properties? Or do you think that you are the only ones who have work to do? Your office is seldom called for; 58 but others must do their duty every day. If you are not willing to do this or if you think it burdensome or unjust, then give up your fief. It will be easy to find others who will be glad to accept it and do what it requires of them. Therefore, wise people have divided all human labor into two categories, Agriculturam and Militiam, that is, agricultural and military occupations. This is a natural division. Farmers feed us and soldiers defend us. Those who have the office of defending us are to receive their income and their sustenance from those who have the office of feeding, so that they will be able to defend. By the same token, those who have the office of feeding are to be protected by those who have the office of defending, so that they can provide food. The emperor or prince in the land is to supervise both groups and see to it that those who have the office of defending are armed and have mounts, and that those who have the office of feeding work honestly to increase the supply of food. However, he should not tolerate useless people, who neither feed nor defend but only consume, are lazy, and live in idleness. He should drive them out of the land or compel them to work—just like bees, which sting the drones to death because they do not work and only eat up the honey of the other bees. This is why Solomon, in Ecclesiastes [5:8-9], calls the kings builders who make the land productive, for that should be their responsibility. But God preserve us Germans! We are not getting any wiser or doing this the right way, but have remained good consumers for a long time, and we let those be feeders and defenders who have the desire for it or cannot get around it.59 In Luke 2 [3:14] St. John the Baptist confirms the right of this first class to their pay and to their fiefs, and rightly says that they do their duty and service when they help their lord make war and serve him. When the soldiers asked him what they were to do, he answered, “Be content with your wages.” Now if it were wrong for them to take wages, or if their occupation was opposed to God,

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved he could not have allowed it to continue, permitting and confirming it. Rather, as a godly Christian teacher, he would have had to condemn it and deter them from it. This is the answer to those who, because of a tender conscience—though this is now rare among these people—profess that it is dangerous to take up this occupation for the sake of temporal goods, since it is nothing but bloodshed, murder, and the inflicting of all kinds of suffering upon one’s neighbor, as happens in wartime. These men should inform their consciences that they are not motivated to carry out these offices by choice, desire, or ill-will, but that this is God’s work and it is their duty to their prince and their God to do it. Therefore, since it is a legitimate office, ordained by God, they should be paid and compensated for it—as Christ says in Matthew 10[:10], “A laborer is worthy of his wage.”  x It is true, of course, that if a man serves as a soldier with a heart and attitude that is seeking or thinking about nothing else than acquiring wealth—and if temporal wealth is his only reason for doing it—he will not be happy when there is peace and will be sad when there is no war. Such a man clearly strays from the path and belongs to the devil, even though he fights out of obedience to his lord and at his call. Out of work that is good in itself he makes something bad by not being much concerned about serving out of obedience and duty, but seeks only his own profit. For this reason he does not have a good conscience that can say, “Well, for my part, I would have liked to stay at home. But because my lord calls me and needs me, I come in God’s name and know that I am serving God by doing so. Thus, I will earn or accept the pay that is given me for it.” A soldier ought to have the knowledge and confidence that he is doing his duty and that he must do this, so as to be certain that he is serving God thereby and can say, “It is not I that smite, stab, and slay, but God and my prince; for my hand and my body are their servants.” That is the meaning of the watchwords and battle cries, “Emperor!” “France!” “Lüneburg!” “Braunschweig!” This is also how the Jews cried out against the Midianites, “The sword of God and Gideon!” in Judges 7[:20]. Such a greedy man spoils all other good works, too. For example, a man who preaches for the sake of earthly goods is also lost,

x

Luke 10:7.

225

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

226

60. Cf. Matt. 6:24.

though Christ says that a preacher shall live from the gospel.y It is not wrong to do things for temporal wealth, for income, wages, and pay are also earthly goods. Otherwise, no one would work or do anything to support himself on the grounds that it is done for temporal wealth. But to be greedy for temporal wealth and to make a mammon60 of it is always wrong in every office, position, and occupation. Let go of greed and other evil thoughts, and it is not sin to fight in a war. Take your wages for it, and whatever is given you. This is why I said above that the work, in itself, is just and godly, but that it becomes wrong if the person is unjust or uses it unjustly.

[What If the War Is Unjust?] A second question: “Suppose my lord were wrong in going to war?” I reply: If you know for sure that he is wrong, then you should fear and obey God more than men, Acts 4 [5:29], and you should neither fight nor serve, for you cannot have a good conscience before God. “Yes,” you say, “but my lord forces me to do it—he would take away my fief and refuse to give me my money, pay, and wages. In addition, I would be despised and shamed as a coward, even worse, as perjurer who deserted his lord in need.” I answer: You must take that risk and, for God’s sake, let whatever happens, happen. He can restore it to you a hundredfold, as he promises in the gospel, “Whoever leaves house, farm, wife, and property, will receive a hundredfold,” etc. [Matt. 19:29]. You will also face this same danger in other occupations where the authorities compel you to act unjustly. But since God will have us leave even father and mother for his sake, we must certainly also leave lords for his sake. But if you do not know, or cannot find out, whether your lord is wrong, you should not weaken your obedience to conscience for the sake of an uncertain justice. Rather you should think the best of your lord, as is the way of love, for “love believes all things” and “does not think evil,” 1 Corinthians 13[:4-7]. So, then, you are secure and can walk well before God. If they put you to shame or call you disloyal, it is better that God honors you as loyal and honest than for the world to call you loyal and honest. What good would it do

y

Cf. Matt. 10:10; 1 Cor. 9:14.

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

227

you if the world thought of you as a Solomon or a Moses, when in God’s judgment you were considered as bad as Saul or Ahab?

[Can a Christian Soldier Fight for More than One Lord?] The third question: “Can a soldier obligate himself to serve more than one lord and take wages or salary from each?” Answer: I said above that greed is wrong, whether one is in a good or an evil occupation. Agriculture is certainly one of the best occupations; 61 nonetheless, a greedy farmer is wrong and is condemned before God. So in this case it is just and right to take wages; and serving for wages is also right. But greed is not right, even if your wages for the whole year were barely a gulden. Again, to take wages and serve for them is right in itself; it does not matter whether the wages come from one, or two, or three, or however many lords, so long as your hereditary lord or prince is not deprived of what is due him and your service to others is rendered with his will and consent. A good craftsman may sell his skill to anyone who will have it, and thus serve that person so long as this is not against his ruler and his community. In the same way a soldier has his skill in fighting from God and he may use it in the service of whoever desires it, just as though it were an art or trade, and he can receive pay for it as he would for his work. For this is also a vocation that springs from the law of love. If anyone needs me and calls for me, I am at his service; and for this I take my wage or whatever is given me. This is what St. Paul asks in 1 Corinthians 9[:7], “Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? [NRSV]” and, thereby, approves it as just. So if a prince needs and requires another lord’s subject for fighting, the subject may, with his own prince’s consent and knowledge, serve and receive pay for it. “But suppose that one of the princes or lords were to make war against the other, and I were obligated to both, but preferred to serve the one who was in the wrong because he has showed me more grace or wealth than the one who was in the right, from whom I would receive less?” Here is the quick, short answer: What is right—that is, what pleases God—should be more important than wealth, body, honor and friends, grace, and pleasure. And in this case there is no respecting of persons other than God alone. In this case, too, a man must endure this for God’s sake even if others think that he acts ungratefully and is despised for

61. Luther also had high praise for agriculture in his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), LW 44:214; TAL 1:462.

228

62. That is, the sinful nature of humans.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD it. He has an honorable excuse—namely, God and right—which will not tolerate serving those whom we like and forsaking those whom we do not like. Although the old Adam62 does not want to hear this willingly, nevertheless, this is what we must do if right is to be maintained. For there is no resisting God, and whoever resists what is right resists God, who gives, orders, and maintains all that is right.

[Is It Ever Legitimate to Fight for Personal Glory?]

A Landsknecht mercenary with a two-handed sword. Etching by Daniel Hopfer.

The fourth question: “What can be said about the man who goes to war not only for the sake of wealth, but also for the sake of temporal honor, to become a highly regarded and powerful man?” Answer: Greed for money and greed for honor are both greed; the one is as wrong as the other. Whoever goes to war because of this vice is worthy of hell. We should give honor to God alone and be satisfied with our wages and rations. It is, therefore, not a Christian custom, but a heathen one, to exhort soldiers before the battle with words like this: “Dear comrades, dear soldiers, be brave and confident! God willing, we shall this day win honor and become rich.” On the contrary, they should be exhorted in this manner: “Dear comrades, we are gathered here to serve, obey, and do our duty to our princes, since we are obliged to support our prince with our body and our possessions according to God’s will and ordinance, even though in God’s sight we are as poor sinners as our enemies. Nevertheless, since we know that our prince is in the right in this case—or at least we have no reason to believe otherwise—we are therefore sure and certain that in serving and obeying him we are serving God. Let everyone, then, be brave and courageous, and let no one think otherwise than that his fist is God’s fist, his spear God’s spear, and declare with heart and voice, ‘For God and the emperor!’ If God gives us victory, the honor and praise shall be his, not ours, for he wins it through us poor sinners. But even though we are unworthy, we will take the booty and the wages as presents and gifts of God’s goodness and grace to us, and thank him for this from our hearts. Now God grant the victory! Forward with joy!”

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved There can be no doubt but that if one seeks the honor of God and allows it to remain with him—as is just and right, and as it ought to be—then more honor will come than anyone could seek, for in 1 Samuel 2[:30] God has promised, “Those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Since God clearly cannot fail to keep his promise, he must honor those who honor him. Seeking one’s own honor is one of the greatest sins. It is nothing less than crimen lese maiestatis divine—that is, a theft of divine majesty. Therefore, let others boast and seek honor. You be obedient and quiet, and your honor will find you. Many a battle has been lost that would otherwise have been won if honor alone could have done it. These honor-greedy warriors do not believe that God is in the midst of the war and gives the victory. Therefore, they do not fear God and are not joyful, but are foolhardy and mad, and in the end they are defeated. But for me the very best comrades63 are those who encourage themselves and are encouraged before the battle by thinking about the praiseworthy devotion of the women they love, and say this to each other, “Hey, now, let everyone think about the woman he loves most.” I admit that if I had not heard this from two credible men who are experienced in these matters, I never would have believed that in such a serious business as this, where the danger of death is constantly before one’s eyes, the human heart could be so distracted and flippant. Of course, no one does this when he fights alone with death. But when the company is assembled one stirs up the other, and no one pays attention to what affects him, because it affects many. But to a Christian heart it is horrifying to think and hear that at the moment when one is facing God’s judgment and the peril of death, a person is aroused and comforted by fleshly love. For this those who are killed or die surely send their souls straight to hell without delay. “Indeed,” they say, “if I were to think of hell, I could never again go to war.” It is still worse to drive God and his judgment willfully out of your mind and not want to know, or think, or hear anything about it. For this reason a great many soldiers belong to the devil. And some of them are so full of the devil that they know of no better way to demonstrate their joy than by speaking contemptuously of God and his judgment, as if z

Literally, tough enough to eat iron (Eisenfresser).

229

63. Since it does not seem to make sense that Luther would identify these people as “the very best comrades,” he must be speaking sarcastically here.

230

64. St. George was an early Christian martyr, who was beheaded by Diocletian (245–316) in 303 for refusing to offer a sacrifice to the Roman gods. He has long been associated with courage and valor, especially in light of his heroic slaying of a dragon. Often depicted as a medieval knight, St. George was a favorite patron saint among soldiers. 65. St. Christopher, a third-century martyr, became known in the Christian tradition as the “Christ-bearer.” According to legend, Christopher once carried a young child safely across a swollen river, whereupon the child revealed his true identity as the young Jesus. He became the patron saint of travelers. 66. Some soldiers carried the verses from John 1:1-14, the last Gospel reading of the Mass, with them as a kind of talisman.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD doing so made them as tough as nails. z They also dare to swear shamefully by Christ and the martyrs, and curse and defy God in heaven. It is a lost crowd; it is chaff, and, as with the other estates, there is much chaff and little wheat. It follows that those mercenaries who wander about from country to country seeking war—even though they are able to work and ply a trade until they were summoned—and waste their time out of laziness or roughness and wildness of spirit, cannot be on good terms with God. For they can neither give God any good explanation for this nor have a good conscience about their wandering. All they have is a foolhardy desire or eagerness for war or to pursue a free, wild life typical of such people. Ultimately, some of them become scoundrels and robbers. However, if they would work or take up a trade and earn their bread until their prince summoned them for himself—as God has commanded and required of all people—if they would ask and it be permitted them to serve someone else, then they could go to war with the good conscience of those who knew that they were serving at the pleasure of their overlord. Otherwise they could not have such a good conscience. The whole world ought to think of this as a great joy and comfort and even as a compelling reason to love and honor those who rule over us. Almighty God shows us a great grace when he appoints rulers for us as an outward sign of his will, so that we are certain we are pleasing his divine will and are doing right, whenever and as often as we do the will and pleasure of the ruler. For God has attached and bound his will to them when he says, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” [Matt. 22:21], and in Romans 13[:1], “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.”

[The Spiritual Attitude of a Christian Soldier] Finally, soldiers have many superstitions in battle. One commends himself to St. George,64 another to St. Christopher; 65 one to this saint, another to that one. Some swear by iron and bullets; some bless horse and rider; some carry St. John’s Gospel, 66 or something else on which they rely. But all of them are in a dangerous condition, for they do not believe in God. Rather, to

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved

St. George kills a dragon in this painting (c. 1434) by Bernat Martorell (1390−1452).

the contrary, they sin through unbelief and false trust in God. And if they were to die, they would surely be lost. This is what they ought to do. When the battle begins and the exhortation of which I spoke above has been given, each person should simply commend himself to God’s grace and in this

231

232

67. In the spring of 1526, armies of the Ottoman Empire, led by Suleiman the Magnificent (1494–1566), attacked the kingdom of Hungary. Suleiman’s victory at the battle of Mohács (29 August 1526) led to the partitioning of Hungary and opened up the Donau Valley to the advance of the Ottoman Turks into Austria and German territories. At the time that Luther was writing, the threat of a full-scale war against the Turks was emerging as a real possibility. 68. The papal bull excommunicating Luther made this point. For Luther’s reply to the accusation, see LW 32:89–90.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD way present himself as a Christian. For the above exhortation is only a form for doing the external work of war with a good conscience. But because good works save no one, each person should also repeat this exhortation in his heart or with his lips: “Heavenly Father, here I am, according to your divine will, in the external work and service of my overlord, which I owe first to you and then to my lord for your sake. I thank your grace and mercy that you have set work before me that I am certain is not sinful, but right and pleasing obedience to your will. But because I know and have learned from your gracious word that none of our good works can help us and that no one is saved as a soldier but only as a Christian, I will therefore not in any way rely on my obedience and work, but place myself freely in the service of your will. I believe with all my heart that only the innocent blood of your dear Son, my Lord Jesus Christ, redeems and saves me, blood that he shed for me in obedience to your gracious will. On this I stand. On this I will live and die, fight, and do all that I do. Dear Lord God the Father, preserve and strengthen this faith in me through your Spirit. Amen.” If you then want to say the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer you may do so, and let that be enough. In so doing commit your body and soul into God’s hands, draw your dagger, and smite in God’s name. If there were many such soldiers in an army, my dear reader, who do you think could do anything against them? They would devour the world without lifting a sword. Indeed, if there were nine or ten such men in a company, or even three or four, who could say these things with an upright heart, I would prefer them to all the muskets, spears, horses, and armor. Then I would be willing to let the Turk come with all his power. For the Christian faith is not a joke, nor is it a little thing. As Christ says in the gospel, “It can do all things” [Mark 9:23]. But, my dear friend, where are those who believe thus and who can do such things? Nevertheless, even if the great majority does not do this, we must teach it and know it for the sake of those who will do it, however few they may be. As Isaiah 55[:11] says, “God’s word does not return empty, but accomplishes his purpose.” The others who despise this wholesome teaching, which is given for their salvation, have their judge to whom they must answer. We are exonerated; we have done our part. Here I will now let it rest. I wanted to say something about war against the Turk because it has come so close to us,67 and

Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved some have accused me of advising against war with the Turk. 68 For I have long known that I would have to finally become Turkish,69 and it does not help me that I have written so plainly about this—also in my book Temporal Authority—that equal may well go to war with equal.70 But since the Turk is back home again and our Germans are no longer asking about this, it is not yet time to write about it.71 I should have completed this instruction long ago, dear Assa. It has now been delayed so long that in the meantime you and I, by God’s grace, have become godfathers.72 But don’t hold the delay against me; I myself do not really know why it was held up for so long. Nonetheless, I hope that the delay has not been fruitless and that the cause has been furthered by my writing. I commend you to God.

233 69. The German reads: “Denn ich lengst wol gewust habe, Ich müste auch noch Turkisch werden.” It is not clear what Luther is intending to say with this. Perhaps he is claiming here the identity of a perceived enemy who is both despised and feared by all; but it is also possible that he is simply saying that he needs to turn his attention to the Turkish question and enter into that mindset. 70. Luther briefly addressed this possibility in On Temporal [Secular] Authority, arguing that one should first offer peace to an equal; but if the other party refuses, “then—mindful of what is best for you—defend yourself against force with force, as Moses so well describes in Deuteronomy 20” (LW 45:125; cf. this volume, p. 125). Of course, he also addresses the legitimacy of war with equals here in the treatise Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved. 71. Luther went on to write several significant treatises on the Turks, including On War against the Turk (1529) (this volume, pp. 335–89; LW 46:155– 205); Army Sermon against the Turk (1529) (WA 30/2:160–97); and the Admonition for Prayer against the Turk (1541) (WA 51:585–625). 72. Luther may be referring here to the baptism of Gabriel Zwilling’s son, Luther’s godchild, in Torgau (WA 19:616).

Title page of To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish Schools (An die Radtherren aller Stette teutsches lands . . .), published in Wittenberg in 1524

�

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain

Christian Schools 1524

H. ASHLEY HALL

INTRODUCTION

The following treatise presents Martin Luther’s arguments for educational reform. Luther offers here a robust defense of the liberal arts, placing education at the heart of the common good and therefore necessary not only for the mission of the church but also for all vocations in a God-fearing, harmonious society. To understand his arguments, let us begin by placing Luther within the particular context and concern for educational reform in the late medieval period. We can divide the discussion regarding education in this time into two camps: those who debated about the kind of educational reform that was necessary and those who denied the importance of formal education all together.

Historical Context The primary purpose of the treatise is to take aim against the latter; that is, Luther argues vigorously against those who consider a formal education unnecessary, and perhaps even an obstacle, to the Christian life. By 1524, Luther has had a public break with Andreas Karlstadt (1486–1541), a fellow professor of theology

235

236

1. Though the common ministry of the church belongs to all of the baptized, only some are duly educated and authorized (through ordination) to preach, teach, and administer the sacrament (see Article 14 of the Augsburg Confession). Remember too that even after Luther’s time, professors of theology were rigorously examined and took oaths to uphold the doctrine of the church. See Timothy J. Wengert, Priesthood, Pastors, Bishops: Public Ministry for the Reformation and Today (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD at the University of Wittenberg. a Although Karlstadt was a very learned man (with doctorates in theology, canon law, and civil law) who had held prestigious positions (namely, archdeacon, chair of the theology department, and chancellor of the university), he eventually renounced his titles as obstacles to true piety. Karlstadt invited others to address him as simply “Brother Andy.” After he and Luther had a falling out over the pace and scope of reform, Karlstadt left the University of Wittenberg and became a parish pastor in Orlamünde, where he initiated his more radical reforms and continued his attacks on formal education as human vanity. Likewise, another early radical reformer, Thomas Müntzer (1489–1525), rejected formal education. b Müntzer was university educated and had been a teacher, but, like Karlstadt, he rejected formal education as a necessary element of the Christian life. By 1524, Luther had begun to attack Karlstadt and Müntzer and their anticlerical, antieducational ideas as a fundamental assault on the common good. Therefore, this treatise cannot be divorced from the concerns of his contemporaneous writings against the radical reformers, who believed that it was the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit alone that gave Christians all that was necessary to interpret the Bible and live a moral life. Yet, Luther’s religious piety and education led him to assert that the Holy Spirit inspires through diligent study and prayerful reflection. Further, personal revelation must be tested by the church. Only those who are properly trained for the office of ministry and those duly educated as doctors (i.e., teachers) of theology have the right to preach and teach publicly and with authority.1 Moreover, this debate over the necessity of formal education in general and in theology in particular was not itself an abstract, academic question. Karlstadt’s reforms in Wittenberg had already caused a public outcry: in January of 1522, Karlstadt had convinced the city council of Wittenberg to authorize the

a See Ronald J. Sider, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt: The Development of His Thought, 1517–1525 (Leiden: Brill, 1974). b See Eric W. Gritsch, Thomas Müntzer: A Tragedy of Errors (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989).

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools removal of images. This event hastened Luther’s return to Wittenberg from the Wartburg Castle in an effort to undo the hasty reforms and iconoclasm spurred in his name. Rather than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Luther attributed their zeal to the guile of Satan himself to exploit the simple piety of the people. Rather, the people needed to be taught the reasons for reform and the process had to be guided by the reflection and prayer of the legitimate authorities (i.e., theologians and princes) who were also guided by the Holy Spirit. Only then would the conscience of the “weak” be comforted and the zeal of the “strong” be curbed by wisdom and discernment. c These events demonstrated to Luther how quickly matters could get out of hand and the necessity of education and planning. The Zwickau Prophets would also leave an indelible mark on the debate over education. Nicholas Storch (d. c. 1536), Thomas Dreschel, and Markus Stübner (all laymen) came from the Saxon town of Zwickau (where Thomas Müntzer was the priest at St. Catherine’s parish), claiming to have prophetic powers through the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit.d Luther confronted them and their followers. They would not listen to arguments from Scripture and were impervious to criticism. Though they did not stay in Wittenberg long, they left an influence. Their “spiritualist” position and appeal to direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit would become a hallmark of the Anabaptist movement. That is, while the Zwickau Prophets were not, properly speaking, Anabaptists, their affirmation of direct inspiration, manifestation of prophetic powers, and rejection of formal education as a necessary aspect of both the validity of the ordained clergy and Christian life presented Luther with arguments that would set the tone for his conflicts with Anabaptists and other radical reformers. Finally, the theological debates of the radical reformers and their attacks on formal education cannot be divorced from the social unrest simmering by 1524 and that would boil over into

c

See Martin Luther, Eight Wittenberg Sermons [Invocavit Sermons], LW 51:69–100; TAL 4:7–45. d Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation, 1521–1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 34–38.

237

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

238

2. The black gown of academic regalia had its origin in the fact that all university students were enrolled in the minor clerical orders (there were, at one time, seven ranks on the way to becoming a priest). Colors and specialized tailoring were added to distinguish academic rank, disciplines, fraternities, and honors.

the German Peasants’ Revolt (or War). e In February of 1525, soon after To the Councilmen was published, Thomas Müntzer appeared in the Thuringian imperial free city of Mühlhausen. There, from the pulpit of St. Mary’s parish, Müntzer led a popular uprising against the city council and established a theocratic rule based on his prophetic visions and interpretations of Scripture and early church sources. He raised and led an army of disaffected peasants, who had long-held political and economic grievances against the princes, guilds, and city councils. Müntzer’s actions were mirrored throughout the southeast German territories. These armed peasants affirmed a mixture of legitimate political concerns (see The Twelve Articles) undergirded by a prophetic, utopian vision. Luther threw himself into vigorously opposing the movement, as witnessed by his treatises against them.f Luther and his Wittenberg colleagues saw the failure of the schools to educate the people (peasants and nobles alike) on the importance of the common good and the right use of Scripture as the root of the social unrest. The Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–25 only served to underline the urgency of proper educational reform and the need for cities to support universal education. Nonetheless, the ideas of the radical reformers against the necessity of education were appealing and not without some basis, as Luther himself acknowledged. He admitted that education is expensive and time consuming; that there was a latent elitism in the ranking of degrees (and the concomitant honorific titles, specialized robes, hats, and colors that accompany advanced degrees); 2 and that the existing monastic schools and chantry foundations were perceived to be bloated and immoral. The course of studies they imposed on students seemed to e

f

See James Stayer, The German Peasants’ War and Anabaptist Community of Goods (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1991); Michael G. Baylor, The Radical Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Peter Blickle, ed., The Revolution of 1525: The German Peasants’ War from a New Perspective (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981; Steven Ozment, Mysticism and Dissent: Religious Ideolog y and Social Protest in the Sixteenth Century (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1973); and George Hunston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962). See Luther’s Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia (April 1525), pp. 280–333 in this volume and LW 46:17–43; and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (May 1525) in LW 46:49–55.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools impart useless information that left the graduate with no practical skills—or common sense. And of course, no formal degree was a guarantee of true piety or wisdom. After all, the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadducees were highly educated and likewise concerned with honor and specialized dress (Matt. 23:5-7), yet they killed not only the prophets but also the Incarnate Word himself. So, why was Luther so adamant about keeping the schools, not only as a benefit to those who desired to make use of them, but as a fundamental element of every citizen’s life that demanded the attention of (and significant financial support from) secular authorities?

The Necessary Role of Schools for Church and Society The schools Luther had in mind would provide secondary education. After learning the fundamentals of the alphabet, syntax, and grammar, the pupil (usually a boy between seven and twelve years old) would attend such schools to refine his grasp of Latin through learning the basics of the liberal-arts curriculum. As a result of this education, a student would have a broad exposure to what can be expected of an educated, responsible citizen and member of the church. Afterward, a young man (in the late Middle Ages, a twelve-year-old was considered of legitimate age for social responsibility) could pursue training in a vocation or matriculate at a university. And while formal education was normally reserved for boys, Luther did not consider the education of women a wasted effort. Basic math and reasoning were necessary, and their own broader education could serve as a foundation for the education of children. Further, Luther’s catechetical resources assumed that parents could read from the broadsheets containing the basics of Christian faith. It is particularly noteworthy that Luther’s appeal here is made directly to the city councils. While he had appealed to the princes of the Empire in previous documents calling for reform, in this treatise we see something of Luther’s dismay at the inaction and the misdeeds of the princes. He complains that many were more interested in hunting, food, and playing soldier than in addressing the crisis of education; others were using the crisis as an opportunity to seize monastic property (including the

239

240 3. It is a common misconception that the Lutheran Reformation closed all monasteries. Indeed, many did close, either by the monks willingly leaving or by local princes confiscating the property and forcing the monks out, as King Henry VIII (1491–1547) did in England. However, it is also true that many monasteries were reformed to serve as schools and hospitals. As long as the inhabitants accepted Lutheran theology and did not bind those who wished to leave, monastic houses for both men and women continued up until the secularization movement of the early nineteenth century (see Maulbronn Abbey and Bebenhausen Abbey). Further, many honorific titles (e.g., abbot) and endowed ecclesiastical positions established in the Middle Ages were used by Lutheran clerics (see Loccum Abbey). Female monastic houses (Damenstiften or Kanonissenstiften) continued to serve a prominent function in Lutheran society (see Quedlinburg Abbey and Lüne Abbey, the later of which continues today).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD schools attached to the monasteries) 3 and using the resources for personal gain.g Luther offers three arguments for why the city councils of Germany should expend valuable resources to establish and sustain schools (which includes recruiting capable teachers at a good salary and endowing libraries). The first reason is that schools contribute to the common good of society. Without the schools, we would return to the barbarism of the past (as, he believed, was being manifested in the social chaos unleashed by the radical reformers). And while Luther continues to affirm that parents bear primary responsibility for the education of children, he also asserts that many parents are not up to the task. Therefore, the city councils should provide (through the use of public funds) schools to assist in the common responsibility of educating future citizens, which in turn, provides a common benefit. The education of the youth is as important in civic affairs as providing roads, bridges, wells, and defensive walls. Luther’s second reason is theological; he argues that the gospel would not long be preserved without languages. That is, this new learning had opened the Scriptures through the study of the ancient languages. He believed the world was just beginning to see the fruits of this education. And yet, with attacks from the radicals and the Roman Pontiff and indifference from princes and civic leaders, the new day that Christ had given to us was in danger of being cut short. Luther says that it is the imperative of God-fearing people everywhere to seize this gift of God while it is at hand. Otherwise, we may find ourselves like the Hebrews, the Greeks, the Romans, and the Byzantines—all buried under the detritus of our fallen glory, lost to laziness and vanity.h The third reason Luther gives to the city councils is tied to the first, but more related to his understanding of vocation. In the past, the expense of time and resources for education were seen as worthwhile only for those who had a vocation to religious life. Luther is now facing critics, who say, “If we are to be rid of monks, friars, prelates, and popes, why should we educate our children?” In response, Luther appeals to the Christian humanist idea (which is a revival of the classical ideal) that a liberal-arts g See Christopher Ocker, Church Robbers and Reformers in Germany, 1525–1547: Confiscation and Religious Purpose in the Holy Roman Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2006). h See pp. 252 and 258–59.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools education benefits everyone. That is, Luther argues that the liberal arts are necessary because they are the hallmarks of a free citizen. Further, he suggests that education will open the world up to children, inspire their creativity, and help them discover the wonders around them. Children should be taught languages but also history, poetry, and singing. Every person in every vocation has the right, if not the obligation, to avail herself and himself of an education. Their education should not be overly constrained, but allow for playing and tussling. Formal education, according to Luther, should not be mutually exclusive to chores at home or learning a trade; instead, each should be mutually reinforcing on the path to attaining something of what the ancients called “the good life.” It is the duty of a thoughtful, wise, and Godfearing society to provide this opportunity to its children.

Melanchthon attending the opening of the St. Egidien (St. Giles) School in Nuremberg, which was a former Benedictine monastery reopened as a school. He is depicted with Willibald Pirkheimer and Albrecht Dürer.

241

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

242

Luther’s Vision for Schools

4. Both the Scholastic and Christian humanist traditions were convinced that theology and the best of classical literature, arts, and the sciences were necessarily part of a proper education. Thus, biblical studies, patristic theology, the liberal arts, and the natural sciences (e.g., music, mathematics, geometry, physics, astronomy, etc.) should all mutually aid and reaffirm each other. While the conviction of each tradition was the same, they disagreed over method and resources. It is perhaps best to say that the Christian humanists judged the Scholastic effort outdated, incomplete, and insufficient. 5. While the Reformation and Christian humanism are historically concomitant and the principles of Christian humanism were shared by many Protestant Reformers, scholars have hesitated to draw a causal connection. First, many Christian humanists remained Roman Catholic. Second, many Protestant reformers who used the linguistic and exegetical principles of Christian humanism did not all reach the same theological conclusions.

Finally, we turn to the second aspect of the debate: what kind of education was necessary. Luther stands in opposition to the Scholastic method of education (illustrated in the methods and sources he ridicules so sharply in this text) and stands in favor of the sources and methods of Christian humanism.4 The latter was a complex movement synonymous with the educational reforms ushered in by the new learning (really, a revival and broader availability of ancient literature and early Christian sources) of the Renaissance that began in the fifteenth century. Christian humanists spanned the emerging denominational divide between Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and the Reformed. 5 Across their theological differences, however, they shared a concern for bonae litterae (“good letters,” which included refined Latin, Greek, and Hebrew as well as ancient literature), the studia humanitatis (the liberal arts of the humanities, including philology and history), and a return ad fontes (“to the sources,” especially to Scripture itself, as well as to classical and patristic texts without the filter of selected quotations in commentaries or harmonizing Scholastic manuals).i We must understand that, in sum, Luther’s position concerning the relationship between schools, the church, and society is highly traditional. Luther’s vision, though his argument bristles with a reformer’s zeal, is essentially conservative, following a trajectory through the medieval period back to the early church: that education in theology, the natural sciences, and the liberal arts is a necessary, concomitant good in the Christian life. Though the particulars differ, Luther stands in line with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), Benedict of Nursia (c. 480–543), Augustine

i

See Lewis W. Spitz, The Religious Renaissance of the German Humanists (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963); Erika Rummel, The Confessionalization of Humanism in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); and idem, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995).

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools (354–430), Basil of Caesarea (c. 329–379), and Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–c. 202) 6 in affirming the role of theology at the center of the nexus of interconnected disciplines. Luther’s educational vision is an exemplar of Christian humanism. Certainly, in the early days of the Reformation movement (when this treatise was composed), Luther was acclaimed as a Christian humanist by his colleagues and contemporaries.j

Luther’s Criticisms of Scholastics and Monks Luther’s criticism of medieval sources is pointed and requires context. Luther was not the first to dismiss the many Scholastic manuals, textbooks, and commentaries as useless, or to ridicule the jargon and “bad [Latin] grammar” of the medieval Scholastics. Many of the books he repudiates were indeed part of an earlier generation’s education. Yet, by 1524, they were also already waning in popularity and use, even by those who still identified as Scholastics. Luther was part of a well-established and dynamic movement to overturn the previous method of educating the future leaders of church and state. Gone were the extensive commentaries, manuals, and summas7 that emphasized synthesis and harmony among various authorities, who were selectively quoted and filtered through the dialectical method. Instead, dialectic (necessary for proper thinking) was not an end to itself, but a tool on the way to rhetoric, the art of persuasion and argument. Luther believed that Scripture should be read in its original languages, as should the church fathers. Moreover, the treatises of the church fathers should be read in their entirety and no longer excerpted and synthesized with each other. We can learn from previous generations, not only in their insights but also in their mistakes. k

j

See Franz Posset, Renaissance Monks: Monastic Humanism in Six Biographical Sketches (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 4–5, 14–15; Leif Grane, Martinus Noster: Luther in the Early German Reform Movement, 1518–1521 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994); and Helmar Junghans, Luther und die Humanisten (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985). k See Scott H. Hendrix, “Deparentifying the Fathers: The Reformers and Patristic Authority,” Auctoritas Patrum: Contributions on the Reception of the Church Fathers in the 15th and 16th Century (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1993), 55–68.

243 6. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican Scholastic theologian at the University of Paris. Benedict, the father of Western monasticism, established a rule for monks guided by the principle of “prayer and work.” Augustine, bishop of Hippo, was perhaps the most influential theologian in Western Christianity. He excelled at classical rhetoric and philosophy. Basil was a bishop of Cappadocia; a highly learned scholar, he drafted a reading list of classical literature that all young people should master. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons and is best known for his writings Against Heresies (c. 180). While separated by centuries as well as various contexts and methods, each of them was convinced that theology was a science (a discipline) that was able to draw upon other sciences (such as languages, arts, physics, logic, and ethics) to illustrate theological principles. God is the author of truth; therefore, all sciences—properly understood—are mutually related and serve to reveal the glory of God. Moreover, a theologian must have a broad, well-grounded education so as to bring the light of the gospel to all aspects of human life. 7. For example, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae, is a detailed instructional manual of the teaching of the Catholic Church, written especially for new students. See Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae: A Guide and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

244 8. As Franz Posset notes, “The constitutions of Luther’s order, which Johann von Staupitz (1460–1524) had printed at the beginning of the sixteenth century, explicitly contain the idea of reformatio [reformation] in the title. The German Dominican friars of the fifteenth century spoke of the Reformacio Prediger Ordens (Reformation of the Order of Preachers). In addition, to the monastic aspect of reformatio, there is the academic aspect. For example, the four leading men at the newly-founded University of Wittenberg were called reformatores [reformers] and had the task of advising the territorial lord on matters of university reform.” Posset, Renaissance Monks, 17–18.

While Luther’s argument is powerful and stands as a monument to a robust vision of education within the theological scope of the Reformation, his voice is in unison with the chorus of Christian humanists and their works concerned with the improvement of education for the benefit of church and society. These include Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), Willibald Pirckheimer (1470–1530), Thomas More’s Utopia (1516), Johann Eberlin’s Wolfaria (1521), and his own colleague Philip Melanchthon’s inaugural faculty address on the reform of education (De corrigendis adolescentiae studiis, 1518) and his many orations on education.l Likewise, we must realize that Luther was not only a contributor to educational reform; he was himself the fruit of earlier seeds of Christian humanism in Germany. 8 For instance, his own university was, in part, the product of a humanistic circle of Augustinian hermits. A previous generation of scholars had established pockets of educational reform in Erfurt, Gotha, Leipzig, Heidelberg, and Pforzheim. m Likewise, we must be careful not to take Luther’s criticisms of monks and monasticism (as inherently hostile to the educational reforms for which he is advocating) at face value. Rather, his criticism of monks and friars, slavishly and stubbornly holding to their outdated and outmoded resources and methods, was itself part of a polemical trope. Many of the sharpest criticisms of monks and friars came from the pens of their reform-minded and more dedicated brethren.

l

Portrait of Philip Melanchthon (c. 1520) by Hans Holbein the Younger (c. 1497−1543)

Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Luther’s colleague, played an especially important role in bringing reform to public schools in Germany. His inaugural faculty lecture can be found in MSA 3:29–42. For a broader and comprehensive examination of the new pedagogical methods and how they harmonize with the new Lutheran vision for church and society, see Sachiko Kusukawa, ed., Philip Melanchthon: Orations on Philosophy and Education (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), as well as Heinz Scheible, “Melanchthons Bildungsprogramme,” Melanchthon und die Reformation: Forschungsbeiträge (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1996), 99–114. m See Maria Grossmann, Humanism at Wittenberg, 1485–1517 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1975). For the Christian humanist circle of scholars and schools in southwest Germany, see ch. 1 in H. Ashley Hall, Philip Melanchthon and the Cappadocians: A Reception of Greek Patristic Sources in the Sixteenth Century (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2014).

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools

Conclusion To be sure, Luther has specific circumstances, resources, and individuals in mind here. However, we must see in his criticisms an affirmation of a new way of learning and education that actually began in the monastery schools. The level at which monks and friars carried out pedagogical reform (i.e., “monastic humanism”) has been, until recently, ignored or diminished. In these early days, Luther was himself a representative of this new type of humanist education fostered within and among the schools associated with both monastic and mendicant orders. In the German territories, the zeal to learn biblical languages, to study (and critique) patristic commentaries, and integrate theology with the liberal arts was burnished in many monastic houses. What Luther advocates for and expands upon in this treatise, he learned and received from a small but no less dedicated and influential community of scholars committed to a restored vision of a Christian classical education at the heart of both church and society.

�

245

246

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

TO THE COUNCILMEN OF ALL CITIES IN GERMANY THAT THEY ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS 9

[Introduction] n

On 3 January 1521, Pope Leo X issued the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, which officially excommunicated Martin Luther.

9. This translation is based on the translation of Albert T. W. Steinhauser, revised by Walter I. Brandt in LW 45:347–78. 10. A papal bull (from the Latin word bulla, for the metal seal affixed to a formal document) was first issued by Pope Leo X (1475–1521) against Luther on 15 June 1520. Entitled Exsurge Domine, it threatened Luther with excommunication if he did not recant his theological positions within sixty days of its publication in Saxony (which was done in late September of that year). The papal bull that officially excommunicated Luther, Decet Romanum Pontificum, was issued 3 January 1521. The excommunication also made Luther an enemy of the state. The imperial decree against Luther was issued by Emperor Charles V (1500–1558) on

Grace and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Honorable, wise, and dear sirs: Had I feared human laws more than God o I should have remained silent on this subject, for it is now some three years since I was put under the ban and declared an outlaw,10 and there are in Germany many of both high and low degree who on that account attack whatever I say and write, and shed much blood over it.11 But God has opened my mouth and bidden me speak, and God supports me mightily. The more they rage against me, the more God strengthens and extends my cause—without any help or advice from me—as if God were laughing and holding their rage in derision, as it says in Psalm 2[:4]. By this fact alone anyone whose mind is not hardened can see that this cause must be God’s own, for it plainly bears the mark of a divine word and work; these always thrive best when others are most determined to persecute and suppress them. Therefore, I will speak and (as Isaiah says) not keep silent as long as I live,12 until Christ’s righteousness goes forth as brightness, and his saving grace is lighted as a lamp [Isa. 62:1]. I beg of you now, all my dear sirs and friends, to receive this letter kindly and take to heart my admonition. For no matter what I may be personally, still I can boast before God with a good conscience that in this matter I am not seeking my own advantage—which

n This heading in brackets and others that follow have been added to the translation to aid the reader. They do not appear in the original text. o Acts 5:29, “But Peter and the apostles answered, ‘We must obey God rather than any human authority.’”

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools I could more readily attain by keeping silent—but am dealing sincerely and faithfully with you, and with the whole German nation into which God has placed me, whether people believe it or not. And I wish to assure you and declare to you frankly and openly that the one who heeds me in this matter is most certainly heeding not me, but Christ; and the one who gives me no heed is despising not me, but Christ [Luke 10:16]. For I know very well and am quite certain of the content and thrust of what I say and teach; and anyone who will rightly consider my teaching will also discover it.

247 25 May 1521. See also Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation, 1483–1521, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1985), 390–91, 400, 427. 11. These were tense times in the German Estates of the Empire. The events around Luther’s trial tapped into antipapal sentiment among the German people who sensed that Luther (like Jan Hus [c. 1370–1415] before him) was not given a fair trial. A famous imperial knight, Ulrich von Hutten (1488–1523), threatened to take up arms in defense of Luther. Two fellow Augustinian friars, Heinrich Vos and Johann Esch, were burned at the stake in Brussels on 1 July 1523 for affirming Luther. Moreover, the German Peasants’ Revolt, inflamed by social and economic concerns, ignited the same year as this treatise. 12. In a letter to George Spalatin dated 30 November 1524, Luther remarked, “I daily expect the death decreed to the heretic” (S-J 2:264; WA Br 3:394).

This etching from a 1641 publication depicts Heinrich Vos and Johann Esch (see n. 11).

[The Poor Condition of the Schools] First of all, we are today experiencing in all the German lands how schools are everywhere being left to fall into desolation. The universities are growing weak, and monasteries are declining. The grass withers and the flower fades, as Isaiah [40:7-8] says, because the breath of the Lord blows upon it through God’s word and shines upon it so hot through the gospel. For now it is

248

13. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the Ottoman Empire (centered largely in modern-day Turkey) was a growing menace to the Holy Roman Empire. In 1453, Sultan Mehmed II (1432–1481) led a successful siege of Constantinople, effectively ending the Byzantine Empire. The Ottomans made continuous raids into the Balkans and kingdom of Hungary east of the Holy Roman Empire. After victories in 1444 (Battle of Varna) and 1448 (Second Battle of Kosovo), the Ottomans conquered the Balkans with the fall of Belgrade in 1521. Likewise, as a result of the Battle of Mohács in 1526, the kingdom of Hungary was divided into two. This made the eastern border of the Holy Roman Empire vulnerable. After his defeat by Emperor Charles V at the Battle of Pavia (1525), King Francis I of France (1494–1547) sought an alliance with Ottoman Sultan Suleiman (1494–1566), an action that scandalized Christian Europe.

King Francis I (left) of France and the Ottoman leader Suleiman (right) agreed to an alliance in the 1530s. This portrait (c. 1530) was painted by Titian (1490−1576).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD becoming known through God’s word how un-Christian these institutions are, and how they are devoted only to the belly. The carnal-minded masses are beginning to realize that they no longer have either the obligation or the opportunity to thrust their sons, daughters, and relatives into cloisters and foundations, and to turn them out of their own homes and property and establish them in others’ property. For this reason no one is any longer willing to provide an education for children. “Why,” they say, “should we bother to have them go to school if they are not to become priests, monks, or nuns? Much better that they should learn a livelihood to earn.” The thoughts and purposes of such people are plainly evident from this confession of theirs. If in the cloisters and foundations, or the spiritual estate, they had been seeking not only the belly and the temporal welfare of their children but were earnestly concerned for their children’s salvation and eternal bliss, they would not thus fold their hands and relapse into indifference, saying, “If the spiritual estate is no longer to be of any account, we can just as well let education go and not bother our heads about it.” Instead, they would say, “If it be true, as the gospel teaches, that this estate is a perilous one for our children, then, dear sirs, show us some other way which will be pleasing to God and of benefit to them. For we certainly want to provide not only for our children’s bellies, but for their souls as well.” At least that is what truly Christian parents would say about it. It is not surprising that the wicked Devil takes a position in this matter and induces carnal and worldly hearts thus to neglect the children and young people. Who can blame the Devil for it? He is the ruler and god of this world [John 14:30]; how can he possibly be pleased to see the gospel destroy his nests, the monasteries and the clerical gangs, in which he corrupts above all the young folks who mean so much, in fact everything, to him? How can we expect the Devil to permit or promote the proper training of the young? He would indeed be a fool to allow and promote the establishment in his kingdom of the very thing by which that kingdom must be most speedily overthrown, which would happen if he were to lose that choice morsel—our dear young people—and have to suffer them to be supported at his own expense and by means of his own resources for the service of God. Therefore, the Devil acted most adroitly at the time when Christians were having their children trained and taught in a

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools Christian manner. The young crowd earnestly desired to escape the Devil entirely and to establish within his kingdom something that was quite intolerable. So he went to work, spread his nets, and set up such monasteries, schools, and estates so that it was impossible for anyone to escape him, apart from a special miracle of God. But now that the Devil sees his snares exposed through the word of God, he goes to the other extreme and will permit no learning at all. Again he does the right and smart thing to preserve his kingdom and by all means retain his hold on the young crowd. If the Devil can hold them, and they grow up under him and remain his, who can take anything from him? He then maintains undisputed possession of the world. For if he is to be dealt a blow that really hurts, it must be done through young people who have come to maturity in the knowledge of God, and who spread God’s word and teach it to others. No one, positively no one, realizes that this is a despicable trick of the Devil. It proceeds so unobtrusively that no one notices it, and the damage is done before one can take steps to prevent and remedy it. We are on the alert against Turks,13 wars, and floods, because in such matters we can see what is harmful and what is beneficial. But no one is aware of the Devil’s wily purpose. No one is on the alert, but just goes quietly along. Even though only a single child could thereby be trained to become a real Christian, we ought properly to give a hundred gulden14 to this cause for every gulden we would give to fight the Turk, even if he were breathing down our necks. For one real Christian is better and can do more good than all the population of earth. Therefore, I beg all of you, my dear sirs and friends, for the sake of God and our poor young people, not to treat this matter as lightly as many do, who fail to realize what the ruler of this world [John 14:30] is up to. For it is a grave and important matter, and one which is of vital concern both to Christ and the world at large, that we take steps to help the youth. By so doing we will be taking steps to help also ourselves and everybody else. Bear in mind that such insidious, subtle, and crafty attacks of the Devil must be met with great Christian determination. My dear sirs, if we have to spend such large sums every year on guns, roads, bridges, dams, and countless similar items to insure the temporal peace and prosperity of a city, why should not much more be devoted to the poor neglected youth—at least enough to engage one or two competent people to teach school?

249

14. A gulden (from the Middle German guldin pfenninc), also known as a florin, was a standard coin in late medieval Europe. The estimated worth of one gulden is US$140. For perspective, in 1526, the university statutes were revised, and Luther (who, previously as a friar, had received no salary) was now given 200 gulden a year, the same pay as a professor of law at the university. Heinz Scheible, Melanchthon: Eine Biographie (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1997), 41.

An Italian florin dated 1462

250 15. Luther is here providing a list of events, people, and organizations the pious medieval Christian was expected to support with tithes, offerings, and endowments. Whatever the benevolent origin of these items, the concern for Luther and many reformers (Protestant and Roman Catholic) was they were now being abused and the people exploited. For instance, when a priest was asked to say a votive Mass for a special intention (also called private Masses, since they were offered outside of the normal liturgy of the parish), the benefactor could be expected to offer a donation for the priest’s time; however, the expectation could also be treated as a charge for services rendered, a commodity bought. Likewise, mendicant orders (monastic friars who served the poor; e.g., the Franciscans and Dominicans) rejected the accumulated wealth of monasteries as a corrupting influence, so they desired to live off of only what they could beg and to live as simply as the people they served. However, care for these friars often fell as a burden to the townspeople, rulers, and ecclesiastical authorities, all of whom tried to regulate when and how often wandering mendicant orders could come into towns and regions. The cumulative effect of these pious enterprises could be burdensome. As early as 1522, the church authorities in Wittenberg began a reform of charity by consolidating the money in endowments, guilds, and the sale of unused liturgical items into a common chest to be managed by a committee of laity from four social classes. See Samuel Torvend, Luther and the Hungry Poor: Gathered Fragments (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2008), esp. 105–13.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Moreover, every citizen should be influenced by the following consideration. Formerly one was obliged to waste a great deal of money and property on indulgences, masses, vigils, endowments, bequests, anniversaries, mendicant friars, brotherhoods, pilgrimages, and similar nonsense.15 Now that we are, by the grace of God, rid of such pillage and compulsory giving, we ought henceforth, out of gratitude to God and for his glory, to contribute a part of that amount toward schools for the training of the poor children. That would be an excellent investment.

This woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder depicts one of the mendicant brothers. It appeared in Papsttum mit seinen Gliedern (The Papacy and Its Members), 1526.

If the light of the gospel had not dawned and set us free, we would have had to continue indefinitely giving up to the abovementioned robbers ten times that sum and more, without hope of return. Know also that where there arise hindrances, objections, impediments, and opposition to this proposal, there the Devil is surely at work, the Devil who voiced no such objection when people gave their money for monasteries and masses, pour-

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools

251

ing it out in a veritable stream; for the Devil senses that this kind of giving is not to his advantage. Let this, then, my dear sirs and friends, be the first consideration to influence you, namely, that herein we are fighting against the Devil as the most dangerous and subtle enemy of all.

[The Remedy at Hand] A second consideration is, as St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 6[:1-2], that we should not accept the grace of God in vain and neglect the time of salvation. Almighty God has indeed graciously visited us Germans and proclaimed a true year of jubilee.16 We have today the finest and most learned group of scholars, adorned with languages and all the arts, who could also render real service if only we would make use of them as instructors of the young people. Is it not evident that we are now able to prepare a child in three years, so that at the age of fifteen or eighteen he will know more than all the universities and monasteries have known before? Indeed, what have people been learning till now in the universities and monasteries except to become asses, blockheads, and numbskulls? For twenty, even forty, years they pored over their books, and still failed to master either Latin or German,17 to say nothing of the scandalous and immoral life there in which many a fine young fellow was shamefully corrupted. It is perfectly true that if universities and monasteries were to continue as they have been in the past, and there were no other place available where youth could study and live, then I could wish that no boy would ever study at all, but just remain dumb. For it is my earnest purpose, prayer, and desire that these asses’ stalls and Devil’s training centers should either sink into the abyss or be converted into Christian schools. Now that God has so richly blessed us, however, and provided us with so many teachers able to instruct and train our youth correctly, it is surely imperative that we not throw God’s blessing to the winds and let him knock in vain. God is standing at the door [Rev. 3:20]; happy are we who open it! God is calling us; blessed is the one who answers! If we turn a deaf ear and God should pass us by, who will bring him back again? Let us remember our former misery, and the darkness in which we dwelt. Germany, I am sure, has never before heard so

16. The book of Leviticus (Lev. 25:8-13) proclaimed a jubilee every fifty years (starting on the forty-ninth year), inaugurated when the priest blew the ram’s horn ( jobhêl). In this year, debts were absolved and the land allowed to lie fallow. In the Christian tradition, by the late Middle Ages, Pope Paul II (r. 1464–1471), declared that a jubilee year should occur every twenty-five years (so as to be available to every generation) in which those who had already confessed and received absolution could come to pray in Rome and receive a plenary indulgence. 17. Latin had been the language of the court, university, and church centuries before Luther. What lies beneath Luther’s criticism is a common sixteenth-century Christian humanist complaint about the dominance of Scholasticism, with its distinct jargon, preference for dialectical discourse, and habit of summarizing authorities through excerpted quotations. Luther here is urging the revival and restoration of classical Latin authors as models of rhetoric, oration, and essay. Moreover, he stands at the cusp of emerging modern languages, especially German and Italian. See Erika Rummel, The Humanist-Scholastic Debate in the Renaissance and Reformation, Harvard Historical Studies 120 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1998).

252

18. From the conquest of Syria beginning in 635 until the fall of Constantinople in 1453, the Byzantine Empire and Eastern Orthodox churches were constantly pressed by the spread of Islam.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD much of God’s word as it is hearing today; certainly we read nothing of it in history. If we let it just slip by without thanks and honor, I fear we shall suffer a still more dreadful darkness and plague. O my beloved Germans, buy while the market is at your door; gather in the harvest while there is sunshine and fair weather; make use of God’s grace and word while it is there! For you should know that God’s word and grace are like a passing shower of rain that does not return to where it has once been. It has been with the Jews, but when it’s gone it’s gone, and now they have nothing. Paul brought it to the Greeks; but again when it’s gone it’s gone, and now they have the Turk.18 Rome and the Latins also had it; but when it’s gone it’s gone, and now they have the pope. And you Germans need not think that you will have it forever, for ingratitude and contempt will not make it stay. Therefore, seize it and hold it fast, whoever can; for lazy hands are bound to have a lean year.

[God Commands the Care of Children from Parents and Society] The third consideration is by far the most important of all, namely, the command of God, who through Moses urges and enjoins parents so often to instruct their children that Psalm 78 says: How earnestly he commanded our ancestors to teach their children and to instruct their children’s children [Ps. 78:5-6]. This is also evident in God’s Fourth Commandment, in which the injunction that children shall obey their parents is so stern that God would even have rebellious children sentenced to death [Deut. 21:18-21]. Indeed, for what purpose do we older folks exist, other than to care for, instruct, and bring up the young? It is utterly impossible for these foolish young people to instruct and protect themselves. This is why God has entrusted them to us who are older and know from experience what is best for them. And God will hold us strictly accountable for them. This is also why Moses commands in Deuteronomy 32[:7], “Ask your father and he will tell you; your elders, and they will show you.” It is a sin and a shame that matters have come to such a pass that we have to urge and be urged to educate our children and young people and to seek their best interests, when nature itself should drive us to do this and even the heathen afford us abun-

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools dant examples of it. There is not a dumb animal which fails to care for its young and teach them what they need to know; the only exception is the ostrich, of which God says in Job 31 [39:16, 14] that she deals cruelly with her young as if they were not hers, and leaves her eggs upon the ground. What would it profit us to possess and perform everything else and be like pure saints, if we meanwhile neglected our chief purpose in life, namely, the care of the young? I also think that in the sight of God none among the outward sins so heavily burdens the world and merits such severe punishment as this very sin that we commit against the children by not educating them.

This woodcut illustration of the ostrich by Conrad Gesner (1516−1565) appeared in Historiae animalium (History of the Animals), vol. 3 (1555). Printed by Christoph Froschauer.

When I was a lad they had this maxim in school: Non minus est negligere scholarem quam corrumpere virginem; “It is just as bad to neglect a pupil as to despoil a virgin.” The purpose of this maxim was to keep the schoolmasters on their toes, for in those days no greater sin was known than that of despoiling a virgin. But, dear Lord God, how light a sin it is to despoil virgins or wives (which, being a bodily and recognized sin, may be atoned for) in

253

254

19. Luther is not saying that a venial sin (i.e., a “light” sin against the body) can be atoned for if acknowledged while a grave or mortal sin (i.e., a sin against the soul), cannot be atoned for even if acknowledged. Nor is his purpose to diminish the gravity of sexual violence or sin. Rather, in employing a received, common hyperbolic phrase, Luther seeks to draw the reader’s attention to the unrecognized gravity of the sin of omission in matters of education. To despoil a virgin is to rob or endanger a young person’s future well-being (especially in light of the social stigma attached to sexually active, nonmarried women). Luther points out that we shudder at such exploitation and carelessness but barely give a thought to the proper education and formation of our children through formal education. As he is arguing, a lack of education can also have lasting, negative effects for the individual and communal good.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD comparison with this sin of neglecting and despoiling precious souls, for the latter sin is not even recognized or acknowledged and is never atoned for.19 O woe unto the world forever and ever! Children are born every day and grow up in our midst, but alas!, there is no one to take charge of the youngsters and direct them. We just let matters take their own course. The monasteries and foundations should have seen to it; therefore, they are the very ones of whom Christ says, “Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks! If any of you put a stumbling block before one of the little ones who believes in me, it would be better for you if a great millstone were fastened around your neck and you were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matt. 18:7, 6). They are nothing but devourers and destroyers of children. Ah, you say, but all that is spoken to the parents; what business is it of councilmen and the authorities? Yes, that is true; but what if the parents fail to do their duty? Who then is to do it? Is it for this reason to be left undone, and the children neglected? How will the authorities and council then justify their position, that such matters are not their responsibility? There are various reasons why parents neglect this duty. In the first place, there are some who lack the goodness and decency to do it, even if they had the ability. Instead, like the ostrich [Job 39:14-16], they deal cruelly with their young. They are content to have laid the eggs and brought children into the world; beyond this they will do nothing more. But these children are supposed to live among us and with us in the community. How then can reason, and especially Christian charity, allow that they grow up uneducated, to poison and pollute the other children until at last the whole city is ruined, as happened in Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 19:1-25], and Gibeah [Judges 19–20], and a number of other cities? In the second place, unfortunately the great majority of parents are wholly unfit for this task. They do not know how children should be brought up and taught, for they themselves have learned nothing but how to care for their bellies. It takes extraordinary people to bring children up right and teach them well. In the third place, even if parents had the ability and desire to do it themselves, they have neither the time nor the opportunity for it, in light of their other duties and the care of the household. Necessity compels us, therefore, to engage public schoolteachers for the children—unless each household were willing to engage

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools

255

its own private tutor. But that would be too heavy a burden for the average family, and many a promising child would again be neglected on account of poverty. Besides, many parents die, leaving orphans, and if we do not know from experience how they are cared for by their guardians it should be quite clear from the fact that God calls himself Father of orphans [Ps 68:5], of those who are neglected by everyone else. Then too there are others who have no children of their own, and therefore take no interest in the training of children.

[General Benefit to Society] It therefore behooves the council and the authorities to devote the greatest care and attention to the young. Since the property, honor, and life of the whole city have been committed to their faithful keeping, they would be remiss in their duty before God and humanity if they did not seek its welfare and improvement day and night with all the means at their command. Now the welfare of a city does not consist solely in accumulating vast treasures, building mighty walls and magnificent buildings, and producing a goodly supply of guns and armor. Indeed, where such things are plentiful, and reckless fools get control of them, it is so much the worse and the city suffers even greater loss. A city’s best and greatest welfare, safety, and strength consist rather in its having many able, learned, wise, honorable, and well-educated citizens. They can then readily gather, protect, and properly use treasure and all manner of property. So it was done in ancient Rome.p There boys were so taught that by the time they reached their fifteenth, eighteenth, or twentieth year they were well versed in Latin, Greek, and all the liberal arts20 (as they are called), and then immediately entered upon a political or military career. Their system produced intelligent, wise, and competent people, so skilled in every art and rich in experience that if all the bishops, priests, and monks in the whole of Germany today were rolled into one, you would not p For a concise summary of education in antiquity, see H. I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity, trans. George Lamb (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1956). For the influence of classical models on early Christianity, see Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961).

20. In antiquity, the seven liberal arts were skills necessary of a free (liber) citizen so as to be an active, positive influence on the common good. The seven were divided into two groups: the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic) and the quadrivium (music, arithmetic, geometry, and astronomy).

The seven liberal arts depicted in the Hortus deliciarum of Herrad von Landsberg (twelfth century)

256

21. The reference is to Gal. 3:24. Luther translated paidago¯gos (literally, “attendant” or “custodian”; “disciplinarian” in the NRSV) as Zuchtmeyster, literally, one who educates, trains, or disciplines in home, court, or school (WA DB 7:182–83; DWB, VII, 275). Luther (following the exegetical tradition since Clement of Alexandria) is eliding the two distinct ancient roles of pedagogue (one who aids the student) and teacher (didaskalos/magister, the one who teaches). However, while the ancient pedagogue (almost always a household slave) did help the pupil with his or her lessons, his primary role was of a servant to carry the books and writing utensils, as well as guardian to protect the child from harm, and keep the child from engaging in mischief. Often identified in Greek theater by a rod, the pedagogue was a strict figure in the life of a child privileged with formal education and his task was to chastise, correct, and coerce children to their necessary studies.

22. The German Regiment can best be translated as military exercises and training; but the clear sarcastic reference warrants the image of nobles with nothing better to do than “play solider” or engage in war games not for the benefit of the people but for their own vanity.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD have the equal of a single Roman soldier. As a result their country prospered; they had capable and trained men for every position. So at all times throughout the world simple necessity has forced people, even among the heathen, to maintain pedagogues and schoolmasters if their nation was to be brought to a high standard. Hence, the word schoolmaster is used by Paul in Galatians 4 as a word taken from common usage and practice, where he says, “The law was our schoolmaster.”21 Since a city should and must have educated people, and since there is a universal dearth of them and complaint that they are nowhere to be found, we dare not wait until they grow up of themselves; neither can we carve them out of stone nor hew them out of wood. Nor will God perform miracles as long as people can solve their problems by means of the other gifts he has already granted them. Therefore, we must do our part and spare no labor or expense to produce and train such people ourselves. For whose fault is it that today our cities have so few capable people? Whose fault, if not that of authorities, who have left the young people to grow up like saplings in the forest, and have given no thought to their instruction and training? This is also why they have grown to maturity so misshapen that they cannot be used for building purposes, but are mere brushwood, fit only for kindling fires. After all, secular government has to continue. q Are we then to permit none but louts and boors to rule, when we can do better than that? That would certainly be a crude and senseless policy. We might as well make lords out of swine and wolves, and set them to rule over those who refuse to give any thought to how they are governed. Moreover, it is barbarous wickedness to think no further than this: We will rule now; what concern is it of ours how they will fare who come after us? Not over human beings, but over swine and dogs should such persons rule who play soldier to seek only their own profit or glory.22 Even if we took the utmost pains to develop a group of able, learned, and skilled people for positions in government, there would still be plenty of labor and anxious care involved in seeing that things went well. What then is to happen if we take no pains at all? q For Luther’s view of temporal authority as an abiding institution, see his 1523 treatise, On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, pp. 90–91 in this volume; see also LW 45:85–87.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools

257

Portrait (1578) of   John Frederick I of Saxony (1503−1554) in full armor by Lucas Cranach the Younger

[The Gift and Necessity of Languages] “All right,” you say again, “suppose we do have to have schools; what is the use of teaching Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, and the other liberal arts? We could just as well use German for teaching the Bible and God’s word, which is enough for our salvation.”23 I reply: Alas! I am only too well aware that we Germans must always be and remain brutes and stupid beasts, as the neighboring nations call us, epithets that we richly deserve.24 But I wonder why we never ask, “What is the use of silks, wine, spices, and other strange foreign wares r when we ourselves have in Germany wine, grain, wool, flax, wood, and stone not only in quantities sufficient for our needs, but also of the best and choicest quality for our glory and ornament?” Languages and the arts, which can do us no harm, but are actually a greater ornament, profit, glory, and benefit, both for the understanding of Holy Scripture r

For Luther’s opposition to foreign wares, see his 1524 treatise, Business [Trade] and Usury (pp. 137–38 in this volume; also LW 45:246–47).

23. This was indeed the position of many radical reformers (among them, his colleague Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt, who was himself a highly educated man) who disparaged formal education in the name of their new Evangelical freedom and direct appeals to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Thomas Müntzer and the Zwickau Prophets were early opponents as well. Luther had begun to warn against Müntzer already in 1523 and was soon to publish further writings culminating in his Against the Heavenly Prophets of 1525 (TAL 2:39–125; LW 40:47–223). See also the introduction, pp. 235–39, above. 24. Luther is alluding to the common sneers of Italian Humanists against the Germans (WA 15:36 n. 3).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

258 25. Greek and Hebrew were added to the theology curriculum at Wittenberg University to aid the students in their study of Scripture. In 1521, Philip Melanchthon was hired as the first chair of Greek and rhetoric at Wittenberg. This Christian humanist influence was possible through the publication of innovative textbooks in rhetoric, Greek, and Hebrew by famous scholars Rudolph Agricola (c. 1444–1485), Erasmus, Johannes Reuchlin (1455– 1552), and Melanchthon. However, as late as 1533, despite the efforts of the professors and administrators of the university, Melanchthon complained that the study of Greek was “the most despised thing in the world.” That is, it was hard to get students to do the slow but rewarding study of languages that Luther argues here is so essential to understanding the Bible and liberal arts. 26. Luther is again here referring not to the generally accepted importance of proper grammar and reasoning in formal education. Rather, he is referring to a concurrent debate over the content and tone of university core curriculum: should the university maintain the established Scholastic emphasis on a formalized Latin vocabulary, harmonized authorities, and didactic method, or should it embrace the call to revive classical Latin and Greek as well as renewed emphasis on history and rhetoric? Theologians who preferred the Scholastic method were fine with Christian humanists in the Arts faculty (as poets) but were aghast at any theologian who wanted to use their methods to study theology. Wittenberg University represented a new vision and growing trend of the role of languages and history in the discipline of theology.

and the conduct of temporal government—these we despise. But foreign wares, which are neither necessary nor useful, and in addition strip us down to a mere skeleton—these we cannot do without. Are not we Germans justly dubbed fools and beasts? Truly, if there were no other benefit connected with the languages, this should be enough to delight and inspire us, namely, that they are so fine and noble a gift of God, with which he is now so richly visiting and blessing us Germans above all other lands.25 We do not see many instances where the Devil has allowed languages to flourish by means of the universities and monasteries; indeed, these have always raged against languages and are even now raging.26 For the Devil smelled a rat, and perceived that if the languages were revived a hole would be knocked in his kingdom he could not easily stop up again. Since he found he could not prevent their revival, he now aims to keep the study of languages on such slender rations that they will of themselves decline and pass away. They are not a welcome guest in his house, so he plans to offer them such meager entertainment that they will not prolong their stay. Very few of us, my dear sirs, see through this evil design of the Devil. Therefore, my beloved Germans, let us get our eyes open, thank God for this precious treasure, and guard it well, lest the Devil vent his spite and it be taken away from us again. Although the gospel came and still comes to us through the Holy Spirit alone, we cannot deny that it came through the medium of languages, was spread abroad by that means, and must be preserved by the same means. For just when God wanted to spread the gospel throughout the world by means of the apostles he gave the tongues for that purpose [Acts 2:1-11]. Even before that, by means of the Roman Empire he had spread the Latin and Greek languages widely in every land in order that his gospel might the more speedily bear fruit far and wide. God has done the same thing now as well. Formerly no one knew why God had the languages revived, but now for the first time we see that it was done for the sake of the gospel, which God intended to bring to light and use in exposing and destroying the kingdom of Antichrist. s To this end God gave over Greece to the Turk in order that the s

For Luther’s identification of the papacy with the Antichrist, see Scott H. Hendrix, Luther and the Papacy: Stages in a Reformation Conflict (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools Greeks, driven out and scattered, might disseminate their language and provide an incentive to the study of other languages as well.27

From Melanchthon’s Passional Christi und Antichristi (The Passion of Christ and the Anti-Christ), 1521. While Jesus ascends to heaven from the mountain in Galilee in the presence of his disciples and angels, the pope, depicted as the Antichrist, is cast into the flames of Hell by demonic winged beasts. Woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder.

[The Study of Languages Helps Preserve the Gospel] In proportion then as we value the gospel, let us zealously hold to the languages. For it was not without purpose that God caused the Scriptures to be set down in these two languages alone—the Old Testament in Hebrew, the New in Greek. Now if God did not despise them but chose them above all others for his word, then we too ought to honor them above all others. St. Paul declared it to be the peculiar glory and distinction of Hebrew that God’s

259

27. The collapse of the Byzantine Empire in 1453 caused many prominent scholars and theologians to flee to Europe, especially Italy (Rome, Venice, and Florence), where they sought patronage and which many of them found under Pope Nicholas V (r. 1447–1455). These Byzantine scholars brought with them many texts lost or only partially known in Western Europe. A revival of Greek language as well as classical and patristic study flourished. Among these renowned scholars were Basil Bessarion (1403– 1472), George Trebizond (1395–1484), and Theodore Gaza (1400–1475). The Venetian publisher, Aldus Manutius (1449–1515), made many classical and patristic works available in refined but inexpensive volumes. The works of this Aldine Press found their way to many European universities, including Wittenberg.

Detail from an Aldine edition of Theodore Gaza’s Greek grammar (1495)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

260 28. St. Jerome (c. 347–419) was a prolific writer, an accomplished biblical exegete, and a doctor of the church. Educated in Rome, Jerome traveled to great centers of learning in the eastern half of the Empire (Antioch, Damascus, and Bethlehem). Jerome is best known for his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) with primary reference to the Hebrew (the only version he considered truly inspired) and secondarily its Greek translation (the Septuagint). Jerome’s corrections to the earlier Latin translation of the Bible (the Vetus Latina) caused a stir among those accustomed to the earlier (faulty) translation; among the concerned critics of Jerome was St. Augustine. Luther, who rarely praises Jerome, acknowledges that the revival of languages and biblical study are not only equal but superior to the last zenith of biblical scholarship in Jerome’s time.

Detail of painting of St. Augustine (left) and St. Jerome (right) by artist Carlo Crivelli (c. 1435−c. 1495)

word was given in that language, when he said in Romans 3[:12], “What advantage or profit have those who are circumcised? Much indeed. To begin with, God’s speecht is entrusted to them.” King David too boasts in Psalm 147[:19-20], “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation or revealed to them his ordinances.” Hence, too, the Hebrew language is called sacred. And St. Paul, in Romans 1[:2], calls it “the holy scriptures,” doubtless on account of the holy word of God which is comprehended therein. Similarly, the Greek language too may be called sacred, because it was chosen above all others as the language in which the New Testament was to be written, and because by it other languages too have been sanctified as it spilled over into them like a fountain through the medium of translation. And let us be sure of this: we will not long preserve the gospel without the languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the Spirit [Eph. 6:17] is contained; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; they are the vessel in which this wine is held; they are the pantry in which this food is stored; and, as the gospel itself points out [Matt. 14:20], they are the baskets in which are kept these loaves and fishes and fragments. If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall not only lose the gospel, but the time will come when we shall be unable either to speak or write proper Latin or German. As proof and warning of this, let us take the deplorable and dreadful example of the universities and monasteries, in which people have not only unlearned the gospel, but have in addition so corrupted the Latin and German languages that the miserable folk have been fairly turned into beasts, unable to speak or write in correct German or Latin, and have nearly lost their natural reason to boot. For this reason even the apostles themselves considered it necessary to set down the New Testament and hold it fast in the Greek language, doubtless in order to preserve it for us there safe and sound as in a sacred ark. For they foresaw all that was to come, and now has come to pass; they knew that if it was left

t

Gottes rede was rendered as Gott gered hat (literally, “what God has spoken”) in Luther’s 1522 New Testament and in subsequent editions until the complete Bible of 1546, where it was rendered as Gotteswort (literally, “God’s word”); WA DB 7:36–37.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools exclusively to human memory, wild and fearful disorder and confusion and a host of varied interpretations, fancies, and doctrines would arise in the Christian church, and that this could not be prevented and the simple folk protected unless the New Testament were set down with certainty in written language. Hence, it is inevitable that unless the languages remain, the gospel must finally perish. Experience too has proved this and still gives evidence of it. For as soon as the languages declined to the vanishing point, after the apostolic age, the gospel and faith and Christianity itself declined more and more until under the pope they disappeared entirely. After the decline of the languages Christianity witnessed little that was worth anything; instead, a great many dreadful abominations arose because of ignorance of the languages. On the other hand, now that the languages have been revived, they are bringing with them so bright a light and accomplishing such great things that the whole world stands amazed and has to acknowledge that we have the gospel just as pure and undefiled as the apostles had it, that it has been wholly restored to its original purity, far beyond what it was in the days of St. Jerome28 and St. Augustine.29 In short, the Holy Spirit is no fool. He does not busy himself with inconsequential or useless matters. He regarded the languages as so useful and necessary to Christianity that he often brought them down with him from heaven. u This alone should be a sufficient motive for us to pursue them with diligence and reverence and not to despise them, for the Holy Spirit has now revived them again upon the earth.

[Evidence of Errors from Not Knowing Languages] Yes, you say, but many of the fathers were saved and even became teachers without the languages. That is true. But how do you account for the fact that they so often erred in the Scriptures? How often does not St. Augustine err in the Psalms30 and in his other expositions, and Hilary31 too—in fact, all those who have undertaken to expound Scripture without a knowledge of the languages? Even though what they said about a subject at times u See Acts 2:4; 10:46; 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:2-19.

261 29. St. Augustine (354–430), bishop of Hippo Regius (North Africa) and doctor of the church, is the most prolific and respected theologian in the Western church. His influence is immense and enduring. While Augustine by no means received a carte blanche from Luther or Melanchthon, Augustine’s influence reigns as a pivotal authority in the debates of the Reformation. Luther praised Augustine’s exegesis of Paul. Interestingly for our purposes, Luther here is strongly advocating for the knowledge of languages to aid our interpretation of Scripture, yet knowledge of language alone is not itself sufficient. Luther compared Jerome to Erasmus (both of whom were gifted linguists) and found them both unequal to Augustine, whose knowledge of Greek and Hebrew was more limited but who nonetheless often understood and articulated the sense of Scripture more clearly on its central doctrine, justification. 30. See Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos (CCSL 38–40 and CSEL 93–95/ V). Many of these commentaries on the Psalms are revised sermons. They reflect Augustine’s mature theology and reveal his eloquence. This work was highly praised and studied. 31. St. Hilary (c. 315–367), bishop of Poitiers (west central France), and praised by both Jerome and Augustine, is noted for his work to defend the homoousios of the Nicene Creed and Trinitarian theology. He also wrote many scriptural commentaries. His work on the Psalms (Tractatus super psalmos) was well received in the tradition, both for its erudition (Hilary made reference to the Septuagint and earlier Greek commentaries) and its christological reading of the Psalms.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

262 See CSEL 22 and CCSL 61–61/A&B; MPL 9–10. 32. Christian disputations with Jews were often initiated by Christians (more specifically, by Jewish converts to Christianity) in the Middle Ages as a way to demonstrate the superiority of Christian exegesis. Significant disputations occurred in Paris (1240), Barcelona (1263), Burgos and Avila (1375), and Tortosa (1413). At stake was a deeper question of whether Christians could profit from knowing the Hebrew language and Jewish exegesis. Luther here is advocating a more liberal position for his time, stating that, properly understood and limited, Christians could improve their reading of the Old Testament by learning from the Jews. This was not an abstract consideration. Johannes Reuchlin (see n. 25 above), an imperial judge, noted Christian humanist, and Hebrew scholar (and relative to Melanchthon), came under blistering attack by the Dominican friar Johannes Pfefferkorn (1469–1523). The friar, a convert from Judaism, called on all Jewish books to be burned and for Jewish children to be taken away from their parents and given to Christian families. The conflict between Pfefferkorn and the Dominican order on the one side and Reuchlin and Christian humanists on the other culminates in the infamous and scathing series of satirical letters, Epistolae Obscurorum Virorum (Letters of Obscure Men), 1515– 1519. These Latin treatises favored Reuchlin and dripped with sarcasm and invective against Scholasticism and monasticism. The influence on Luther is clear. 33. Jerome’s first revision of the Old Latin Psalter, completed in 383 at Rome and known as the Psalterium

was perfectly true, they were never quite sure whether it really was present there in the passage where by their interpretation they thought to find it. Let me give you an example: It is rightly said that Christ is the Son of God; but how ridiculous it must have sounded to the ears of their adversaries when they attempted to prove this by citing from Psalm 110: Tecum principium in die virtutis tuae,v though in the Hebrew there is not a word about the Deity in this passage! When people attempt to defend the faith with such uncertain arguments and mistaken proof texts, are not Christians put to shame and made a laughingstock in the eyes of adversaries who know the language? 32 The adversaries only become more stiff-necked in their error and have an excellent pretext for regarding our faith as a mere human delusion. When our faith is thus held up to ridicule, where does the fault lie? It lies in our ignorance of the languages; and there is no other way out than to learn the languages. Was not St. Jerome compelled to translate the Psalter anew from the Hebrew33 because, when we quoted our Latin Psalter in disputes with the Jews, they sneered at us, pointing out that our texts did not read that way in the original Hebrew? Now the expositions of all the early fathers who dealt with Scripture apart from knowledge of the languages (even when their teaching is not in error) are such

v

This Vulgate version of Ps. 110:3 (translated literally, “With thee is sovereignty in the day of thy strength”) is derived in part from the Septuagint text (meta sou . . .), which itself rests upon a misunderstanding of the Hebrew text whereby “your people” (cf. NRSV) was read as “with you” through the simple change of one vowel point. The error, of course, could never be discovered without renewed examination of the Hebrew original. Luther was critical of the Vulgate rendering already in his earliest (1513–1516) commentary on the Psalms (see WA 4:227, 233, 516–17). Augustine had interpreted principium not in terms of spontaneity or voluntariness as did Luther (WA 4:233; see also his constant rendering of the Psalter from 1524 on—williglich—in WA DB 10/1:476–77), but in terms of God the Father. See D. Albrecht, “Studien zu Luther’s Schrift ‘An die Ratsherren aller Städte deutschen Lands, dass sie christliche Schulen aufrichten und halten sollen, 1524,’ ” Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Jahrgang 70, I (Gotha: Perthes, 1897), 713–14; Albrecht, 687–777.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools that they often employ uncertain, indefensible, and inappropriate expressions. 34 They grope their way like a blind man along the wall, frequently missing the sense of the text and twisting it to suit their fancy, as in the case of the verse mentioned above, Tecum principium, etc. Even St. Augustine himself is obliged to confess, as he does in his Christian Instruction, that a Christian teacher who is to expound the Scriptures must know Greek and Hebrew in addition to Latin.w Otherwise, it is impossible to avoid constant stumbling; indeed, there are plenty of problems to work out even when one is well versed in the languages.

This woodcut, carved by Johann von Armssheim in 1483, portays a disputation between Christian and Jewish scholars.

w See Book 2, ch. 11, §16, De doctrina Christiana (Teaching Christianity) I/11, trans. Edmund Hill, OP, St. Augustine’s Works: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001), 135–36. Specifically, Augustine says, “The best remedy for ignorance of proper signs is knowledge of languages”; those wishing to translate the Bible “need two other languages for the knowledge of Scripture, Hebrew and Greek, that they may have recourse to the original texts if the endless diversity of the Latin translations throw them into doubt.” NPNF, 540; R. P. H. Green, On Christian Teaching: St Augustine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

263 Romanum, was based on the Septuagint. His second revision, done in Palestine about four years later and known as the Gallican Psalter, was also based on the Septuagint; it became the current version in the Latin church and is still printed in most Vulgate Bibles. Around 392, Jerome then translated the Psalms from the Hebrew. 34. Luther’s examples are of Latin patristic theologians (Jerome, Augustine, and Hilary) who fell into error despite their variated knowledge of Greek and Hebrew and the best sources available to them. He ignores the many Greek patristic theologians— Athanasius (c. 296–373), Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen (c. 325–389)—most likely because he himself does not have access to their works in Greek; he knows only their reputation. Interestingly, the most prolific exegete of the early church was Origen of Alexandria (c. 184–254), who wrote commentaries on every book of the Bible and whose knowledge of languages was exemplary. But in Origen’s case, Luther rejects his use of allegory, finding it excessive.

264 35. St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090– 1153), a gifted theologian, organizer, and preacher, was a noted reformer of clerical life and helped expand the Cistercian order’s emphasis on a return to simplicity and humility. Luther often praised Bernard highly. See Franz Posset, Pater Bernardus: Martin Luther and Bernard of Clairvaux, Cistercian Studies Series 168 (Kalamazoo, MI/Spencer, MA: Cistercian Publications, 1999). 36. A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but false or misleading arguments; those who seek to win a debate regardless of the truth. Luther’s reference here to those who argue that Scripture is not clear is almost certainly Erasmus and their recent debate on the clarity of Scripture in The Bondage of the Will, “But that in Scripture there are some things abstruse, and everything is not plain—this is an idea put about the by ungodly Sophists, with whose lips you also speak here, Erasmus. . . . I admit, of course, that there are many texts in the Scriptures that are obscure and abstruse, not because of the majesty of their subject matter, but because of our ignorance of their vocabulary and grammar; but these texts in no way hinder a knowledge of all the subject matter of Scripture” (TAL 2:165). 37. Luther is referring here to a series of resource books available to biblical scholars throughout the Middle Ages. These commentaries featured the biblical text in the center of the page with extensive marginal notes of patristic interpretations and explanations of the text. Two popular and quite common resources were the Glossa ordinaria (MPL 113, 114) and the Catena Aurea. Medieval commentators also often had florilegia at hand; available in various editions, these were

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD There is a vast difference therefore between a simple preacher of the faith and a person who expounds Scripture, or, as St. Paul puts it [1 Cor. 12:28-30; 14:26-32], a prophet. A simple preacher (it is true) has so many clear passages and texts available through translations that he can know and teach Christ, lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture, and working with it on your own, and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. Now there must always be such prophets in the Christian church who can dig into Scripture, expound it, and carry on disputations. A saintly life and right doctrine are not enough. Hence, languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian church, as are the prophets or interpreters; although it is not necessary that every Christian or every preacher be such a prophet, as St. Paul points out in 1 Corinthians 12[:4-30] and Ephesians 4[:11]. Thus, it has come about that since the days of the apostles Scripture has remained so obscure, and no sure and trustworthy expositions of it have ever been written. For even the holy fathers (as we have said) frequently erred. And because of their ignorance of the languages they seldom agree; one says this, another that. St. Bernard 35 was a man so lofty in spirit that I almost venture to set him above all other celebrated teachers both ancient and modern. But note how often he plays (spiritually to be sure) with the Scriptures and twists them out of their true sense. This is also why the sophists36 have contended that Scripture is obscure; they have held that God’s word by its very nature is obscure and employs a peculiar style of speech. But they fail to realize that the whole trouble lies in the languages. If we understood the languages nothing clearer would ever have been spoken than God’s word. A Turk’s speech is obscure to me—because I do not know the language—while a Turkish child of seven would understand him easily. Hence, it is also a stupid undertaking to attempt to gain an understanding of Scripture by laboring through the commentaries of the fathers and a multitude of books and glosses. 37 Instead of this, people should have devoted themselves to the languages. Because they were ignorant of languages, the dear fathers at times expended many words in dealing with a text. Yet when they were all done they had scarcely taken its measure; they were half right and half wrong. Still, you continue to pore

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools over them with immense labor even though, if you knew the languages, you could get further with the passage than they whom you are following. As sunshine is to shadow, so is the language itself compared to all the glosses of the fathers. Since it becomes Christians then to make good use of the Holy Scriptures as their one and only book and it is a sin and a shame not to know our own book or to understand the speech and words of our God, it is a still greater sin and loss that we do not study languages, especially in these days when God is offering and giving us people and books and every facility and inducement to this study, and desires the Bible to be an open book. O how happy the dear fathers would have been if they had had our opportunity to study the languages and come thus prepared to the Holy Scriptures! 38 What great toil and effort it cost

265 collected sayings of patristic authors on particular topics. The concern here is not the use of such resources to understand biblical passages; indeed, the reformers themselves composed many commentaries that drew heavily from patristic and medieval sources. Rather, Luther’s point is that these commentaries are no substitute for learning the languages necessary both to read the Bible and evaluate the relative worth of the commentary one is using. Luther’s own critical and selective use of the commentaries became sharper in 1520 with the treatise Assertio omnium articulorum (cf. LW 32:11–12, which is based on the German version) and his 1521 controversy with Emser; see PE 3:277–401. 38. That is, late medieval and Renaissance advances in the knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, and rhetoric clarified exegetical questions that baffled or misled earlier commentators.

This woodcut by Lucas Cranach the Elder from Hortulus animae (1550) shows St. Bernard of Clairvaux’s vision of   Jesus as the “Man of   Sorrows” with the instruments of his suffering. In the upper right are the electoral and ducal arms of Saxony, and at the base of the image are the bishop’s mitre and a heart pierced by an arrow.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

266 39. Here, we may say that Luther proves his own point about faulty translation and exegesis. First, the reference is to Ps. 29:9 (not 129); it seems Luther or his printer accidentally obscured the reference. Second, and more substantially, Luther’s understanding of the verse is based on the Vulgate, whose obscurity is compounded by Luther’s reading of cervas (deer) for cervos (oaks). So, the faulty reading of “the voice of the Lord causes the deer to calve” should be “the voice of the Lord causes the oaks to whirl” (NRSV). This understanding, including the interpretation of “forests” in terms of “the obscure books of the Old Testament,” goes back to Luther’s earliest commentary of 1513–16 on the Psalms (WA 3:157). Actually, both psalm passages are here interpreted allegorically. 40. Luther commonly referred to the Bohemian Brethren as “Waldensians,” as in his treatise of less than a year earlier, The Adoration of the Sacrament (1523), the treatise in which he also urged them not to “neglect the languages” (see LW 36:271–76, 304). Paul Speratus (1484–1551), who had originally established the relationship between Luther and the Brethren, was at the time of this writing a guest in Luther’s house, having been driven out of Moravia. Luther’s incidental reference to the Bohemians may be significant for an understanding of the various other groups inimical to education. For a study on the interaction of the Waldensian and Hussite movements, and subsequent conflation, see Howard Kaminsky, A History of the Hussite Revolution (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), 171–80.

them to gather up a few crumbs, while we with half the labor— yes, almost without any labor at all—can acquire the whole loaf! O how their effort puts our indolence to shame! Yes, how sternly God will judge our lethargy and ingratitude! Here belongs also what St. Paul calls for in 1 Corinthians 14[:27, 29], namely, that in the Christian church all teachings must be judged. For this, a knowledge of the language is needful above all else. The preacher or teacher can expound the Bible from beginning to end as he pleases, accurately or inaccurately, if there is no one there to judge whether he is doing it right or wrong. But in order to judge, one must have knowledge of the languages; it cannot be done in any other way. Therefore, although faith and the gospel may indeed be proclaimed by simple preachers without a knowledge of languages, such preaching is flat and tame; people finally become weary and bored with it, and it falls to the ground. But where the preacher is versed in the languages, there is a freshness and vigor in his preaching, Scripture is treated in its entirety, and faith finds itself constantly renewed by a continual variety of words and illustrations. Hence, Psalm 12939 likens such scriptural studies to a hunt, saying: to the deer God opens the dense forests; and Psalm 1[:3] likens them to a tree with a plentiful supply of water, whose leaves are always green. We should not be led astray because some boast of the Spirit and consider Scripture of little worth, x and others, such as the Waldensian Brethren,40 think the languages are unnecessary. Dear friend, say what you will about the Spirit, I too have been in the Spirit and have seen the Spirit, perhaps even more of it (if it comes to boasting of one’s own fleshy) than those fellows with all their boasting will see in a year. Moreover, my spirit has given some account of itself, while theirs sits quietly in its corner and does little more than brag about itself. I know full well that while it is the Spirit alone who accomplishes everything, I would surely have never flushed a coveyz if the languages had not helped me and given me a sure and certain knowledge of Scripture. I too

x y z

See n. 23, p. 257. Cf. 2 Cor. 12:1-6 and Phil. 3:4. Were ich doch allen püsschen zu ferne gewest. The translation is guided in the rendering of this difficult clause, and in the construing of its obscure syntactical relationship to the clauses preceding it, by the suggestions of Albrecht, Studien zu . . . “die Ratsherren,” 703–5. It

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools could have lived uprightly and preached the truth in seclusion; but then I should have left undisturbed the pope, the sophists, and the whole anti-Christian regime. The Devil does not respect my spirit as highly as he does my speech and pen when they deal with Scripture. For my spirit takes from him nothing but myself alone; but Holy Scripture and the languages leave the Devil little room on earth, and wreak havoc in his kingdom. So I can by no means commend the Waldensian Brethren for their neglect of the languages. For even though they may teach the truth, they inevitably often miss the true meaning of the text, and thus are neither equipped nor fit for defending the faith against error. Moreover, their teaching is so obscure and couched in such peculiar terms, differing from the language of Scripture, that I fear it is not or will not remain pure.41 For there is great danger in speaking of things of God in a different manner and in different terms than God himself employs. In short, they may lead saintly lives and teach sacred things among themselves, but so long as they remain without the languages they cannot but lack what all the rest lack, namely, the ability to treat Scripture with certainty and thoroughness and to be useful to other nations. Because they could do this, but will not, they have to figure out for themselves how they will answer for it to God.

[The Contribution of Languages to the Common Good] To this point we have been speaking about the necessity and value of languages and Christian schools for the spiritual realm and the salvation of souls. Now let us consider also the body. Let us suppose that there were no soul, no heaven or hell, and that we were to consider solely the secular government from the standpoint of its worldly functions. Does it not need good schools and educated persons even more than the spiritual realm? Hitherto, the sophists have shown no concern whatever for the secular government, and have designed their schools so

seems clearly to refer to the matter of success, and to be derived in all likelihood from some proverbial expression, perhaps one connected with the hunt to which Luther had just alluded in connection with Ps. 29:9.

267

41. Contrast this to Luther’s praise for Melanchthon’s Loci communes of 1521. Melanchthon framed his textbook on theology around certain biblical topics and in biblical terms: “But I am discussing everything here sparingly and briefly because this book is to function more as an index than a commentary. I am therefore merely stating a list of topics to which a person roaming through Scripture should be directed. Further, I am setting forth in only a few words the elements on which the main points of Christian doctrine are based. I do this not to call students away from the Scriptures to obscure and complicated arguments but, rather, to summon them to the Scriptures if I can” (Loci 1521, 19). The Loci was revised and expanded in 1543 and was the primary introductory theological text for many students at Wittenberg and beyond.

268

42. Luther had used this same illustration in his 1520 The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, TAL 3:82; LW 36:78.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD exclusively for the spiritual estate that it has become almost a disgrace for an educated person to marry. She has had to hear such remarks as, “Well! So she is turning worldly and does not want to become spiritual,” just as if their spiritual estate alone were pleasing to God, and the worldly estate (as they call it) were altogether of the Devil and un-Christian. But in the sight of God it is they themselves who are meanwhile becoming the Devil’s own (as happened to the nation of Israel during the Babylonian Captivity [2 Kgs. 24:14]); only the despised rabble has remained in the land and in the right estate, while the better class of people and the leaders are carried off with tonsure and cowl to the Devil in Babylon.42 It is not necessary to repeat here that the secular government is a divinely ordained estate (I have elsewhere treated this subject so fully that I trust no one has any doubt about it). a The question is rather: How are we to get good and capable people into it? Here we are excelled and put to shame by the pagans of old, especially the Romans and the Greeks. Although they had no idea of whether this estate were pleasing to God or not, they were so earnest and diligent in educating and training their young boys and girls to fit them for the task, that when I call it to mind I am forced to blush for us Christians, and especially for us Germans. We are such utter blockheads and beasts that we dare to say, “Pray, why have schools for people who are not going to become spiritual?” Yet we know, or at least we ought to know, how essential and beneficial it is—and pleasing to God—that a prince, lord, council member, or other person in a position of authority be educated and qualified to perform the functions of his office as a Christian should. Now if (as we have assumed) there were no souls, and there were no need at all of schools and languages for the sake of the Scriptures and of God, this one consideration alone would be sufficient to justify the establishment everywhere of the very best schools for both boys and girls, namely, that in order to maintain its temporal estate outwardly the world must have good and

a See Luther’s On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), pp. 79–129 in this volume. For an excellent analysis of the question in the early Reformation, see James M. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005).

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools capable men and women, men able to rule well over land and people, women able to manage the household and train children and servants aright. Now such men must come from our boys, and such women from our girls. Therefore, it is a matter of properly educating and training our boys and girls to that end. I have pointed out above that the average person is doing nothing about it; he is incapable of it, unwilling, and ignorant of what to do. Princes and lords ought to be doing it, but they must be sleigh riding, drinking, and parading about in masquerades.43 They are burdened with high and important functions in cellar, kitchen, and bedroom. And the few who might want to do it must stand in fear of the rest lest they be taken for fools or heretics. Therefore, dear councilmen, it rests with you alone; you have a better authority and occasion to do it than princes and lords.

[Luther’s Practical Proposal for Educating Children] But, you say, everyone may teach his sons and daughters himself, or at least train them in proper discipline. Answer: Yes, we can readily see what such teaching and training amount to. Even when the training is done to perfection and succeeds, the net result is little more than a certain enforced outward respectability; underneath, they are nothing but the same old blockheads, unable to converse intelligently on any subject, or to assist or counsel anyone. But if children were instructed and trained in schools, or wherever learned and well-trained schoolmasters and schoolmistresses were available to teach the languages, the other arts, and history, they would then hear of the doings and sayings of the entire world, and how things went with various cities, kingdoms, princes, men, and women. Thus, they could in a short time set before themselves as in a mirror the character, life, counsels, and purposes—successful and unsuccessful—of the whole world from the beginning; on the basis of which they could then draw the proper inferences and in the fear of God take their own place in the stream of human events. In addition, they could gain from history the knowledge and understanding of what to seek and what to avoid in this outward life, and be able to advise and direct others accordingly. The training we undertake

269

43. See Luther’s criticism of the rulers’ preoccupation with amusements to the neglect of their office elsewhere (On Secular Authority, pp. 79–129 in this volume; also LW 45:120–21; and On Business and Usury, 131–81 in this volume; also LW 45:249–50).

270 44. Luther did not object to “cases” and “tenses” as such—indeed, these are necessary in inflected languages such as Latin and Greek—but to the perverted methods whereby declining and conjugating were made disciplinary exercises in the classroom. 45. Luther, still a bachelor, married Katherine von Bora some sixteen months later on 13 June 1525, and eventually became the father of three sons and three daughters. 46. Around 355, Aelius Donatus (fl. fourth century), teacher of St. Jerome at Rome, wrote the elementary Latin grammar that bears his name. It was originally in two parts, the Ars minor and Ars grammatica. The latter soon fell into disuse, but the former remained for more than a thousand years the chief textbook for teaching the rudiments of Latin grammar. It was among the earliest products of Gutenberg’s press. The VD 16 lists forty printings. See Corpus Grammaticum Latinorum, vol. 4. A modern critical edition exists in French, Louis Holtz, Donat et la tradition de l’enseignement grammatical: étude sur l’Ars Donati et sa diffusion (IVe-IXe siècle) et édition critique (Paris, 1981). See the English translation by Wayland Johnson Chase, The Ars minor of Donatus, Wisconsin Studies in the Social Sciences and History, no. 11 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1926). 47. Alexander de Villedieu (c. 1175– c. 1240), a Franciscan in Normandy, in 1199 composed the Doctrinale puerorum, a grammatical treatise in hexameters designed to help pupils memorize the necessary rules; it became immensely popular for over three hundred years. Alexander drew his illustrations from the later Christian

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD at home, apart from such schools, is intended to make us wise through our own experience. Before that can be accomplished we will be dead a hundred times over, and will have acted rashly throughout our mortal life, for it takes a long time to acquire personal experience. Now since the young must always be hopping and skipping, or at least doing something that they enjoy, and since one cannot very well forbid this—nor would it be wise to forbid them everything—why then should we not set up such schools for them and introduce them to such studies? By the grace of God it is now possible for children to study with pleasure and in play languages, or other arts, or history. Today, schools are not what they once were, a hell and purgatory in which we were tormented with casualibus and temporalibus,44 and yet learned less than nothing despite all the flogging, trembling, anguish, and misery. If we take so much time and trouble to teach children card-playing, singing, and dancing, why do we not take as much time to teach them reading and other disciplines while they are young and have the time, and are apt and eager to learn? For my part, if I had children45 and could manage it, I would have them study not only languages and history, but also singing and music together with the whole of mathematics. For what is all this but mere child’s play? The ancient Greeks trained their children in these disciplines; yet they grew up to be people of wondrous ability, subsequently fit for everything. How I regret now that I did not read more poets and historians, and that no one taught me them! Instead, I was obliged to read at great cost, toil, and detriment to myself, that Devil’s dung, the philosophers and sophists, from which I have all I can do to purge myself. So you say, “But who can thus spare his children and train them all to be young gentlemen? There is work for them to do at home,” etc. Answer: It is not my intention either to have such schools established as we have had heretofore, where a boy slaved away at his Donatus46 and Alexander47 for twenty or thirty years and still learned nothing. Today we are living in a different world, and things are being done differently. My idea is to have the boys attend such a school for one or two hours during the day, and spend the remainder of the time working at home, learning a trade, or doing whatever is expected of them. In this way, study and work will go hand-in-hand while the boys are young and able to do both. Otherwise, they spend at least ten

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools

271 poets rather than from the ancient classics, and was largely responsible for the decadence of Latin style in the later Middle Ages. See the text in Dietrich Reichling, ed., Doctrinale (Monumenta Germaniae Paedagogica, vol. XII [Berlin: Hofmann, 1893]).

Children’s Games (1560) by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525−1569)

times as much time anyway with their pea shooters, ball-playing, racing, and tussling. In like manner, a girl can surely find time enough to attend school for an hour a day, and still take care of her duties at home. She spends much more time than that anyway in sleeping, dancing, and playing. Only one thing is lacking, the earnest desire to train the young and to benefit and serve the world with able men and women. The Devil very much prefers coarse blockheads and ne’er-do-wells, lest humanity get along too well on earth. The exceptional pupils, who give promise of becoming skilled teachers, preachers, or holders of other ecclesiastical positions, should be allowed to continue in school longer, or even be dedicated to a life of study, as we read of the holy martyrs Sts. Agnes, Agatha, Lucy, and others.48 That is how the monasteries and foundations originated; they have since been wholly perverted to a different and damnable use. 49 There is great need of such advanced study, for the tonsured crowd is fast dwindling. Besides, most of them are unfit to teach or to rule, for all they know is to care for their bellies, which is indeed all they have been taught. We must certainly have people to administer God’s word and sacraments and to be shepherds of souls. But where shall we get them if we let our schools fall by the wayside, and

Depiction of Alexander de Villedieu in the Nuremberg Chronicle (1493)

48. Agnes, Agatha, and Lucy were popular and well-known martyrs in Luther’s time (all three were mentioned in Roman Eucharistic canon, along with Felicity, Perpetua, and Cecilia). Luther mentions them often in his early works as models for pious, educated, young women; see Concerning the Improvement of the Christian Estate (TAL 1:423). 49. The idea that monasteries were originally schools of piety and learning that became corrupted was a common and enduring trope; see “In former times, they were schools of Holy Scripture and of other subjects useful to the church; bishops and pastors were taken from there. Now, everything is different” (BSLK, 167; BC, 83).

272

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD fail to replace them with others that are Christian? The schools that have been maintained up to now, even though they do not die out entirely, can produce nothing but lost and pernicious deceivers. It is highly necessary, therefore, that we take some positive action in this matter before it is too late; not only on account of the young people, but also in order to preserve both our spiritual and temporal estates. If we miss this opportunity, we may perhaps find our hands tied later on when we would gladly attend to it, and ever after have to suffer in vain the pangs of remorse. God is offering us ample help; he stretches forth his hand and gives us all things needful for this task. If we disdain God’s offer we are already judged with the people of Israel, of whom Isaiah says [65:2], “I held out my hand all day long to a rebellious people”; and in Proverbs 1[:24-26] we read, “Because I have called you and you refused, have stretched out my hand and no one heeded, and because you have ignored all my counsel and would have note of my reproof, I also will laugh at your calamity, I will mock when panic strikes you,” etc. Of this let us beware! Consider, for example, what a great effort King Solomon made in this matter; so deeply was he concerned for the young that in the midst of his royal duties he wrote for them a book called Proverbs. Consider Christ himself, how he draws little children to him, how urgently in Matthew 18[:5, 10] he commends them to us and praises the angels who wait upon them, in order to show us how great a service it is when we train the young properly. On the other hand, how terrible is Christ’s wrath when we offend them and suffer them to perish! [Matt. 18:6]. Therefore, dear sirs, take this task to heart which God so earnestly requires of you, which your office imposes upon you, which is so necessary for our youth, and with which neither church nor world can dispense. Alas! We have lain idle and rotting in the darkness long enough; we have been German beasts all too long. Let us for once make use of our reason, that God may perceive our thankfulness for his benefits, and other nations see that we too are human beings, able either to learn something useful from others or to teach them in order that even through us the world may be made better. I have done my part. It has truly been my purpose to counsel and assist the German nation. If there be some who despise me for this and refuse to listen to my sincere advice because they think they know better, I cannot help it. I

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools know full well that others could have done this better; since they keep silent, I am doing it as well as I can. It is surely better to have spoken out on the subject, however inadequately, than to have remained altogether silent about it. It is my hope that God will awaken some of you, so that my well-meant advice may not be offered in vain, and instead of having regard for the one who utters it you will rather be stirred by the cause itself to do something about it.

[Appeal for Finances to Establish Excellent Libraries] Finally, one thing more merits serious consideration by all those who earnestly desire to have such schools and languages established and maintained in Germany. It is this: no effort or expense should be spared to provide good libraries or book repositories, especially in the larger cities that can well afford it. For if the gospel and all the arts are to be preserved they must be set down and held fast in books and writings (as was done by the prophets and apostles themselves, as I have said above). This is essential, not only that those who are to be our spiritual and secular leaders may have books to read and study, but also that the good books may be preserved and not lost, together with the arts and languages which we now have by the grace of God. St. Paul too was concerned about this when he charged Timothy to give attention to reading [1 Tim. 4:13], and bade him bring with him the parchments from Troas [2 Tim. 4:13]. Indeed, all the kingdoms that ever amounted to anything gave careful attention to this matter. This is especially true of the people of Israel, among whom Moses was the first to begin the practice when he had the book of the law kept in the ark of God [Deut. 31:25-26]. He put it in charge of the Levites so that whoever needed a copy might obtain one from them. He even commanded the king to procure from them a copy of this book [Deut. 17:18]. Thus, we see how God directed the Levitical priesthood, among its other duties, to watch over and care for the books. Later this library was added to and improved by Joshua, then by Samuel, David, Solomon, Isaiah, and by many other kings and prophets. As a result we have the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which would never have been collected or

273

274 50. Luther lists several works used in late medieval education. Some were forward for their time, but by 1500 had been eclipsed by far superior sources; they endured in the curriculum through inertia. The Latin lexicon Summa grammaticalis, commonly known as Catholicon, was compiled about 1286 by the Dominican John of Genoa, sometimes called Balbi or de Balbis (d. c. 1298) comprising treatises on orthography, etymology, grammar, prosody, rhetoric, and an etymological dictionary of the Latin language. A rhymed Latin syntax, composed in 1317 by Ludolf von Luchow of Hildesheim (d. 1236), the Flores grammaticae, gave its author the nickname “Florista,” and the book itself subsequently came to be called by that name. The Craecismus, a grammatical treatise in hexameters, interposed with elegiacs, ascribed to Eberhard of Bethune (fl. 1212), got its name from the tenth chapter, which takes up Greek etymologies; this book, too, came to be called by the nickname it had won for its author. The Labyrinthus was an early thirteenth-century poem, De miseriis rectorum scholarum, also by Eberhard of Bethune. The Dormi secure was a collection of seventy-one sermons for the church year and holy days, compiled ostensibly by the Franciscan Johann von Werden (c. 1450); the title implies that it was for the benefit of preachers too ignorant or too lazy to compose their own sermons. Luther attributes to the bad Latin of these books the medieval decline of the language.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD preserved had God not required such care to be bestowed upon them. Following this example, the monasteries and foundations of old also established libraries, although there were few good books among them. What a loss it was that they neglected to acquire books and good libraries at that time, when the books and men for it were available. This became painfully evident later when, as time went on, unfortunately all the arts and languages declined. Instead of worthwhile books, the stupid, useless, and harmful books of the monks, such as Catholicon, Florista, Grecista, Labyrinthus, Dormi secure,50 and the like asses’ dung were introduced by the Devil. Because of such books the Latin language was ruined, and there remained nowhere a decent school, course of instruction, or method of study. This situation lasted until, as we have experienced and observed, the languages and arts were laboriously recovered—although imperfectly—from bits and

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools fragments of old books hidden among dust and worms.51 People are still painfully searching for them every day, just as people poke through the ashes of a ruined city seeking the treasures and jewels. This served us right; God has properly repaid us for our ingratitude in not considering his kindness toward us and failing to provide for a constant supply of good books and learned scholars while we had the time and opportunity. When we neglected this, as though it were no concern of ours, he in turn did the same; instead of Holy Scripture and good books, he suffered

275 51. Among such collectors was Georg Spalatin (1484–1545), advisor to Frederick the Wise (1486–1525) and librarian for Wittenberg University. Our knowledge of the early holdings of the university library is pieced together from two catalogues made by Spalatin in 1536. See Sachiko Kusukawa, A Wittenberg University Catalogue of 1536 (Cambridge: LP Publications, 1995). Likewise, there are many letters from Melanchthon to Christian humanist friends, asking for copies of books for the library.

Portrait of Georg Spalatin (1537) by Lucas Cranach the Elder

276 52. Aristotle (384–322 ce) was an esteemed Greek philosopher, who had a profound influence in the medieval Scholastic effort to harmonize the best philosophy and science with theological truth (Aristotle had a similar influence in medieval Jewish and Islamic thought). Luther’s relationship to Aristotle was a complex one. First, it is important to remember that, given his influence on Scholasticism, Luther often used “Aristotle” as a dismissive catch-all for that particular enterprise of medieval Christianity. Second, Luther argued that the pagan philosophical vocabulary of Aristotle was not an appropriate fit for Christian theological categories. We see such attacks quite early; e.g., Disputation against Scholastic Theolog y (1517), LW 31:3–16, and Address to the Christian Nobility of Germany (1520), TAL 1:369–465. Yet, outside of theology, Aristotle could be quite helpful for the education of young people. Luther lauded Aristotle’s works on logic, rhetoric, and poetics. In a way, by boasting that Aristotle’s influence was rapidly shrinking in the School of Theology at Wittenberg, Aristotle had an increasingly vital role to play in the School of Arts at Wittenberg, where Aristotle could be studied without the effort to “Christianize” his thought. See Theodore Dieter, “Aristoteles,” Das Luther-Lexikon, ed. Volker Leppin and Gury Schneider-Ludorff (Regensburg: Bückle & Böhm, 2015).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Aristotle52 to come in, together with countless harmful books that drew us farther from the Bible. In addition to these he let in those Devil’s masks, the monks, and those phantoms that are the universities, which we endowed with vast properties. We have taken upon ourselves the support of a host of doctors, preaching friars, masters, priests, and monks; that is to say, great, coarse, fat asses decked out in red and brown birettas, looking like a sow bedecked with a gold chain and jewels. They taught us nothing good, but only made us all the more blind and stupid. In return, they devoured all our goods and filled every monastery, indeed every nook and cranny, with the filth and dung of their foul and poisonous books, until it is appalling to think of it. Isn’t it a crying shame that heretofore a boy was obliged to study for twenty years or even longer merely to learn enough bad Latin to become a priest and mumble through the mass? Whoever got that far was accounted blessed, and blessed was the mother who bore such a child! And yet he remained all his life a poor ignoramus, unable either to cackle or to lay an egg. b Everywhere we were obliged to put up with teachers and masters who knew nothing themselves, and were incapable of teaching anything good or worthwhile. In fact, they did not even know how to study or teach. Where does the fault lie? There were no other books available than the stupid books of the monks and the sophists. What else could come out of them but pupils and teachers as stupid as the books they used? A jackdaw hatches no doves, c and a fool cannot produce a sage. That is the reward of our ingratitude, that people failed to found libraries but let the good books perish and kept the poor ones.

[Recommendations for the Library] My advice is not to heap together all manner of books indiscriminately and think only of the number and size of the collection. I would make a judicious selection, for it is not necessary to

b Cackling (Glucken) was said to be easier than laying an egg; Wander, I, 1774. Whoever could do neither the harder nor the easier was presumably pretty worthless. WA15:51 n. 1. c See “Dohle,” in Wander, 1:671, no. 4.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools have all the commentaries of the jurists, all the sentences53 of the theologians, all the quaestiones54 of the philosophers, and all the sermons of the monks. Indeed, I would discard all such dung, and furnish my library with the right sort of books, consulting with scholars as to my choice. First of all, there would be the Holy Scriptures, in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and German, and any other language in which they might be found. 55 Next, the best commentaries, and, if I could find them, the most ancient, in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. Then, books that would be helpful in learning the languages, such as the poets and orators, regardless of whether they were pagan or Christian, Greek or Latin, for it is from such books that one must learn grammar. After that would come books on the liberal arts, and all the other arts. Finally, there would be books of law and medicine; here too there should be careful choice among commentaries.

277 53. The term should properly be “books of sentences.” “Sentences” was a common title for dogmatic-theological treatises of the Middle Ages. Luther probably had in mind the Libri Quattuor Sententiarum (Four Books of Sentences) compiled c. 1150 by Peter Lombard (d. 1160). A necessary step to becoming a Master of Theology was to demonstrate a working knowledge of Lombard’s Sentences, which was a systematic collection of statements (sentences) of biblical doctrine and helpful interpretations. Moreover, by Luther’s time, multiple commentaries on and expansions of the Sentences existed, written by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), William of Ockham (1285–1347), St. Bonaventure (1221– 1274), and Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308). 54. Scholastics employed the dialectical model to frame topics into quaestiones, i.e., question-and-answer form; “Is sacred doctrine a science? It seems that . . . ; On the contrary . . . ; Reply . . . ,” etc. 55. Such editions were becoming more readily available. One remarkable example, in development as Luther wrote this document, was Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1522). Sponsored by the reform-minded Spanish Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, O.F.M. (1436–1517) and the University of Madrid, this edition included the entire Old and New Testaments in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, and Latin languages.

A page from the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (1522)

278 56. Luther set forth his ideas on the value of history at greater length in his Vorrede zu Historia Galeatii Capellae, 1538, a preface to Wenceslaus Link’s translation of Galeatius

Capella’s history of the conflict between Emperor Charles V (1500–1558) and King Francis I (1494–1547); WA 50:383–85. It can be said that the Reformation was as much an appeal to history as it was to Scripture. That is, so much of the Protestant narrative was about recovering aspects of the tradition that were lost and correcting movements in history that were contrary to the proclamation of the gospel. For the reformers, “the study of church history performs two functions, (1) it provides us with a genealogy of orthodoxy and by the same token (2) shows us where and when the Church went wrong,” Irena Backus, Historical Method and Confessional Identity in the Era of the Reformation (1385– 1615) (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 331. 57. See n. 50, p. 274. Luther is echoing Erasmus’s sharp criticisms of the work. Regarding “the Modernists,” Luther is referring to one of two primary schools of thought in the established Scholastic pedagogy. On the one side stood the via antiqua (the “old way”), which adhered strictly to the interpretation of Aristotle as developed by Albertus Magnus (c. 1200–1280), Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus. On the other side stood the via moderna (“the new way”), which followed William of Ockham (c. 1285–1347) and his criticism of via antiqua. This quarrel over the best pedagogical methods became bitter enough to split faculties and require intervention by ecclesiastical authorities. However, students at most universities could choose which track

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Among the foremost would be the chronicles and histories, in whatever languages they are to be had.56 For they are a wonderful help in understanding and guiding the course of events, and especially for observing the marvelous works of God. How many fine tales and sayings we should have today of things that took place and were current in German lands, not one of which is known to us, simply because there was no one to write them down, and no one to preserve the books had they been written. That is why nothing is known in other lands about us Germans, and we must be content to have the rest of the world refer to us as German beasts who know only how to fight, gorge, and guzzle. The Greeks and Latins, however, and even the Hebrews, wrote their things down so accurately and diligently that if even a woman or a child said or did something out of the ordinary the whole world must read of it and know it. Meanwhile, we Germans are nothing but Germans, and will remain Germans. Now that God has today so graciously bestowed upon us an abundance of arts, scholars, and books, it is time to reap and gather in the best as well as we can, and lay up treasure in order to preserve for the future something from these years of jubilee,d and not lose this bountiful harvest. For it is to be feared—and the beginning of it is already apparent—that people will go on writing new and different books until finally, because of the Devil’s activity, we will come to the point where the good books which are now being produced and printed will again be suppressed, and the worthless and harmful books with their useless and senseless rubbish will swarm back and litter every nook and corner. The Devil certainly intends that we shall again be burdened and plagued as before with nothing but Catholicons, Floristae, Modernists,57 and the accursed dung of monks and sophists, forever studying but never learning anything.

[Conclusion] Therefore, I beseech you, my dear sirs, to let this sincere effort of mine bear fruit among you. Should there be any who think me too insignificant to profit by my advice, or who despise me as one condemned by the tyrants, I pray them to consider that I am d See previous n. 16, p. 251.

To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools not seeking my own advantage, but the welfare and salvation of all Germany. Even if I were a fool and had hit upon a good idea, surely no wise person would think it a disgrace to follow me. And if I were a very Turk or a heathen, and my plan were nevertheless seen to benefit not myself but the Christians, they ought not in fairness to spurn my offer. It has happened before that a fool gave better advice than a whole council of wise members. e Moses was obliged to take advice from Jethro [Exod. 18:17-24]. Herewith I commend all of you to the grace of God. May he soften and kindle your hearts that they may be deeply concerned for the poor, miserable, and neglected youth, and with the help of God aid and assist them, to the end that there may be a blessed and Christian government in the German lands with respect to both body and soul, with all plenty and abundance, to the glory and honor of God the Father, through our Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.

The Schoolmaster by Albrecht Dürer (1510)

e

See Luther’s similar statement in the address to Amsdorf with which he began his Open Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520), TAL 1:377.

279 (via antiqua or via moderna) in which to study. Likewise, there was a great deal of complexity within each track; namely, there was no single via antiqua just as there was no single “Thomism.” The same is true in our assessment of Luther. According to some, Luther should be labeled a “Nominalist” (that is, a Modernist). Insofar as Modernists generally wanted to let Aristotle be a pagan philosopher and not rush to Christianize his thought, the title has some resonance. However, Luther employed a diversity of methods and was quite eclectic in his use of sources. So, when Luther encourages a return to classical languages and sources, he actually shares a value affirmed by some in the via antiqua. See Frederick Copleston, S.J., A History of Philosophy, Book I/3 (New York: Doubleday, 1985); for a description of the effect of this debate in late medieval universities, see esp. 149–52. See also Heiko A. Oberman, “Via Antiqua and Via Moderna: Late Medieval Prolegomena to Early Reformation Thought,” Journal of the History of Ideas 48, no. 1 (January– March 1987): 23–40.

Title page of The Twelve Articles of the Peasants, 1525

�

Admonition to Peace A Reply to the Twelve Articles of  the Peasants in Swabia 1525

ASHLEY   N ULL

INTRODUCTION

In fifteenth-century Germany, peasant insurrections were neither uncommon nor necessarily a particularly effective means for societal transformation, for these efforts were not bringing about the needed changes. The Bundschuh uprising in upper Germany on the eve of the Reformation (1513–17) was only the latest in a long series of popular manifestations of unrest. Yet the Peasants’ War of 1524–25 was different. At a time when the large national army of France could field only tens of thousands, perhaps as many as 300,000 peasants were involved across Germany. a Such a massive conflagration, whether in fact or just in the popular imagination, required an accelerant. Although the peasants’ revolt was fueled primarily once again by contemporary economic and political conditions, very quickly these issues became entwined with Luther’s call for theological reformation. With his name invoked both by the peasants as a respected expositor of Scripture and by his Roman Catholic opponents as the root cause of the rebellion, Luther felt obliged to wade into a At least according to partisan reports; see Michael G. Baylor, The German Reformation and the Peasants’ War: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012), 1.

281

282

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

Rebellious peasants surrounding a knight. The Bundschuh  (tied shoe) emblem is displayed on their banner.

the conflict to clarify his theology as well as his vision of social reform. In so doing, Luther eventually called upon the authorities to fulfill their duty and use the sword to restore order. In the aftermath of the rebellion’s brutal suppression by governmental forces from both sides of the religious divide, Luther’s previous approach to societal transformation through an appeal to the ruling classes was both clarified and strengthened. Henceforth, the Reformation’s momentum ceased to arise from individual conversions as part of a grassroots popular movement and became much more a matter of state intervention and support. After the Peasants’ War, Luther adopted a much closer working relationship with governmental bodies to encourage reformation focused on the religious life in Germany. The vast majority of written grievances by local participants in the Peasants’ War concentrated on economic and social, rather than religious, demands.b Nevertheless, Luther’s call for b See Hans Hillerbrand, “The Reformation and the German Peasants’ War,” in Social History of the Reformation, ed. Lawrence P. Buck and Jonathan W. Zophy (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972), 106–36.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia reformation still played a vital role in sparking the revolt, for the peasants saw in his “theological argumentation the validation of their own economic and social concerns.”  c He himself had evaluated business practices in the light of Scripture, denouncing usury as contrary to the Golden Rule and demanding that the authorities ban the luxury trade so that people would concentrate on producing the useful necessities of life. Although he wrote individual tracts on these issues, d Luther also included them in his most popular work, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520). e Calling for political leaders to take up the cause of reform, Luther urged them to begin first with the church but also then to address the gospel failings in wider society. Moreover, Luther insisted in his equally influential The Freedom of a Christian (1520) f that “common people” with gospel faith share in the priesthood of all believers, thus validating their ability to teach one other from Scripture better than papist clergy or, by implication, unbelieving secular authorities. With Luther’s general call for spiritual and social reform in Germany according to the word of God, the peasants felt empowered to demand by threat of force that the gospel be applied to the specifics of their situation in both spheres as well. Luther, however, had never endorsed that last step. After all, when he called for change in Germany’s ecclesiastical and economic life, his treatise had turned to the nobility—the duly constituted secular authorities—to implement change, not to those whom they governed. After the preaching of Andreas Karlstadt (1486–1541) had stirred up disturbances in Wittenberg (1521) during Luther’s absence at the Wartburg, g Luther had quickly written A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522) to denounce mob violence. h A year c

Hans Hillerbrand, “‘Christ Has Nothing to Do with Politics’: Martin Luther and the Societal Order,” Seminary Ridge Review 13 (2011): 9–24, at 24 n. 37. d See Luther’s treatise On Business and Usury (1524) (pp. 131–81 in this volume; WA 15:279–322; LW 45:245–310); also his Short Sermon on Usury (1519) (WA 6:1–8); Long Sermon on Usury (1520) (WA 6:33–60). e TAL 1:369–465; WA 6:381–469; LW 44:115–217. f TAL 1:467–538; WA 7:12–73; LW 31:328–77. g Mark U. Edwards Jr., Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 6–33. h WA 8:670–87; LW 45:51–74.

283

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

284

1. One Franconian army even had an entire forty-man-strong troop made up exclusively of preachers; see Baylor, The German Reformation and the Peasants’ War, 60. 2. Thomas Müntzer was a pastor in Zwichau and then Allstedt. Intially, he supported Luther, but his alienation from Luther derived from his conviction that Luther’s theology short-circuited the full revolutionary implications of the gospel. His role as leader of the Peasants’ War cost him his life. Pfeifer (dates uncertain) had been a monk in a monastery near the city of Mühlhausen, where Müntzer came eventually. Pfeifer preached in Mühlhausen and became a popular agitator. 3. On 7 March 1525, the peasant bands of Allgäu, Lake Constance, and Baltringen joined together to form the Christian Union of Upper Swabia, one of the most significant political developments of the Peasants’ Revolt. Until its voluntary dissolution on 17 April with the treaty of Weingarten, the association sought to use the sheer number of its bands to force the rulers to negotiate with the peasants as equals so that changes in society would be made in accordance with the word of God. See Scott and Scribner, German Peasants’ War, 24–26; Blickle, 97–104.

later he took up the theme again in On Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523).i Using Romans 13 to stress the need for obedience to the divinely established political order, Luther made clear that he abhorred social chaos as the work of the Devil to frustrate the recovery of the gospel in the last days. Therefore, when the peasant uprisings, which had first begun in Swabia in 1524, then spread like wildfire to two other main centers in Franconia and Thuringia in early 1525, j Luther viewed the massive rebellion in apocalyptic terms. That preachers customarily accompanied the peasant troops to inspire them with sermons justifying their actions only reinforced this conviction.1 Luther was especially alarmed by the situation in neighboring Thuringia, where the radical preachers Thomas Müntzer (1489– 1525) and Heinrich Pfeifer2 were calling for the peasants to take the sword from the rulers so that the common people could at last establish a true biblical theocracy. k Out of the various grievance documents produced by local groups, The Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Upper Swabia became the most prominent. l Its chief author was Sebastian Lotzer (c. 1490–c. 1525), a furrier and lay preacher from Memmingen who had previously written Evangelical pamphlets. m Adopted by representatives of the Christian Union of Upper Swabia in March 1525, 3 The Twelve Articles appeared in twenty-five editions within two months, a figure representing perhaps as many as 25,000

i j

WA 11:229–81; LW 45:81–129. For the regional nature of the uprising, see Tom Scott and Bob Scribner, eds., The German Peasants’ War: A History in Documents (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1991), 19–53; Rudolf Endres, “The Peasant War in Franconia,” in The German Peasant War of 1525—New Viewpoints, ed. Bob Scribner and Gerhard Benecke (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1979), 63–83. k Blickle, 148–50; Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career 1521–1530, trans. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 374, 380–86. l Blickle, 18–57. m Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521– 1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 174. Some commentators suggest that Lotzer was assisted by Christoph Schappeler, a Memmingen pastor, perhaps with the theological introduction and biblical references. See Blickle, 25; Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career, 362.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia copies circulating throughout the German Empire. The document was revolutionary in two ways. First, the Articles demanded that the gospel become the norm for secular activities. Lotzer saw his preaching ministry as a fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32, where a general outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the common people was promised as preparation for the coming of the Lord. Lotzer’s inspired message was his own combination of  lay medieval affective piety and the Reformation’s concentration on Scripture as the sole source for both divine guidance and the transmission of transforming grace for saving faith. Laypeople needed actively to prepare for Christ’s imminent return by embracing the gospel in faith and expressing its fruit by doing six biblical (but still traditional and corporal) works of mercy specified by Matthew 25: providing the poor with shelter, nourishment, and clothing;

Peasants fighting Landsknechten. Woodcut by Hans Sebald Benham (1500−1550).

285

286

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD tending to the sick; caring for the needs of prisoners; and burying the dead. When Christians performed these good deeds with a faithful heart, that is, converted by the infusion of grace passively received through hearing the word of God, they would win the salvation of their souls. For with a heart now united to God by faith, gospel Christians received both the wisdom to know and the freedom to do the works which Christ had commanded, and Jesus’ atonement received by faith would make such merciful deeds meritorious in God’s eyes. Since the peasants simply wanted to live according to these gospel precepts, they were confident that God would free them from oppression in the same way as the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. Second, the Articles put this new standard in practice by calling for abolition of feudalism’s most pernicious practice, serfdom, and the establishment of an important precedent for communal self-rule, the local election of pastors. Should any of their demands be proven by the Bible not to agree with God’s word, the peasants promised to abandon it. While Luther viewed many of their grievances as just, he took special exception to the scriptural justifications for their actions. Luther’s initial response was the Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia (April 1525). n As moderate as The Twelve Articles themselves, Luther’s Admonition takes at face value the document’s espousal of peace and its promise that the peasants were willing to be instructed in the gospel. He sympathizes with their plight and even lays the blame for the uprising on the heavy hand of the rulers in both spiritual and secular matters. Yet, he totally rejects that their armed protest has anything at all to do with the gospel. As a pastor, he addresses the sins of both sides of the conflict as the root issue. Consequently, the Admonition has three parts. First, Luther directs his attention to the rulers, just as he had done previously in To the Christian Nobility, since, in his view, they alone have the responsibility for current government as well as the authority to bring about peaceful change. Luther does not mince words. The lords had oppressed the peasants in order to support their extravagant way of life and had opposed the progress of the gospel. The uprising is God’s judgment on their tyranny. Luther asks them to

n WA 18:279–334.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia take heed of signs of the times, fear God, and to change their ways as a result. At the very least, they should let the gospel be preached and should improve the welfare, not increase the exploitation, of their subjects. Second, Luther addresses the peasants. Although sympathetic to their plight, he is quite clear that the peasants are abusing the name of    “Christian” and thus dishonoring God. Their demands might be just, but their rebellion is unjustified. Christians do not take up arms against rulers established by God. Those who pick up the sword to assert their rights will die by the sword God has given the authorities. Christians are free to follow the gospel, but that privilege entails suffering wrongs passively, including the loss of earthly goods and even life. Christians put their trust in God acting on their behalf, not in their own efforts to save themselves from injury and injustice. As a result, the peasants have actually brought the cause of the gospel into disrepute. Luther then turns in some detail to the preface and first three articles of their demands. The common people, he says, are advancing their own selfish interests under the name of the gospel, and all because they have been misled by false teachers, as Scripture warned would happen in the last days. For serfdom and Christian freedom are not inherently incompatible. As for the remaining articles, since they deal with secular issues, he leaves them for lawyers to debate. Finally, Luther’s third section addresses the lords and peasants together. Both sides are acting as heathens, stand under God’s wrath, and threaten to bring widespread bloodshed and destruction to Germany as God’s judgment on both parties. Luther asks them to look to the state of their souls and repent. He urges them to step back from the brink, form a mediation committee, come up with a reasonable compromise, and avert a national catastrophe.

�

287

The Swabian League, an association formed to protect the imperial estates, built an army that was led by Georg Truchsess of Waldburg, later known as Bauernjörg, the Scourge of the Peasants. Image created by Christoph Amberger (c. 1526/30).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

288

4. The text of The Twelve Articles is a revision of the translation in LW 46 by Charles M. Jacobs, whose work was based on the German text Ermahnung zum Frieden auf die zwölf Artikel Bauernschaft in Schwaben (WA 18:291– 334). 5. The chief author of the Articles was Sebastian Lotzer, a furrier and lay preacher from Memmingen who had previously written Evangelical pamphlets (see the introduction, pp. 284–85). For a description of his life and theology, see Paul Russell, Lay Theolog y in the Reformation. Popular Pamphleteers in Southwest Germany, 1521–1525 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), 80–111; Martin Arnold, Handwerker als theologische Schriftsteller: Studien zu Flugschriften der frühen Reformation (1523–1525) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 145–93. 6. The principal secular terroritial rulers in Upper Swabia were the Archduke of Austria, the Duke of Württemberg, and the Margrave of Baden. The principle spiritual territorial rulers were the Prince-Bishop of Augsburg, Bishop of Constance, and the abbots of the larger southwest German monasteries, such as Kempten, Lindau, and Weingarten. 7. A deep sense of social unease pervaded early sixteenth-century Germany, with economic grievances at the forefront. The average peasant family needed to augment their subsistence farming with pigs and cattle grazed on common land, fishing in local waters, and hunting for small game in the forests as well as collecting firewood, berries, and edible mushrooms. Yet, these same

THE TWELVE ARTICLES

4,    o

T

HE BASIC AND CHIEF ARTICLES5 of all the peasants and subjects of spiritual and temporal lords,6 concerning the matters in which they feel they are being denied their rights.7,    p To the Christian reader: q Peace and the grace of God through Christ. Many Antichrists8 [1 John 2:18] have recently taken advantage of the assembling of the peasants and used it as an excuse to speak scornfully about the gospel. They say, “Is this the fruit of the new gospel? Will no one be obedient anymore? Will the people rebel everywhere, revolt against their lords, gather and organize in crowds, and use their power to reform or even to overthrow their spiritual and temporal authorities? Indeed, they may even kill them.”9 The following articles are our answer to these godless and blasphemous critics. Our intention is twofold: first, to remove this calumny from the word of God and, second, to excuse in a Christian way the disobedience and even the rebellion of the peasants. First, the gospel does not cause rebellion and disturbance, because it is a message about Christ, the promised Messiah, whose words and life teach nothing but love, peace, patience, and unity. And all who believe in this Christ become loving, peaceful, patient, and agreeable. This is the basis of all the articles of

o For the critical edition of the text, see Adolf Laube, ed., Flugschriften der fruehen Reformationsbewegung (Berlin: Akademie, 1983). p See Blickle, 25–86. More briefly, see Tom Scott and Bob Scribner, eds., The German Peasants’ War: A History in Documents (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1991), 6–14; Michael G. Baylor, The German Reformation and the Peasants’ War: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2012), 3–6. q Lotzer addressed The Twelve Articles “to the Christian reader,” because he saw the manifesto as a gospel call to the rulers to fulfill their Christian vocation by serving the poor and oppressed in preparation for Christ’s coming judgment (for more, see the introduction, p. 285). His message was in keeping with the widespread apocalyptic anticipation of the time; see Robin Bruce Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis: Apocalypticism in the Wake of the Lutheran Reformation (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), 25–30.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

289 areas offered landlords opportunities for increasing their own incomes, since rights to forests and fishing waters could be monetizing through sale or lease, and common land could be enclosed for agricultural purposes. The growing economy in Germany after 1450 gave landlords a powerful incentive to benefit from the new climate at the expense of the peasants. The rising population merely increased the demand for natural resources, raising their prices, while the abundance of laborers also made it more difficult for peasants to resist the landowners’ new demands for control over those resources, lest they be replaced. The tenuous financial situation for many of the peasants was only increased by the frequent crop failures in the years preceding the revolt. In addition to these economic pressures, frustration at the growing loss of communal selfgovernment equally contributed to the social unrest, for both the financial and political interests of the peasants conflicted with those in power. Where prince-bishops and prince-abbots, as territorial rulers (see n. 3 above), followed their secular counterparts in maximizing their income and control, anticlericalism was added to economic and political grievances.

The cover of a printing of The Twelve Articles of  the Peasants, 1525

8. By addressing his opponents as “Antichrists,” Lotzer not only set an apocalyptic context for the Articles but also clearly echoed Luther’s ongoing critique of the Roman Church since his Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); see TAL 3:9–129. 9. Romanists had already attributed local insurrections to Luther well before the Peasants’ Revolt. Hence, when such leading opponents as Archduke Ferdinand I (1503–1564) and Duke George of Saxony (1471–1539)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

290 applied the accusation to the events of 1524–25, they were simply repeating their standard charge of antinomianism against solifidianism. See Hans Hillerbrand, “The Reformation and the German Peasants’ War,” in Lawrence P. Buck and Jonathan W. Zophy, eds., Social History of the Reformation (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1972), 123–26.

10. Not unlike Luther, Lotzer insisted that the word alone was to be the rule for both religious and social issues.

the peasants (as will clearly appear), and they are basically concerned with hearing the word of God and living according to it. r On what basis, then, can these Antichrists call the gospel a cause of revolt and violence? That some Antichrists and enemies of the gospel resist these demands and requests is not the fault of the gospel, but of the Devil, the gospel’s deadliest enemy, who by means of unbelief arouses opposition in his own. Through this opposition the word of God, which teaches love, peace, and unity, is suppressed and taken away. s Second, on this basis the conclusion is obvious that the peasants cannot properly be called disobedient and rebellious. For, as these articles indicate, they desire this gospel to be the basis of their teaching and life.10 Now if God wills to hear the peasants’ earnest and fervent prayer that they may live according to his word, who will criticize the will of God? Who will meddle in his judgment? Who indeed will resist his majesty? Did God not hear the children of Israel when they cried to him and release them out of the hand of Pharaoh [Exod. 3:7-8]; and can God not today deliver his own? Yes, God will deliver them, and will do so quickly [Ps. 46:5]! Therefore, Christian reader, read the following articles carefully and then decide. Here Follow the Articles

11. Luther himself had heavily stressed the right of a community to choose its own pastor. See his 1523 tract That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture (WA 11:401–16; LW 39:301–14). In response to The Twelve Articles, Luther would begin to qualify such statements. See also n. 84, p. 324. 12. Whereas Luther saw grace as an aspect of God’s character which granted sinners unconditional forgiveness, Lotzer continued a medieval conception of grace as divine power infused into the human soul. See R. L. Greaves, “Luther’s Doctrine of Grace,” Scottish Journal of Theolog y 18 (1965): 385–95.

Article 1. We humbly ask and request—in accordance with our unanimous will and desire—that in the future the entire community have the power and authority to choose and appoint a pastor.11 We also want the power to depose him, if he acts improperly. The pastor chosen by us should preach the holy gospel to us clearly and purely, without any human additions, teachings, or commandments. For constant preaching of the true faith teaches us to ask God for his grace, that he may instill and strengthen such true faith in us. For if the grace of God is not instilled in us,12 we remain mere flesh and blood. And mere flesh and blood are useless, as Scripture clearly says, for we can come to God only through true faith and can be saved only through r s

For Lotzer’s understanding of the gospel and its transforming power, see the introduction, pp. 284–85 and n. q above. Cf. Mark 4:15.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

291

God’s mercy. That is why we need such a leader and pastor; and thus our demand is grounded in Scripture.t

Article 2. Since the tithe is stipulated in the Old Testament, u although it is fulfilled in the New, we are willing to pay the large tithe of grain,13 but only in due measure. Since the tithe ought to be given to God and distributed among his servants, it belongs to the pastor who clearly proclaims the word of God, and we desire that in the future this tithe be gathered and received by our church wardens, appointed by the community. With the consent of the whole community the pastor, who shall be chosen by the entire community, shall receive out of this tithe a modest, sufficient maintenance for him and his; the remainder shall be distributed to the village’s own poor and needy, according to need and with the consent of the community. Anything that then remains should be kept, so that if the needs of the land require the laying of a war tax, no general tax may be laid upon the poor, but it shall be paid out of this surplus.14 If it should happen that there were one or more villages that had sold their tithes to meet certain needs, they are to be informed that those who bought the tithes from a whole village are not to be deprived of them without compensation; for we will negotiate with them, in the proper way, form, and manner, to buy the tithes back from them on suitable terms and at a suitable time. But in case people have not bought the tithes from any village, and their forebears have simply appropriated them to themselves, we will not, we ought not, nor do we intend to pay them anything further,15 but will keep the tithes for the support of our chosen pastor, as said above, and for distribution to the needy, as the Holy Scriptures mandate. It does not matter whether the holders of the tithes be spiritual or temporal lords. The small tithe16 we will not pay at all, for God the Lord created cattle for the free use of people, and we regard this tithe as an improper one that human beings have invented; therefore we will not give it any longer. t

The Twelve Articles lists the following passages in support of Article 1: 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; Acts 14; Deuteronomy 17; Exodus 31; Deuteronomy 10; John 6; Galatians 2. u Cf. Deut. 12:17; 18:4.

13. The large tithe was an ecclesiastical tax on grain or another principal agricultural product such as wine; see Blickle, 19. 14. Rather than sending troops to support the maintenance of order in south German lands as well as to fight the Turkish threat in the southeastern part of the Empire, ecclesiastical territorial rulers fulfilled their military obligations to the Empire and the Swabian League (the regional defense alliance) with monetary payments that they raised through taxes. These were fiercely opposed by the peasants, since such taxes had only become common at the end of the fifteenth century and had only an “extremely shaky” legal basis. Ibid., 42–44. 15. Here is an indication of the potentially radical nature of The Twelve Articles. They invoke two revolutionary notions—that tithes, fishing and forest rights, and common lands were originally all communal property or rights; accordingly, the peasants were the real owners, not the hereditary lords. Second, the document invoked a radically new notion, namely, that all societal matters must be ordered not so much by historical precedent but the principals of the “divine law.” 16. The small tithe was an ecclesiastical tax on livestock; Blickle, 19.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

292 17. Here was the core issue of the uprising. Serfdom was an important part of the political and economic life of Upper Swabia. Feudal lords relied heavily on serfdom to rule their villages. In the century preceding the revolt, landowners had also intensified the institution to offset the double challenge they faced of decreasing agricultural prices, which formed the basis for their income, and increasing demand for manufactured goods, which meant higher urban wages, which attracted laborers from the fields. In order to receive leases for land to cultivate, lords would often force free peasants to renounce their rights: (1) to choose their own lord; (2) to marry someone with a different lord; and (3) to move on from the land they had leased. Ibid., 21, 29–35. 18. The peasants appealed to a Scripture-derived “godly law” to free them at last from the constraints of ancient customary law, even though this law supported their demands. 19. Because lordship over serfs was so important for local political rule, The Twelve Articles wanted to make clear that while the peasants no longer wanted the restrictions that accompanied being a serf, they were still expected to be subjects of the local political power; ibid., 33. 20. Like tithes (see n. 15 above) The Twelve Articles assumed that fishing and forest rights belonged to the community, not the hereditary lord. For the economic importance of these rights to the peasants, see n. 7, pp. 288–89, and Blickle, 37–41.

Article 3. It has been the custom for other human beings to hold us as their own property.17 This situation is deplorable, for Christ has redeemed and bought us all with the precious shedding of his blood, from the lowest shepherd to the greatest lord, no exceptions. Therefore, the Bible proves that we are free and want to be so.18 It is not our intention to be entirely free. God does not teach us that we should desire no rulers.19 We are to live according to the Commandments, not the free self-will of the flesh; but we are to love God, recognize him in our neighbor as our Lord,v and do all (as we gladly would do) that God has commanded in the Lord’s Supper [John 13:1-17]; therefore, we ought to live according to his commandment. This commandment does not teach us to disobey our rulers; rather to humble ourselves, not before the rulers only, but before everyone. Thus we willingly obey our chosen and appointed rulers (whom God has appointed over us) in all Christian and appropriate matters. And we have no doubt that since they are true and genuine Christians, they will gladly release us from serfdom, or show us in the gospel that we are serfs.

Article 4. It has been the custom that no poor man has been allowed to catch game, wild fowl, or freshwater fish, which seems to us altogether improper and inhuman, selfish, and contrary to the word of God.20 In some places the rulers keep the game to our aggravation and great loss, for we must suffer in silence while brute beasts eat up all our crops which God intended for the needs of human beings, although it is against God and neighbor. When God the Lord created humankind, God gave them authority over all animals, over the birds of the air, and over the fish in the water. Therefore it is our demand that all those who possess water rights should offer satisfactory documentary evidence that these rights have been sold to them with the consent of the whole village. In that case we do not wish to take these rights away from them by force; on the contrary, for the sake of Christian love, they must be treated in a godly manner. But whoever cannot offer sufficient proof shall surrender their water rights to the community in a proper manner.

v

Cf. Matt. 25:31-45.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia Article 5. We also have a grievance about woodcutting, for our lords have appropriated all the forests solely to themselves, and when poor people need any wood, they must buy it at a double price.w In our opinion the forests held by spiritual or temporal lords who have not bought them should revert to the whole community. This community should be able to allow, in an orderly way, people to gather firewood for their homes and free timber for building, although only with the permission of a supervisor appointed by the community. If all the forests have been fairly purchased, then a neighborly and Christian agreement should be reached about their use; but if the forests were seized and then sold, an agreement should be worked out according to the facts of the case and in keeping with Christian love and the Holy Scriptures.

A title-page image of a book by Diepold Peringer (1524) with a man holding a flail, an agricultural tool used to separate chaff and straw from grains. In the bottom-left corner is the crest of the Bundschuh movement, a series of peasant rebellions in southwestern Germany.

w See n. 7, p. 288.

293

294 21. All serfs owed labor, but its nature and duration varied, as well as whether those duties were specifically defined in their feudal contracts, and were determined by general custom, or were at the discretion of the lord as to decide how a general obligation of service should be fulfilled. Serfs could be expected, for example, to cultivate a lord’s field, present firewood to castles and monasteries, construct and maintain buildings and roads, assist at a hunt, or provide transport for goods. Since the worsening economic situation often encouraged serfs to hire out their labor to supplement their income (see article 7), increasing demands by lords for more unpaid general labor competed directly with the serfs’ economic survival. See ibid., 41–42.

22. Two factors in particular seem to have made land rents generally difficult to pay: (1) required payment, even in bad years of storm-damaged crops or crop failure; and (2) an increasing population meant that each holding had to support more people; see ibid., 37, 50.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Article 6. We are grievously oppressed by the free labor that we are required to provide for our lords.21 The amount of labor required increases from day to day as well as the variety of services required. We ask that an appropriate investigation be made of this matter and that the burdens laid upon us not be too heavy. We ask that we be dealt with graciously, just as our ancestors were, who provided these services according to the word of God.

Article 7. In the future we will not allow ourselves to be further oppressed by the lords. Rather, people will possess their holdings according to the terms on which they have been granted, that is, according to the agreement between the lord and the peasants. Lords will not in any way put pressure on peasants, or force them to render more services, or demand anything else from them without payment, so that the peasants may use and enjoy their property unburdened and in peace; but if the lord needs more services, the peasant shall be obedient, and willing to perform them. However, peasants are to do so at a time when their own affairs do not suffer, and they shall receive a fair wage for their labor.

Article 8. We are greatly aggrieved because many of us have holdings that do not produce enough to enable us to pay the rents due on them.22 As a result, the peasants bear the loss and are ruined. We ask that the lords have honorable people inspect these farms, and fix a fair rent, so that peasants will not labor in vain; for laborers are worthy of their hire.

Article 9. We are aggrieved by the way serious crimes are punished, for they are continually making new laws. Punishment is inflicted on us, not according to the facts of the case, but sometimes out of great ill will and sometimes out of considerable favoritism. In our opinion we should be punished by the ancient written law, according to the facts of the case and not because of any partiality.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

295

Article 10. We are aggrieved because some have seized meadows from the common fields that once belonged to the community. We want to return them to the hands of our communities, unless they have been fairly purchased. If they have been improperly purchased, we should come to a kindly and neighborly agreement about them, according to the facts of the case. x

Article 11. We want to abolish the customary death tax entirely. We will not tolerate it or allow widows and orphans—contrary to God’s will and any sense of honor—to be so shamefully robbed as now happens in many places in various ways. The very ones who ought to guard and protect us have in fact oppressed and cheated us. Had they the slightest legal opportunity, they would take everything. God will no longer permit it. God will sweep all of this away. Henceforth, no one will be required to pay death taxes, whether large or small.23

Article 12. It is our conclusion and final opinion that if it can be proved from the Bible that one or more of the articles set forth here is not in agreement with the word of God (which we doubt), we will withdraw it—after we have been convinced on the basis of Scripture. If some of our demands are granted and later found unjust, they will be null and void from that point on. Likewise, if Scripture should truly reveal more offenses against God and our neighbor, we reserve the right to include them on our list. As for us, we will live by and faithfully apply all Christian teaching. We will pray to the Lord God for this, since God alone can grant it to us. The peace of Christ be with us all.

x

See p. 293 above.

23. The customary death tax in Swabia was the deceased person’s best animal and best garment, or the equivalent in cash. As lords tried increasingly to bind peasants to their service, since serfdom was an inherited condition, forcing heirs to pay the death tax was a useful way to establish their status as serfs. In such cases, whether the tax was large or small was not nearly as important as being compelled to admit one was a serf by having to pay it on behalf of a parent. See ibid., 29; Robert Paul Dees, “Economics and Politics of Peasant Production in South Germany, 1450–1650,” PhD thesis (University of California–Los Angeles, 2007), 440–46.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

296 24. On 7 March 1525, representatives from the three great peasant bands in southwest Germany—from the Allgäu, Baltringen, and Lake Constance— agreed together in Menningen to form the “Christian Union of the Peasants of Upper Swabia.” See Scott and Scribner, German Peasants’ War, 24–26. 25. Over twenty printings of The Twelve Articles appeared between February and May 1525; see Laube, “Zwölfe Artikel,” 1–2. 26. Luther did not conceive of the human conscience as autonomous, but as bound either to God, through the working of the word, or the Devil, apart from it. God, through this word, convicts the conscience of sin and imparts to it faith in Christ as its promised Savior. A conscience instructed by the word will also guide a Christian in expressing faithfully love toward God and neighbor. Luther rejected any human authority, such as the Roman Church, which would interpose its own traditions and teachings between God and the human conscience. As Luther said of himself at the Diet of Worms, he believed that the conscience of all true Christians must be captive to the word of God alone. See Bernhard Lohse, “Conscience and Authority in Luther,” Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era: Papers for the Fourth International Congress for Luther Research, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 158–83. 27. A year before Luther had castigated the secrecy of the rebels at Allstedt (see n. 34, p. 299 and n. 40, pp. 301–2), since a good sign that protesters were listening to the Holy Spirit was whether they stood openly before their opponents to answer questions (WA 15:213,24–26; LW 40:52). Of course, that is exactly what Luther himself had

ADMONITION TO PEACE: A REPLY TO THE TWELVE ARTICLES OF THE PEASANTS IN SWABIA y

T

HE PEASANTS who have banded together in Swabia 24 have put their intolerable grievances against the rulers into twelve articles, z sought to justify them with certain passages of Scripture, and sent them forth in print.25 What pleases me the most about these articles is the twelfth, where the peasants offer to accept better instruction gladly and willingly, if something is lacking or necessary to be added in their document. They are open to being corrected, insofar as it can be done by clear, plain, undeniable passages of Scripture, a since it is right and proper that no one’s conscience should be instructed or corrected except by divine Scripture.26 Now if that is their serious and sincere meaning—and it would not be right for me to take it otherwise, because in these articles they come out into the open and do not shy away from the light—then there is still good reason to hope that all will be well.27 Since I have a reputation for being one of those who deal with the Holy Scriptures here on earth,28 and especially as one whom they mention and call upon by name in the second document, 29

y See n. 4, p. 288, regarding the translation. z See above, pp. 288–95. a See above, pp. 290–91.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

297 done at the Diet of Worms (WA 7:814–87; LW 32:101–31). 28. Holding the position of “Doctor of the Bible” at the University of Wittenberg since 1512, Luther saw himself primarily as a biblical exegete writing in support of the Reform’s recovery of the true meaning of the gospel. For Luther’s popular image as the “German Hercules” opposing papal oppression with biblical truth, see Robert Kolb, Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero: Images of the Reformer, 1520–1620 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 25–33. See also Robert Kolb, “Luther’s Hermeneutics of Distinctions: Law and Gospel, Two Kinds of Righteousness, Two Realms, Freedom and Bondage,” in Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomir Batka, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theolog y (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 168–84.

A flyer from the time of the Peasants’ War (1526)

29. The leaders of the Christian Union of Upper Swabia appended to their articles of association the names of fourteen theologians whom they felt could be trusted to “determine the substance of divine law.” “Dr. Martin Luther” came first on that list. For the names, see Michael G. Baylor, ed., The Radical Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 241. According to Martin Brecht, these articles were the second document to which Luther referred; Brecht, Martin Luther: Shaping and Defining the Reformation 1521–1532, trans. James L. Schaaf (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 174. However, Heinrich Bornkamm insists that distinction belonged to another pamphlet in which the peasants proposed to the Swabian League that Luther along with either Philip Melanchthon or Johannes Bugenhagen, Luther’s colleague in Wittenberg and

298 a prominent reformer, respectively, should serve as biblical critics of their grievances; Bornkamm, Luther in MidCareer: 1521–1530, trans. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 362–63.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD I have all the more courage and confidence in openly publishing my advisory. 30 I do this in a friendly and Christian spirit, as a duty of sincere love, so that if any calamity or disaster comes out of this matter, it may not be attributed to me, nor will I be blamed before God and humankind because of my silence. 31

30. The Admonition was written in midApril 1525, most likely during a journey to Eisleben, and then quickly published in Wittenberg (WA 18:281–82). 31. The word of God bound Luther’s conscience to speak out (see n. 26, p. 296), since the gospel message was now under threat. To do otherwise would have been a failure of both pastoral duty and Christian love, for a famine of gospel preaching was God’s worst judgment upon a people; The Freedom of a Christian, TAL 1:491; LW 31:346. 32. This is the overriding theme of this first section of Luther’s treatise, that the uprising is a manifestation of God’s wrath. 33. Luther’s teaching on the two kingdoms distinguishes between Christians’ vertical relationship with God (spiritual kingdom) and their horizontal relationship with all their neighbors (worldly kingdom). These two spheres of life have different ruling principles. God governs the spiritual realm through the persuasive preaching of the word of God. Its proclamation confers on Christian souls the inner freedom to believe in God’s promises. Through this gift of faith, Christ takes away their sins and they receive his righteousness. Hence, Christians no longer need laws to coerce them with threats of punishment to do good. Guided by gratitude for what God has done for them, Christians use their freedom from sin to serve God and their neighbors in love. However, the

Coat of arms of the Swabian League. The cross was red, the shield white. The motto in Latin is “What God has joined let man not separate.” Drawing by the workshop of Hans Burgkmair (1522).

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia But if this offer of theirs is only pretense and show (without a doubt there are some people like that among them, for it is impossible that everyone in so big a multitude is a true Christian with good intentions; a large part of them must be using the good intentions of the others to further their own gratification and gain) then without doubt it will accomplish very little, or, rather, it will bring about their great injury and eternal ruin. 32 This, then, is a great and dangerous matter, for it concerns both the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world. 33,   b If this rebellion were to continue and get the upper hand, both kingdoms would be destroyed. 34 Neither human government nor word of God would remain, resulting in the permanent destruction of all Germany. Therefore it is necessary for me to speak boldly and to give advice without regard to anyone. It is equally necessary that we Germans be willing to listen and allow things to be said to us, so that we do not now—as we have done before—harden our hearts and stop our ears, and so that God’s wrath does not run its full course. For the many terrible signs that are seen both in heaven and earth point to a great disaster 35

b For a brief overview of Luther’s teaching regarding two kingdoms, see David C. Steinmetz, Luther in Context (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986), 112–25. For an extended examination of the relevant monographs, see Per Frostin, Luther’s Two Kingdoms Doctrine: A Critical Study (Lund: Lund University Press, 1994).

299 whole world is filled with people who are not true Christians. As a result, God governs society through natural law (see n. 61, p. 312) and human wisdom, relying on the power of the sword to restrain evil. Christians, therefore, are simultaneously ruled by the gospel before God and ruled by the laws of the state in which they live. 34. In Luther’s eyes, then, the peasants have hopelessly mixed essential distinctions by claiming a gospel mandate for armed rebellion against their lords. Since the gospel only operates by loving assent, the peasants could not use coercion to advance its cause. Since God had given the sword to rulers to maintain order in society, the peasants could not usurp this power in the name of the gospel to change their political and economic circumstances. Such efforts only undermined good order in both spheres, threatening ruin to all. 35. Luther was convinced that the biblical signs of the end of the world (Matthew 24; Mark 13; and Luke 21) were being fulfilled in his day. In his second Advent sermon for 1522 on Luke 21, he noted the occurrence in recent years of annual partial eclipses of the sun and moon, the numerous falling stars and comets, the many raging storms over land and sea as well as the advent of syphilis in Europe. Above all else, he discussed the great conjunction of all planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn) as well as the sun and the moon in the Pisces portion of the sky predicted for February 1524. For many of Luther’s contemporaries, this approaching heavenly wonder foretold a devastating flood on the scale of Noah’s, since it was occurring in the celestial area of the

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

300 “fish” (Robin B. Barnes, Astrolog y and Reformation [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016]). While Luther accepted astronomy’s ability to forecast celestial movements, he utterly rejected both the stars’ ability to determine the future and astrology’s capacity to interpret their significance. The motions of the heavens were subject to and expressive of God’s plan for salvation history. Hence, the great planetary alignment of 1524 was the fulfillment of Luke 21:26. 36. In his second Advent sermon of 1522 Luther also recalled the words of Lactantius (c. 250–c. 325) in the Divine Institutes that as the end of the world approached, humans affairs would grow much more wicked. Gross personal immorality would be common, lawlessness would abound, and might would make right (WA 10/I/2:105, note to line 12). 37. Also, according to Luther’s second Advent sermon of 1522, this indifference itself was another clear sign of the impending judgment, since Scripture said that people would be caught unaware on that day (WA 10/I/2:93–95). 38. Luther often accused secular and spiritual rulers of oppressing their subjects to feed their own unsavory appetites. For example, in his Lectures on Romans (1515–16) Luther argued that both kinds of rulers came under the judgment of Rom. 2:1-3, because they punished thieves, yet they themselves were even bigger thieves by claiming all the forest game for themselves and taxing beyond reason (WA 56:189–90; LW 25:171–73). Nevertheless, Luther in particular singled out “Roman tyranny” for promoting an ecclesiastical culture riddled with avarice and exploitation at every level. Having rejected living by

and a mighty change in German lands. 36 Sad to say, however, we care little about it. 37 Nevertheless, God goes on his way, and someday he will soften our hardheadedness.

To the Princes and Lords We have no one on earth to thank for this disastrous rebellion, except you princes and lords, and especially you blind bishops and mad priests and monks, whose hearts are hardened, even to the present day. You do not cease to rant and rave against the holy gospel, even though you know that it is true and that you cannot refute it. In addition, as temporal rulers you do nothing but cheat and rob the common people so that you may lead a life of luxury and extravagance. 38 The poor common people can bear it no longer. The sword is already at your throats, but you think that you sit so securely in the saddle that no one can unhorse you. This false security and stubborn perversity will break your necks, as you will discover. I have often told you before to beware of the saying, in Psalm 107[:40], “Effundit contemptum super principes,”  c “He pours contempt upon princes.” You, however, keep on asking for trouble and want to be hit over the head. And no warning or exhortation will keep you from getting what you want.

c

The Latin translation of the Hebrew was Luther’s own and paralleled his German translation of 1524 which he then quoted here: “Er schüttet verachtung auff die fürsten” (WA DB 10/I:466). Cf. the various versions contained in Jacques Lefèvre d’Étaples’ contemporary critical edition of the Psalter, Quincuplex Psalterium. Gallicum. Romanum. Hebraicum. Vetus. Conciliatum (Paris: Henri Estienne Sr., 1513), folios 158v, 277v. The standard Vulgate Latin was “Effusa est contentio super principes” (“strife has been poured out on the princes”), which Luther used in his first lectures on the Psalms (WA 4:210; 55:722). Only the Old Latin translation of the Psalms used “contemptum” (“contempt”) and only Jerome’s translation direct from the Hebrew used active voice, “effundet” (“he pours”). Luther later switched to passive voice in his German translations of 1531 and 1545: “Da verachtung auff die Fürsten geschüttet war” (“For contempt was poured out on the princes”), WA DB 10/I:467. Cf. n. 123 where Luther simply quoted the Vulgate.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia Well, then, since you are the cause of this wrath of God, it will undoubtedly come upon you, unless you mend your ways in time. 39 The signs in heaven and the wonders on earth are meant for you, dear lords; d they bring no good news for you, and no good will come to you. A great part of God’s wrath has already come, for God is sending many false teachers and prophets among us,40 so that through our error and blasphemy we may

301 faith, the pope and his followers had no other choice but to put their trust in money, rather than God as the First Commandment directed. Consequently, the ravenous greed that resulted from Roman idolatry was so pervasive that not merely the hierarchy, but even local pastors insisted on teaching only those doctrines that profited them financially. Henry Cole, ed., Martin Luther’s Complete Commentary on the First Twenty-Two Psalms (London: W. Simpkin and R. Marshall, 1826), II.76–79. 39. For Luther, God’s wrath is inextricably bound up with God’s righteousness. God hates sin for all the injury that it brings to creation. Yet, punishing sin is God’s “alien work,” since God’s essential nature is pure love. God is only forced to express wrath because of the wickedness of humankind, such as the rulers’ exploitation of the people whom God had appointed them to protect. Yet, since Christ bore God’s wrath for sin on the cross, if the rulers would turn to Christ in faith, God’s punishment for their transgressions would be turned from their destruction into a loving father’s discipline. See Paul Althaus, The Theolog y of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), 169–78.

A statue of  T homas Müntzer in Mühlhausen

d See n. 35, p. 299.

40. Chief among these self-styled “spiritual” men in Luther’s eyes was Thomas Müntzer (1489–1525). Although Luther had recommended Müntzer as a preacher for Zwickau in 1520, his divisive emphasis on experiencing direct divine inspiration apart from Scripture led to his expulsion from the town less than a year later. In 1523, Müntzer settled once again in Electoral Saxony, undertaking reform in the church in Allstedt.

302 In a letter dated 9 July 1524, he chided Luther for denying God’s living voice to contemporary believers through visions and dreams, though he thereby did not mean to reject the written word of God. A year later, under pressure for burning down a nearby nunnery’s chapel that contained a “miracle-working” picture of the Virgin Mary, Müntzer became part of an armed cohort that was committed to defend religious reform, if necessary by force. That same July Luther denounced his threat to advance the gospel through force of arms in his Letter to the Princes of Saxony about the Rebellious Spirit (LW 40:45–59). Luther was willing to tolerate Müntzer’s “false” biblical teachings, but not his threat of insurrection in their support. He urged the Saxony rulers to banish Müntzer from Saxony. Less than a month later Müntzer fled farther west to the imperial city of Mühlhausen where he worked with Pfeiffer to turn Mühlhausen into a base for theocratic revolution. See Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career, 52–57, 147–63, 174–81. 41. Since the false prophets drew people away from the truth of justification by faith, their followers would have no protection from damnation for idolatry on the coming day of judgment. 42. Luther typically “comforted the afflicted” by preaching the good news of the gospel, but “afflicted the comfortable” by proclaiming the coming judgment demanded by God’s law. Since the rulers had a false sense of security that their tyranny would go unpunished, Luther felt it his pastoral duty to preach the law so as to wake them up to the gravity of their situation. 43. In a letter dated 10 February 1522, Duke George of Saxony urged his officials to imprison any follower

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD richly deserve hell and everlasting damnation. 41 The rest of it is now here, for the peasants are banding together, and, unless our repentance moves God to prevent it, this must result in the ruin, destruction, and desolation of Germany by cruel murder and bloodshed. For you ought to know, dear lords, that God is doing this because this raging of yours cannot, will not, and ought not be endured for long. You must become different men and yield to God’s word. If you do not do this amicably and willingly, then you will be compelled to do it by force and destruction. If these peasants do not compel you, others will. Even though you were to defeat them all, they would still not be defeated, for God

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia will raise up others. It is his will to defeat you, and you will be defeated. It is not the peasants, dear lords, who are resisting you; it is God himself, to visit your raging upon you.42 Some of you have said that you will stake land and people on exterminating the Lutheran teaching.43 What would you think if you were to turn out to be your own prophets, and your land and people were already at stake? Do not joke with God, dear lords! The Jews, too, said, “We have no king” [John 19:15] and they meant it so seriously that they must be without a king forever. 44 To make your sin still greater, and guarantee your merciless destruction, some of you are beginning to blame this affair on the gospel and say that it is the fruit of my teaching.45 Well,

303 of Luther, since “in these unchristian matters we will not hesitate, as a Christian prince, to stake our life and our goods” to protect the spiritual health of the people against the Lutheran heresy. See S-J II.89. 44. Luther believed that by rejecting Jesus as their true anointed king (i.e., the Messiah), the Jewish people had now been excluded from God’s coming kingdom. Since Judaism rejected faith in Jesus in favor of an emphasis on maintaining a relationship with God through works of the law, Luther often used the Jews as a clarion example of what Christians ought not to do. See Achim Detmers, Reformation und Judentum: Israel–Lehren und Einstellungen zum Judentum von Luther bis zum frühen Calvin (Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2001), 63–76. 45. Traditionalist Catholic apologists argued that Luther’s treatise Freedom of a Christian had undermined divinely grounded social and political hierarchy and encouraged sinful self-assertion instead. By stating that “a Christian is a perfectly free lord of all, subject to none,” even if he did pair it with “a Christian is a perfectly dutiful servant of all, subject to all” (TAL 1:488; WA 7:49,22–25; LW 31:344), Luther’s opponents felt he had provided a divine sanction for radical political equality that could only lead to something like the Peasants’ War. Although Luther had made clear that Christian liberty was freedom from the destructive influences of sin and Satan, his traditionalist opponents felt his language about the priesthood of all believers, putting Christians above the institutional spiritual authority of the Roman Church, inevitably eroded respect for the institutional political authority of the ruling classes. Luther’s rejection

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

304 of using the “gospel” to order society— he observed once at the dinner table that “Christ has nothing to do with politics”—was not absolute, however, and one might argue that his concern was not a false secular use of the gospel, but political rebellion for which he found no biblical warrant. 46. For Luther, the good news of the gospel was that salvation was a free, unconditional gift of grace, passively received by trusting in God’s promise to rescue sinners. Hence, his teaching on justification by faith freed sinners from having to prove themselves worthy of salvation by the meritorious pursuit of personal inner purity and the performance of an abundance of outward good works. This was incomprehensible to Luther’s first opponents. They understood him within their own theological framework, namely, that a person needed personal righteousness to gain final justification at death. Even when they accepted that the initial justification of penitents came through the gift of faith without works (David V. N. Bagchi, Luther’s Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518–1525 [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991], 177–78, 160–61), they continued to insist that Christians then had to cooperate with the grace thus given and make their faith complete through the performance of good works. Luther understood saving faith as God’s own working in the justified, which pointed to the saving work of Christ as the sole basis for forgiveness. Luther was adamant that solifidianism was the chief article of the Christianity that alone preserved the church. 47. Namely, those, like Müntzer (see n. 40, pp. 301–2) and who preached armed revolt in the name of the gospel.

well, slander away, dear lords! You did not want to know what I taught or what the gospel is; 46 now the one who will soon teach you is at the door, unless you change your ways. You, and everyone else, must bear witness that I have taught with all quietness, have striven earnestly against rebellion, and have energetically encouraged and exhorted people to obey and respect even you wild and dictatorial tyrants. e This rebellion cannot be coming from me. Rather the prophets encouraging murder, 47 who hate

e

See Freedom of a Christian (1520), WA 7:57,8–11; 7:67,29–32; LW 31:354, 369; Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), WA 8:670–87; LW 45:51–74; On Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), this volume, pp. 79–129; WA 11:229–81; LW 45:81–129; Letter to the Princes of Saxony about the Rebellious Spirit (1524), WA 15:199–221; LW 40:45–59.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia me as they hate you, have come among these people and have gone about among them for more than three years,48,     f and no one has resisted and fought against them except me. Therefore, if God intends to punish you and allows the Devil through his false prophets to stir up the people against you, and if it is, perhaps, God’s will that I shall not be able to prevent it any longer, what can I or my gospel do? Not only have we suffered your persecution and murdering and raging; 49 we have also

Portrait of Duke Louis X of Bavaria (1540) by Christoph Amberger (1505−1562)

f

Portrait of Duke William IV of Bavaria by Hans Wertinger (1465−1533)

In fact, despite having much in common with Müntzer, Karlstadt rejected violence as a means of change, and he would spend the Peasants’ Revolt in hiding, trusted neither by Luther and the rulers nor by the people. See Mark U. Edwards Jr., Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1975), 6–81.

305 48. Luther’s timeline would seem to be referring to his opposition to the disturbances in Wittenburg during the winter of 1521–22, while he was away at the Wartburg for his own safety after his stand at Worms the previous April. Andreas Karlstadt, a university colleague, had agitated for the reform of the Mass and the removal of images as actions of necessary reform. When student demonstrations in support of the changes led to disturbances in December, Luther wrote A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), WA 8:670–87; LW 45:53–74. In this work, he attributed insurrection to the Devil and reminded his readers that reform was a matter for the rulers. Luther soon saw a common, destructive spirit behind both Karlstadt and Müntzer, especially since Karlstadt also began to abandon infant baptism and deny the real presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. Luther’s campaign against Karlstadt as having the same “devilish spirit” of rebellion as Müntzer culminated in his treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525), TAL 2:39–125; WA 18:37–214; LW 40:75–223. 49. In July 1524, south German rulers and bishops, led by Archduke Ferdinand of Austria (1503–1564) and Dukes Louis X (1495–1545) and William IV of Bavaria (1493–1550), formed an alliance to enforce the heresy laws against Lutheranism. Executions soon followed, most notably, Caspar Tauber in Vienna on 17 September. See Luther’s description of the first martyrs among his followers in his letter To the Christians in Bremen (March 1525), WA 18:215–29; in Theodore G. Tappert, ed., Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960), 208–11.

306

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD prayed for you and helped to protect and maintain your rule over the common people. If I desired revenge, I could laugh up my sleeve and simply watch what the peasants are doing or even join in with them and help make matters worse; may God keep me from this in the future as he has in the past. Therefore my dear lords—whether you are my enemies or friends—as a loyal subject I humbly beg you not to despise my faithfulness, though I am a poor man. I beg you not to make light of this rebellion. It is not that I think or fear that the rebels will be too strong for you or that I want you to be afraid of them for that reason. Rather fear God and respect his wrath! If God wills to punish you as you have deserved (and I am afraid that he does), then God will punish you, even though the peasants were a hundred times fewer than they are. God can make peasants out of stones and slay a hundred of you by one peasant, so that all your armor and your strength will be too weak to save you. If it is still possible to give you advice, my lords, give way a little to the will and wrath of God. A cartload of hay must give way to a drunken man—how much more ought you to stop your raging and obstinate tyranny and not deal unreasonably with the peasants, as though they were drunk or out of their minds! Do not start a fight with them, for you do not know how it will end. Try kindness first, for you do not know what God will do to

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia prevent the spark that will kindle all Germany and start a fire that no one can extinguish. Our sins are before God [Ps. 90:8]; therefore we have to fear his wrath when even a leaf rustles [Lev. 26:36], let alone when such a multitude sets itself in motion. You will lose nothing by kindness; and even if you did lose something, the preservation of peace will pay you back ten times. But if there is open conflict you may lose both your property and your life. Why risk danger when you can achieve more by following a different way that is also the better way? The peasants have just published twelve articles, g some of which are so fair and just as to take away your reputation in the eyes of God and the world and fulfill what the psalm says about God pouring contempt upon princes [Ps. 107:40]. h Nevertheless, almost all of the articles are framed in their own interest and for their own good, though not for their best good. 50 Of course, I would have formulated other articles against you that would have dealt with all Germany and its government. I did this in my book To the German Nobility, when more was at stake; 51 but because you made light of that, you must now listen to and put up with these selfish articles. It serves you right for being a people to whom nothing can be told. In the first article they ask the right to hear the gospel and choose their pastors. You cannot reject this request with any

g See pages 288–95 above. h Based on Luther’s 1524 German translation, see n. c, p. 300.

307 50. Self-interest was completely contrary to the Christian ethic of love for others that Luther encouraged readers of The Freedom of a Christian to practice: “For a human being does not live in the mortal body solely for himself or herself and work only on it but lives together with all other human beings on earth” (TAL 1:519–20). This altruism went to the heart of Luther’s message about Christian liberty. For, freed by saving faith from the lie that they must perform good works for their own salvation, Christians were now at last able to “serve and benefit others” in all that they did, “having nothing else in view except the need and advantage of the neighbor” (TAL 1:520). Since devoting themselves to the needs of others was the hallmark of a “truly Christian life,” the peasants’ promotion of their own interests, Luther argues, was actually not in their ultimate interest. 51. Having concluded that the ecclesiastical leaders were incapable of reforming either the church or the ethical conduct of society, Luther had turned to his country’s secular leaders in his treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), TAL 1:369–465; WA 6:381–469; LW 44:115–217. Insisting that all baptized Christians were priests in the eyes of God, Luther called on the nobility to fulfill their God-given duty of punishing wickedness and protecting the good by conveying a free general council to punish the pope’s departures from Scripture and stop his systematic looting of the German people. For in Luther’s eyes, many Roman spiritual abuses needed to be treated as the secular crimes he felt they truly were. Twenty-seven wide-ranging articles followed on what should be reformed.

308 Among other items, the German rulers should stop financial payments to Rome, reject papal confirmation of ecclesiastical appointments, abolish begging by having towns feed their poor, limit excesses in clothing, spices, interest, eating and drinking, as well as close down public brothels. The general council should permit every town to elect its own priest and for him to marry if he so wished as well as greatly limit holy days so as to avoid the social vices that accompanied the time given off of work.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD show of right, even though this article does indeed make some selfish demands, for they allege that these pastors are to be supported by the tithes, and these do not belong to the peasants.52 Nevertheless, the basic sense of the article is that the preaching of the gospel should be permitted, and no ruler can or ought to oppose this. Indeed, no ruler ought to prevent anyone from teaching or believing what he pleases, whether it is the gospel or lies. It is enough if he prevents the teaching of sedition and rebellion.53

52. When Luther called for towns to be given the right to elect their own pastors in To the Christian Nobility, he specified that the congregations should provide their support as well (TAL 1:424–25; WA 6:440,30–33; LW 44:175). 53. Luther had made this same point in his Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit (1524). While the princes should not restrict the contents of sermons, they had a responsibility to preserve the peace by preventing rebellion. In the aftermath of the Peasants’ War, however, Luther would modify this position. Although he was careful to stress that the government should be careful not to overstep its authority in church matters, he now argued that a prince’s duty to preserve peace and maintain the common good extended to establishing outward religious conformity. While princes could not compel faith, they needed to restrict external abominations. Henceforth, deviations from government-sanctioned ecclesiastical practices were seen as a threat to the public order and required punishment by the sword. See James M. Estes, Peace, Order, and the Glory of God: Secular Authority and the Church in the Thought

Peasant’s Wedding by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (c. 1525−1569)

The other articles protest economic injustices, such as the death tax. These protests are also right and just, for rulers are not appointed to exploit their subjects for their own profit and advantage, but to be concerned about the welfare of their subjects. And the people cannot tolerate it very long if their rulers set confiscatory tax rates and tax them out of their very skins. What good would it do peasants if their fields bore as many gold coins as stalks of wheat if the rulers only taxed them all the more and then wasted it as though it were chaff to increase their luxury, and squandered the peasants’ money on their own

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia clothes, food, drink, and buildings? Would not the luxury and the extravagant spending have to be checked so that poor people could keep something for themselves? i You have undoubtedly received further information from the peasants’ tracts, so that you are adequately aware of their grievances.j

To the Peasants So far, dear friends, you have learned only that I agree that it is unfortunately all too true that the princes and lords who forbid the preaching of the gospel and oppress the people unbearably deserve to have God put them down from their thrones [Luke 1:52] because they have sinned so greatly against both God and humankind. And they have no excuse. Nevertheless, you, too, must be careful that you take up your cause justly and with a good conscience. If you have a good conscience, you have the comforting advantage that God will be with you, and will help you. Even though you did not succeed for a while, or even suffered death, you would win in the end, and you would preserve your souls eternally with all the saints. 54 But if you act unjustly and have a bad conscience, you will be defeated. And even though you might win for a while and even kill all the princes, you would suffer the eternal loss of your body and soul in the end. 55 For you, therefore, this is no laughing matter. The eternal fate of your body and soul is involved. And you must most seriously consider not merely how strong you are and how wrong the princes are, but whether you act justly and with a good conscience. Therefore, dear friends, I beg you in a kindly and Christian way to look carefully at what you are doing and not to believe all kinds of spirits and preachers [1 John 4:1]. For Satan has now raised up many evil spirits of disorder and of murder, and filled the world with them.56 Just listen attentively, as you offer many times to do. I will not spare you the earnest warning that I owe you, even though some of you have been so poisoned by the murderous spirits that you will hate me for it and call me a hypocrite. That does not worry me; it is enough for me if I save some of the i j

See n. 38, p. 300. The first document was the aforementioned Twelve Articles. For a discussion of the identity of the second document, see n. 29, p. 297.

309 of Luther and Melanchthon, 1518–1559 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 1–52. 54. For Luther, a good conscience was one bound to God through instruction in the word that led to a life of Christian fruitfulness (see n. 26, p. 296). Luther’s purpose in this section is to provide the peasants with the biblical teaching necessary for them to learn how to promote their cause “justly and with a good conscience.” 55. A conscience not shaped by Scripture was necessarily bound to the Devil, who worked his destructive purposes for the world in and through human consciences. In the process, he brought misery to those in whom he worked, both in this world and the world to come. In Luther’s opinion, such was the case with the peasants. They falsely believed that their actions had divine sanction, yet in reality they were bringing certain destruction on their own heads. 56. The imminent fulfillment of Christianity’s eschatological hope for a new heaven and a new earth was fundamental to Luther’s world outlook. Christians could passively endure suffering now (see p. 287 and n. 70, p. 316), because Christ would shortly bring an end to evil and usher in his kingdom where the faithful would live in peace and perfection with him forever. Yet, Luther’s apocalyptic expectations of the events leading to the eschaton, shaped by his interpretation of the book of Daniel, led him to believe that Satan would now increasingly orchestrate the destruction of political structures and social order, even as the preaching of the gospel experienced a new flowering in preparation for Christ’s return. Luther initially identified the papacy and institutional Roman Catholicism

310 with the Antichrist (see n. 8, p. 289). However, he now also saw that same evil spirit behind both the false brethren (see n. 40–41, p. 301–2 and n. 48, p. 305) and the peasants’ armed rebellion in the name of the gospel. For Luther’s apocalypticism, see Barnes, Prophecy and Gnosis, 36–53. 57. For Luther, God’s wrath is inextricably bound up with God’s righteousness (see n. 39, p. 301). God hates sin for all the injury that it brings to his creation. Yet, his wrath is his “alien work,” since God’s essential nature is pure love. God is only forced to express his wrath because of the wickedness of humankind. Christ bore God’s wrath for sin on the cross. Hence, faith in Christ transforms God’s wrath from eternal rejection into a loving father’s discipline. Luther typically emphasized God’s wrath to those, like the peasants, who deceived themselves as to their standing with God. He felt duty-bound to preach God’s law to them to wake them up from their false security. See Althaus, Theolog y of Martin Luther, 169–78. 58. In his admonition of the peasants, Luther follows his teaching on the two kingdoms (see n. 33, p. 298). First, he shows that they are following neither divine law nor natural law (see n. 61, p. 312) for the governance of society, although they are subject to both. Then, he explains the even higher standard of gospel conduct to which they should aspire as the Christians they claim to be. 59. Luther’s numbering of the Ten Commandments followed the Roman Catholic usage sanctioned by Augustine, rather than the renumbering promoted by Reformation theologians. The latter insisted that the use of images

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD goodhearted and upright people among you from the danger of God’s wrath.57 The rest I fear as little as they despise me much; and they shall not harm me. I know One who is greater and mightier than they are, and he teaches me in Psalm 3[:6], “I am not afraid of ten thousands of people who have set themselves against me round about.” My confidence shall outlast their confidence; that I know for sure. In the first place, dear friends, you bear the name of God and call yourselves a “Christian association” or union, k and you allege that you want to live and act according to God’s law. 58 Now you know that the name, word, and titles of God are not to be assumed idly or in vain, as God says in the Second Commandment, “You shall not take the name of the L ord your God in vain,” and adds, “for the L ord will not hold anyone guiltless who takes his name in vain” [Deut. 5:11].59 Here is a clear, plain text, which applies to you, as to all human beings. It threatens you, as well as us and all others, with God’s wrath without regard to your great numbers, fights, and terror. God is mighty enough and strong enough to punish you as God here threatens if God’s name is taken in vain, and you know it. So if you take God’s name in vain, you may expect no good fortune but only trouble. Learn from this how to judge yourselves and accept this friendly warning. It would be a simple thing for God, who once drowned the whole world with a flood [Gen. 7:17-24] and destroyed Sodom with fire [Gen. 19:24-28], to kill or defeat so many thousands of peasants. The Lord is an almighty and terrible God.l Second, it is easy to prove that you are taking God’s name in vain and putting it to shame; nor is there any doubt that you will, in the end, encounter all misfortune, unless God is not true. For here is God’s word, spoken through the mouth of Christ, “All who take up the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. That means nothing else than that people should not, by their own violence, seize authority for themselves; but as Paul says, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities with fear and reverence” [Rom. 13:1]. m

k See n. 3, p. 285 and n. 24, p. 296. l See n. 39, p. 301. m For Luther’s first description of the civil authorities’ sword in the context of his teaching of the two kingdoms and their guiding

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

311 in Christian worship was incompatible with Scripture and emphasized the point by following the Jewish usage, which listed the prohibition of images in Exod. 20:4 and Deut. 5:8 as the Second Commandment. Luther, however, considered these verses to be a time-conditioned injunction for the specific cultural situation of ancient Israel to assist the people in fulfilling the divine commandment against idolatry and no longer applicable to Christians. Hence, he continued to list the misuse of the Lord’s name as the Second Commandment. See David C. Steinmetz, “The Reformation and the Ten Commandments,” Interpretation 43 (1989): 256–66; Diarmaid MacCulloch, Reformation: Europe’s House Divided 1490–1700 (London: Allen Lane, 2003), 145–47.

Two angels escort Lot’s family out of   Sodom and Gomorrah. In the background is Lot’s wife, who turned into a pillar of salt after looking back (Gen. 19:12-29). Image from Figures des histoires de la Sainte Bible by Jean LeClerc (seventeenth century).

principles, see On Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), this volume, pp. 79–129; also WA 11:229–81; LW 45:75–129.

312 60. Luther used Paul’s wording of the quotation in Rom. 12:19. 61. For Luther, natural law was written on all human hearts by God in creation. Although obscured by sin, Scripture had revealed it afresh through its injunctions in the Ten Commandants and the Golden Rule. Equity was the pragmatic contextualization of the search for justice when the proper application of natural law was not clear. Hence, natural law was a normative standard, but “natural justice” was its achievable expression. For Luther, both natural law and equity sought not the individual’s fulfillment but, rather, the maintenance of the social peace and good order that every human being desired. See Sean Doherty, Theolog y and Economic Ethics: Martin Luther and Arthur Rich in Dialogue (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 42–43; Thomas D. Pearson, “Luther’s Pragmatic Appropriation of Natural Law Tradition,” in Robert C. Baker and Roland Cap Ehlke, eds., Natural Law: A Lutheran Reappraisal (St. Louis: Concordia, 2011), 39–63. 62. Luther had made the same point earlier that year: “For God does not change his old order for a new one unless the change is accompanied with great signs. Therefore one can believe no one who relies on his own spirit and inner feelings for authority and who outwardly storms against God’s accustomed order, unless he therewith performs miraculous signs, as Moses indicates in Deut. 18[:22].” Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525), TAL 2:78; WA 18:97,1–5; LW 40:113. For further examples, see Philip M. Soergel, Miracles, and the Protestant Imagination: The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 43, including n. 32.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD How can you get around these passages and laws of God when you boast that you are acting according to divine law, and yet take the sword in your own hands, and revolt against “the governing authorities that are instituted by God?” Do you think that Paul’s judgment in Romans 13[:2] will not strike you, “The person who resists the authorities will incur judgment”? You take God’s name in vain when you pretend to be seeking divine right, and under the pretense of God’s name work contrary to divine right. Be careful, dear people. It will not turn out that way in the end. Third, you say that the rulers are wicked and intolerable, for they will not allow us to have the gospel; they oppress us too hard with the burdens they lay on our property, and they are ruining us in body and soul. I answer: The fact that the rulers are wicked and unjust does not excuse disorder and rebellion, for the punishing of wickedness is not the responsibility of everyone, but of the worldly rulers who bear the sword. Thus Paul says in Romans 13[:4] and Peter, in 1 Peter 3 [2:14], that the rulers are instituted by God for the punishment of the wicked. Then, too, there is the natural law of all the world, which says that people may not sit as judge in their own cases nor take their own revenge. The proverb is true, “Whoever hits back is in the wrong.” Or as it is said, “It takes two to start a fight.” The divine law agrees with this, and says, in Deuteronomy 32[:35], “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, says the Lord.”60 Now you cannot deny that your rebellion actually involves you in such a way that you make yourselves your own judges and avenge yourselves. You are quite unwilling to suffer any wrong. That is contrary not only to Christian law and the gospel, but also to natural law and all equity.61 If your cause is to prosper when the divine and Christian law of the Old and New Testaments and even the natural law are all against you, you must produce a new and special command of God, confirmed by signs and wonders, which commands you to do these things.62 Otherwise God will not allow his word and ordinance to be broken by your violence. On the contrary, because you boast of the divine law and yet act against it, he will let you fall and be punished terribly, as people who dishonor his name. Then God will condemn you eternally, as was said above. For the word of Christ in Matthew 7[:3] applies to you; you see the speck in the eye of the rulers, but do not see the log in your own eye. The word of Paul in Romans 3[:8] also applies, “Why

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just.” It is true that the rulers do wrong when they suppress the gospel and oppress you in secular matters. But you do far greater wrong when you not only suppress God’s word, but tread it underfoot, invade his authority and law, and put yourselves above God. Besides, you take from the rulers their authority and right, indeed, everything they have. What do they have left when they have lost their authority? I make you the judges and leave it to you to decide who is the worse robber, the person who takes a large part of another’s goods, but leaves the other something, or the person who takes everything that the other has, and takes the other person’s life as well. The rulers unjustly take your property; that is the one side. On the other hand, you take from them their authority, in which their whole property and life and being consist. Therefore you are far greater robbers than they, and you intend to do worse things than they have done. “Indeed not,” you say, “we are going to leave them enough to live on.” If anyone wants to believe that, let him! I do not believe it. Anyone who dares go so far as to use force to take away authority, which is the main thing, will not stop at that, but will take the other, smaller thing that depends upon it. The wolf that eats a whole sheep will also eat its ear.63 And even if you permitted them to keep their life and some property, nevertheless, you would take the best thing they have, namely, their authority, and make yourselves lords over them. That would be too great a robbery and wrong. God will declare you to be the greatest robbers. Can you not think it through, dear friends? If your enterprise were right, then any person might become judge over another. Then authority, government, law, and order would disappear from the world; there would be nothing but murder and bloodshed. As soon as anyone felt wronged by another, the one wounded would begin to judge and punish the perceived perpetrator. Now if that is unjust and intolerable when done by an individual, we cannot allow a mob or a crowd to do it. However, if we do permit a mob or a crowd to do it, then we cannot rightly and fairly forbid an individual to do it. For in both cases the cause is the same, that is, an injustice. What would you yourselves do if disorder broke out in your ranks and one person set himself against another and took vengeance on the other? Would you put up with that? Would you not say that the wronged person

313

63. When Luther discovered that Müntzer and the peasants in Thuringia had, in fact, resorted to destruction of property and human lives, he wrote a much more harsh addendum to his Admonition, which advocated fierce governmental suppression of the revolt (see n. 95, p. 332). This second treatise, titled Against the Murdering and Plundering Hordes of the Peasants, denounced the peasants’ use of violence with violent language that caused him to lose a measure of popular support. See LW 46:45–55.

314

64. When Luther speaks of the “Turks,” he often is referring to the Ottoman Turks who threatened Europe in Luther’s time, but he can also use the term for Muslims in general. 65. Common law was based on a society’s customary judicial practices, rather than statutes passed through legislation. In keeping with his teaching on the two kingdoms (n. 33, p. 298), Luther clearly evinces here that all laws for society have the practical purpose of seeking the common good by maintaining order and, second, that all members of that society, Christian and non-Christian alike, and all societies, even heathen nations like the Turks, must keep the natural law of submission to authorities for the sake of order.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD must let others, whom you appointed, do the judging and avenging? What do you expect God and the world to think when you pass judgment and avenge yourselves on those who have injured you and even upon your rulers, whom God has appointed? Now in all this I have been speaking of the common, divine, and natural law that even the heathen, Turks, 64 and Jews have to keep if there is to be any peace or order in the world. 65 Even though you were to keep this whole law, you would do no better and no more than the heathen and the Turks do. For we are not Christians merely because we do not undertake to function as our own judges and avengers but leave this to the authorities and the rulers. You would eventually have to do this whether you wanted to or not. But because you are acting against this law, you see plainly that you are worse than heathen or Turks, to say nothing of the fact that you are not Christians. What do you think that Christ will say about this? You bear his name, and call yourselves a “Christian association,” and yet you are so far from being Christian, and your actions and lives are so horribly contrary to his law, that you are not worthy to be called even heathen or Turks. You are much worse than these, because you rage and struggle against the divine and natural law, which all the heathen keep. See, dear friends, what kind of preachers you have and what they think of your souls. I fear that some prophets of murder have come among you, n who would like to use you so they can become lords in the world, and they do not care that they are endangering your life, property, honor, and soul, in time and eternity. If, now, you really want to keep the divine law, as you boast, then do it. There it stands! God says, “Vengeance is mine; I will repay” [Rom. 12:19], and, “Be subject not only to good lords, but also to the wicked” [1 Pet. 2:18]. If you do this, well and good; if not, you may, indeed, cause a calamity, but it will finally come upon you. Let no one have any doubts about this! God is just, and will not endure it. Be careful, therefore, with your liberty, that you do not run away from the rain and fall in the water. Beware of the illusion that you are winning freedom for your body when you are really losing your body, property, and

n See n. 40, p. 301 and n. 47, p. 304.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia soul for all eternity. God’s wrath is there; fear it, I advise you! 66 The Devil has sent false prophets among you; beware of them! 67 And now we want to move on and speak of the law of Christ, and of the gospel, which is not binding on the heathen, as the other law is.68 For if you claim that you are Christians and like to be called Christians and want to be known as Christians, then you must also allow your law to be held up before you rightly. Listen, then, dear Christians, to your Christian law! Your Supreme Lord Christ, whose name you bear, says, in Matthew 6 [5:39-41], “Do not resist one who is evil. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with that person two miles. If anyone wants to take your coat, let that person have your cloak too. If anyone strikes you on one cheek, offer that person the other too.” Do you hear this, O Christian covenant? How does your program stand in light of this law? You do not want to endure evil or suffering, but rather want to be free and to experience only goodness and justice. However, Christ says that we should not resist evil or injustice but always yield, suffer, and let things be taken from us.69 If you will not bear this law, then lay aside the name of Christian and claim another name that accords with your actions, or else Christ himself will tear his name away from you, and that will be too hard for you. In Romans 12[:19] Paul says, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God.” In this same sense Paul praises the Corinthians for gladly suffering if someone hits or robs them, 2 Corinthians 11[:20]. And in 1 Corinthians 6[:1–2] he condemns them for going to court for the sake of property rather than suffering injustice. Indeed, our leader, Jesus Christ, says in Matthew 7 [5:44] that we should bless those who insult us, pray for our persecutors, love our enemies, and do good to those who do evil to us. These, dear friends, are our Christian laws. Now you can see how far these false prophets have led you astray. They still call you Christians, although they have made you worse than heathen. On the basis of these passages even a child can understand that Christian law tells us not to strive against injustice, not to grasp the sword, not to protect ourselves, not to avenge ourselves, but to give up life and property, and let whoever takes it have it. We have all we need in our Lord, who will not leave us, as he has promised [Heb. 13:5]. Suffering! suffering! Cross! cross! This and nothing else is the Christian

315 66. For Luther, since Christians had been freed through faith in Christ from sin and its preoccupation with self, they were to empty themselves in the selfless service of their neighbor like Christ. It was incomprehensible to Luther to argue that Christian freedom empowered individuals to demand by force that their desires for earthly goods should be satisfied. To make such claims would only bring the proponents under God’s wrath to their ultimate harm. See n. 33, p. 298 (Christian freedom) and n. 57, p. 310 (God’s wrath). 67. See n. 40, p. 301 and n. 47, p. 304. 68. Having discussed natural law, which is applicable to non-Christians, Luther now turned to the second guiding principle, the higher gospel standard for specifically Christian conduct (see n. 33, p. 298). 69. “From all this we gain the true meaning of Christ’s words in Matthew 5[:39], “Do not resist evil,” etc. It is this: Christians should be so disposed that they will suffer every evil and injustice without avenging themselves; neither will they seek legal redress in the courts but have utterly no need of temporal authority and law for their own sake. . . . Be certain too that this teaching of Christ is not a counsel for those who would be perfect, as our sophists blasphemously and falsely say, but a universally obligatory command for all Christians.” On Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, this volume, p. 105; WA 11:259,7–11,17–19; LW 45:101–2.

316

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

law! 70 But now you are fighting for temporal goods and will not let the coat go after the cloak, but want to recover the cloak. How then will you die and give up your life, or love your enemies and do good to them? O worthless Christians! Dear friends, Christians are not so commonplace that so many can assemble in one group. A Christian is a rare bird! Would to God that the majority of us were good, pious heathen, who kept the natural law, not to mention the Christian law! I will give you some illustrations of Christian law so that you may see where the mad prophets have led you. Look at St. Peter in the garden. He wanted to defend his Lord Christ with the sword, and cut off Malthus’s ear [John 18:10]. Tell me, did not Peter have great right on his side? Was it not an intolerable injustice that they were going to take from Christ not only his property, but also his life? Indeed, they not only took his life and property, but in so doing they entirely suppressed the gospel by which they were to be saved and thus robbed heaven. You have not yet suffered such a wrong, dear friends. But see what Christ does and teaches in this case. However great the injustice was, he nevertheless stopped St. Peter, instructed him to put up his sword, and would not allow him to avenge or prevent this injustice. In addition, he passed a sentence of death upon him, as though upon a murderer, and said, “He who takes up the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. This should help us understand that we do not have the right to use the sword simply because someone has done us an injustice and because the law and justice are on our side. We must also have received power and authority from God to use the sword and to punish wrong. Furthermore, a Christian should also suffer it if anyone desires to keep the gospel away from him by force. It may not even be possible to keep the gospel from anyone, Christ on the Cross by Michelangelo (c. 1540) as we shall hear.

70. In the Heidelberg Disputation (1518), TAL 1:99–100, Luther described true Christian theology as the theology of the cross. Christians know God from Christ’s suffering on the cross and through their own suffering. For only by seeing Christ’s death as their own and entering into the brokenness of human suffering do Christians die to self-focus and self-confidence before God. Only then do they become receptive to God’s saving work in them. Only then does the Spirit of God inspire them not to resist evil, but to love their enemies instead. So, if the peasants refused to suffer for Christ, they would never know him, nor become like him, nor benefit from his righting their wrongs. See Althaus, Theolog y of Martin Luther, 25–34.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia A second example is Christ himself. What did he do when they took his life on the cross and thereby took away from him the work of preaching for which God had sent him as a blessing for people’s souls? He did just what St. Peter says. He committed the whole matter to him who judges justly, and he endured this intolerable wrong [1 Pet. 2:23]. More than that, he prayed for his persecutors and said, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do” [Luke 23:34]. Now, if you are genuine Christians, you must certainly act in this same way and follow this example. If you do not do this, then give up the name of Christian and the claim that Christian law is on your side, for then you are certainly not Christians but are opposing Christ and his law, his doctrine, and his example. But if you do follow the example of Christ, you will soon see God’s miracles, and he will help you as he helped Christ, whom God avenged after the completion of his passion in such a way that his gospel and his kingdom won a powerful victory and gained the upper hand, in spite of all his enemies. He will help you in this same way so that his gospel will rise with power among you, if you first suffer to the end, leave the case to him, and await his vengeance. o But because of what you are doing, and because you do not want to triumph by suffering, but by your fists, you are interfering with God’s vengeance, and you will keep neither the gospel nor your fists. I must also give you an illustration from the present. Pope and emperor have opposed me and raged against me. Now what have I done that, the more pope and emperor raged, the more my gospel spread? I have never drawn a sword or desired revenge. I began neither conspiracy nor rebellion, but so far as I was able, I have helped the worldly rulers—even those who persecuted the gospel and me—to preserve their power and honor. I stopped with committing the matter to God and relying confidently at all times upon God’s hand. This is why God has not only preserved my life in spite of the pope and all the tyrants—and this many consider a really great miracle, as I myself must also confess—but he has made my gospel grow and spread. Now you interfere with what I am doing. You want to help the gospel and yet you do o Cf. 1 Pet. 5:7-10.

317

In this woodcut from a 1547 printing of Hauspostil D. Martin Luthers, Jesus is arrested by Roman soldiers in the Garden of Gethsemane as Peter strikes Malchus with his sword. A chalice is depicted in the background, symbolic of the events of the passion to come.

318 71. By proclaiming a false gospel hope based on human initiative rather than divine dependence and creating social chaos by subverting the divinely appointed territorial rulers, the peasants were merely advancing the agenda of Satan. See n. 56, p. 309.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD not see that what you are doing hinders and suppresses it most effectively.71 I say all this, dear friends, as a faithful warning. In this case you should stop calling yourselves Christians and stop claiming that you have the Christian law on your side. For no matter how right you are, it is not right for a Christian to appeal to law, or to fight, but rather to suffer wrong and endure evil; and there is no other way (1 Corinthians 6[:1-8]). You yourselves confess in the preface to your articles that “all who believe in Christ become loving, peaceful, patient, and agreeable.” p Your actions, however, reveal nothing but impatience, aggression, anger, and violence. Thus you contradict your own words. You want to be known as patient people, you who will endure neither injustice nor evil, but will endure only what is just and good. That is a fine kind of patience! Any rascal can practice it! It does not take a Christian to do that! So again I say, however good and just your cause may be, nevertheless, because you would defend yourselves and are unwilling to suffer either violence or injustice, you may do anything that God does not prevent. However, leave the label Christian out of it. Leave the name Christian out, I say, and do not use it to cover up your impatient, disorderly, un-Christian undertaking. q I shall not let you have that name, but so long as there is a heartbeat in my body, I shall do all I can, through speaking and writing, to take that name away from you. You will not succeed, or will succeed only in ruining your bodies and souls. In saying this it is not my intention to justify or defend the rulers in the intolerable injustices that you suffer from them. They are unjust, and commit heinous wrongs against you; that I admit. If, however, neither side accepts instruction and you start to fight with each other—may God prevent it!—I hope that neither side will be called Christian. Rather I hope that God will, as is usual in these situations, use one rascal to punish the other. If it comes to a conflict—may God graciously prevent it!—I hope that your character and name will be so well known that the authorities will recognize that they are fighting not against Christians but against heathen; and that you, too, may know that you are not fighting Christian rulers but heathen. Christians do not fight for themselves with sword and musket, but with the p See p. 288. q Cf. 1 Pet. 2:16.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia cross and with suffering, just as Christ, our leader, does not bear a sword, but hangs on the cross. Your victory, therefore, does not consist in conquering and reigning, or in the use of force, but in defeat and in weakness, as St. Paul says in 2 Corinthians 1 [10:4], “The weapons of our warfare are not material, but are the strength which comes from God,” and, “Power is made perfect in weakness” [2 Cor. 12:9]. Your name and title ought therefore to indicate that you are people who fight because they will not, and ought not, endure injustice or evil, according to the teaching of nature. You should use that name, and let the name of Christ alone, for that is the kind of works that you are doing. If, however, you will not take that name, but keep the name of Christian, then I must accept the fact that I am also involved in this struggle and consider you as enemies who, under the name of the gospel, act contrary to it, and want to do more to suppress my gospel than anything the pope and emperor have done to suppress it. I will make no secret of what I intend to do. I will put the whole matter into God’s hands, risk my neck by God’s grace, and confidently trust in God—just as I have been doing against the pope and the emperor. I shall pray for you, that God may enlighten you, and resist your undertaking, and not let it succeed. For I see well that the Devil, who has not been able to destroy me through the pope, now seeks to exterminate me and swallow me up by means of the bloodthirsty prophets of murder and spirits of rebellion that are among you. r Well, let him swallow me! I will give him a bellyful, I know. And even if you win, you will hardly enjoy it! I beg you, humbly and kindly, to think things over so that I will not have to trust in and pray to God against you. For although I am a poor, sinful man, I know and am certain that my concern in this matter is right and just, for I fight in behalf of the name Christian and pray that it not be put to shame. I am sure, too, that my prayer is acceptable to God and will be heard, for he himself has taught us to pray, in the Lord’s Prayer, “Hallowed be thy name” [Matt. 6:9], and in the Second Commandment God has forbidden that it be put to shame [Deut. 5:11]. Therefore I beg you not to despise my prayer and the prayer of those who pray along with me, for it will be too mighty r

See n. 56, p. 309.

319

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

320

72. According to 1 Kgs. 17:1, during his conflict with Ahab, king of Israel, Elijah’s prayer stopped all rain in the country.

73. Luther’s theology of the cross contrasted those who embraced suffering with those who relied on good works instead (see n. 50, p. 307). Hence, despite all their claims to be following the gospel, Luther saw at the heart of the peasants’ activism a reliance on human effort, rather than God’s intervention, a determination to shape their own destiny, rather than trusting God’s promises. In Luther’s eyes, the peasants could only apply the fundamental error of Romanist teaching on justification to their ills in society because they also falsely based their relationship with God on their own efforts.

for you and will arouse God against you, as St. James says, “The prayer of the righteous man who prays persistently has great effects, just as Elijah’s prayer did” [Jas. 5:16-17].72 We also have many other comforting promises of God that he will hear us, such as John, “If you ask anything in my name I will do it” [John 14:14], and, “If we ask anything according to his will he hears us” [1 John 5:14]. You cannot have such confidence and assurance in prayer because your own conscience and the Scriptures testify that your enterprise is heathenish, and not Christian, and, under the name of the gospel, works against the gospel and brings contempt upon the name Christian. I know that none of you has ever once prayed to God or called upon God in behalf of this cause. You could not do it! You dare not lift up your eyes to God in this case. s You only defiantly shake your fist at him, the fist that you have clenched because of your impatience and unwillingness to suffer. This will not turn out well for you. If you were Christians, you would stop threatening and resisting with fist and sword. Instead, you would continually abide by the Lord’s Prayer and say, “Your will be done,” and, “Deliver us from evil, Amen” [Matt. 6:10, 13]. The Psalms show us many examples of genuine saints taking their needs to God and complaining to him about them. They seek help from God: they do not try to defend themselves or to resist evil. That kind of prayer would have been more help to you, in all your needs, than if the world were full of people on your side. This would be especially true if, besides that, you had a good conscience and the comforting assurance that your prayers were heard, as his promises declare: “God is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe,” 1 Timothy 4[:10]; “Call upon me in the day of trouble, I will deliver you,” Psalm 50[:15]; “He called upon me in trouble, therefore I will help him,” Psalm 91[:15]. See! That is the Christian way to get rid of misfortune and evil, that is, to endure it and to call upon God. But because you neither call upon God nor patiently endure, but rather help yourselves by your own power and make yourselves your own god and savior, God cannot and must not be your God and Savior.73 By God’s permission you might accomplish something as the heathen and blasphemers you are—and we pray that God will prevent that—but it will only be to your temporal and eternal destruction. However, as s

Cf. Ps. 121:1.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia Christians, or Gospel-believers,74 you will win nothing. I would stake my life a thousand times on that. On this basis it is now easy to reply to all your articles. Even though they all were just and equitable in terms of natural law, you have still forgotten the Christian law.75 You have not been putting this program into effect and achieving your goals by patiently praying to God, as Christians ought to do, but have instead undertaken to compel the rulers to give you what you wanted by using force and violence. This is against the law of the land and against natural justice.76 The man who composed your articles is no godly and honest man.t His marginal notes refer to many chapters of Scripture on which the articles are supposed to be based. u But he talks with his mouth full of nothing, and leaves out the passages that would show his own wickedness and that of your cause. He has done this to deceive you, to incite you, and to bring you into danger. Anyone who reads through the chapters cited will realize that they speak very little in favor of what you are doing. On the contrary, they say that people should live and act like Christians.77 He who seeks to use you to destroy the gospel is a prophet of discord. May God prevent that and guard you against him! In the preface you are conciliatory and claim that you do not want to be rebels. You even excuse your actions by claiming that you desire to teach and to live according to the gospel. Your own words and actions condemn you. You confess that you are causing disturbances and revolting. And then you try to excuse this behavior with the gospel. You have heard above that the gospel teaches Christians to endure and suffer wrong and to pray to God in every need. You, however, are not willing to suffer, but like heathen, you want to force the rulers to conform to your impatient will. You cite the children of Israel as an example, saying that God heard their crying and delivered them [Exod. 6:57].v Why then do you not follow the example that you cite? Call upon God and wait until he sends you a Moses, who will prove by signs and wonders that he is sent from God.w The children of Israel did not riot against Pharaoh, or help themselves, as you t u v w

See nn. 5 and q, p. 288. See pp. 284–85 and 288–90. See p. 290. See n. 62, p. 312.

321 74. Luther uses the word evangelicals in the sense of adherents to the gospel.

75. Luther once again appeals to the difference between the two kingdoms (see n. 33, p. 298).

76. Of course, German law forbade rebellion, but since Luther saw natural law as seeking to maintain social peace (n. 61, p. 312), it, too, rejected armed resistance to the authorities.

77. Luther’s next paragraph gives one example of the contrast between the peasants’ actions and their biblical citations.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

322

78. The peasants’ resort to insurrection and violence might possibly explain the obvious difference between his 1520 appeal to the Christian nobility and the present treatise, with the former tackling societal issues, and the latter declaring them to be outside his competence. Such demurral is also not found in his sermons on usury; see the introduction, n. d, p. 283. 79. Once again, Luther makes clear that the peasants have fundamentally confused the two kingdoms (see n. 33, p. 298). They claim the authority of the gospel for advancing their self-interest, but they are actually destroying any gospel understanding of the theology of the cross (see n. 73, p. 320). 80. Because the peasants refused to know Christ through suffering (unChristian), they were trying to save themselves through the use of force (un-Evangelical). Lotzer’s biblical arguments only hid the peasants’ wicked selfishness from themselves (cf. 1 Pet. 2:16), while bringing Luther’s gospel movement into disrepute.

propose to do. This illustration, therefore, is completely against you, and condemns you. You boast of it, and yet you do the opposite of what it teaches.78 Furthermore, your declaration that you teach and live according to the gospel is not true. Not one of the articles teaches anything of the gospel. Rather, everything is aimed at obtaining freedom for your person and for your property. To sum it up, everything is concerned with worldly and secular matters. You want power and wealth so that you will not suffer injustice. The gospel, however, does not become involved in the affairs of this world, but speaks of our life in the world in terms of suffering, injustice, the cross, patience, and contempt for this life and temporal wealth.79 How, then, does the gospel agree with you? You are only trying to give your unevangelical and un-Christian enterprise an evangelical appearance; and you do not see that in so doing you are bringing shame upon the holy gospel of Christ, and making it a cover for wickedness. 80 Therefore, you must take a different attitude. If you want to be Christians and use the name Christian, then stop what you are doing and decide to suffer these injustices. If you want to keep on doing these things, then use another name and do not ask anyone to call you or think of you as Christians. There is no other possibility. True enough, you are right in desiring the gospel, if you are really serious about it. Indeed, I am willing to make this article even sharper than you do, and say it is intolerable that anyone should be shut out of heaven and driven by force into hell. None should suffer that; theyx ought rather lose their lives a hundred times. But whoever keeps the gospel from me closes heaven to me and drives me by force into hell; for the gospel is the only means of salvation for the soul. And on peril of losing my soul, I should not permit this. Tell me, is that not stated sharply enough? And yet it does not follow that I must rebel against the rulers who do me this wrong. “But,” you say, “how am I supposed to suffer it and yet not suffer it at the same time?” The answer is easy. It is impossible to keep the gospel from anyone. No power in heaven or on earth can do this, for it is a public teaching that moves

x

The pronouns are singular in the German.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia about freely under the heavens and is bound to no one place.y It is like the star that went in the sky ahead of the Wise Men from the East and showed them where Christ was born [Matt. 2:9]. It is true, of course, that the rulers may suppress the gospel in cities or places where the gospel is, or where there are preachers; but you can leave these cities or places and follow the gospel to some other place. It is not necessary, for the gospel’s sake, for you to capture or occupy the city or place; on the contrary, let the ruler have his city; you follow the gospel. Thus you permit people to wrong you and drive you away; and yet, at the same time, you do not permit them to take the gospel from you or keep it from you. Thus the two things, suffering and not suffering, turn out to be one. If you occupy the city for the sake of the gospel, you rob the rulers of cities of what is theirs and pretend that you are doing it for the gospel’s sake. Dear friend, the gospel does not teach us to rob or to take things, even though the owner of the property abuses it by using it against God, wrongfully, and to your injury. The gospel needs no physical place or city in which to dwell; it will and must dwell in hearts. This is what Christ taught in Matthew 10[:23], “When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next.” He does not say, “When they persecute you in one town, stay there and take over the town by force and rebel against the ruler of the town— all to the praise of the gospel,” as people now want to do, and are teaching. However, Jesus says, “Flee, flee straightaway into another, until the Son of man shall come.”81 And in Matthew 23[:34] he says that godless people will drive his evangelists from town to town. And in 2 Corinthians 4 [1 Cor. 4:11] Paul says that we are homeless. And if it does happen that Christians must, for the sake of the gospel, constantly move from one place to another, and leave all their possessions behind them, or even

y

For the role of printing in rapidly spreading Luther’s message, see Andrew Pettegree, Brand Luther (New York: Penguin Press, 2015); Louise W. Holborn, “Printing and the Growth of a Protestant Movement in Germany from 1517 to 1524,” Church History 11 (1942): 123–37. For printed images, see R. W. Scribner, For the Sake of the Simple Folk: Popular Propaganda for the German Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981). For printed songs, see Rebecca Wagner Oettinger, Music as Propaganda in the German Reformation (Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 2001).

323

81. Once again, Luther’s apocalyptic expectations played an important role in shaping his response to current political circumstances (see n. 56, p. 309).

324 82. News of the peasants’ gruesome execution of Count von Helfenstein and his colleagues at the capture of Weinsberg on 16 April had yet to reach Luther. At this point, he had only knowledge of unrest in Rothenburg, Nuremberg, Schweinfurt, and Mühlhausen. See Brecht, Luther: 1521–1530, 173–74.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD if their situation is very uncertain and they expect to have to move at any moment, they are only experiencing what is appropriate for Christians. For because they will not suffer the gospel to be taken or kept from them, they have to let their city, town, property, and everything that they are and have be taken and kept from them. Now how does your undertaking conform to this? You capture and hold cities and towns that are not yours, and you will not let them be taken or kept from you; 82 though you take and keep them from their natural rulers. What kind of Christians are these, who, for the gospel’s sake, become robbers, thieves, and scoundrels, and then say afterward that they are followers of the gospel?

On the First Article Countess Helfenstein begs Jäcklein Rohrbach for the life of her husband. Engraving by Matthäus Merian the Elder (c. 1629).

83. Those chapters were 1 Timothy 3; Titus 1; Acts 14; Deuteronomy 17; Exodus 31; Deuteronomy 10; John 6; Galatians 2. 84. In his previous tract on the subject, That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture (1523), WA 11:401–16; LW 39:301–14, Luther heavily stressed the right of the community to choose its own pastor. Yet he never explicitly addressed how to respond if such action brought them into conflict with their rulers. Now, however, Luther clearly qualified this right, directing communities to seek permission from the authorities first

“The entire community should have the power and authority to choose and appoint a pastor.” This article is just only if it is understood in a Christian sense, even though the chapters indicated in the margin do not support it. 83 If the possessions of the parish come from the rulers and not from the community, then the community cannot give these possessions to one whom they choose, for that would be robbery and theft. If they desire a pastor, let them first humbly ask the rulers to give them one. If the rulers are unwilling, then let them choose their own pastor, and support him out of their own possessions; they should let the rulers keep their property, or else secure it from them in a lawful way. But if the rulers will not tolerate the pastor whom they chose and support, then let him flee to another city, and let any flee with him who want to do as Christ teaches. That is a Christian and evangelical way to choose and have one’s own pastor. Whoever does otherwise, acts in an un-Christian manner, and is a robber and brawler. 84

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

On the Second Article The pastor “shall receive out of this tithe . . . ;   the remainder shall be distributed to the poor and needy.” This article is nothing but theft and highway robbery. 85 They want to appropriate for themselves the tithes, which are not theirs but the rulers’, and want to use them to do what they please. Oh, no, dear friends! That is the same as deposing the rulers altogether. Your preface expressly says that people will not be deprived of what is theirs. 86 If you want to give gifts and do good, use your own possessions, as the wise man says [Prov. 3:9]. And God says through Isaiah, “I hate the offering that is given out of stolen goods” [Isa. 61:8]. You speak in this article as though you were already lords in the land and had taken all the property of the rulers for your own and would be no one’s subjects, and would give nothing. This shows what your intention really is. Stop it, dear people, stop it! It will not be you who puts an end to it! The chapters of Scripture which your lying preacher and false prophet has smeared on the margin do not help you at all; they are against you. 87

On the Third Article You assert that no one is to be the serf of anyone else, because Christ has made us all free. That is making Christian freedom a completely physical matter. 88 Did not Abraham [Gen. 17:23] and other patriarchs and prophets have slaves? Read what St. Paul teaches about servants, who, at that time, were all slaves. z This article, therefore, absolutely contradicts the gospel. It proposes robbery, for it suggests that all people should take their bodies away from their lord, even though their body is the lord’s property. A slave can be a Christian, and have Christian freedom, in the same way that a prisoner or someone sick is a Christian, and yet not free. This article would make all people equal and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly, external kingdom; and that is impossible. A worldly kingdom cannot exist

z

Cf. 1 Cor. 7:21-24; Eph. 6:5-9; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Tim. 6:1-2; Titus 2:9-10.

325 and then to flee, rather than fight, if their request was denied. See Peter Blickle, Communal Reformation: The Quest for Salvation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, trans. Thomas Dunlap (Boston: Humanities Press International, 1992), 120–23. 85. Luther rightly realized that the peasants were threatening a devastating economic assault on the rulers, for “the tithe supplied a third to a half of the income of feudal lords and of urban welfare institutions” (Blickle, 21). 86. The second of the peasants’ articles, not the preface, stated that anyone who had purchased the tithes of a village would be compensated when these revenues were directed to the support of a pastor and the poor. See p. 291. 87. Those references were: the Epistle to the Hebrews; Psalm 109; Genesis 14; Deuteronomy 18; Deuteronomy 12; Deuteronomy 25; 1 Timothy 5; Matthew 10; 1 Corinthians 9.

88. Luther here appeals once again to his teaching on the two kingdoms (see n. 33, p. 298). Gospel freedom is liberation from sin’s self-focus and selfassertion so Christians can concentrate on serving others. The peasants cannot claim gospel authority for their own social and political aspirations.

326 89. Luther’s teaching on the two kingdoms may well have been influenced by his apocalyptic perspective (see n. 56, p. 309). Following the apostle Paul, Luther did not see a pressing need for challenging the political order of his time when God would soon intervene directly into human affairs and establish the perfect gospel society on earth. Yet, this comment makes clear that Luther’s resistance to political activism was more than just a pragmatic response to living in the last days. Since any kingdom in this world would have to be composed of mostly non-Christians, Luther thought some kind of hierarchy of authority had to be imposed to restrain human selfishness, lest anarchy reign. He could not conceive of a secular democratic society where the rule of law brought about sufficient self-restraint in its citizens as to make equality work in practice. For Luther, only universal Christian freedom from sin brought about by the Holy Spirit could lead to peaceful coexistence in political freedom, and that hope was for the age to come. 90. Urbanus Rhegius (1489–1541) was at this time the leader of the Lutheran Reformation in the city of Augsburg. With strong personal ties to Upper Swabia, he had provided the city council of Memmingen with written advice on how to respond to a nearly identical set of articles that the rural peasants had previously presented them. He chose to address serfdom— the core issue of the revolt—in a sermon in Augsburg in February 1525. Quickly and repeatedly printed as Serfdom and Slavery: A Discussion of the Christian Relationship between Lords and Serfs on the Basis of Divine Law, Rhegius’s sermon applied Luther’s teaching on the two

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD without an inequality of persons, some being free, some imprisoned, some lords, some subjects, etc.; 89 and St. Paul says in Galatians 5 that in Christ the lord and the servant are equal. a My good friend Urbanus Rhegius has written more adequately on this subject.90 If you want to know more, read his book.91

Urbanus Rhegius as illustrated (c. 1565) in a volume by Heinricus Pantaleon (1522−1595)

a “For you were called to freedom, brothers and sisters; only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for self-indulgence, but through love become slaves to one another” (Gal. 5:13). However, perhaps the text Luther had in mind was: “There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

On the Other Eight Articles The other articles, which discuss the freedom to hunt game animals and birds, to catch fish, to use wood from the forest, the obligation to provide free labor, the amount of rents and taxes, the death tax, etc., are all matters for the lawyers to discuss. It is not fitting that I, an evangelist, should judge or make decisions in such matters.92 I am to instruct and teach people’s consciences in things that concern divine and Christian matters; there are books enough about the other things in the imperial laws. I said above that these things do not concern Christians and that they care nothing about them. They let anyone who will rob, take, cheat, scrape, devour, and rage—for the Christian is a martyr on earth.b Therefore the peasants ought properly to stop using the name Christian and use some other name that would show that they are people who seek their human and natural rights rather than their rights as Christians. For obtaining their rights as Christians would mean they should keep quiet about all these matters and complain only to God when they suffer. Dear friends, this is the instruction that you asked me to give you in the second document. c Please remember that you have gladly offered to receive instruction on the basis of Scripture. So when this reaches you, do not be so ready to scream, “Luther flatters the princes and speaks contrary to the gospel.” First read and examine my arguments from Scripture. For this is your affair; I am excused in the sight of God and the world. I know well the false prophets who are among you. Do not listen to them. They are surely deceiving you. They do not think of your consciences; they want to make Galatians of you.93 They want to use you to gain riches and honor for themselves. Afterward, both you and they will be damned eternally in hell.

327 kingdoms to the issue, insisting that Christian freedom had no bearing on a person’s status in society. 91. Rhegius, like Luther, took the political realities of the sixteenth century as a given; consequently, he pointed out that the institution has its positive advantages for serfs, e.g., providing them with a farmstead, physical protection, and political power to help them obtain justice in any legal suits. Although Rhegius acknowledged that there were abuses of the system, he argued that true Christians were called to ameliorate serfdom through a loving reciprocity, serfs obediently fulfilling their obligations to their lords, lords ensuring the just treatment of their serfs. However, if lords failed in their duty of care and exercised tyranny instead, like Luther, Rhegius insisted that Christian serfs could not avenge themselves of such wrongs. Thus, as for Luther, Rhegius thought social reform was a matter of encouraging better behavior within the established political structures, not creating new ones. See Peter Blickle, “Serfs ‘Are Not Cows and Calves’: Urbanus Rhegius’s Theological Effort to Legitimate Unfreedom and to Promote Personal Liberty,” trans. Randolph C. Head, in Ideas and Cultural Margins in Early Modern Germany: Essays in Honor of H. C. Erik Midelfort, ed. Marjorie Elizabeth Plummer and Robin B. Barnes (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2009), 19–30. 92. Of course, in the past Luther felt able to address some of these very issues directly as a preacher. See n. 33, p. 298.

b See nn. 54 and 55, p. 309. c See n. 29, p. 297.

93. That is, people who relied on themselves rather than God. Paul chided the Galatians for first embracing the gospel message of salvation as the Spirit’s work in them, because they

328 believed in Jesus, and then afterward returned to a reliance on their own efforts instead. See Gal. 1:6; 2:15-16; 3:3.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

Admonition to Both Rulers and Peasants Now, dear people, there is nothing Christian on either side and nothing Christian is at issue between you; both lords and peasants are discussing questions of justice and injustice in heathen, or worldly, terms. Furthermore, both parties are acting against God and are under his wrath, as you have heard. For God’s sake, then, take my advice! Take a hold of these matters properly, with justice and not with force or violence and do not start endless bloodshed in Germany. For because both of you are wrong, and both of you want to avenge and defend yourselves, both of you will destroy yourselves, and God will use one rascal to flog another. Both Scripture and history are against you lords, for both tell how tyrants are punished. Even the heathen poets say that tyrants seldom die a dry death, but are usually slain and perish in their own blood. d Because, then, it is an established fact that you rule tyrannically and with rage, prohibit preaching of the gospel, and cheat and oppress the poor, you have no reason to be confident or to hope that you will perish in any other way than your kind have always perished. Look at all the kingdoms that have come to their end by the sword—Assyria, Persia, Israel, Judah, and Rome. In the end they were all destroyed in the same way they destroyed others. Thus God is shown to be Judge upon earth and leaves no wrong unpunished. Therefore nothing is more certain than that this same judgment is breathing down your necks, whether it comes now or later, unless you reform. Scripture and experience are also against you peasants. They teach that rebellion has never had a good end and that God always keeps his word exactly, “He that takes up the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. You are certainly under the wrath of God, because you are doing wrong by judging your own case and avenging yourselves and are bearing the name Christian unworthily. Even though you win and destroy all the lords, you will finally start tearing the flesh from one another’s bones, like wild beasts. For because flesh and blood, not spirit, prevails among you, God will soon send an evil spirit among you, as God did to the people of Shechem and to Abimelech [Judg. 9:22-57]. d Juvenal, Satires, X, 112–13.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

This woodcut by Hans Lützelburger (1525) depicts peasants using flails, pitchfolks, and scythes as weapons against professional soldiers. From Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Volkes by Otto Henne am Rhyn (Berlin, 1897).

See the end that finally comes to rebellion in the story of Korah, Numbers 16[:31-35], and of Absalom [2 Sam. 18:14-15], of Sheba [2 Sam. 20:22], Zimri [1 Kings 16:18], and others like them. In short, God hates both tyrants and rebels; therefore God sets them against each other, so that both parties perish shamefully, and God’s wrath and judgment upon the godless are fulfilled. As I see it, the worst thing about this completely miserable affair is that both sides will sustain irreparable damage; and I would gladly risk my life and even die if I could prevent that from happening. Since neither side fights with a good conscience, but both fight to uphold injustice, it must follow, in the first place, that those who are slain are lost eternally, body and soul, as people who die in their sins, without penitence and without grace, under the wrath of God. Nothing can be done for them. The lords would be fighting to strengthen and maintain their tyranny, their persecution of the gospel, and their unjust

329

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

330

94. Luther was unaware as he wrote the Admonition that on 17 April the Christian Union of Upper Swabia had signed a treaty at Weingarten. By 22 April, Luther had received a copy of the agreement and reprinted it with a preface commending this peaceful approach. See Brecht, Luther: 1521–1532, 183; Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career, 371–72.

oppression of the poor, or else to help that kind of ruler. That is a terrible injustice and is against God. He who commits such a sin must be lost eternally. The peasants, on the other hand, would fight to defend their rebellion and their abuse of the name Christian. Both these things are great sins against God, and he who dies in them or for them must also be lost eternally, and nothing can prevent it. The second injury is that Germany will be laid waste, and if this bloodshed once starts, it will not stop until everything is destroyed. It is easy to start a fight, but we cannot stop the fighting whenever we want to. What have all these innocent women, children, and old people, whom you fools are drawing with you into such danger, ever done to you? Why do you insist on filling the land with blood and robbery, widows and orphans? Oh, the Devil has wicked plans! And God is angry; he threatens to let the Devil loose upon us and cool his rage in our blood and souls. Beware, dear people, and be wise! Both of you are equally involved! What good will it do you intentionally to damn yourselves for all eternity and, in addition, to bequeath a desolate, devastated, and bloody land to your descendants, when you still have time to find a better solution by repenting before God, by concluding a friendly agreement,94 or even by voluntarily suffering for the sake of humanity? You will accomplish nothinge through strife and violence.

e

Luther’s manuscript has “nichts gutts” (nothing good); the printed text lacks “gutts” (good); WA 18:332,17,35.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia I, therefore, sincerely advise you to choose certain counts and lords from among the nobility and certain councilmen from the cities and ask them to arbitrate and settle this dispute amicably. You lords, stop being so stubborn! You will finally have to stop being such oppressive tyrants—whether you want to or not. Give these poor people room in which to live and air to breath. You peasants, let yourselves be instructed and give up the excessive demands of some of your articles. In this way it may be possible to reach a solution of this dispute through human laws and agreements, if not through Christian means. If you do not follow this advice—God forbid!—I must let you come to blows. But I am innocent of your souls, your blood, or your property. The guilt is yours alone. I have told you that you are both wrong and that what you are fighting for is wrong. You lords are not fighting against Christians—Christians do nothing against you; they prefer to suffer all things—but against outright robbers and defamers of the Christian name. Those of them who die are already condemned eternally. On the other hand, you peasants are not fighting against Christians, but against tyrants, and persecutors of God and humanity, and murderers of the saints of Christ. Those of them who die are also condemned eternally. There you have God’s sure verdict upon both parties. This I know. Do what you please to preserve your bodies and souls, if you will not accept my advice. I, however, will pray that God will either reconcile you both and bring about an agreement between you, or else graciously prevent things from turning out as you intend. Nonetheless, the terrible signs and wonders that have come to pass in these times give me a heavy heart and make me fear that God’s wrath has grown too great; f as he says in Jeremiah, “Though Noah, Job, and Daniel stood before me, I would have no pleasure in the people.” g Would that you might fear God’s wrath and amend your ways

f See n. 39, p. 301. g Luther here conflates Jer. 15:1 with Ezek. 14:14.

331

332

95. In the end, the Admonition’s call for peaceable negotiations went unheeded, for events had turned violent even before its swift publication. Castles, monasteries, villages and towns were being burned and plundered. Luther himself went into Thuringia to preach against the false prophets and their revolution, only to experience being drowned out by bells and even more aggressive behavior by townspeople allied with the peasants, who were not willing to be talked out of their demand for social and economic equality. Convinced that Müntzer’s murdering spirit (see n. 40, p. 301 and n. 48, p. 305) had an unbreakable hold upon the uprising, Luther wrote a blistering addendum to the third Wittenberg edition of the Admonition that was printed on 10 May. Soon it was circulating widely as a separate pamphlet, Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, WA 18:344–61; LW 46:45–55. Luther was blunt. Inspired by the “archdevil” Müntzer (WA 18:357,14; LW 46:49), the peasants had broken their vows of obedience and now must experience God’s punishment by the authorities. “Therefore let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab, secretly or openly, remembering that nothing can be more poisonous, hurtful, or devilish than a rebel. It is just as when one must kill mad dogs: if you do not strike them, they will strike you and a whole land with you” (WA 18:358,14–18; LW 46:50). Luther demanded that both Roman and Protestant rulers act quickly before the total destruction of Germany came to pass. “This is the time of the sword and wrath, not the day of grace”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD that this disaster might be delayed and postponed a while! In any case, my conscience assures me that I have faithfully given you my Christian and loving advice. God grant that it helps! Amen.95 “Their mischief returns upon their own heads, and upon the crown of their heads their violence descends.”h

h Ps. 7:16. Luther’s text used the Latin translation of the verse found in the Vulgate (v. 17): “Convertetur dolor eius in caput eius / Et in verticem ipsius iniquitas eius descendat”; Lefèvre d’Étaples, Quincuplex Psalterium, fol. 8v. Lefèvre also preferred this translation; ibid., fol. 235v. This verse is lacking in those editions of the Admonition that appended Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes.

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia

333 (WA 18:360,10–11; LW 46:53). On 15 May, thousands of  T huringian peasants were slaughtered at Frankenhausen by Philip of Hesse (1504–1567) (Protestant) and his father-in-law, Duke George of Saxony (Roman Catholic). Müntzer was taken prisoner and executed on 27 May. The harshness of Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes caused such an uproar, even among his own supporters, that in July Luther addressed the Peasants’ Revolt one more time in writing, An Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the Peasants, WA 18:375–401; LW 46:57–85. The rebels felt betrayed by Luther. The rulers saw themselves as justified in their atrocities against prisoners and the surrendered, while Luther’s Roman critics considered themselves vindicated in their rejection of his gospel. Luther’s response was simply to defend the theological principles of his previous writings and leave any flagrant abuse by the rulers of their office to the wrath of God. See Brecht, Luther: 1521–1532, 178–94; Bornkamm, Luther in Mid-Career, 372–99.

Title page for Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of   Peasants, by Martin Luther in response to the German Peasants’ War (Wittenberg, 1525)

Title page of On War against the Turk (Vom Kriege wider die Türken) (Wittenberg, 1529)

�

On War against the Turk 1529

JOHN   D.  ROTH

INTRODUCTION

On 9 October 1528, Luther sent a letter to Landgrave Philip of Hesse (1504–1567), along with a manuscript that he had dedicated to the “famous and powerful prince.” Although it would take another six months before the manuscript actually appeared in print, Luther’s On War against the Turk1 quickly found a wide readership, appearing in nine editions in 1529 alone.2 The treatise seemed especially prescient when, in August 1529, only a few months after its appearance, Turkish armies under the command of Suleiman the Magnificent (1520–1566) besieged the imperial city of Vienna—residence of the Hapsburg dynasty and the de facto capital of the Holy Roman Empire—raising the specter that Suleiman’s forces would continue unchecked into the heartland of Christian Europe. a

1. Luther may well have been aware of the ethnic difference between Turks and Arabs, but he used the term Turk as representative of all Muslims. 2. WA 30/2:97–98.

a There is a rich literature on Luther’s understanding of Islam and his response to the Turkish threat within the larger context of his day. For several helpful entry points into this literature see Adam S. Francisco, Martin Luther and Islam: A Study in Sixteenth Century Polemics and Apologetics (Leiden: Brill, 2007); Gregory J. Miller, “Luther on the Turks and Islam,” Lutheran Quarterly 14 (2000): 79–97; Ludwig Hagemann, Martin Luther und der Islam (Altenberge: Verlag für ChristlichIslamisches Schrifttum, 1983); Harvey Buchanan, “Luther and the Turks, 1519–1529,” ARG 47 (1956): 145–60; and J. Paul Rajashekar

335

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

336

This sixteenth-century painting by an unknown artist depicts the siege of Vienna from the perspective of the Ottoman forces. Housed in the Hatchette Art Museum, Istanbul.

For nearly a millennium, the Islamic threat had loomed large in the European imagination. To be sure, its advance across the Pyrenees into western Europe had been checked at the Battle of Tours in 732; but Muslim faith and culture continued to thrive in the Iberian peninsula until the end of the fifteenth century. Equally troubling was Muslim control over the so-called Holy Lands at the eastern edge of the Mediterranean and the ongoing threat that Muslim rulers in the Levant posed to lucrative European trade routes to China. Since the late eleventh century, various Catholic popes had promised spiritual rewards to European princes and knights who would take up their swords in a crusade against the infidel. The success of these efforts, however, was intermittent and short lived. The fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453 once again sparked a deep sense of foreboding in Europe, evidenced by numerous pamphlets that described the Islamic threat in graphic and pessimistic language.b On the eve of the Reformation, the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–17) resolved to launch a comprehensive crusade—including both imperial and ecclesiastical forces—against the Ottoman Turks, to be led by the emperor Maximilian I (1459–1519). In the decade that followed, however, these plans came to naught. Maximilian died in 1519, just as the Ottoman sultan, Selim I (c. 1470–1520), was consolidating Turkish control in the Levant and North Africa. Following Selim’s sudden death in 1520, his successor, Suleiman I, began a series of highly successful military campaigns in eastern Europe. In 1521,

and Timothy J. Wengert, “Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon and the Publication of the Qur’an,” Lutheran Quarterly 16 (2002): 221–28. b For a very helpful summary of attitudes toward Islam on the eve of the Reformation, cf. Thomas Kaufmann, “Türckenbüchlein”: Zur christlichen Wahrnehmung “türkischer Religion” in Spätmittelalter und Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008).

On War against the Turk Suleiman’s armies conquered Belgrade from the Hungarians; in August 1526, Turkish forces routed the army of King Louis II of Hungary (1506–1526) at the Battle of Mohács, paving the way for the Ottomans to consolidate their control over southeastern Hungary. 3 By the fall of 1529, just as Luther was returning from

This scene, painted c. 1597 by an unknown artist, shows Selim I on his deathbed. Library of the Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul.

337

3. When King Louis II was killed in the battle, his brother-in-law, Archduke Ferdinand I of Austria (1503–1564), brother of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V (1500–1558), claimed the vacant Hungarian throne. The response to the Turkish advance was clearly complicated by bitter quarreling among European rulers and the emerging alliance between Francis I of France (whose titles included the description as “the Most Christian King of Europe”) and Suleiman.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

338 4. WA 7:443. “Many . . . now dream of nothing else,” Luther wrote in his Explanations of the 95 Theses, “than war against the Turk. They want to fight, not against iniquities, but against the lash of iniquity and thus they would oppose God who says that through that lash God himself punishes us for our iniquities because we do not punish ourselves for them” (LW 31:92). In all fairness, Luther was not alone in taking this position. The scholar, poet, and reformer Ulrich von Hutten (1488– 1523) also denounced the idea of the pope participating in a crusade against the Turks; and Erasmus, in his On War against the Turks (1530), described the Turks as an expression of God’s anger and punishment for sins, and he shared Luther’s concerns that Christians should fight the “Turks” in their own circles before rushing into war against an external enemy.

5. See, for example, the polemic of Johann Cuspinian (1473–1529) that appeared shortly after the Turkish victory at Mohács in 1526 and the vigorous critiques of Johannes Cochlaeus (1479–1552). Cited in Rudolf Mau, “Luthers Stellung zu den Türken,” in Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 bis 1546, ed. Helmar Junghans (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 1:649, 653.

the Marburg Colloquy, Suleiman—who by now had gained the title “the Magnificent”—had advanced to Vienna and besieged the city. In Europe, the threat of the Turkish advance was complicated by an unfolding religious crisis and the subsequent political fragmentation that followed. Luther’s challenge to the authority of the papacy coincided almost exactly with the rise of Suleiman, prompting some critics to suggest that Luther was using the threat of Islam as a tactical diversion to advance his own cause. c Those accusations were grounded, at least in part, on an argument that Luther had made in his Reflections on the 95 Theses, published in August 1518. There he insisted that the rise of the Ottoman Turks was divinely ordained—a punishment by God for Christendom’s sins—and that resisting the Turks “is nothing else than fighting against God, who is punishing our sins through the Turks.”  4 The only appropriate response, he insisted, was to pray that God’s punishment would not lead to the breakdown of political order. Luther’s Catholic opponents seized on this argument to portray Luther as cynical and seditious. In 1520 Pope Leo X (1475–1521) cited it in Exsurge Domine, the bull of excommunication against Luther, and other Catholic polemicists returned to it repeatedly in their condemnations of the reformer and the emerging Reformation.5 Luther acknowledged these accusations in his On Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526). d There he argued that Christians could indeed go to war, but only under the proper authorities and only in defense against aggression. At the conclusion of the book, he promised readers that he would soon write on the subject of the Turks in order to put a definitive end to the rumor that he opposed all resistance to the threat they posed.

c

This point is helpfully explored in Stephen Fischer-Galati, Ottoman Imperialism and German Protestantism, 1521–1555 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1959). d See this volume, pp. 196–97.

On War against the Turk Thus, early in the fall of 1528 Luther began a draft of what was to become On War against the Turks.6 In February 1529, publication of the book was delayed, apparently because a portion of the manuscript had been lost at the printer and needed to be rewritten. e But on 23 April 1529, shortly before the resumption of Turkish hostilities in eastern Europe that led to the siege of Vienna, On War against the Turk finally appeared.7 Not surprisingly, Luther opens the treatise with a vigorous defense against the accusation that he welcomed the victory of the Turks. Of course the Turks should be resisted, Luther argues, but responsibility for doing so rests squarely with the emperor and temporal authorities, not with the pope, and certainly not with an appeal to a crusade. Fighting against the Turks in the name of Christ, he insists, would be a blasphemous confusion of earthly and heavenly kingdoms that “brings shame and dishonor to Christ’s name.” The appropriate office of the church— not only the clergy but of all God-fearing Christians—is the spiritual discipline of praying. Since the Turk “is the rod of the wrath of the Lord our God and the servant of the raging Devil,” he reasons, “the first thing to be done is to smite the Devil.” And since “the Devil is a spirit who cannot be beaten with armor, muskets, horses, and men,” the only recourse for true Christians is “repentance and prayer.” Luther then turns his attention to the teachings of the Qu’ran, criticizing Islamic teachings on three basic points. First, the Qu’ran is blasphemous in elevating the person of Muhammad above Christ. Second, the lies of the Qu’ran are exposed by its readiness to defend its doctrines with the sword, thereby committing murder in the promotion of its beliefs. Finally, Luther rejects the Qu’ran because it has no regard for marriage and promoted a religion of works righteousness. In all of these points,

e

WA 30/2:96.

339 6. Luther mentioned that he had started writing on this theme in a letter to Nicholas Hausmann on 5 August 1528 (WA Br 4:511). The letter of dedication to Philip of Hesse is dated 9 October 1528. 7. Six editions appeared in Wittenberg in 1529, two editions in Zwickau, and one in Nuremberg (WA 30/2:97–98).

340

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD however, Luther insists that the pope is just as evil as the Turk. In the end, there is no significant difference between the two. “Just as the pope is the Antichrist,” he writes, “so the Turk is the very Devil incarnate. Our prayer, and the prayer of Christendom, is against both—that they would go down to hell, even though it may take the Last Day to send them there, a day that I hope will not be far off.” The solution, Luther argues, is for the emperor to assume his rightful office—not as the head of Christendom or defender of the gospel, but in his divinely ordained role as a defender of his subjects. “The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with building up the faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things.” But temporal rulers do have a divine obligation to “protect the good and to punish the wicked” (1 Pet. 2:14). To be sure, they should do this with proper humility; but military action is still necessary since Christians are also citizens of an earthly kingdom. In his conclusion, Luther denounces those who refuse to fight against the Turk on the grounds that life under Turkish rule would be preferable to their current circumstances. And he rejects the argument of those who think that “if the pope is as evil as the Turk, then the Turk is also as godly as the pope.” Not so. It is true that both are evil—indeed, the pope is “the most Turkish of all Turks”—and both should be attacked, first with prayer and the word of God. But in the end, Christians should also support their rulers with the sword, fighting not as Christians in a holy war, but as subjects of secular princes who are responsible for maintaining law and order and for protecting their subjects and lands. Toward the end of the treatise, Luther casts the events within the larger canvas of the end times, a theme that he would develop vigorously following the siege of Vienna in the fall of 1529. In his Army Sermon against the Turks (1529), he gives full expression to his apocalyptic reading of Scripture, insisting that biblical prophecies of Daniel and Revelation are being fulfilled. In Daniel’s vision of the coming of the Ancient of Days, Luther identifies the Ottoman Empire quite specifically with the little horn appearing in the midst of ten horns, which he thinks denotes the ten provinces of the Roman Empire. Like the horn in Daniel that persecutes the saints, so the Turks persecute Christians. Luther is confident, however, based on the references to Gog and Magog in chapter 20 of the book of Revelation, that the day

On War against the Turk

341

of judgment would come before the Turks defeated the Roman Empire. Luther’s interest in Islam and the Turkish threat would occupy his attention for the rest of his life. In 1530, he provided a foreword to a German edition of a treatise called Booklet on the Religion and Customs of Turks, which had been written in Latin in the fifteenth century by a Transylvanian Dominican who had been held captive among the Turks for more than twenty years. In 1541, he returned to the theme with his Admonition to Prayer against the Turks, soon to be followed with a translation of Riccoldo’s Refutation of the Qu’ran (1542), and his Admonition to the Pastors (1543). In all of these texts, Luther’s basic message remains the same. The first task of Christians in the face of Islamic physical and spiritual threats is repentance and prayer. But if called upon by temporal authorities, Christians have a duty to support their leaders against aggression or rebellion. The Turks and the papacy are both enemies of Christ—evidence that the end times are near. Christians can be assured that ultimately the gospel will prevail. But until then, they must resist evil and godlessness, first with spiritual weapons and then with the sword.

�

ON WAR AGAINST THE TURK

T

8. The text that follows is based on a translation from the German text, Vom Kriege wider den Türken (WA 30/2:107– 48), by Charles M. Jacobs that originally appeared in PE 5:79–123. That text was revised by Robert C. Schultz as “On War against the Turk (1529),” in LW 46:161–205. My translation draws heavily on the work of Jacobs and Schultz, with revisions based on a close review of the original German. I also have drawn on the Schultz text, as well as information in the Weimar Ausgabe, for some of the factual annotations. Most of the interpretive comments are my own. 9. Philip I of Hesse, whose nickname was the “magnanimous” (der Großmütige), was a strong supporter of Luther and a leader among the Protestant princes in the struggle to consolidate the Reformation.

8

O THE SERENE, highborn prince and lord, Philip,9 landgrave of Hesse, count of Katzenellenbogen, Ziegenhain, and Nida, my gracious lord.

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. Serene, highborn prince, gracious lord. For the past five years certain people have begged me to write about war against the Turks,10 and to arouse and encourage our people. Now that the

10. Since Luther started writing this treatise in the fall of 1528 it appears that the request for a treatise on the Turkish threat came sometime in 1523. At the very end of his treatise, Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526), Luther noted that he was contemplating a treatise regarding war against the Turks, so that he could put to rest the accusation circulating among his Catholic opponents that he opposed resisting the Turks. See this volume, pp. 232–33.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

342 11. The defeat of Belgrade in 1521 by Suleiman the Magnificent opened up the plains of Hungary to the Turkish advance, which continued during the following years. The Turkish threat became very serious with the advance of Suleiman up the Donau and with the siege of Vienna in the fall of 1529.

Turk is actually approaching us11 my friends are also urging me to do this, especially since there are some ignorant preachers among us Germans (as I am sorry to hear) who are making the peoplef believe that we should not—indeed, must not—fight against the Turks.12 Some are even so foolish as to teach that it is not proper for Christians to bear the temporal sword or to be rulers.13 Furthermore, because they think our German people

12. Luther himself faced this charge on the basis of an argument he made in 1518, which suggested that the Turks were sent by God as a punishment of the wickedness of the Roman curia. Therefore, to resist the Turks, he had argued, was to resist God. 13. Luther could be referring here to the Anabaptist groups such as the Swiss Brethren, whose reading of Scripture led them to conclude that Christians could not participate in war. An early statement of this conviction can be found in article 6 of the “Brotherly Union of Schleitheim” of 1527 (often called the Schleitheim Confession), where it states: “We have been united as follows concerning the sword. The sword is an ordering of God outside the perfection of Christ. It punishes and kills the wicked and guards and protects the good. In the law the sword is established over the wicked for punishment and for death and the secular rulers are established to wield the same. But within the perfection of Christ only the ban is used for the admonition and exclusion of the one who has sinned, without the death of the flesh, simply the warning and the command to sin no more. Now many, who do not understand Christ’s will for us, will ask; whether a Christian may or should use the sword against the wicked for the protection and defense of the good, or for the sake of love. The answer is unanimously revealed: Christ

In this volume (c. 1566) by an anonymous author, John Sigismund of Hungary is pictured bowing before Suleiman the Magnificent in 1556.

are wild and uncivilized—that they are half-devil and half-man— some actually want the Turk to come and rule. The blame for this wicked error among the people is laid on Luther, which they call “the fruit of my gospel,” just as I am also blamed for the f

Luther uses here a somewhat derogatory word (Pobel = Pöbel), which means “rabble” or “uneducated masses.”

On War against the Turk rebellion,14 and for every bad thing that happens anywhere in the world. My accusers know better, but—God and his word to the contrary—they pretend not to know better, and they look for reasons to speak evil of the Holy Ghost and of the open truth, so that they may earn the reward of hell and never repent or receive the forgiveness of their sins. Therefore it is necessary for me to write about these things— both for my own sake and that of the gospel—to defend ourselves. But not because of the blasphemers, who I do not think are worth my saying a single word to them in my defense. To them the gospel must always be a stench and the aroma of death unto death [2 Cor. 2:16], as they have deserved by their willful blasphemy. But I must write so that innocent consciences may no longer be deceived by these slanderers and made suspicious of me or my teachings, and so they may not be deceived into believing that we must not fight against the Turks. Thus, I have thought it best to publish this little book under the name of Your Grace, a famous and powerful prince, so that it may be better received and more diligently read. If it should come to a discussion of a campaign against the Turks, the princes and lords would readily have a shared memory of it. Indeed, I am perfectly willing to point out several passages that should be considered and emphasized. I commend now Your Grace to our gracious God and his fatherly grace and favor. May he keep Your Grace from all error and the wiles of the Devil, and enlighten and strengthen Your Grace for a blessed reign. Amen. October 9, 1528. Your Grace’s devoted, M artin Luther

343 teaches and commands us to learn from Him, for He is meek and lowly of heart and thus we shall find rest for our souls.” The Schleitheim Confession, ed. John H. Yoder (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1977), 14. 14. Luther is referring here to the Peasants’ War, a massive uprising of peasants and artisans in 1524–25 that created enormous concern among the German princes. In The Twelve Articles, a manifesto of their demands, leaders of the movement drew on Luther’s example by insisting that all of their demands were rooted in “Scripture alone” and that they were simply attempting to put Evangelical convictions into social practice using biblical principles. Luther reacted angrily against this “guilt by association” and devoted considerable energy to developing a theological argument against all forms of rebellion.

[Wittenberg, October 9, 1528] Pope Leo X, in his bull that put me under the ban,15 condemned, among my other statements, the following: “To fight against the Turk is the same as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod.”  g This may be why they say that I oppose and dissuade others against war with the Turk. I freely acknowledge that this article is mine and that I stated and defended it at the time. And if things in the world were the same now as they g Luther made this statement in article five of his Explanations of the 95 Theses (1518), LW 31:91–92.

15. The reference here is to the papal bull Exsurge Domine, issued by Pope Leo X on 15 June 1520.

344

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD were then, I would still have to hold and defend it. But it is not fair to forget what the situation in the world was then and what my grounds and reasons were, or to now take my words and apply them to another situation where those grounds and reasons do not exist. With this kind of skill who could not also make a pack of lies of the gospel or pretend that it contradicted itself?

[Luther’s Previous Writings on the Role of Government] h 16. This claim by Luther is surely overstated. Although a papal bull, Unam sanctam, issued in 1302 by Pope Boniface VIII (r. 1294–1303) clearly asserted the spiritual supremacy of the church over the authority of the state, few European rulers in the late Middle Ages agonized over whether or not their office was incompatible with the life of a Christian. 17. Frederick III (1463–1525), often called Frederick the Wise, was the elector of Saxony from 1486 to 1525. He was among the princes who pressed the need for church reform upon the German emperor, Maximilian I, in 1495. In 1502, he founded the University of Wittenberg, where he appointed Luther and Melanchthon to professorships. Although Frederick remained a Catholic throughout his entire life—and assembled the largest collection of holy relics in all of Christendom—he was sympathetic to the reformers, and particularly to Luther. In 1520, he refused to carry out the papal bull that ordered Luther’s writings to be burned and the reformer arrested. The following year, after Luther had been placed under the imperial ban by the diet at Worms, Frederick placed Luther in protective custody in his castle at the Wartburg. Frederick died on 5 May 1525.

That is how things stood at the time: no one had taught or heard about these things; and no one knew anything about temporal government—whence it came, what its office and work were, or how it ought to serve God. The most learned men (I shall not name them) regarded temporal government as a heathen, human, ungodly thing, as if it was incompatible with salvation. This is how the priests and monks drove kings and princes into the corner and persuaded them that in order to serve God they must undertake other works, such as hearing mass, praying, endowing masses, etc. In a word, princes and lords who wanted to be pious regarded their rank and office as of no value and did not consider it a service of God.16 They became real priests and monks, except that they did not wear tonsures and cowls. If they wanted to serve God, they had to go to church. All the lords living at that time would have to testify to this, for they knew it by experience. My gracious lord, Duke Frederick,17 of blessed memory, was so glad when I first wrote On Temporal Authorityi that he had the booklet copied and put in a special binding, and was very pleased that he could see what his standing was as a prince in the sight of God. And so it was at that time that the pope and the clergy were all in all, above all and through all, like God in the world [Eph. 4:6], while the temporal rulers were in darkness, oppressed and unknown. But the pope and his crowd also wanted to be Chrish Headings that appear in brackets have been added to aid the reader. They do not appear in the original text. i On Secular [Temporal] Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), this volume, pp. 79–129; LW 45:81–129.

On War against the Turk tians, and so they pretended to make war on the Turk. The discussion arose over those two points, for I was then working on doctrine regarding Christians and the conscience, and had as yet written nothing about temporal rulers. The papists accused me of being a flatterer of princes because I was dealing only with how the spiritual class must act as Christians, and not with the temporal; just as they accuse me of being seditious, j now that I have written about temporal government in such a beautiful and useful way as no teacher has done since the days of the apostles, except, perhaps, St. Augustine (354–430).18 I can boast of this with a good conscience, and with the testimony of the world. Among the points of Christian doctrine, I discussed what Christ says in Matthew [5:39-41]—namely, that a Christian shall not resist evil, but endure all things, letting not only the coat but also the cloak be taken from him, turning the other cheek, etc. The pope with his universities and cloister schools made this into a free counsel,19 something that was not commanded nor necessary for a Christian to follow. Thus, they perverted Christ’s word, taught false doctrine throughout the world, and deceived Christians. But since they wanted to be Christians—indeed, the best Christians—while at the same time to fight against the Turk, endure no evil, and suffer neither compulsion nor injustice, I opposed them with these words of Christ that Christians should not resist evil, but suffer all things and surrender all things. k I based the article that Pope Leo condemned on this. He was all the more eager to condemn it because I removed the cloak covering this Roman knavery. The popes had never seriously intended to wage war against the Turk; instead they used the Turkish war as a cover for their gamel and robbed Germany of money by means of indulgences whenever they wanted. m The whole world knew this, though it is now forgotten. So they condemned my article not because it j

Cf. Harry Loewen, Ink against the Devil: Luther and His Opponents (Waterloo, ON: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2015), 71–88. k See, for example, the arguments Luther presents in A Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), LW 45:57–74. l Brauchten des Türckischen krieges zum hütlin, darunter sie spieleten. . . . Cf. Thiele, 107 (no. 88: “es gehet unter den Hutlin zu”). m Luther addressed this issue extensively in To the Christian Nobility (1520), TAL 1:396; LW 44:144.

345

18. Luther could be referring to Augustine’s City of God, but is more likely speaking in general terms here.

19. The German here is freyen Rat. According to medieval monastic theology, the so-called counsels of perfection were acts of Christian discipleship—e.g., celibacy or poverty— that went beyond the commandments which were necessary for salvation.

346 20. The German word here is Helekepplin, which is a cap that makes one invisible. When the cap is removed the true character of its wearer is revealed; cf. Zeitschrift für Deutschkunde 12 (Leipzig: Verlag von B. G. Teubner, 1898), 526. 21. The pallium, a cape worn about the shoulders, was a symbol of the office of archbishop. Popes also wore them. The accusation here is that the office was put up for sale; cf. LW 44:148–49.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD opposed the Turkish war, but because it tore away this disguise20 and blocked the path by which the money went to Rome. If they had seriously wanted to fight the Turks, the pope and the cardinals would have had enough from the pallia, 21 annates,22 and other unmentionable sources of income so that they would not have needed to practice such extortion and robbery in Germany. If there had been a clearer opinion at the time that a serious war was at hand, I would have polished my article more and with greater nuance.

22. Annates are income received by a bishop from vacant benefices in his diocese. The right to this income was later claimed by the papacy (LW 44:146–48).

23. Luther is referring here to his treatise Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (this volume, pp. 183–233), where he appealed to the basic criteria of the just-war arguments. Clearly, Luther did not think that it was inherently wrong for Christians to participate in the violence and bloodshed of war. But he was clear that they were permitted to do so only under specific criteria—in this case, in self-defense against an attack initiated by another party. Wars of aggression, he argued, were never permissible for the Christian. For a very fine treatment of Luther’s understanding of just war in this context see Gregory J. Miller, “Fighting Like a Christian: The Ottoman Advance and the Development of Luther’s Doctrine of Just War,” in Caritas et Reformatio: Essays on Church and Society in Honor of Carter Lindberg, ed. David Whitford (St. Louis: Concordia, 2002), 41–57.

In this painting (c. 1000), Pope Gregorius wears a y-shaped pallium and is said to be dictating the Gregorian chants. Image from the Antiphonary of Hartker (c. 997).

Nor did I like it that the Christians and the princes were driven, urged, and goaded into attacking the Turk, and making war on him, before we ourselves amended our ways and lived as true Christians. These two points, or either one by itself, were enough reason to counsel against war. For I would never advise a heathen or a Turk, let alone a Christian, to attack another group or begin a war. That would be nothing other than advising bloodshed and destruction, which brings no good fortune in the end, as I have written in the booklet on soldiers.23 It never

On War against the Turk does any good when one scoundrel punishes another without first becoming good himself.24

[The True Office of a Christian: Spiritual Weapons] But what motivated me most of all was this: they undertook to fight against the Turk in the name of Christ, and taught and incited others to do this, as though our people were an army of Christians against the Turks, who were enemies of Christ. This is absolutely contrary to Christ’s doctrine and his name. He teaches against this doctrine when he says that Christians shall not resist evil and should not fight, or quarrel, or take revenge or insist on rights [Matt. 5:39]. It is contrary to his name, for there are scarcely five Christians in such an army, and in the eyes of God there are perhaps worse people in that army than the Turks; and yet they all want to bear the name of Christ.25 This is the greatest sin of all, and one that no Turk commits. For Christ’s name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored. This would especially be the case if the pope and the bishops were involved in the war, for they would bring the greatest shame and dishonor to Christ’s name since they are called to fight against the Devil with the word of God and with prayer, and they would be deserting their calling and office to fight with the sword against flesh and blood. They are not commanded to do this; indeed, it is forbidden. Oh, how gladly Christ would receive me at the Last Judgment if, when summoned to the spiritual office to preach and care for souls, I had left it and busied myself with fighting and with the temporal sword! 26 Why should it be that Christ or his people have anything to do with the sword and going to war, and killing men’s bodies, when he declared that he has come to save the world, not to kill people [John 3:17]? His work 27 has to do with the gospel—redeeming people from sin and death by his Spirit, and helping them from this world to everlasting life. According to John 6[:15] he fled and would not let himself be made king. Before Pilate he confessed, “My kingdom is not of this world” [John 18:36]; and in the garden he ordered Peter to put up his sword, saying, “All who take the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52].

347 24. Luther frequently uses a variation of this phrase, loosely connected with a German proverb, that God uses one scoundrel to punish the other. See, for example, LW 46:32 or LW 446:41. “Bube,” in Wander, 1:494, no. 14. 25. On the face of it, Luther creates here a real challenge for the earnest Christian. Indeed, his argument sounds remarkably similar to that put forward by the Anabaptist Michael Sattler, prominent leader of Swiss and South German Anabaptists. At his heresy trial of 1527, Catholic authorities accused him, among other things, of counseling Christians to avoid fighting in a war against the Turks. In his defense, Sattler responded: “For it is written: Thou shalt not kill. We must not defend ourselves against the Turks and others of our persecutors, but are to beseech God with earnest prayer to repel and resist them.” Sattler went on to say, “But . . . if warring were right, I would rather take the field against so-called Christians than against the Turks for the following reasons. The Turk is a true Turk, knows nothing of the Christian faith, and is a Turk after the flesh. But you who would be Christians and make your boast of Christ persecute the pious witnesses of Christ and are Turks after the spirit.” Sattler was sentenced to death, with his body torn apart and then burned. See Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, ed. George H. Williams, Library of Christian Classics 35 (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1957), 141. 26. Luther is speaking sarcastically here. 27. Luther uses the word Ampt here, which means an occupation (or task) as well as an office that carried with it responsibilities independent of the personal convictions of the office holder.

348

28. Here is the paradox that Luther developed at greater length in On Secular [Temporal] Authority (1523) and Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526). On the one hand, the teachings of Christ seem to be abundantly clear that Christians are not to wield carnal weapons— warfare is contrary to the name of Christ, and Christians are to love their enemies. And yet Luther would argue that in their calling or office in the temporal realm, Christians should be ready to support their ruler in using the sword in defense of civil order.

29. In late July 1522, Suleiman arrived with the army of 100,000 men to support an armada of 400 ships that had started a siege of the island of Rhodes a month earlier. The siege ended in December 1522, with a Turkish victory, and helped to secure Ottoman control of the eastern Mediterranean. 30. In April of 1526, an Ottoman army, led by Suleiman himself, set out from Istanbul heading westward. On 29 August 1526, at the battle of Mohács, they met and defeated the armies of the kingdom of Hungary led by Louis II. The victory led to the partition of Hungary between the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg monarchy, and the principality of Transylvania. 31. It is not entirely clear what Luther means here. The Turkish advance to Vienna in the fall of 1529 happened after this treatise appeared in print. 32. The Imperial Diets of Nürnberg (1523 and 1524) and of Speyer (1526 and 1529) gave a great deal of attention to the Turkish military threat.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD I say this not because I am arguing that worldly rulers should not be Christians, or that a Christian may not bear the sword and serve God in temporal government.28 Would to God they were all Christians, or that no one could be a prince unless he were a Christian! Things would be better than they now are, and the Turk would not be so powerful. But I want to separate and to distinguish between the meaning of “office” and “calling,”  n so that everyone can see to what God has called him and to faithfully and sincerely fulfill the duties of his office in the service of God. I have written more than enough about this elsewhere, especially in the books Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved and On Temporal Authority. o In the church, where all should be Christians, Paul will not permit one person to assume another’s office, Romans 12[:4] and 1 Corinthians 12[:14–26], but exhorts every member to do his own work so that there be no disorder and that everything is done in an orderly way [1 Cor. 14:40]. How much less, then, are we to tolerate the disorder that arises when a Christian abandons his office and assumes a temporal office, or when a bishop or pastor leaves his office and assumes the office of a prince or judge; or, on the other hand, when a prince gives up his princely office to take on the office of a bishop? Even today this shameful disorder rages and rules in the whole papacy, contrary to their own canons and laws. Experience shows how well we have succeeded with the Turkish war up to now. Though we have fought as Christians and in the name of Christ we have lost Rhodes,29 almost all of Hungary, 30 and much German soil besides. 31 So that we can sense and understand that God is not with us in our war against the Turks. God has never granted our princes very much courage or spirit so that they could even once deal seriously with the Turkish war. Though many Imperial Diets—indeed, almost all of them—have been called and held on this account, the matter will neither be settled nor arranged. 32 It seems as though God were mocking our Diets, allowing the Devil to hinder and control them until the Turk comes ravaging at his leisure and ruins Germany without effort or resistance.

n The German here is Ampt (office) and Beruf (calling). o Cf. this volume, pp. 183–233 and 79–129; LW 46:93–137 and LW 45:81–129, respectively.

On War against the Turk

349

A painting by an artist in the court of Suleiman depicting Ottoman Janissaries and the defending Knights of   St. John at the Siege of Rhodes in 1522

Why does this happen? Obviously, because my article, 33 which Pope Leo condemned, remains uncondemned and valid. And because the papists reject it, arbitrarily and without Scripture, the Turk must take its side and prove its validity with fist and deeds. If we do not want to learn from the Scriptures, then we must learn from the Turk’s scabbard, until painful experience teaches us that Christians should not make war or resist evil. Fools should be beaten with rods.p How many wars, do you think, have there been against the Turk in which we would not have suffered heavy losses if the bishops and clergy had not been there? How pitifully the fine king Lassla was defeated by the Turk along with his bishops at Varna. 34 The Hungarians themselves blamed Cardinal Julian

p “Hören,” in Wander, 2:779, no. 78 (“Narren mus man mit Kolben laufen”).

33. Again, this is a reference to Luther’s claim in Explanations of the 95 Theses (1518) that the Turks were sent as a punishment from God and therefore should not be resisted (LW 31:91).

34. A nickname for Władysław III (1424–1444) who was king of Poland from 1434, and king of Hungary and Croatia from 1440, until he was killed, along with the bishops of Erlau and Grosswardin, in the battle of Varnia in eastern Bulgaria on 10 November 1444. The Ottoman army, under Sultan Murad II (1404–1451), defeated the Hungarian-Polish armies commanded by Władysław III and Mircea II (1428– 1447) of Wallachia.

350 35. Cardinal Julian Cesarini the Elder (1398–1444), bishop of Erlau and Grosswardin, was one of the group of cardinals created by Pope Martin V (1368–1431) on the conclusion of the Western schism and an enthusiastic supporter of the war against Turks. As a papal legate in Hungary he persuaded Władysław to break the peace of Szeged in June of 1444 and to launch the so-called Varna Crusade. Cesarini was present at the battle of Varna and was killed during the retreat that followed the battle. 36. Louis II, king of Bohemia and Hungary, died during the battle of Mohács on 29 August 1526. Louis made a tactical error when he tried to stop the Ottoman army in an open-field battle with a medieval army, insufficient firearms, and obsolete tactics. See also n. 3, p. 337. 37. Emperor Charles V forced King Francis, who was his prisoner, to agree to aid the Holy Roman Empire against Turks and heretics as a condition of his release. See also n. 91, p. 383.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD for the catastrophe and killed him for it. 35 Now recently King Louis would perhaps have fought with more success if he had not led an army of priests [Pfaffenherr] or, as they call it, a Christian army, against the Turks. 36 If I were an emperor, or king, or prince and were in a campaign against the Turk, I would exhort my bishops and priests to stay at home and tend to their offices by praying, fasting, saying mass, preaching, and caring for the poor, as not only Holy Scripture, but their own canon law, teaches and requires. If, however, they were to be disobedient to God and their own law and desire to go along to war, I would teach them by force to tend to their office and not, by their disobedience, put me and my army under the danger of God’s wrath. It would be less harmful to have three devils in the army than one disobedient, apostate bishop who had forgotten his office and claimed the office of another. For there can be no good fortune for such who go against God and their own law. I have heard from fine soldiers who thought that the king of France, when he was defeated and captured by the emperor outside of Pavia, 37 had all of his bad fortune because he had the pope’s—or, as they boast, the church’s—army with him. After they came to his camp with a great cry of “Ecclesia, ecclesia! Here is the church! Here is the church!” they had no more good fortune. This is what the soldiers say, though perhaps they do not know the reason, namely, that it is not right for the pope—who wants to be a Christian, and the highest and best Christian preacher at that—to lead a church army, or army of Christians, for the church ought not to strive or fight with the sword. It has other enemies than flesh and blood, who are called the evil devil of the air [Eph. 6:12]. Therefore the church has other weapons and swords and other wars; it has enough to do and cannot get involved in the wars of the emperor or princes. For the Scriptures say that there will be no good fortune where people are disobedient to God [e.g., 1 Sam. 12:15]. And, too, if I were a soldier and saw a priest’s banner in the field, or a banner of the cross, even though it was the crucifix itself, I would run as though it were the Devil chasing me. And even if, by God’s decree, they won a victory, I would not take any part in the booty or the rejoicing. Even the wicked ironeater, Pope Julius, who was clearly half-devil, did not succeed, but finally had to call on Emperor Maximilian and let him take

On War against the Turk charge of the game, despite the fact that Julius had more money, arms, and people. 38 I think, too, that this present pope, Clement, who people regard as almost a god of war, succeeded well with his fighting until he lost Rome and all its wealth to a few ill-armed soldiers. 39 The conclusion is this: Christ will teach them to understand my article that Christians should not make war, and the condemned article must take its revenge, for it refers to Christians and will stand uncondemned. q It is right and true, even though they do not regard it or believe it, until they rush, hardened and

351 38. Julius II (r. 1503–1513), nicknamed “The Warrior Pope,” pursued an active foreign policy, ambitious building projects, and patronage for the arts. In 1508, Maximilian, with the blessing of Pope Julius II, took the title “Elected Roman Emperor,” thereby ending the ancient tradition of the pope crowning the Holy Roman Emperor.

Portrait of Pope Julius II (1515) by Raphael (1483−1520)

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V enthroned over his defeated enemies (from left to right): Suleiman the Magnificent, Pope Clement VII, Francis I, the Duke of Cleves, the Duke of Saxony, and the Landgrave of Hesse. By artist Giulio Clovio (1498−1578).

q LW 31:91.

39. Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) was pope during the sack of Rome in May 1527. Afterward, he was humiliated by being forced to surrender to the Holy Roman Emperor. He was released only after paying a ransom of 400,000 ducats and agreeing to cede Parma, Piacenza, Civitavecchia, and Modena to the Holy Roman Empire.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

352 40. Again, it is striking how clearly Luther distinguishes between “Christians”—seemingly referring to those with ecclesial offices—and ordinary people. The implication of his argument is that the teachings of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere apply only to the former.

unrepentant, headlong to destruction. To this I say Amen and Amen.40 It is true that since they have temporal lordship and wealth, they ought to make the same contributions to the emperor, kings, or princes that are expected from others who have worldly possessions, and render the same services that others are expected to render. Indeed, these “goods of the church,” as they call them, should be used especially to serve and help in the protection of the needy and the welfare of all classes, for that is the purpose for which these goods were given, not for a bishop to forget his office and to use them for war or battle. If the banner of Emperor Charles or of a prince is in the field, then let everyone run boldly and gladly to the banner to which his allegiance is sworn—more on this will be said later. But if the banner of a bishop, cardinal, or pope is there, then run the other way, and say, “I do not know this coin. r If, however, it were a prayer book, or the Holy Scriptures preached in the church, then I would rally to it.”

[How Christians Can Fight with a Good Conscience]

41. This was the main theme of Luther’s Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be Saved (1526), which he penned in response to the concerns of Assa von Kram, a general in the Peasants’ War, who had a troubled conscience about his role in the overwhelming defeat of the peasants at the Battle of Frankenhausen in May of 1525 (see this volume, n. 2, pp. 183–84; LW 46:93–137).

Now before I exhort or urge a battle against the Turk, hear me, for God’s sake. I want first to teach you how to fight with a good conscience.41 For however much (if I would give way to the old Adam) I want to keep quiet and look on while the Turk avenges me upon the tyrants—namely, those who persecute the gospel and blame me for all kinds of misfortune—and pay them back for it, nevertheless, I will not do this. Rather, I will serve both friends and enemies so that my sun may rise on both evil and good, and my rain fall on the thankful and unthankful [Matt. 5:45]. In the first place, because it is certain that the Turk has no right or command to begin war and to attack lands that are not his, his war is nothing but an outrage and robbery with which God is punishing the world, as he sometimes does through wicked scoundrels and sometimes through godly people. The Turk does not fight from necessity or to protect his land in peace, r

“Münzen,” in Wander, 3:782, no. 39.

On War against the Turk as a decent ruler does; 42 but, like a robber or a highwayman, he seeks to plunder and ravage other lands which are doing, and have done, nothing to him. He is God’s rod and the Devil’s servant [Isa. 10:5]; there is no doubt about that. In the second place, we must know who the right person is who should be making war against the Turk so that he may be certain that he has a command from God and is doing right. He must not plunge in to avenge himself or for some other mad notion or reason.43 He must be sure of this so that, win or lose, he may be in a state of salvation and in a godly occupation [Ampt]. There are two of these men, and there ought to be only two: the one is named Christian; the other is Emperor Charles. Christian should be there first, with his army.44 Since the Turk is the rod of the wrath of the Lord our God and the servant of the raging Devil, the first thing to be done is to smite the Devil, his lord, and take the rod out of God’s hand, so that the Turk may be found only in his own strength, all by himself, without the Devil’s help and without God’s hand. This should be done by Sir [Herr] Christian, that is, by the pious, holy, precious group of Christians. They are the people who have been armed for this war and they know how to use those weapons. For if the Turk’s god, the Devil, is not defeated first, there is reason to fear that the Turk will not be so easy to beat. Now the Devil is a spirit who cannot be beaten with armor, muskets, horses, and men, and God’s wrath cannot be allayed by them, as it is written in Psalm 33[:17f.; 147:10], “His delight is not in the strength of the horse, nor his pleasure in the legs of a man; but the L ord takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love.” Christian weapons and power must do it. Here you ask, “Who are the Christians and where does one find them?” Answer: There are not many of them, but they are everywhere, though they are spread thin and live far from each other, under both pious and evil princes. 45 For Christianity must continue to the end. The article of the Creed says, “I believe in one holy Christian church,” so it must be possible to find them. Every pastor and preacher ought to diligently exhort people to repentance and to prayer. They should drive them to repentance by showing our great and innumerable sins and our ingratitude, by which we have earned God’s wrath and disfavor, so that he justly gives us into the hands of the Devil and the Turk. And so that this preaching may work more strongly, they must cite examples

353 42. These were two criteria of the so-called just war, as defined by Augustine, in which a Christian ruler could legitimately participate in war.

43. “Right intention” was another just-war criterion, which meant that restoration of peace was the central motive for engaging in violence, rather than personal motivations such as revenge. 44. Luther is here distinguishing between the criteria by which his enemy, Emperor Charles V, might legitimately go to war in his office as the supreme political leader of the Holy Roman Empire, and those that would apply more generally to all Christian believers. He suggests that it is more legitimate for Christians—as Christians—to fight against the Turks than for the emperor to do so, but then Luther immediately clarifies that the primary weapons of the Christian in this fight are spiritual, rather than temporal.

45. It is significant that Luther does not assume that everyone in Christendom is a Christian, despite the fact that all Christians in Europe had been baptized as infants. This same argument led the Anabaptists to defend adult baptism, along with the exercise of the “Rule of Christ,” or church discipline, as the marks of the true church. Luther does not clarify here what the marks of “true Christians” are, but it is clear that he regards them to be a minority.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

354

46. From this point forward in the treatise all of the biblical references that Luther cites as examples or justification for Christian participation in warfare come from the Old Testament. References to the teachings of Christ simply do not factor in Luther’s defense of Christians participating in warfare against the Turks.

47. 2 Sam. 24:10, where David repents of taking a census against God’s wishes. 48. 1 Kgs. 21:27-29, where Ahab repents that he had his wife, Jezebel, arrange for the murder of Naboth, the Jezreelite, so that Ahab could claim Naboth’s vineyard. 49. 2 Chron. 33:10-13, where Manasseh repents of practicing idolatry. 50. Cf. Mark 14:72, where Peter denies any connection with Christ at the time of Christ’s crucifixion. 51. Likely a reference to a story told by Jesus of a Pharisee and tax collector who went to pray in the temple in which God honored the humility of the tax collector more than the false piety of the Pharisee (Luke 18:10-14). But it could also be a reference to the story of Zacchaeus, a wealthy tax collector, who, following an encounter with Christ, repented of his greed (Luke 19:1-10).

and sayings from the Scriptures, such as the Flood [Gen. 7:124], Sodom and Gomorrah [Gen. 19:24-28], and the children of Israel, and show how dreadful and how often God has punished the world and its lands and peoples.46 And they ought to make it plain that it is no wonder if we are punished more harshly than they, since we sin more grievously than they did.

[1. Repentance] This fight must truly begin with repentance, and we must reform our lives entirely, or we shall fight in vain; as the prophet Jeremiah says in chapter 18[:7-8], “At one moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, but if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will change my mind about the disaster that I intended to bring on it.” And again, “And at another moment I may declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, but if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will change my mind about the good that I had intended to do to it. Now, therefore, say to the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: . . . Look, I am a potter shaping evil against you and devising a plan against you. Turn now, all of you, from your evil way, and amend your ways and your doings” [Jer. 18:9-11]. We may truly apply these words to ourselves, for God is devising evil against us because of our wickedness and is clearly preparing the Turks against us, as he says in Psalm 7[:12-13], “If one does not repent, God will whet his sword; he has bent and strung his bow; he has prepared his deadly weapons.” Along with this we must also cite the sayings and examples of Scripture in which God makes known how well pleased he is with true repentance or a change of life made in faith and trust in his word—as in the Old Testament examples of Nineveh, King David,47 Ahab,48 and Manasseh,49 and the like; in the New Testament, the examples of St. Peter, 50 the malefactor, s the tax collector in the gospel,51 and so forth. I know full well that the scholars and saints who have no need for repentance will scoff at this advice of mine—they will regard it a simple and common s

The German word here is Schecher, a reference to the repentant criminal who was crucified with Christ (Luke 23:40-42).

On War against the Turk

355

matter that they have long since passed beyond.t Nevertheless, I am not willing to omit it for the sake of myself and of poor sinners like myself, who every day are deeply in need of both repentance and admonition to repentance. Yet we remain all too lazy and lax, and have not made our peace with those ninety and nine just persons [Luke 15:7], as much as they allow themselves to believe.

[2. Prayer] After people have been thus taught and admonished to confess their sin and amend their ways they should then be diligently exhorted to prayer and shown that such prayer pleases God, that he has commanded it and promised to hear it. No one should disregard or have doubts about his prayer; but with firm faith be certain that it will be heard, all of which has been presented by us in many booklets. u For the one who doubts, or prays for good luck, would do better not to pray at all because such prayer is merely tempting God and only makes things worse. Therefore I would also advise against processions as a heathen and useless practice that is more about pomp and appearance than prayer. I say the same about celebrating a lot of masses and calling upon the saints. It might, however, be of some use if this were done at mass or vespers or in the church after the sermon, especially if the young people would sing or read the Litany, provided that everyone, even those alone at home, would constantly raise at least a sigh of the heart to Christ for grace to lead a better life and for help against the Turk. I am not speaking of a lot of long praying, but of frequent short sighs, in one or two words—“Oh, help us, dear God our Father; have mercy on us, dear Lord Jesus Christ!” or the like. See, now, this kind of preaching will resonate and connect with Christians, and there will be Christians who will accept it and act accordingly; it does not matter if you do not know who t German reads: “. . . an die Schuhen zu risen haben.” u For some of Luther’s writings on prayer, see Sermon on Prayer and Procession during Rogation Days (1519), TAL 4:147–57; LW 42:83–93; An Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laity (1519), LW 42:15–81; and Little [Personal] Prayer Book (1522), TAL 4:159–99; LW 43:3–45. For a helpful overview, cf. Mark Rogers, “‘Deliver Us from the Evil One’: Martin Luther on Prayer,” Themelios 34, no. 3 (2009): 335–47.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

356

52. This reference is not clear. Perhaps Luther meant Josiah (2 Chron. 34:33) or Joash (2 Chron. 24:2).

they are. The tyrants and bishops may also be admonished to stop their raging and persecution against the word of God and not to hinder our prayer. But if they do not stop, we must not cease to pray, but persist and take the chance that they will benefit from our prayers and be preserved along with us; or we shall pay for their raging and be ruined along with them. For they are so confused and deluded that if God would give them good fortune against the Turks they would ascribe it to their holiness and merit and boast of it against us. On the other hand, if things turned out badly, they would ascribe it to no one but us, and lay the blame on us, disregarding their own shameful, openly sinful, and wicked lives that they not only lead, but also defend. They cannot rightly teach a single point about how one should pray—indeed, they are worse than the Turks. Oh well, we must leave this to God’s judgment. In such admonitions to prayer we must also include words and examples from the Scriptures that demonstrate how strong and mighty a person’s prayer has sometimes been. For example, Elijah’s prayer, which St. James praises [Jas. 5:17]; the prayers of Elisha and other prophets; of King David, Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat,v Jesias,52 Hezekiah,w etc.; the story of God’s promise to Abraham that he would spare the land of Sodom and Gomorrah for the sake of five righteous men. x For the prayer of a righteous person can do much, St. James says in his epistle [Jas. 5:16], if it is persistent. They should also be warned here to be careful not to anger God by not wanting to pray and not to fall under his judgment as in Ezekiel 13[:5], where God says, “You have not gone up into the breaches, or repaired a wall for the house of Israel, so that it might stand in battle on the day of the Lord”; and in chapter 22[:30-31], “And I sought for anyone among them who would repair the wall and stand in the breach before me on behalf of the land, so that I would not destroy it; but I found no one. Therefore I have poured out my indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath; I have returned their conduct upon their heads, says the L ord God.” v

2 Kgs. 4:1-7; 2 Sam. 24:10; 1 Kgs. 3:6-10; 2 Chron. 14:11-12; 2 Chron. 20:5-12. w 2 Kgs. 19:14-19. x Gen. 18:22-32.

On War against the Turk From this we can clearly see whaty God desires, and that he is greatly angered when people do not set themselves in the way of his wrath or try to head it off. This means, as I said above, taking the rod out of God’s hand. Let anyone fast who wants to do so. Let such persons go down on their knees and bow and fall to the ground if they are in earnest. For the bowing and kneeling that has been done in the chapters and monasteries was not done in earnest; it was, and still is, sheer nonsense. z It is not for nothing that I exhort pastors and preachers to emphasize and practice this upon the people, for I see plainly that it rests entirely with the preachers whether or not the people will amend their ways and pray. Little will be accomplished by preaching in which men scorn and blaspheme Luther, and do not touch upon repentance and prayer; but where God’s word is heard, it is not without fruit [Isa. 55:11]. They, however, must preach as though they were preaching to saints who had learned all that there was to know about repentance and faith, and, therefore, talk about higher things. The great needs of our time should now move us to such prayers against the Turk, for the Turk, as has been said, is a servant of the Devil, who not only devastates land and people with the sword, as we shall hear later, but also lays waste to the Christian faith and our dear Lord Jesus Christ. For although some praise the Turk’s government because he allows everyone to believe whatever he wishes so long as he remains the temporal lord, this reputation is not actually true. For he does not allow Christians to gather in public, and no one can openly confess Christ or preach or teach against Muhammad. What kind of freedom of belief is that when no one is allowed to preach or confess Christ, and yet our salvation depends on that confession, as Paul says in Romans 10[:9]—“to confess with the lips saves,” and Christ has strictly commanded us to confess and teach his gospel.53 Since, therefore, faith must now be silent and held in secret among these wild and barbarous people and under such severe extensive restrictions, how can it persist or survive, especially when it requires so much effort and labor in places where it is y z

The German here—das (= that)—seems to have been a typesetter’s error for was (= what). Ein recht affen spiel.

357

53. The text from Matt. 10:32 reads: “Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven.” Conversion to Christianity in Turkish lands was punishable by death.

358

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD preached most faithfully and diligently?a Therefore it happens, and indeed must happen, that those Christians who have been imprisoned in Turkey or eventually fell away and become altogether Turkish very seldom remain true to their faith. They lack the living bread of the soul [John 6:51] and see the carnal way of life of the Turks and must then adapt themselves to it. How can one injure Christ more than with these two things— namely, force and deceit? With force they suppress preaching and the word. With deceit they put wicked and dangerous examples before the public eye every day and draw others to them. So in order not to lose our Lord Jesus Christ, along with his word and faith, we must pray against the Turks in the same way that we pray against other enemies of our salvation and all that is good— indeed, as we pray against the Devil himself. Here the people should be told once more about the dissolute life and ways of the Turk so that they may the better grasp the necessity of prayer. To be sure, it often disgusted me, and still does, that neither our great lords nor our esteemed scholars have taken the effort to give us any certain knowledge about the character of the Turks in the two estates—spiritual and temporal. And yet the Turk has come so near to us. It is said that they, too, have chapters and monasteries. Some, indeed, have invented outrageous lies about the Turks in order to incite us Germans against them. But there is no need for lies; there is more than enough truth right here. I will tell my dear Christians a few things, so far as I know the real truth, so that they may be moved and encouraged to pray diligently and earnestly against the enemy of Christ our Lord.

[The Flawed Teachings of the Qur’an] 54. Luther read the Qur’an for the first time on 21 February 1542, albeit in a poor Latin translation (WA 53:272). In the preface to his Widerlegung des Alkoran Bruder Richardi; verdeutscht durch Dr. M. Luther (1542), Luther expressed surprise that the Qur’an had still not been adequately translated into Latin (WA 53:271–396, here 261).

I have some parts of Muhammad’s Qu’ran, which in German might be called a book of sermons or doctrines like the papal decretals. When I have time I must translate it into German so that everyone may see what a foul and shameful book it is. 54

a Luther devoted the last part of his Army Sermon against the Turk (1529) to prisoners and other Christians in this situation (WA 30/2:160–97).

On War against the Turk

359

A folio from the Qur’an. On the right side are verses 2–8 of “The Cave” (Surat al-Kahf ), and on the left side are verses 67–70 of chapter 17, entitled “The Children of Israel” (Surat Bani Isra’il). The borders of the text include a commentary in Persian on a particular verse of the Qur’an. The fragment is written in a script known as bihari, a variant of naskh (cursive) typical of northern India after Timur’s conquest and prior to the establishment of the Mughal Dynasty (c. 1400−1525 ce).

[1. Liars: Muslims Elevate Muhammad above Christ] In the first place, Muhammad (c. 570–632) greatly praises Christ and Mary as being the only ones without sin. But he believes that Christ was nothing more than a holy prophet like Jeremiah or Jonah, and denies that he is God’s Son and true God. Furthermore, he does not believe that Christ is the Savior of the world who died for our sins, but that he preached only for his own time and completed his work before his death, just like any other prophet. But Muhammad highly exalts and praises himself and boasts how he has talked with God and the angels, and how

360

Muhammad on Mount Hira. Miniature from the Siyer-i Nebi, a Turkish epic about the life of Muhammad, written by Mustafa, son of Yusuf of Erzurum, in the sixteenth century. Located at Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul, Turkey.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD since Christ’s office as a prophet is now complete, he has been commanded to bring the world to his faith, and whoever is not willing, to coerce or punish them with the sword. There is much glorification of the sword in it. Therefore the Turks think that their Muhammad is much higher and greater than Christ—that Christ’s office has come to an end and that Muhammad’s office is now in force. From this anyone can easily see that Muhammad is a destroyer of our Lord Christ and his kingdom, for whoever denies the articles concerning Christ—that he is the Son of God, that he died for us, and still lives and reigns at the right hand of God—what has he left of Christ? Father, Son, Holy Ghost, baptism, the sacrament, gospel, faith, and all Christian doctrine and life are gone, and instead of Christ there is nothing left other than Muhammad with his doctrine of works and especially of the sword. That is the chief doctrine of the Turkish faith in which all abominations, all errors, all devils are piled up in one heap. And yet the world acts as though it were snowing students b of the Turkish faith, for it is extraordinarily pleasing to reason that Christ is not God, which the Jews also believe, and especially that men are to rule and bear the sword and get ahead in the world. The Devil is behind that. Thus, this faith is a patchwork of Jewish, Christian, and heathen beliefs. From the Christians b Thiele, 91 (no. 71: “Es wil dreck regen”).

On War against the Turk he gets his praise of Christ, Mary, the apostles, and other saints. From the Jews he gets abstinence from wine and fasting at certain times of the year, ritual washing like the Nazirites [Num. 6:1-21], and eating while seated on the ground. And the Turks perform the same holy works as some of our monks and hope for eternal life at the Judgment Day, for, holy people that they are, they believe in the resurrection of the dead, something few papists believe in.55 What pious Christian heart would not be horrified at this enemy of Christ when we see that the Turk allows no article of our faith to remain standing, except the single one about the resurrection of the dead? Thus, Christ is not redeemer, savior, or king; there is no forgiveness of sins, no grace, and no Holy Ghost. What more should I say? In the claim that Christ is beneath Muhammad, and less than him, everything is destroyed. Who would not rather be dead than live under such a government, where he must be silent about his Christ, and hear and see such blasphemy and abomination against him? Yet this claim takes a very powerful hold when the Turk conquers a land, so that people even submit to it willingly. Therefore, let everyone pray who is able to pray that this abomination not become lord over us and that we not be punished with this terrible rod of God’s anger.

[2. Murderers: Muslims Rule Only by the Sword] In the second place, the Turk’s Qu’ran or creed not only teaches the destruction of the Christian faith, but also of all temporal government. His Muhammad, it is said, commands that ruling be done by the sword; the sword in his Qu’ran is the most common and most noble work. Thus, the Turk, in truth, is really nothing but a murderer or highwayman, as his deeds make clear to all. St. Augustine calls other kingdoms, too, a great robbery. c Psalm 76[:4] also calls them “the mountains of prey” because an empire seldom comes into existence except by robbery, violence, and injustice; or, at the very least, is often seized and occupied by wicked and lawless people, so that the Scriptures, in Genesis 10[:9], call the first earthly prince, Nimrod, a mighty hunter. But never has any kingdom come into being or become so mighty through murder and robbery as that of the Turk, who still murc

Cf. The City of God (De civitate dei), 4:4, 6.

361

55. It is not clear why Luther makes this claim since the immortality of the soul had long been a part of Catholic doctrine and was explicitly affirmed at the Fifth Lateran Council (December 1513).

362

56. Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but was created by God the Father and therefore is distinct from, and subordinate to, the Father. The doctrine, which the church condemned as a heresy at the Council of Nicaea (325), was attributed to Arius (c. 250–336), a Christian bishop from Alexandria. 57. Lucius, bishop of Alexandria (326–373), was elevated by the Arians as a counterbishop in 363 during the reign of Athanasius (c. 296–373).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD ders and robs every day. For robbing and murdering, devouring and destroying more and more of those who are around them, is commanded in their law as a good and divine deed. They do this and think that they are doing God a service. Their government, therefore, is not godly and orderly like others, for the maintenance of peace, the protection of the good, and the punishment of the wicked, d but a rod and punishment of God’s anger upon the unbelieving world, as has been said. This same work of murdering and robbing pleases the flesh because it leads to high places and subjects everyone’s life and goods to themselves. How much more pleasing it must be when this becomes a commandment, as though God would have it so and is well pleased by it! So it is among the Turks that the most highly regarded are those who energetically enlarge the Turkish kingdom and continuously murder and rob those around them. This point must also follow from the first one. For Christ says in John 8[:44] that the Devil is a liar and murderer. With lies he kills souls and with murder he kills the body. If he wins with a lie, he does not take a holiday and delay; he follows it up with murder. Thus, when the spirit of lies had taken possession of Muhammad, and the Devil had murdered souls with his Qu’ran and had destroyed the faith of Christian believers, he had to go on and also take the sword in order to murder their bodies. The Turkish faith, then, has not advanced by preaching and miracles, but by the sword and by murder. Its success has been truly due to God’s wrath, through which, since all the world has a desire for the sword, robbery, and murder, one should come who would give it plenty of murder and robbery. Generally, when the spirit of lies has taken possession of fanatics, and led them astray from the true faith, they are not able to stop there, but follow the lie with murder and take up the sword, as a sign that they are children of the father of all lies and murder. Thus we read how the Arians56 became murderers and how one of the greatest bishops of Alexandria, Lucius by name, drove the true believers out of the city, and went into a ship and held a naked sword in his own hand until all the believers were on board and taken away.57 And these tender, holy bishops committed many other murders already in those times, which is now almost twelve hundred years ago. Again, how many murders d Cf. 1 Pet. 2:14 and Rom. 13:4.

On War against the Turk had the Donatists committed in St. Augustine’s time, almost eleven hundred years ago, as the holy father shows repeatedly in his books.58 The clergy conducted themselves in such a worldly way! Yes, they had the name and outward appearance of bishops among the Christians; but because they had fallen away from the truth and become subjects of the spirit of lies, they had to go forward in his service and become wolves and murderers. What was Müntzer seeking in our own times, but to become a new Turkish emperor? 59 He was possessed by the spirit of lies and could therefore not be restrained. He had to take on the other work of the Devil, take the sword and murder and rob, as the spirit of murder drove him, and he created such rebellion and misery. And what shall I say of the most holy father, the pope? 60 Is it not true that he and his bishops have become worldly lords, and, led by the spirit of lies, have fallen away from the gospel and embraced their own human doctrine, and have thus committed murder down to this present moment? Read the histories from the beginning and you find that the principal business of popes and bishops has been to drive emperors, kings, princes, lands, and people against one another, while they themselves have gone to war and helped in the murder and bloodshed. Why? Because the spirit of lies cannot do otherwise. After he has made his disciples teachers of lies and deceivers, he does not rest until he also makes them murderers, robbers, and bloodhounds. Now who has commanded them to bear the sword, to wage war, and to incite and arouse to murder and war, when they should have been preaching and praying? 61 They call me and my followers seditious; but when have I ever coveted the sword or urged anyone else to do so, and not instead taught and kept peace and obedience, except when I have instructed and admonished that temporal rulers carry out their office and maintain peace and justice? The tree is known by its fruits [Matt. 7:16]. I and my followers keep and teach peace. The pope, as a true Antichrist, along with his followers, wages war, commits murder, and robs not only his enemies, but also burns, condemns, and persecutes the innocent, the pious, and the orthodox. And he does this while sitting in the temple of God [2 Thess. 2:4] as head of the church, something the Turk does not do. But just as the pope is the Antichrist, so the Turk is the very Devil incarnate. 62 Our prayer, and the prayer of Christendom, is against both—that they would go down to hell, even

363

58. Cf. Augustine, Against Gaudentius (Contra Gaudentium), 1:22. The Donatists were a Christian sect that flourished in the fourth and fifth centuries among Berber Christians in North Africa. Named for the Christian bishop Donatus Magnus (d. 355), Donatists viewed themselves as the “true church,” since they resisted pressures by the emperor Diocletian (244–311) to compromise their faith. 59. Thomas Müntzer (c. 1489–1525) was an erstwhile Lutheran reformer who became a leader during the Peasants’ War. Müntzer, a harsh critic of the Christian princes of his day, promoted a new egalitarian society based on biblical principles and proclaimed the day of judgment for those in power. Luther detested Müntzer, not least because he brought the entire Reformation movement under the shadow of chaos and disorder. 60. At the time of the writing the pope was Clement VII (see also n. 39, p. 351). 61. Luther is getting sidetracked here on a recurring theme in his writings. On the one hand, he wants to defend without apology the revolutionary implications of his reform initiatives; on the other hand, he is equally insistent on the conservative nature of his theology— that he is a stalwart defender of social and political order. It is not Luther, he insists, but Thomas Müntzer, the pope, and the Turks who are the true sources of disorder and instability. 62. The Antichrist is the foremost of Christ’s enemies as described in 1 John 2:18; 4:3; 2 John 7; and 2 Thess. 2:3-10. In the biblical imagery, the Antichrist is deceptive precisely because he will

364 appear in a time of great apostasy with the appearance of holiness. Luther identified the pope clearly with the Antichrist. For more on Luther’s understanding of the end times, see John Baldwin, “Luther’s Eschatological Appraisal of the Turkish Threat in Eine Heerpredigt wider den Türken,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 33 (1995): 185–202; and Mark U. Edwards Jr., Luther’s Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531–46 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 97–114. 63. These are, of course, extremely strong words. Luther is condemning the pope, the head of the Catholic Church, to hell. 64. While Luther undoubtedly is sincere in his admonition against rejoicing in the misfortunes of one’s enemies, he had no reservations about celebrating the defeat of the peasants in the Peasants’ War or in chastising those who were squeamish about violence and bloodshed necessary for restoring order in the aftermath of that uprising.

65. Luther seems to be speaking ironically here when he uses the word chaste (züchtigen). 66. Mars was the classical god of war; Venus was the goddess of love.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD though it may take the Last Day to send them there, a day which I hope will not be far off.63 Summing up what has been said: where the spirit of lies reigns, there also is the spirit of murder, though it may be hindered from its work and deeds. If it is hindered in its work, it still laughs and praises and rejoices when murder is done, or, at the least, affirms it, for it regards murder as right. But good Christians do not rejoice in any murder, not even in the misfortunes of their enemies.64 Since, then, Muhammad’s Qu’ran is a great spirit of manifold lies—so that almost nothing of Christian truth remains—how could it have any other result or outcome than becoming a great and mighty murderer—a liar and murderer with the appearance of truth and righteousness? Now just as lies destroy the spiritual order of faith and truth, so murder destroys all temporal order, which has been instituted by God. For wherever murder and robbery are rampant there can be no good, praiseworthy temporal government. War and murder keep them from honoring or expecting peace, as one can see in soldiers. For this reason, Turks do not highly regard the work of sowing and planting.

[3. Hypocrites: Muslims Have No Regard for Marriage] The third point is that Muhammad’s Qu’ran has no regard for marriage, but permits everyone to take as many wives as he desires. Thus, it is customary among the Turks for one man to have ten or twenty wives and to desert or sell them whenever he wishes, so that in Turkey women are held to be cheap and are despised—they are bought and sold like cattle. Although there may be a very few who do not take advantage of this law, nevertheless, it is the law and anyone who wants to can follow it. Such arrangements, however, are not a marriage and cannot be a marriage, because none of them takes or has a wife with the intention of remaining with her forever as one body, as God’s word says in Genesis 3 [2:24], “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Thus, marriage among the Turks closely resembles the chaste65 life soldiers lead with their whores; for the Turks are warriors and must act like warriors. Mars and Venus, say the poets, must be together.66 These are the three points I wanted to express, which I am

On War against the Turk sure can be found in the Qu’ran of the Turks. I will not mention other things that I have heard because I cannot be certain about them. Suppose, then, that there are some Christians among the Turks. Suppose that some of them are monks. Suppose that some are honorable lay people. Now supposing all this, what good can there be in the government and the whole Turkish manner and way of life when according to their Qu’ran these three things are given free reign among them—namely, lying, murder, and disregard of marriage? Moreover, everyone must be silent about Christian truth and dare not criticize or try to reform these three things, but must look on and (so I fear), consent to them at least to the point of keeping silent? What could be a more horrible, dangerous, dreadful imprisonment than life under such a government? As I said, lies destroy the spiritual estate; murder destroys the temporal estate; and disregard of marriage destroys the estate of matrimony. Now if you take out of the world veram religionem, veram politiam, veram oeconomiam— that is, true spiritual life, true temporal government, and true household discipline—what is left in the world except for flesh, worldly things, and the Devil? It is like the life of the “good fellows” who live with harlots. Some people, however, say that the Turks are faithful among themselves, friendly, and careful to tell the truth. I can easily believe this and I think that they probably have other fine virtues among them as well. No one is so bad that there is nothing good about them. Sometimes a woman of the streets has more good qualities than ten honorable matrons. The Devil also likes to cloak himself as more handsome than the angel of light, so that he hides behind certain works that are works of light. Murderers and robbers are much more faithful and friendly to each other than neighbors are—indeed, sometimes even more so than many Christians. For if the Devil keeps these three things—lies, murder, and disregard of marriage—as the true foundation, and the foundation of hell, then he can easily tolerate, and even help, carnal love and faithfulness to be built upon it, as if they were precious gems (though they are nothing but hay and straw). He knows full well that nothing will remain of them in a fire.67 On the other hand, where there is true faith, true government, and true marriage, the Devil works hard to keep love and fidelity from appearing so that he can shame and despise the foundation. What is more, when the Turks go into battle their only slogan

365

67. Cf. 1 Cor. 3:11-15, where the apostle Paul speaks of fire as a refining force that will burn away all deceitful or false qualities as if they were hay or straw, leaving behind the true foundation, which is Jesus Christ.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

366

68. Iconoclasts were Christian believers who rejected all physical images of God as blasphemous or idolatry—as the worship of things made by humans rather than worship of the one, true God. Luther’s strong emphasis on salvation as an inner work of grace, and his sharp distinction between the inner and outer, the visible and the invisible, led some of his followers like Andreas Karlstadt (1486–1541) to a position close to iconoclasm. 69. A play on the German words for “to stamp” (münzen) and “coin” (Münze) with Thomas Müntzer, leader of the Peasants’ War and a symbol for Luther of social chaos and political anarchy.

or battle cry is “Allah! Allah!” and the shout resounds in heaven and earth. But in the Arabic language Allah means God, and is a corruption of the Hebrew Eloha. For they have been taught in their Qu’ran that they shall boast constantly with these words, “There is no God but God,” which is really a tool of the Devil. For what is meant with “There is no God but God,” if not that one God is being distinguished from another? The Devil, too, is a god, and there is no doubt that they honor him with this word, just as the pope’s soldiers do when they cry, “Ecclesia! Ecclesia!”— yes indeed, the Devil’s ecclesia! Therefore, I believe that the Turks’ Allah does more in war than they do themselves. He gives them courage and cunning; he guides their sword and fist, their horse and warrior. What do you think, then, of the holy people who can call upon God in battle, and yet destroy Christ and all God’s words and works, as you have heard? Their view of holiness tolerates no images, and in this they are even holier than our iconoclasts.68 For our iconoclasts tolerate and are even glad to have images on coins, pennies, rings, and ornaments; but the Turk tolerates none of this and stamps nothing but letters on his coins. He is also entirely Müntzerian,69 for he seeks to exterminate all rulers and tolerates no authority in the temporal order such as princes, counts, lords, nobles, and other feudal rulers. Instead, he alone is lord over everything in his land, and gives only payments to others, never property or rights of rulership. e He is also a papist, for he believes that he will become holy and be saved by works. He does not think it a sin to overthrow Christ, lay waste to government, or destroy marriage. These are three things that the pope also does, though in other ways—namely, with hypocrisy—while the Turk uses force and the sword. To summarize: the Turk’s holiness is the very dregs of all abominations and errors. I have wanted to explain all this to the first man, namely, Christian [Christen hauffen], so that he may know and see how great the need is for prayer, and how he must first defeat the Turk’s Allah—that is, his god, the Devil—and overcome his power and divinity. Otherwise, I fear, the sword will accomplish little. Now this man should not physically fight with the Turk, as the pope and those around him teach; nor is he to resist the e

Luther makes a similar point about the Turks in his Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved, LW 46:127–28.

On War against the Turk

367

Turk with his fist. Rather, he should recognize the Turk as God’s rod and wrath, which Christians must either suffer if God visits their sins upon them, or struggle against him and drive him away solely with repentance, tears, and prayer. Whoever despises this counsel is free to do so—I will watch to see what harm he will do the Turk.

[Responsibility of Emperor and Princes in the Struggle against the Turks] The second man who ought to fight against the Turk is Emperor Charles, f or whoever may be emperor; for the Turk is attacking his subjects and his empire. And, as the proper authority appointed by God, he is obligated to defend his own. I repeat it here once again: I would not incite or call anyone to fight against the Turk unless the first method, laid out above—that one has first repented and been reconciled to God, etc.—had been followed. If anyone wants to go to war in another way, let him take his chances. It is not proper for me to say anything more than to clarify everyone’s duty and to instruct each person’s conscience. I see clearly that kings and princes are taking a foolish and careless attitude toward the Turk. I am deeply afraid that they disregard God and elevate the Turk too highly; or perhaps they do not know that the Turk is such a mighty lord that no king or land, whatever it is, is strong enough to resist him alone, unless God performs a miracle. Now I cannot expect any miracle or special grace of God for Germany unless people amend their ways and honor the word of God differently than they have until now.70 But enough has been said about this. Whoever wishes should speak.

[1. The Emperor Must Take the Lead] Now we want to speak of the emperor. First, whoever wants to fight against the Turk must do so under the emperor’s command, his banner, and his name, so that one can be sure that he is obeying the ordinance of God, because we know that the f

See n. 3, p. 337.

70. Luther regarded the lifting of the siege of Vienna in October 1529 as a miracle. See his letter to Nicholas Amsdorf (1483–1565) on 27 October 1529 (WA Br 5:167).

368

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

emperor is our true overlord and head. Whoever obeys him in these matters also obeys God, and whoever disobeys him also disobeys God. If he dies in this obedience, he dies in a good state; and if he has previously repented and believes in Christ, he will be saved. I suppose everyone claims to know these things better than I can teach him—would to God they knew them as well as they think they do. Still, we will say more about them. Second, this fighting under the emperor’s banner and obedience to him should be true and simple. The emperor should seek nothing else than simply the work and obligations of his office, which is to protect his subjects; and those under his banner should seek simply to do the work and obligation of obedience. You should understand in this simplicity that you are not fighting the Turk for the reasons the emperors and princes have thus far used to incite war, such as winning of great honor, glory, and wealth, or to expand one’s territory, or out of anger and revenge and other such reasons. For in this they are seeking only their own self-interest, not justice or obedience. For this reason we have had no good fortune up until now, either in fighting or planning to fight against the Turk. Therefore, the urging and inciting that has thus far stirred up the emperor and the princes to fight against the Turk should cease. He Emperor Charles V’s war against Chaireddin, has been urged, as head of Christenthe Turkish governor of Tunis, the former pirate dom and as protector of the church Barbarossa (1535). Imperial troops file past the and defender of the faith, to wipe out emperor prior to embarking for Tunis. Located the Turk’s religion, and this urging in Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria. and exhorting has been based on the

On War against the Turk wickedness and vice of the Turks. Not so! For the emperor is not the head of Christendom or defender of the gospel or the faith.71 The church and the faith must have other protectors than the emperor and kings. They are usually the worst enemies of Christendom and of the faith, as Psalm 2[:2] says and as the church constantly laments. This sort of urging and exhorting only makes things worse and angers God that much more because it impinges on God’s honor and God’s work, and ascribes it to men, which is idolatry and blasphemy. Moreover, if the emperor were supposed to eradicate unbelievers and non-Christians, he would have to begin with the pope, bishops, and clergy, and perhaps not even spare us or himself; for there is enough disgusting idolatry in his own empire so that it is unnecessary to fight the Turks if this is the reason. There are far too many Turks, Jews, heathen, and non-Christians among us who have openly false doctrines and offensive, shameful lives. Let the Turks believe and live whatever they want, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live. The emperor’s sword has nothing to do with building up the faith; it belongs to physical, worldly things. Why should God not become angry with us? If we disrupt and confuse his order, he too becomes disruptive and throws us into confusion and all kinds of misfortune, as it is written, “with the crooked you show yourself perverse” [Ps. 18:26]. We can perceive and understand this through the fortune we have had up to now against the Turk. Think of all the heartache and misery that have been caused by the cruciata,72 by the indulgences,73 and by crusade taxes.74 With these Christians have been stirred up to take the sword and fight against the Turk when they should have been fighting the Devil and unbelief with the word and with prayer. Here is what should be done instead. The emperor and the princes should be admonished regarding their office and the obligation of their duty to give focused and serious thought to governing their subjects in peace and to protecting them against the Turk, regardless of whether or not they are Christians, though it would be very good if they were Christians. But because it is and remains uncertain whether they are Christians, but is certain that they are emperors and princes—that is, that God commands and obliges them to protect their subjects—we must let go of what is uncertain and hold to the certain, urging them with continual preaching and exhortation, and strongly

369 71. This is a sharp break with traditional assumptions regarding the role of the emperor in the Middle Ages.

72. Bullae cruciatae refer to the red crosses that the crusaders wore on their right shoulder. 73. Luther is likely referring here to the indulgences granted initially in 1095 by Pope Urban II (1042–1099) to crusaders who went personally to Palestine. In 1198, Innocent III (c. 1160–1216) extended this indulgence to include those who supported the Crusades in a wide variety of ways. In the course of time these pontifical concessions became more and more frequent. In the half century before the Reformation, such indulgences were granted in 1478, 1479, 1481, 1482, 1485, 1494, 1503, and 1505. 74. The collection of the crusade taxes, regularly assessed since the time of Innocent III (r. 1198–1216), imposed new duties on the papal treasury, which was responsible for both the collection and distribution of these assessments.

370

75. In the summer of 1530, Luther followed up on this promise with the treatise A Sermon on Keeping Children in School, LW 46:213–58.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD burdening their conscience that it is their divine duty not to let their subjects suffer so terribly, and that they commit a very serious sin when they are not mindful of their office and do not use all their power to bring counsel and help to those who live with body and goods under their protection and who are bound to them by oaths and homage. For I think (so far as I have observed the matter in our Imperial diets) that neither emperor nor princes themselves believe that they are emperor and princes. They act just as though it were up to their own judgment and whim whether or not they should rescue and protect their subjects from the power of the Turk. The princes neither care nor think that they are fully bound and obligated before God to counsel or help the emperor in this matter with body and goods. Each of them allows these considerations to pass them by as if it were of no concern—as though they were forced neither by command nor necessity—but that it was left entirely up to them to do it or not. They are just like the common people who think that they have no obligation to God or the world when they have bright sons, and send them to school and have them study. Rather, everyone thinks that they have the freedom to raise their son exactly as they please regardless of God’s word and ordinance. Indeed, the councilmen in the cities and almost all the rulers act in the same way and let the schools go to ruin, as though they had no responsibility for them, and even had an indulgence to do so. No one recalls that God earnestly commands and desires that bright children be reared to his praise and for his work, which cannot happen without the schools. Instead, everyone is determined to have their children make a living, as though God and Christendom needed no pastors, preachers, or spiritual counselors, and as if the worldly rulers needed no chancellors, advisors, or secretaries. But more of this another time.75 The pen must remain empress, or God will show us something else.g

g Die schreibfedder mus Keyserin bleiben odder Gott wird uns ein anders sehen lassen. The meaning, or relevance, of this phrase is not entirely clear.

On War against the Turk

371

[2. Temporal Rulers Have a Divine Obligation to Protect Their Subjects] Emperor, kings, and princes act the same way. They do not care that God’s commandment requires them to protect their subjects; they think that it is a matter for them to decide on their own free will—if they get the notion or if they have leisure for it. Friends, let’s all do that! Let none of us attend to what is commanded and what God orders; rather, let’s carry out our actions and duties simply on the basis of our own free will, and God will give us good grace and fortune. Do so and we shall be plagued both by the Turk here and now, and by the Devil in eternity. Perhaps, then, some worthless prattler—a legate, for example—will come from Rome and admonish the estates of the empire and incite them against the Turk by telling them how the enemy of the Christian faith has done such great harm to Christendom, and that the emperor, as guardian of the church and defender of the faith, should do this and that; as though they themselves were great friends of the Christian faith!76 But I would say to him: You scoundrel, h you impotent chatterer! All you accomplish with this is to make the emperor feel that he should do a good Christian work, one that he is not commanded to do, but is a matter of his own free choice. His conscience is not touched at all by this, and he is not reminded of the duty laid upon him by God, but the whole thing is left to his free choice. This, then, is how a legate ought to deal with the estates at the Imperial Diet. He should hold God’s commandment before them and make it an unavoidable issue, saying, “Dear lords, emperor, and princes, if you want to be emperor and princes, then act as emperor and princes, or the Turk will teach you with God’s wrath and disfavor. God has given and committed Germany, or the empire, to you to protect, rule, counsel, and help. You not only should, but you must, do this at the risk of losing the salvation of your soul along with God’s favor and grace. But now it is evident that none of you believes this or takes it seriously. You regard your office as a joke, as though it were a Shrove Tuesday mummery.77 You abandon the subjects God has committed to you to wretched harassment—to being taken captive, shamed, h The German reads: “you have driven your mother to drink” (Sie haben dir dein Mutter zum Bier gefurt).

76. In 1518, Pope Leo X (r. 1513–1521) sent several cardinals as papal legates to the Imperial Court and to Spain, France, and England to lay the groundwork for a crusade.

77. A reference to the carnival masquerades that traditionally took place on Shrove Tuesday, the day before Ash Wednesday (or the first day of Lent).

372

78. Luther is still speaking here in the voice of an imagined legate, addressing the estates at the Imperial Diet.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD plundered, slain, and sold by the Turk. Are you not aware that since God has committed this office to you, and has given you money and people so that you can provide and administer their well-being, he will hold you accountable for all of your subjects whom you so shamefully abandoned while you danced, feasted, flaunted, and gambled? For if you seriously believed that God appointed and ordained you to be emperor and princes, you would leave your banqueting and your bickering for seats of honor and other useless displays for a moment, and give careful thought to how you will appropriately discharge your office, fulfill God’s commands, and rescue your conscience from all the blood and misery that the Turk is inflicting upon your subjects. How can God, or any godly heart, think otherwise than that you hate your subjects or have made a secret covenant with the Turk or, at the very least, regard yourselves as neither emperor nor princes, but as little more than dolls and puppets that children play with? Otherwise, it would be impossible for you to be at peace with your own conscience. You seriously regard yourselves as overlords appointed by God but you have not discussed or taken counsel about these matters any differently than before. In this you see that you are steadily becoming Turks to your own subjects. Why, you even take up the case of Luther and in the Devil’s name discuss whether or not one can eat meat during fasts, whether nuns can take husbands, and things of that kind, which are not your business to discuss.78 Nor has God given you a single command to do so. Meanwhile, the serious and strict commandment of God, by which he has appointed you protectors of poor Germany, hangs in the air; and you become murderers, betrayers, and bloodhounds to your own good, faithful, obedient subjects, and abandon them—indeed, you throw them into the maw of the Turks as a reward for the bodies and money, wealth and honor that they stake on you and extend to you.” A good orator can easily see what I would like to say here if I were more skilled in the art of oratory, and what a legate should promote and expound upon at the Imperial Diet if he would carry out his office honestly and faithfully. This is why I said earlier that Charles, or the emperor, should be the man to fight against the Turk, and that the fighting should be done under his banner. “Oh, that is so obvious! Everyone knew that a long time ago. Luther is not telling us anything new,

On War against the Turk

373

but only old worn-out things.” Yes, but dear friend, the emperor must truly see himself with other eyes than before. And you must also look at his banner with new eyes. You and I are talking about the same emperor and the same banner; but you are not talking about the eyes I am talking about. The commandment of God that says, “Protect the good; punish the wicked” [1 Peter 2:14] must be on the banner. Tell me, how many can read this on the emperor’s banner, or truly believe it? Do you not think that their consciences would terrify them if they saw this banner and had to admit that they were completely guilty before God because of their failure to provide help and protection to their faithful subjects? Dear friend, a banner is not simply a silk cloth; there are letters on it, and he who reads the letters will lose his taste for luxury and banqueting. It is, in fact, quite easy to prove that up to now the banner has been regarded as a mere piece of silk, for otherwise the emperor would have unfurled it long ago, the princes would have followed it, and the Turk would not have become so mighty. But because the princes called it the emperor’s banner with their lips but were disobedient to it with their fists, treating it in fact as a mere piece of silk, things have gone the way that Emperor Maximilian with the imperial banner is evident to everyone. God grant that we are not of the Holy Roman Empire, the same too late in coming—I with my exhortation and two-headed eagle banner flown by Charles V. the lords with their banner—and may it not hapPainting by Albrecht Altdorfer (1480−1538). pen to us as with the children of Israel, who at first did not want to fight against the Amorites when God commanded them [Deut. 1:19-46]. Afterward, when they wanted to fight, they were defeated because God choose not be with them [Judg. 10:11ff.]. Nevertheless, no one should despair—repentance and right conduct always find grace.

[3. Princes Should Rely on God’s Strength in the Battle] So when the emperor and princes consider that they owe this protection to their subjects by God’s command, one should

374

79. “Trusting in bravery and numbers.” Luther seems to be drawing here on the Latin Vulgate text from Judg. 20:22. The Luther Bible, based on the Greek and Hebrew, renders the text more accurately as “the Israelites took courage.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD also admonish them not to be presumptuous or to undertake this work defiantly, or to rely upon their own might or action. For there are many foolish princes who say, “I have the right and authority; therefore I will do it!” Then they jump in with pride and boasts of their power, but ultimately are crushed. If they had not felt their power, the matter of right would have little effect on them, as has been proven in other cases in which they had little regard for what was right. Thus, it is not enough for you to know that God has commanded you to do this or that—you should do it with fear and humility. For God neither commands nor requires anyone to do anything on the basis of one’s own wisdom or strength. Instead, God, too, wants to take part in it and be feared. To be sure, God wants to do it through us and wants us to pray that we will not become presumptuous or forget his help, as the Psalter says, “The L ord takes pleasure in those who fear him, and in those who hope in his steadfast love” [Ps. 147:11]. Otherwise, we would easily allow ourselves to think that we could do these things without any need for God’s help, and would claim for ourselves the victory and honor that belong to him. An emperor or prince ought to learn well that verse of the Psalter, in Psalm 44[:6-7], “For not in my bow do I trust, nor can my sword save me. But you have saved us from our foes, and have put to confusion those who hate us,” as well as the rest that the psalm says. And Psalm 60[:10-12], “You do not go out, O God, with our armies. O grant us help against the foe, for human help is worthless. With God we shall do valiantly; it is he who will tread down our foes.” These and similar words have been fulfilled by the examples of many kings and great princes from the beginning down to the present day, though they had God’s commandment, authority, and right. Emperor and princes, therefore, should not treat them lightly. Read the telling example in Judges 20[:18–25] of how the children of Israel were defeated twice by the Benjaminites, despite the fact that God ordered them to fight and that they were clearly in the right. Their boldness and presumption were their downfall, as the text itself says, “Fidentes fortitudine et numero.”79 It is true that one should have horses and men and weapons and everything that is needed for battle, if they are to be found, so that one does not tempt God. But those who have them must not become overly bold so that God is forgotten or despised, for it is written, “All victory comes from heaven” [1 Macc. 3:19].

On War against the Turk If these two things are present—God’s commands and our humility—then there is no danger or need as far as the emperor is concerned. Then we are strong enough to take on the whole world and must have good fortune and success. But if we do not have good fortune, it is clearly because we lack one of the two things—either we are going to war in our own presumption without God’s commandment, or the first soldier, the Christian, is not present with his prayers. 80 It is not necessary here to admonish you against seeking honor or booty in war; for he who fights with humility and in obedience to God’s command, with his mind fixed solely upon the simple duty of protecting and defending his subjects, will forget about honor and booty—they will come to him on their own, more richly and gloriously than he could wish.

[4. Strong Leadership Is Crucial to Success] At this point someone will say, “Where are we going to find such pious warriors who will act like this?” Answer: The gospel is preached to all the world, and yet very few believe; nevertheless, Christendom believes and abides. I am not writing this instruction with the hope that it will be accepted by everyone; indeed, most people will laugh and scoff at it. I will be content if I am able to instruct a few princes and their subjects with this book, even if their numbers are very small. Numbers do not matter to me; there will be victory and good fortune enough. Would to God that I had directed these words only to the emperor, or to those who conduct the war in his name and at his command; then I would have more hope. It has often happened—indeed, it is almost always the case—that God bestows good fortune and success upon a whole land and kingdom through one single man; just as, on the other hand, God brings a whole land into all sorts of distress and misery through one scoundrel at court. As Solomon says in Ecclesiastes [9:18], “One bungler destroys much good.” We also read of Naaman, the captain of the king of Syria, that through this one man God gave the whole land good fortune and success [2 Kgs. 5:1-27]. Through the holy Joseph God gave great fortune to the whole kingdom of Egypt [Gen. 39:5], and in 2 Kings [3:14] Elisha says to Jehoram, “Were it not that I have regard for Jehoshaphat the king of Judah, I would neither look at you nor see you.” Thus, in the same way, the godless

375

80. Luther is returning here to themes he has already addressed earlier in the treatise—namely, that the primary task of the Christian believer in times of war is to fight a spiritual battle through confession and prayer, and not for any sort of material interest.

376

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD kings of Israel and Edom had to be helped for the sake of one godly man, when otherwise they would have been ruined with all kinds of problems. And in the book of Judges one can see the good that God did through Ehud [Judg. 3:15-30], Gideon [Judg. 6:11—8:28], Deborah [Judg. 4:4—5:31], Samson [Judg. 13:2— 16:31], and other individuals, even though the people were not worthy of it. See, on the other hand, what great harm Doeg did at the court of King Saul, 1 Samuel 22[:18], and what Absalom did against his father David with the aid and counsel of Ahithophel, 2 Samuel 16[:22—17:23]. I say this so that we will not be frightened or moved in any way if the great majority of those who fight under the emperor’s banner are unbelievers or have an un-Christian attitude. We must also remember that Abraham, all by himself, was able to do much—Genesis 14[:17; 18:24–33]. It is also certain that among the Turks, who are the Devil’s army, there is not one who is a Christian or who has a humble and upright heart. In 1 Samuel 14[:6], the godly Jonathan said, “Nothing can hinder the Lord from saving by many or by few,” and he himself inflicted a great slaughter on the Philistines beyond what Saul with his whole army could do. It does not matter, then, if the crowd is not good, provided only that the head and some of the chief leaders are upright. Of course, it would be good if all were upright, but that is scarcely possible.

[What about Those Who Are Sympathetic to the Turks?]

81. Luther may have been referring here to Michael Sattler, a prominent leader of Swiss and south German Anabaptists who was tried for heresy by Catholic authorities in 1527. In his trial he was accused of sedition because he spoke out against going to war against the Turks.

Futhermore, I hear it said that in Germany there are those who desire the coming of the Turk and his government because they would rather be under the Turk than under the emperor or our princes. 81 It would be hard to fight against the Turk with such people. I have no better counsel to give against this than that pastors and preachers be exhorted to be diligent in their preaching and faithful in instructing such people, pointing out how dangerous and wrong this is, and that this opinion makes themselves a party to serious and innumerable sins in God’s sight. It is dreadful enough to have to suffer under the Turk as an overlord and endure his government; but to willingly submit oneself to it,

On War against the Turk

377

or to desire it even when there is no reason or compulsion—well, those peoplei ought to be shown what kind of sin they are committing and how terrible their conduct is.

1. Turkish Sympathizers Are Guilty of Perjury In the first place, these people are disloyal and are guilty of perjury to their rulers, to whom they have sworn oaths and done homage. In God’s sight this is a great sin that does not go unpunished. Because of such perjury the good king Zedekiah perished miserably when he did not keep the oath he gave to the heathen emperor at Babylon [Jer. 21:7]. Such people may think or persuade themselves that it is within their own power and whim to go from one lord to another, as though they were free to do or not to do whatever they pleased, forgetting God’s commandment and forsaking their oath, by which they are bound and obligated to honor until they are compelled by force to abandon that loyalty or are put to death because of it. This is what the peasants wanted to do in the recent rebellion, and this is why they were defeated. 82 For just as a man may not murder himself, but must submit to being slain by the violence of others, so no one should evade obedience or his oath unless he is released from it by others, either by force or by favor and permission. This is what the preachers must diligently and clearly impress on such people, as, indeed, their office of preaching compels them. For it is their duty to warn their parishioners and to guard them against sin and harm to their souls. Whoever willingly turns from his lord and submits to the Turk cannot then remain under the Turk with a good conscience; instead, his own heart will always accuse and rebuke him, saying, “See, you were unfaithful to your overlord and have deprived him of the obedience you owed, and robbed him of his right and authority over you. Now, no sin can be forgiven unless the stolen goods are restored.” But how will you make restitution to your lord when you are under the Turk and cannot do so? One of two things must then happen. Either you must toil and labor forever to get away from the Turk and return to your overlord; or your conscience

i

In this sentence, the pronoun is singular masculine in the original.

82. Luther makes this point even more forcefully in his Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants (1525), where he denounces them as “blasphemers of God and slanderers of his holy name” (LW 46:50ff.).

378

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD must forever suffer contrition, pain, and unrest (God grant that it does not lead to despair and everlasting death) because you submitted to the Turk willingly and without necessity, contrary to your sworn oath and duty. Thus, you may be among the Turks physically, but with your heart and conscience yearn to be over on this side. What have you gained? Why did you not remain here from the beginning?

[2. Turkish Sympathizers Share in the Wickedness of the Turks] In the second place, besides all that, such faithless, disloyal, and perjurious people commit an even more horrible sin—they take part in all the abominations and wickedness of the Turks. For whoever willingly goes over to the Turks becomes their comrade and accomplice in all they do. Now we have already heard what kind of a person the Turk is—namely, a destroyer, an enemy, and a blasphemer of our Lord Jesus Christ, who promotes his shameful Muhammad and all kinds of lies instead of the gospel and faith. Furthermore, the Turk destroys all temporal government and home life or marriage, and his warfare, which is nothing but murder and bloodshed, is a tool of the Devil himself. See! Whoever consorts with the Turk has to participate in this terrible abomination and brings down on his own head all the murder and all the blood the Turks have shed, along with all the lies and vices with which they have damaged Christ’s kingdom and led souls astray. It is dreadful enough if someone is unwillingly forced to be under this bloodhound and Devil, to see, hear, and endure these abominations, as the godly Lot had to do in Sodom, about which St. Peter [2 Pet. 2:7-8] writes. It is not necessary to desire them or seek them out on one’s own accord. Indeed, a person ought far rather die twice in war, obedient to his overlord, than, like poor Lot, be brought by force into such Sodoms and Gomorrahs [Gen. 13:10-13]. Still less ought a godly person desire to go there willingly, in disobedience and against God’s commandment and his own duty. That would mean not only taking part in all the wickedness of the Turk and the Devil, but also to strengthen and further it, just as Judas not only took part in the wickedness of the Jews against Christ, but strengthened and encouraged it. Pilate, however, did not act as wickedly as Judas, as Christ testifies in John 17 [19:11].

On War against the Turk

379

[3. Defending the Turks Will Not Make Things Better] In the third place, the preachers must impress upon the people that going over to the Turks will not thereby improve anything for themselves and that their hopes and intentions will be completely for naught. For it is a custom among the Turks to not allow those who are anything or have anything to stay in the place where they live, but to remove them to a distant corner in another land, where they are sold as servants. Thus they fulfill the proverbs about “running from the rain to fall in the water,” “lifting a plate and breaking the dish,” and “from bad to worse.” It scarcely serves them wrong.j For the Turk is a true warrior who has other ways of thinking about land and people, both in getting and keeping them, than do our emperor, kings, and princes. He does not trust and believe such disloyal people and he has the impulse to do as he will; so he does not need these people as do our princes. I say that the preachers and pastors must diligently admonish and warn these disloyal people, for it is the truth, and it is needed. But if there are some who despise this admonition and will not be moved by it, let them go to the Devil, as St. Paul did with the Greeks and St. Peter with the Jews. 83 The others should not be dismayed. Indeed, if it would come to war, I would hope that none of these people would be or remain under the emperor’s banner, but were all already on the side of the Turks. They would be defeated all the sooner and they would do the Turk more harm than good in battle, for both are out of favor with God, the Devil, and the world, and are surely condemned to hell. It is good to fight against such wicked people who are so clearly and surely damned both by God and the world. There are many such depraved, despairing, and evil people; but anyone with any sense will heed such exhortation without question, will turn and be persuaded to remain obedient. They will not cast their souls so carelessly into hell to the Devil, but rather fight with all their strength under their overlord, even though they are slain by the Turks in so doing. j

Cf. Theile, 261 (no. 276: “Leffel aufhebben, schussel zu tretten [zubrechen]”), and idem, 409–11 (no. 478: “Ubel erger Machen”). The last proverb in the sequence is unclear. The German reads und geschicht auch kaum recht [=unrecht?].

83. It is not entirely clear what Luther means with this reference. In Gal. 2:8, Paul notes that the two men had distinctive missions—that Peter had been sent as an apostle to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, or Greeks—but neither of these early apostles made declarations that nonbelievers in these groups should be allowed to “go to the devil.”

380

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

[Pope and Turk: Is There Any Difference?] But then you say again, “If the pope is indeed as evil as the Turk— for you yourself call him the Antichrist, along with his clergy and his followers—then the Turk is also as godly as the pope, for he acknowledges the four gospels and Moses, together with the prophets. If we ought to fight against the Turk, should we not also, indeed all the more, fight against the pope as well?” Answer: I cannot deny that the Turk esteems the four gospels as divine and true, as well as the prophets, and that he also speaks very highly of Christ and of his mother. But at the same time, he also believes that his Muhammad is superior to Christ and that Christ is not God, as we said above. Similarly, however, we Christians acknowledge the Old Testament as divine Scripture, but that it is now fulfilled and, as St. Peter says in Acts 15[:10-11], is too difficult to obey without God’s grace. Thus, it is abolished by the gospel and no longer binding upon us. Muhammad treats the gospel the same way. He acknowledges that the gospel is indeed correct, but that it has long since served its purpose and that it is too hard to keep, especially in those points where Christ teaches that one is to leave everything for his sake [Matt. 19:29], to love God with his whole heart [Matt. 22:37], and the like. This is why God had to give another new law, one that was not so hard and one that the world can keep. And that law was the Qu’ran. But if anyone asks why the Turk performs no miracles to confirm this new law, he says that that is unnecessary and of no use, for people witnessed many miracles in earlier times when Moses’ law and the gospel arose, and they did not believe. Therefore his Qu’ran does not need to be confirmed by futile miracles, but by the sword, which is more persuasive than miracles. This is how it has been and still is among the Turks—everything is carried out by the sword instead of with miracles. On the other hand, the pope is not much more godly. Indeed, he resembles Muhammad to an extraordinary extent for he, too, praises the gospel and Holy Scripture with his lips, but he holds that many things in it are too hard and impossible to maintain, including the very things that Muhammad and the Turks also consider too difficult, like Matthew 5[:20–44]. So he interprets them and makes them into consilia, that is, “counsels,” which

On War against the Turk no one is obligated to keep unless he desires to do so, as Paris along with the other universities, cathedral schools, and monasteries have brazenly taught. 84 Therefore, he, too, does not rule with the gospel, or the word of God, but has made a new law and Qu’ran—namely, his decretals, which he enforces with the ban85 just as the Turk enforces his Qu’ran with the sword. He even calls the ban his spiritual sword, a term that should be reserved for the word of God alone (Ephesians 6[:17]). Nevertheless, he also uses the temporal sword when he can, or at least he calls upon it and urges and incites others to use it. I am confident that if the pope could use the temporal sword as powerfully as the Turk, he would likely do so with less goodwill than the Turk, as, indeed, he has often attempted. God visits both of them with the same plague, and smites them with blindness so that they experience what St. Paul says in Romans 1[:28] regarding the shameful vice of the dumb sins, k that God gives them up to a perverse mind because they pervert the word of God. Both the pope and the Turk are so blind and senseless that they commit the dumb sins shamelessly, as if it were an honorable and praiseworthy thing. Since they disregard the institution of marriage, it serves them right that there are pompous dog-marriages (would to God they were dog-marriages), indeed, also pompous “Italian weddings” and “Florentine brides”86 among them; and they imagine that these things are good. I hear one horrible thing after another about what an open and glorious Sodom Turkey is, and everybody who has looked around a little in Rome and Italy knows very well how God’s anger and punishment are directed against the forbidden marriage, so that Sodom and Gomorrah, which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone [Gen. 19:24], must seem a mere joke and prelude compared with these abominations. 87 Therefore, I would very much regret the rule of the Turk also for this reason; indeed, his rule would be intolerable in German territories. What, then, are we to do? Should we fight against the pope as well as against the Turk, since the one is as godly as the other? Answer: Treat the one like the other and no one is wronged—the same sin should receive the same punishment. This is what I

k Stummen sunden.

381

84. The three Evangelical counsels or counsels of perfection in the Christian monastic tradition are chastity, poverty, and obedience. The concept is rooted in the story of Jesus’ encounter with the rich young ruler (Matt. 19:21) in which Jesus advises the young man that he will need to give up his riches if he wants to be “perfect.” The “counsels of perfection” in Catholicism were understood not to be binding upon all and therefore not necessary for salvation. 85. The ban, or excommunication, meant that a specific individual or group could not take part in the Eucharist or participate in the other sacraments of the church.

86. These phrases, and the subsequent reference to “forbidden marriage,” are references to homosexuality. 87. Luther, reflecting the context of his day, had harsh words for homosexuals. In his Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15–20, he wrote, “The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which was implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who, after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature” (LW 3:225).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

382

88. The Battle of Pavia, fought on 24 February 1525, resulted in the humiliating defeat of Francis I, king of France. See also n. 3, p. 337 and n. 91 below.

89. Refers to letters of the pope, written either in response to consultations or as a teaching initiative. Along with other documents of the church they form the ecclesiastical law of the Roman Catholic Church. 90. Herr Christianus. With this phrase Luther is making a general appeal to all true Christian believers.

mean: If the pope and his followers were to attack the empire with the sword, as the Turk does, he should receive the same treatment as the Turk; which is what happened to him recently by the army of Emperor Charles outside of Pavia. 88 God’s verdict is, “all who take the sword will perish by the sword” [Matt. 26:52]. I do not counsel people to wage war against the Turk or the pope because of their false beliefs or evil life, but because of their murder and destruction. The best thing about the papacy is that it does not yet have the sword as the Turk does; otherwise, he would certainly attempt to subject the whole world to itself, although it would do nothing more than to bring the world to faith in the pope’s Qu’ran—the decretals. 89 For the pope pays as little heed to the gospel or Christian faith as the Turk, and knows as little about it, though he makes a great pretense of Turkish sanctity by fasts (which he himself does not observe); thus they deserve the reputation of being like the Turk, though they are against Christ. The first man, Sir Christian,90 has been aroused against the papacy because of its errors and wicked ways, and he attacks it boldly with prayer and the word of God. And he has wounded it, too, so that they feel it and rage. But raging does not help. The axe is laid to the tree and the tree must be uprooted, unless it bears different fruit.l I see clearly that they have no intention of reforming. The further things go, the more stubborn they become, and the more they want to have their own way, and the more they boast, “All or nothing; bishop or slave!” They act so godly, but before they would reform or turn from their shameful ways (which both they themselves and the whole world admit is neither appropriate nor tolerable) they would rather go over to their comrade and brother, the holy Turk. May our heavenly Father hear their own prayer soon and grant that, as they say, they may be “all or nothing, bishop or slave.” Amen! This is what they want. Amen! So be it; let it happen as God pleases!

l

Cf. Matt. 3:10.

On War against the Turk

383

[We Are Living in the End Times] But you say further, “How can Emperor Charles fight against the Turk now, when he has against him so many hindrances and treachery from kings, princes, the Venetians91—indeed, from almost everybody?” This is my reply: A person should let lie what cannot be lifted. m If we can do no more, we must let our Lord Jesus Christ counsel and aid us by his return, which cannot be far off. For the world has come to its end. The Roman Empire is almost gone—it is torn asunder and is like the kingdom of the Jews when Christ’s birth was near. The Jews had absolutely nothing left of their kingdom; Herod was the end. So I think that because the Roman Empire is also almost gone, Christ’s return is at hand. The Turk is the last sign of the end of the empire, a parting gift to the Roman Empire. And just as Herod and the Jews hated each other, though both stood together against Christ,

Tapestry by Bernard van Orley (c. 1488−1541), illustrating the Battle of Pavia in 1525, in which Emperor Charles V defeated French King Francis I. Swiss mercenaries flee with booty.

m Theile, 421–22 (no. 488: “was nicht dein ist, das las liggen”).

91. In 1521, the Venetian republic, through the influence of Pope Clement VII, had supported the French king, Francis I, against Emperor Charles V, touching off the Italian War of 1521–26. At the Treaty of Madrid (14 January 1526), Francis I, who had been captured during the Battle of Pavia in February 1525, agreed to cede his lands in Italy, Flanders, Artois, and Tournai to Charles V. Francis was released and allowed to return to France, but when he crossed the border he announced his refusal to ratify the treaty and entered into the League of Cognac, the intent of which was to dethrone Charles V.

384

92. Constantinople fell to the forces of Muhammad II (Mehmed the Conqueror) (1432–1481) on 29 May 1453. 93. Muhammad II completed the conquest of Greece in 1461.

94. Luther makes this argument more explicitly earlier in the text.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD so too, the Turk and the papacy hate each other, but stand together against Christ and his kingdom. Nevertheless, the emperor should do whatever he can for his subjects against the Turk, so that even if he cannot entirely prevent the abomination, he may nonetheless do all that is possible to protect and rescue his subjects. The emperor should be moved to offer this protection not only because it is his duty, his office, and God’s command, and not only because of the heathen and vile government the Turk is bringing to our land, as has been said above, but also because of the misery and wretchedness that is befalling his subjects. Doubtlessly they know better than I do how cruelly the Turk treats those whom he takes captive. He treats them like cattle—pulling, dragging, driving those that can move, and killing on the spot those who cannot move, whether they are young or old. All this and more like it should move all the princes and the whole empire to mercy—to set aside for a moment their own issues and quarrels, and to earnestly unite to help the wretched so that things would not go as they went with Constantinople 92 and Greece.93 They quarreled so long with each other and looked after their own affairs until the Turks overwhelmed all of them, as they have already come close to doing with us. But if this is not to be, and our unrepentant life makes us unworthy of any grace, counsel, or support, then we must resign ourselves to it and suffer under the Devil. But that does not excuse those who could help and do not. I want it to be clearly understood and said, however, that it was not for nothing that I named the Emperor Charles as the man who ought to go to war against the Turk.94 I leave other kings, princes, and rulers who despise Emperor Charles, or are not his subjects, or do not wish to obey him, to take their own chances. They should do nothing because of my advice or admonition. What I have written here is for Emperor Charles and his subjects; the others do not concern me. For I know quite well the pride of some kings and princes who would be glad if it were not Emperor Charles, but they, who were to be the heroes and victors winning honor against the Turk. I gladly grant them the honor, but if they are defeated, it will be their own fault. Why do they not conduct themselves humbly toward the true head and the proper authority? The rebellion among the peasants was punished; but if the rebellion among the princes and lords were also

On War against the Turk

385

to be punished, I think that there would be very few princes and lords left. God grant that it may not be the Turk who executes this punishment! Amen.

[Final Admonition: Do Not Underestimate the Need for a Powerful Army] Finally, it is my friendly and faithful counsel that if it should come to war against the Turk, we should arm and prepare ourselves, and not underestimate the Turk and not act as we Germans usually do, and come to the field outfitted with twenty or thirty thousand men. And even if good fortune would be granted us and we would win a victory, we have nothing in reserve,95 but would sit down again and carouse until another danger comes along. And although I am not qualified to give instruction on this point, and they themselves know, or ought to know, more about it than I do, nevertheless, when I see people acting so naïvely I am forced to believe that either the princes and our Germans do not know or believe the strength and power of the Turk, or that they have no serious intention of fighting against the Turks. Rather, just as the pope has robbed the German territories of money under the pretense of the Turkish war and with indulgences,96 so they, too, following the pope’s example, are trying to swindle us out of money. My advice, then, is that we not arm ourselves so badly that our poor Germans will be slaughtered. If we are not going to make an adequate, sincere resistance that will have some resources in reserve, it would be far better not to begin a war at all. Rather than have him win an easy battle with shameful bloodshed, as happened in Hungary with King Louis, we should immediately concede lands and people to the Turks without useless bloodshed.97 For fighting against the Turk is not like fighting against the king of France, or the Venetians, or the pope. He is a different kind of warrior. The Turks have people and money in abundance. They defeated the Sultan twice in succession,98 and that took people! Dear reader, his people are always under arms so that he can quickly muster three or four hundred thousand men. If we were to cut down a hundred thousand, he would soon be

95. Luther is here giving his opinion on military strategy, warning against sending a large force against the enemy without holding back any forces in reserve. 96. In his Letter to the Christian Nobility (1520), Luther explicitly denounces the practice by several popes of issuing indulgences on the pretext of fighting the Turks as a way of making money. “They think that those half-witted Germans will always be gullible, stupid fools, and will just keep handing over money to them in spite of the fact that everybody knows that not a cent of the annates, or of the indulgence money, or of all the rest, is spent to fight Turk” (LW 44:144; see also TAL 1:397). 97. At the battle of Mohács on 29 August 1526, Louis II of Hungary with 30,000 troops was opposed by a Turkish army of more than 100,000. An estimated 20,000 Hungarians, including their king, died in this battle. See also n. 30, p. 348 and n.36, p. 350. 98. The victories of the Ottoman Turks at Aleppo (1516) and Reydaniya (1517) secured their supremacy in the Muslim world.

386

99. Gog and Magog are names that appear in the Old Testament, the book of Revelation, and the Qur’an, sometimes indicating individuals and sometimes lands and peoples. They are often associated with the end times, particularly in the passages from Ezekiel and Revelation. Early Christian writers (e.g., Eusebius) frequently identified Gog and Magog with the Romans and their emperor. See Edwards, Luther’s Last Battles, 97–101.

100. Ferdinand of Austria (1503–1564), brother of Emperor Charles V, was elected king of Bohemia and Hungary in 1526. He succeeded Charles as Holy Roman Emperor in 1558. Luther despised Ferdinand more than Charles V.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD back again with as many men as before with even more men in reserve. So there is no point in trying to face him with fifty or sixty thousand men unless we have an equal or a greater number in reserve. Just count up the number of lands he controls. He has Greece, Asia, Syria, Egypt, Arabia, etc. He has so many lands that if Spain, France, England, Germany, Italy, Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, and Denmark were all counted together, they would not equal the territory he has. Moreover, he is master over all of them and commands effective and ready obedience. And, as I have noted, they are constantly under arms and are trained in warfare so that he can draw on reserves and can mount two, three, or four heavy battles, one after another, as he showed against the Sultan. This Gog and Magog [Ezek. 38:2; Rev. 20:8f.] 99 is a different kind of majesty than our kings and princes. I say this because I fear that my Germans do not know or believe this. They think that perhaps they are strong enough by themselves, and they look on the Turk as if he were a mere lord like the king of France, whom they would easily resist. But I want to truly be without blame and shall not have burdened my tongue and pen with blood if a king or prince takes on the Turk by himself. It is tempting God to set out with a smaller force against a stronger king, as Christ shows in the Gospel of Luke [14:31], especially since our princes are not so adept that one might expect a divine miracle from them. The king of Bohemia100 is now a mighty prince, but God forbid that he would take on the Turks alone! Instead, let him have Emperor Charles as his captain and all the emperor’s power behind him. Whoever does not believe this, let him learn from experience! I know full well how powerful the Turk is, unless the historians and geographers—and daily experience, too—are lying. But I know that they do not. I do not say this to frighten the kings and princes from waging war against the Turk, but to admonish them to make wise and serious preparation, and not to go about this matter in a childish and lethargic way. For I would like to prevent useless bloodshed and lost wars wherever it might be possible. The best preparation, however, would be if our princes would wind up their own affairs and put their heads and hearts, their hands and feet, together and make one body out of the great mob, so that they could make another army even if one battle were lost,

On War against the Turk

Etching of Ferdinand, king of Bohemia and Hungary (1531) by Barthel Benham (1502−1540)

and not, as before, allow individual kings and princes to launch out in battle—yesterday the king of Hungary; today the king of Poland; and tomorrow the king of Bohemia—until the Turk devours them one after another and nothing is accomplished except that our people are betrayed and slaughtered and blood is needlessly shed. If our kings and princes agreed to stand by and help each other in a unified way, and if Christians would pray for them, I

387

388

101. The primary focus of the second Diet of Speyer, which opened on 15 March 1529, was to determine a unified course of response against the Turks, whose armies were pressing forward in Hungary and would soon besiege Vienna. But the diet is better known for its attempt to reverse the policy of religious toleration put forward by the first Diet of Speyer (1526) and to revert to the harsher terms of the Edict of Worms (1521). Specifically, the diet denied princes the right to choose which religious reforms would take effect in their states, and ordered that Catholicism be followed in all states of the Holy Roman Empire. The protest against this action, submitted by representatives of the Evangelical movement, became the basis for the label “Protestants.” 102. The implication is that Luther cannot honor them. 103. The Mass of the Holy Ghost was a votive Mass, usually celebrated on Wednesdays. Luther is being sarcastic here, contrasting the mechanical celebration of rituals with what he takes to be more essential matters of conscience.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD should be less dismayed and have more hope. The Turk would stop his raging and find his equal in Emperor Charles. Failing that, however, if things continue going as they are now, where no one is in agreement or loyal to each other, and everyone wants to be his own man and takes the field in a beggarly array, I must let it go at that. Of course, I will gladly help by praying, but it will be a weak prayer. Because of the childish, presumptuous, and short-sighted way in which such important matters are undertaken, I can have little faith that it will be heard, and I know that it tempts God and that he can have no pleasure in it. What do our dear lords do? They treat it as just a joke. It is a fact that the Turk is at our throat. Even if they decide not to march against us this year, they are still there, always armed and ready to attack us whenever they want to while we are unarmed and unprepared. Meanwhile, our princes consult about how they can harass Luther and the gospel: It is the gospel that is the Turk! Force must be used against it! The gospel must be put to rout! That is what they are doing right now at Speyer,101 where the most important matters are the eating of meat and fish and similar sorts of foolishness. May God honor you,102 you faithless lords of your poor people! What Devil commands you to deal so vehemently with spiritual things concerning God and matters of conscience, which are not asked of you, and to be so lax and slothful in things that God has commanded of you—things concerning you and your poor people who are now in the greatest and most pressing need? Thereby you are only hindering all those whose intentions are truly good and who would gladly do their part? Yes, go on singing and hearing the Mass of the Holy Ghost.103 He is greatly pleased with that and will be very gracious to you disobedient, stubborn people because you neglect those things that he has commanded of you, and press forward with what he has forbidden you! Yes, may the Evil Spirit hear you!

[Conclusion] 104. Luther may have in mind here a text from Ezek. 33:9: “But if you warn the wicked to turn from their ways, and they do not turn from their ways, the wicked shall die in their iniquity, but you will have saved your life.”

With all this, however, I have preserved my conscience.104 This book shall be my witness concerning the measure and manner in which I advise war against the Turk. If anyone wishes to proceed otherwise, let them do so, whether God grants that they win or lose. I shall neither enjoy their victory nor pay for their

On War against the Turk

defeat, but I shall be innocent of all the blood that will be shed in vain. For I know full well that this book will not make the Turk a gracious lord to me should it come to his attention. Nevertheless, I have wished to tell my Germans the truth, so far as I know it, and to give faithful counsel and service to the grateful and the ungrateful alike. If it helps, it helps; if it does not, then may our dear Lord Jesus Christ help, and come down from heaven with the Last Judgment and strike down both Turk and pope, together with all tyrants and godless people, and deliver us from all sins and from all evil. Amen.

389

Title page of Luther’s That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (Dass Jesus Christus ein geborener Jude sei) (Wittenberg: Cranach and Döring, 1523)

�

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew 1523

K IRSI     I.  STJERNA

INTRODUCTION Luther and the Jews, the Big Picture

Luther’s notorious and explicitly anti-Jewish writings late from his life a make it indisputably clear what his conviction had been all along about Judaism as a religion: b Judaism was dead and there was no hope for Jews as Jews. c In light of the truths offered a Along with his 1538 Against the Sabbatarians, in WA 50:(309), 312–37; LW 47:(58), 65–98; and Brooks Schramm and Kirsi Stjerna, Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 147–50 (hereafter MLBJP), these texts are typically listed as Luther’s deliberately anti-Jewish publications: (1) About the Jews and Their Lies (1543), this volume, p. 441–607; LW 47:(121) 137–306; WA 53:(412) 417–552; MLBJP, 164–76. (2) On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ (1543), this volume, pp. 609–66; WA 53:(9573) 579–648; MLBJP, 177–80. (3) On the Last Words of David (1543), LW 15:(xi) 265–352; WA 54:(16) 28–100; MLBJP, 188–96. (4) In addition, his 1546 last sermons from Eisleben, LW 58:458–59; WA 51:195–96; MLBJP, 200–202. b For a full treatment of the topic, see MLBJP, and for the discussion of recent studies, see 609–14 in this volume. c Schramm, “Introduction,” in MLBJP, 9, passim. See, e.g., Luther’s New Preface to Ezekiel (1541), LW 35:284–93; WA DB 11/1:395–405; MLBJP, 156–60.

391

392

1. This volume, pp. 441–607.

2. Luther urged the authorities to expel the remaining Jews from the Eisleben area that still had several hundreds of Jews. “Today I made my opinion known in a sufficiently blunt way if anyone wishes to pay attention to it.” He wrote about his encounter with the Jews to his wife, Katherine, teasing her with the possibility that the Jews could have caused Luther’s illness, WA Br 11:275– 76; LW 50:290–92, 301–4.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD by Christianity and Christ-centric reading of the Scriptures about the divine design for humanity’s fate, Luther deemed Jewish expectations of the yet-to-come Messiah and adherence to particular Jewish laws as preposterous, and a threat to the wellbeing of Christians. After decades of waiting for the Jews’ conversion—something he deliberately wished to facilitate with his relentless exegesis against the Jewish interpretation he presumed to have mastered and expertly rejected—Luther gave up all hope, both for the Jews as Jews, and for their conversion to Christian faith. Since Luther, or anybody else for that matter, was apparently unable to convince the Jews about the futility and errors of their religious tradition, Luther later in life began to solicit religious and secular authorities to employ forceful strategies to finally deal with the “Jewish problem.” Most tragically, in his About the Jews and Their Lies (1543),1 Luther suggested chilling procedures to suppress the practice of Jewish faith altogether or to force practicing Jews to leave German Protestant lands. d In his scatologically loaded and offensive On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name], he attacked Jews as the Devil’s children whom he suspected of trying to convert or harm Christians. e Luther’s last “sermon,” Admonition against the Jews, delivered by a dying man in his birth town of Eisleben 2 on 7 February 1546, erased even the last shred of doubt: Luther was a self-proclaimed enemy of the Jews.f “I’ll be and I’ll die as an enemy of all the enemies of my Christ.”  g He spoke as if with the mouth of God when proclaiming that God’s patience had run out with the people who had taken pride in being God’s chosen people. Looking at Luther’s writings over the years, it is clear how the Jews occupied his thought: his main theological arguments were built on his notions of the Jewish faith, and his exegetical conclusions reflected his consistent and fundamental opposid LW 47:(121) 137–306; WA 53:(412) 417–552; see this volume’s introduction, 453–54; MLBJP, 164–76. The advice included: burn the synagogues, destroy homes, confiscate Jewish books, forbid rabbis from teaching, abolish safe conduct, prohibit usury, enforce manual labor, forbid teaching and uttering God’s name in public. e WA 53:(573) 579–648; this volume, pp. 623–24; MLBJP, 177–80. f LW 58:458–59; WA 51:195–96. See MLBJP, 200–202. g LW 54:226; MLBJP, 16. h On Christian Hebraism, see Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism in

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew tion to Jewish points of view. In his time one of the rare Christian authors interested in Christian Hebraism, the study of the Hebrew language, and Jewish exegesis and rabbinical thought, Luther drew from the scarce (and biased) ethnographic sources written by Jewish converts. h With multiple meanings for the word Jew, Luther wrote of the biblical Jew he adored, the Jewish religious person representing “works righteousness,” and the contemporary Jews threatening the existence of Christians.i Luther wrote about the Jews as if they were everywhere and a constant presence, while there were no Jews in Wittenberg and Luther did not interact with Jews (other than converts).j Particularly, the Jews as God’s chosen people and God’s promise to the Jewish people vexed Luther, the Bible professor, who sought to understand what God’s promise to Abraham’s descendants had meant, and what its bearing now was for his fellow Christians.k In light of the manifold suffering of the Jews over the centuries, Luther was baffled by God allowing such misfortune to God’s own people, unless the fault was the people’s own. He came to conclude that God was not to blame but, rather, the Jews’ own willful resistance to the gospel that made the once-chosen people of God now enemies of Christ and, thereby, of Christians. 3

the Reformation Era [1500–1660]: Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish Learning (Leiden: Brill, 2012). i See MLBJP, 33–35. j Ibid., 22–24. k See About the Jews and Their Lies, this volume, pp. 603–4; MLBJP, 7. l “Luther’s lifetime preoccupation with the Old Testament made him,

393

The Jewish poet Süßkind of    Trimberg wearing Jewish hat (fourteenth century)

3. In 1544, Luther interpreted Isa. 53:8: “The Jews still kill Christ daily, not in the sense that they merely desire to do so, but rather in fact. They slaughter many Christian infants and children. In short, they are killers forever” (MLBJP, 6–7).

394

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

At the same time, Luther unabashedly embraced the biblical stories for their significance for Christians, and he labored to understand God’s universal will through the particular story of the Jewish people. The records of his lecturing and preaching on the biblical texts manifest his love for the Old Testament and its people he considered the ancestors of Christian faith.4 Ironically, his lifelong engagement with the beloved Old Testament failed to make Luther a friend of the Jews; in fact, it was just the opposite.l The reason was not in a particular antiPersecuted Jews forced to wear visible yellow Semitic (a later term) ideology or racial hatred, but badges in the shape of the tablets of the was based in his exegetical experiential Christology. Ten Commandments (thirteenth century). Luther’s statements about the Jews were exegetically based and, vice versa: his exegetical vision involved conversation with (imagined) Jewish coun4. Over the years, Luther lectured far terparts. The rationale of Luther’s exegetical ambitions was more frequently on the Old Testament his Christology: he read the entire Scriptures in light of what than the New Testament texts, starting he believed about Christ. m The Bible for him was a Christian with the Psalms in 1513–15 and ending book, its pieces held together with the promise and message of with the long Genesis lectures in 1535– Christ the Messiah. n Importantly, the Scriptures were Luther’s 45. In addition to his Old Testament fundamental source about Christ, and it was his illumination translation project in 1523–34, about the grace brought to humanity in Christ that gave him the Luther preached sixty-two sermons on Genesis, sixty-five on Exodus, experiential knowledge that transformed not only how he read thirty-two on Leviticus and Numbers, the Scriptures but his entire theological orientation and life in seventeen on Deuteronomy, with several general.5 commentaries on particularly the Psalms. See MLBJP, 10–11.

5. In his retrospective look to what happened to him upon examining Paul’s letter to the Romans on the issue of God’s righteousness, Luther famously describes the transformation of his hermeneutics and life in his Preface to the Latin Works (1545): “At last, by the mercy of God, as I was meditating day and night . . . I began to understand that the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous person lives by the gift of God, namely, by faith. And this is the meaning: the righteousness of God is revealed by the gospel, namely, the passive righteousness with

Luther’s Christological Center— From the Womb of Mary Luther’s 1523 That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew is a stellar example of Luther’s ambitions, his christological center, and his interest in the Jews. The treatise centers on Jesus’ mother Mary as the key

on the whole, less rather than more friendly to contemporary Jews.” Salo Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. 13: Inquisition, Renaissance, and Reformation (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 13:220; MLBJP, 11. m MLBJP, 3–4. n MLBJP, 13.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew

395 which the merciful God justifies us through faith, just as it is written: ‘the righteous lives by faith.’ At this point I felt that I had been completely born again and had entered paradise itself through wide open doors. There a completely different face of the entire Scripture appeared to me” (emphasis added; TAL 4:501–2; see also LW 34:337; WA 54:186,9–10).

Disputation between Jewish and Christian theologians (nineteenth century)

to the gospel’s promise. The exegetically rich text offers several leads for scholarship: Luther’s Christology, biblical hermeneutics, Mariology, and deliberations on the Jews and the Jewish faith. The text opens up in two parts: Luther draws from several “proof texts” to argue that (1) Jesus was born a Jew of Mary the virgin, and that (2) Jesus was the Messiah, against the Jewish messianic expectations.6 The stimulus for the writing came from irritating rumors about him supposedly denying Mary’s virginity and assuming that Mary had more children with Joseph. A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that. Above and beyond all this, I am supposed to have preached a new heresy, namely, that Christ was [through Joseph] the seed of Abraham. o o See p. 398.

6. Luther’s proof texts for the argument that Jesus was born a Jew of Mary the virgin include: Gen. 3:15 (The Seed of the Woman); Gen. 22:18 (The Seed of Abraham); 2 Sam. 7:12-14 (The Seed of David); Isa. 7:14 (The Virgin). Luther’s proof texts for Jesus as the Messiah against the Jewish messianic expectations include: Gen. 49:10-12; Dan. 9:24-27 (Hag. 2:9; Zech. 8:12–13). See MLBJP, 76–77.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

396

7. In Hebrew, the word almah means a young woman, with no specific indication of virginity, whereas the word bethulah signifies a female who is a virgin. See also n. 65, p. 416.

8. Luther writes in light of the history of forced baptisms of European Jews, which for many was the only choice for survival, whether they actually adopted the Christian faith or not. In the mass expulsions in Europe in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries, e.g., from Spain in 1492, this was exactly the case. Luther noted that forced baptisms neither succeeded in rooting the Christian faith among the Jews nor removed Christians’ suspicions toward the Jews, converts or not.

The culprits for the rumor were Luther’s Catholic opponents from Nuremberg who added to Luther’s already sealed status as a condemned heretic with their speculations that Luther denied some fundamental creedal statements about Jesus’ divine status, and furthermore, his true presence in the Lord’s Supper. Given the gravity of the issues at stake, Luther felt he had to respond. In this widely circulated treatise, Luther targets the blood lineage between Jews and Christians via Mary, making some of his most positive statements vis-à-vis Jewishness when honoring and naming the Jewishness of Christ and his mother. Luther builds his christological arguments with statements about Mary’s sinless conception and virginity, and on her humanity and Jewish descent. He argues how Jesus had to be a Jew born from a Jewish maiden in order to be the savior of humankind per God’s own promises. Luther offers major Mariological conclusions in support of Jesus’ divinity, but also regarding the central role of a female in God’s salvation plan, on the basis of Gen. 3:15— the first “gospel.” He offers a detailed discussion of the Hebrew words almah and bethulah7 used for Mary and underscores the fact that the Holy Spirit had to cause the conception, not any man. Luther cautions “perverse lauders of the mother of God” against promoting Mary’s own godliness, and he counters the Jewish arguments (as he imagined them) with his fundamental point: God can do anything, even cause a virgin to give birth.p This treatise demonstrates how Luther reads the Hebrew Bible for signs of Christ and the promise of salvation. Furthermore, he counsels friendly treatment of the Jews, toward one purpose: q “I hope that if one deals in a compassionate way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their ancestors, the prophets, patriarchs, and matriarchs.”  r He chastises Christians for their un-Christian behavior in the past, s forcing conversions with baptism while failing to educate the converts appropriately. 8 Luther thus provides a p q r s

See n. 12, p. 398 and p. 412 in this volume. See MLBJP, 76–77. This volume, p. 403. “They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings” (p. 402).

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew model and arguments with which to teach the Jewish people regarding beliefs about Christ. He proposes a gradual introduction of Christian doctrine: to give the Jews “milk” first and proper interpretation of the Scriptures with proofs of Christ being the Messiah, and only later include the creedal doctrine of Jesus’ divinity. For Luther, Mary provides an essential link between Jews and Christians and gives perspective to the question of election and God’s promise. Luther makes in the treatise a significant argument about the Jews’ position as the “first” people of God and about Jesus’ Jewishness, to foster Christians’ proper relationship to the Jews as “aliens” and “in-laws.” He explicates the main difference between Jews and Christians and the main reason for the Jews’ continued suffering: Christians acknowledge in Jesus the promised Messiah whose coming the Jews still were foolishly awaiting. On this issue of recognizing Jesus as the Messiah and savior hinges the desired conversion of the Jews; on this depends the reality of election and the fate of both Jews and Christians in God’s plans.t The treatise stands out as Luther’s exegetically driven treatment to prove from Jesus’ Jewish blood lineage and its biblical evidence his status as the promised Messiah and the beginning of a new era with his kingdom.

397

Study of Madonna with Child with Hand and Sleeve by Albrecht Dürer (1471−1528)

Correction to Past Scholarship In previous scholarship, assumptions had been made to explain Luther’s later animosity toward the Jews as if it were a change from his earlier stance, prompted by different factors (age, illness, contemporary events, personal issues). u Most consistently, Luther’s 1523 That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew has been taken as a precious proof for Luther’s earlier tolerant and merciful attitude toward the Jews.9 t MLBJP, 76–83. u See Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semitism: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012).

9. Christopher J. Probst notes that Luther’s That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew is void of Luther’s familiar scatological comments or typical accusations from anti-Jewish genres, and, furthermore, has even elements of philosemitism, not developed fully in later works. See Probst, Demonizing the Jews: Luther and the Protestant Church in Nazi Germany (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012), ch. 2.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

398 10. This translation is based on the text in LW 45:199–229. The translation has been systematically made more inclusive and modified to reflect more contemporary English usage. New notes and annotations have been added, and some notes from the LW version have been revised. 11. Luther found rumors about him irritating and did not approve of unsupervised publishing of his words without his approval. By 1523, however, he was notoriously famous and not in control of how his words were interpreted or spread. He often felt the need to respond afterward and exercise damage control. See the introduction, pp. 395–96. 12. Die Mutter gottis (Ger.) as in theotokos per the early church’s ecumenical creeds. The Council of Ephesus in 431 added theotokos in support of the arguments on Christ’s divinity. Mary was recognized as the mother of not just the human Jesus of Nazareth, but also of Christ the Son of God. That made her, a human in herself, a Godbearer. This was a crucial christological statement for the evolving soteriology. As fully human and divine, Jesus Christ had embraced full humanity and redeemed the humankind like only God can. The rationale behind the title theotokos was not divinizing Mary but to defend Christ’s divine saving power. 13. Iunckfraw, literally, “the young woman.” The association with “virginity” comes from the cultural expectations that young and unmarried women were presumed sexually speaking uninitiated. See pp. 416–20 for Luther’s detailed discussion of this word and his speculation on the issue of Mary’s virginity.

It is true that the tone and suggestions in some of the earlier writingsv are different and appear more compassionate, and that the text in hand does chastise Christians for their impatient and ill-advised antagonism toward the Jews who were, after all, Christ’s closest blood relatives. A closer analysis of the text, however, and a more comprehensive look into Luther’s corpus of printed works over the years reveal a reality that is important to reckon with: from his earliest lectures until his last sermons, Luther was convinced of the superiority of the Christian faith, which he believed had replaced Jewish religion. That Jesus Christ was the promised Messiah was the central truth Jews refused to acknowledge, which was at the root of their damnation. Luther’s Christology did not allow him to embrace other solutions as feasible but, rather, led him to condemn Jews for their blasphemy of the sacrifice of Christ.

�

THAT JESUS CHRIST WAS BORN A JEW   10

[Luther’s Self-Defense against Rumors] w A new lie about me is being circulated.11 I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God,12 was not a virgin13 either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived x Christ through Joseph, and had more children after

v

E.g., The Magnificat (1521), TAL 4:307–83; LW 21:295–358; MLBJP 70–75. w This and other headings in brackets have been added to aid the reader. They do not appear in the original German text. x Sie habe Christum vonn Joseph (Ger.), literally, “she had Christ from Joseph.” Technically, the word for “conception,” Empfängnis (Ger.), is not used. In the following translation, both options are used.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew that.14 Above and beyond all this, I am supposed to have preached a new heresy,15 namely, that Christ was [through Joseph] the seed of Abraham.16 How these lies tickle my dear friends, the papists! Indeed, because they condemn the gospely it serves them right that they should have to satisfy and feed their heart’s delight and joy with lies. I would venture to wager my neck that none of those very liars who allege such great things in honor of the mother of God z believes in his heart a single one of these articles. Yet with

399 14. Jesus’ siblings are mentioned in the New Testament: e.g., Matt. 12:46 and 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 2:12 and 7:3, 5, 10; Acts 1:14; 1 Cor. 9:5; Gal. 1:19. Joseph, James, Jude, and Simon have been named as Joseph’s sons; his daughters’ names are not recorded. In the Roman Catholic tradition, Mary is considered perpetually a virgin, and a stepmother to Joseph’s sons from his previous marriage. This question continues to be debated. 15. Ketzerey (Ger.). The word heretic in Christian context refers to professed believers holding views that are not in agreement with the generally accepted, ecumenical doctrines of the church and who diverge from the official teaching of the church. In Luther’s world, the heresy label made one extremely vulnerable and subject even to a death penalty. Many a Christian had died the death of a heretic by burning, hanging, decapitation, etc. Luther was already considered a heretic after the Diet of Worms (1521), even though he never saw himself as one since he never diverted from the ecumenical creeds’ basic teaching, including orthodox understandings of Christ’s divinity and Mary’s role in salvation history.

Central detail of  Madonna and Child (Theotokos), a late eleventh- or early twelfth-century panel painting by Kykkotissa. Located at the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Sinai, Egypt.

y z

Euangelion verdammen (Ger.). Mutter gottis (Ger.).

16. The samen (Lat.), “seed.” Luther treats the biological connection between Christ and Abraham in his Genesis commentary and when presenting proofs for Christ’s Jewish blood lineage via Mary rather than Joseph. The source and the meaning of the seed are important for Luther’s teaching of Christ’s Jewishness and divinity, They also fed his supersessionist points about the irrelevance of Jewish faith and Jewish traditions, such as circumcision of men born of Abraham’s seed.

400

17. After Luther’s 95 Theses (1517) and particularly his key Reformation treatises of 1520 (see TAL 1), which led to his excommunication in 1521, Luther’s writings were attacked by his opponents as well as elaborated by his associates near and far, Luther having little control over what was said in his name, or what was published. 18. Luther probably alludes to Duke George of Saxony (1471–1539), who had become Luther’s staunch opponent. 19. Luther frequently refers to “the Turks” as one of the enemies of Christendom, often in conjunction with “the Jews,” and also “the Papists.” Primarily, Luther is referring to the Ottoman Empire, whose leaders were followers of the teachings of Muhammad and the Qur’an. See also On War against the Turk in this volume, pp. 335–89. 20. The treatise starts as Luther’s defense against rumors about his supposedly heretical opinions about Mary the mother of God, but develops quickly into a robust exegetical treatment of (1) the biblical proofs about Mary’s virginity, and (2) the promise of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD their lies they pretend that they are greatly concerned about the Christian faith. But after all, it is such a poor miserable lie that I despise it and would rather not reply to it. In these past three years17 I have grown quite accustomed to hearing lies, even from our nearest neighbors.18 And they in turn have grown accustomed to the noble virtue of neither blushing nor feeling ashamed when they are publicly convicted of lying. They let themselves be chided as liars, yet continue their lying. Still they are the best Christians, striving with all that they have and are to devoura the Turk19 and to extirpate all heresy.

[About Winning Some Jews with Proper Treatment] Since for the sake of others, however, I am compelled to answer these lies, I thought I would also write something useful in addition, so that I do not vainly steal the reader’s time with such dirty rotten business.20 Therefore, I will cite from Scripture the reasons that move me to believe that Christ was a Jew born of a virgin,21 that I might perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith.22 Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, 23 and monks and nuns—the crude asses’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews24

21. Das Christus eyn Jude sey von eyner jungfrawen geborn (Ger.). This is the key sentence of the treatise, and something Luther would continue to try to make sense of, in light of the reality that most Jews would not become followers of Christ.

a The verb fressen (Ger.) is typically associated with animals’ eating and chewing.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew.b If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog25 than a Christian.26

401 22. This sentence reveals Luther’s main interest and rationale in his urging for decent treatment of the Jews: the expectation of conversions to come. The conversion of the Jews remained Luther’s futile hope he would let go of only in the very end of his life. See also About the Jews and Their Lies in this volume, pp. 445–46. 23. With “sophists” Luther refers to medieval Scholastic theologians, engaged in thesis–antithesis disputations on theologically pertinent topics—most famously, Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274).

Woodcut by an anonymous artist (c. 1470) showing a Judensau. The banderoles in this anti-Semitic piece display rhymes mocking Jews.

b In his lecture commentary on Psalm 14:7 Luther wrote: “Who, I ask, would come over to our religion, be they of such good natured or patient disposition, if they see themselves dealt with in such a cruel and hostile and not only un-Christian but deadly manner? If hatred of Jews, heretics, and Turks makes Christians, then we raging ones are the most Christian of all. But if the love of Christ makes Christians, then we are without doubt worse than the Jews, heretics, and Turks, for no one loves Christ less than we do. . . . Most of those who mourn the passion of Christ accomplish nothing more than to exaggerate the defiance of Jews against Christ and provoke the hearts of the faithful against them . . . ” (MLBJP, 69).

24. Similarly, in his 1521 Magnificat Luther wrote, “Who would desire to become a Christian when they see Christians dealing with people in so unchristian a spirit? Not so, my dear Christians. Tell them the truth in all kindness; if they will not receive it, let them go. How many Christians are there who despise Christ, do not hear his word, and are worse than Jews or heathen!” TAL 4:381; see also LW 21:355. 25. Eyn saw (Ger.). This is an interesting, and no doubt deliberate word choice. The Jewish kosher laws prohibit eating pork, and in Christians’ anti-Jewish slander, images of a pig were frequently used to shame Jewish people and religiosity. For example, the so-called Judensau reliefs that have “decorated” many churches in Germany from 1300s onward—including the Marienkirche in Wittenberg where Luther frequently preached—portray a sow with Jewish male characters (including rabbis) staring at its behind and sucking its nipples; the intent was to shame Jewish traditions and to ridicule Jewish

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

402 rabbis’ wisdom. See also On the Schem Hamphoras and on the Lineage of Christ in this volume, n. 81, pp. 645–46; also Isaiah Shachar, The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History (London: Warburg Institute, 1974). 26. Luther acknowledged the atrocities committed by the Christians in the name of their religion and the multifaceted mistreatment of the Jews as an antithesis to what Christianity proclaimed about love and compassion.

They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; 27 they have done little else than deride them and seize their property.28 When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right and good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews c that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have

27. This sentence has been interpreted as evidence of Luther’s compassionate and tolerant attitude toward the Jews. More accurately, however, it voices Luther’s disapproval of using violence in religious matters, and reveals his knowledge of the ongoing Christians’ harassment and even persecution of the Jews. These voices were few and far between in the early modern era. Few of Luther’s contemporaries did venture to speak against violence and in favor of tolerance in religious matters, e.g., Philip of Hesse (1504– 1567), Andreas Osiander (1498–1552), Argula Grumbach (1492–c. 1554) in Germany, and Jeanne d’Albret in France (1528–1572). 28. With the randomly but frequently occurring expulsions, authorized by the Christian authorities, the Jews were vulnerable to losing their properties, possessions, rights, or even their lives, at the hands of the angry Christian mob that needed little kindling to act upon their chronic misguided suspicion, jealousy, and anger directed toward their Jewish neighbors. In addition to frequent localized expulsions, with several peaks in 1380–91, 1420–29, 1440–59, 1470–79, 1490–99, and 1510–19, Jews had been expelled in a

An image from Grandes Chroniques de France showing the expulsion of Jews from France in 1182.

c

Frumen getauffen Juden (Ger.). Christians had practiced forced baptism for centuries before the time of Luther, who condemns such use of force and abuse of the sacrament. At the same time, unlike many of his contemporaries, Luther expresses confident trust in the actually converted Jews’ genuine commitment to Christian faith. Luther was particularly close to a baptized Jew named Bernard—formerly Rabbi Jacob Gipher of Göppingen—who had married Andreas von Bodenstein Karlstadt’s maid and had taught at the Wittenberg University; see Luther’s Letter to the Baptized Jew, Bernard, WA Br 3:101–2; also MLBJP, 84–86.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity29 for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them. 30

403 larger scale earlier from France in 1182; in 1322, 1394, and 1290 from England; and in 1492 from Spain. For more, see Dean Phillip Bell, Jews in the Early Modern World (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2008). 29. Unter dem Christen mantel (Ger.) implies that Jews could “hide“ behind the Christian faith nominally, after their public conversion and baptism, while in actuality remaining Jews and continuing their religious practices. This suspicion was not unwarranted; at the time of forced conversions and expulsions, Jewish individuals and families could find themselves in utterly unfair situations where remaining a Jew in public was not an option if one wanted to avoid expulsion or imprisonment, or even death. For example, marranos or conversos from the Iberian peninsula— Jews forced to convert to Christianity— could continue to practice their Jewish faith in secret.

Jews receiving a blessing from the newly elected Pope Martin V (r. 1417−1431) during the Council of Constance (1414−1418). From the Chronicle of the Council of Constance (fifteenth century, facsimile). Artist Ulrich von Richenthal (c. 1464–c. 1537).

I hope that if one deals in a compassionate wayd with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuinee Christians and turn again to the faith of their ancestors, the prophets, patriarchs, and matriarchs. 31 They

d Freuntlich handelt (Ger.). Luther offered similar advice in his 1521 Magnificat, TAL 4:307–83; LW 21:295–358; and his Second Psalms Lectures (1519–1521), LW 14:279–349, on Psalms 1 and 2; aee also MLBJP, 70–75 and 67–69. In Magnificat, Luther wrote: “We ought, therefore, not to treat the Jews in so unkindly a spirit, for there are future Christians among them, and they are turning every day. Moreover, they alone, and not we Gentiles, have this promise, that there shall always be Christians among Abraham’s seed . . .” (MLBJP, 74–75). e Rechte (Ger.), “right,” “genuine.”

30. Luther repeatedly makes the point about the urgency of proper education of faith. It would take him a few years before he wrote his own catechisms (1529) to meet the desperate need of laity and clergy to learn even the basics of Christian faith. For Luther, this was not only a matter of orthodoxy and securing the “right” faith, but even more importantly, with proper understanding people would grow in the faith they were baptized into. 31. Luther was concerned that those desiring to convert receive proper education and be treated with integrity, with no force to convert. It was vital to examine the converts’ faith (as he had done with Michael from Posen before his baptism in 1540, WA TR 5:83) and intention regarding their baptism.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

404 In his 1530 letter to Heinrich Gnesius (d. 1554), Luther advised in the case of a baptism of a young Jewish maiden that her faith should be first examined and then the baptism performed with proper sensitivity in regard to the girl’s Jewish family (e.g., use towels to cover the girl’s nudity), WA Br 5:452, no. 1,632. See further, Kirsi Stjerna, “Luther and His Jewish Conversation Partners: Insights for Thinking about Conversion, Baptism, and Saving Faith,” in Lutheran Theological Journal (Australia) 48, no. 2 (August 2014): 99–114.

will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. 32 If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles.f Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly and sisterly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly and sisterly manner in order that we might convert some of them.g For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived. 33

32. In a world where being labeled a “Jew-friend“ was problematic, Luther’s promoting “friendly“ treatment of the Jews was noticed. This text from Luther was welcomed by the Jews fatigued by the unceasing antagonism and abuse from the Christians. For example, Josel of Rosheim (c. 1480–1554), the spokesman for the German Jewry, came to solicit Luther’s help with the elector in order to secure for the Jews the right to travel through Saxony. Luther refused to meet Josel and thus missed a chance to develop friendship with a man known for his peacemaking skills. Luther later refers to their exchange and wishes to correct any misunderstanding (that may have arisen with the 1523 text) about his supposed tolerance toward the Jews. See The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim: Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany, ed. Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt (Leiden: Brill, 2006).

[Relatives of the Jews through Mary’s Seed]

33. In this treatise, with arguments about the Jewish history and faith in light of the messianic promise revealed in the Scriptures, Luther admonishes Christians to relate to the Jews with kindness. This is, however, of secondary importance in a treatise building

When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the bloodline of Christ. 34 We are aliens and in-laws; h they are blood relatives, cousins, and siblingsi of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, 35 as St. Paul says in Romans 9[:5]. God has also demonstrated this by God’s own acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has God granted so high an honor as to the Jews. 36 For from

f

Heyden (Ger.), “non-Jewish,” “Gentile”—goyim in Hebrew. For Luther, the term Heiden means “heathen” or “pagans.” He also uses Heiden for the Hebrew word Goyim (Heb.) (nations) in his Bible translation; another word he uses for “nations” or “peoples” is Völker (Ger.), the English equivalent for which is “Gentiles” (gentes, Lat.). g Cf. 1 Cor. 9:19-22. h Schweger und frembdling (Ger.). i Blut freund, vettern und bruder (Ger.), “blood friends, fathers, and brothers.”

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew

405 exegetically supported christological arguments. At the time of writing this, Luther still harbored optimism regarding convincing the Jews with his exegetical arguments about the promise and the divinity of Jesus, and thus hoped for Jews’ conversions to follow. Later he would come to consider his leniency as a grave mistake, once he concluded his expectation of the Jews’ conversion was impossible (see About the Jews and Their Lies (1543) and On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ (1543) in this volume, n. 16, 623. 34. Von dem geblutt Christi; with these words, Luther underscores the physical, factual link. For further analysis of the Jewish-Christian relations in the early centuries after Jesus of Nazareth’s crucifixion and Christianity separating from the Jewish religion, see Heikki Räisänen, The Rise of Christian Beliefs: The Thought World of Early Christians (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009).

The plundering of the Jewish community in Frankfurt on 22 August 1614, called the Fettmilch Riot

35. This is one of Luther’s startling conclusions that demonstrate how important a role the Jew/Judaism had in his exegetical method and principal theological arguments (about justification, and related); the Jews’ historic, biblically evidenced closeness to God also worried Luther endlessly. See MLBJP, 3–16. 36. As much as Luther was fascinated by the scriptural evidence of the Jews’ special status as God’s first people, he critiqued Jews for boasting about this status and relying on it; e.g., in his Lectures on Genesis (1535–45), LW 1–8. See Brooks Schramm, “Populus Dei: Luther on Jacob and the Election of Israel (Genesis 25),” in The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky, CJAS 19

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

406 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 280–305.

37. See n. 15, p. 399 above. Luther was declared a heretic with the papal bull Decet Romanum Pontificem on 3 June 1521. 38. Meyn junckern (Ger.). Luther is addressing the “noble men” he imagines as the culprit and his audience.

among the Gentiles there have been raised up no patriarchs and matriarchs, j no apostles, no prophets, indeed, very few genuine Christians either. And although the gospel has been proclaimed to all the world, yet God committed the Holy Scriptures, that is, the law and the prophets, to no nation except the Jews, as Paul says in Romans 3[:2] and Psalm 147[:19-20], “God declares the word to Jacob, God’s statutes and ordinances to Israel. God has not dealt thus with any other nation; nor revealed God’s ordinances to them.” k Accordingly, I beg my dear papists, l should they be growing weary of denouncing me as a heretic, 37 to seize the opportunity of denouncing me as a Jew. m Perhaps I may yet turn out to be also a Turk, or whatever else my fine gentlemen38 may wish.

[The First Gospel, and the First Promise] Christ is promised for the first time soon after Adam’s fall, when God said to the serpent, “I will put enmityn between you and the woman, o and between your seed and her seed; Christ p shall j

k

l m n o p

Given Luther’s prominent attention to the matriarchs in the Old Testament, it is most appropriate to include them in this address. See Mickey Mattox, Defender of the Most Holy Matriarchs: Martin Luther’s Interpretation of the Women in Genesis in the Enarrationes in Genesin, 1535–1545 (Leiden: Brill, 2003). In his commentary on The Magnificat Luther wrote: “God gave the promise to Abraham four hundred years before God gave the law to Moses, that no one might glory, saying he had merited and obtained such grace and promise through the law or the works of the law. This same promise the Mother of God here lauds and exalts above all else, ascribing this work of the incarnation of God solely to the undeserved promise of divine grace, made to Abraham” (TAL 4:377). “For if God says that not some but all nations shall be blessed in Abraham’s seed then without Abraham’s seed no nation shall be blessed” (ibid., 378). “For this promise of God does not lie: the promise was made to Abraham and to his seed . . . (ibid., 381). Luther refers here to Catholics. Mich eyn Juden zu schelten. It is deeply troubling for Luther to be not only associated with the Jews but to be rebuked as one. Feyndtschafft (Ger.), “enmity,” is a strong word expressing fundamental hostility. Weyb (Ger.) [Weib in modern German], meaning a female, a woman, or a wife. Der selb (Ger.), a masculine pronoun Luther interprets as Christ.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew crush your head, and you shall bruise its heel” [Gen. 3:15]. 39 Here I defer demonstrating that the serpent spoke possessed of the Devil, for no dumb beast is so clever that it can utter or comprehend human speech, much less speak or inquire about such exalted matters as the commandment of God, as the serpent does here. q Therefore, it must certainly have been a rational, highly intelligent, and mighty spirit which was able to utter human speech, deal so masterfully with God’s commandments, and seize and employ human reason. Since it is certain that a spirit is higher than a human, it is also certain that this is an evil spirit and an enemy of God, for it breaks God’s commandment and acts contrary to God’s will. Therefore, it is undoubtedly the Devil. r And so the word of God that speaks of crushing the head must refer also to the Devil’s head; though not to the exclusion of the natural head of the serpent, for with a single word God speaks of both Devil and serpent as of one thing. Therefore, God means both heads. But the Devil’s head is that power by which the devil rules, that is, sin and death, by means of which the Devil has brought Adam and Eve s and all their descendantst under its control. This seed of the woman therefore, because it is to crush the Devil’s power, that is, sin and death, must not be an ordinary human, since all humans have been brought under the Devil through sin and death. So he must certainly be without sin. Now human nature does not produce such seed or fruit, as has been said, for with their sin they are all under the Devil. How, then, can this be? The seed must be the natural child of a woman; u otherwise, it could not be or be called the seed of the woman.v On the other hand, as has been pointed out, human nature and birth do not produce such seed. Therefore, the solution must ultimately be that this seed is a true natural son of the woman;

q See Luther’s interpretation of the fall and the role of the snake in Genesis 3, LW 1:141–60. r Teuffel (Ger.). s Here “Eve” is added, as the meaning is the fall of the first parents. t Kinder (Ger.); literally, children. u Eyn naturlich kind eyns (Ger.); the word natural underscores the bloodline and humanness of the savior to be born. v Weybs same (Ger.); the word seed is used also of the mother’s contribution in Christ’s bloodline.

407 39. The Genesis text about “The Seed of the Woman” is one of Luther’s primary “proof texts” about Christ being born of a Jewish virgin. See MLBJP, 76–77. Luther elaborated on this in his commentary on The Magnificat (1521), TAL 4:307–83; LW 21:295–358, and his explanation of Luke 1:46-55. He advised Christians on the proper attitude toward the Jews who had transmitted the seed of Abraham who was born by the woman promised in Gen. 3:15; Mary had an indispensable role in the gospel and its proper understanding. See also MLBJP, 70–75.

408 40. An important observation from Luther about the crucial factor of the female seed in the salvation history of humankind. Luther uses the word weyb (Ger.) [Weib], to distinguish from the man (Ger.) [Mann], while using mensch (Ger.) [Mensch] for humankind. With the male pronoun er (Ger.), “he,” Luther refers to Christ. 41. Virginity was expected from women entering the marital contract, and from women seeking spiritual perfection via, e.g., monastic celibate life. While virginity set women separate from other women, it also granted a status on a par to men, vir, (Lat.), achieved in celibacy. In other words, virginity for women was a spiritual asset. In the case of Jesus’ mother, there really was no alternative for her not being a virgin, in the eyes of the male interpreters of the Nativity story.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD derived from the woman, however, not in the normal way but through a special act of God, in order that the Scripture might stand, that he is the seed only of a woman and not of a man. For the text [Gen. 3:15] clearly states that he will be the seed of woman.40 This is thus the first passage in which the mother of this child is described as a virgin.41,   w She is his true natural mother; yet she is to conceive x and bear supernaturally,42 by God, without a man, y in order that her child may be a distinctive human, z without sin, yet having ordinary flesh and blood like other human beings.43 This could not have been the case had he been begotten by a man like other humans because the flesh is consumed and corrupted by evil lust, so that its natural act of procreation cannot occur without sin.44 Whatever conceives and bears through an act of the flesh produces also a carnal and sinful fruit. This is why St. Paul says in Ephesians 1 [2:3] that we are all by nature children of wrath.

42. Luther explained Jesus’ miraculous conception with the words empfangen (Ger.) and conceptu (Lat.) in The Large Catechism (per the ecumenical creeds’ wording) (TAL 2:356) and Smalcald Articles (BC, 300), and made the point that Jesus was conceived “by the Holy Spirit without male participation and was born of the pure, holy Virgin Mary.”

43. In his Confession of Faith (TAL 2:265), Luther made a similar christological point: “God the Son did not assume a body without a soul, as certain heretics have taught, but he assumed both body and soul, that is, full, complete humanity, and he was born as the promised true seed or child of Abraham and David. He was born in a natural way, the son of Mary, in every way and form a true human being, in the same way that I myself and every other person is born, except that the Son alone was born without sin, by the Holy Spirit and

w Jungfraw/Jungfrau (Ger.). The German word for virginity, Jungfrauenstand, a compound of “young“ and “female,” signals women not yet sexually active. x Schwanger werden (Ger.); normal words used for a woman becoming pregnant apply also to Mary. y Mann (Ger.). z Mensch (Ger.).

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew Now this passage [Gen. 3:15] was the very first gospel a message on earth. For when Adam and Eve, seduced by the Devil, had fallen and were summoned for judgment before God, Genesis 3[:9], they were in peril of death and the anguish of hell, for they saw that God was against them and condemned them; they would gladly have fled from God, but could not. Had God let them remain in their anguish, they would soon have despaired and perished. But when, after their terrible punishment, God let them hear the comforting promise to raise up from the woman’s seed one who would tread upon the serpent’s head, their spirits were quickened again. From that promise they drew comfort, believing firmly in that blessed seed of the woman which would come and crush the serpent’s head, that is, sin and death, by which they had been crushed and corrupted.45

a Euangelion (Ger.). Luther uses several “proof texts” to argue that Christ was born of a Jewish virgin. See the introduction, n. 6, p. 395; also MLBJP, 76–77.

409 through the Virgin Mary. This human being Jesus was true God, one eternal and indivisible person, both God and human, and that the holy virgin Mary was the real, true mother, not only of the human Christ, as the Nestorians teach, but also of the Son of God, as Luke says [1:35], ‘The one to be born of you shall be called the Son of God,’ that is, my Lord and the Lord of all, Jesus Christ, is by nature the only, true Son of God and of Mary, true God and true human.” 44. Even with his positive view on human reproduction and sexuality, Luther followed church father Augustine’s footsteps in identifying a sinful taint in the sexual act of procreation that transmitted the guilt of the original sin. 45. In his commentary on The Magnificat (1521) Luther wrote, “Wherefore St. Paul says in Galatians 3[:17] that God gave the promise to Abraham four hundred years before God gave the law to Moses. . . . This same promise the Mother of God here lauds and exalts above all else ascribing this work of the Incarnation of God solely to the undeserved promise of divine grace, made to Abraham” (TAL 4:377). He also wrote on how Mary “found the promise fulfilled in herself; hence she says: ‘It is now fulfilled; God has brought help and kept God’s own word, solely in remembrance of God’s mercy.’ Here we have the foundation of the Gospel and see why all its teaching and preaching drive people to faith in Christ and into Abraham’s bosom. For where there is not this faith, no other way can be devised and no help given to lay hold of this blessed Seed. And indeed, the whole Bible depends on this oath of God, for in the Bible everything has to do with Christ” (TAL 4:379–80).

410 46. This Genesis text about “The Seed of Abraham” is one of Luther’s central “proof texts” about Christ being born of a Jewish virgin. See also MLBJP, 76–77. 47. “Luther readily grants that the Jews are indeed Abraham’s physical descendants but they have consistently misconstrued the nature of God’s promise to Abraham. For Luther, the promise to Abraham’s seed was in reality the promise of the Seed, that is, the Messiah/Christ (Gen. 3:15). The physical seed of Abraham, the Jews, were God’s chosen instrument in Old Testament times to bear that promise. But Abraham’s true descendants/ seed, even in Old Testament times, were always those who believed in the promise of the Messiah and not those who relied on their physical descent. For Luther, this is the fundamental error, and sin of the Jews, who trust as it were that they have been born into grace, that they are bound to God by birth, and thus that God owes them God’s benevolence. For Luther, this constitutes a theological obscenity, because the grace and benevolence of God can only be accessed by faith, and it has never been otherwise”; see MLBJP, 7. On Abraham’s “true” children, see Luther on Galatians (1519), ibid., 59–66. 48. Eyne reyne jungfraw. Also in his commentary on The Magnificat (1521), Luther underscored how Mary was a humble handmaiden and servant of God who praised God’s work through her being, on the one hand, and yet as the chosen vessel had to be special and pure in light of the reality of sin in all human nature, on the other hand. Mary’s virginity was asserted due to the reasons of God’s promise and the purpose of the seed, to redeem condemned humanity.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD The ancestors, b from Adam on, preached and inculcated this gospel, through which they acknowledged the promised seed of this woman and believed in him. And so they were sustained through faith in Christ just as we are; they were true Christians like ourselves. Only, in their day this gospel was not proclaimed publicly throughout the world, as it would be after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the holy ancestors and their descendants down to the time of Abraham. c

[The Second Promise] The second promise of Christ was to Abraham, Genesis 22[:18], where God said, “In your seed shall all the Gentiles be blessed.” 46 If all the Gentiles are to be blessed, then it is certain that otherwise, apart from this seed of Abraham, they were all unblessed and under a curse. From this it follows that human nature has nothing but cursed seed and bears nothing but unblessed fruit; otherwise, there would be no need for all of them to be blessed through this seed of Abraham.47 Whoever says “all” excludes no one; therefore, apart from Christ, all who are born of human d must be under the Devil, cursed in sin and death. Here again the mother of God is proven to be a pure virgin.48 For since God cannot lie, it was inevitable that Christ should be the seed of Abraham, that is, his natural flesh and blood, like all of Abraham’s children.49 On the other hand, because he was to be the blessed seed which should bless all others, he could not be begotten e by man, f since such children, as has been said, cannot be conceived without sin because of the corrupt and tainted flesh, which cannot perform its function without taint and sin.50

b Die Veter, “the fathers,” replaced here with a more comprehensive word about the predecessors in faith. c See n. 43, above. d Menschen (Ger.), human beings. e Empfangen (Ger.), the word used for “conceiving” in normal circumstances. f Man (Ger.), specifically a male human being.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew Thus the word, by which God promises that Christ will be the seed of Abraham, requiresg that Christ be born of a woman and become her natural child.51 He does not come from the earth like Adam [Gen. 2:7]; neither is he from Adam’s rib like Eve [Gen. 2:21-22]. He comes rather like any woman’s child, from her seed.52 The earth was not the natural seed for Adam’s body; neither was Adam’s rib the natural seed for Eve’s body. h But the virgin’s flesh i and blood, from which children come in the case of all other women, was the natural seed of Christ’s body. And she too was of the seed of Abraham.j

411 49. Kinder (Ger.). Luther underscores, “Again, if God, who cannot lie declared with an oath that it should be Abraham’s natural seed, that is, a natural and genuine child, born of his flesh and blood, then this Seed had to be a true, natural human, of the flesh and blood of Abraham. Here, then, we have a contradiction—the natural flesh and blood of Abraham, and yet not born in the course of nature, of man and woman” (TAL 4:378). 50. Also in Magnificat (1521), Luther concluded: “God raises up seed for Abraham, the natural son of one of his daughters, a pure virgin, Mary, through the Holy Spirit, and without her knowing a man. Here there was no natural conception with its curse, nor could it touch this seed; and yet it is the natural seed of Abraham, as truly as any of the other children of Abraham. This is the blessed Seed of Abraham, in whom all the world is set free from its curse. For whoever believes in this Seed, calls upon Him, confesses Him, and abides in Him, to that person all curse is forgiven, and all blessing given, as the word and oath of God declare—‘In your Seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed’” (MLBJP, 73; LW 21:295–358).

Views of a fetus in the womb, drawn by Leonardo da Vinci (c. 1510)

g Zinget, “demands,” “forces” (Ger.); the word underscores Luther’s point of what absolutely had to take place. h Leyb (Ger.), “body,” underscoring the physicality of the event. i Fleisch (Ger.), “flesh,” underscoring the physical, female origins of Jesus Christ. j See On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name] (1543) and Luther’s detailed treatment of the New Testament genealogies that trace Jesus‘ lineage through Joseph. See WA 53:610–43.

51. Luther’s main arguments about Christ’s lineage and the meaning of the promise to Abraham have a clear Mariological significance, and vice versa. Mary and her seed are crucial for the gospel and its proper understanding. 52. Luther’s imagination of the female seed, equivalent to the male seed, reflects his time’s scientific understanding of human anatomy. During the Renaissance period, scientists drew from the ancient as well as Arabic sources and used the same

412 terminology for men’s and women’s organs, including genitalia. With the mid-sixteenth-century discoveries about the distinctions between the sexes, scientists moved away from Aristotle’s one-seed theory, which identified the life-giving source for human life in the male seed that the “matter” provided by females would receive. Scientists continued to apply the so-called Galenic theory of humors to the reproduction process. Until the seventeenth-century’s anatomical discovery about the female “egg,” women were considered cold, moist, and passive in their nature, whereas the male contribution in the act of reproduction was deemed active and determining. In this light, it is quite significant how Luther stressed the sufficiency of the female seed, with no need for the male counterpart. 53. As mentioned above, the Genesis text about the “Seed of Abraham” is an important proof text for Luther about Christ being born of a Jewish virgin. 54. Luther defends the “orthodox” Catholic teaching of Mary as (1) the Mother of God, theotokos (Ephesus Council, 431) and (2) as a virgin (Lateran Council, 649). Since Luther’s time, two more dogmas have been issued: (3) Mary’s immaculate conception (1854) and (4) Mary’s assumption to heaven (1950). 55. See n. 41, p. 408. Luther’s frequent criticism of monastic life included the vow of celibacy, most famously so in his 1521 On Monastic Vows, LW 44:[245–49] 251–400. 56. Luther’s fondness of Mary is apparent, but equally clear is his conclusion that Mary should not receive similar reverence as Christ, who alone is the redeemer, and because Mary remains a humble human maid,

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD On the other hand, this word by which God promises God’s blessing upon all Gentiles in Christ requires that Christ may not come from a man, or by the act of a man; k for work of the flesh (which is cursed) is incompatible with that which is blessed and is pure blessing. Therefore, this blessed fruit had to be the fruit of a woman’s bodyl only, not of a man, even though that very woman’s body came from man, indeed, even from Abraham and Adam. So this mother is a virgin, and yet a true natural mother; not, however, by natural capacity or power, but solely through the Holy Spirit and divine power. Now this passage [Gen. 22:18] was the gospel from the time of Abraham down to the time of David, even to the time of Christ. 53 It is a short saying, to be sure, but a rich gospel, subsequently inculcated and used in marvelous fashion by the fathers both in writing and in preaching. Many thousands of sermons have been preached from this passage, and countless souls saved. For it is the living word of God, in which Abraham and Sarah m and their descendants believed, and by which they were redeemed and preserved from sin and death and the power of the Devil. However, it too was not yet proclaimed publicly to all the world, as happened after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the patriarchs and matriarchs n and their descendants. Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginityo of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deityp of her.54 But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. 55 Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity if it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.56 k Man (Ger.), pointing out the irrelevance of a male human being in this act. l Weybs (Ger.), naming it specifically as the birthplace of Christ. m Here “and Sarah’s” added. n Vettern (Ger.), “fathers,” is here modified with “patriarchs and matriarchs.” o Jungfrawschafft (Ger.), the broader term for maiden established in use for sexual virginity. p Eyn abgott (Ger.), a “false god.”

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, q he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, r and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.

Immaculate Conception (1505) by Piero de Cosimo

q Weyb (Ger.), “woman” or “wife,” of a woman who is not a virgin. r Cf. Isa. 4:1; Judg. 11:37-38.

413 in herself exceptional but nevertheless a human. Of all the adjustments Luther went through in his religiosity, his relating to Mary and Marian devotion may have been the most conflicted. The Mother Mary’s role in the religiosity of any medieval Christian was deeply rooted and not easily modified or dismissed. See Miri Rubin, Emotion and Devotion: The Meaning of Mary in Medieval Religious Cultures (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2009); Jaroslav Pelikan, Mary through the Centuries: Her Place in the History of Culture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

414

57. Unlike many of his contemporary theologians, Luther expresses positive interest in the female body, its functions, and the many aspects of mothering. Luther’s emphasis on the role of “woman only” is notable.

58. This Isaiah text on the “Seed of David” is one of Luther’s proof texts for Christ being born of a Jewish virgin. See the introduction, p. 395, and MLBJP, 76–77. 59. King David’s reign was about 1010–960 bce; Solomon’s approximately 960–920 bce. King David unified Israel and Judah, and his son Solomon built the temple at Jerusalem. The “anointed” one, the Messiah, was understood to come from the line of David. For these reasons, among others, Luther takes care in explaining Christ’s lineage through Mary.

Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], “The Son of God was born of a woman.” He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; s that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.57 For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.

[The Third Promise, David] The third passage is addressed to David, 2 Samuel 7[:12-14], “When your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your ancestors, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom forever. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son.”58 These words cannot have been spoken of Solomon, for Solomon was not a posthumous son of David raised up after his death. Neither did God after Solomon (who during David’s lifetime was born and became king) ever designate anyone as God’s son, give him an everlasting kingdom, or have him build such a house. 59 s

See n. 42, p. 408 and n. 52, pp. 411–12.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew Consequently, the whole passage must refer to Christ.60 We will let this passage go for the present because it is too broad and requires so much in the way of exegesis; for one would have to show here that Christ accordingly had to be the son of a woman only in order to be called here God’s child, who neither should nor could come out of an accursed act.t The fourth passage is Isaiah 7[:14], “God will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin u is with child, and shall bear a son.”61 This could not have been said of a virgin who was yet to become a bride. For what sort of a marvelous sign would that be if someone who is presently a virgin should bear a child within a year? Such is the ordinary course of nature, occurring daily before our eyes. If it is to be a sign from God, therefore, it must be something remarkable and marvelous not given by the ordinary course of nature, as is commonly the case with all God’s signs.62 It is of no help for the Jews63 either to try to evade the issue here and come up with this way of getting around it, namely: the sign consists in the fact that Isaiah says flatly that the child shall be a son and not a daughter. By such an interpretation the sign would have nothing to do with the virgin but only with the prophet Isaiah, as the one who had divinedv so precisely that it would not be a daughter. The text would then have to speak of Isaiah thus, “Behold, God will give you a sign, namely, that I, Isaiah, will divine that a young womanw is carrying a son, and not a daughter.” Such an interpretation is disgraceful and childish. Now the text forcefully refers the sign to the woman, and states clearly that it shall be a sign when a woman bears a son. Now it certainly is no sign when a woman who is no longer virgin64 bears a child, be it the mother of Hezekiah or whatever woman the Jews may point to. x The sign must be something new and different, a marvelous and unique work of God, that this t See n. 50, p. 411. u Jungfrau (Ger.), meaning here a maiden who has not yet experienced intercourse. v Erradten (Ger.), also “guessed.” w Jung weib (Ger.), young woman, or young wife. x In Jewish interpretation, the text means “Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son.” The woman has been identified as Abijah, mother of Hezekiah (2 Kgs. 18:1-2; 2 Chron. 28:27—29:1), and the prophecy interpreted as referring to the birth of Ahaz’s successor to the throne of Judah. See the Dialogue with Trypho (an Ephesian Jew)

415 60. As evident from Luther’s use of “proof texts,” Luther reads the Old Testament consistently through a Christ-centric lens. Statements like this occur frequently, demonstrating the deep roots of Luther’s Christ-centric biblical interpretation. 61. This sentence was a key in Luther’s interpretation of Isa. 7:14 and the promise there of a young woman giving birth to the Immanuel, whom he understood Mary’s child to be. Jewish interpreters (whom Luther would have been familiar with) interpreted the text differently as referring to an event occurring during the lifetime of the prophet Isaiah. 62. Tzeichen [Zeichen]. The word sign can mean many things, but in Luther’s use it refers to an object or a symbolic act or word that signals an actual presence or an occurrence of something else. 63. Luther frequently has imaginary conversations with “the Jews“ as he presents counterarguments to what he surmises would be the Jewish readings of the text(s) at hand.

64. Luther uses the word verruckt (Ger.), which means “altered.” In modern German, the term can be applied in different contexts; e.g., it can denote “crazy.” In this case it means that the woman who has had intercourse is “altered” both physiologically and in her status as a woman and is no longer considered a “virgin.”

416

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD woman is with child; her pregnancy is to be the sign. Now I do not deem any Jews so dense that they would not grant God sufficient power to create a child from a virgin, since they are compelled to acknowledge that God created Adam from the earth [Gen. 2:7] and Eve from Adam [Gen. 2:21-22], acts which require no less power.y

[Almah and Bethulah]

65. In Hebrew language, the word almah means a young woman, with no specific indication of virginity, whereas the word bethulah signifies a female who is a virgin. The many problems in interpreting these terms in Christian tradition root from the Septuagint’s mistranslation of Isa. 7:14: the Hebrew word almah was translated with the Greek word parthenos, a virgin. Following, both Matt. 1:23 and Luke 1:27 use the word parthenos as well. The Christian theological tradition has heavily built on the notion that Isaiah promised a virgin who becomes pregnant. 66. Luther refers to the different status the Old and New Testament books have for Jews and Christians. Luther normally does not hold the Jews accountable to the New Testament text but he rather argues with them on the basis of the Old Testament. In his Preface to the Glosses of his First Psalm Lectures (1513–15), Luther wrote, “If the Old Testament can be interpreted by human wisdom without the New Testament, I should say that the New Testament has been given to no purpose. So Paul concluded that ‘Christ died to no purpose’ if the law were sufficient (Gal. 2:21)” (LW 10:6).

But then they contend that the Hebrew text does not read, “A virgin is with child,” but, “Behold, an almah is with child.” Almah, they say, does not denote a virgin; the word for virgin is bethulah, while almah is the term for young damsel [dyrne]. z Presumably, a young maiden might very well have had intercourse and be the mother of a child. Christians can readily answer this from St. Matthew and St. Luke, both of whom apply the passage from Isaiah [7:14] to Mary, and translate the word almah as “virgin.”65 They are more to be believed than the whole world, let alone the Jews. Even though an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8] were to say that almah does not mean virgin, we should not believe it. For God the Holy Spirit speaks through St. Matthew and St. Luke; we can be sure that God understands Hebrew speech and expressions perfectly well. But because the Jews do not accept the evangelists, 66 we must confront them with other evidence. In the first place, we can say, as above, that there is no marvel or sign in the fact that a young woman becomes pregnant, a otherwise, we would have a perfect right to sneer at the prophet Isaiah, and say, “What women would you expect to become pregnant, if not the young ones? Are you drunk? Or is it in your experience a rare event for

by Justin Martyr (c. 100–165), in Writings of Saint Justin Martyr, trans. Thomas B. Falls, The Fathers of the Church, book 6 (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America, 1948), particularly chs. 43, 66–67, 71, 84. y This point was made with an identical follow-up question by Justin Martyr in his Dialogue with Trypho (84). Ibid. 6, 281–82. z Eyn dyrne (Ger.); in contemporary German the word is used for a prostitute; for Luther in the sixteenth century the term means a damsel, a maiden, a young female. a Schwanger wirt (Ger.), “conceives” (LW 45:208).

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew a young woman to bear a son?” For this reason that strained and farfetched answer of the Jews is just a vain and feeble excuse for not keeping silent altogether. In the second place, grant that bethulah means virgin and not almah, and that Isaiah here uses almah, not bethulah. All this too is still nothing but a poor excuse. For they act as if they did not know that in all of Scripture almah nowhere designates a woman who has had intercourse (a fact of which they are perfectly well aware). On the contrary, in every instanceb almah signifies a young maiden, who has never known a man carnally or had intercourse. Such a person is always called a virgin, just as St. Matthew and St. Luke here translate Isaiah. Now since they are such literalists and like to argue about semantics, we will concede that bethulah is not the same word as almah. But the only point they have established thereby is that this young woman is not designated by the term “virgin.” However, she is designated by another term which also means a young woman who has never had intercourse; call her by whatever term you please, in her person she is still a virgin. It is childish and disgraceful to take recourse to words when the meaning is one and the same. Very well; to please the Jews we will not translate Isaiah thus: “Behold, a virgin [ jungfraw] is with child,” lest they be confused by the word “virgin,” but rather, “Behold, a maiden c is with child.” Now in German the word “maiden” denotes a woman who is still young, carries her crown67 with honor, and wears her hair loose, so that it is said of her: She is still a maiden, not a wifed (although “maiden” is not the same word as “virgin”). In like manner also, the Hebrew elem is a stripling who does not yet have a woman; and almah is a maiden who does not yet have a man, not a servant girl68 but one who still carries a crown. Thus the sister of Moses is called an almah in Exodus 3 [2:8] as is Rebekah in Genesis 24, 69 when they were still virgins. b The word almah in the singular is used in Gen. 24:43; Exod. 2:8; Prov. 30:19; and Isa. 7:14; it is plural in Ps. 68:25; Song of Sol. 1:3 and 6:8. Here Luther does not make this distinction, but will do so later in his viscerally anti-Jewish On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name] (1543); see this volume, pp. 661–62; WA 53:634–36. c Magd (Ger.); this word does not technically mean a “virgin.” d Noch eyne magd und keyn fraw (Ger.), meaning not yet married but a young woman.

417

67. The word kranz (Ger.) means a decorative wreath or a garland that young women wear on their head. With unbound long hair, it was the emblem of a girl’s virginity in the Middle Ages, where women in different age groups— and status—dressed and wore their hair differently. 68. Just like in English, the German word for “maid” means both a servant girl and a young unmarried woman. 69. In Gen. 24:43 Rebekah is called an almah (Heb.). In the Septuagint this is translated with parthenos (Greek). In Gen. 24:16 she is called bethulah (Heb.).

418

Portrait by Albrecht Dürer (1507). This young woman is wearing a hat called a barett that was popular in the German states

70. Manbar (Ger.), literally, “sexually mature,” “of marriageable condition,” fit or able for a man and marriage. This criterion had mostly to do with physical preparedness to have intercourse and bear children. In the Middle Ages, a girl could be deemed ready for marriage as early as twelve or thirteen years old.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Suppose I say in German, “Hans is engaged to a maiden,” and someone should comment, “Well, then he is not engaged to a virgin.” Why, everyone would laugh at such vain disputing about words if one thinks that virgin and maiden are not the same thing because they are different words. This is true also in the Hebrew, when the Jews argue with respect to this passage in Isaiah [7:14] and say, “Isaiah does not say bethulah, but almah. I submit that among themselves their own conscience tells them this is so. Therefore, let them say what they please, bethulah or almah; Isaiah means a young woman who is fit for marriage70 but still wears a crown, whom in the truest German we call a maiden. e Hence, the mother of God is properly called the pure maiden, that is, the pure almah. And if I should have had to tell Isaiah what to speak, I would have had him say exactly what he did say, not bethulah, but almah, for almah is even more appropriate here than bethulah. It is also more precise to say, “Behold, a maiden is with child,” than to say, “A virgin is with child.” For “virgin” is an all-embracing term which might also be applied to a woman of fifty or sixty who is no longer capable of childbearing. But “maiden” denotes specifically a young woman capable of childbearing, f but still a virgin; g it includes not only the virginity, but also the youthfulness and the potential for childbearing.h Hence, in German too we commonly refer to young people as maidens or maidenfolk, i not virginfolk.j Therefore, the text of Isaiah [7:14] is certainly most accurately translated, “Behold, a maiden is with child.” No Jew who understands both German and Hebrew can deny that this is what is said in the Hebrew, for we Germans do not say “concepit, the woman has conceived”; the preachers have so rendered the Latin into German. Rather, the German would say in one’s

e Magd (Ger.). f Tzur frucht tuchtig (Ger.), capable of bearing fruit. g Unverruckt (Ger.), unaltered, i.e., her hymen and social standing intact. See n. 70. h Frutchtbarn leyb (Ger.), a woman or a wife who is fertile. i Meyde odder meyde volck (Ger.). j Jungfrawen volck (Ger.).

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew mother tongue, “The woman becomes pregnant,” or, “is heavy with child,” or, “is pregnant.”k But here in the Hebrew it does not say, “Behold, a maiden shall become pregnant,” as though she were not as yet. It says rather, “Behold, a maiden is pregnant,” as though she has the fruit already in her womb and nevertheless is still a maiden, in order that you will have to notice how the prophet himself is amazed that there stands before him a maiden who is with child even before she knows a man carnally. She was of course going to have a husband, she was physically fit and mature enough for it; but even before she gets to that she is already a mother. This is indeed a rare and marvelous thing. This is the way St. Matthew [1:18] construes this passage when he says, “When Mary the mother of Jesus had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be pregnant of the Holy Spirit,”l etc. What does this mean other than that she was a young maiden who had not yet known a man although she was capable of it, but before she knew the man she was pregnant, and that this was an amazing thing since no maiden becomes pregnant prior to intercourse with a man?m Thus, the evangelist regarded her in the same light as did the prophet, and set her forth as the sign and wonder. Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, “Before they came together she was found to be pregnant.” They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, “Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph,” etc. Again, when he says, “And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son” [Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius71 which was refuted by Jerome (c. 347–420).72

k Das weyb gehet schwanger adder gehet schweer odder ist schwanger (Ger.). Luther gives normal German expressions for pregnancy to make his point about the physical nature of Mary’s conception. l Sie schwanger war vom heyligen geyst (Ger.). Luther underscores the action of the Holy Spirit to cause Mary’s physical pregnancy. m Den man erkand (Ger.), who “knew” a man, which is interpreted to mean intercourse.

419

71. A disciple of the Arian bishop of Milan, a layman, Helvidius Auxentius, lived in Rome during Jerome’s visit there in 383–385. He wrote against the view of Mary’s perpetual virginity and the practical consequences that stemmed from the doctrine, e.g., monasticism considered as a higher kind of Christian life. His followers are included as no. 84 in Augustine’s list of eighty-eight heresies written in 428 ce (De Haeresibus I, lxxxiv), MPL 42, 46. 72. Helvidius’s treatise is known only through Jerome’s rebuttal and defense of monasticism (Realencyclopädie VII, 655). See Jerome, De perpetua virginitate B. Mariae, adversus Helvidium (MPL 23, 183–206) and references in Epistola XXII ad Eustochium, 22 (MPL 22, 409), Epistola XLVIII ad Pammachium, 18 (MPL, 22, 508), and Adversus Jovinianum I, 13 (MPL 23, 230). Jerome used the same New Testamental evidence with Helvidius to argue the opposite view, in defense of Mary’s continued virginity and the possibility of Jesus having stepbrothers and stepsisters.

420

The Visitation from the Altarpiece of the Virgin (St. Vaast Altarpiece) by Jacques Daret (c. 1434/1435)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be pregnant before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnallyn until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known by him. Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain o with a man.

[God’s Promises, the Red Sea] The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, “Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea.” Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it n Erkennet (Ger.), to know someone carnally means having sexual intercourse. o Beschlaffen (Ger.), “slept with.”

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all.p In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, “She was found to be pregnant before they came together,” it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him. Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110[:1] reads, “God says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.’” Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28[:15], “I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you.” Here God did not leave him after the fulfillment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42[:4], “He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth.” There are many more similar expressions, so that this babble of Helvidius73 is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom. This is enough for the present to have sufficiently proved that Mary was a pure maiden, q and that Christ was a genuine Jew of Abraham’s seed. Although more Scripture passages might be cited, r these are the clearest. Moreover, if anyone does not believe a clear saying of God’s Divine Majesty, it is reasonable to assume that one would not believe either any other more obscure passages. So certainly no one can doubt that it is possible for God to cause a maiden to become pregnant apart from a man, since God has also created all things from nothing. Therefore, the Jews have no ground for denying this, for they acknowledge God’s omnipotence, and they have here the clear testimony of the prophet Isaiah. While we are on the subject, however, we wish not only to answer the futile liars who publicly malign me in these matters but we would also like to do a service to the Jews on the chance that we might bring some of them back to their own true faith, the one which their fathers held.74 To this end we will deal with p Exod. 13:47—14:29. See Psalm 78. q Eyn reyne magd (Ger.), a literal translation, with the word pure referring to sexual inexperience. r These passages are treated in 1543 On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name]. See Gen. 49:10; Luke 1:42; Ps. 22:10-11; Ps. 110:3; Luke 1:38 on the Virgin Birth. See WA 53:634–44.

421

Image of the Virgin Mary, mother of Jesus, in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome. It depicts her nursing the infant Jesus. This is the earliest known image of Mary and the infant Jesus independent of the Magi episode. The figure on the left appears to be the prophet Balaam pointing to a star (outside the frame). The star is from Numbers 24:17.

73. Helvidius, who wrote against the idea of Mary’s perpetual virginity and inferred from the New Testament that Mary and Joseph had several children. See also n. 71 above. 74. Luther interprets the Old Testament to hold the promise of Jesus Christ and thus the gospel; he infers that the “first” Hebrews were “true” Christians.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

422 75. Luther is strategizing about how to relate to the Jews and teach them of the “right” reading of Scripture and settle on the proper parameters to regulate Jewish life in German territory. More than once, Luther promises to “deal” with the Jewish question later, and he would eventually do so, and most vehemently, in his About the Jews and Their Lies (see this volume, pp. 441–607) and Admonition against the Jews, a quasi sermon from Eisleben in 1546 (WA 51:194–96; LW 58:458–59). 76. Luther refers to Scholastic theologians: the university theologians engaged in methodological thesis-andantithesis disputations on theologically pertinent matters (e.g., Thomas Aquinas, Peter Abelard). See also n. 23, p. 401. 77. The term messiah, from the Hebrew verb masah, means “smearing” or “anointing,” and refers to the promised delivery of the Jewish people, according to the Hebrew Scriptures’ promise: the mashiach (anointed) is a divinely chosen man to end the suffering in the world and bring about the new temple, end Israel’s exile, and bring forth a new era and kingdom. The Jewish teaching and continued expectation of a Messiah differs from the Christians’ use of the term for Jesus, who is received as the fulfillment of the promise, the savior of the world. 78. Here Luther offers one of his major interpretations regarding the Old Testament and Christology. The “divine promise” is essential for Luther’s interpretation of the Scriptures about two central issues: (1) the election of God’s people and (2) the coming of Christ. Luther calculates that the loosing of the “scepter” refers to the anticipated destruction of Jerusalem

them further,75 and suggest for the benefit of those who want to work with them a method and some passages from Scripture which they should employ in dealing with them. For many, even of the sophists,76 have also attempted this; but insofar as they have set about it in their own name, nothing has come of it. For they were trying to cast out the Devil by means of the Devil, and not by the finger of God [Luke 11:17-20].

[Messiah and Shiloh (Genesis 49)] In the first place, that the current belief of the Jews and their waiting upon the coming of the Messiah77 proved by the passage in Genesis 49[:10-12] where the holy patriarch Jacob says: “[10] The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and the obedience of the peoples is his. [11] Binding his foal to the vine and his donkey’s colt to the choice vine, he washes his garments in wine and his robe in the blood of grapes; [12] his eyes are darker than wine, and his teeth whiter than milk.” This passage is a divine promise, which cannot lie and must be fulfilled unless heaven and earth were first to pass away.78,   s So the Jews cannot deny that for nearly fifteen hundred years79 now, since the fall of Jerusalem, they have had no scepter, that is, neither kingdom nor king. Therefore, the Shiloh, or Messiah, 80 must have come before this fifteen-hundred-year period, and before the destruction of Jerusalem. If they try to say that the scepter was also taken away from Judah at the time of the Babylonian captivity, when the Jews were transported to Babylon and remained captive for seventy years, 81 and yet the Messiah did not come at that time, the answer is that this is not true. For during the whole period of captivity the royal line continued in the person of King Jechoniah, 82 thereafter Zerubbabel, and other princes in turn until Herod became king. For “scepter” signifies not only a kingdom, but also a hegemony, 83 as the Jews are well aware. Furthermore, they still always had prophets. So the kingdom or hegemony never did disappear, even though for a time it existed outside of its territorial boundaries. Also, never during the captivity were all the inhabitants s

Cf. Matt. 5:18; 24:35.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew

423 at the hands of the Romans, which happened after Jesus’ crucifixion. Luther interprets the historical events in light of the messianic expectation of the Jews, and offers his corrective as a Christian reader who recognizes Christ as the promised Messiah and interprets the calamities that have ensued from the Jews’ missing this truth.

Relief from the Arch of   Titus at the Roman Forum shows the emperor Titus after the destruction of   Jerusalem in 70 ce . Spoils from the temple of Jerusalem, including the seven-branched candlestick, are carried in the triumphal procession.

driven out of the land, as has happened during these past fifteen hundred years when the Jews have had neither princes nor prophets. It was for this reason that God provided them at that time with the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, and Zechariah, who proclaimed to them that they would again be freed from Babylon, in order that they would not think that this word of Jacob was false, or that the Messiah had come. But for these last fifteen hundred years they have had no prophet to proclaim that they should again be free. God would not have permitted this state of affairs to continue for such a long time, since God did not on that occasion permit it for such a short time. God thereby gives ample indication that this prophecy [Gen. 49:10-12] must have been fulfilled. In addition, when Jacob says here that the scepter shall endure until the Messiah comes, it clearly follows that this scepter not only must not perish but also that it must become far more glorious than it ever was previously, before the Messiah’s coming. For all the Jews know full well that the Messiah’s kingdom will be the greatest and most glorious that has ever been on earth, as

79. Luther makes a point of counting the centuries leading up to his era as the opportunity Jews had had to learn the truth about the Messiah. Luther’s use of the “polemical mantra” of the “fifteen hundred years” is especially profuse in his Against the Sabbatarians (1538), LW 47:57–98; see also MLBJP, 147. 80. The exact meaning of this passage has caused much debate. Until recent times, the messianic reference was generally accepted by Jewish and Christian commentators. In the Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b reads, “Those of the school of R. Shila say, Shiloh is his [the Messiah’s] name.” The Targum’s Onkelos, Jerusalem, and PseudoJonathan, as well as Rashi (d. 1100), identify Shiloh with the Messiah. Luther gives the term der Held (Ger.), “the hero,” in his German Bible. See About the Jews and Their Lies (1543) for a fuller discussion of the passage, this volume, pp. 501–602; WA 53:450–62. 81. The Babylonian Captivity of the Hebrews lasted from 609 to 539 bce. 82. Jechoniah was one of the Israelite kings considered to be one of Jesus’ ancestors through Joseph, a descendant of King David. See Matt. 1:11-12. 83. The Hebrew word shebet in the Old Testament refers not only to the king’s scepter but also to the staff of the chief or leader; see Ezra 1:8-11; 3:2-8; Hag. 1:1; 2:23. Luther interprets the

424

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

we read in Psalms 2, 72, and 89. For the promise is also made to David that his throne shall endure forever [Ps. 89:4, 29, 36-37]. Now the Jews will have to admit that today their scepter has now been nonexistent for fifteen hundred years, not to speak of its having become more glorious. This prophecy can therefore be understood to refer to none other than Jesus Christ our Lord, who is of the tribe of Judah and of the royal lineage of David. He came when the scepter had fallen to Herod, the alien; 84 he has been king these fifteen hundred years, and will remain king on into eternity. For his kingdom has spread to the ends of the earth, as the prophets foretold [Ps. 2:8; 72:811]; and the nations have been gathered to him, as Jacob says here [Gen. 49:10]. And there could not possibly be a greater king on earth, whose name would be exalted among more nations, than this Jesus Christ. Under the edict of Cyrus, Judeans return to Jerusalem It is true that some Jews do indeed feel how from the Babylonian Exile under the leadership persuasive and conclusive this passage really is. of Ezra (see Ezra 1). From a volume on the Old and This is why they hunt up all sorts of weird ways of New Testaments by Nicholas Fontaine (published 1716). getting around it. But if you will notice, they only ensnare themselves. For example, they say that in this instance shiloh does not signify the Messiah or Christ, and that therefore this passage does not carry any weight with them. It matters not whether he is called Messiah or shiloh; we are concerned not with the name, but with the person, with 84. The parents of Herod the Great, the fact that he shall appear when the scepter is taken away from the king of Judea in 37–4 bce, were Judah. No such person can be found except Jesus Christ; otherIdumeans who had been conquered by wise, the passage is false. He will be no mere cobbler or tailor, but Johanan Hyrcanus (164–104) in 125 bce a lord to whom the nations will be gathered; that is, his kingdom and had nominally (only) become Jews. will be more glorious than the scepter ever was before, as has been said. Equally futile is another subterfuge, when they say: The nations that are gathered to Christ may well be only the Jewish nation, and shiloh means a lord. Be that as it may; I will not quarrel over what shiloh means, although it does seem to me that it signifies a person who is prosperous, well-to-do, has plenty, and is generous. From this comes the little word salve, which means copia [riches], felicitas [good fortune], abundantia [prosperity], an ample sufficiency of all good things, as it says in Psalm 122[:7], scepter passage to mean Israel’s loss of independence; when the Messiah comes, Israel ceases to exist as a nation.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew “Et abundantia in turribus suis” [“and prosperity within your palaces”]; that is, everything is full and sufficient and prospering, so that in German I might call shiloh well-being. 85 Now whether it signifies lord or whether it signifies wellbeing, prosper [prosperous], or felix [fortunate], at any rate it cannot be said to mean one of the former kings, princes, or teachers. For “the scepter of Judah” certainly comprises all those of the tribe of Judah who have been kings or princes with the exception of this shiloh, who here is singled out and preferred above all those who have wielded the scepter of Judah as someone special, because Jacob says [Gen. 49:10] the scepter of Judah shall endure until shiloh. What kind of talk would that be for me, to try to make of shiloh one of them who have held the scepter of Judah and the nations, when the passage here means that the shiloh will come after all those others as a greater and more glorious king, and that he will have no successor. Why would he not otherwise have said, “The scepter of Judah shall endure forever, and not wait upon shiloh”? Therefore, it is the kingdom of Christ which is here described in masterly fashion, namely, that before him many should wield the scepter of Judah until he should come himself and take it in his own hands forever, and that he would have no successor, nor would there ever be another king of the tribe of Judah. Thereby it is made clear that his kingdom would be a spiritual kingdom, following upon the temporal kingdom; for no person can have an eternal kingdom who is himself mortal and reigns temporally. Therefore, the scepter of Judah did indeed endure from David down to shiloh as something temporal, having a succession of mortal kings. But now that shiloh is come, the scepter remains forever in the hands of one person; no longer does it involve a succession of kings. From this it necessarily follows that this shiloh must first die, and thereafter rise again from the dead. For since he is to come from the tribe of Judah [Gen. 49:10], he must be a true, natural man, mortal like all the children of Judah. On the other hand, because he is to be a special king, distinguished above all who have held the scepter of Judah before him, and he alone is to reign forever, he cannot be a mortal man, but must be an immortal man. Therefore, he must through death put off this mortal life, and by his resurrection take on immortal life, in order that he may fulfill this prophecy and become a shiloh to whom all the

425

85. Wollfart (Ger.). Luther draws Shiloh from shalah (Heb.), which means secure and at ease, relating to the Hebrew greeting shalom and the Latin salve, both meaning health, peace, welfare, and prosperity. In the 1543 On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name], Luther contemplated the suggestion that shiloh came from the root shalah (Heb.), “draw out,” from which comes the term shiljoh (“afterbirth,” Deut. 28:57). Regardless, Luther found the personal and messianic reference of the term as unmistakable. See WA 53:639–43.

426

86. See pp. 422–27.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD world shall be gathered. He is to be a truly living human being, a king of the tribe of Judah, and yet immortal, eternal, and invisible, ruling spiritually in faith. But such sweet speech is still too exalted and difficult for the Jews. But if they say: Well, this Jesus of yours has never done what Jacob later says of this shiloh, namely, “He will bind his foal to the vine, and his donkey to the choice vine; he will wash his garments in wine, and his mantle in the blood of grapes” [Gen 49:11], then answer: A dimwitted person might perhaps take this to mean that this shiloh would be so rich a king that in his day wine would be as common as water, used for washing clothes, etc. 86 From the foregoing, however, we have observed that this shiloh is to reign forever, a single person, and that he has no heirs to follow him. All the prophets too say this. Therefore, his kingdom cannot be a temporal one, consisting essentially of mortal and perishable goods. And if this does not compel the interpretation that the wine and vine must be spiritual, then the very manner and nature of the words and language must compel it. For what sort of praise would it be to laud such a glorious kingdom above all kingdoms on these four grounds, namely, that its ruler binds his foal to the vine, his donkey to the choice vine, and washes his garments with wine, and his mantle with the blood of grapes? Could Jacob find no other praise than that which has to do with drinking? Must such a king have nothing else than wine? Again, is there nothing else praiseworthy in him but the fact that his eyes are redder than wine and his teeth whiter than milk? [Gen. 49:12]. What does it benefit a kingdom that its ruler has white teeth, red eyes, and binds a foal to a vine? Assuming for a moment that these things are said concerning superfluous riches, why doesn’t Jacob say much more, such as: He will wash his garments in balsam and myrrh? That would be even more luxurious. Who ever heard of anyone longing to wash his clothes in wine? Again, why doesn’t he say: He will pasture his horses in the wheat? Who ever heard of anyone wanting to tether his donkey to a vine? What is the point of a donkey at the vine, and clothes in the wine? The whole thing is sheer nonsense. Wine ruins clothes, and the donkey is better off with thistles than with a vine. A vine would be better suited to a sheep; it could eat the leaves. This seemingly ridiculous talk therefore forcibly compels a spiritual interpretation.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew

427

Then too, why does he praise him for his red eyes and white teeth? Is there nothing else beautiful about his body than red eyes and white teeth? What kind of praise is that for so glorious and great a king? We usually praise great kings for their strong and splendid physique, and above all for their great spirit, wisdom, graciousness, fortitude, power, and glorious deeds and virtues. But in this case, only his eyes and teeth are praised; this sounds more like praise of a woman than of a man, let alone of such a king. There can be no doubt that in these words the Spirit through Moses portrayed this person for us in the setting of a spiritual kingdom as it was to come into being and be governed. This is not the time, however, to discuss this at length. We have enough to do for the present in forcefully asserting against the Jews that the true shiloh or Christ must have come long ago, because they have been long since bereft of the kingdom and hegemony, and of prophets as well. Here the clear text stands firm and testifies that the scepter shall remain with the tribe of Judah until the true king comes, when for the first time it shall really hold sway.

[Kingdom] Thus, the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ squares perfectly with this prophecy. For there was a hegemony among the Jews until he came. After his coming, however, it was destroyed, and at the same time he began the eternal kingdom in which he still reigns forever. That he was of the tribe of Judah is unquestionable. Because as regards his person he was to be an eternal king, it could not be that he should govern in a temporal and secular sense, because what is temporal will pass away. Conversely, because he had to be David’s natural seed, it could not be otherwise than that he should be a natural, mortal, temporal, perishable human. 87 Now to be temporal and to reign eternally are two mutually contradictory concepts. Therefore, it had to turn out that he died temporally and departed this life, and again that he arose from the dead and became alive in order that he might become an eternal king. For he had to be alive if he were to reign, because one who is dead cannot reign; and he had to die too if he were to shift from this mortal life, into which he necessarily had to enter

87. On the basis of his biblical interpretation, Luther points out that until the birth and resurrection of Jesus, the Jews had a state and their freedom. After Jesus’ crucifixion, the city of Jerusalem was destroyed, and from then since, Jews have lacked their autonomy. Luther’s interpretation includes the conviction that the promised Messiah is of David’s blood lineage and that this anointed one is Jesus.

428

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

to fulfill the Scripture which promised he would be the natural blood of David and Abraham. So now he lives and reigns, and holds the exalted office of binding his foal to the vine and washing his garments in the red 89. As he promised, Luther would give renewed attention to the Jewish wine; that is, he governs our consciences with the holy gospel, question and how Christians should which is a most gracious preachment of God’s loving-kindness, treat them in several ensuing treatises: the forgiveness of sins, and redemption from death and hell, by Against the Sabbatarians (1537), LW which all who from the heart believe it will be comforted, joyous, 47:65–98; About the Jews and Their Lies and, as it were, drowned in God with the overwhelming comfort (1543), this volume, pp. 441–607; of his mercy. The Jews, however, will not listen to this interpretaalso LW 47:137–306; On the Schem Hamphoras and on the Lineage of Christ tion until they first accept and acknowledge the fact that Christ (1543), this volume, p. 609–66; and must have come in accordance with this prophecy. 88 Therefore, On The Last Words of David (1543), we will let the matter rest until its own good time. 89 LW 15:265–352, where he would On the basis and testimony of this passage [Gen. 49:10-12], recommend explicit measures to another sensible argument is also to be proved, namely, that this suppress the Jewish faith and the shiloh must have come at the time our Jesus Christ came, and that teaching of it. There is a difference he can be none other than that selfsame Jesus. The prophecy says between the strategies proposed in Luther’s writings from different that nations shall be gathered to or be subject to this shiloh. Now decades; his fundamental devaluing I ask the Jews: When was there ever such a person of Jewish ancesof the Jewish faith as a dead religion try to whom so many nations were subject as this Jesus Christ? after Christ’s coming, however, remains David was a great king, and so was Solomon; but their kingdom consistently the same. never extended beyond a small portion of the land of Syria. This Jesus, on the contrary, is accepted as a lord and king throughout the world, so that one may consider as fulfilled in him the prophecy from the second Psalm [v. 8], where God says to the Messiah, “I will give you the Gentiles for your possession, and the uttermost parts of the earth for your inheritance.” This had indeed come true in the person of our Jesus since the time when the scepter was taken from the Jews; this is quite apparent and has never yet happened in the case of any other Jew. Because shiloh was to come when Judah’s scepter was ended, and since that time no other has fulfilled these prophecies, this Jesus must certainly be the real shiloh whom Jacob intended. The Jews will have to admit further that the Gentiles have never once yielded themJoseph rides in Pharaoh’s chariot selves so willingly to a Jew for their lord and after being promoted to vice-regent (Genesis 41). king, as to this Jesus. For although Joseph 88. That Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah is a major source of contention for Luther.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew was certainly a great man in Egypt, he was neither its lord nor its king [Gen. 41:40]. And even if he had been, Egypt was a mighty small thing compared to this kingdom that everybody ascribes to this Jesus. Again, neither in Babylon nor in Persia was either Daniel [Dan. 5:29; 6:1-3] or Mordecai90 [Esther 10:3] a king, although they were men of power in the government.

[Destruction and Building of Jerusalem (Daniel 5 and 9)] It is amazing that the Jews are not moved to believe in this Jesus, their own flesh and blood, with whom the prophecies of Scripture actually square so powerfully and exactly, when they see that we Gentiles cling to him so hard and fast and in such numbers that many thousands have shed their blood for his sake.91 They know perfectly well that the Gentiles have always shown greater hostility toward the Jews than toward any other nation, and have been unwilling to tolerate their dominion, laws, or government. How is it then that the Gentiles should now so reverse themselves as to willingly and steadfastly surrender themselves to this Jew, and with heart and soul confess Christ to be the king of kings and lord of lords, unless it be that here is the true Messiah, to whom God by a great miracle has made the Gentiles friendly and submissive in accordance with this and numerous other prophecies? The second passage is Daniel 9[:24-27], where the angel Gabriel speaks to Daniel in the plainest terms about Christ, saying, “Seventy weeks are determined concerning your people 92 and your holy city,93 that transgression may be finished, forgiveness sealed, iniquity atoned for, and everlasting righteousness brought in, and vision and prophecy fulfilled, and the most holy anointed. Take notice therefore and know: from the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks until Messiah the prince; the streets and the wall shall be built again in a troubled time. And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, and they [who cut him off ] shall not be his. But the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with violence. And after the end of the war there shall remain the appointed desolation.

429

90. Mordecai, son of Jair, a Benjaminite, was the chief minister of Ahasuerus in the book of Esther, and a cousin of Esther (whom he adopted), whom he assisted in intervening in the murder plot against the Jews in Persia. 91. It continues to puzzle and frustrate Luther that, regardless of the evidence, Jews stubbornly refuse to accept the arguments, which Luther reads as hostility toward God and Christians. Over the decades of writing on the matter, he ceased to entertain the possibility that the Jewish readers were misled by the rabbis’ false reading of the Scriptures, concluding that their resistance was willful, deliberate, and malevolent. Thus, the Jews appeared to Luther as the enemies of God, who had already deserted them. 92. This is one of the fundamental proof texts for Luther: “Daniel 9 contains the reinterpretation of Jeremiah’s prophesy of seventy-year exile (see Jer. 24 and 29) as seventy ‘weeks of years,’ in all, 490 years. This passage was one of Luther’s most important proof texts, for it, he argues, contains the exact prediction of when the Messiah would come, that is, in the seventieth week, which corresponds precisely with the life and ministry of Jesus. Luther points out as well that a strict corollary of the death of the Messiah is the end of Judaism” (MLBJP, 122–23; see also WA DB 11/2:2–130; LW 35:294–316). 93. Jerusalem.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

430 94. Luther made this point frequently, also in his commentary on The Magnificat (1521), where he articulated the difference between Christians’ and Jews’ expectations regarding the Messiah: “The sole difference is they believed in the coming and promised Seed; we believe in the Seed that has come and has been given. But it is all the one truth of the promise, and hence also one faith, one Spirit, one Christ, one Lord” (TAL 4:380; MLBJP, 74). 95. Jerusalem was destroyed under the Roman Titus in 70 ce. In another treatise, Luther dated the destruction to forty years after Christ’s passion and seventy-four years after his birth; see his Suppotatio annorum mundi (1541), WA 53:127. Originally, Luther had dated the destruction with dreyssigst (Ger.), “thirtieth” year, which was changed in the ensuing editions. 96. After Jerusalem was captured, in 170 bce, its temple was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes, and purified by Judas upon the Maccabees’ recapturing Jerusalem in 165 bce. 97. The tradition that Cyrus was killed in a battle against the forces of Tomyris, queen of the Massagetes, comes from The History of Herodotus I, 214. In reality, however, Cyrus died a violent death in 529 bce. Luther’s sources for this may have been Antoninus Florentinus (1389–1459), the archbishop of Florence, Summa historialis (I, iv, 1; see WA 23:503 n. 2) or (supposedly) Philo of Alexandria’s Breviarium de temporibus (WA 53:20,1.3).

And he shall confirm the covenant with many in one week; and in the middle of the week sacrifice and offering shall cease,” etc. God help us! This passage has been dealt with so variously by both Jews and Christianst that one might doubt whether anything certain can be derived from it! Well this much at least we will derive from it, namely, that the true Messiah must have come over one thousand and five hundred years ago, just as we hold that our Jesus Christ did.94 The computation and exegesis we will postpone to the last, and for the first simply say: Neither Jew nor anyone else can deny that the angel Gabriel is speaking here of the rebuilding of Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity; this took place under Nehemiah. In the second place, Gabriel can surely be referring only to that destruction of Jerusalem, which subsequently took place under the Roman emperor Titus about the thirtieth year95 after the ascension of our Lord. For after Jerusalem was rebuilt [by Nehemiah] there was no other destruction of the city, although it had been captured at the time of the Maccabees.96 From this we draw the assured and incontrovertible conclusion that the Messiah of whom Gabriel here speaks must have come before the destruction [by Titus]. That, I think, is quite certain and sufficiently clear. It is true that the Jews long ago began to feel the pressure of this mighty flood of evidence, and have anxiously defended their position with all manner of preposterous glosses. They make of this Messiah something other than the true Messiah, as for example King Cyrus of Persia, whom Isaiah in chapter 45 calls a Messiah, u and who was slain by Tomyris, the Scythian queen.97 This and similar efforts are worthless excuses, capricious and unwarranted evasions, and therefore quickly disposed of as follows:

t

The passage has generated at least thirty-two major Christian and Jewish interpretations; see Franz Fraidl, Die Exegese der Siebzig Wochen Daniels in der alten und mittleren Zeit (Graz: Lueschner, 1883). u In Luther’s Deutsche Bibel translation version from 1528 and 1545, the Hebrew word maschiach in Isa. 45:1 is rendered as gesalbeten (Ger.), “anointed”; WA DB 11:136–37.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew

The triumph of   Judas Maccabeus (c. 1634–1636) by Peter Paul Rubens (1577−1640)

431

432

98. With Titus’s reign Luther refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 ce. See also n. 95, p. 430.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD These seventy weeks (says Gabriel) are to extend to the time of a Messiah of such a sort that in his time, when the weeks have elapsed, sin and iniquity shall be finished, forgiveness and everlasting righteousness brought in, and vision and prophecy fulfilled. Now I ask them both, Jews and everyone else: Did such things come to pass in the days of Cyrus? In the time of Cyrus and after him no more special righteousness was brought upon earth than what existed before and since under other kings. Moreover, in the days of David and Solomon the level of righteousness was much higher than at the time of Cyrus, but Scripture does not designate this as everlasting righteousness. The righteousness of which Gabriel speaks must therefore be far superior to that which prevailed in the time of David, the most holy king, let alone to such righteousness as the pagan Cyrus had in his day. And further, when Gabriel says here that the city of  Jerusalem shall be rebuilt in seven weeks, and that afterward the Messiah shall be cut off after sixty-two weeks, how can that apply to King Cyrus, who was slain before the seven weeks began, or— if their calculation is correct—at any rate before Jerusalem was rebuilt? How can the Messiah be someone who was slain before the rebuilding of Jerusalem, and then was cut off sixty-two weeks later after Jerusalem was rebuilt? So now we have it; their defense is fallacious, and the passage cannot be interpreted in terms of Cyrus. Since Scripture designates no one as Messiah after Cyrus except the only true one, and since such great and exalted qualities cannot be attributed to any temporal king, we conclude—and thus mightily overcome the error of the Jews—that the true Messiah came after the rebuilding of Jerusalem [by Nehemiah] and prior to its destruction [by Titus].98 For no Messiah was put to death before the

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew destruction of Jerusalem except our Lord Jesus Christ, whom we call Messiah, that is, Christ, or the Anointed One. For this reason we will now examine the text,v and see how exactly it conforms to our Lord Jesus Christ. I must address my remarks to those who are familiar with the histories of the kingdoms; 99 those who are unfamiliar with them will probably not understand me. The surest method in this exegesis is to reckon backward, namely, beginning with the time when Jesus was baptized and began to preach, Gabriel is referring to this time when he says, “Until Messiah the prince” [Dan. 9:25], as if he would say: I speak of matters prior not to the birth of Christ but to the hegemony of Christ, when he began to reign, to teach, to instruct, and to represent himself as a ruler to be followed. This is the position taken by the gospel writers, especially Mark [1:1-15], and by Peter in Acts [1:22]. They begin the activities of Christ after his baptism by John, as Luke [3:2123] also does. That is when his work really began. But Christ was then about thirty years old. Now among those who are well versed in Scripture there is no doubt whatever that Gabriel is speaking here not of the normal week of seven days, but of year-weeks, in which seven years comprise one week.100 Scripture commonly employs such terminology.w Therefore, the seventy weeks [Dan. 9:24] amount altogether to four hundred and ninety years.101 If we now reckon from Christ’s thirtieth year [Luke 3:23] backward through the Greek and Persian kingdoms for four hundred and ninety years, we arrive exactly at the twentieth [Neh. 2:1] and last year of Cambyses,102 the third king or the second king in Persia103 after Cyrus, that Cyrus who permitted the

433 99. See WA DB 11:xliii–xlv on Luther’s historical sources—in addition to the Bible—for the Old Testament history, including the chronology of the Persian kings mentioned in the exegesis of Dan. 9:24-27. Like his colleague Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560), Luther relied on the Italian Dominican John Annius of Viterbo’s (c. 1432–1502) account, thought to be a genuine but spurious compilation of purported chronologies of antiquity by different ancient authors. Luther quoted two ancient authors most often: Megasthenes Persa, supposed author of the Iudicium temporum et Annalium Persarum, and Philo of Alexandria (c. 25 bce–50 ce), the pseudonymous author of Breviarum de temporibus. See WA 53:17–21 for reprints of these authors’ texts. 100. In Dan. 9:24 the “seventy weeks” in the NRSV is literal, while the “seventy weeks of years” in the RSV represents the interpretation that Luther describes as universal. 101. Dan. 9:24-27 is one of Luther’s “proof texts” about Jesus being the promised Messiah, against the Jewish Messianic expectations: Luther points out with Scripture how the coming of Jesus coincides with the 490 years of Daniel. 102. Luther follows Megasthenes (see n. 99 above), who connects the reign of “Priscus Artaxerxes Assuerus” with the historical Cambyses, at “twenty years” (WA 53:18, II.35–36).

v

Luther would later deal with this text again and offer different calculations of the seventy years; in his sermon from 20 November 1524, on Matt. 24:15ff. (WA 15:743–45); his 1530 Preface to Daniel (LW 35:303–305) with subsequent revisions (WA DB 11:18–31); in his 1543 About the Jews and Their Lies (this volume, pp. 538–58; WA 53:492–510); a Table Talk from July 1543 (WA TR 4, no. 4,848); and his 1541–45 Suppotatio annorum mundi (WA 53:13–14, 25–27, 108–10, 125, 173–77). w See, e.g., Lev. 25:8; Ezek. 4:4-5.

103. In actuality, the first five kings of the Persian Empire were Cyrus (r. 538–529 bce), Cambyses (r. 529–522), Darius I Hystaspes (r. 522–486), Xerxes I (r. 485–465), and Artaxerxes I Longimanus (r. 464– 424). Luther’s sources (Metasthenes and Pseudo-Philo) on the Achaemenid

434 kings were based on inadequate information. Darius Hystaspes reigned two years with Cyrus, who then reigned solo for twenty-two years. The next years were ruled by Priscus Artaxerxes Assuerus (Ezra 4:6), after whom Darius Longimanus ruled thirty-seven years (WA DB 11/11:19 n. 4). Luther was aware of the discrepancies between the Bible and the Latin and Greek sources on the names, dates, and number of the Persian kings, in his 1524 lectures on Haggai and 1527 work on Zechariah. 104. The forty-six years were supposed to include the two years of Darius Hystaspes and Cyrus, the twenty-two years of Cyrus, the twenty years of Cambyses, and two years of Darius Longimanus. Luther treats these fortysix years (as related to John 2:20) in his preface to the 1545 Suppotatio annorum mundi (WA 53:25–27). 105. See Neh. 2:1. Artaxerxes (Macrocheir) Longimanus was the son of Xerxes, who reigned from 464 to 425 bce, and Ezra and Nehemiah served as officials at his court. The son of Xerxes called Longimanus had his brother Darius killed. His other brother, Hystaspes, tried to rebel but was killed. Revolts occurred also in Egypt 460 bce and Syria around 448 bce. 106. Typically in the Old Testament, the Hebrew word chata means “sin.” However, it can also mean “purge” in its Piel form (Ps. 51:7), or “cleanse” (Exod. 29:36; Lev. 14:52) and “purify” (Lev. 8:15; Num. 19:19), in which instances Luther usually rendered the term as entsündigen (Ger.) (to “de-sin”). In his 1530 and 1546 Bible translations, he translated chattah in Dan. 9:24 as Sünde (“sins”). 107. Luther’s time calculations are inconsistent and not always accurate.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD building of the temple at Jerusalem, 2 Chron. 36[:22-23], and Ezra 1[:1-3]. However, more than forty-six years104 later Cambyses, and after him Darius Longimanus105 (who had previously vowed to do so [1 Esd. 4:43]), permitted the building of the city of Jerusalem, which was done under Nehemiah. All this is set forth in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra. Thus, if we take the seventy weeks as beginning with Nehemiah’s departure from Persia [Neh. 2:1-11], that is, about the seventh year of Darius Longimanus, it corresponds exactly with our Christ. Now Gabriel says [Dan. 9:24], “Seventy weeks (that is, four hundred and ninety years) are determined concerning your people and your holy city.” This is as if he were to say: Your nation of the Jews and the holy city of Jerusalem have yet four hundred and ninety years to go; then they will both come to an end. As to what shall actually transpire, he says that transgression will be finished and forgiveness sealed and iniquity atoned for and everlasting righteousness brought in, and vision and prophecy fulfilled, that is, that satisfaction will be made for all sins, forgiveness of sins proclaimed, and the righteousness of faith preached, that righteousness which is eternally valid before God. This it is to which all the prophets and the whole of Scripture bear witness, as Paul in Romans 1[:17] and Peter in Acts 2[:38-39] testify. For before it there has been nothing but sin and work-righteousness, which is temporal and invalid in the sight of God. I know of course that some invariably interpret the little Hebrew word “Hathuth” here as “sins”; I have taken it to mean “forgiveness”—as Moses sometimes does, and as it is used in Psalm 51[:7] 106 —not without reason. Next he shows when the period of seventy weeks begins, saying [Dan. 9:25], “From the going forth of the word to rebuild Jerusalem (that is, at the time of Nehemiah, in the twentieth year of Cambyses), until Messiah the prince (that is, until the baptism of Christ in the Jordan), are seven weeks (that is, forty-nine years, during which Jerusalem was rebuilt in a troubled time, as the book of Nehemiah [2–6] teaches) and sixty-two weeks” (that is, 441 years after Jerusalem was rebuilt).107 This makes altogether sixty-nine weeks, that is 483 years. There is still lacking one week, that is, seven years, to make the total of seventy weeks, or 490 years. He then shows what is to happen in that selfsame week, saying [Dan. 9:26]: “And after sixty-two weeks (note that this is after the first seven weeks of troubled rebuilding) an

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew anointed one [Messiah] shall be cut off” (this did not happen at the beginning of the last week, but right in the middle of it,108 for Christ preached for three and one-half years, and Gabriel uses the term “cut off,” x that is, taken from this life into the immortal life through death and his resurrection). And they [who cut him off] shall not be his (that is, those who crucify him and drive him from this world will no more belong to him and be his people, but he will take unto himself another people). Gabriel explains this and tells how they will not go unpunished for it, saying [Dan. 9:26]: “And the people of a prince who is to come (that is, Titus, the Roman emperor) shall destroy the city and that which is holy, and its end shall come with violence (that is, it shall be destroyed with force and fury, as by a flood). And after the end of the war there shall remain the appointed desolation.” (All of this happened just that way. Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed with frightful severity, and to this time have never come into the hands of the Jews or been restored to the former position of power despite the earnest efforts made in that direction. The city today is still the ruin it was before,109 so that no one can deny that this prophecy and the actual situation before our eyes coincide perfectly.)

435 With this particular data, e.g., he moves between 441 and 434. Luther sets the time here as 483 years (sixtynine weeks) after his calculations of 490 years from Nehemiah’s rebuilding to Christ’s baptism. He is inconsistent in naming the year for Nehemiah’s rebuilding efforts. By 1530, as indicated in his Preface to Daniel, he had established a position he would maintain: that seventy years began with the second year of Darius (LW 35:303–4). 108. Following Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349), Luther places Christ’s death at the middle of the seventh week (Fraidl, Die Exegese, 156–58). In his 1541–45 Suppotatio annorum mundi, Luther placed the apostolic council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35) at the middle of the seventh year. He sought to offer his computation of the seventy years in the scheme of world history, and according to these calculations the time of the Messiah of seventy years had to coincide with the beginning of the Fifth Millennium (WA 53:13–14). 109. Jerusalem was captured several times by different peoples after Romans ruled by Titus—Persians, Arabs, Seljuk Turks, European Crusaders, and Egyptians. The Ottoman Turks captured it in 1517 and built the (still existing) walls around it in 1542.

A Roman denarius depicting Titus (c. 79). The reverse commemorates his triumph in the Judean wars, showing a Jewish captive kneeling in front of a trophy of arms.

x

Ausgerottet (Ger.), “rooted out,” a word used by Luther in his German Bible from 1543 onward; originally he had used getödtet, from Vulgate’s occideretur, “slain.” WA DB 11/11:170–71.

436

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD “And he shall confirm the covenant with many in the one week” [Dan. 9:27]. (This is the period of three and one-half years during which Christ himself preached, plus the succeeding three and one-half years of apostolic activity.) During these seven years the gospel (which is God’s covenant with us, that through Christ he will be merciful toward us) received its greatest impetus. Since that time it has never been so pure and mighty, for shortly thereafter heresy and error came to be mingled with it. “And in the middle of the week the sacrifice and offering shall cease” [Dan. 9:27] (that is, the law of Moses will no longer prevail), because Christ, after preaching for three and one-half years, will fulfill all things through his suffering, and thereafter provide for the preaching of a new sacrifice, etc.

[Conclusions] Now let someone tell me: Where will one find a prince, or Messiah, or king, with whom all this accords so perfectly, as with our Lord Jesus Christ? Scripture and history agree so perfectly with one another that the Jews have nothing they can say to the contrary. They certainly are painfully conscious of their destruction, which is immeasurably greater than any they have ever endured. They cannot point to any transgression so great that they would have merited such punishment (because they feel it is not a sin that they crucified Jesus, and that they committed greater sins before that but suffered less punishment). It would be unthinkable that God would leave them so long without prophets unless they were finished and all Scripture fulfilled.

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew But there are still more prophecies, as for example in Haggai 2[:9], y where God says of the rebuilt temple, “The splendor of this latter house shall be greater than that of the former,” which is also very conclusive; and Zechariah 8[:23], “In those days ten individuals of all languages of the Gentiles shall take hold of the robe of a Jew, saying: We want to go with you; for we have heard that the Lord is with you,” etc.110 There are many more, but it would take too long to discuss them all clearly and at length. For the present the two prophecies just cited111 are enough for a beginning. If the Jews should take offense because we confess our Jesus to be a man, and yet true God, we will deal forcefully with that from Scripture in due time. But this is too harsh for a beginning. Let them first be suckled with milk, and begin by recognizing this man Jesus as the true Messiah; after that they may drink wine, and learn also that he is true God.112 For they have been led astray so long and so far that one must deal gently with them, as people who have been all too strongly indoctrinated to believe that God cannot be human.

y

Luther addresses this passage in his 1524 Haggai lectures (WA 13:526, 541–42) and 1543 About the Jews and Their Lies (this volume, p. 521–29; WA 53:487–92).

437

110. Luther uses Hag. 2:9 and Zech. 8:23 as proofs for Jesus being the promised Messiah, against the Jewish messianic expectations. 111. For a more extensive treatment by Luther, see About the Jews and Their Lies (1543), this volume, pp. 441–607; LW 47:[121] 137–306; WA 53:[412] 417–552. See also On the Schem Hamphoras and on the Lineage of Christ (1543), this volume, pp. 609–66; WA 53:[573] 579–648. 112. Luther recognizes the continued challenge of Christians to argue and defend their central, distinctive belief that God became human in Jesus Christ. He concludes that it is most fruitful to begin with historical facts and scriptural tradition about the promised Messiah; Luther is hopeful he can make a convincing argument with his interpretation of the Scriptures. In this regard, the point about Jesus’ Jewishness via his mother is crucial. Luther draws another piece of evidence from the evident and well-recorded suffering of the Jews—caused by, according to his interpretation, their refusal to recognize the promised Messiah in Jesus Christ, against the scriptural evidence.

438

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

113. Luther consistently makes the point that proper interpretation of the Scriptures is the key, also for fostering the conversion of the Jews, who in his opinion failed to grasp the proper meaning of the word. Luther’s arguments about the Jews and his biblical interpretation are interrelated. 114. Luther condemned usury, that is, drawing interest higher than what was considered appropriate, as an un-Christian practice (see, for example, On Business and Usury, pp. 131–81 in this volume). In Luther’s world, banking was still developing and it was not uncommon for Jews to engage in moneylending, as one of the few professions permitted by the Christian authorities. For Jews in particular, usury (neshek in Hebrew) or “interest” was acceptable in transactions with the Gentiles while forbidden with fellow Jews (see Exod. 22:24; Ezek. 28:13, 17; Lev. 25:36, 37; Deut. 23:20, 21; Psalm 15). 115. In the Holy Roman Empire, the Jews’ lives were regulated—and protected—by special imperial laws pertaining to the Jews, protective letters Schützbriefe, and papal decrees. Most famously, the document Sicut Iudaeis (“And thus to the Jews”) was issued over four centuries by twenty popes (since Calixtus II, r. 1119–1124) in an effort to guard against violence and forced baptisms, which by all accounts happened frequently. The papal document expressed the official position of the church: Jews were not to be hurt, unless there was evidence of them plotting against the Christians (a clause added by Innocent III, 1199).

This medieval period miniature drawing depicts Jewish children eating cookies to teach them that learning was sweet. They had to be able to read the Holy Scriptures themselves.

Therefore, I would request and advise that one deal gently with them and instruct them from Scripture; 113 then some of them may come along. Instead of this we are trying only to drive them by force, slandering them, accusing them of having Christian blood if they don’t stink, and I know not what other foolishness. So long as we thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them? Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do them any good?114

That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew If we really want to help them, we must be guided in our dealings with them not by papal law115 but by the law of Christian love. We must receive them cordially, and permit them to trade and work with us,116 that they may have occasion and opportunity to associate with us, hear our Christian teaching, and witness our Christian life.117 If some of them should prove stiffnecked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.118 Here I will let the matter rest for the present, until I see what I have accomplished. God grant us all his mercy. Amen

439 This possibility worried Luther, who later in his life became convinced that Jews were indeed intending to harm Christians. This conviction made him consider his 1523 approach of tolerance a colossal mistake. See MLBJP, 28–30, on Sicut judaeis. Also earlier, see n.2, p. 392. 116. Jewish lives were regulated by both imperial laws and territorial laws, in addition to particular “Jewish laws” that controlled not only what professions were acceptable for Jews, but also how business was handled, what areas were permitted for traveling or living, etc. Local rulings could change and Jews lose their rights with little warning; money provided, at times, some negotiating power. It is quite plausible that Luther influenced the elector of Saxony on the issue of Jews’ rights in the territory. He would come to explicitly advise the elector against permitting Jews to travel through Saxony. 117. Luther voices the importance of actual interaction between Jews and Christians, something he himself did not experience. He did not interact directly with Jewish scholars; he did not have personal relations with practicing Jews. 118. Luther blames Christians’ bad example and behavior as the reason for Jews not converting. Later he would dramatically change his tone in this and put the blame on Jews alone. See in this volume, About the Jews and Their Lies, pp. 441–607, and On the Schem Hamphoras and on the Lineage of Christ, pp. 609–66.

Title page of On the Jews and Their Lies (Von den Jüden und Iren Lügen), published in Wittenberg, 1543

�

About the Jews and Their Lies 1543

H ANS   J. HILLERBRAND

INTRODUCTION

There is deep irony in the fact that this treatise, written some three years before his death, begins with Luther’s demurral that he had already written everything noteworthy about Jews, yet On the Jews and Their Lies has turned out to be the most notorious of all of Luther’s writings. The reader will be somewhat amused when—despite Luther’s introductory sentences—he proceeds to offer a book of over one hundred pages. Both in terms of its language and its polemic it is singularly strident and abusive. Partisans and antagonists of Luther alike have been appalled by the treatise, both during the reformer’s lifetime and since. To be sure, a tone of hostility and anger breaks through on just about every page of the treatise, leading to a couple of pages in the middle and toward the end of the treatise where Luther offers several practical advisories on how Christians should relate to and deal with Jews. Fortunately, while Luther’s proposals were noted, none were translated into reality in any of the Lutheran territories. Luther’s treatise was reprinted a few times in the sixteenth century, but it was hardly the focus of much theological consideration; among the Lutheran divines in Germany the overwhelming theological challenge in the second half of the sixteenth

441

442

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD century was to arrive at a “concord” among the feuding Lutheran factions. Late in the seventeenth century, Philipp Jakob Spener (1635–1705), the “father” of emerging Prussian Pietism and the most important Lutheran figure since the sixteenth century, both acknowledged the bothersome treatment of Jews in Christian society and offered an explanation for Luther’s vicious role. Luther’s 1543 treatise was seen as the work of a cranky old man, who was deeply disappointed by the course reform had taken. Spener and other Pietists minimized the importance of the 1543 treatise and took the 1523 treatise (That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew) a to be the authentic expression of the sentiment of the reformer. This deliberate ignoring of On the Jews and Their Lies proved to be significant, for following this Pietist precedent the treatise fell into historical oblivion. The Pietists focused on the writings of the “young Luther,” by which they meant the Luther of the first decade or so of the controversy. They found it easy to focus on the “early” or “young” Luther and his treatise of 1523. In short, in the centuries following the treatise remained largely unknown and most assuredly was not a major source for understanding Luther and his thought. In the course of the nineteenth century the treatise began to be known more widely, especially in German nationalistic circles, and the interest in Luther’s treatise was polemical and political rather than theological. With the rise of Nazism in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s, the treatise became notoriously popular, though one suspects that Nazi and other racially motivated readers hardly found Luther’s lengthy expositions of exegetical issues very helpful. Precisely Luther’s expositions, however, were an indication that he took the Old Testament seriously. Doubtless, the most painful response came in November 1938 in a pamphlet written by the Lutheran bishop of   Thuringia, Martin Sasse, who saw the burning of the synagogues in the Kristallnacht as the long-last realization of Luther’s advisories. One must be cautious, however, not to make too much of the publication history of the treatise. Any printing or publication could easily be taken as an endorsement of its abusive content, and surely it was ignored precisely for this reason. In fact, the preface to the treatise in the 1971 publication of Luther’s Works, American Edition, volume 47, contains a pointed demurral by a See this volume, pp. 391–439.

About the Jews and Their Lies both editor and publisher that the treatise is only published to provide the bases for its scholarly assessment.b Already at the time of its publication in 1543, the treatise had caused understandable dismay, not only among Jews but also in Protestant circles. Philip Melanchthon and Andreas Osiander1 were not pleased with its strident tone and the severity of its recommendations. Heinrich Bullinger2 remarked that Luther’s views reminded him of those of the Inquisitors. And the Zurich clergy declared (speaking specifically of the treatise Vom Schem Hamphoras, c which Luther published later in 1543), that “it had been written by a swineherd, rather than by a celebrated shepherd of souls.” The abusive and vile character of Luther’s late writings about Jews is particularly noteworthy, since earlier he had shown remarkable sympathy toward Jews. In the controversy between Johannes Reuchlin and Johannes Pfefferkorn over the legitimacy of Jewish religious books, Luther had sided with Reuchlin, though this may well have been due to a concern for intellectual freedom. 3

Portrait of Heinrich Bullinger (1550) by Hans Asper (1499−1571)

b See LW 47:123. c On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ; see this volume, pp. 609–66.

443 1. Philip Melanchthon (1493–1560) was Luther’s friend and close associate in Wittenberg. Andreas Osiander (1498– 1552) was a German reformer educated at Leipzig. He led the Lutheran reform in the city of Nuremberg. 2. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), major Swiss reformer, was a Roman Catholic convert and supporter of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531). 3. Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522) was a German humanist and Greek scholar who became involved in Hebrew studies and wrote De Rudimentis Hebraicis, a Hebrew grammar and lexicon, in 1506. While Reuchlin encouraged the appointment of Jewish professors and the reading of Jewish scholarly books, many of his contemporaries believed that in order to convert the Jews, Christians had to first take away their books, especially the Talmud. This included Johannes Pfefferkorn (1469–1523), who was himself a Jewish convert to Christianity.

This woodcut shows the humanist Johannes Reuchlin kneeling and wringing his hands while Johannes Pfefferkorn stands by him in a master’s robes (Cologne, 1521).

444

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD When the 1523 treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew was published, it was greeted with appreciation for its sympathetic tone. As far as Luther was concerned, the harsh treatment of Jews in the Middle Ages was but another instance of the perversion of the Roman Church: Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks—the crude asses’ heads—have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian. . . . I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. We Gentiles, Luther adds, should remember that it is not we but the Jews who, humanly speaking, are closest to Christ; “We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord.” d Luther’s concluding comments and practical recommendations were simple enough. Therefore, I would request and advise that one deal gently with them and instruct them from Scripture; then some of them may come along. Instead of this we are trying only to drive them by force, slandering them, accusing them of having Christian blood if they don’t stink, and I know not what other foolishness. So long as we thus treat them like dogs, how can we expect to work any good among them? Again, when we forbid them to labor and do business and have any human fellowship with us, thereby forcing them into usury, how is that supposed to do them any good? If we really want to help them, we must be guided in d LW 45:200–201; see also this volume, p. 404.

About the Jews and Their Lies our dealings with them not by papal law but by the law of Christian love. . . . If some of them should prove stiffnecked, what of it? After all, we ourselves are not all good Christians either.4 Twenty years later, Luther’s treatise On the Jews and Their Lies had an altogether different tone. Luther now treated the Jews with the “arrogance and scorn” that he had condemned in 1523. Instead of his 1523 suggestion to “deal gently” with the Jews, he now advocated exceedingly harsh measures of suppression. Whereas in 1523 he had offered altogether benign explanations of various Jewish practices, now his tone had become strident and aggressive. Whereas in 1523 Luther had simply reported the allegations of dreadful Jewish practices, such as blood libel, 5 he now took their reality for granted. In short, his image of the Jews and his recommendations concerning them had turned completely negative. How is this change in Luther’s views to be explained? Explanations have differed. A “medical” interpretation has argued that the aging Luther suffered from a variety of illnesses, of which kidney stones and chronic constipation were only part. His fickle health made him irascible and cranky, and gave him a short temper. In other words, not a calm and seasoned theologian is speaking from the pages of the 1543 treatise. A “psychological” interpretation has pointed to Luther’s frustration with the obstacles being encountered by the reform movement. The Roman Catholic Church had shown itself recalcitrant in embracing the reform program which Luther and others had enunciated; moreover, the adherents of reform were splintered into different factions. Also, Luther refers in the later treatise to having had a negative encounter with Jews, when two rabbis stopped in Wittenberg to dialogue with Luther but failed to be persuaded by his exegesis of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament passages. e A close reading of the treatise suggests that a deeply emotional Luther was unable to accept alternate readings of biblical passages. Thus, his verdict that “Jews lied.”6 One may also place Luther’s treatise into the broader setting of early modern Christianity, which offered a straightforward theological reflection on the Judaic roots of the Christian e

See pp. 491–92.

445

4. LW 45:229; see also this volume, p. 439. Luther’s line of reflection would seem to be obvious. The historical mistreatment of Jews was yet another instance where the Roman Church had gone wrong. This now needed to be rectified, reformed. And if Jews were treated right and properly, Jewish conversions to the Christian faith would follow. 5. Blood libel refers to accusations that Jewish people used the blood of Christians in religious rituals, especially in the preparation of Passover bread. This was perpetrated throughout the Middle Ages and (sporadically) until the early twentieth century.

6. That was the heart of Luther’s polemic. Jews dissented from Luther’s interpretation of Scripture, which to him was the literal meaning; therefore, they were stubborn; they lied.

446

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

religious anti-Judaism, drawing a distinction between Christian hostility toward the Jewish religion and hostility toward Jewish peoples. This differentiation relates the former to the realm of ideas, theological affirmations, and scriptural interpretation; the latter, in turn, focuses on individuals and on their personal or social features and characteristics. We may label the former to be “theological” anti-Judaism, while the latter may be called “cultural” anti-Judaism. The latter is the whole diapason of personal invectives and defamations that have haunted Jews through the centuries—the chronic accusations of personal deceitfulness, sexual immorality, and deceit in their business dealings. Such was absent in 1523, when Luther offered a straightforward discussion of the Christian theological indebtedness to Judaism. In 1543, Luther clearly embraced cultural anti-Judaism, with quips about Jewish demeanor and advisories that hardly could be considered being theological. In this bifurcation of “theological” and “cultural” anti-Judaism it is also evident, upon a close reading of Luther’s text, that Luther begins to write in a detached, indeed academic manner. Then certain descriptive adjectives slip into Luther’s argument. They startle, yet do not altogether distract from Luther’s exegetical argument. Then comes the one place in the first two sections where Luther appears to “lose it.” But, while emotions clearly come to the fore, as a whole, the 1543 publication is a perfect paradigm for the convergence of theologiThis image from an anti-Semitic pamphlet cal and cultural anti-Judaism. (Frankfurt/Oder, 1511) purports to show Jews Luther himself repeatedly emphasizes what he in Berlin descrating the host used labels Jewish “obstinacy,” that is, the Jews’ refusal in the Sacrament of the Altar (Eucharist). to accept the verdict of their own Scripture that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah. Luther had never been naïve about the likelihood of massive Jewish conversions, not even in the 1520s and in the treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, where the major motive for the kindly treatment was not only that it was the Christian thing to do but that it might lead to a few conversions, as he noted, “that we might convert some of them”—not all, not many, “some.”

About the Jews and Their Lies In his later years Luther was dismayed that the reform movement had failed to remain a single cohesive theological phenomenon, but, despite the alleged clarity of the biblical text, had led to diversity of theological and exegetical points of view. Luther could not deal with this reality, attributed it to obstinacy on the part of his fellow reformers rather than to hermeneutic differences. Anabaptists and Jews suffered the full consequences of his anger. He later grew fearful of what he regarded as a misinterpretation and exaggeration of Old Testament motifs on the part of chiliastic radicals, Sabbatarians, anti-Trinitarians, and other such groups. He therefore (according to this view) turned in anger both against these “Judaizers” and against the Jews as such.7 By the early sixteenth century very few Jews were living in German lands; nonetheless, antipathy, if not outright hostility, continued to characterize typical attitudes of individuals. There can be little doubt (even though the sources are scarce), that cultural stereotypes of immoral and untrustworthy Jews dominated, and that the present treatise shows that Luther shared those views. Typical of the theological assessment of Jews living in a society marked by the vision of the corpus Christianum was an advisory of the Strassburg reformer Martin Bucer (1491–1551), who published a treatise on the Jews in 1539 that caused him to be regarded by Jews, for the time being, as their chief antagonist among the Protestants. 8 Two years later the reformer of Nuremberg, Andreas Osian­ der, published a slender book on the Jews because he felt distressed by events in Catholic Regensburg, where the charge of ritual murder had again risen. Interestingly, Osiander published his book anonymously, possibly because he did not want his views on Jews to become a further point of contention between the reform and the old church. His book was moderate; he focused on the topic of ritual murder. Luther’s arch-antagonist Johannes Eck (1486–1543) had no sooner seen Osiander’s pamphlet than he published a retort titled Refutation of a Jewish Book (Ains Judenbuechlins Verlegung).f Fulminating against the “cunning, false, perjured, thievish, vindictive, and traitorous Jews,” he decried the relative security Jews f

Johann Eck, Ains Juden büechlins verlegung: darin ain Christ, gantzer Christenhait zu schmach, will es geschehe den Juden vnrecht in bezichtigung der Christen kinder mordt (Ingolstadt: Weissenhorn, 1541).

447 7. Ever since the fifth century, when Christianity became the official religion the Roman Empire, the normative understanding of church and state was that the body politic was a single, harmonious entity, a corpus Christianum, a “Christian body.” What are nowadays called “church” and “state,” two separate entities, were merged into a harmonious whole, where both entities held to the same values, and affirmed the Christian faith as the ground for these values. Each of the two had a symbolic leader—religiously, the pope in Rome, and in the secular world, the emperor. Jews, because of their beliefs and practices, did not fit into this harmonious society. The place of Jews in a culture dominated by the Christian faith and by Christian institutions was deeply problematic from the time the Christian church became the official religion of the Roman Empire and beyond. 8. Compared with Luther’s subsequent proposals, Bucer’s program was relatively moderate, though the congruence was obvious. No new synagogues were to be built. The Jews were to refrain from “insulting” Christian faith, and were to be compelled to attend Christian sermons. They were to reject whatever the Talmud had added to the Scriptures, be barred from all business activity, and be assigned to menial tasks. The Jews, Bucer declared, were implacable foes of the true faith, just like the papists and the Turks. Bucer’s views are summarized in Selma Stern, Josel of Rosheim: Commander of Jewry in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, trans. Gertrude Hirschler (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1965), 165.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

448

Title page of Antony Margaritha’s The Entire Jewish Faith (Der gantz Jüdisch glaub), published in 1530

had been granted but then urged a more stringent anti-Jewish legislation.g In addition, Eck’s pronouncements included a vigorous insistence that Jews did murder Christian boys for ritualistic purposes, which Eck claims to have seen with his own eyes. The common bond that passionate opponents Luther and Eck shared was their hatred of Jews. Further grist for Luther’s mill was provided by books by Jewish converts that undertook to explain and expose the practices of their former co-religionists. Utilized heavily by Luther was a book published by Antony Margaritha (b. c. 1500) titled The Entire Jewish Faith (Der gantz Jüdisch glaub). A descendant of an eminent rabbinic family, Margaritha converted to Christianity in 1522 and embraced Lutheranism. Luther had sections of the book read at the dinner table. h The Jewish community, however, considered it blatantly inaccurate and slanderous and petitioned the emperor to bar its circulation. This did indeed happen at the Augsburg Diet in 1530. For his hermeneutic, Luther depended on medieval predecessors in the string of Christian polemicists against the Jews. Despite variations, the fundamental Christian assertion was that the Old Testament contained a formidable array of anticipatory references to Jesus of Nazareth as Messiah. Luther himself depended on the introductions—some insightful, others biased—of others. He himself mentions two of his mentors in this respect in the very first paragraphs of the treatise, “those two excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis.”i Both of these exegetes, from the fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries, systematized the Christian understanding of the Old Testament. Luther must have been also familiar with the early fourteenth-century Genoan, Salvagus Porchetas (d. c. 1315), whose Victory against the Impious Jews (Victoria adversus impios Hebraeos) was published in Paris in 1520. This treatise served as the source for Luther’s Vom Schem Hamphoras, j published later in 1543. At the same time, another source of Luther’s attitude regarding the Jews was the undercurrent of fear and puzzlement in g h i j

Stern, Josel of Rosheim, 183. LW 54:436, no. 5504. See n. 13, p. 456. On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ; see pp. 609–66 in this volume.

About the Jews and Their Lies the later Middle Ages where virtually all adversities in society were blamed on the Jews, who figured as the embodiment of all that was uncanny or subversive of the established order in society. Sorcery, virtually all magic, poisoning of wells, blighting of crops, desecration of the host, and the ritual murder of Christian boys—these and all other sorts of evils were charged against them. k Luther clearly accepted this aspect of the popular culture at face value. Moreover, the intensity of his own sense of the demonic lent vividness to these images. It is obvious that Luther’s anti-Judaism, as expressed in the treatises of 1543, represents merely a distillation of the traditional Christian views of the Jews, with the extent it was fed by special elements of his own theology or by the dynamics of his own personality being secondary considerations. While a psychological analysis is impossible at this historical distance, clearly Luther harbored an immense capacity for anger, which could be directed variously at Jews, papists, Schwärmer, or other adversaries. Luther demonstrated a large respect for the Old Testament in the treatise; such respect, however, focused on the ability to read the Old Testament in a number of ways as a christological document. Virtually all of the present treatise is devoted in large stretches to making the case for the Christian exegesis. At this point it is well to remember that Luther addressed the book not to Jews, but to Christians so they might better understand the persuasiveness of the gospel. But this in turn raised for him— as it had for earlier participants in the age-old Jewish–Christian controversy—the question of who should be regarded as the legitimate heirs of ancient Israel, the Christian church or postbiblical Judaism. Has the new covenant so entirely replaced the old that the Jews no longer have any claim to the title “people of God”? These questions have remained under discussion between Jews and Christians to our own day, l although since the unspeakable sufferings visited upon the Jews in the twentieth century

k For details, see Joshua Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its Relation to Modern Antisemitism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943). l Cf. Hans Ioachim Schoeps, The Jewish-Christian Argument: A History of Theologies in Conflict, trans. David E. Green (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963).

449

450

9. See below, p. 455. The pamphlet has never been identified. It may well have been the source for some of the statements about Jewish teaching and practice that are cited by Luther in his treatise and which are not traceable to other authorities.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD in the midst of a “Christian civilization,” Christians are less inclined to press their claims of superiority, for which nowadays the term supercessionism has come into widespread usage. Luther’s intent to write something like the present treatise had been intimated at the conclusion of his letter Against the Sabbatarians of a few years earlier. m Later, Luther apparently had a change of heart and resolved “to write no more either about the Jews or against them.”  n However, when in May 1542 he received from his Moravian friend Count Wolfgang Schlick a copy of a Jewish apologetic pamphlet,9 together with a request that he refute it, he began to take to the pen. Once Luther began to write concerning the Jews, slowly his impatience and anger became more and more evident. The treatise may be divided into four parts together with an addendum. In the first part (pp. 455–92), Luther considers what he calls the “false boasts” of the Jews: their pride of lineage and homeland and their reliance on the covenant of circumcision and on the law. The Jewish claim to a special status Luther considers to be forms of “works righteousness,” and hence contrary to the fundamental principle not only of the Reformation, but also, in his view, of the entire Scriptures. It is only through God’s grace, received through faith, Luther insists, that a person—or a people—can be justified before God. The second and lengthiest portion of the treatise (pp. 492– 560) is devoted to the exegesis of key biblical (Old Testament) passages on which Christians base their claims of the Messiahship of Jesus. Luther obviously stands in the tradition, beginning in the New Testament, further developed by the apostolic fathers and the apologists, and continually refined during the patristic and medieval periods down to Luther’s day, of reading the Old Testament christologically. His choice of texts (especially the classic texts from Genesis 49; 2 Samuel 23; Haggai 2; and Daniel 9) reflects such precedents. In this section Luther’s dependence on Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349) and Paul of Burgos (1351–1435) is especially evident. Luther’s quarrel with Lyra was about the latter’s indebtedness to rabbinic exegesis. Lyra had been dependent on the commentaries of the great Jewish scholar of the eleventh century, m LW 47:57–97. n See p. 455 below.

About the Jews and Their Lies Rabbi Solomon ben Isaac, known as Rashi (1040–1105). Lyra insisted on the primacy of the “literal” sense of Scripture over against the allegorical and other modes of medieval interpretation, and in this Luther agreed with him. Luther, however, went further by arguing that the “literal” sense of certain Old Testament passages was the christological sense. This, of course, the Jewish interpreters rejected categorically, either denying that the key passages at issue were messianic at all, or demurring at their particular application to Jesus as the Christ. To Luther, however, such rabbinic views were but another species of the “lies” of the Jews. So clear to him was the christological meaning that he can attribute their nonacceptance of it only to willful blindness. o Accordingly, he was at pains to reject any “Judaizing” tendencies on the part of Lyra and Paul of Burgos. The abusiveness of Luther’s language increases measurably as the argument in the second section of the treatise proceeds. In the third section (pp. 560–88), after dealing with the reputed Jewish calumnies against the persons of Jesus and of Mary, Luther appropriates some of the grossest excesses of medieval anti-Judaism. In the fourth and final part of the treatise (pp. 588–605, the remainder being an addendum), Luther, for a second time, pre­ sents to both secular and ecclesiastical authorities his recommendations for action concerning the Jews. This is the section that has been most often quoted in subsequent anti-Semitic literature and that is, above all, responsible for the notoriety of the treatise. One hardly knows whether to be more astonished at the crudity of Luther’s language or at the cruelty of his proposals: let their synagogues be burnt, their houses razed, their prayer books seized, let them be reduced to a condition of agrarian servitude, and—as a “final solution”—let them be expelled from the country. It is no wonder that Josel of Rosheim (c. 1480–1554), the great Jewish leader who in 1537 had tried in vain to secure an interview with Luther, was moved to say, upon reading the o See below, p. 503. On Luther’s methods of biblical interpretation, see Heinrich Bornkamm, Luther and the Old Testament, trans. Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch, ed. Victor I. Gruhn (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969); Jaroslav Pelikan, Luther the Expositor, Luther’s Works, Companion Volume (St. Louis: Concordia, 1959); Willem Jan Kooiman, Luther and the Bible, trans. John Schmidt (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1961).

451

Woodcut depicting Rashi from Guillaume de Paris’s Postillae maiores totius anni cum glossis et quaestionibus (Lyon, 1539)

452

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD present treatise: “Never before has a Gelehrter, a scholar, had such tyrannical and outrageous treatment of our poor people.” p Interestingly, Luther addressed his strident recommendations and proposals not to the laity, to the men and women in the pews—in other words, those who were most likely to have actual contact with Jews—but to the political authorities. Fortunately, Luther’s proposals did not meet with a response among the authorities. In Neumark, however, the right of safe conduct of Jews was withdrawn. The same occurred in Electoral Saxony, where Elector John Frederick (1503–1554) revoked certain concessions he had made to Jews in 1539 (following his earlier repressive edict of 1537). In so doing, the elector specifically cited Luther’s treatises as having alerted him to the Jews’ nefarious designs. Landgrave Philip of Hesse (1504–1567) also introduced legislation prohibiting Jews from engaging in moneylending and requiring them to attend Christian sermons. In Brandenburg, on the other hand, Elector Joachim II (1505–1571) followed a policy of toleration, and when accusations were made against local Jews, Luther’s old antagonist Johann Agricola (1494–1566) stepped forward to defend them. The immediate effect of Luther’s proposals thus was modest indeed, a fact that should not lead to a dismissal of the severity of the charges. It remained for a later century to refine and systematize them and carry them out on a massive scale. Theologically, Luther offers, as he had done in the 1523 treatise, a christological reading of the Old Testament history and writings. In a dazzling display of conversance with Old Testament genealogies and histories, Luther focuses on four specific Jewish claims and assertions—lineage, law, circumcision, and homeland. On all of these points Luther dismisses (understandably) the Jewish claims. With a seemingly unending string of historical biblical references, he even ventures to show that pagans through lineage can be said to stand in the proper lineage. Thus, the Jewish claims of special divine election, through circumcision and lineage, are incorrect; they are “lies.” The Jewish refusals are groundless. Anyone denying this straightforward connection p From his petition to the magistrates of Strassburg asking that circulation of the treatise be forbidden. Quoted in Marvin Lowenthal, The Jews of Germany: The Story of Sixteen Centuries (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1936), 163, and summarized in Stern, Josel of Rosheim, 196ff.

About the Jews and Their Lies is “lying,” which means all Jews, through their refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah, are indeed liars. Luther’s exposition may be said to be straightforward. There is an undertone of sarcasm—such as when he refers to Jews as “holy people”—but that is less noted than the richness of sojourns in the story of biblical kings. They are comments made from a pointedly Christian perspective and, therefore, are by definition controversial; nonetheless, they should be considered part of the Jewish–Christian theological dialogue, where two religions offer divergent interpretations of biblical passages. Only at one place does Luther abruptly depart from this theological-biblical exposition and launch into an emotional and vile tirade about the personal characteristics of Jews. What Luther seems to be suggesting here is that the erroneous biblical understanding of the Jews has led them to have certain personal characteristics. Luther seeks to make it clear that these traits are sufficient, as far as he is concerned, to refuse any and all contact with them. Things are made worse, says Luther, by the Jewish refusal to acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth was the promised Messiah of   Israel. Thus, Jews are blasphemers and, as such, not to be tolerated. At the end stands, therefore, Luther’s notion that, in one way or another, the Christian community must rid itself from all contact with Jews. Clearly, Luther prefers that all towns and territories get rid of Jews. There can be no doubt but that this is his preferred notion. Short of this goal, Luther says there are a number of ways to make Jewish lives miserable so that they will leave on their own. Luther advocates that the synagogues should be burned to the ground, copies of the Talmud destroyed, and public worship for Jews forbidden. Now a case might be made that those strictures were meant to focus on the Jewish religious infrastructure so as to deprive Jews of the possibility of practicing their religion. More crucial are Luther’s other recommendations, such as burning down of their houses (given medieval urban

453

When God Created His World, from the Talmud (Germany, early fourteenth century)

454

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD housing patterns the implementation of this recommendation would have led to a disaster) and forcing Jewish males to perform heavy manual labor. With these latter recommendations, Luther ventures away from even the most generous understanding of religion and embraces tenets of what might be called “cultural” anti-Judaism. Such cultural anti-Judaism has been, through the centuries, the dominant form of suppression and pogroms and expulsion. In terms of content, such anti-Judaism has been a confluence of bias, prejudice, envy, with a particular focus on those Jews who engaged in moneylending for which they were allowed, in contrast to Christians, to charge interest, which was high because most of the time there was no collateral. The introduction above and the translation that follows are based on the translation by Martin H. Bertram in Luther’s Works, vol. 47: The Christian in Society IV, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, and H. T. Lehmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), and Von den Jüden und jren Lügen, as found in WA 53:417–552. Like Against the Sabbatarians, the present treatise was reprinted in the second Munich edition (1934–1940) of Luther’s works (H. H. Borchert and Georg Merz, eds., Martin Luther: Ausgewählte Werke, vol. 3 of the Ergänzungsreihe [Munich, 1936], 61–228), though it had not been included in the first edition (1922ff.) and was again omitted from the third edition (1948ff.). Translation of the treatise into English hitherto has been limited to brief excerpts published in fugitive pamphlets. The text here has been significantly restated to make it more easily accessible for today’s readers; the translation deliberately uses the contemporary idiom to strive for accuracy of meaning. A number of the notes in the Luther’s Works translation are retained, generally with some modification.

�

About the Jews and Their Lies

455

ABOUT THE JEWS AND THEIR LIES q

I

HAD MADE UP MY MIND to write no more either about Jews or against them. r But then I learned that these miserable and damned people do not cease to lure to themselves even us (that is, the Christians). I have published this little book, so that I might be found among those who opposed such poisonous activities of the Jews and who warned Christians to be on their guard against them. I would not have believed that a Christian could be duped by the Jews into taking their exile and wretchedness upon himself.10 However, the Devil is the god of the world, and wherever God’s word is absent he has an easy task, not only with the weak but also with the strong. May God help us. Amen. Grace and peace in the Lord. Dear sir and good friend.11 I have received a treatise in which a Jew engages in a dialog with a Christian. He dares to pervert the Scripture passages that we cite concerning our Lord Christ and Mary, his mother, and interpret them quite differently. With this argument he thinks he can destroy the ground of our faith.

q For information about this translation and notes, see the final paragraph of the introduction above. r Luther’s earlier writings on the subject were his treatise of 1523, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, this volume, pp. 391–439; LW 45:199– 229, and the open letter of 1538, Against the Sabbatarians, LW 47:57–98. Luther had indicated at the end of Sabbatarians to deal with the topic further, but apparently the resolve mentioned above intervened. Five years later, however, came the publication in quick succession of three relevant treatises: About the Jews and Their Lies (this volume pp. 441–607); On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ (this volume, pp. 609–66); and The Last Words of David (LW15:265–352). The scholarly and popular literature on the topic of Luther and the Jews has grown to be immense. A good source in English is Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther’s Anti-Semites: Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012). In German see Thomas Kaufmann, Luthers “Judenschriften.” Ein Beitrag zu ihrer Kontextualsierung (Stuttgart: Mohr Siebeck, 2014).

10. A reference to the conversions of Christians to Judaism of which Luther had receive reports. There is no evidence that such conversions actually occurred in meaningful numbers; however, the Sabbatarians might easily have been seen as crypto-Jews and their movement as waystation to Judaism. 11. Luther’s correspondent was Count Wolfgang Schlick (see the introduction, p. 450).

456

12. This categorical pessimism, which was borne out by reality, represents a departure from the (limited!) optimism Luther exhibited in his 1523 treatise. There he expressed his hope—were Christians to treat Jews better (in the past, he wrote, Jews had been treated like dogs), a “few” Jews might convert.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Here is my reply to you and to him. It is not my purpose to quarrel with the Jews, nor to learn from them how they interpret or understand Scripture; I know all of that very well already. Much less do I propose to convert the Jews, for that is impossible.12 Two hundred and one hundred years ago respectively, two excellent men, Lyra and Burgensis,13 together with others, truthfully described for us the Jews’ vile interpretation. Indeed, they refuted it thoroughly. However, this was no help at all to the Jews, and they have grown steadily worse. They have failed to learn any lesson from the terrible distress that has been theirs for over fourteen hundred years in exile.14

13. Two renowned medieval exegetes and authors of anti-Jewish treatises. Lyra refers to Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349); “Burgensis” is a Latinate reference to Paul of Burgos (1351– 1435). 14. A theme that goes back to St. Augustine and is already found also in the tract Against the Sabbatarians. The lesson the Jews failed to learn but should have learned, according to this standard sentiment, has been that Jews are being punished for their rejection of the Messiah. On Augustine and the Jews, see Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2010).

Nicholas of Lyra pictured in stained glass (1479)

Nor will there be any end or definite conclusion of this, as they suppose. Their ardent cries and laments to God did not help. If these blows do not help, it is reasonable to assume that our talking and explaining will help even less. Therefore, a Christian should be content and not argue with Jews. But if you have to argue or want to talk with them, do not say any more than this: “Listen, Jew, are you aware that Jerusalem and your sovereignty, together with your temple and priesthood, have been destroyed for over 1,460 years?” For this year, which we Christians write as the year 1542 since the birth of Christ, is exactly 1,468 years, going on fifteen hundred years, since Vespasian (9–79 ce) and Titus (39–81 ce) destroyed Jerusalem and

About the Jews and Their Lies

457

expelled the Jews from the city.15 Let the Jews bite on this nut and dispute this question as long as they wish. For such ruthless wrath of God is sufficient evidence that the Jews assuredly have erred and gone astray. Even a child can comprehend this. For one dare not regard God as so cruel that he would punish his own people so long, so terribly, so unmercifully, and in addition keep silent, comforting them neither with words nor with deeds, fixing no time limit for such suffering and no end to it. Who would have faith, hope, or love toward such a

15. Luther assumes the date of 74 ce for the destruction of Jerusalem, rather than the year 70 accepted by modern scholars. For this and other aspects of Luther’s chronology as related to the present treatise, see his Supputatio annorum mundi (literally, “Reckoning of the Years of the World”), a tabular outline of world history from the creation down to the year 1540 (WA 53:21–182). Prepared by Luther originally for his own use, it was published in 1541, with a revised edition in 1545. For the sections dealing with biblical timelines Luther was heavily dependent on Lyra and Paul of Burgos.

Paul of Burgos (Pablo de Santa María) from series of portraits in Retratos de Españoles illustres (1791)

God? Therefore this work of wrath is proof that the Jews, surely rejected by God, are no longer his people, and neither is he any longer their God.16 This is in accord with Hosea 1[:9], “Call his name Not my people, for you are not my people and I am not your God.” Yes, unfortunately, this is their lot, truly a terrible one. They may interpret this as they will; we see the facts before our eyes, and these do not deceive us. If there were but a spark of reason or understanding in them, they would surely say to themselves: “O Lord God, something

16. A summary of Luther’s reasoning as is set forth already in Sabbatarians. It is surely intriguing that his reasoning is empirical rather than biblical or theological. The empirically demonstrable physical suffering of the Jews since the death of Jesus is taken to be proof positive of God’s rejection of Israel. This approach allows Luther to bypass the apostle Paul’s extensive reflections in the letter to the Romans on the continuing covenant between God and Israel.

458

17. Luther here relates the prospects of Jewish conversions not to a different reading of their own Scripture but to the impact of seemingly endless Jewish suffering.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD has gone wrong with us. Our misery is too great, too long, too severe; God has forgotten us!” etc. To be sure, I am not a Jew, but I really do not like to contemplate God’s awful wrath toward this people. It sends a shudder of fear through body and soul, for I ask, what will the eternal wrath of God in hell be like toward false Christians and all unbelievers? Well, let the Jews regard our Lord Jesus as they will. We behold the fulfillment of the words spoken by him in Luke 21[:20, 22f.]: “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near . . . for these are days of vengeance. For great distress shall be upon the earth and wrath upon this people.” In short, as has already been said, do not engage much in debate with Jews about the articles of our faith. From their youth they have been so nurtured with venom and rancor against our Lord that there is no hope until they reach the point where their misery finally makes them pliable and they are forced to confess that the Messiah has come, and that he is our Jesus.17 Until such a time it is much too soon, indeed, it is useless to argue with them about how God is triune, how he became human, and how Mary is the mother of God. No human reason nor any human heart will ever accept these things, much less the embittered, venomous, blind heart of the Jews. As has already been said, what God cannot reform with such cruel blows, we will be unable to change with words and deeds. Moses was unable to reform Pharaoh by means of plagues, miracles, pleas, or threats; he had to let him drown in the sea. Now, in order to strengthen our faith, we want to deal with a few crass follies of Jewish belief and exegesis of the Scriptures, since they so maliciously revile our faith. If this should move any Jew to reform and repent, so much the better. We are now not talking with the Jews but about the Jews and their doings, so that our German people, too, will be informed. There is one topic about which they boast and pride themselves beyond measure, and that is their descent from the foremost people on earth, from Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, and from the twelve patriarchs, and thus from the holy people of Israel. St. Paul himself concurs with this when he says in Romans 9[:5]: Quorum patres, that is, “To them belong the patriarchs, and of their race is the Christ,” etc. And Christ himself declares in John 4[:22], “Salvation is from the Jews.” Therefore they boast of being the noblest, indeed, the only noble

About the Jews and Their Lies people on earth. In comparison with them and in their eyes we Gentiles (Goyim) are not human; in fact we hardly deserve to be considered poor worms by them. For we are not of that high and noble blood, lineage, birth, and heritage. This is their argument, and indeed I think it is the greatest and strongest reason for their pride and boasts. Therefore, God has to suffer that in their synagogues, their prayers, hymns, teachings, and their entire lives, they come and stand before him and plague him grievously (if I may speak of God in such a human fashion). Thus, God must listen to their boasts and their praises for setting them apart from the Gentiles, for letting them be descended from the holy patriarchs, and for selecting them to be his holy and peculiar people, etc. And there is no limit and no end to this boasting about their descent and their physical birth from the Fathers.18 And to fill the cup of their raving, mad, and stupid folly, they boast and thank God, in the first place, because they were created as human beings and not as animals; in the second place, because they are Israelites and not Goyim (Gentiles); in the third place because they were created as males and not as females.19 They did not learn such tomfoolery from Israel, but from the Goyim. For history records that the Greek Plato daily accorded God such praise and thanksgiving—if such arrogance and blasphemy may be termed praise of God. This individual, too, praised his gods for these three facts: that he was a human being and not an animal; a male and not a female; a Greek and not a non-Greek or barbarian. s This is a fool’s boast, the gratitude of a barbarian who blasphemes God! Similarly, the Italians fancy themselves the only true human beings; they imagine that all other people in the world are nonhumans, mere ducks or mice by comparison. No one can take away from them their pride concerning their blood and their heritage from Israel. In the Old Testament they lost many a battle in wars over this contention, though no Jew understands this. All the prophets censured them for it, for it betrayed an arrogant, carnal presumption devoid of spirit and of faith. They were also slain and persecuted for this reason. John the Baptist took them severely to task for of it, saying, “Do not s

Cf. Moses Hadas, Hellenistic Civilization: Fusion and Diffusion (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 14.

459

18. Luther anticipates the discussion in the treatise of the covenant between God and Israel, and his own understanding of the end of the covenant. 19. Three such expressions do occur in the Jewish liturgy, the first quoted by Luther in garbled form. Thanks is given that God has not created one a bondman, a heathen (Goy), or a woman. Cf. Joseph H. Hertz, ed. and trans., The Authorized Daily Prayer Book, rev. ed. (New York: Bloch, 1948), 19–21. Luther owed most of his knowledge of such matters to Anthony Margaritha’s book Der gantz Jüdisch glaub.

460

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham for our father’; for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham” [Matt. 3:9]. He did not call them Abraham’s children, but a “brood of vipers” [Matt. 3:7]. Oh, that was too insulting for the noble blood and race of Israel, and they declared, “He has a demon” [Matt. 11:18]. Our Lord also calls them a “brood of vipers”; furthermore, in John 8[:39, 44] he states: “If you were Abraham’s children, you would do what Abraham did. . . . You are of your father the Devil.” It was intolerable to them to hear that they were not Abraham’s but the Devil’s children, nor can they bear to hear this today. If they should give up this boasting and argument, their whole system which is built on it would topple and change. I hold that if their Messiah, for whom they hope, should come and do away with their boasting and its basis they would crucify and blaspheme him seven times worse than they did our Messiah; and they would also say that he was not the true Messiah, but a deceiving devil. For they have portrayed their Messiah to themselves as one who would strengthen and increase such carnal and arrogant error regarding nobility of blood and lineage. That is the same as saying that he should assist them in blaspheming God and in viewing God’s creatures with disdain, including women, who are also human beings and the image of God as well as are we men; moreover, they are our own flesh and blood, such as mother, sister, daughter, housewife, etc. For in accordance with the threefold song of praise, mentioned above, they do not hold Sarah (as a woman) to be as noble as Abraham (as a man). Perhaps they wish to honor themselves for being born half noble, of a noble father, and half ignoble, of an ignoble mother. But enough of this tomfoolery and trickery. I propose to discuss their argument and boast and prove convincingly before God and the world—not before the Jews, for, as already said, they would accept this neither from Moses nor from their Messiah himself—that their argument is quite empty and stands condemned. To this end I quote Moses in Genesis 17, whom they surely ought to believe if they are true Israelites. When God instituted circumcision, he said, among other things, “Any uncircumcised male shall be cut off from his people” [Gen. 17:14]. With these words God consigns to condemnation all who are born of flesh, no matter how noble, high, or how low their birth may have been. God does not even exempt from this judg-

About the Jews and Their Lies ment the seed of Abraham, although Abraham was not merely of high and noble birth from Noah, but was also judged holy (Genesis 15) and became Abraham instead of Abram (Genesis 17). Yet none of his children shall be numbered among God’s people, but rather shall be rooted out, and God will not be his God, unless he, over and above his birth, is also circumcised and accepted into the covenant of God. To be sure, before the world one person is properly accounted nobler than another by reason of his birth, or smarter than another because of his intelligence, or stronger and more handsome than another because of his body, or richer and mightier than another in view of his possessions, or better than another on account of his special virtues. For this miserable, sinful, and mortal life must be marked by differentiation and inequality; the requirements of daily life and the preservation of government make that indispensable. But to strut before God and boast about being so noble, so exalted, and so rich compared to other people—that is devilish arrogance, since every birth according to the flesh is condemned before God without exception in the verse mentioned, if his covenant and word do not come to the rescue once again and create a new and different birth, altogether different from the old, first birth. So if the Jews boast in their prayers before God and glory that they are the patriarchs’ noble blood, lineage, and offspring, and that he should highly regard them and be gracious to them in view of this, while they condemn the Gentiles as ignoble and not of their blood, my dear man, what do you suppose such a prayer will achieve? This is what it will achieve: Even if the Jews were as holy as their fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob themselves, yes, even if they were angels in heaven, because of such a prayer they would have to be hurled into the abyss of hell. How much less will such prayers deliver them from their exile and return them to Jerusalem! For what does such devilish, arrogant prayer do other than to give God’s word the lie, for God declares: Whoever is born and not circumcised shall not only be ignoble and worthless but shall also be damned and shall not be a part of my people, and I will not be his God. The Jews rage against this with their blasphemous prayer as if to say: “No, no, Lord God, that is not true; you must hear us, because we are of the noble lineage of the holy fathers. By reason of such noble birth you must establish us as

461

462

20. Cf. the genealogies in Genesis 10 and 11. In this section of the treatise, Luther seeks to deal with the Jewish assertion that all Jews are true descendants of Abraham. Luther focuses on the primacy of a spiritual genealogy.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD lords over all the earth and in heaven too. If you fail to do this, you break your word and do us an injustice, since you have sworn to our fathers that you will accept their seed as your people forever.” This is just as though a king, a prince, a lord, or a rich, handsome, smart, pious, virtuous person among us Christians were to pray thus to God: “Lord God, see what a great king and lord I am! See how rich, smart, and pious I am! See what a handsome lad or lass I am in comparison to others! Be gracious to me, help me, and in view of all of this save me! The other people are not as deserving, because they are not so handsome, rich, smart, pious, noble, and high-born as I am.” What, do you suppose, should such a prayer merit? It would merit that thunder and lightning strike down from heaven and that sulphur and hellfire strike from below. That Moses says, whoever is born even from holy patriarchs and from Abraham himself stands condemned before God and must not boast before him. St. Paul says the same thing in Romans 3[:27], as does John 3[:6]. Such a prayer was also spoken by the Pharisee in the gospel as he boasted about all his blessings, saying, “I am not like other men.” Moreover, his prayer was beautifully adorned, since he said it with thanksgiving and fancied that he was sitting on God’s lap as his favorite child. But thunder and lightning from heaven cast him down to hell’s abyss, as Christ himself declared, saying that the publican was justified but the Pharisee condemned. Oh, what do we poor muck-worms, maggots, stench, and filth presume to boast of before him who is the God and Creator of heaven and earth, who made us out of dirt and out of nothing! And as far as our nature, birth, and being are concerned, we are but dirt and nothing in God’s eyes; all that we are and have comes from his grace and rich mercy. Abraham was no doubt even nobler than the Jews, since, as I pointed out above, he was descended from the noblest patriarch, Noah—who in his day was the greatest and oldest lord, priest, and father of the entire world—and from the other nine succeeding patriarchs. Abraham saw, heard, and lived with all of them, and some of them (as for instance Shem, Shelah, Eber) outlived him by many years.20 So Abraham obviously was not lacking in nobility of blood and birth; and yet this did not in the least aid him in being numbered among God’s people. No, he was idolatrous, and he would have remained under condemnation

About the Jews and Their Lies if God’s word had not called him, as Joshua in chapter 24[:2f.] informs us out of God’s own mouth: “Your fathers lived of old beyond the Euphrates, Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor; and they served other gods. Then I took your father Abraham from beyond the River and led him,” etc. Even later, after he had been called and sanctified through God’s word and faith, according to Genesis 15, Abraham did not boast of his birth or of his virtues. When he spoke with God (Genesis 18), he did not say: “Look how noble I am, born from Noah and the holy patriarchs, and descended from your holy nation,” nor did he say, “How pious and holy I am in comparison with other people!” No, he said, “Behold, I have taken upon myself to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes” [Gen. 18:27]. This is, indeed, how a creature must speak to its Creator, not forgetting what it is before him and how it is regarded by him. For that is what God said of Adam and of all his children (Genesis 3[:19]), “You are dust, and to dust you shall return,” as death itself persuades us visibly and experientially, to counteract, if need be, any foolish, vain, and vexatious presumption. Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father, yes, what a fine people of God they are. They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people, although God regards them in all these respects as dust and ashes and damned by birth the same as all other heathen. And yet they give God the lie; they insist on being in the right, and with such blasphemous and damnable prayer they propose to wrest God’s grace from him and to regain Jerusalem. Furthermore, even if the Jews were seven times blinder than they are—if such were possible21—they would still have to see that Esau or Edom, as far as his physical birth is concerned, was as noble as Jacob, since he was not only the son of the same father, Isaac, and of the same mother, Rebekah, but he was also the firstborn; and primogeniture at that time conferred the highest nobility over the other children. But what did his equal birth or even his primogeniture—by virtue of which he was far nobler than Jacob—benefit him? He was still not numbered among God’s people, although he called Abraham his grandfather and Sarah his grandmother just as Jacob did, indeed, as has already been said, even more validly than did Jacob. Conversely, Abra-

463

21. This parenthetical insertion shows Luther’s disposition to denounce the Jews at every turn, when unrelated to his theological polemic.

464

Rebekah helps Jacob fool his father, Isaac, into giving him Esau’s blessing while Esau is away hunting game (background). From Biblia Sacra ad optima quaeque veteris (1558).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD ham himself as well as Sarah had to regard him as their grandson, the son of Isaac and Rebekah; they even had to regard him as the firstborn and the nobler, and Jacob as the lesser. But tell me, what good did his physical birth and the noble blood inherited from Abraham do him? Someone may interpose that Esau forfeited his honor because he became evil, etc. I must respond, first of all, that the question at issue is whether nobility of blood in itself is so valid before God that one could thereby be or become God’s people. If it is not, why then do the Jews exalt this birth so highly before other children of humans? But if it is valid, why then does God not keep it from falling? For if God regards physical birth as adequate for making the descendants of the holy patriarchs his people, he dare not let them become evil, thereby losing his people and becoming a non-God. If he does, however, let them become evil, it is certain that he does not regard birth as a means of yielding or producing a people for him. In the second place, Esau was not ejected from the people of God because he became evil later on, nor was Jacob counted among the people of God in view of his subsequent good life. No, while they were both still in their mother’s womb the word of God distinguished between the two: Jacob was called, Esau was not, in accordance with the words, “The elder shall serve the younger” [Gen. 25:23]. This was not at all affected by the fact that they were both carried under the same mother’s heart; that they were both nourished with the same milk and blood of one and the same mother, Rebekah; that they were born of her at the same time. So one must say that no matter how identical flesh, blood, milk, body, and mother were in this instance, they could not help Esau, nor could they hinder Jacob from acquiring the grace by which people become God’s children or his people; decisive here are the word and calling, which ignore the birth. Ishmael, too, can say that he was equally a true and natural son of Abraham. But what does his physical birth avail him? Despite this, he has to give up the home and heritage of Abraham and leave it to his brother Isaac. You may say that Ishmael was born of Hagar while Isaac was born of Sarah. If anything,

About the Jews and Their Lies this strengthens our argument. For Isaac’s birth from Sarah was effected by the word of God and not by flesh and blood, since Sarah was past the natural age for bearing children. To discuss the question of birth a bit further, although Ishmael is Abraham’s flesh and blood and his natural son, still the flesh and blood of such a holy father does not help him. It rather harms him, because he has no more than flesh and blood from Abraham and does not also have God’s word in his favor. The fact that Isaac is descended from the blood of Abraham does not handicap him—even though it was useless to Ishmael—because he has the word of God which distinguishes him from his brother Ishmael, who is of the flesh and blood of the same Abraham. Why should so much ado be made of this? After all, if birth counts before God, I can claim to be just as noble as any Jew, yes, just as noble as Abraham himself, as David, as all the holy prophets and apostles. Nor will I owe them any thanks if they consider me just as noble as themselves before God by reason of my birth. And if God refuses to acknowledge my nobility and birth as the equal to that of Isaac, Abraham, David, and all the saints, I maintain that God is doing me an injustice and is not a fair judge. For I will not give it up and neither Abraham, David, prophets, apostles nor even an angel in heaven, shall deny me the right to boast that Noah, so far as physical birth or flesh and blood is concerned, is my true, natural ancestor, and that his wife (whoever she may have been) is my true, natural ancestress; for we are all descended, since the Deluge, from that one Noah. We did not descend from Cain, for his family perished forever in the flood together with many of the cousins, brothers-in-law, and friends of Noah. I also boast that Japheth, Noah’s firstborn son,22 is my true, natural ancestor and his wife (whoever she may have been) is my true, natural ancestress; for as Moses informs us in Genesis 10, he is the progenitor of all of us Gentiles. Thus Shem, the second son of Noah, and all of his descendants have no grounds to boast over against his older brother Japheth because of their birth. Indeed, if birth is to play a role, then Japheth as the oldest son and the true heir has reason for boasting over against Shem, his younger brother, and Shem’s descendants, whether these be called Jews or Ishmaelites or Edomites. But what does physical primogeniture help the good Japheth, our ancestor? Nothing at all. Shem enjoys precedence—not by reason of birth, which would

465

22. Japheth is listed third in the enumeration of Noah’s sons in Gen. 9:18, but in the further tables of lineage in 10:2ff., his offspring are listed first.

466

23. Here Luther is countering the Jewish claim of special status because of birth with the insistence—in the Western, Latin church heavily dependent on the ruminations of St. Augustine—that the doctrine of the universality of sin, labeled “original sin” of all humans, became the normative understanding of human sinfulness.

24. There is no evidence of Luther’s broad claim.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD accord precedence to Japheth, but because God’s word and calling are the arbiter here. I could go back to the beginning of the world and trace our common ancestry from Adam and Eve, later from Shem, Enoch, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; for all of these are our ancestors just as well as the Jews’, and we share equally in the honor, nobility, and fame of descent from them as do the Jews. We are their flesh and blood just the same as Abraham and all his seed are. For we were in the loins of the same holy fathers in the same measure as they were, and there is no difference whatsoever with regard to birth or flesh and blood, as reason must tell us. Therefore the blind Jews are truly stupid fools, much more absurd than the Gentiles, to boast so before God of their physical birth, though they are by reason of it no better than the Gentiles, since we both partake of one birth, one flesh and blood, from the very first, best, and holiest ancestors. Neither one can reproach or upbraid the other about some peculiarity without implicating himself at the same time. But let us move on.23 David lumps us all together nicely and convincingly when he declares in Psalm 51[:5]: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.” Now go, whether you are Jew or Gentile, born of Adam or Abraham, of Enoch or David, and boast before God of your fine nobility, of your exalted lineage, your ancient ancestry! Here you learn that we all are conceived and born in sin, by father and mother, and no human being is excluded. But what does it mean to be born in sin other than to be born under God’s wrath and condemnation, so that by nature or birth we are unable to be God’s people or children, and our birth, glory, and nobility, our honor and praise denote nothing more and can denote nothing else than that, in default of anything to our credit other than our physical birth, we are condemned sinners, enemies of God, and in his disfavor? There, Jew, you have your boast, and we Gentiles have ours together with you, as well as you with us. Now go ahead and pray that God might respect your nobility, your race, your flesh and blood. This I wanted to say for the strengthening of our faith; for the Jews will not give up their pride and boasting about their nobility and lineage. As was said above, their hearts are hardened. Our people, however, must be on their guard against them, lest they be misled by this impenitent, accursed people who24

About the Jews and Their Lies give God the lie and haughtily despise all the world. For the Jews would like to entice us Christians to their faith, and they do this wherever they can. If God is to become gracious also to them, the Jews, they must first of all banish such blasphemous prayers and songs, that boast so arrogantly about their lineage, from their synagogues, from their hearts, and from their lips, for such prayers ever increase and sharpen God’s wrath toward them. However, they will not do this, nor will they humble themselves abjectly, except for a few individuals whom God draws unto himself particularly and delivers from their terrible ruin. The other boast and nobility about which the Jews gloat and because of which they haughtily and vainly despise all humankind is their circumcision, which they received from Abraham. My God, what we Gentiles have to put up with in their synagogues, prayers, hymns, and doctrines! What a stench we poor people are in their nostrils because we are not circumcised! Indeed, God himself must again submit to miserable torment—if I may put it thus—as they confront him with inexpressible presumption, and boast: “Praised be Thou, King of the world, who singled us out from all the nations and sanctified us by the covenant of circumcision!”  t And similarly with many other words, the tenor of all of which is that God should esteem them above the rest of the world because in compliance with his decree they are circumcised, and that he should condemn all other people, just as they do and wish to do. In this boast of nobility they glory as much as they do in their physical birth. Consequently I believe that if Moses himself would appear together with Elijah and their Messiah and would try to deprive them of this boast or forbid such prayers and teaching, they would probably consider all three of them to be the three worst devils in hell, and they would be at a loss to know how to curse and damn them adequately, to say nothing of believing them. For they have decided among themselves that Moses, together with Elijah and the Messiah, should endorse circumcision, yes, rather that they should help to strengthen and praise such arrogance and pride in circumcision, that these should, like themselves, look upon all Gentiles as awful filth and stench because they are not circumcised. Moses, Elijah, and the t

A paraphrase rather than a direct quotation from Luther’s source, Margaritha’s Der gantz Jüdisch glaub, section on circumcision.

467

468

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Messiah must do all that they prescribe, think, and wish. They insist that they are right, and if God were to do other than they think, he would be in the wrong. Now just behold these miserable, blind, and senseless people. In the first place (as I said previously in regard to physical birth), if I were to concede that circumcision is sufficient to make them a people of God, or to sanctify and set them apart before God from all other nations, then the conclusion would have to be this: Whoever was circumcised could not be evil nor could he be damned. Nor would God permit this to happen, if he regarded circumcision as imbued with such holiness and power. Just as we Christians say: Whoever has faith cannot be evil and cannot be damned so long as faith endures. For God regards faith as so precious, valuable, and powerful that it will surely sanctify and prevent him who has faith and retains his faith from being lost or becoming evil. But I shall let this go for now. In the second place, we note here again how the Jews increasingly provoke God’s anger with such a prayer. For there they stand and defame God with a blasphemous, shameful, and impudent lie. They are so blind and stupid that they see neither the words found in Genesis 17 nor the whole of Scripture, which mightily and explicitly condemns this lie. For in Genesis 17[:12f.] Moses states that Abraham was ordered to circumcise not only his son Isaac—who at the time was not yet born—but all the males born in his house, whether sons or servants, including the slaves. All of these were circumcised on one day together with Abraham; Ishmael too, who at the time was thirteen years of age, as the text informs us. Thus the covenant or decree of circumcision encompasses the entire seed of all the descendants of Abraham, particularly Ishmael, who was the first seed of Abraham to be circumcised. Accordingly, Ishmael is not only the equal of his brother Isaac, but he might even—if this were to be esteemed before God—be entitled to boast of his circumcision more than Isaac, since he was circumcised one year sooner. In view of this, the Ishmaelites might well enjoy a higher repute than the Israelites, for their forefather Ishmael was circumcised before Isaac, the progenitor of the Israelites, was born. Why then do the Jews lie so shamefully before God in their prayers and preaching, as though circumcision were theirs alone, through which they were set apart from all other nations and thus they alone are God’s holy people? They should really (if

About the Jews and Their Lies they were capable of it) be a bit ashamed before the Ishmaelites, the Edomites, and other nations when they consider that they were at all times a small nation, scarcely a handful of people in comparison with others who were also Abraham’s seed and were also circumcised, and who indubitably transmitted such a command of their father Abraham to their descendants; and that the circumcision transmitted to the one son Isaac is rather insignificant when compared with the circumcision transmitted to Abraham’s other sons. For Scripture records that Ishmael, Abraham’s son, became a great nation, that he begot twelve princes, also that the six sons of Keturah (Genesis 25[:1ff.]), possessed much greater areas of land than Israel. And undoubtedly these observed the rite of circumcision handed down to them by their fathers. Now since circumcision, as decreed by God in Genesis 17, is practiced by so many nations, beginning with Abraham (whose seed they all are, the same as Isaac and Jacob), and since there is no difference in this regard between them and the children of Israel,25 what are the Jews really doing when they praise and thank God in their prayers for singling them out by circumcision from all other nations, for sanctifying them, and for making them his own people? This is what they are doing: they are blaspheming God and giving him the lie concerning his commandment and his words where he says (Genesis 17[:12f.]) that circumcision shall not be prescribed for Isaac and his descendants alone, but for all the seed of Abraham.26 The Jews have no favored position exalting them above Ishmael by reason of circumcision, or above Edom, Midian, Ephah, Epher, etc., all of whom are reckoned in Genesis as Abraham’s seed. For they were all circumcised and made heirs of circumcision, as was Israel. Now, what does it benefit Ishmael that he is circumcised? What does it benefit Edom that he is circumcised—Edom who, moreover, is descended from Isaac, who was set apart, and not from Ishmael? What does it benefit Midian and his brothers, born of Keturah, that they are circumcised? They are, for all of that, not God’s people; neither their descent from Abraham nor their circumcision, commanded by God, helps them. If circumcision does not help them in becoming God’s people, how can it help the Jews? For it is one and the same circumcision, decreed by one and the same God, and there is one and the same father, flesh and blood or descent that is common to all. There is abso-

469

25. The practice of circumcision was by no means confined to Israelites but was customary in ancient times among the Egyptians and the Canaanites as well as the Jews.

26. In this section on circumcision Luther essentially pursues the same line of argumentation; there is a fundamental difference between a practice “according to the flesh” and “according to true spirituality.” Luther argues that only the latter is relevant. In this section it also becomes clear why Luther resorts to vile and abusive language to support his theological argument: Luther is furious over Jewish exegetical self-confidence.

470

27. Anthony Margaritha (b. c. 1500) describes the procedure in his Der gantz Jüdisch glaub; undoubtedly he was in turn dependent on Raymund Martin and Paul of Burgos. The ironic point, of course, is that what Luther read was not “their books” but Margaritha’s. On these source materials employed by Luther, cf. the introduction above, p. 448.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD lute equality; there is no difference, no distinction among them all so far as circumcision and birth are concerned. Therefore it is not a clever and ingenious, but a clumsy, foolish, and stupid lie when the Jews boast of their circumcision before God, presuming that God should regard them graciously for that reason, though they should certainly know from Scripture that they are not the only race circumcised in compliance with God’s decree, and that they cannot on that account be God’s special people. Something more, different, and greater is necessary for that, since the Ishmaelites, the Edomites, the Midianites, and other descendants of Abraham may equally comfort themselves with this glory, even before God himself. For with regard to birth and circumcision these are, as already said, their equals. Perhaps the Jews will argue that the Ishmaelites and Edom­ ites, etc., do not observe the rite of circumcision as strictly as they do. In addition to cutting off the foreskin of a male child, the Jews force the skin back on the little penis and tear it open with sharp fingernails, as one reads in their books.27 Thus they cause extraordinary pain to the child, without and against the command of God, so that the father, who should really be happy over the circumcision, stands there and weeps as his child’s cries pierce his heart. I answer roundly that such an addendum is their own invention, yes, it was inspired by the accursed Devil, and is in contradiction to God’s command, since Moses says in Deuteronomy 4[:2] and 12[:32]: “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it.” With such a devilish supplement they ruin their circumcision, so that in the sight of God no other nation practices circumcision less than they, since with such wanton disobedience they append and practice this damnable supplement. Now let us see what Moses himself says about circumcision. In Deuteronomy 10[:16] he says: “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no longer stubborn,” etc. My dear Moses, what do you mean? Does it not suffice that they are circumcised physically? They are set apart from all other nations by this holy circumcision and made a holy people of God. And you rebuke them for stubbornness against God? You belittle their holy circumcision? You revile the holy, circumcised people of God? You should venture to talk like that today in the synagogues! If there were not stones conveniently near, they would

About the Jews and Their Lies resort to mud and dirt to drive you from their midst, even if you were worth ten Moses. He also chides them in Leviticus 26[:41], saying: “If then their uncircumcised heart is humbled,” etc. Be careful, Moses! Do you know to whom you are speaking? You are talking to a noble, chosen, holy, circumcised people of God. And you dare to say that they have uncircumcised hearts? That is much worse than having a seven-times-uncircumcised flesh; for an uncircumcised heart can have no God. And to such the circumcision of the flesh is of no avail. Only a circumcised heart can produce a people of God, and it can do this even when physical circumcision is absent or is impossible, as it was for the children of Israel during their forty years in the wilderness. Thus Jeremiah also takes them to task, saying in chapter 4[:4]: “Circumcise yourselves to the L ord, remove the foreskin of your hearts, O men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem; lest my wrath go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it. . . .” Jeremiah, you wretched heretic, you seducer and false prophet, how dare you tell that holy, circumcised people of God to circumcise themselves to the Lord? Do you mean to imply that they were hitherto circumcised physically to the Devil, as if God did not esteem their holy, physical circumcision? And are you furthermore threatening them with God’s wrath, as with an eternal fire, if they do not circumcise their hearts? But they do not mention such circumcision of the heart in their prayers, nor do they praise or thank God for it with as much as a single letter. And you dare to invalidate their holy circumcision of the flesh, making it liable to God’s wrath and the eternal fire? I advise you not to enter their synagogue; all devils might dismember and devour you there.28 In Jeremiah 6[:10] we read, further, “Their ears are uncircumcised, they cannot listen.” Well, well, my dear Jeremiah, you are surely dealing roughly and inconsiderately with the noble, chosen, holy, circumcised people of God. Do you mean to say that such a holy nation has uncircumcised ears? And, what is far worse, that they are unable to hear? Is that not tantamount to saying that they are not God’s people? For those who cannot hear or bear to hear God’s word are not of God’s people. And if they are not God’s people, then they are the Devil’s people; and then neither circumcising nor skinning nor scraping will avail. For God’s sake, Jeremiah, stop talking like that! How can you

471

28. Here is one of many references where the synagogue becomes for Luther the epitome of religious perversion.

472

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD despise and condemn holy circumcision so horribly that you separate the chosen, circumcised, holy people from God and consign them to the Devil, banished and damned? Do they not praise God for having set them apart through circumcision both from the Devil and from all the other nations and for making them a holy and peculiar people? Yea, “He has spoken blasphemy! Crucify him, crucify him!” [. . . ] u In the face of this, what becomes of the arrogant boast of circumcision by reason of which the Jews claim to be a holy nation, set apart from other peoples? Here God’s word lumps them together with the heathen and uncircumcised, and threatens the same visitation for both. Moreover, the best part of Israel, the noble, royal tribe of Judah, is mentioned here, and after that the entire house of Israel. Worst of all, he declares that the heathen are, to be sure, uncircumcised according to the flesh, but that Judah, Edom, and Israel, who are circumcised according to the flesh, are much viler than the heathen, since they have an uncircumcised heart; and this, as said before, is far worse than uncircumcised flesh. These and similar passages prove irrefutably that the Jews’ arrogance and boast of circumcision against the uncircumcised Gentiles are null and void, and, unless accompanied by something else, deserve nothing but God’s wrath. God says that they have an uncircumcised heart. But the Jews do not pay attention to such a foreskin of the heart; rather they think that God should behold their proud circumcision in the flesh and hear their arrogant boasts against all Gentiles, who are unable to boast of such circumcision. These blind, miserable people do not see that God condemns their uncircumcised heart so clearly and explicitly in these verses, and thereby condemns their physical circumcision together with their boasting and their prayer. They go their way like fools, making the foreskins of their heart steadily thicker with such haughty boasts before God and their contempt for all other people. By virtue of such futile, arrogant circumcision in the flesh they presume to be God’s only people, until the foreskin of their heart has become thicker than an iron mountain and they can no longer hear, see, or feel their own clear Scripu The bracketed ellipses indicate that some content has been eliminated (see LW 47:154–55).

About the Jews and Their Lies ture, which they read daily with blind eyes overgrown with a pelt thicker than the bark of an oak tree.29 If God is to give ear to their prayers and praises and accept them, they must surely first purge their synagogues, mouths and hearts of such blasphemous, shameful, false, and deceitful boasting and arrogance. Otherwise they will only go from bad to worse and arouse God’s anger ever more against themselves. For he who would pray before God dare not confront him with haughtiness and lying, he dare not praise only himself, condemn all others, claim to be God’s only people, and execrate all the others, as they do. As David says in Psalm 5[:4ff.]: “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not sojourn with you. The boastful may not stand before our eyes; thou hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors bloodthirsty and deceitful people.” But rather, as verse 7 tells us: “I through the abundance of your steadfast love will enter your house, I will worship toward your holy temple in the fear of you.” This psalm applies to all men, whether circumcised or not, but particularly and especially to the Jews, for whom it was especially given and composed—as was all the rest of Scripture. And they are more masterfully portrayed in it than all other heathen. For they are the ones who constantly have pursued godless ways, idolatry, false doctrine, and who have had uncircumcised hearts, as Moses himself and all the prophets cry out and lament. But in all this they always claimed to be pleasing to God and they slew all the prophets on this account. They are the malicious, stiffnecked people that would not be converted from evil to good works by the preaching, reproof, and teaching of the prophets. The Scriptures bear witness to this everywhere. And still they claim to be God’s servants and to stand before him. They are the boastful, arrogant rascals who to the present day can do no more than boast of their race and lineage, praise only themselves, and disdain and curse all the world in their synagogues, prayers, and doctrines. Despite this, they imagine that in God’s eyes they rank as his dearest offspring. They are real liars and bloodhounds who have not only continually perverted and falsified all Scripture with their false glosses from the beginning until the present day. Their heart’s most ardent sighing and yearning and hoping is set on the day on which they can deal with us Gentiles as they did with the Gentiles in Persia at the time of Esther.

473 29. Luther’s picturesque version of the traditional doctrine of the “veil” that prevents the Jews from understanding the true (christological) meaning of their Scriptures.

474 30. It is not clear what the sources are for these dramatic assertions. They underscore the element of fear in the configuration of anti-Judaism, which undoubtedly arose out of the total “otherness” of pre-modern Jews (language, culture, dress). It suggests that the root cause of anti-Semitism was the fear of the different “Other.” 31. The brother of Abraham; cf. Gen. 11:26. Luther alludes to a rabbinic tradition based on the occurrence of the name “Uz” in Gen. 22:21 and Job 1:1. 32. Cf. 2 Kings 5. Luther’s list of Gentiles who were accepted by God without being required to be circumcised—Job, Naaman, etc.—is similar to that employed in Sabbatarians.

Jonah sits under a vine outside of Nineveh in a posture of prayer. From an illustrated Bible, Mainz, Germany (1534).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Oh, how fond they are of the book of Esther, which is so beautifully attuned to their bloodthirsty, vengeful, murderous yearning and hope. The sun has never shone on a more bloodthirsty and vengeful people than they are who imagine that they are God’s people who have been commissioned and commanded to murder and to slay the Gentiles. In fact, the most important thing that they expect of their Messiah is that he will murder and kill the entire world with the sword. They treated us Christians in this manner at the very beginning throughout all the world. They would still like to do this if they had the power, and often enough have made the attempt, for which they have got their snouts boxed lustily. 30 I can perhaps enlarge on this subject later; but let me now return to their false, lying boast regarding circumcision. These shameful liars are well aware that they are not the exclusive people of God, even if they did possess circumcision to the exclusion of all other nations. They also know that the foreskin is no obstacle to being a people of God. And still they brazenly strut before God, lie and boast about being God’s only people by reason of their physical circumcision, not mindful of the circumcision of the heart. Against this there are weighty scriptural examples. In the first place, I adduce Job, who, as they say, descended from Nahor. 31 God did not impose circumcision on him and his heirs. And yet his book shows clearly that there were very few great saints in Israel who were the equal of him and of his people. Nor did the prophet Elisha oblige Naaman of Syria 32 to become circumcised; and yet he was sanctified and became a child of God, and undoubtedly many others with him. Furthermore, there stands the whole of the prophet Jonah, who converted Nineveh but did not circumcise these people. Similarly, Daniel converted the great kings and peoples of Babylon and Persia, such as Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Darius, etc., and yet they remained Gentiles, uncircumcised, and did not become Jews. Earlier, Joseph instructed Pharaoh the king, his princes, and his people, as Psalm 105[:22] informs us, yet he left them uncircumcised. This, I say, these hardened and inveterate liars know, and yet they stress circumcision so greatly, as though no uncircumcised person could be a child of God. And whenever they seduce a Christian they try

About the Jews and Their Lies to alarm him so that he will be circumcised. Subsequently they approach God and exult in their prayer that they have brought us to the people of God through circumcision—as though this were a precious deed. They disdain, despise, and curse the foreskin on us as an ugly abomination which prevents us from becoming God’s people, while their circumcision, they claim, effects all. What is God to do with such prayer and praise which they bring forth together with their coarse, blasphemous lying, contrary to all Scripture (as already stated)? God will indeed hear them and bring them back to their country! I mean that if they were dwelling in heaven, such boasts, prayers, praise, and lies about circumcision alone would hurl them instantly into the abyss of hell. I already wrote about this in my treatise against the Sabbatarians. 33 Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against such damnable people whom God has permitted to sink into such profound abominations and lies, for all they do and say must be sheer lying, blasphemy, and malice, however fine it may look. But you may ask: Of what use then is circumcision? Or why did God command it so strictly? We answer: Let the Jews fret about that. What does that matter to us Gentiles? It was not imposed on us, as you have heard, nor do we stand in need of it, but we can be God’s people without it, just as the people in Nineveh, in Babylon, in Persia, and in Egypt were. And no one can prove that God ever commanded a prophet or a Jew to circumcise the Gentiles. Therefore they should not harass us with their lies and idolatry. If they claim to be so smart and wise as to instruct and circumcise us Gentiles, let them first tell us what purpose circumcision serves, and why God commanded it so strictly. This they owe us; but they will not do it until they return again to their home in Jerusalem—that is to say, when the Devil ascends into heaven. For when they assert that God enjoined circumcision for the purpose of sanctifying them, saving them, making them God’s people, they are lying atrociously, as you have heard. For Moses and all the prophets testify that circumcision did not help even those for whom it was commanded, since they were of uncircumcised hearts. How, then, should it help us for whom it was not commanded? But to speak for us Christians—we know very well why it was given or what purpose it served. However, no Jew knows this, and even when we tell him it is just like addressing a stump or a

475

33. See p. 450, also n. 10, p. 455, above.

476

34. A succinct statement of Luther’s distinction between “God in himself” and “God in his revelation.” Luther delineated this distinction in his 1525 treatise against Erasmus of Rotterdam (1466–1536), who had challenged Luther with De Libero Arbitrio, to which Luther responded with De Servo Arbitrio (“About the Bound Will”). Here Luther introduced his notion of the Deus absconditus. Cf. Paul Althaus, The Theolog y of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), ch. 4.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD stone. They will not desist from their boasting and their pride, that is, from their lies. They insist that they are in the right; God must be the liar and must be in error. Therefore, let them go their way and lie as their fathers have done from the beginning. But St. Paul teaches us in Romans 3 that when circumcision is performed as a kind of work it cannot make holy or save, nor was it meant to do so. Nor does it damn the uncircumcised Gentiles, as the Jews falsely and blasphemously say. Rather, he says, “circumcision is of great value in this way—that they were entrusted with the word of God” [cf. Rom. 3:1ff.]. That is the point, there it is said, there it is found! Circumcision was given and instituted to enfold and to preserve God’s word and God’s promise. This means that circumcision should not be useful or sufficient as a work in itself, but those who possess circumcision should be bound by this sign, covenant, or sacrament to obey and to believe God in his words and to transmit all this to their descendants. But where such an ultimate cause or reason for circumcision no longer obtained, circumcision as a mere work no longer was to enjoy validity or value, all the more so if the Jews should patch or attach another final cause or explanation to it. This is also borne out by the words in Genesis 17: “I will be your God, and in token of this you shall bear my sign upon your flesh” [cf. Gen. 17:8, 11]. This expresses the same thought found in St. Paul’s statement that circumcision was given so that one should hear or obey God’s word. For when God’s word is no longer heard or kept, then he is surely no longer our God, since we in this life must comprehend and have God solely through his word. This wretched life cannot bear and endure him in his brilliant majesty, as he says in Exodus 36 [33:20]: “No one shall not see me and live.”34 There are innumerable examples throughout all of Scripture which show what cause or purpose the Jews assigned to circumcision. For as often as God wanted to speak with them through the prophets—whether about the Ten Commandments, in which he reproved them, or about the promise of future help—they were always obdurate, or as the quoted verses from Moses and Jeremiah testify, they were of uncircumcised heart and ears. They always claimed to do the right and proper thing, while the prophets (that is, God whose word they preached) always did the wrong and evil thing. Therefore, the Jews slew them all, and they

About the Jews and Their Lies have never yet allowed any to die not persecuted and not condemned, with a few exceptions at the time of David, Hezekiah, and Josiah. The entire course of the history of Israel and Judah is pervaded by blasphemy of God’s word, by persecution, derision, and murder of the prophets. Judging them by history, these people must be called wanton murderers of the prophets and enemies of God’s word. Whoever reads the Bible cannot draw any other conclusion. As we said, God did not institute circumcision nor did he accept the Jews as his people in order that they might persecute, mock, and murder his word and his prophets, and thereby render a service to justice and to God. Rather, as Moses says in the words dealing with circumcision in Genesis 17, this was done in order that they might hear God and his word; that is, that they might let him be their God. Apart from this circumcision in itself would not help them, since it would then no longer be God’s circumcision, for it would be without God, contending against his word; it would have become merely a human work. For he had bound himself, or his Erasmus of Rotterdam hollow husk or empty shell devoid of nut or kernel. The following is an analogous situation for us Christians: God gave us baptism, the sacrament of his body and blood, and the keys for the ultimate purpose or final cause that we should hear his word in them and exercise our faith therein. That is, he intends to be our God through them, and through them we are to be his people. However, what did we do? We proceeded to separate the word and faith from the sacrament (that is, from God and his ultimate purpose) and converted it into a mere opus legis, a work of the law, or as the papists call it, an opus operatum— merely a human work, which the priests offered to God and the laity performed as a work of obedience as often as they received it. What is left of the sacrament? Only the empty husk, the mere ceremony, opus vanum, divested of everything divine. Yes, it is a hideous abomination in which we perverted God’s truth into lies and worshiped the veritable calf of Aaron. Therefore God also delivered us into all sorts of terrible blindness and innumerable false teachings and, furthermore, he permitted Muhammad and the pope together with all devils to come upon us. The people of Israel fared similarly. They always divorced circumcision as an opus operatum, their own work, from the word of God, and persecuted all the prophets through whom God wished

477

478

35. Luther ‘s argument here has two foci. On the one hand, his polemic against the Jewish understanding of circumcision parallels closely his understanding of the sacraments. On the other hand, he sees the Jewish understanding of circumcision as a blatant manifestation of legalism and works righteousness; he therefore can turn his polemic harmoniously into a discussion of the occurrence of the same theological mind-set in the church.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD to speak with them, according to the terms on which circumcision was instituted. Yet despite this, they constantly and proudly boasted of being God’s people by virtue of their circumcision. Thus they are in conflict with God. God wants them to hear him and to observe circumcision properly and fully; but they refuse and insist that God respect their work of circumcision, that is, half of circumcision, indeed, the husk of circumcision. God, in turn, refuses to do this; and so they move farther and farther apart, and it is impossible to reunite or reconcile them. Now, who wishes to accuse God of an injustice? Tell me, anyone who is reasonable, whether it is fitting that God regard the works of those who refuse to hear his word, or if he should consider them to be his people when they do not want to accept him as their God? With all justice and good reason God may say, as the Psalm declares [Ps. 81:11f.]: “Israel would have none of me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels.” And in Deuteronomy 32[:21], Moses states, “They have stirred me to jealously with what is no god. . . . So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people.” Similarly among us Christians35 the papists can no longer claim to be the church. For they will not let God be their God, because they refuse to listen to his word, but rather persecute it most terribly, then come along with their empty husks, chaff, and refuse, as they celebrate Mass and practice their ceremonies. And God is supposed to acknowledge them and look upon them as his true church, ignoring the fact that they do not acknowledge him as the true God, that is, they do not want him to speak to them through his preachers. His word must be accounted heresy, the Devil, and every evil. This he will indeed do, as they surely will experience, far worse than did the Jews. Now we can readily gather from all this that circumcision was very useful and good, as St. Paul declares—not indeed on its own account but on account of the word of God. For we are convinced, and it is the truth, that the children who were circumcised on the eighth day became children of God, as the words state, “I will be their God” [Gen. 17:7], for they received the perfect and full circumcision, the word with the sign, and did not separate the two. God is present, saying to them, “I will be their God”; and this completed the circumcision in them. Similarly, our children receive the complete, true, and full baptism, the word with the sign, and do not separate one from the other; they

About the Jews and Their Lies receive the kernel in the shell. God is present; he baptizes and speaks with them, and thereby saves them. But now that we have grown old, the pope comes along—and the Devil with him—and teaches us to convert this into an opus legis or opus operatum. He severs word and sign from each other, teaching that we are saved by our own contrition, work, and satisfaction. We share the experience related by St. Peter in 2 Peter 2[:22]: “The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire.” Thus our sacrament has become a work, and we eat our vomit again. Likewise the Jews, as they grew old, ruined their good circumcision performed on the eighth day, separated the word from the sign, and made a human or even a swinish work out of it. In this way they lost God and his word and now no longer have any understanding of the Scriptures. God truly honored them highly by circumcision, speaking to them above all other nations on earth and entrusting his word to them. And in order to preserve this word among them, he gave them a special country; he performed great wonders through them, ordained kings and government, and lavished prophets upon them who not only apprised them of the best things pertaining to the present but also promised them the future Messiah, the Savior of the world. It was for his sake that God accorded them all of this, bidding them look for his coming, to expect him confidently and without delay. For God did all of this solely for his sake: for his sake Abraham was called, circumcision was instituted, and the people were thus exalted so that all the world might know from which people, from which country, at which time, yes, from which tribe, family, city, and person, he would come, lest he be reproached by devils and by humanity for coming from a dark corner or from unknown ancestors. 36 No, his ancestors had to be great patriarchs, excellent kings, and eminent prophets, who bear witness to him. We have already stated how the Jews, with few exceptions, viewed such promises and prophets. They were never able to tolerate a prophet, and always persecuted God’s word and declined to give ear to God. That is the complaint and lament of all the prophets. And as their fathers did, so they still do today, nor will they ever mend their ways. If Isaiah, Jeremiah, or other prophets went about among them today and proclaimed what they proclaimed in their day, or declared that the Jews’ present cir-

479

36. That the literal meaning of the Hebrew Scriptures points to Jesus of Nazareth is Luther’s fundamental conviction.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

480

37. This sentence, as well as many others, indicates that Luther could not deal with the self-confidence, religious as well as other, which, in his opinion, Jews exhibited.

38. When Luther speaks of the “Turks,” he often is referring to the Ottoman Turks who threatened Europe in Luther’s time, but he can also use the term for Muslims in general.

cumcision and hope for the Messiah are futile, they would again have to die at their hands as happened then. Let those who are endowed with reason, to say nothing of Christian understanding, note how arbitrarily they pervert and twist the prophets’ books with their confounded glosses, in violation of their own conscience (on which I can perhaps say more later).v For now that they can no longer stone or kill the prophets physically or personally, they torment them spiritually, mutilate, strangle, and maltreat their beautiful verses so that the human heart is vexed and pained. For this forces us to see how, because of God’s wrath, they are wholly delivered into the Devil’s hands. In brief, they are a prophet-murdering people; since they can no longer murder the living ones, they must murder and torment the ones that are dead. Subsequently, after they have scourged, crucified, spat upon, blasphemed, and cursed God in his word, as Isaiah 8 prophesied, they pretentiously trot out their circumcision and other vain, blasphemous, invented, and meaningless works. They presume to be God’s only people, to condemn all the world, and they expect that their arrogance and boasting will so please God, that he should repay them with a Messiah of their own choosing and prescription. Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against such accursed, incorrigible people, from whom you can learn no more than to give God and his word the lie, to blaspheme, to pervert, to murder prophets, and haughtily and proudly to despise all people on earth. 37 Even if God would be willing to disregard all their other sins—which, of course, is impossible—he could not condone such ineffable (although poor and wretched) pride. For he is called a God of the humble, as Isaiah 66[:2] states: “But this is the one to whom I will look, to the humble and contrite in spirit, who trembles at my word.” I have said enough about the second false boast of the Jews, namely, their false and futile circumcision, which did not avail them when they were taken to task by Moses and by Jeremiah because of their uncircumcised heart. How much less is it useful now when it is nothing more than the Devil’s trickery with which he mocks and fools them, as he also does the Turks. 38 For wherever God’s word is no longer present, circumcision is null and void.

v

Luther does so below, see p. 492.

About the Jews and Their Lies In the third place, they are very conceited because God spoke with them and issued them the law of Moses on Mount Sinai. Here we arrive at the right spot, here God really has to let himself be tortured, here he must listen as they tire him with their songs and praises because he hallowed them with his holy law, set them apart from other nations, and led them out of Egypt. Here we poor Goyim are really despised, and are mere ciphers compared to the holy, chosen, noble, and highly exalted people which is in possession of God’s word! They state this, as I myself heard: 39 “Indeed, what do you have to say to this—that God himself spoke with us on Mount Sinai and that he did this with no other people?” We have nothing with which to refute that, for we cannot deny them this glory. The books of Moses are ready to prove it, and David, too, testifies to it, saying in Psalm 147[:19f.]: “He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; they do not know his ordinances.” And Psalm 103[:7]: “He made known his ways to Moses, his acts to the people of Israel.” They relate that the chiefs of the people wore wreaths at Mount Sinai at that time as a symbol that they had contracted a marriage with God through the law, that they had become his bride, and that the two had wedded one another. 40 Later we read in all the prophets how God is appearing and talking with the children of Israel as a husband with his wife. From this also sprang the peculiar worship of Baal; for “Baal” denotes a man of the house or a master of the house, “Beulah” denotes a housewife. The latter also has taken a German form,41 as when we say “My dear Buhle” [sweetheart], and “I must have a Buhle.” Formerly this was an inoffensive term, designating a young lass. It was said that a young man courted [buhlte] a young girl with a view to marriage. Now the word has assumed a different connotation. Now we challenge you, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the prophets, and whoever else, to come and to be bold enough to say that such a noble nation with whom God converses and with whom God enters into marriage through the law, and to whom God joins himself as to a bride, is not God’s people. Anyone doing that, I know, would make himself ridiculous and come to grief. Lacking other weapons, they would tear and bite him to pieces with their teeth for trying to dispossess them of such glory, praise, and honor. One can neither express nor understand the obstinate, unbridled, incorrigible arrogance of this people, springing from

481

39. Luther had only isolated conversations with Jews, in addition to a few contacts in the course of translating the Old Testament into German, as mentioned below. There were no Jews in Wittenberg so that one may well describe Luther’s anti-Judaism as an anti-Judaism without Jews.

40. A Jewish tradition reflected in the festivities of Simhath Torah (“Rejoicing in the Law”), the day that marks the conclusion and recommencement of the yearly cycle of readings from the Torah. 41. Luther’s excursion into historical linguistics is not supported by modern scholarship.

482

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD this advantage—that God himself spoke to them. No prophet has ever been able to raise his voice in protest or stand up against them, not even Moses. For in Numbers 16, Korah arose and asserted that they were all holy people of God, and asked why Moses alone should rule and teach. Since that time, the majority of Israelites have been genuine Korahites; there have been very few true Israelites. For just as Korah persecuted Moses, they have never subsequently left a prophet alive or unpersecuted, much less have they obeyed him. So it became apparent that they were a defiled bride, yes, an incorrigible whore and an evil slut with whom God ever had to wrangle, scuffle, and fight. If he chastised and struck them with his word through the prophets, they contradicted him, killed his prophets, or, like a mad dog, bit the stick with which they were struck. Thus Psalm 95[:10] declares: “For forty years I loathed that generation and said, ‘They are a people who err in heart, and they do not regard my ways.’” And Moses himself says in Deuteronomy 31[:27]: “For I know how rebellious and stubborn you are; behold, while I am yet alive with you, today you have been rebellious against the Lord ; how much more after my death!” And Isaiah 48[:4]: “Because I know that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass. . . .” And so on; anyone who is interested may read more of this. The Jews are well aware that the prophets upbraided the children of Israel from beginning to end as a disobedient, evil people and as the vilest whore, although they boasted so much of the law of Moses, or circumcision, and of their ancestry. But it might be objected: Surely, this is said about the wicked Jews, not about the pious ones as they are today. Well and good, for the present I will be content if they confess, as they must confess, that the wicked Jews cannot be God’s people, and that their lineage, circumcision, and law of Moses cannot help them. Why, then, do they all, the most wicked as well as the pious, boast of circumcision, lineage, and law? The worse a Jew is, the more arrogant he is, solely because he is a Jew—that is, a person descended from Abraham’s seed, circumcised, and under the law of Moses. David and other pious Jews were not as conceited as the present-day, incorrigible Jews. However wicked they may be, they presume to be the noblest lords over against us Gentiles, just by virtue of their lineage and law. Yet the law rebukes them as the vilest whores and rogues under the sun.

About the Jews and Their Lies Furthermore, if they are pious Jews and not the whoring people, as the prophets call them, how does it happen that their piety is so concealed that God himself is not aware of it, and they are not aware of it either? For they have, as we said, prayed, cried, and suffered almost fifteen hundred years already, and yet God refuses to listen to them. We know from Scripture that God will hear the prayers or sighing of the righteous, as the Psalter says [Ps. 145:19]: “He fulfills the desire of all who fear him, he also hears their cry.” And Psalm 34[:17]: “When the righteous cry for help, the Lord hears.” As he promised in Psalm 50[:15]: “Call upon me in the day of trouble; I will deliver you.” The same is found in many more verses of the Scripture. If it were not for these, who would or could pray? In brief, he says in the First Commandment that he will be their God. Then, how do you explain that he will not listen to these Jews? They must assuredly be the base, whoring people, that is, not people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth. If there were a single pious Jew among them who observed these, he would have to be heard; for God cannot let his saints pray in vain, as Scripture demonstrates by many examples. This is conclusive evidence that they cannot be pious Jews, but must be the multitude of whoring and murderous people. Such piety is, as already has been said, so concealed among them that they themselves also can know nothing of it. How then shall God know of it? For they are full of malice, greed, envy, hatred toward one another, pride, usury, conceit, and curses against us Gentiles. Therefore, a Jew would have to have very sharp eyes to recognize a pious Jew, to say nothing of the fact that they all should be God’s people as they claim. For they surely hide their piety effectively under their manifest vices; and yet they all, without exception, claim to be Abraham’s blood, the people of circumcision and of Moses, that is, God’s nation, compared with whom the Gentiles must surely be sheer stench. Although they know that God cannot tolerate this, nor did he tolerate it with the angels, yet he should and must listen to their lies and blasphemies to the effect that they are his people by virtue of the law he gave them and because he conversed with their forefathers at Mount Sinai. Why should one loose so many words about this? If the boast that God spoke with them and that they possess his word or commandment were sufficient so that God would on this

483

484

42. This statement reveals Luther’s understanding of natural law. For Luther, natural law was written on all human hearts by God in creation. Thus, Luther’s affirmation of the universality of the Ten Commandments seems to be driven by his anti-Jewish polemic.

43. The practice of usury refers to the taking of interest on loans, regardless of the rate of interest charged. Noting such texts as Exod. 22:25, Lev. 25:35ff., and Deut. 23:19f., the medieval theologians argued that no interest could be charged on loans. They were supported by none other than Aristotle, who had insisted that money, a dead thing, could not beget something. Since Jews were exempt from this provision by biblical verdict, and other venues of earning income were closed to them, they dominated the loan market. Since risk was high, so was the interest charged, often in the 20 to 50 percent range. Understandably, this was a system of loans that was bound to involve emotions and misunderstanding. Luther, who by and large supported the medieval position, addressed the topic of usury no fewer than three times, in sermons “on usury.” See Business and Usury in this volume, pp. 131–81.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD basis regard them as his people, then the devils in hell would be much worthier of being God’s people than the Jews, yes, than any people. For the devils have God’s word and know far better than the Jews that there is a God who created them, whom they are obliged to love with all their heart, to honor, fear, and serve him whose name they dare not misuse, whose word they must hear on the Sabbath and at all times; they know that they are forbidden to murder or to inflict harm on any creature.42 But what good does it do them to know and to possess God’s commandment? Let them boast that this makes them God’s own special, dear angels, in comparison with whom other angels are nothing! How much better off they would be if they did not have God’s commandment or if they were ignorant of it. For if they did not have it, they would not be condemned. The very reason for their condemnation is that they possess his commandment and yet do not keep it, but constantly violate it. In the same manner murderers and whores, thieves and rogues and all evil people might boast that they are God’s holy, peculiar people; for they, too, have his word and know that they must fear and obey him, love and serve him, honor his name, refrain from murder, adultery, theft, and every other evil deed. If they did not have God’s holy and true word, they could not sin. But since they do sin and are condemned, it is certain that they do have the holy, true word of God, against which they sin. Let them boast, like the Jews, that God has sanctified them through his law and chosen them above all others as a peculiar people! It is the same kind of boasting when the Jews boast in their synagogues, praising and thanking God for sanctifying them through his law and setting them apart as a peculiar people, although they know full well that they are not at all observing this law, that they are full of conceit, envy, usury, greed, and all sorts of malice. The worst offenders are those who pretend to be very devout and holy in their prayers. They are so blind that they not only practice usury—not to mention other vices—but they teach that it is a right which God conferred on them through Moses.43 Thereby, as in all the other matters, they most infamously slander God. However, we lack the time to dwell on that now. But when they declare that even if they are not holy because of the Ten Commandments (since all Gentiles and devils are also duty-bound to keep these, or else are polluted and condemned

About the Jews and Their Lies on account of them) they still have the other laws of Moses, besides the Ten Commandments, which were exclusively given to them and not also to the Gentiles, and by which they are sanctified and singled out from all other nations—O Lord God, what a lame, loose, and vain excuse and pretext this is! If the Ten Commandments are not obeyed, what does the keeping of the other laws amount to other than mere jugglery and mummery, indeed, a veritable mockery which treats God as a fool. It is just as if an evil, devilish fellow among us were to parade about in the garb of the pope, cardinal, bishop, or parish priest and observe all the precepts and the ways of these persons, but underneath this spiritual dress would be a genuine devil, a wolf, an enemy of the church, a blasphemer who trampled both the gospel and the Ten Commandments under foot and cursed and damned them. What a fine saint he would be in God’s sight! Or let us suppose that somewhere a pretty girl came along, adorned with a wreath, and observed all the manners, duties, deportment and discipline of a chaste virgin, but underneath was a vile, shameful whore, violating the Ten Commandments. What good would her fine obedience in observing outwardly all the duties and customs of a virgin’s station do her? It would help her this much—that one would be seven times more hostile to her than to an impudent, public whore. Thus God constantly chided the children of Israel through the prophets, calling them a vile whore because, under the guise and decor of external laws and sanctity, they practiced all sorts of idolatry and villainy, as especially Hosea laments in chapter 2. To be sure, it is commendable when a pious virgin or woman is decently and cleanly dressed and adorned and at the same time outwardly conducts herself with modesty. But if she is a whore, her garments, adornments, wreath, and jewels would better befit a sow that wallows in the mire. As Solomon says [Prov. 11:22]: “Like a gold ring in a swine’s snout is a beautiful woman without discretion.” That is to say, she is a whore. Therefore, this boast about the external laws of Moses, apart from obedience to the Ten Commandments, should be silenced; indeed, purified because he will surely be condemned by them. But this subject is beyond the understanding of the blind and hardened Jews. Speaking to them about it is much the same as preaching the gospel to a sow. They cannot know what God’s commandment really is, much less do they know how to keep it.

485

486

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD After all, they could not listen to Moses, nor look into his face; he had to cover it with a veil. This veil is there to the present day, and they still do not behold Moses’ face, that is, his doctrine. It is still veiled to them [cf. 2 Cor. 3:13ff.; Exod. 34:33ff.]. Thus they could not hear God’s word on Mount Sinai when he talked to them, but they retreated, saying to Moses: “You speak to us, and we will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die” [Exod. 20:19]. To know God’s commandment and to know how to keep it requires a high prophetic understanding. Moses was well aware of this when he said in Exodus 34 that God forgives sin and that no one is before him without guilt, which is to say that no one keeps God’s commandments but those whose sins God forgives. As David testifies in Psalm 32[:1f.], “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, . . . to whom the Lord imputes no iniquity.” And in the same psalm [cf. v. 6]: “Therefore let everyone who is godly offer prayer to you for forgiveness,” which means that no saint keeps God’s commandments. But if the saints fail to keep them, how will the ungodly, the unbelievers, the evil people keep them? Again we read in Psalm 143[:2]: “O Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant; for no one living is righteous before you.” That attests clearly enough that even the holy servants of God are not justified before him unless he sets aside his judgment and deals with them in his mercy; that is, they do not keep his commandments and stand in need of forgiveness of sins. This calls for someone who will assist us in this, who bears our sin for us, as Isaiah 53[:6] says: “The L ord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.” Indeed, that is truly to understand God’s law and its observance—when we know, recognize, yes, and feel that we have it, but do not keep it and cannot keep it; in light of this, we are poor sinners and guilty before God; and it is only out of pure grace and mercy that we receive forgiveness for such guilt and disobedience through the One on whom God has laid this sin. Of this we Christians speak and this we teach, and of this the prophets and apostles speak to us and teach us. They were and still are our God’s bride and pure virgin; and yet they boast of no law or holiness as the Jews do in their synagogues. They rather wail over the law and cry for mercy and forgiveness of sins. The Jews, on the other hand, are as holy as the barefoot friars who possess so much excess holiness that they can use it to help others to get to heaven, and still retain a rich and abundant

About the Jews and Their Lies supply to sell.44 It is of no use to speak to any of them about these matters, for their blindness and arrogance are as solid as an iron mountain. They are in the right; God is in the wrong. Let them go their way, and let us remain with those who pray the Miserere, Psalm 51, that is, with those who know and understand what the law is, and what it means to keep and not to keep it. Learn from this, dear Christian, what you are doing when you permit the blind Jews to mislead you. Then the saying will truly apply, “When a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into the pit” [cf. Luke 6:39]. You cannot learn anything from them except how to misunderstand the divine commandments, and, despite this, boast haughtily over against the Gentiles—who really are much better before God than they, since they do not have such pride of holiness and yet keep far more of the law than these arrogant saints and damned blasphemers and liars. Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and humanity are practiced most maliciously.45 God’s wrath has consigned them to the presumption that their boasting, their conceit, their slander of God, their cursing of all people are a true and a great service rendered to God—all of which is very fitting and becoming to such noble blood of the fathers and circumcised saints. This they believe despite the fact that they know they are steeped in manifest vices, just as the devils themselves do. And where you see or hear a Jew teaching, remember that you are hearing nothing but a venomous basilisk46 who poisons and kills people. And with all this, they claim to be doing right. Be on your guard against them! In the fourth place,47 they pride themselves tremendously on having received the land of Canaan, the city of Jerusalem, and the temple from God. God has often squashed such boasting and arrogance, especially through the king of Babylon, who led them away into captivity and destroyed everything (just as the king of Assyria earlier had led all of Israel away and had laid everything low). Finally they were exterminated

487 44. The reference is to the monastic orders, such as the Franciscans and Augustinians, whose overabundance of good works means the church can share them with the faithful. 45. This description of the synagogue reveals Luther’s anger and categorical unwillingness to see anything positive in them: rather, the synagogues are the source, Luther argues, of all the perverted reading of Scripture. 46. A legendary beast credited with the power to kill with its breath or eyes. 47. The first three points dealt with the Jewish claims of lineage (above, pp. 466–67), the covenant of circumcision (pp. 467–80), and the law (pp. 481–87).

The basilisk and the weasel in a print attributed to Wenceslas Hollar (1607−1677)

488

48. Luther employs the term church quite consistently, for his principal insistence was that wherever the gospel was preached, there is the church. Of course, here he is only reporting what were to be the case if the Jewish claims were correct. Underlying is Luther’s presumption, of course, of the unity of the Old and New Testaments, and it indicates one of the great underlying issues in the polemic between Jews and Christians: Which of them can claim to be the legitimate successor of ancient Israel as the “people of God”? 49. Luther here uses a Christian term to denote a Jewish reality—“church” instead of “synagogue.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD and devastated by the Romans over fourteen hundred years ago— so that they might well perceive that God did not regard, nor will regard, their country, city, temple, priesthood, or principality, and view them on account of these as his own peculiar people. Yet their iron neck, as Isaiah calls it [Isa. 48:4] is not bent, nor is their brass forehead [ibid.] red with shame. They remain stoneblind, obdurate, immovable, ever hoping that God will restore their homeland to them and give everything back to them. Moses had informed them a great many times, first, that they were not occupying the land because their righteousness exceeded that of other heathen—for they were a stubborn, evil, disobedient people—and second, that they would soon be ex­pelled from the land and perish if they did not keep God’s commandments. And when God chose the city of Jerusalem he added very clearly in the writings of all the prophets that he would utterly destroy this city of Jerusalem, his seat and throne, if they would not keep his commandments. Furthermore, when Solomon had built the temple, had sacrificed and prayed to God, God said to him (1 Kings 9[:3]), “I have heard your prayer and your supplications . . . I have consecrated this house,” etc.; but then he added shortly thereafter [vv. 6f.]: “But if you turn aside from following me . . . and do not keep my commandments . . . then I will cut off Israel from the land which I have given them; and the house which I have consecrated for my name I will cast out of my sight; and Israel will become a proverb and a byword among all peoples.” With an utter disregard for this, they stood, and still stand, firm as a rock or as an inert stone image, insisting that God gave them country, city, and temple, and that therefore they have to be God’s people or church.48 They neither hear nor see that God gave them all of this that they might keep his commandments, that is, regard him as their God, and thus be his people and church.49 They boast of their race and of their descent from the fathers, but they neither see nor pay attention to the fact that he chose their race that they should keep his commandments. They boast of their circumcision; but why they are circumcised—namely, that they should keep God’s commandments—counts for nothing. They are quick to boast of their law, temple, worship, city, land, and government; but why they possess all of this, they disregard. The Devil with all his angels has taken possession of this people, so that they always exalt external things—their gifts, their

About the Jews and Their Lies deeds, their works—before God, which is tantamount to offering God the empty shells without the kernels. These they expect God to esteem and by reason of them accept them as his people, and exalt and bless them above all Gentiles. But that he wants his laws observed and wants to be honored by them as God, this they do not want to consider. Thus the words of Moses are fulfilled when he says [Deut. 32:21] that God will not regard them as his people, since they do not regard him as their God. Hosea 2 [cf. 1:9] expresses the same thought. Indeed, if God had not allowed the city of Jerusalem to be destroyed and had the Jews driven out of their country, but had permitted them to remain there, no one could have convinced them that they are not God’s people, since they would still be in possession of temple, city, and country regardless of how base, disobedient, and stubborn they were. [They would not have believed it] even if it had snowed nothing but prophets daily and even if a thousand Moses had stood up and shouted: “You are not God’s people, because you are disobedient and rebellious to God.” Why, even today they cannot refrain from their nonsensical, insane boasting that they are God’s people, although they have been cast out, dispersed, and utterly rejected for almost fifteen hundred years. By virtue of their own merits they still hope to return there again. But they have no such promise with which they could console themselves other than what their false imagination smuggles into Scripture. Our apostle St. Paul was right when he said of them “they have a zeal for God, but it is not enlightened,” etc. [Rom. 10:2]. They claim to be God’s people by reason of their deeds, works, and external show, and not because of sheer grace and mercy, as all prophets and all true children of God have to be, as was said. Therefore they are beyond counsel and help. In the same way as are our papists, bishops, monks, and priests, together with their following, who insist that they are God’s people and church; they believe that God should esteem them because they are baptized, because they have the name, and because they rule the roost. There they stand like a rock. If a hundred thousand apostles came along and said: “You are not the church because of your behavior or your many doings and divine services, even though these were your best efforts; no, you must despair of all this and adhere simply and solely to the grace and mercy of Christ, etc. If you fail to do this, you are the Devil’s whore or a school of

489

490

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD knaves and not the church,” they would wish to murder, burn at the stake, or banish such apostles. As for believing them and abandoning their own devices, of this there is no hope; it will not happen. The Turks follow the same pattern with their worship, as do all fanatics. Jews, Turks, papists, radicals abound everywhere. All of them claim to be the church and God’s people in accord with their conceit and boast, regardless of the one true faith and the obedience to God’s commandments through which alone people become and remain God’s children. Even if they do not all pursue the same course, but one chooses this way, another that way, resulting in a variety of forms, they nonetheless all have the same intent and ultimate goal, namely, by means of their own deeds they want to manage to become God’s people. And thus they boast and brag that they are the ones whom God will esteem. They are the foxes of Samson which are tied together tail to tail but whose heads turn away in different directions [cf. Judg. 15:4].

Samson releases a pair of foxes into the Philistines’ fields with a torch tied between their tails after he discovers that they have burned his wife and father-in-law. From a History of   the Old and New Testaments (Netherlands, 1700), by artist Otto Ellinger.

About the Jews and Their Lies But as I noted earlier, that is beyond the comprehension of the Jews, as well as of the Turks and papists. As St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1, “Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of the God’s Spirit, . . . because they are spiritually discerned” [1 Cor. 2:14]. Thus the words of Isaiah 6[:9] come true: “Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.” For they do not know what they hear, see, say, or do. And yet they do not concede that they are blind and deaf. That shall be enough about the false boast and pride of the Jews, who would move God with sheer lies to regard them as his people. Now we come to the main subject, their asking God for the Messiah.50 Here at last they show themselves as true saints and pious children. At this point they certainly do not want to be accounted liars and blasphemers but reliable prophets, asserting that the Messiah has not yet come but will still appear. Who will take them to task here for their error or mistake? Even if all the angels and God himself publicly declared on Mount Sinai or in the temple in Jerusalem that the Messiah had come long ago and that he was no longer to be expected, God himself and all the angels would have to be considered nothing but devils. So convinced are these most holy and truthful prophets that the Messiah has not yet appeared but will still come. Nor will they listen to us. They turned a deaf ear to us in the past and still do so, although many fine scholarly people, including some from their own race,51 have refuted them so thoroughly that even stone and wood, if endowed with a particle of reason, would have to yield. Yet they rave consciously against recognized truth. Their accursed rabbis, who indeed know better, wantonly poison the minds of their poor youth and of the common person and divert them from the truth. For I believe that if these writings were read by the common people and the youth they would stone all their rabbis and hate them more violently than they do us Christians. But these villains prevent our sincere views from coming to their attention. If I had not had the experience with my papists, it would have seemed incredible to me that the earth should harbor such base people who knowingly fly in the face of open and manifest truth, that is, of God himself. For I never expected to encounter such hardened minds in any human breast, but only in that of the Devil. However, I am no longer amazed by either the Turks’ or the Jews’ blindness, obduracy, and malice, since I have to witness

491 50. The question of the nature and timing of the Messiah’s coming will occupy Luther for the whole central portion of the treatise. The argument turns upon the interpretation of four crucial passages from the Old Testament: (a) Gen. 49:10, the enigmatic prophecy concerning “Shiloh” (pp. 492 ff.); (b) 2 Sam. 23:5, the reference by David to an “everlasting covenant,” further supported by 2 Sam. 7:12ff. (pp. 509–16); (c) Hag. 2:6–9, the promise concerning the “consolation of the Gentiles” (pp. 521–22); and (d) Dan. 9:24, the prediction concerning the “seventy weeks of years” (pp. 538– 58). In passing, pertinent passages from Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah are also dealt with. All of these texts had figured prominently in Christian polemics against Judaism since the postapostolic period. The specific arguments offered by Luther closely parallel those of Lyra and Paul of Burgos (see pp. 448–51 and n. 13, p. 456). See Deanna Copeland Klepper, The Insight of Unbelievers: Nicholas of Lyra and Christian Reading of Jewish Texts in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016). 51. Of the Christian polemicists against Judaism and Jews whose writings were current in Luther’s day, four—Paul of Burgos, Anthony Margaritha (see n. 27, p. 470.), Victor of Carben (b. c. 1500), and John-Baptist de Gratia-Dei—were converted Jews. Their writings fulfilled, on the face of things, the desire for information about Jewish beliefs and practices, but also gave them the opportunity to inveigh against the religion they had rejected. Formidable bias was obvious.

492

52. This biblical passage figured in antiJewish polemics since the time of Justin Martyr (c. 100–165); cf. his Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 52. Luther himself had already utilized it in his treatise of 1523 That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, this volume, pp. 391–439; LW 45:199–229. The classic study is that of Adolf Posnanski, whose massive study follows the exegesis of this text down to the late Middle Ages; see his Schiloh: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Messiaslehre (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1904).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD the same thing in the most holy fathers of the church, in pope, cardinals, and bishops. Oh, you terrible wrath and incomprehensible judgment of the sublime Divine Majesty! How can you be so despised by humankind that we do not forthwith tremble to death before you? What an unbearable sight you are to the hearts and eyes of the holiest men and women, as we see in Moses and the prophets. Yet these stony hearts and iron souls mock you defiantly. However, although we perhaps labor in vain on the Jews—for I said earlier that I do not want to dispute with them—we nonetheless want to discuss their senseless folly among ourselves, for the strengthening of our faith and as a warning to weak Christians about the Jews, and, chiefly, in honor of God, in order to prove that our faith is true and that they are entirely mistaken on the question of the Messiah. We Christians have our New Testament, which furnishes us reliable and adequate testimony concerning the Messiah. That the Jews do not believe it does not concern us; we believe their accursed glosses still less. We let them go their way and wait for their Messiah. Their unbelief does not harm us; but as to the help they derive and to date have derived from it, they may ask of their long-enduring exile. That will, indeed, supply the answer for us. Let him who will not follow lag behind. They act as though they were of great importance to us. Just to vex us, they corrupt the statements of Scripture. We do not at all desire or require their conversion for any advantage, usefulness, or help accruing to us therefore. All that we do in this regard is prompted by a concern for their welfare. If they do not want it, they can disregard it; we are excused and can easily dispense with them, together with all that they are, have, and can do for salvation. We have a better knowledge of Scripture, thanks be to God; this we are certain of, and all the devils shall never deprive us of it, much less the miserable Jews. First we want to submit the verse found in Genesis 49[:10]: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah . . . until Shiloh comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.”52 This saying of the holy patriarch Jacob, spoken at the very end of his life, has been tortured and crucified in many ways down to the present day by the contemporary, strange Jews, in violation of their own conscience. For they realize fully that their twisting and perverting is nothing but wanton mischief. Their glosses remind me very much of an evil, stubborn shrew who clamorously contra-

About the Jews and Their Lies dicts her husband and insists on having the last word although she knows she is in the wrong. Thus these blinded people also suppose that it suffices to bark and to prattle against the text and its true meaning; they are entirely indifferent to the fact that they are lying impudently. I believe they would be happier if this verse had never been written rather than that they would change their mind. This verse pains them intensely, and they cannot ignore it. The ancient, genuine Jews understood this verse correctly, as we Christians do, 53 namely, that the government or scepter should remain with the tribe of Judah until the advent of the Messiah; then “to him shall be the obedience of the peoples,” to him they will adhere. That is, the scepter shall then not be confined to the tribe of Judah, but, as the prophets later explain, it shall be extended to all peoples on earth at the time of the Messiah. However, until he appears, the scepter shall remain in that small nook and corner, Judah. That, I say, is the understanding of the prophets and of the ancient Jews; this they cannot deny. For also their Chaldaean Bible,54 which they dare oppose as little as the Hebrew Bible itself, shows this clearly. In translation it reads thus: “The shultan shall not be put away from the house of Judah nor the saphra from his children’s children eternally until the Messiah comes, whose is the kingdom, and the peoples will make themselves obedient to him.” This is a true and faithful translation of the Chaldaean text, as no Jew or Devil can deny. For Moses’ Hebrew term shebet [“scepter”] we use the word Zepter in German, whereas the Chaldaean translator chooses the word shultan. Let me explain these words. The Hebrew shebet is the designation for a virga; 55 it is really not a rod in the usual sense, for this term suggests to the German the thought of birch switches with which children are punished. Nor is it a cane used by invalids and the aged for walking. But it refers to a mace held upright, such as a judge holds in his hand when he acts in his official capacity. As luxury increased in the world, this mace was made of silver or of gold. Now it is called a scepter, that is, a royal rod. Skeptron is a Greek word, but it has now been taken up into the German language. In his first Book,w Homer describes his

w The Iliad, Book 1, lines 245f.

493

53. In his Addition to Lyra’s comment on Gen. 49:10, Paul of Burgos mentions one Rabbi Moses who maintains that the passage is messianic in character. “These are noteworthy words,” Paul writes, “although they are often maliciously denied by the Jews.” Herman Hailperin, in his study of Rashi and the Christian Scholars, acknowledges that “The Haggadah (Targum, Midrash) was the starting point of the line of the messianic interpretation of Gen. 49:10; the Church then adopted it formally.” 54. I.e., the Aramaic Targumim. Luther uses the common medieval term for these ancient versions. For his argument in the following pages he is very closely dependent on the text of Genoan Salvagus Porchetus, whose Victoria adversus impios Hebraeos was brought out in a printed edition in Paris in 1520. This same treatise by Porchetus was to serve as the chief source of Luther’s Von Schem Hamphoras, which was published later in 1543 (see this volume, p. 609–66). Lyra and Paul of Burgos also had stressed the significance of the Aramaic text. 55. The Latin term means simply “rod.”

494

56. A statement not supported by modern etymological research.

57. Translated “the ruler’s staff” by the NRSV, though Luther (following the Aramaic) interprets it differently. See the following paragraph.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD King Achilles as having a wooden scepter adorned with small silver nails. From this we learn what scepters originally were and how they gradually came to be made entirely of silver and gold. In brief, it is the rod, whether of silver, wood, or gold, carried by a king or his representative. It symbolizes nothing other than dominion or kingdom. Nobody questions this. To make it very clear: the Chaldaean translator does not use the word shebet, mace or scepter; but he substitutes the person who bears this rod, saying shultan, indicating that a prince, lord, or king shall not depart from the house of Judah; there shall be a sultan in the house of Judah until the Messiah comes. “Sultan” is also a Hebrew term, and a word well known to us Christians, who have waged war for more than six hundred years against the sultan of Egypt, and have gained very little to show for it. For the Saracens call their king or prince “sultan,” that is, lord or ruler or sovereign. From this the Hebrew word schilt is derived, which has become a thoroughly German word (Schild [“shield”]).56 It is as though one wished to say that a prince or lord must be his subjects’ shield, protection, and defense, if he is to be a true judge, sultan, or lord, etc. Some people even try to trace the German term Schultheiss [“village mayor”] back to the word “sultan”; I shall not participate in this debate. Saphra is the same as the Hebrew sopher (for Chaldee and Hebrew are closely related, indeed they are almost identical, just as Saxons and Swabians both speak German, but still there is a great difference). The word sopher we commonly translate into the German as Kanzler [“chancellor”]. Everyone, including Burgensis, translates the word saphra with scriba or scribe. These people are called scribes in the gospels. They are not ordinary scribes who write for wages or without official authority. They are sages, great rulers, doctors and professors, who teach, order, and preserve the law in the state. I suppose that it also encompasses the chancelleries, parliaments, councillors, and all who by wisdom and justice aid in governing. That is what Moses wishes to express with the word mehoqeq,57 which designates one who teaches, composes, and executes commands and decrees. Among the Saracens, for instance, the sultan’s scribes or secretaries, his doctors, teachers, and scholars, are those who teach, interpret, and preserve the Qur’an as the law of the land. In the papacy the pope’s scribes or saphra are the canonists or jackasses who teach and preserve his decretals and laws. In the empire the doctores

About the Jews and Their Lies

495

Scribes of the diverse population of the kingdom of Sicily (left to right): Greeks, Saracens, Latins. From Liber ad honorem Augusti of Peter of   Eboli  (1196).

legum, the secular jurists, are the emperor’s saphra or scribes who teach, administer, and preserve the imperial laws. Thus Judah, too, had scribes who taught and preserved the law of Moses, which was the law of the land. Therefore we have translated the word mehoqeq with “master,” that is, doctor, teacher, etc. So this passage, “The mehoqeq, i.e., master, will not be taken from between his feet” [Gen. 49:10], means that teachers and listeners who sit at their feet will remain in an orderly government. For every country, if it is to endure, must have these two things: power and law. The country, as the saying goes, must have a lord, a head, a ruler. But it must also have a law by which the ruler is guided. These are the mace and the mehoqeq, or sultan and saphra. Solomon indicates this also, for when he had received the rod, that is, the kingdom, he prayed only for wisdom so that he might rule the people justly (1 Kings 3). For wherever sheer power prevails without the law, where the sultan is guided by his arbitrary will and not by duty, there is no government, but tyranny, akin to that of Nero, Caligula, Dionysius, Henry of Brunswick, and their like. 58 Such does not endure long. On the other hand, where there is law but no power to enforce it, there the wild mob will also do its will and no government can

58. Romans emperors Nero (37–68) and Caligula (12–41) were notoriously evil. Dionysus may refer to the ancient despotic ruler of Syracuse (4th century bce). Along with these proverbially evil rulers, Luther names his contemporary Henry, Duke of BraunschweigWolfenbüttel (1489–1568), who had proved a tenacious opponent of the Lutheran cause. For more on Henry, see Luther’s Against Hanswurst, LW 41:185–256.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

496 59. A fundamental motif in Luther’s conception of political dynamics, recurring frequently in his writings. See, for example, his discussion of the role of the “law” and the “sword” in his On Secular Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed, this volume, pp. 79–129; LW 45:118ff. The subtitle of Luther’s treatise conveys his foremost concern that the rejection of the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman church would lead to the rejection of the political authority of government. Arguably, Luther must have been convinced that reform was possibly only with at least the tacit support of secular government. His treatise, in other words, should be understood foremost as an exposition of his views on what constitutes proper obedience to political authority against the background of his general understanding of secular authority. Luther was concerned that the pursuit of reform not lead to rejection of governmental authority. 60. Luther adds here the following marginal note: Vide Burgen. Gen. 49. addi. 3 (“See Burgensis on Genesis 49, Addition 3”). The point made by Paul of Burgos, which is found also in Lyra and other medieval controversialists, is that under the Sanhedrin, since it was drawn from the house of Judah, the scepter had not yet “departed from Judah.” Herod, however, was a foreigner; under his reign, therefore, the Messiah had to come. In line with traditional Christian exegesis, Luther’s interpretation assumes that there prevailed only a single Jewish notion of the nature and coming of the Messiah; modern scholarship has pointed to a diversity of messianic conceptualizations.

survive. Therefore both must be present: law and power, sultan and saphra, to supplement one another. 59 Thus the councilors who gathered in Jerusalem and who were to come from the tribe of Judah were the saphra; the Jews called them the Sanhedrin.60 Herod, a foreigner, an Edomite, did away with this, and he himself became both sultan and saphra, mace and mehoqeq in the house of Judah, lord and scribe. Then the saying of the patriarch began to be fulfilled that Judah was no longer to retain the government or the saphra. Now it was time for the Messiah to come and to occupy his kingdom and sit on the throne of David forever, as Isaiah 9[:6f.] prophesies. Therefore let us now study this saying of the patriarch. “Judah,” he declares, “your brothers shall praise you,” etc. [Gen. 49:8]. This, it seems to me, requires no commentary; it states clearly enough that the tribe of Judah will be honored above all of his brothers and will enjoy the prerogative. The text continues: “Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies,” etc. This also declares plainly that the famous and prominent tribe of Judah must encounter enemies and opposition, but that all will end successfully and victoriously for it. I continue: “Your father’s sons shall bow down before you,” etc. Again it is clear that this does not refer to the captivity but to the rule over his brothers, all of which was fulfilled in David. But not only did the tribe of Judah, in David, become lord over his brothers; he also spread his rule beyond, like a lion, forcing other nations into submission; for instance the Philistines, the Syrians, the Moabites, the Ammonites, the Edomites. This is what he praises in these beautiful words [Gen. 49:9]: “Judah is a lion’s whelp; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down, he crouched as a lion, and as a lioness; who dares to rise up against him?”  x This is to say that he was enthroned and established a kingdom which no one could overwhelm, though the neighboring nations frequently and mightily tried to do so. All right, up to this point the patriarch has established, ordained, and confirmed the kingdom, the sultan, the rod, the saphra in the tribe of Judah. There Judah, the sultan, sits enthroned for his rule. What is to happen now? This, he says: x

Following Luther’s German. The NRSV has for the last phrase, “Who dares rouse him up?”

About the Jews and Their Lies He shall remain thus until the Messiah comes; that is, many will oppose him, attempting to overthrow and destroy the kingdom and simply make it disappear from the earth. The histories of the kings and the prophets amply testify that all the Gentile nations ever earnestly strove to do this. And the patriarch himself declares, as we heard before, that Judah must have its foes. For such is the course of events in the world that wherever a kingdom or principality rises to a position of might, envy will not rest until it is destroyed. All of history illustrates this with numerous examples. However, in this instance the Holy Spirit states: This kingdom in the tribe of Judah is mine, and no one shall take it from me, no matter how angry and mighty he may be, even if the gates of hell should try. The words will still prove true: Non auferetur, “It shall not be taken away.” You devils and Gentiles may say: Auferetur, we shall put an end to it, we shall devour it, we shall silence it, as Psalm 74 bemoans. But it shall remain undevoured, undevastated. “The shebet or sultan shall not depart from the house of Judah, nor the saphra from his children’s children,” until the shiloh or Messiah comes—no matter how you all rant and rage. And when he does appear, the kingdom will become far different and still more glorious. For since you would not tolerate the tribe of Judah in a little, narrow corner, I shall change him into a truly strong lion who will become sultan and saphra in all the world. I will do this in such a way that he will not draw a sword nor shed a drop of blood, but the nations will voluntarily and gladly submit themselves to him and obey him. Such shall be his kingdom. For after all, the kingdom and all things are his. Approach the text, both Chaldaean and Hebrew, with this understanding and this thought, and I wager that your heart together with the letters will surely tell you: By God! that is the truth, that is the patriarch’s meaning. And then consult the histories to ascertain whether this has not happened and come to pass in this way and still continues to do so. Again you will be compelled to say: It is truly so. For it is undeniable that the sultan and saphra remained with the tribe of Judah until Herod’s time, even if it was at times feeble and was not maintained without the opposition of mighty foes. Nevertheless, it was preserved. Under Herod and after Herod, however, it fell into ruin and came to an end. It was so completely destroyed that even Jerusalem, once the

497

498

61. Referring to a swindler, an imposter. 62. Luther presents various Jewish interpretations of the text, gleaned from his sources in the anti-Jewish literature. The first is found in Margaritha’s Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (see n. 19, p. 459).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD throne-seat of the tribe of Judah, and the land of Canaan were wiped out. Thus the verse was fulfilled which said that the sultan has departed and the Messiah has come. I do not have the time at present to demonstrate what a rich fountainhead this verse is and how the prophets drew so much information from it concerning the fall of the Jews and the election of the Gentiles, about which the modern Jews and bastards know nothing at all. But we have clearly and forcefully seen from this verse that the Messiah had to come at the time of Herod. The alternative would be to say that God failed to keep his promise and, consequently, lied. No one dare do that save the accursed Devil and his servants, the false bastards and strange Jews. They do this incessantly. In their eyes God must be a liar. They claim that they are right when they assert that the Messiah has not yet come, despite the fact that God declared in very plain words that the Messiah would come before the scepter had entirely departed from Judah. And this scepter has been lost to Judah for almost fifteen hundred years now. The clear words of God vouch for this, and so do the visible effect and fulfillment of these same words. What do you hope to accomplish by engaging an obstinate Jew in a long dispute on this? It is just as though you were to talk to an insane person and prove to him that God created heaven and earth, according to Genesis 1, pointing out heaven and earth to him with your hands, and he would nevertheless prattle that these are not the heaven and earth mentioned in Genesis 1, or that they were not heaven and earth at all, but were called something else, etc. For this verse, “The scepter shall not depart from Judah,” etc., is as clear and plain as the verse, “God created heaven and earth.” And the fact that this scepter has been removed from Judah for almost fifteen hundred years is as patent and manifest as heaven and earth are, so that one can readily perceive that the Jews are not simply erring and misled but that they are maliciously and willfully denying and blaspheming the recognized truth in violation of their conscience. Nobody should consider such a person worthy of wasting a single word on him, even if it dealt with Markolf the mockingbird, 61 much less if it deals with such exalted divine words and works. But if anyone is tempted to become displeased with me, I will serve his purpose and give him the Jews’ glosses on this text. First62 I will present those who do not dismiss this text but adhere to it, particularly to the Chaldaean version, which no sen-

About the Jews and Their Lies sible Jew can deny. These twist and turn as follows: To be sure, they say, God’s promise is certain; but our sins prevent the fulfillment of the promise. Therefore we still look forward to it until we have atoned, etc. Is this not an empty pretext, even a blasphemous one? As if God’s promise rested on our righteousness, or fell with our sins! That is tantamount to saying that God would have to become a liar because of our sin, and conversely, that he would have to become truthful again by reason of our righteousness. How could one speak more shamefully of God than to imply that he is a shaking reed which is easily swayed back and forth either by our falling down or standing up? If God were not to make a promise or keep a promise until we were rid of sin, he would have been unable to promise or do anything from the very beginning. As David says in Psalm 130[:3]: “If you, O Lord, should mark iniquity, Lord, who could stand?” And in Psalm 102 [143:2]: “Enter not into judgment with your servant; for no one living is righteous before you.” And there are many more such verses. The example of the children of Israel in the wilderness can be mentioned here. God led them into the land of Canaan without any righteousness on their part, in fact, with their great sins and shame, solely on account of his promise. In Deuteronomy 9[:5] Moses says: “Know therefore that the Lord your God is not giving you this good land to possess because of your righteousness; for you are a stubborn and a disobedient people (it seems to me that this may indeed be called sin), but because of the promise which the Lord gave to your fathers,” etc. By way of example he often wanted to exterminate them, but Moses interceded for them. So little was God’s promise based upon their holiness. It is true that wherever God promises anything conditionally, or with reservation, saying: “If you will do that, I will do this,” then the fulfillment is contingent on our action; for instance, when he declared to Solomon [1 Kings 9], “If you will keep my statutes and my ordinances, then this house shall be consecrated to me; if not, I shall destroy it.” However, the promise of the Messiah is not thus conditional.63 For he does not say: “If you will do this or that, then the Messiah will come; if you fail to do it, he will not come.” But he promises him unconditionally, saying: “The Messiah will come at the time when the scepter has departed from Judah.” Such a promise is based only on divine truth and grace, which ignores and disregards our doings. That

499

63. Luther here invokes a basic aspect of the distinction between law and gospel: the promises of the law are conditional upon human performance, while the promises of the gospel (as found also in the Old Testament, even as law is found in the New) are unconditionally conveyed to the believer.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

500

renders this subterfuge of the Jews inane, and, moreover, very blasphemous. The others who depart from this text subject almost every single word to severe and violent misinterpretation. They really do not deserve to have their drivel and filth heard; still, in order to expose their disgrace we must exercise a bit of patience and also listen to their nonsense. For since they depart from the clear meaning of the text, they already stand condemned by their own conscience, which would constrain them to heed the text; but to vex us, they conjure up the Hebrew words before our eyes, as though we were not conversant with the Chaldaean text. Somey engage in fantasies here and say that Shiloh refers to the city of that name, where the ark of the covenant was kept (Judges 21 [cf. 1 Sam. 4:3]), so that the meaning would be that the scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh comes, that is, until Saul is anointed king of Shiloh. That is surely foolish prattle. Prior to King Saul not only did Judah have no scepter, but also neither did Israel. How, then, can it have departed when Saul became king? The text declares that Judah had first been lord over his brothers and that he then became a lion, and therefore received the scepter. Likewise, before Saul’s time no judge was lord or prince over the people of Israel, as we gather from Gideon’s speech to the people in reply to their wish that he and his descendants rule over them: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you; the L ord will rule over you” (Judges 7 [8:23]). Nor was there a judge from the tribe of Judah, except perhaps for Othniel [Judg. 3:9], Joshua’s immediate successor. All the others to Saul were from the other tribes. And although Othniel is called Caleb’s youngest brother, this does not prove that he was of the tribe of Judah, since he may have had a different father. And it does not make sense that Shiloh should here refer to a city or to Saul’s coronation in Shiloh, for Saul was anointed by Samuel in Ramath (1 Samuel 10) and confirmed at Gilgal. In any case, what is the meaning of the Chaldaean text which says that the kingdom belongs to Shiloh and that nations shall be subject to it? When was the city of Shiloh or Saul ever accorded such an honor? Israel is one nation, not many, with one body of laws, one divine worship, one name. There are many nations, however, which have different and varied laws, names, and gods. y

As reported by Lyra in the Postilla on Gen. 49:10.

About the Jews and Their Lies Now Jacob declares that not the one nation Israel—which was already his or was under Judah’s scepter—but other nations would fall to Shiloh. Therefore, this foolish talk reflects nothing other than the great stubbornness of the Jews, who will not submit to this saying of Jacob, although they stand convicted by their own conscience. Othersz indulge in the fancy that Shiloh refers to King Jero­ boam, who was crowned in Shiloh, and to whom ten tribes of Israel had defected from Rehoboam, the king of Judah (1 Kings 12). Therefore, they say, this is Jacob’s meaning: The scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh, that is, Jeroboam, comes. This is just as inane as the other interpretation; for Jeroboam was not crowned in Shiloh but in Shechem (1 Kings 12). Thus the scepter did not depart from Judah, but the kingdom of   Judah remained, together with the tribe of Benjamin and many of the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of these two tribes, as we hear in 1 Kings 12. Moreover, the entire priesthood, worship, temple, indeed everything remained in Judah. Furthermore, Jeroboam never conquered the kingdom of   Judah, nor did other nations fall to him, as they were to fall to Shiloh. The third groupa babbles thus: “Shiloh means ‘sent,’ and this term applies to Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.” So the meaning is that the scepter shall not depart from Judah until Shiloh, that is, the King of Babylon, comes. He was to lead Judah into exile and destroy it. This also does not hold water, and a child learning his letters can disprove it. For Shiloh and shiloch are two different words. The latter may mean “sent.” But that is not the word found here; it is Shiloh, and that, as the Chaldee says, means “Messiah.” But the King of Babylon is not the Messiah who is to come from Judah, as the Jews and all the world know very well. Nor did the scepter depart from Judah even though the Jews were led captive into Babylon. That was just a punishment for seventy years. Also during that time great prophets—Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel—appeared who upheld the scepter and said how long the exile would be. Furthermore, Jehoiachin, the King of Judah, was regarded as a king in Babylon. And many of those who were led away into captivity returned home again during their lifetime (Haggai 2). This cannot be viewed as loss of the scepter, but as z Cf. Lyra, ibid. a Lyra, ibid., and Porchetus, Victoria, I. 2, 4–6.

501

502

64. In the second edition of the treatise, published late in 1545, Luther added at this point: “And what is promised, even though it is not yet present, is far more certain than what is present if it has not been promised. For the former must surely come, but the latter is never secure.” Cf. WA 53:459. Luther’s sentiment echoes here the dichotomy he delineated in his Heidelberg Disputation (1518), TAL 1:67–119, about the “theology of glory” and the “theology of the cross.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD a light flogging. Even if they were deprived of their country for a while by way of punishment, God nonetheless pledged his precious word that they could remain assured of their land.64 But during the past fifteen hundred years not even a dog, much less a prophet, has any assurance concerning the land. Therefore the scepter has now definitely departed from Judah. I have written more about this against the Sabbatarians. The fourth groupb twists the word shebet and interprets it to mean that the rod will not depart from Judah until Shiloh, that is, his son, will come, who will weaken the Gentiles. These regard the rod as the punishment and exile in which they are now living. But the Messiah will come and slay all the Gentiles. That is humbug. It ignores the Chaldaean text entirely—something they may and dare not do—and is a completely arbitrary interpretation of the word shebet. They overlook the preceding words in which Jacob makes Judah a prince and a lion or a king, adding immediately thereafter that the scepter, or shebet, shall not depart from Judah. How could such an odd meaning about punishment follow right on the heels of such glorious words about a principality or kingdom? The sins which provoked such a punishment would have to have been proclaimed first. But all that we find mentioned here are praise, honor, and glory to the tribe of Judah. And even if the word shebet does designate a rod for punishment, how would that help them? For the judge’s or the king’s rod is also a rod of punishment for the evildoers. Indeed, the rod of punishment cannot be any but a judge’s or sultan’s rod, since the right to administer punishment belongs solely to the authority (Deuteronomy 32): Mihi vindicatam, “Vengeance is mine.” In any event, this meaning remains unshaken—that the scepter or rod of Judah shall remain—even if this rod is one of punishment. But this arbitrary interpretation of the rabbis points to a foreign rod that does not rest in Judah’s hand but on Judah’s back and is wielded by a foreign hand. Even if this meaning were possible— which it is not—what would we do with the other passage that speaks of the saphra or mehoqeq at his feet? This would then also have to be a foreign lord’s mehoqeq and a foreign nation’s feet. But since Jacob declares that it is to be Judah and the mehoqeq of his

b Lyra, Postilla on Gen. 49:10; also reported by Raymund Martin, Pugio Fidei, II, 4.

About the Jews and Their Lies feet, the other term, the rod, must also represent the rule of his tribe [. . .] c And finally there is a rabbi who twists the word “come” and claims that it means “to set,” just as the Hebrew uses the word “to come” for the setting of the sun. This fellow is given to such nonsense that I am at a loss to understand whether he is trying to walk on his head or on his ears. For I fail to understand the purport of his words when he says that the scepter will not depart from Judah until Shiloh (the city) goes down (sets). Then David, the Messiah, will come. Where, to repeat what was said above, was the scepter of Judah prior to Shiloh or Saul? But they who rage against their own conscience and patent truth must needs speak such nonsense. In brief, Lyra is right when he says d that even if they invent these and many other similar glosses, the Chaldaean text topples all of them and convicts them of being willful liars, blasphemers, and perverters of God’s word. However, I wanted to present this to us Germans65 so that we might see what rascals the blind Jews are and how powerfully the truth of God in our midst stands with us and against them. And now that some have noticed that such evasions and silly glosses are null and void, they admit that the Messiah came at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem; but, they say, he is secretly in the world, dwelling in Rome among beggars and doing penance until the time for his public appearance is at hand. e These are not the words of Jews or of individuals but those of the arrogant, jeering Devil, who through the Jews most bitterly and venomously mocks us Christians and our Christ, as if to say: “The Christians glory much in their Christ, but they have to submit to the yoke of the Romans; they must suffer and be beggars in the world, not only in the days of the emperors, but also in those of the pope. After all, they are impotent in my kingdom, the world, and I will surely remain their master.” Yes, vile devil, just mock and laugh your fill over this now; you will still tremble enough for it.

c Paragraph deleted (LW 47:189). d In the Postilla. Cf. Hailperin, Rashi and the Christian Scholars, 159f. e Cf. Tractate Sanhedrin 98a. Salo W. Baron makes reference to this tradition in his Social and Religious History of the Jews, vol. XIII (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), 112.

503

65. The phrase “what rascals the blind Jews are” neatly epitomizes Luther’s fundamental stance in this treatise. The Jews must be considered “blind” because they do not see the obvious and literal meaning of their own scriptures. And yet, they continue to cause much mischief.

504

66. German: Schwaermer. Luther used the term in the mid-1520s to refer to those who “swarm” about the biblical text, such as Thomas Müntzer (1489–1525), Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (1486–1541), and Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531). It was Luther’s fundamental assertion that his antagonists preferred to base their theologies not on the word, but on their own flights of fancy, dreams, and visions. The best study remains E. Gordon Rupp, Patterns of Reformation (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009). 67. Luther’s own statement in the latter part of this paragraph seems to make the incident described to have been pivotal in his negative attitude toward Jews. This is strange, for it leaves the place of the virtually simultaneous That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523) unclear (see this volume, pp. 391–439). Also, the divergence between Judaism and Christianity must surely have been clear to Luther as well. It must have been clear as well at the outset that no agreement would be possible, although it probably was the steadfastness that triggered Luther’s adverse reaction to the personal contact. Note also the sermon preached on the Twentyfifth Sunday after Trinity in 1526 (WA 20:547ff.). Commenting on Jer. 23:6 (“This is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness.’”), which he interprets from a messianic perspective, Luther notes that the application of the sacred name to Christ is proof of his divinity. He then adds: “I myself have discussed this with the Jews, indeed with the most learned of them, who knew the Bible so well that there was not a single letter in

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Thus the words of Jacob fared very much the same as did these words of Christ in our day: “This is my body which is given for you.” The enthusiasts66 distorted each word singly and collectively, putting the last things first, rather than accept the true meaning of the text, as we have observed. It is clear in this instance too that Christians such as Lyra, Raymund, Burgensis, and others certainly went to great lengths in an effort to convert the Jews. They hounded them from one word to another, just as foxes are hunted down. But after having been hounded a long time, they continue to persist in their obstinacy and now are ready to err consciously, and would not disagree with their rabbis. Thus we must let them go their way and ignore their malicious blasphemy and lies. I once experienced this myself.67 Three learned Jews came to me, hoping to discover a new Jew in me because we were beginning to read Hebrew here in Wittenberg, and remarking that matters would soon improve since we Christians were starting to read their books. When I debated with them, they gave me their glosses, as they usually do. But when I forced them back to the text, they soon fled from it, saying that they were obliged to believe their rabbis as we do the pope and the doctors, etc. I took pity on them and give them a letter of recommendation to the authorities, asking that for Christ’s sake they let them freely go their way. But later, I found out that they called Christ a tola, that is, a hanged highwayman. Therefore I do not wish to have anything more to do with any Jew. As St. Paul says, they are consigned to wrath; the more one tries to help them the baser and more stubborn they become. Leave them to their own devices.68 We Christians, however, can greatly strengthen our faith with this statement of Jacob, assuring us that Christ is now present and that he has been present for almost fifteen hundred years—but not, as the Devil jeers, as a beggar in Rome; rather, as a ruling Messiah. If this were not so, then God’s word and promise would be a lie. If the Jews would only let Sacred Scripture be God’s word, they would also have to admit that there has been a Messiah since the time of Herod (no matter where), rather than awaiting another. But before doing this, they will rather tear and pervert Scripture until it is no longer Scripture. And this is in fact their situation: They have neither Messiah nor Scripture, just as Isaiah 28 prophesied of them. But may this suffice for the saying of Jacob. Let us take

About the Jews and Their Lies another saying which the Jews did not and cannot twist and distort in this way. In the last words of David, f we find him saying (2 Samuel 23[:2f.]): “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, his word is upon my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel. . . .” And a little later [v. 5]: “Does not my house stand so with God?” Or, to translate it literally from the Hebrew: “My house is of course not thus,” etc. That is to say: “My house is, after all, not worthy; this is too glorious a matter and is too much that God does all of this for a poor man like me.” “For he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure.” Note well how David exults with so numerous and seemingly superfluous words that the Spirit of God has spoken through him and that God’s word is upon his tongue. Thus he says: “The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel,” etc. It is as if he were to say: “My dear people, give ear. Whoever can hear, let him hear. Here is God, who is speaking and saying, ‘Listen,’” etc. What is it, then, that you exhort us to listen to? What is God saying through you? What does God wish to say to you? What shall we hear? This is what you are to hear: that God made an everlasting, firm, and certain covenant with me and my house, a covenant of which my house is not worthy. Indeed, my house is nothing compared to God; and yet he does this. What is this everlasting covenant? Oh, open your ears and listen! My house and God have bound themselves together forever through an oath. This is a covenant, a promise that must exist and endure forever. For it is God’s covenant and pledge, which no one shall or can break or hinder. My house shall stand eternally; it is “ordered in all things and secure.” The word aruk (“ordered”) conveys the meaning that it will not disappoint or fail one in the least. Have you heard this? And do you believe that God is truthful? Yes, without doubt. My dear people, do you also believe that he can and will keep his word? Well and good, if God is truthful and almighty and spoke these words through David—which no Jew dares to deny—then David’s house and government (which are the same thing) must have endured since the time David spoke these words, and must f

A text that Luther was to examine at length in his treatise The Last Words of David, published later in 1543. He had already touched on it briefly in Sabbatarians (see above, p. 450 and n. r, p. 455).

505 it that they did not understand. I held up this text to them, and they could not think of anything to refute me. Finally, they said that they believed their Talmud; this is their exegesis, and it says nothing about Christ. They had to follow this interpretation. Thus they do not stick to the text but seek to escape it. For if they held to this text alone, they would be vanquished.” Cf. WA 20:569f. The incident is also referred to in a table remark of Luther from the year 1540, where the names of the three Jews are given as Samaria, Schlomo, and Leo, and are identified as “three rabbis.” The account notes that the conversation ended with both Luther and the Jews expressing the hope for the conversion of the other. WA TR 4:619f., no. 5026. 68. Luther’s recounting his personal experience, together with his evaluation, makes it clear how perturbed he was by his inability to convert his three visitors.

506

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD still endure and will endure forever—that is, eternally. Otherwise, God would be a liar. In brief, either we must have David’s house or heir, who reigns from the time of David to the present and in eternity, or David died as a flagrant liar to his last day, uttering these words (as it seems) as so much idle chitchat: “God speaks, God says, God promises.” It is futile to join the Jews in giving God the lie, saying that he did not keep these precious words and promises. We must, I say, have an heir of David from his time onward, in proof of the fact that his house has never stood empty—no matter where this heir may be. For his house must have been continuous and must ever so remain. Here we find God’s word that this is an everlasting, firm, and certain covenant, without a flaw, but everything in it must be aruk, magnificently ordered, as God orders all his work. Psalm 111[:3]: “Full of honor and majesty in his work.” Now let the Jews produce such an heir of David. For they must do so, since we read here that David’s house is everlasting, a house that no one will destroy or obstruct, but rather as we also read here [2 Sam. 23:4], it shall be like the sun shining forth, which no cloud can thwart. If they are unable to present such an heir or house of David, then they stand completely condemned by this verse, and they show that they are surely without God, without David, without Messiah, without everything, that they are lost and eternally condemned. Of course, they cannot deny that the kingdom or house of David lasted without interruption until the Babylonian captivity, even throughout the Babylonian captivity, and following this to the days of Herod. It endured, I say, not by its own power and merit but by virtue of this everlasting covenant made with the house of David. For most of their kings and rulers were evil, practicing idolatry, killing the prophets, and living shamefully. For example, Rehoboam, Joram, Joash, Ahaz, Manasseh, etc., surpassed all the Gentiles or the kings of Israel in vileness. Because of them, the house and tribe of David fully deserved to be exterminated. That was what finally happened to the kingdom of Israel. However, the covenant made with David remained in effect. The books of the kings and of the prophets exultantly declare that God preserved a lamp or a light for the house of David that he would not permit to be extinguished. Thus we read in 2 Kings 8[:19] and in 2 Chronicles 21[:7]: “Yet the Lord would not destroy the house of David because of the covenant which he had made with David, since he had promised

About the Jews and Their Lies to give a lamp to him and to his sons forever.” The same thought is expressed in 2 Samuel 7[:12f.]. By way of contrast, look at the kingdom of Israel, where the rule never remained with the same tribe or family beyond the second generation, with the exception of Jehug who by reason of a special promise carried it into the fourth generation of his house. Otherwise it always passed from one tribe to another, and at times scarcely survived for one generation; moreover, it was not long until the kingdom died out completely. But through the wondrous deeds of God the kingdom of Judah remained within the tribe of Judah and the house of David. It withstood strong opposition on the part of the Gentiles round about, from Israel itself, from uprisings within, and from gross idolatries and sins, so that it would not have been surprising if it had perished in the third generation under Rehoboam, or at least under Joram, Ahaz, and Manasseh. But it had a strong Protector who did not let it die or let its light become extinguished. The promise was given that it would remain firm, eternally firm and secure. And so it has remained and must remain down to the present and also forever; for God does not and cannot lie. The Jews drivel that the kingdom perished with the Babylonian captivity. As I said earlier, this is empty talk; for this constituted but a short punishment, definitely confined to a period of seventy years. God had pledged his word for that. Moreover, he preserved them during this time through splendid prophets. Furthermore, King Jehoiachin was exalted above all the kings in Babylon, and Daniel and his companions ruled not only over Judah and Israel but also over the Babylonian Empire. h Even if their seat of government was not in Jerusalem for a short span of time, they nonetheless ruled elsewhere much more gloriously than in Jerusalem. Thus we may say that the house of David did not become extinct in Babylon but shone more resplendently than in Jerusalem. They only had to leave their native land for a while by way of punishment. For when a king takes the field of a foreign country he cannot be regarded as an ex-king because he is not in his native land, especially if he is attended by great victory and good fortune against many nations. Rather one should say that he is more illustrious abroad than at home. g Cf. 2 Kings 9ff. h Cf. Dan. 2:48.

507

508

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD If God kept his covenant from the time of David to that of Herod, preserving his house from extinction, he must have kept it from that time on to the present, and he will keep it forever, so that David’s house has not died and cannot die eternally. For we dare not rebuke God as half truthful and half untruthful, saying that he kept his covenant and preserved David’s house faithfully from David’s time to that of Herod, but that after the time of Herod he began to lie and to become deceitful, ignoring and altering his covenant. No, for as the house of David remained and shone up to Herod’s time, thus it had to remain under Herod and after Herod, shining to eternity. Now we note how nicely this saying of David harmonizes with that of the patriarch Jacob: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the mehoqeq from his feet until Messiah comes, and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples” [Gen. 49:10]. How can it be expressed more clearly or differently that David’s house will shine forth until the Messiah comes? Then, through him, the house of David will shine not only over Judah and Israel but also over the Gentiles, or over other and more numerous countries. This indeed does not mean that it will become extinct, but that it will shine farther and more lustrously than before his advent. And thus, as David says, this is an eternal kingdom and an eternal covenant. Therefore, it follows most cogently from this that the Messiah came when the scepter departed from Judah—unless we want to revile God by saying that he did not keep his covenant and oath. Even if the stiff-necked, stubborn Jews refuse to accept this, at least our faith has been confirmed and strengthened by it. We do not give a fig for their crazy glosses, which they have spun out of their own heads. We have the clear text. These last words of David—to revert to them once more—are founded on God’s own word, where he says to him, as he here boasts at his end: “Would you build me an edifice to dwell in?” (2 Sam. 7[:5]). You can read what follows there—how God continues to relate that until now he has lived in no house, but that he had chosen him [i.e., David] to be a prince over his people, to whom he would assign a fixed place and grant him rest, concluding, “I will make you a house” [cf. 2 Sam. 7:11]. That is to say: Neither you nor anyone else will build me an edifice to dwell in; I am far, far too great for that, as we read also in Isaiah 66. No, I will build you a house. For thus says the Lord, as Nathan asserts: “The Lord declares to you that the Lord will make you

About the Jews and Their Lies a house” [2 Sam. 7:11]. Everyone is familiar with a house built by a human—a very perishable structure fashioned of stone and wood. But a house built by God means the establishing of the father of a family who would ever after have heirs and descendants of his blood and lineage. Thus Moses says in Exodus 1[:21] that God built houses for the midwives because they did not obey the king’s command, but let the infants live and did not kill them. On the other hand, he breaks down and extinguishes the houses of the kings of Israel in the second generation. Thus David has here a secure house, built by God, which is to have heirs forever. It is not a plain house; no, he says, “You shall be prince over my people Israel” [2 Sam. 7:8]. Therefore it shall be called a princely, a royal house—that is, the house of Prince David or King David, in which your children shall reign forever and be princes such as you are. The books and histories of the kings prove this true, tracing it down to the time of Herod. Until that time the scepter and saphra are in the tribe of Judah. Now follows the second theme, concerning Shiloh. How long shall my house thus stand and how long shall my descendants rule? He answers thus [2 Sam. 7:12-16]: “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you who shall come forth from your body (utero— that is, from your flesh and blood), and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. When he commits iniquity, I will chastise him with the rod of men (as one whips children), with the stripes of the sons of men; but I will not take my steadfast love from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.” This statement is found almost verbatim also in 1 Chronicles 18 [17:11-14], where you may read it. Whoever would refer these verses to Solomon would indeed be an arbitrary interpreter. For although Solomon was not yet born at this time, indeed the adultery with his mother Bathsheba

509

Nathan announces God’s covenant with David (2 Samuel 7) by Pierre Eskrich (c. 1550−c. 1590)

510

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD had not yet even been committed, he is nonetheless not the seed of David born after David’s death, of whom the text says, “When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you.” For Solomon was born during David’s lifetime. It would be foolish, yes, ridiculous, to say that the term “raised up” here means that Solomon should be raised up after David’s death to become king or to build the house; for three other chapters (1 Kings 1, 1 Chronicles 24 [28], and 1 Chronicles 29) attest that Solomon was not only instated as king during his father’s lifetime, but that he also received command from his father David, as well as the entire plan of the temple, of all the rooms, its detailed equipment, and the organization of the whole kingdom. It is obvious that Solomon did not build the temple or order the kingdom or the priesthood according to his own plans but according to those of David, who prescribed everything, in fact, already arranged it during his lifetime. There is also a great discrepancy and a difference in words between 2 Samuel 7 and 1 Chronicles 24 [28] and 29. The former states that God will build David an eternal house, the latter that Solomon shall build a house in God’s name. The former passage states without any condition or qualification that it shall stand forever and be hindered by no sin. The latter passage conditions its continuance on Solomon’s and his descendants’ continued piety. Since he did not remain pious, he not only lost the ten tribes of Israel but was also exterminated in the seventh generation. The former is a promissio gratiae [“a promise of grace”], the latter a promissio legis [“a promise of law”]. In the former passage David thanks God that his house will stand forever; in the latter he does not thank God that Solomon’s temple will stand forever. In other words, the two passages refer to different times and to different things and houses. And although God does call Solomon his son in the latter also and says that he will be his father, this promise is dependent on the condition that Solomon will remain pious. Such a condition is not found in the former passage. It is not at all rare that God calls his saints, as well as the angels, his children. But the son mentioned in 2 Samuel 7[:14] is a different and special son who will retain the kingdom unconditionally and be hindered by no sin. Also the prophets and the psalms quote 2 Samuel 7, which speaks of David’s seed after his death, whereas they pay no attention to 1 Chronicles 24 [28] and 29, which speak of Solomon. In

About the Jews and Their Lies Psalm 89[:1-4] we read: “I will sing of thy steadfast love, O Lord, forever; with my mouth I will proclaim your faithfulness to all generations. For your steadfast love was established forever, your faithfulness is firm as the heavens. You have said, ‘I have made a covenant with my chosen one, I have sworn to David my servant: “I will establish your descendants forever, and build your throne for all generations.” ’ ” These too are clear words. God vows and swears an oath to grant David his grace forever, and to build and eternally preserve his house, seed, and throne. Later, in verse 19, we have an express reference to the true David. This verse contains the most beautiful prophecies of the Messiah, which cannot apply to Solomon. For he was not the sovereign of all kings on earth, nor did his rule extend over land and sea. These facts cannot be glossed over. Furthermore, the kingdom did not remain with Solomon’s house. He had no absolute promise with regard to this, but only a promise conditional on his piety. But it was the house of David that had the promise, and he had more sons than Solomon. And as the history books report, the scepter of Judah at times passed from brother to brother, from cousin to cousin, but always remained in the house of David. For instance, Ahaziah left no son, and Ahaz left none, so according to the custom of Holy Scripture the nephews had to be heirs and sons.i Anyone who would venture to contradict such clear and convincing statements of Scripture regarding the eternal house of David, which are borne out by the histories, showing that there were always kings or princes down to the Messiah, must be either the Devil himself or whoever is his follower. For I can readily believe that the Devil, or whoever it may be, would be unwilling to acknowledge a Messiah, but still he would have to acknowledge David’s eternal house and throne. For he cannot deny the clear words of God in his oath vowing that his word would not be changed and that he would not lie to David, not even by reason of any sin, as the aforementioned psalm [Psalm 89] impressively and clearly states. Now such an eternal house of David is nowhere to be found unless we place the scepter before the Messiah and the Messiah after the scepter, and then join the two together: namely, by i

On Ahaziah, cf. 2 Kgs. 1:17. The reference to Ahaz is erroneous; cf. 2 Kgs. 16:20; 2 Chron. 28:27.

511

512

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD asserting that the Messiah appeared when the scepter departed and that David’s house was thus preserved forever. In that way God is found truthful and faithful in his word, covenant, and vow. For it is obvious that the scepter of Judah completely collapsed at the time of Herod, but much more so when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem j and the scepter of Judah. Now if David’s house is eternal and God truthful, then the true King of Judah, the Messiah, must have come at that time. No barking, interpreting, or glossing will change this. The text is too authoritative and too clear. If the Jews refuse to admit it, we do not care. For us it is enough that, first of all, our Christian faith finds here most substantial proof, and that such verses afford me very great joy and comfort that we have such strong testimony also in the Old Testament. Second, we are certain that even the Devil and the Jews themselves cannot refute this in their hearts and that in their own consciences they are convinced. This can surely and certainly be noted by the fact that they twist this saying of Jacob concerning the scepter (as they do all of Scripture) in so many ways betraying that they are convinced and won over, and yet refuse to admit it. They are like the Devil, who knows very well that God’s word is the truth and yet with deliberate malice contradicts and blasphemes it. The Jews feel distinctly that these verses are solid rock and their interpretation nothing but straw or spider web. But with willful and malicious resolve they will not admit this; yet they insist on being and on being known as God’s people, solely because they are of the blood of the patriarchs. Otherwise they have nothing of which to boast. As to what lineage alone can effect, we have spoken above. k It is just as if the Devil were to boast that he was of angelic stock, and by reason of this was the only angel and child of God, a prophet long after the kingdom of Israel had been destroyed and exiled, when only the kingdom of Judah still existed, which itself was soon to go into captivity in Babylon, as he foretold to them and even experienced during his lifetime. Yet despite this, he dares to say in chapter 33[:17ff.]: “For thus says the Lord : ‘David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel, and the Levitical priests shall never lack a man in my presence to offer

j See n. 105, p. 539. k See pp. 450–73.

About the Jews and Their Lies burnt offerings, to burn cereal offerings, and to make sacrifices forever.’ ” “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: ‘Thus says the L ord : If you can break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night will not come at their appointed time, then also my covenant with David my servant may be broken, so that he shall not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with the Levitical priests my ministers. . . .’ “The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: ‘Have you not observed what these people are saying, “The L ord has rejected the two families which he chose”? Thus they have despised my people so that they are no longer a nation in their sight. Thus says the Lord : If I have not established my covenant with day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth, then I will reject the descendants of Jacob and David my servant and will not choose one of his descendants to rule over the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes, and will have mercy upon them.’” What can we say about this? Whoever can interpret it, let them do so. Here we read that not only David but also the Levites will endure forever; and the same for Israel, the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. It is emphasized that David will have a son who will sit on his throne eternally, just as surely as day and night continue forever. On the other hand, we hear that Israel will be led away into captivity, and also Judah after her, but that Israel will not be brought home again as Judah will be. Tell me, how does all this fit together? God’s word cannot lie. Just as God watches over the course of the heavens, so that day and night follow in endless succession, so too David (that is, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), must have a son on his throne uninterruptedly. God himself draws this comparison. It is impossible for the Jews to make sense of it; for they see with their very eyes that neither Israel nor Judah has had a government for nearly fifteen hundred years; in fact Israel has not had one for over two thousand years. Yet God must be truthful, do what we will. The kingdom of David must rule over the seed of Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham, as Jeremiah states here, or Jeremiah is not a prophet but a liar. I shall let the Jews reconcile and interpret this as they will or can. For us this passage leaves no doubt; it affirms that David’s house will endure forever, also the Levites, and Abraham’s, Isaac’s, and Jacob’s seed under the son of David, as long

513

514

69. Luther takes these terms to be six names, which might be rendered using the terminology of the RSV: “Wonderful, Counselor, God, Mighty One, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.” The NRSV renders these as four names, combining “Wonderful Counselor” and “Mighty God.” 70. Luther does not in fact deal with the passage again. This suggests haste in developing the argument and writing the treatise. One must conclude that Luther did not read his manuscript pages over again. This would not be at all unusual for Luther; we are told that the printer had a way of tearing Luther’s manuscript pages out of his hands no sooner than he had written it.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD as day and night—or as it is otherwise expressed, as long as sun and moon—endure. If this is true, then the Messiah must have come when David’s house and rule ceased to exist. Thus David’s throne assumed more splendor through the Messiah, as we read in Isaiah 9[:6f.]: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called Pele, Joets, El, Gibbor, Abi-gad, Sar shalom.69 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore.” I may revert to this later,70 but here I shall refrain from discussing how the blind Jews twist these six names of the Messiah. They accept this verse and admit—as they must admit—that it speaks of the Messiah. I quote it because Jeremiah states that David’s house will rule forever: first through the scepter up to the time of the Messiah, and after that much more gloriously through the Messiah. So it must be true that David’s house has not ceased up to this hour and that it will not cease to eternity. But since the scepter of Judah departed fifteen hundred years ago, the Messiah must have come that long ago; or, as we have said above, 1,468 years ago. All of this is convincingly established by Jeremiah. However, some among us may wonder how it is possible that at the time of Jeremiah and then up to the advent of the Messiah the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob existed and remained under the tribe of Judah or the throne of David, even though only Judah remained whereas Israel was exiled. These persons must be informed that the kingdom of Israel was led into captivity and destroyed, that it never returned home and never will return home, but that Israel, or the seed of Israel, always continued to a certain extent under Judah, and that it was exiled with Judah and returned again with her. You may read about this in 1 Samuel, 1 Kings 10 [11] and 12, and 2 Chronicles 30 and 31. Here you will learn that the entire tribe of Benjamin—thus a good part of Israel—remained with Judah, as well as the whole tribe of Levi together with many members of the tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Asher, Issachar, and Zebulun who remained in the country after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel and who held to Hezekiah in Jerusalem and helped to purge the land of Israel of idols. Furthermore, many Israelites dwelt in the cities of Judah.

About the Jews and Their Lies Since we find so many Israelites living under the rule of the son of David, Jeremiah is not lying when he says that Levites and the seed of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will be found under the rule of David’s house. All of these, or at least a number of them, were taken to Babylon and returned from it with Judah, as Ezra enumerates and recounts.l      Undoubtedly many more returned of those who were led away under Sennacherib,71 since the Assyrian or Median kingdom was brought under the Persian rule through Cyrus, m so that Judah and Israel were very likely able to join and return together from Babylon to Jerusalem and the land of Canaan. For I know for certain that we find these words in Ezra 2[:70]: “And all Israel (or all who were there from Israel) lived in their towns.” And how could they live there if they had not come back? In the days of Herod and of the Messiah the land was again full of Israelites; for in the seventy weeks of Daniel, that is, in four hundred and ninety years, they had assembled again. However, they did not reestablish a kingdom.

King Sennacherib of Assyria as depicted in a relief on his palace (seventh century bce)

l The reference is to Ezra 2:1ff. m See n. 129, p. 554.

515

71. Sennacherib ruled as king of Assyria (705/704–681 bce). He made Nineveh the capital city of the kingdom. His armies invaded the northern kingdom of Israel and forced many to leave the land and be dispersed throughout Assyrian territory.

516

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Therefore the present-day Jews are very ignorant teachers and indolent pupils of Scripture when they allege that Israel has not yet returned, as though all of Israel would have to return. Actually not all of Judah returned either, but only a small number, as we gather from Ezra’s enumeration. The majority of them remained in Babylon, as did Daniel, Nehemiah, and Mordecai themselves. Similarly, the majority of the Israelites remained in Media, though they perhaps traveled to Jerusalem for the high festivals and then returned to their homes again, as Luke writes in the Acts of the Apostles [2:5ff.]. God never promised that the kingdom or scepter of Israel would be restored like that of Judah. But he did promise this to Judah. The latter had to recover it by virtue of God’s promise that he would establish David’s house and throne forever and not let it die out. For as Jeremiah declares here, God will not tolerate that anyone slander him by saying that he had rejected Judah and Israel entirely, so that they should no longer be his people and that David’s throne should come to an end, as if he had forgotten his promise, when he had promised and pledged to David an eternal house. Even though they would now have to sojourn in Babylon for a little while, still, he says, it will remain an eternal house and kingdom. I am saying this to honor and strengthen our faith and to shame the hardened unbelief of the blinded and stubborn Jews, for whom God must forever and eternally be a liar, as though he had let David’s house die out and forgotten his covenant and his oath sworn to David. For if they would admit that God is truthful, they would have to confess that the Messiah came fifteen hundred years ago, so that David’s house and throne should not be desolate for so long, as they suppose, just because Jerusalem has lain in ashes and has been devoid of David’s throne and house so long. For if God kept his promise from the time of David to the Babylonian captivity and from then to the days of Herod when the scepter departed, he must also have kept it subsequently and forever after, or else David’s house is not an eternal but a perishable house, which has ceased together with the scepter at the time of Herod. But as I have already said, God will not tolerate this. No, David’s house will be everlasting, like “day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth,” as Jeremiah puts it [Jer. 33:25]. However, since the scepter of Judah was lost at the time of Herod, it cannot be eternal unless the son of David, the Messiah, has

About the Jews and Their Lies come, seated himself on David’s throne, and become the Lord of the world. If the Jews are correct, then David’s house must have been extinct for 1,568 years,72 contrary to God’s promise and vow. This is impossible to believe. Now this is a thorough exposition of the matter, and no Jew can adduce anything to refute it. Outwardly he may pretend that he does not believe it, but his heart and his conscience are devoid of anything to contradict it. And how could God have maintained the honor of his divine truthfulness, having promised David an eternal house and throne, if he then let it stand desolate longer than intact? Let us figure this out. In the opinion of the Jews, the time from David to Herod covers not quite a thousand years. David’s house or throne stood for that length of time, inclusive of the seventy years spent in Babylon. (We would add over one hundred years to this total.) From Herod’s time, or rather let us say—for this is virtually correct—from the destruction of Jerusalem, to the year 1542 there are 1,568 years, as stated above.73 According to this computation, David’s house and throne has been empty four or five hundred years longer than it was occupied. Now inquire of stone and log whether such may be called an eternal house, especially constructed by God and preserved by his sublime faithfulness and truthfulness—a house that stands for one thousand years and lies in ashes for fourteen or fifteen hundred years! Though the Jews be as hard or harder than a diamond, the lightning and thunder of such clear and manifest truth should smash, or at least soften, them. But as I said before, our faith is cheered thereby, it is strengthened, it is made sure and certain that ours is the true Messiah, who surely came and appeared at the time when Herod took away the scepter of Judah and the saphra, n so that David’s house might be eternal and forever have a son upon his throne, as God said and swore to him and made a covenant with him. Some crafty Jew might try to confront me with my book against the Sabbatarians, in which I demonstrated that the word “eternally,” le-olam, often means not really an eternity, but merely “a long time.” Thus Moses says in Exodus 21[:6] that the master shall take the slave who wants to stay with him and bore through his ear with an awl on the door, “and he shall serve him eternally.” Here the word designates a human eternity, that is, n Cf. above, pp. 493–517.

517

72. The calculation can get confusing. Luther is simply arguing that an inordinately long time has passed since the throne of David has been empty (and that there is, therefore, cogency in the Christian argument of adding one hundred years, the approximate time between the accession of Herod the Great [placed by Luther in 31 bce] and the destruction of Jerusalem, to the 1,468 years since the latter event, according to Luther’s chronology).

73. The same figure of 1,568 must be considered a misprint if Luther is referring to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. It is correct, however, if he means to reckon from “Herod’s time” in the sense of n. 15, p. 457. The uncertainty in Luther’s meaning is reflected in the fact that some early printings of the treatise change the figure to 1,468, whereas others allow it to remain as above. Cf. WA 53:472 n. 9.

518

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD a lifetime. But I also said in the same treatise that when God uses the word “eternal,” it is a truly divine eternity. o And God commonly adds another phrase to the effect that it shall not be otherwise, as in Psalm 110[:4], “The L ord has sworn and will not change his mind.” Similarly in Psalm 132[:11]: “The Lord swore to David a sure oath from which he will not turn back,” etc. Wherever such a “not” is added, this surely means eternal and not anything else. Thus we read in Isaiah 9[:7], “Of peace there will be no end.” And in Daniel [7:14], “God’s dominion is an everlasting dominion . . . and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed.” This is eternal not in human terms, humans do not live eternally, but before God, who does live eternally. The promise states that David’s house and throne shall be eternal before God. He says: “Before me, before me,” a son shall forever sit upon your throne. In Psalm 89[:35-37] he also adds the little word “not”: “Once for all I have sworn by my holiness, I will not lie to David. His line shall endure forever, his throne as long as the sun before me. Like the moon it shall be established forever; it shall stand firm while the skies endure.” The last words of David convey the same thought: “He has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure.” These words “ordered and secure” mean the same as firm, sure, eternal, never-failing. The same applies to the saying of Jacob in Genesis 49[:10]: “The scepter shall not depart.” “Not depart” signifies eternally, until the Messiah comes; and that surely means eternally. For all the prophets assign to the Messiah an eternal kingdom, a kingdom without end. But if we assume that this refers to a human or temporal eternity or to an indefinite period of time (which is impossible), then the meaning would necessarily be as follows: Your house shall be eternal before me, that is, your house shall stand as long as it stands, or for your lifetime. This would pledge and promise David the equivalent of exactly nothing; for even in the absence of such a vow David’s house would stand “eternally,” that is, as long as it stands, or as long as he lives. But let us dismiss such nonsense from our minds, which would occur to none but a blinded rabbi. When Scripture glories in the fact that God did not want to destroy Judah because of the sins committed under Rehoboam, but that a lamp should remain to David, as God has o Cf. above, p. 517.

About the Jews and Their Lies promised him regarding his house (2 Kings 8:19), it shows that all understood the word “eternal” in its true sense. Someone might also cite here the instance of the Maccabees. p After Antiochus the Noble74 had ruthlessly ravaged the people and the country, so that the princes of the house of David became extinct, the Maccabees ruled, who were not of the house of David but of the tribe of the priests, which meant that the scepter had departed from Judah and that a son of David did not sit eternally on the throne of David. Thus the eternal house of David could not be really eternal. We reply: The Jews cannot disturb us with this argument, and we need not answer them; for none of this is found in Scripture, because Malachi is the last prophet and Nehemiah the last historian, who, as we can gather from his book, lived until the time of Alexander.75 Therefore both parties must rely, so far as this question is concerned, on Jeremiah’s statement that a son of David was to occupy his throne or rule forever. For apart from Scripture, whoever wants to concern himself with this may regard it as an open question whether the Maccabees themselves ruled or whether they served the rulers. As to the reliability of the historians, I shall have some comments later on.76 It seems to me, however, that the following incident recorded in Scripture q should not be treated lightly. At the time of Queen Athaliah, for fully six years no son of David occupied his throne; Athaliah the tyrant reigned alone. She had had all the male descendants of David slain, with the single exception of Joash, an infant a quarter- or a half-year old, who had been secretly removed, hidden in the temple, and reared by the excellent Jehosheba, the wife of the high priest Jehoiada, daughter of King Joram and sister of King Ahaziah, whom Jehu slew. Here the eternal covenant of God made with David was in great peril indeed, resting on one young lad in hiding, who was far from occupying the throne of David. At this time his house resembled a dark lantern in which the light is extinguished, since a foreign queen, a Gentile from Sidon, was sitting and reigning on David’s throne. However, she burned her backside thoroughly on that throne!

p Cf. 1 Macc. 1:10. q Cf. 2 Kgs. 11:1ff.

519

74. Antiochus IV Epiphanes (c. 215–164 bce) was ruler of the Hellenistic Syrian kingdom (Seleucids). He tried to force Greek ways on the Jewish people. In 167 bce, he and his armies stormed Jerusalem and the temple, where he had a statue of the Greek god Zeus erected. He banned worship of Yahweh and the practice of Jewish rituals associated with the temple. Judas Maccabeus (160 bce) led a successful revolt against Antiochus in 164 and reclaimed Jerusalem and reconsecrated the temple. 75. Alexander the Great (356–323 bce), ruler of Macedonia, conquered a large area surrounding the Mediterranean, including the land of Israel. 76. Luther returns to the question of the Maccabees below, pp. 531–32. The Maccabean revolt is recounted in the works of Josephus (37–100), Polybius (c. 200–118 bce), and Appian (c. 95–165). Luther’s blunt rejection of the apocryphal books, even as historical sources, contrasts with his more favorable view toward 1 Maccabees, expressed in his biblical prefaces (cf. LW 35:350). On Luther’s general attitude toward the “histories,” or history books, see further below, p. 530.

520

77. An insightful statement of Luther’s understanding of the Deus absconditus. This theme is most poignantly developed in Luther’s treatise against Erasmus, De Servo Arbitrio, in which he argues that there is both a Deus revelatus, a God who revealed himself, and a “hidden” God who is beyond human understanding and comprehension.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Still, all of this did not mean that the scepter had departed or that God’s eternal covenant was broken. For even if the light of David was not shining brightly at this time, it was still glimmering in that child Joash, who would again shine brightly in the future and rule. He was already born as a son of David, and these six years were nothing but a tentatio, a temptation. God often gives the appearance that he is unmindful of his word and is failing us. This he did with Abraham when he commanded him to burn to ashes his dear son Isaac, in whom, after all, God’s promise of the eternal seed was embodied. Likewise when he led the children of Israel from Egypt. In fact, he seemed to be leading them into death, with the sea before them, high cliffs on both sides, and the enemy at their back blocking their way of escape. But matters proceeded according to God’s word and promises; the sea had to open, move, and make way for them. If the sea had not done this, then the cliffs would have had to split asunder and make a path for them, and they would have squeezed and squashed Pharaoh between them, just as the sea drowned the foe. For all creatures would rather have to perish a thousand thousand times than that God’s word should fail and deceive, however strange things may appear. Thus Joash is king through and in God’s word, and occupies the throne of David before God although he still lies in the cradle, yes, even if he lay dead and buried under the ground; for in spite of all he would have to rise, like Isaac, from the ashes. In such a manner we might also account for that story of the Maccabees; but this is unnecessary, for it has an entirely different meaning. The Babylonian captivity might be viewed similarly; however, thanks to splendid prophets and miracles, the situation at that time was much brighter. But Joash posed a terrible temptation for the house of David, against the covenant and the oath of God, although the house and rule of David still flourished; it was only the ruler, or the head, that was suffering and that faltered in God’s covenant. But this is the manner of his divine grace, that he sometimes plays and jokes with his own. He hides himself and disguises himself so that he may test us to see whether we will remain firm in faith and love toward him, just as a father sometimes does with his children.77 Such jesting of our heavenly Father pains us immeasurably, since we do not understand it. However, this is out of place here. I have been speaking about a statement of Jeremiah. I shall

About the Jews and Their Lies now turn our attention to one of the last prophets. r In Haggai 2[:6-9] we read: “For thus says the L ord of hosts: once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the consolation of the Gentiles (chemdath) shall come, and I will fill this house with splendor, says the L ord of hosts. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine, says the Lord of hosts. The splendor of this latter house s shall be greater than the former, says the Lord of hosts; and in this place I will give prosperity, says the Lord of hosts.” This is another of those passages which pains the Jews intensely. They test it, twist it, interpret and distort almost every word, just as they do the statement of Jacob in Genesis 49. But it does not help them. Their conscience pales before this passage; it senses that their glosses are null and void. Lyra t does well when he plies them hard with the phrase adhuc modicum, “in a little while.” They cannot elude him, as we shall see. “In a little while,” he says, cannot possibly mean a long period of time. Lyra is surely right here; no one can deny it, not even a Jew, try as hard as he may. In a little while, he says, the consolation of the Gentiles will come, after this temple is built—that is, he will come when this temple is still standing. And the splendor of this latter temple will be greater than that of the former. And this will happen shortly, i.e., “in a little while.” For it is easily understood that if the consolation of the Gentiles, whom the ancients interpret as the Messiah, did not come while that temple was still standing, but is still to come (the Jews have been waiting 1,568 years78 already since the destruction of that temple, and this cannot be termed “a little while,” especially since they cannot foresee the end of this long time), then he will never come, for he neglected to come in this little, short time, and now has entered upon the great, long time, which will never result in anything. For the prophet speaks of a short, not a long time.

r s t

Luther here turns to his third major proof text. Luther’s translation; the NRSV reads, “the latter splendor of this house.” In his Pulcherrimae quaestiones cited in WA 53:476 n. 3.

521

78. Possibly, this should read “1,468 years.” Cf. above, p. 514 and nn. 72–73, p. 517.

522

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD But they extricate themselves from this difficulty as follows. Since they cannot ignore the words “in a little while,” they take up and crucify the expression “consolation of the Gentiles,” in Hebrew chemdath, just as they did earlier with the words shebet and shiloh in the saying of Jacob. u They insist that this term does not refer to the Messiah, but that it designates the gold and silver of all the Gentiles. Grammatically, the word chemdath really means desire or pleasure; thus it would mean that the Gentiles have a desire for or take pleasure and delight in something. So the text must read thus: In a short time the desire of all Gentiles will appear. And what does this mean? What do the Gentiles desire? Gold, silver, gems! You may ask why the Jews make this kind of gloss here. I will tell you. Their breath stinks with lust for the Gentiles’ gold and silver; for no nation under the sun is greedier than they were, still are, and always will be, as is evident from their accursed usury. So they comfort themselves that when the Messiah comes he will take the gold and silver of the whole world and divide it among them. Therefore, wherever they can quote Scripture to satisfy their insatiable greed, they do so outrageously. One is led to believe that God and his prophets knew of nothing else to prophesy than of ways and means to satisfy the bottomless greed of the accursed Jews with the Gentiles’ gold and silver. However, the prophet has not chosen his words properly to accord with this greedy understanding. He should have said: In a little while the desire of the Jews shall come. For the Jews are the ones who desire gold and silver more avidly than any other nation on earth. In view of that, the text should more properly speak of the desire of the Jews than of the Gentiles. For although the Gentiles do desire gold and silver, nevertheless here are the Jews who desire and covet this desire of the Gentiles, who desire that it be brought to them so that they may devour it and leave nothing for the Gentiles. Why? Because they are the noble blood, the circumcised saints who have God’s commandments and do not keep them, but are stiff-necked, disobedient, prophetmurderers, arrogant, usurers, and filled with every vice, as all of Scripture and their present conduct bear out. Such saints, of course, are properly entitled to the Gentiles’ gold and silver. They

u Cf. above, pp. 493–502.

About the Jews and Their Lies honestly and honorably deserve it for such behavior—just as the Devil deserves paradise and heaven. Further, how does it happen that these very intelligent teachers and wise, holy prophets do not also apply the word “desire” (chemdath) to all the other desires of the Gentiles? For the Gentiles desire not only gold and silver but also beautiful girls, and the women desire handsome young men. Jews (I almost said “misers”) will not bestow any good on their bodies,79 but among the Gentiles we will not find anything other than they desire beautiful houses, gardens, cattle, and other assets, as well as good times, clothes, food, drink, dancing, merry-making, and all sorts of other enjoyment. Why, then, do the Jews not interpret this verse of the prophet to mean that such desires of all the Gentiles also will shortly come to Jerusalem, so that the Jews alone might fill their bellies and feast on the world’s joys? For such a mode of life Muhammad promises his Saracens. In that respect he is a genuine Jew, and the Jews are genuine Saracens according to this interpretation. The Gentiles have another desire. How could these wise, clever interpreters overlook it? I am surprised. The Gentiles die, and they are afflicted with much sickness, poverty, and all kinds of distress and fear. There is not one of them who does not most ardently wish that he did not have to die, that he could avoid need, misery, and sickness, or be quickly freed from them and secure against them. This desire is so pronounced that they would gladly surrender all others for its fulfillment, as experience shows daily. Why, then, do the Jews not explain that such desire of all the Gentiles will also come to the temple in Jerusalem in a little while? Shame on you, here, there, or wherever you may be, you damned Jews, that you dare to apply this earnest, glorious, comforting word of God so despicably to your mortal, greedy belly, which is doomed to decay, and that you are not ashamed to display your greed so openly. You are not worthy of looking at the outside of the Bible, much less of reading it. You should read only the bible that is found under the sow’s tail, and eat and drink the letters that drop from there. 80 That would be a bible for such prophets, who root about like sows and tear apart like pigs the words of the divine majesty, which should be heard with all honor, awe, and joy. Furthermore, when the prophet says that “the splendor of this latter house shall be greater than the former,” let us listen

523

79. What Luther here enumerates as the “desires” of the Gentiles meshes harmoniously with his anthropology. Accordingly, he offers a descriptive as well as a theological appraisal.

80. Luther’s crude language and image were surely suggested by the stone relief at the exterior wall of the parish church in Wittenberg which he describes in the treatise On the Schem Hamphoras, this volume, p. 645; WA 53:600. See versions of this image on pp. 401 and 645 of this volume.

524

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD to these noble and filthy (I meant to say, circumcised) saints and wise prophets who want to make Jews of us Christians.v The greater splendor of the latter temple compared to the former consists [they say] in this: that it (that is, the temple of Haggai) stood ten years longer than the temple of Solomon, etc.w Alas, if they had only had a good astronomer who could have worked out the time a little more precisely. Perhaps he would have found the difference between the two to be three months, two weeks, five days, seven hours, twelve minutes, and ten half-minutes over and above the ten years. If there were a store anywhere that offered blushes for sale, I might give the Jews a few florins to go and buy a pound of them to smear over their forehead, eyes, and cheeks, if they would refuse to cover their impudent heart and tongue with them. Or do these ignorant, stupid asses suppose that they are talking to sticks and blocks like themselves? There were many old, gray men and women, very likely also beggars and villains in Jerusalem when Solomon, a young man of twenty years, became a glorious king. Should these, for that reason, be more glorious than Solomon? Perhaps David’s mule, on which Solomon became king, was older than Solomon. Should he by reason of that be greater than Solomon? But thus those will bump their heads, stumble, and fall who incessantly give God the lie and claim that they are in the right. They deserve no better fate than to compose such glosses on the Bible, such foolishness and ignominy. This they indeed do most diligently. Therefore, dear Christian, be on your guard against the Jews, who, as you discover here, are consigned by the wrath of God to the Devil, who has not only robbed them of a proper understanding of Scripture, but also of ordinary human reason, shame, and sense, and only works mischief with Holy Scripture through them. Therefore they cannot be trusted and believed in any other matter either, even though a truthful word may drop from their lips occasionally. For anyone who dares to juggle the awesome word of God so frivolously and shamefully as you see it done here, and as you also noted earlier with regard to the words of Jacob cannot have a good spirit dwelling in him. Therefore,

v Cf. the treatise Against the Sabbatarians. w Lyra, in the Postilla on Hag. 2:9, attributes this explanation to “certain Jews.”

About the Jews and Their Lies wherever you see a genuine Jew, you may with a good conscience cross yourself and bluntly say: “There goes a devil incarnate.” These impious scoundrels know very well that their ancient predecessors applied this verse of Haggai to the Messiah, as Lyra, Burgensis, and others testify. 81 And still they wantonly depart from this and compose their own Bible out of their own mad heads, so that they hold their wretched Jews with them in their error, in violation of their conscience and to our vexation. They think that in this way they are hurting us greatly, and that God will reward them wherever for his sake (as they imagine) they have opposed us Gentiles even in open, evident truth. But what happens, as you have seen, is that they disgrace themselves and do not harm us, and further, forfeit God and his Scripture. Thus the verse reads: “Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land (these are the islands of the sea) and the chemdath of all Gentiles shall come”—that is, the Messiah, the Desire of all Gentiles, which we translated into German with the word Trost [“consolation”]. The word “desire” does not fully express this thought, since in German it reflects the inward delight and desire of the heart (active). But here the word designates the external thing (passive) which a heart longs for. It would surely not be wrong to translate it with “the joy and delight of all Gentiles.” In brief, it is the Messiah, who would be the object of displeasure, disgust, and abomination for the unbelieving and calloused Jews, as Isaiah 53 prophesies. The Gentiles, on the other hand, would bid him welcome as their heart’s joy, delight, and every wish and desire. For he brings them deliverance from sin, death, devil, hell, and every evil, eternally. This is, indeed, the Gentiles’ desire, their heart’s delight, joy, and comfort. This agrees with the saying of Jacob in Genesis 49[:10], “And to Shiloh (or the Messiah) shall be the obedience of the peoples.” That is to say, they will receive him gladly, hear his word and become his people, without coercion, without the sword. It is as if he wished to say: The ignoble, uncircumcised Gentiles will do this, but my noble rascals, my circumcised, lost children will not do it, but will rather rave and rant against it. Isaiah 2[:2f.] and Micah 4[:1f.] also agree with this: “It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be raised above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it (doubtless

525

81. Lyra in Pulcherrimae quaestiones, commenting on Hag. 2:9, remarks that “according to all the Jewish exegetes, the desired one is identified with the Messiah or the Anointed One, the Christ.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

526

82. The passage occurs, with only minute differences, in both Isaiah and Micah; Luther quotes from Isaiah.

83. A common supposition in the medieval period concerning Jewish attitudes. Lyra, for example, in explaining at the conclusion of his Pulcherrimae quaestiones why the Jews resist conversion, comments: “From the cradle they are nourished with a hatred of Christ and of Christian practice. Thus they curse Christians all day long in the synagogue. What men know from childhood becomes second nature to them. Consequently, the Jews’ rational judgment is prejudiced against any different truth.” Lyra fails to understand that such is universal sentiment when religions confront one another. Luther, who was convinced that Jews not only harbored a deeply rooted hostility toward Christians but also were out to harm them physically at every turn, nonetheless seems to suggest that he is pleading with Jews to accept Christians as “joint heirs” of the covenant and the Messiah. The similar references in patristic literature to the “daily cursing of Christ in the synagogues” may well refer to the insertion of a malediction against all heretics into the synagogue liturgy near the end of the first century.

voluntarily, motivated by desire and joy) and many people shall come, and say: ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his path.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the L ord from Jerusalem.”82 Thus the prophets speak throughout of the kingdom of the Messiah established among the Gentiles. Yes, this is it, this is the bone of contention, that is the source of the trouble, that makes the Jews so angry and foolish and spurs them to arrive at such an accursed meaning, forcing them to pervert all the statements of Scripture so shamefully: namely, they do not want, they cannot endure that we Gentiles should be their equal before God and that the Messiah should be our comfort and joy as well as theirs. I say, before they would have us Gentiles—whom they incessantly mock, curse, damn, defame, and revile—share the Messiah with them, and be called their co-heirs and brethren, they would crucify ten more Messiahs and kill God himself if this were possible, together with all angels and all creatures, even at the risk of incurring thereby the penalty of a thousand hells instead of one. Such an incomprehensible stubborn pride dwells in the noble blood of the fathers and circumcised saints. They alone want to have the Messiah and be masters of the world. The accursed Goyim must be servants, give their desire (that is, their gold and silver) to the Jews, and let themselves be slaughtered like wretched cattle. They would rather remain lost consciously and eternally than give up this view. From their youth they have imbibed such venomous hatred against the Goyim from their parents and their rabbis, and they still continuously drink it. 83 As Psalm 109[:18] declares, it has penetrated flesh and blood, marrow and bone, and has become part and parcel of their nature and their life. And as little as they can change flesh and blood, marrow and bone, so little can they change such pride and envy. They must remain thus and perish, unless God performs extraordinarily great miracles. If I wished to vex and anger a Jew severely, I would say: “Listen, Jehudi, do you realize that I am a real brother of all the holy children of Israel and a co-heir in the kingdom of the true Messiah?” Without doubt, I would meet with a nasty rebuff. If he could stare at me with the eyes of a basilisk, x he would surely do it. And all the x

See n. 46, p. 487 above.

About the Jews and Their Lies

527

devils could not carry out the evil he would wish me, even if God were to give them leave—of that I am certain. However, I shall refrain from doing this, and I ask also that no one else do so, for 84. In contrast to his 1523 treatise, Christ’s sake. For the Jews’ heart and mouth would overflow with in which Luther left no doubt that a cloudburst of cursing and blaspheming of the name of Jesus these allegations, no matter how Christ and of God the Father. We must conduct ourselves well widespread, were false, he here accepts and not give them cause for this if we can avoid it, just as I must their accuracy. He does so, however, not provoke a madman if I know that he will curse and blasin the intriguingly roundabout way of stating on the one hand that he does pheme God. Quite apart from this, the Jews hear and see enough not know if the specific allegations in us for which they ever blaspheme and curse the name of Jesus are true, while on the other declaring in their hearts; for they really are possessed. that Jews are altogether capable of As I have already said, they cannot endure to hear or to see such egregious deeds. The number that we accursed Goyim should glory in the Messiah as our chemof such murders attributed to Jewish dath, and that we are as good as they are or as they think they ritual is embarrassingly large. See are. Therefore, dear Christian, be advised and do not doubt that the cases recounted in the article on “Blood Accusation,” in The Universal next to the Devil, you have no more bitter, venomous, and veheJewish Encyclopedia (Ktav, 1969); and ment foe than a real Jew who earnestly seeks to be a Jew. There for an extended treatment, see Joshua may perhaps be some among them who believe what a cow or Trachtenberg, The Devil and the Jews: goose believes, but their lineage and circumcision infect them The Medieval Conception of the Jew and Its all. Therefore the history books often accuse them of contamiRelation to Modern Antisemitism, chs. 9 and nating wells, of kidnaping and piercing children, as for example 10 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1943). at Trent, Weissensee, etc. 84 They, of course, deny this. Whether it is true or not, I do know that they do not lack the complete, full, and ready will to do such things either secretly or openly where possible. This you can assuredly expect from them, and you must govern yourself accordingly. If they do perform some good deed, you may rest assured that they are not prompted by love, nor is it done with your benefit in mind. Since they are compelled to live among us, they do this for reasons of expediency; but their heart remains and is as I have described it. If you do not want to believe me, read Lyra, Burgensis, and other truthful and honest men. And even if they had not recorded it, you would find that Scripture tells of the two seeds, the serpent’s and This engraving from Nuremberg (c. 1479) depicts Simon of Trent, a child who was allegedly kidnapped and killed the woman’s. It says that these are enemies, and by Jews. Simon became known as a martyr, and his death that God and the Devil are at variance with each was illustrated in several church frescoes and appeared other. Their own writings and prayer books also in many forms of anti-Jewish literature of the time. state this plainly enough.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

528

A person who is unacquainted with the Devil might wonder why they are so particularly hostile toward Christians. They have no reason to act this way, since we show them every kindness. They live among us, enjoy our shield and protection, they use our country and our roads, our markets and streets. Meanwhile our princes and rulers sit there and snore with mouths hanging open and permit the Jews to take, steal, and rob from their open money-bags and treasures whatever they want. That is, they let the Jews, by means of their usury, skin and fleece them and their subjects and make them beggars with their own money. For the Jews, who are exiles, should really have nothing, and whatever they have must surely be our property. They do not work, and they do not earn anything from us, nor do we give or present it to them, and yet they are in possession of our money and goods and are our masters in our own country and in their exile. A thief is condemned to hang for the theft of ten florins, and if he robs anyone on the highway, he forfeits his head. But when a Jew steals and robs ten tons of gold through his usury, he is more highly esteemed than God himself. In proof of this we cite the bold boast with which they strengthen their faith and give vent to their venomous hatred of us, as they say among themselves: “Be patient and see how God is with us, and does not desert his people even in exile. We do not labor, and yet we enjoy prosperity and leisure. The accursed Goyim have to work for us, but we get their money. This makes us their masters and them our servants. Be patient, dear children of Israel, better times are in store for us, our Messiah will still come if we continue thus and acquire the chemdath of all the Gentiles by usury and other methods.” Alas, this is what we endure for them. They are under our shield and protection, and yet, as I have said, they curse us. But we shall revert to this later.y I am now speaking about the fact that they cannot tolerate having us as co-heirs in the kingdom of the Messiah, and that he is our chemdath, as the prophets abundantly attest. What does God say about this? He says that he will give the chemdath to the Gentiles, and that their obedience shall be pleasing to him, as Jacob affirms in Genesis 49, together with all the prophets. He

y

See p. 578.

About the Jews and Their Lies says that he will oppose the obduracy of the Jews most strenuously, rejecting them and choosing and accepting the Gentiles, even though the latter are not of the noble blood of the fathers or circumcised saints. For thus says Hosea 2[:23]: “And I will say to Not my people, ‘You are my people’; and he shall say, ‘Thou are my God.’” But to the Jew he says [in Hos. 1:9]: “Call his name Not my people (lo-ammi), for you are not my people and I am not your God.” Moses, too, had sung this long ago in his song [Deut. 32:21]: “They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; they have provoked me with their vain deeds. So I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people; I will provoke them with a foolish nation.” This verse has been in force now for nearly fifteen hundred years. We foolish Gentiles, who were not God’s people, are now God’s people. That drives the Jews to distraction and stupidity, and over this they became Not-God’s-people, who were once his people and really should still be. But let us conclude our discussion of the saying of Haggai. We have convincing proof that the Messiah, the Gentiles’ chemdath, appeared at the time when this temple was standing. Thus the ancients understood it, and the inane flimsy glosses of the present-day Jews also testify to this, since they do not know how to deny it except by speaking of their own shame. For he who gives a hollow, meaningless, and irrelevant answer shows that he is defeated and condemns himself. It would have been better and less shameful if he had kept quiet, rather than giving a pointless answer that disgraces him. Thus Haggai 2[:6f.] says, “Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, and the desire of all the Gentiles shall come.” This is how I, in the simplicity of my mind, understand these words: Since the beginning of the world there has been enmity between the seed of the serpent and that of the woman, and there has always been conflict between them—sometimes more, sometimes less. For wherever the Seed of the woman is or appears, he causes strife and discord. This he says in the gospel: “I have not come to bring peace on earth, but a sword and disunity” [cf. Matt. 10:34]. He takes the armor from the strong man fully armed who had peace in his palace [Luke 11:22]. The latter cannot tolerate this, and the strife is on; angels contend against the devils in the air, and man against man on earth—all on account of the woman’s Seed. To be sure, there is plenty of strife, war, and unrest in the

529

530

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD world otherwise too; but since it is not undertaken on account of this Seed, it is an insignificant thing in God’s eyes, for in this conflict all the angels are involved. Since the advent of this Seed, or of the Messiah, was close at hand, Haggai says “in a little while.” This means that until now the strife has been confined solely to my people Israel, that is, restricted to a small area. The Devil was ever intent upon devouring them and he set all the surrounding kings upon them. For he was well aware that the promised Seed was in the people of Israel, the Seed that was to despoil him. Therefore he was always eager to harass them. And he instigated one disturbance, dissatisfaction, war, and strife after another. Well and good, now it will be but “a little while,” and I shall give him strife aplenty. I will initiate a struggle, and a good one at that—not only in a narrow nook and corner among the people of Israel, but as far as heaven and earth extend, on the sea and on dry land, that is, where it is wet and where it is dry, whether on the mainland or on the islands, at the sea or on the waters, wherever human beings dwell. Or as he says, “I will shake all the Gentiles,” so that all the angels will contend with all the devils in heaven or in the air, and all men on earth will quarrel over the Seed. For I shall send the chemdath to all Gentiles. They will love him and adhere to him, as Genesis 49 says, “The Gentiles will gather about him,” and, on the other hand, they will grow hostile to the Devil, the old serpent, and defect from him. Then all will take its due course when the god and the prince of the world grows wrathful, raves and rages because he is obliged to yield his kingdom, his house, his equipment, his worship, his power, to the chemdath and Shiloh, the woman’s Seed. Anyone can read the histories that date back to the time of Christ and learn how first the Jews and Gentiles, then the heretics, finally Muhammad, and at present the pope, have raged and still are raging “against the Lord and his Messiah” (Psalm 2[:2]), and he will understand the words of Haggai that speak of shaking all the nations, etc. There is not a corner in the world nor a spot in the sea where the gospel has not resounded and brought the chemdath, as Psalm 18 [19:3-4] declares: “There is no speech, nor are there words; their voice is not heard; yet their voice goes out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world.” The Devil too appeared promptly on the scene with murder by the hands of tyrants, with lies spoken by heretics, with all his devilish wiles and powers,

About the Jews and Their Lies which he still employs to impede and obstruct the course of the gospel. This is the strife in question. I shall begin the story of this struggle with that great villain, Antiochus the Noble. 85 Approximately three hundred years elapsed between the time of Haggai and that of Antiochus. This is the short span of time in which peace prevailed. For the kings in Persia were very kind to them, nor did Alexander harm them, and they fared well also under his successors, up to the time of this filthy Antiochus, who ushered in the unrest and the misfortune. Through him the Devil sought to exterminate the woman’s Seed. He pillaged the city of Jerusalem, the temple, the country and its inhabitants, he desecrated the temple and raged as his god, the Devil, impelled him. Practically all the good fortune of the Jews ended right here. Down to the present, they have never recovered their former position, and they never will. This will serve to supply a proper understanding of the Jews’ glosses which say that the “chemdath of all the Gentiles,” that is, gold and silver, flowed into this temple. If the earlier kings had put anything into it, then this one took it all away again. This turns their glosses upside down to read: Antiochus distributes the chemdath of all Jews among the Gentiles. Thus this verse of Haggai cannot be understood of the Gentiles’ shirt or coat. For following these three hundred years, or this “little while,” and from then on, they did not get much from the Gentiles, but rather were compelled to give them much. Soon after this, the Romans came and made a clean sweep of it, and placed Herod over them as king. 86 What Herod gave them, they soon learned. Therefore, from the time of Antiochus on they enjoyed but a small measure of peace. Daniel’s report also stops with Antiochus, as if to say: Now the end is at hand and all is over, now the Messiah is standing at the door, who will stir up ever more contention. The detestable Antiochus not only despoiled and desecrated the temple but he also suppressed the shebet or sultan, the prince in the house of David, namely, the last prince, John Hyrcanus. 87 None of his descendants again ascended the throne of David or became ruler. Only the saphra or mehoqeqz remained till Herod. From that point on David’s house looked as if its light had been extinguished, and as if there were no shultan or scepter in Judah.

z

Cf. above, pp. 494–508.

531

85. For Antiochus, see n. 74, p. 519. On the chronological considerations in the following paragraphs, see Luther’s grand chronology since creation: Supputatio annorum mundi (WA 53:119– 24). 86. The Romans conquered Greece and the Seleucid lands of the Middle East, including Jerusalem in 63 bce. Following a failed Jewish rebellion, the Romans turned Judea into a regular Roman province, and installed the Jewish King Herod the Great as administrator in 37 bce. He ruled until his death in 4 bce. 87. The son of Simon Maccabeus, he served as king and high priest from 134 to 104 bce.

John Hyrcanus the Hasmonean (Maccabean), as depicted in Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum (1553)

532

88. A German proverb. It says that bad events have participatory beginnings.

89. Rather than dismissing the question of Davidic continuity during the Maccabean period by rejecting the authority of the apocryphal accounts, as he did above (see n. 76, p. 519), Luther here relies on an argument positing continuity through the maternal line. This argument had been employed by Raymund Martin (Pugio fidei, Part Ii, ch. 4), Nicholas of Lyra (gloss on Genesis 49), and Paul of Burgos (Addition to Genesis 49 and Scrutinium, Part I, Distinction 2, ch. 2). Still another argument used by these writers was that concerning the role of the Sanhedrin, drawn from the Davidic tribe of Judah; see here WA 53. 90. Emperor Charles I of Habsburg (1500–1558), grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella, inherited the throne of Spain in 1516 through his mother, Joanna of Castile (1477–1555). In 1519, he succeeded his paternal grandfather, Maximilian I (1459–1519), as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire (though by election rather than through primogeniture). Charles’ father, Philip the Faie (r. 1487–1506), succeeded to the Duchy of Burgundy through his mother, Mary of Burgundy (1457–1482), as Luther indicates.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD It had in fact come to an end, although there were about one hundred and fifty years left until the coming of the Messiah. Such an occurrence is not unusual; anything that is going to break will first crack or burst apart a little. Whatever is going to sink will first submerge or sway a little. 88 The scepter of Judah went through the same process toward the end: it became weak, it groaned and moaned for one hundred and fifty years until it fell apart entirely at the hands of the Romans and of Herod. During these one hundred and fifty years the princes of Judah did not rule but lived as common citizens, quite impoverished. For Mary, Christ’s mother in Nazareth, states that she is a handmaid of poor and low estate [Luke 1:48]. It is also true, however, that the Maccabees fought victoriously against Antiochus. Daniel 11[:34] refers to this as “a little help.” Those who in this way ascended the throne of David and assumed the rule were priests from the tribe of Levi and Aaron. Now one could say with good reason that the royal and the priestly tribes were mixed. For in 2 Chronicles 22[:11] we read that Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and the sister of King Ahaziah, was the wife of Jehoiada, the high priest. Thus, coming from the royal house of Solomon, she was grafted into the priestly tribe and became one trunk and tree with it. Therefore she was the ancestress of all the descendants of Jehoiada the priest, a true Sarah of the priestly family. Therefore the Maccabees may indeed be called David’s blood and children, as viewed from the maternal lineage. For descent from a mother is just as valid as that from a father. 89 This is recognized also in other countries. For instance, our Emperor Charles is king in Spain by virtue of his descent from his mother and not from his father; and his father Philip was duke of Burgundy not because of his father, Maximilian, but because of his mother, Mary.90 Thus David calls all the children of Jehoiada and of Jehoshabeath his natural children, his sons and daughters, because Jehoshabeath was descended from his son Solomon. So through the Maccabees, Solomon’s family regained rule and scepter through the maternal side, after it had been lost through Ahaziah on the paternal side. It remained in David’s family until Herod, who did away with it and abolished both shultan and saphra or the Sanhedrin. Now finally, there lies the scepter of Judah and the mehoqeq, there the house of David is darkened on both the paternal and the maternal sides. Therefore the Messiah must now be

About the Jews and Their Lies

533

at hand, the true Light of David, the true Son, who had sustained his house until that time and who would sustain it and enlighten it from that point on to all eternity. This conforms to God’s promise that the scepter of Judah will remain until the Messiah appears and that the house of David will be preserved forever and will never die out. But, as we said, despite all of this God must be the Jews’ liar, who has not yet sent the Messiah as he promised and vowed. Furthermore, God says through Haggai: “I will fill this house with splendor. The silver is mine, and the gold is mine. The splendor of this latter house shall be greater than the former,” etc. [Hag. 2:7f.]. It is true that Illustration of  Joanna this temple displayed great splendor during of Castile with her parents, the three hundred years prior to Antiochus, Isabella and Ferdinand, by Pedro Marcuello (c. 1482) since the Persians and the successors of Alexander, the kings in Syria and King Philadelphus in Egypt, contributed much toward it. But despite all of this, it did not compare in magnificence with the first temple, the temple of Solomon. The text must refer to a different splendor here, or else Solomon’s temple will far surpass it. For in the first temple there was also an abundance of gold and silver, and in addition the ark of the covenant, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, Moses’ tablets, Aaron’s rod, the bread of heaven in the golden vessel, Aaron’s robes, also the Urim and Thummim and the sacred oil with which the kings and priests were anointed (Burgensis on Daniel 9). When Solomon dedicated this temple, fire fell from heaven and consumed the sacrifice, and the temple was filled with what he called a cloud of divine Majesty [2 Chron. 5:13; 7:1]. God was present in this cloud, as Solomon himself says: “The Lord has said that he would dwell in thick darkness” [2 Chron. 6:1]. He had done the same thing in the wilderness as he hovered over Moses’ tabernacle. There was none of this splendor, surpassing gold and silver, in the temple of Haggai. Yet God says that it will show forth greater splendor than the first one. Let the Jews pipe up and say what constituted this greater splendor. They cannot pass over

534

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD this in silence, for the text and the confession of the ancient Jews, their forefathers, both state that the chemdath of the Gentiles, the Messiah, came at the time when the same temple stood and glorified it highly with his presence. We Christians know that our Lord Jesus Christ, the true chemdath, was presented in the temple by his mother, and that he himself often taught and did miracles there. This is the true cloud—his tender humanity, in which God manifested his presence and let himself be seen and heard. The blind Jews may deride this, but our faith is strengthened by it, until they can adduce a splendor of the temple excelling this chemdath of all the Gentiles. That they will do when they erect the third temple, that is to say, when God is a liar, when the Devil is the truth, and when they themselves again take possession of Jerusalem—not before. a Josephus writesb that Herod razed the temple of Haggai because it was not sufficiently splendid, and rebuilt it so that it was equal or superior to the temple of Solomon in splendor. I would be glad to believe the history books; however, even if this temple had been constructed of diamonds and rubies, it would still have lacked the items mentioned from that sublime, old holy place—namely, the ark, the mercy-seat, the cherubim, etc. Furthermore, since Herod had not been commissioned by God to build it, but did so as an impious enemy of God and of his people, motivated by vanity and pride, in his own honor, his whole structure and work was not as good as the most puny little stone that Zerubbabel placed into the temple by command of God. Herod certainly did not merit much grace for tearing down and desecrating the temple which had been commanded, built, and consecrated by the word of God, and then presuming to erect a much more glorious one without God’s word and command. God permitted this out of consideration for the place which he had selected for the temple, and so that the destruction of the temple might have the negative significance that the people of Israel should henceforth be without temple, word of God, and all, that it instead would be given wholly to the splendor of the world, under the guise of the service to God. This temple was not only less splendid than Solomon’s, but it was also violated in many ways more terribly than Solomon’s a Cf. above, p. 475. b Antiquities of the Jews, Book XV, ch. 13.

About the Jews and Their Lies temple, and was often completely desecrated. This happened first, against the will of the Jews, when Antiochus robbed it of all its contents, placed an idol on the altar, sacrificed pork, and made a regular pigsty and an idolatrous desolation of the temple, instituting a horrible slaughter in Jerusalem as though he were the Devil himself, as we read in 1 Maccabees 1 and as Daniel 11 had predicted. No lesser outrage was committed by the Romans, and especially by that filthy Emperor Caligula, who also placed his mark of abomination in the temple.91 Daniel 9 and 12 speak of this. Such ignominy and disgrace were not experienced by Solomon’s temple at the hands of Gentiles and foreigners. This makes it difficult to see how Haggai’s words were fulfilled, “I will fill this temple with glory which will exceed the glory of that temple.” One might rather say that it was filled with dishonor exceeding the dishonor of that temple, that is, if one thinks of external and outward honor. Consequently, if Haggai’s words are to be accounted true, he must be referring to a different kind of splendor. Second, the Jews themselves also desecrated this temple more viciously than the other one ever was desecrated: namely, with spiritual idolatries. Lyra writes, c and others too, in many passages, that the Jews, after their return from the Babylonian captivity, did not commit idolatry or sin by killing prophets as gravely as before. Thereby he wants to prove that their present exile must be due to a more heinous sin than idolatry, the murder of the prophets, etc.—namely, the crucifixion of the Messiah. This argument is good, valid, and cogent.92 That they no longer killed the prophets is not to be attributed to a lack of evil intentions, but to the fact that they no longer had any prophets who reproved their idolatry, greed, and other vices. That is why they could no longer kill prophets. To be sure, the last prophet, Malachi, who began to rebuke the priests, barely escaped (if indeed he did escape). But they did practice idolatry more outrageously at the time of this temple than at the time of the other—not the coarse, palpable, stupid variety, but the subtle, spiritual kind. Zechariah portrays this under the image of a flying scroll and of an ephah going forth (Zechariah 5[:2, 6]). And Zechariah 11[:12] c

Luther’s reference is unclear. It does not occur in Lyra’s commentary on Haggai.

535

91. Caligula was reported to have asked that a statue of himself be erected inside the Jewish temple in Jerusalem.

92. Luther had made major use of this argument in Sabbatarians. There, however, he customarily refers basically to the Jews’ nonacceptance of Jesus as the Messiah; nor does he refer explicitly to their “crucifixion” of him as in the present passage. The charge of deicide had become the ultima ratio of the Christian anti-Jewish polemic.

536

93. Luther does not return to the theme in his treatise. 94. Luther cites no references, but his point was a commonplace in the antiJudaic literature. It is now understood that the maledictions against the Gentiles in the Talmud originated, for the most part, in times of warfare. It is clear that in the Middle Ages superstition arising out of fear of the Other reinforced this stereotype of Jewish enmity toward Christians. 95. Luther apparently felt the need of further support for the assertions made in this paragraph. In the second edition of the treatise, the following words are added at this point: “You may read further about this in Burgensis’s Additions on Isaiah 34 and Zechariah 5. There you will learn what the rabbis really teach, and you will see that I have written much too mildly against them.” Cf. WA 53:489. Luther’s acknowledgment that he had written the present treatise “too mildly” indicates the intensity of his feelings. 96. The Sadducees were the party of high priests, aristocratic families, and well-to-do merchants. Their name may traced to Zadok, the high priest in the time of kings David and Solomon. The Sadducees placed authority only in the written Torah (first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures) and rejected the authority of oral law, the post-biblical Jewish legal tradition. They also rejected the idea of life after death. Because of their social standing, they tended to be influenced by Hellenism and were on friendly terms with the Roman rulers in Palestine. With the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 ce, their influence ended.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD and 12[:10] foretell the infamy of their selling God for thirty pieces of silver and their piercing him through. More on that elsewhere; 93 is it not shame enough that the priests at the same time perverted God’s Ten Commandments so flagrantly? Tell me, what idolatry compares with the abomination of changing the word of God into lies? To do that is truly to set up idols, i.e., false gods, under the cloak of God’s name; and that is forbidden in the Second Commandment, which reads: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.” Why, their Talmud and their rabbis say94 that it is no sin for a Jew to kill a Gentile, but it is only a sin for him to kill a brother Israelite. Nor is it a sin for a Jew to break his oath to a Gentile. Likewise, they say that it is rendering God a service to steal or rob from a Goy, as they in fact do through their usury. For since they believe that they are the noble blood and the circumcised saints and we the accursed Goyim, they cannot treat us too harshly or commit sin against us, for they are the lords of the world and we are their servants, yes, their cattle.95 In brief, our evangelists also tell us what their rabbis taught. In Matthew 15[:4ff.] we read that they abrogated the Fourth Commandment, which enjoins honor of father and mother; and in Matthew 23, that they were given to much shameful doctrine, not to mention what Christ says in Matthew 5 about how they preached and interpreted the Ten Commandments so deviously, how they installed moneychangers, traders, and all sorts of usurers in the temple, prompting our Lord to say that they had made the house of God into a den of robbers [Matt. 21:13; Luke 19:46]. Now figure out for yourself what a great honor that is and how the temple is filled with such glory that God must call his own house a den of robbers because so many souls had been murdered through their greedy, false doctrine, that is, through double idolatry. The Jews still persist in such doctrine to the present day. They imitate their fathers and pervert God’s word. They are steeped in greed, in usury, they steal and murder where they can and ever teach their children to do likewise. Even this is not the greatest shame of this temple. The real abomination of all abominations, the shame of all shames, is this: that at the time of this temple there were several chief priests and an entire sect which were Sadducean,96 that is, Epicurean, who did not believe in the existence of any angel, devil, heaven, hell, or life after this life. And such fellows were expected

About the Jews and Their Lies to enter the temple, vested with the priestly office and in priestly garments, and sacrifice, pray, and offer burnt offerings for the people, preach to them, and rule them! Tell me, how much worse could Antiochus have been, with his idol and his sacrifice of pork, than were these Sadducean pigs and sows? In view of this, what remains of Haggai’s statement that this temple’s glory was greater than that of Solomon’s temple? Before God and reason, a real pigsty might be called a royal hall when compared with this temple, because of such great, horrible, and monstrous sows. [. . .] d Someone may think that I am saying too much. I am not saying too much, but too little; for I see their writings. They curse us Goyim. e In their synagogues and in their prayers they wish us every misfortune. They rob us of our money and goods through their usury, and they play on us every wicked trick they can. And the worst of it is that they still claim to have done right and well, that is, to have done God a service. And they teach the doing of such things. No pagan ever acted thus; in fact, no one acts thus except the Devil himself, or whomever he possesses, as he has possessed the Jews. Burgensis, who was one of their very learned rabbis, and who through the grace of God became a Christian—a very rare happening—was much agitated by the fact that they curse us Christians so vilely in their synagogues (as Lyra also writes), and he deduces from this that they cannot be God’s people.97 For if they were, they would emulate the example of the Jews in the Babylonian captivity. To them Jeremiah wrote, “Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the L ord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare” [Jer. 29:7]. But our bastards and pseudo-Jews think they must curse us, hate us, and inflict every possible harm upon us, although they have no cause for it. Therefore they surely are no longer God’s people. But I shall say more about this later.98 To return to the subject of Haggai’s temple, it is certain that no house was ever disgraced more than this holy house of God was by such vile sows as the Sadducees and Pharisees.99 Yet Christ calls it God’s house, because the four pillars are his.100 Therefore, to offset this disgrace a greater and different splendor d Paragraph eliminated, see LW 47:228. e See n. 83, p. 526.

537

97. Specific statements to this effect in Lyra and Burgensis have not been located. 98. See p. 594. Luther’s phrase suggests that he did not have a cogent outline for the treatise in front of him. 99. The Pharisees were a party of laymen and scribes who differed with the Sadducees in their understanding of the Torah. In addition to the written law, they followed the oral law, which consisted of the Prophets and the postbiblical legal tradition, including the Talmud. They did believe in life after death and fostered the synagogue as an institution of worship and learning. The influence of the Pharisaic party continued after the destruction of the temple and Pharisees can be said to be the forerunners of modern Judaism. 100. There is no gospel or New Testament source for this puzzling reference. Did Luther mean to refer to four dimensions of the temple?

538

101. Luther turns here to the fourth “proof” text for establishing the messiahship of Jesus. As was the case in Lyra’s Pulcherrimae quaestiones, too, the treatment of Dan. 9:24 follows upon that of Hag. 2:6-9. Luther had already dealt with the Daniel passage at considerable length in his treatise of 1523, That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, this volume, pp. 433–36; cf. LW 45:221 ff. Once again Luther’s exegetical premise was that the literal meaning of several Old Testament passages anticipated incisive details of Jesus’ story. At issue, in other words, was how could Jesus’ messianic claim be vindicated? The universal answer given until the eighteenth century and the influence of the European Enlightenment was because the literal meaning of certain Old Testament passages anticipated Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. 102. Luther refers here to a venerable tradition shared by both Jewish and Christian biblical commentators. In the Christian tradition, the exegesis of the Daniel passage has focused on the attempt to find in “seventy weeks of years” an indication of the time of Christ’s return to earth. This understanding has been particularly central in the biblical exegesis of the Watchtower Society, also known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Underlying is the premise that the Bible, if properly understood, contains details for both the first and the second coming of Jesus.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD must have inhered in it than that of silver and gold. If not, Haggai will fare ill with his prophecy that the splendor of this temple will surpass that of Solomon’s temple. Amid such colossal shame no splendor can be found here other than that of the chemdath, who will appear in a short time and surpass such shame with his splendor. The Jews can produce no other splendor; their mouth is stopped. I must break off here and leave the last part of Haggai to others, the section in which he prophesies that the Lord, as he says, “will give peace in this place” [cf. Hag. 2:9b]. Can it be possible that this applies to the time from Antiochus up to the present during which the Jews have experienced every misfortune and are still in exile? For there shall be peace in this place, says the Lord. The place is still there; the temple and peace have vanished. No doubt the Jews will be able to interpret this. The history books inform me that there was but little peace prior to Antiochus for about three hundred years, and subsequent to that time none at all down to the present hour, except for the peace that reigned at the time of the Maccabees. As I have already said, I shall leave this to others. Finally we must lend ear to the great prophet Daniel.101 A special angel with a proper name—Gabriel—talked with him. The like of this is not found elsewhere in the Old Testament. The fact that the angel is mentioned by name marks it as something extraordinary. This is what he tells Daniel: “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place” [Dan. 9:24]. I cannot now discuss this rich text, which actually is one of the foremost in all of Scripture. And, as is only natural, everybody has reflected on it; for it not only fixes the time of Christ’s advent but also foretells what he will do—namely, take away sin, bring righteousness, and do this by means of his death. It establishes Christ as the Priest who bears the sin of the whole world. This, I say, we must now set aside and deal only with the question of the time, as we determined to do—whether such a Messiah or Priest has already come or is still to come. This we do for the strengthening of our faith, against all devils and men. In the first place, there is complete agreement on this: 102 that the seventy weeks are not weeks of days but of years; that one

About the Jews and Their Lies week comprises seven years, which produces a sum total of four hundred and ninety years. That is the first point. Second, it is also agreed that these seventy weeks had ended when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. There is no difference of opinion on these two points, although many are in the dark when it comes to the matter of knowing the precise time of which these seventy weeks began and when they terminated. It is not necessary for us to settle this question here, since it is generally assumed that they were fulfilled about the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. This will suffice us for the present. If this is true—as it must be true, since after the destruction of Jerusalem none of the seventy weeks was left, then the Messiah must have come before the destruction of Jerusalem, while something of those seventy weeks still remained: namely, the last week, as the text later clearly and convincingly attests. After the seven and sixty-two weeks103 (that is, after sixty-nine weeks), namely, in the last or seventieth week, Christ will be killed—in such a way, however, that he will become alive again. For the angel says that “he shall make a strong covenant with many in the last week” [Dan. 9:27]. This he cannot do while dead; he must be alive. “To make a covenant” can have no other meaning than to fulfill God’s promise given to the fathers, namely, to disseminate the blessing promised in Abraham’s seed to all the Gentiles. As the angel states earlier [v. 24], the visions and prophecies shall be sealed or fulfilled. This requires a live Messiah, who, however, has previously been killed. But the Jews will have none of this. Therefore we shall let it rest at that and hold to our opinion that the Messiah must have appeared during these seventy weeks; this the Jews cannot refute. For in their books as well as in certain histories104 we learn that not just a few Jews but all of Jewry at that time assumed that the Messiah must have come or must be present at that very moment. This is what we want to hear! When Herod was forcibly made king of Judah and Israel by the Romans,105 the Jews surely realized that the scepter would thus depart from them. They resisted this move vigorously, and in the thirty years of their resistance many thousand Jews were slain and much blood was shed, until they finally surrendered in exhaustion. In the meantime the Jews looked about for the Messiah. Thus a hue and cry arose that the Messiah had been born—as, in truth, he had been. For our Lord Christ was born in the thirtieth year of

539

103. Cf. Dan. 9:10, which alludes to two periods of respective durations. 104. Probably referring to the writings of Josephus. 105. The Romans conquered Palestine in 63 bce. Rome appointed Herod (also known as Herod the Great) as king of Judea in 37 bce; he ruled until his death in 4 bce.

Herod depicted in a book by Nicholas Caussin (1583−1651)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

540

Herod’s reign. But Herod forcibly suppressed this report, slaying all the young children in the region of Bethlehem, so that our Lord had to be taken for refuge to Egypt. Herod even killed his own son because he was born of a Jewish mother. He was worried that through this son the scepter might revert to the Jews and that he might gain the Jews’ loyalty, since, as Philo records, f the rumor of the birth of Christ had been spread abroad. As our evangelists relate, more than thirty years later John the Baptist comes out of the wilderness and proclaims that the Lord had not only been born but also was already among them and would reign shortly after him. Suddenly thereafter Christ himself appears, preaches, and performs great miracles, so that the Jews hoped that now, after the loss of the scepter, Shiloh had come. But the chief priests, the rulers, and their followers took offense at the person, since he did not appear as a mighty king but wandered about as a poor beggar. They had made up their mind that the Messiah would unite the Jews and not only wrest the scepter from the foreign king but also subdue the Romans and all the world under himself with the sword, installing them as mighty princes over all the Gentiles. When they were disappointed in these expectations, the noble blood and circumcised saints were vexed, as people who had the promise of the kingdom and could not attain it through this beggar. Therefore they despised him and did not accept him. But when they disdained John and Christ’s message and miracles, reviling them as the deeds of Beelzebub, he spoiled and mined matters entirely. He rebuked and chided them severely— something he should not, of course, have done—for being greedy, evil, and disobedient children, fake teachers, seducers of the people, etc.; in brief, a brood of serpents and children of the Devil. On the other hand, he was friendly to sinners and tax collectors, to Gentiles and to Romans, giving the impression that he was the foe of the people of Israel and the friend of Gentiles and villains. Now the fat was really in the fire; they grew wrathful, bitter, and hateful, and ranted against him; finally they contrived the plot to kill him. And that is what they did; they crucified him as ignominiously as possible. They gave free rein to their anger, so that even the Gentile Pilate noticed this and testified that they

f

In Breviarium de Temporibus, a pseudo-Philo work; cf. WA 53:19ff.

About the Jews and Their Lies were condemning and killing him out of hatred and envy, innocently and without cause. When they had executed this false Messiah (that is the conception they wanted to convey of him), they still did not abandon the delusion that the Messiah had to be at hand or nearby. They constantly murmured against the Romans because of the scepter. Soon, too, the rumor circulated that Jesus, whom they had killed, had again arisen and that he was now really being proclaimed openly and freely as the Messiah. The people in the city of Jerusalem were adhering to him, as well as the Gentiles in Antioch and everywhere in the country. Now they really had their hands full. They had to oppose this dead Messiah and his followers, lest he be accepted as resurrected and as the Messiah. They also had to oppose the Romans, lest their hoped-for Messiah be forever bereft of the scepter. At one place a slaughter of the Christians was initiated, at another an uprising against the Romans. To these tactics they devoted themselves for approximately forty years, until the Romans finally were constrained to lay waste country and city. This delusion regarding their false Christ and their persecution of the true Christ cost them eleven times one hundred thousand men, as Josephus reports, g together with the most horrible devastation of country and city, as well as the forfeiture of scepter, temple, priesthood, and all that they possessed.106 This deep and cruel humiliation, which is terrible to read and to hear about, surely should have made them pliable and humble. Alas, they became seven times more stubborn, viler, and prouder than before. This was due in part to the fact that in their dispersion they had to witness how the Christians daily grew and increased with their Messiah. The saying of Moses found in Deuteronomy 32[:21] was now completely fulfilled in them: “They have stirred me to jealousy with what is no god; so I will stir them to jealousy with those who are no people.” Likewise, as Hosea says: “I will say to Not my people, ‘You are my people,’ but you are not my people and I am not your God” (Hosea 2[:23; 1:9]. They stubbornly insisted on having their own Messiah in whom the Gentiles should not claim a share, and they persisted in trying to exterminate this Messiah in whom both Jews and

g The Jewish War, Book VII, ch. 17.

541

106. A Jewish uprising against Roman authority led to the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 70 ce. This defeat came at the hands of the armies of   T itus (39–81 ce), who became emperor in 79 ce. This defeat brought the end of the Jewish state until modern times.

542

107. Akiba ben Joseph (c. 50–c. 132), a figure of great stature in the rabbinic tradition, lent his support to the messianic claims of Simon Bar Kokhba (d. 135), leader of the last Jewish revolt against Rome (132–135). Lyra referred to him in this connection (Gloss on Hag. 2:6–9), as did Paul of Burgos (Scrutinium, Part I, Distinction 3, ch. 3). 108. “Kokhba,” in the transliteration used by Luther; the name is also rendered “Kochba,” etc. The messianic interpretation of the term star is derived from the verses in Numbers 24. For a further discussion of the events discussed by Luther here, see the articles “Akiba ben Joseph” and “Bar Kokhba” in The Encyclopedia of Early Christianity (New York: Routledge, 1990). 109. Luther appears to combine earlier disturbances with the rebellion led by Bar Kokhba. The latter took place during the reign of Hadrian (117–138) rather than that of Trajan (98–117). On the peculiarities of his chronology at this point, see WA 53:128 n. e.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Gentiles gloried. Everywhere throughout the Roman Empire they intervened and wherever they could ferret out a Christian in any corner they dragged him out before the judges and accused him (they themselves could not pass sentence on him, since they had neither legal authority nor power) until they had him killed. Thus they shed very much Christian blood and made innumerable martyrs, also outside the Roman Empire, in Persia and wherever they could. Still they clung to the delusion that the Messiah must have appeared, since the seventy weeks of Daniel had expired and the temple of Haggai had been destroyed. However, they disliked the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and therefore they went ahead and elevated one of their own number to be the Messiah. This came about as follows. They had a rabbi, or Talmudist, named Akiba,107 a very learned man, esteemed by them more highly than all other rabbis, a venerable, honorable, gray-haired man. He taught the verses of Haggai and of Daniel, also of Jacob in Genesis 49, with ardor, saying that there had to be a Messiah among the people of God since the time fixed by Scripture was at hand. Then he chose one, surnamed Kokhba,108 which means “a star.” According to Burgensis his right name was Heutoliba. He is well known in all the history books, where he is called Ben Koziba or Bar Koziban.h This man had to be their Messiah; and he gladly complied. All the people and the rabbis rallied about him and armed themselves thoroughly with the intention of doing away with both Christians and Romans. Now they had the Messiah fashioned to their liking and their mind, who was proclaimed by the aforementioned passages of Scripture. This unrest began approximately thirty years after the de­struction of Jerusalem, under the reign of the emperor Trajan.109 Rabbi Akiba was Kokhba’s prophet and spirit who inflamed and incited him and vehemently urged him on, applying all the verses of Scripture that deal with the Messiah to him before all the people and proclaiming: “You are the Messiah!” He applied to him especially the saying of Balaam recorded in Numbers 24[:17-19], by reason of his surname Kokhba (“star”). For in that passage Balaam says in a vision: “A star shall come forth out of Jacob, and a scepter shall rise out of Israel; it shall crush the forehead h In the Hebrew and Aramaic forms, respectively in the Jewish literature; “Bar Kokhba” in the Christian literature.

About the Jews and Their Lies

543

of Moab, and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed, Seir also, his enemies, shall be dispossessed, while Israel does valiantly. By Jacob shall dominion be exercised, and the survivors of cities be destroyed!”

110. Modern reference works support Luther’s interpretation.

Coin from the Jewish Bar Kokhba rebellion. Written in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet, also known as Ktav Ivri. Obverse: Trumpets surrounded by “To the freedom of Jerusalem.” Reverse: A lyre surrounded by “Year two of the freedom of Israel.”

That was a proper sermon for thoroughly misleading such a foolish, angry, restive mob—which is exactly what happened. To insure the success of this venture and guard against its going awry, that exalted and precious Rabbi Akiba, the old fool and simpleton, made himself Kokhba’s guardsman or armor-bearer, his armiger, as the history books have it; if I am not translating the term correctly, let someone else improve on it.110 The person is meant who is positioned beside the king or prince and whose chief duty it is to defend him on the battlefield or in combat, either on horse or on foot. To be sure, something more is implied here, since he is also a prophet—a Müntzer111 (to use contemporary terms). So this is where the scepter of Judah and the Messiah now resided; they are sure of it. They carried on like this for some thirty years. Kokhba always had himself addressed as King Messiah, and butchered throngs of Christians who refused to deny our Messiah Jesus Christ.112 His captains also harassed the Romans where they could. Especially in Egypt they at one time

111. Thomas Müntzer, Luther’s antagonistic fellow reformer (see n. 66, 504). As already noted, Reformation scholars have tended to afford Müntzer a greater role in the political and strategic decision making of the insurrectionist peasants in 1525 than appears warranted. One might call him “chaplain” of the rebellious peasants whose insurrection and uprising he supported. At the same time, he delineated a vision of the Christian faith that made spiritual and physical suffering the hallmark. For more on the stormy relationship between Müntzer and Luther, see Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments (1525), TAL 2:39–125. 112. Justin Martyr (c. 100–165) charged that “In the recent Jewish war, Bar Kokhba, the leader of the Jewish uprising, ordered that only the Christians should be subjected to dreadful torments, unless they renounced and blasphemed Jesus Christ” (First Apolog y, ch. 31). Reports of widespread massacres, however, appear to be due to later exaggeration. Cf. Graetz, History of the Jews II, 409ff.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

544

113. From the Hebrew root meaning “to lie.” This appellation, however, may in fact have been derived from the name of his native city.

defeated the Roman captain during the reign of Trajan.i Now their heart, brain, and belly began to swell with conceit. God, they inferred, had to be for them and with them. They occupied a town near Jerusalem, called Bittir; in the Bible it is known as Beth-horon [Josh. 10:10]. At this point they were convinced that their Messiah, King Kokhba, was the lord of the world and had vanquished the Christians and the Romans and had carried the day. But Emperor Hadrian sent his army against them, laid siege to Bittir, conquered it, and slew Messiah and prophet, star and darkness, lord and armor-bearer. Their own books lament that there were twice eighty thousand men at Bittir who blew the trumpets, who were captains over vast hosts of men, and that forty times one hundred thousand men were slain, not including those slain at Alexandria. The latter are said to have numbered twelve times one hundred thousand. However, it seems to me that they are exaggerating enormously. I interpret this to mean that the two times eighty thousand trumpeters represent the many valiant and able-bodied men equipped for battle, each of whom would have been able to lead large bodies of soldiers in battle. Otherwise this sounds too devilishly mendacious. After this formidable defeat they themselves called Kokhba, their lost Messiah, “Kozba,”113 which rhymes with it and has a similar ring. For thus write their Talmudists: You must not read “Kokhba,” but “Kozba.” Therefore all history books now refer to him as Koziban. “Kozba” means “false.” His attempt had miscarried, and he had proved a false and not a true Messiah. Just as we Germans might say by way of rhyme: You are not a Deutscher but a Täuscher [“not a German but a deceiver”]; not a Welscher but a Fälscher [“not a foreigner of Romance origin but a falsifier”]. Of a usurer I may say: You are not a Bürger, but a Würger [“not a citizen but a slayer”]. Such rhyming is customary in all languages. Our Eusebius reports this story in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 4, chapter 6. There he uses the name Barcochabas, saying that this was an extremely cruel battle in which the Jews “were driven so far from their country that their impious eyes were no longer able to see their fatherland even if they ascended the highest mountains.”

i

See n. 109, p. 542.

About the Jews and Their Lies Such horrible stories are sufficient witness that all of Jewry understood that this had to be the time of the Messiah, since the seventy weeks had elapsed, Haggai’s temple had been destroyed, and the scepter had been wrested from Judah, as the statements of Jacob in Genesis 49, of Haggai 2, and of Daniel 9 clearly indicated and announced. God be praised that we Christians are certain and confident of our belief that the true Messiah, Jesus Christ, did come at that time. To prove this, we have not only his miraculous deeds, which the Jews themselves cannot deny, but also the gruesome downfall and misfortune, because of the name of the Messiah, of his enemies who wanted to exterminate him together with all his adherents. How could they otherwise have brought such misery upon their heads if they had not been convinced that the time of the Messiah was at hand? And I think this does surely constitute coming to grief and running their heads (now for the second time) against “the stone of offense and the rock of stumbling,” to quote Isaiah 8[:14]. So many hundreds of thousands attempted to devour Jesus of Nazareth, but over this they themselves “stumbled and fell and were broken, snared, and taken,” as Isaiah says [8:15]. Since two such terrible and awesome attempts had most miserably failed, the first at Jerusalem under Vespasian,114 the other at Bittir under Hadrian, they surely should have come to their senses, have become pliable and humble, and concluded: God help us! How does this happen? The time of the Messiah’s advent has, in accord with the prophets’ words and promises, come and gone, and we are beaten so terribly and cruelly over it! What if our ideas regarding the Messiah—that he should be a secular Kokhba—have deceived us, and he came in a different manner and form? Is it possible that the Messiah is Jesus of Nazareth, to whom so many Jews and Gentiles adhere, who daily perform so many wondrous signs? Alas, they became seven times more stubborn and baser than before. Their conception of a worldly Messiah must be right and cannot fail; there must be a mistake about the designated time. The prophets must be lying and fail rather than they. They will have nothing of this Jesus, even if they must pervert all of Scripture, have no god, and never get a Messiah. That is the way they want it. Since they were beaten into defenseless impotence by the Romans, from that time on they have turned against Scripture, and have boldly tried to take it from us and to pervert it with

545

114. Vespasian (9–79) was the Roman emperor when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed (see p. 456 and n. 15, p. 457).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

546

115. Another illustration of Luther’s sarcasm, which, together with his vindictiveness, forms the grounds of his polemic.

strange and different interpretations. They digressed from the understanding of all their forebears and prophets, and furthermore from their own reasoning. Because of this they have lost so many hundreds of thousands of people, land, and city, and have fallen prey to every misery. They have done nothing these fourteen hundred years but take any verse which we Christians apply to our Messiah and they violate it, tear it to bits, crucify it, and twist it in order to give it a different nose and mask. They deal with it as their fathers dealt with our Lord Christ on Good Friday, making God appear as the liar but themselves as the truthful ones, as you heard before. They assign practically ten different interpretations to Jacob’s saying in Genesis 49. Likewise they know how to twist the nose of Haggai’s statement. Here you have two good illustrations which show you how masterfully the Jews interpret the Scriptures, in such a way that they do not arrive at any definite meaning. They have also distorted in this fashion the passage in Daniel. I cannot enumerate all their shameful glosses, but shall mention just one—the one which Lyra and Burgensis    j consider to be the most famous and widespread among the Jews, from which they dare not depart on pain of losing their souls. It reads as follows. Gabriel says to Daniel: “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place, . . .” [Dan. 9:24]. This is the text. Now their beautiful commentary follows: “It will still be seventy weeks before Jerusalem will be destroyed and the Jews are led into exile by the Romans. This will happen so that they may be induced by this exile to depart from their sins, that they may be punished for them, pay for them, render satisfaction, atone for them, and thus115 become forever pious and merit the fulfillment of the messianic promises, the reconstruction of the holy temple,” etc. Here you perceive, in the first place, that the Jews’ immeasurable holiness presumes that God will fulfill his promise regarding the Messiah not because of his sheer grace and mercy but j

Cf. Lyra and Paul of Burgos in the Postilla to Dan. 9:24, and Paul of Burgos in Scrutinium, Part I, Distinction 3, ch. 3. The interpretation cited is found in Rashi’s commentary on the prophets.

About the Jews and Their Lies because of their merit and repentance and their extraordinary piety. And how could or should God do otherwise? For when he promised the Messiah to Jacob, David, and Haggai out of sheer grace, he neither thought nor knew that such great saints— whose merits would exact the Messiah from his—would appear after seventy weeks and after the destruction of Jerusalem, that he would have to grant the Messiah not out of grace but would be obliged to send him by reason of their great purity and holiness, when, where, and in the way that they desired. Such is the imposing story of the Jews, who repented after the seventy weeks and became so pious. You can easily infer that they did not repent, nor were they pious before and during the seventy weeks. As a result the priests in Jerusalem all starved to death because there was no penance, no sin or guilt offerings (which the priests needed for sustenance). All this was postponed and saved for the penance and holiness which were to begin after the seventy weeks. Where there is no repentance, or anything to repent for, there is no sin. But where then, we wonder, did the sin come from for which they have to repent after the seventy weeks, since they had atoned daily through so many sacrifices of the priests, ordained by Moses for this purpose, for all previous sin? Why do they have to begin to do penance now after the seventy weeks, when temple, office, sacrifice for sins no longer exist? But the following even surpasses this. Gabriel says, according to their gloss, that the Jews will repent and become pious after the seventy weeks, so that the Messiah will come on account of their merit. Well and good, here we have it! If Gabriel is speaking the truth and not lying, then the Jews have now repented, they have become pious, they have merited the Messiah ever since the passing of those seventy weeks. For he says that all of this will be done by the Jews subsequent to the seventy weeks. What follows now? They confess, indeed they wail, that the Messiah has not come since the end of those seventy weeks, that he has not come to date, approximately 1,468 years later; nor do they know when he will come. So they will also have to confess that they have not done penance for any sin nor become pious during these 1,468 years following the seventy weeks, nor merited the Messiah. It follows that the angel Gabriel must be lying when he promises in God’s behalf that the Jews will repent, be pious, and merit the Messiah after the seventy weeks.

547

548

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD In Leviticus 26[:40ff.] and in Deuteronomy 4[:29ff.] and 30[:1ff.], Moses, too, proves very clearly that they have never sincerely done penance for sin since the seventy weeks. In many beautiful words he promises that God will return them to their fatherland, even if they are dispersed to the end of the heavens, etc., if they turn to God with all their heart and confess their sin. Moses utters these words as the spokesperson of God, whom one must not accuse of lying. Since the Jews have not been returned to their country to date, it is proved that they have never repented for sin with all their heart since the seventy weeks. So it must be falsehood when they incorrectly interpret Gabriel as speaking about their repentance. We also know that God is so gracious by nature that he forgives humans their sin in every hour in which they sincerely repent and are sorry for it, as David says in Psalm 32[:5]: “I said, I will confess my transgressions to the Lord : and you forgave the guilt of my sin.” We also read that when the prophet Nathan rebuked David for his sin and the latter thereupon declared, “I have sinned against the Lord,” he was immediately absolved by Nathan, who replied, “The Lord has put away your sin” [2 Sam. 12:13]. Even if God in many instances does not remove the punishment as promptly as he did with David, he nonetheless assures humans of the remission of their sin. And if neither prophet nor priest were available, an angel would have to appear instead and announce, “Your sins are forgiven you,” so that a sinner in sorrow and punishment might not lose heart and despair. I observe also how during the Babylonian Captivity God graciously and paternally consoled the people who confessed their sins, enabling them to bear the punishment. Nor can the punishment endure forever; it must have its definite time, measure, and conclusion wherever genuine contrition and repentance are found. But there is no remission of sin for these Jews, no prophet to console them with the assurance of such forgiveness, no definite time limit for their punishment, but only interminable wrath and disfavor, without any mercy. So it is not only an unmitigated lie but also an impossibility to understand Gabriel’s promises in terms of their repentance, much less of their merit and righteousness. But why should I waste so many words and so much time! The land of Canaan was hardly as big as a beggar’s alms or as a

About the Jews and Their Lies crust of bread in comparison with the empire of the whole world. Yet they did not merit even this land through their repentance, or righteousness. Thus Moses declares in Deuteronomy 9[:4f.] that they were not granted the possession of the land because of their righteousness, but it was given to them, a stiff-necked and disobedient people, that is, very sinful and unworthy people, solely by reason of God’s gracious promise, although Hosea [Hos. 11:1ff.] and Balaam (Numbers 24[:5ff.]) praise them for being at their peak of piety at that time. They still had Moses, Aaron, divine worship, prophets, God himself with his miracles, bread from heaven, water from the rock, clouds by day, pillars of fire by night, indestructible shoes and garments, etc. And these dreary dregs, this stinking scum, this dried-up froth, this moldy leaven and boggy morass of Jewry should merit, on the strength of their repentance and righteousness, the empires of the whole world— that is, the Messiah and the fulfillment of the prophecies— though they possess none of the aforementioned and are nothing but rotten, stinking, rejected dregs of their fathers’ lineage! In brief, Moses and all true Israelites understood these verses regarding the Messiah116 out of sheer grace and mercy and not because of penitence and merit. This we gathered from the cited verses of Jacob, David, and Haggai. Likewise Daniel does not ask, desire, or think that such a glorious promise of the seventy weeks should be revealed to him, but it is granted him out of grace, far, far beyond his asking. From this you can learn what fine repentance the Jews practiced, and continue to practice, after those seventy weeks. They began with lies and blasphemies, which they continued to this day. Whoever wishes may imitate the Jews’ example of repentance and say: “God and his angels are liars, they speak about things that are not.” Then you will merit grace as they merit the Messiah. If they were not so stone-blind, their own vile external life would indeed convince them of the true nature of their penitence. For it abounds with witchcraft, conjuring signs, figures, and the Tetragrammaton k of the name, that is, with idolatry, envy, and conceit.117 Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and

k See n. 11, p. 618 and nn. 75–76, p. 643.

549

116. I.e., that all this would be given to them.

117. The entire paragraph is a summary of allegations against Jews; Luther is writing that the Jews’ false repentance automatically leads to witchcraft, for example, that universally feared conjuring of evil spells. Appropriating medieval superstition and calumnies concerning Jews, Luther asserts that they are “nothing but thieves and robbers,” which statement he makes without any qualification on account of Jewish involvement in finance. Of course, such respectable business conglomerates as the Fuggers did the same!

550

118. See above, p. 522. Here Luther makes it clear that his key criticism is of usury. However, his biblical understanding of  the topic in economics turns into anti-Judaic polemic when he associates Jews systemically with the violation of the ecclesiastical teaching. 119. Translated from Luther’s German. This translation is already found in the Septuagint and was followed by Jerome, as well as in the Authorized or King James Version. Other English translations, such as the NRSV, translate differently: “Know therefore and understand: from the time that the word went out to restore and build Jerusalem until the time of an anointed prince, there shall be seven weeks; and for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with streets and moat, but in a troubled time.” 120. Paul of Burgos, in his Addition to Lyra’s gloss on Dan. 9:24ff., cites Rashi’s interpretation of v. 25: “Know and understand concerning the Jerusalem to be restored and rebuilt: . . . the time will be given from the day of destruction until Cyrus comes . . . Agrippa, King of Judah, who . . . reigned at the time of the destruction, will be killed.” Most of the other features of Jewish interpretation cited by Luther below can be confirmed in Rashi’s commentary on Daniel; cf. the citations in WA 53:503–9.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. For a usurer is an archthief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves.118 Indeed, God should prophesy about such beautiful penitence and merit from heaven through his holy angel and become a flagrant, blasphemous liar for the sake of the noble blood and circumcised saints who boast of being hallowed by God’s commandments, although they trample all of them under foot and do not keep one of them. The passage in Daniel continues: “Know therefore and understand that from the time when the order goes forth to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of the Messiah, the prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks. It shall be built again with streets and walls, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, the Messiah shall be killed, and shall have nothing” [Dan. 9:25f.].119 Oh, how ridiculous it seems to these circumcised saints that we accursed Goyim have interpreted and understand this saying thus, especially since we did not consult their rabbis, Talmudists, and Kokhbaites, whom they regard as more authoritative than all of Scripture. For they do a far better job of it. This is what they say: “Know therefore and understand from the going forth of the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem”—this means, ponder and understand it well that the word has gone forth that Jerusalem is to be restored. That is one point. Further, “To the coming of the Messiah, the prince”—this means, until the time of King Cyrus— “there shall be seven weeks.” That is another point. Further, “For sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with walls and streets, but in a troubled time.” That is another point. “And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah (that means King Agrippa) will be killed and will not be”—this means, will be no king, etc.120 It is indeed tiresome to discuss such confused lies and such tomfoolery. But I have to give our people occasion for pondering the devilish wantonness which the rabbis perpetrate with this splendid saying. So here you see how they separate the text where it should be read connectedly, and join it where it should be separated. This is the way in which it should be connected: “Know therefore and understand that from the going forth

About the Jews and Their Lies of the word about how Jerusalem is to be restored and rebuilt to the coming of the Messiah, there shall be seven weeks and sixtytwo weeks.” These words, I say, are to be joined together to form one complete text. Then follows: “It shall be built again with walls and streets, but in a troubled time.” This sentence, separate though it is, they connect with the foregoing words about the sixty-two weeks, so as to convey the meaning that the building of the walls and the streets will occupy sixty-two weeks. That is truly a knavish trick. It reminds me of the rascal of whom I once heard as a young monk. He hacked the Lord’s Prayer to pieces and rearranged it to read thus: Our Father, hallowed be in heaven; thy name come; thy kingdom be done; thy will as in heaven, so also on earth. Or as that ignorant priest read the lesson in the Vigils from 1 Corinthians 15: Ubi est mors stimulus, tuus stimulus autem mortis, peccatum est virtus vero,121 etc. That is the way the Jews tear apart the text wherever they can, solely for the purpose of spoiling the words of Scripture for us Christians, although it serves no purpose for them either. For it teaches them nothing, it does not comfort them, it gives them nothing; it results in nothing but meaningless words. It is the same as if the angel had said nothing at all. But they would rather surrender such comforting, joyous words and suffer the loss than to have them benefit us. Similarly, Bodenstein122 maliciously tore the words of the sacrament apart lest they prove useful to us. However, this will not help the rabbis, those night herons and screech owls. With the help of God we will bring their howling and lying to light. Let us take up the several parts in order. First I want to ask the Hebraists123 whether the word intellige [“know”] is construed with the word de [“from”] in any other place in Scripture. I have not found any, and this seems to me quite arbitrary. If it is to mean de as in the phrase de subjecta materia, the Hebrew uses the preposition al, just as the Latins use the word super (“Multa super Priamo,” etc.124 ). I know very well, however, that the Jews cannot prove that such a construction obtains here. The biblical examples agree that it stands as an absolute, independently. But to ascribe something to God maliciously of which one is uncertain, and which one cannot prove, is tantamount to tempting God and giving him the lie. Now let us see how they tear the text apart. “Know therefore and understand, from the going forth of the word, that Jerusa-

551

121. “Where is death a sting? Indeed, your sting of death, sin, is truly virtue”—a nonsense rendering derived from regrouping the words of the text. 122. Luther’s antagonist in the Eucharistic controversy, Andreas Bodenstein von Karlstadt (see also n. 66, p. 504). 123. “Hebraists” refers to those sixteenth-century figures competent in Hebrew language and a special interest in things Jewish; Johannes Reuchlin (1455–1522) was the eminent Hebraist of the early sixteenth century. On Reuchlin, see Daniel O’Callaghan, ed., The Preservation of Jewish Books in Sixteenth Century Germany: Johannes Reuchlin’s Augenspiegel (Leiden: Brill, 2011). On the broader phenomenon of Hebraists, see Allison P. Coudert, Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004); David Price, Johannes Reuchlin and the Campaign to Destroy Jewish Books (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011). 124. A phrase from Virgil’s Aeneid, Book I, line 750 (“[Asking] many a thing of Priam”).

552

125. Bitterfeld is located some thirty miles southwest of Wittenberg.

126. A wordplay on the similarity of the word Raben (ravens) to Rabinen (rabbis).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD lem will again be built.” This, they claim, does not speak of the beginning of the seventy weeks but of the word that has gone forth. Then follows: “To the coming of the Messiah, the prince, there shall be seven weeks.” Now it is in agreement with the customary usage of all languages that the word donec, “until” [or “to”], presupposes a beginning. However, the Jews assign it none; they refuse to have the text read “from the beginning of the word to the coming of Messiah.” I must draw an analogy. If someone on St. Gall Square here in Wittenberg were to tell you: “You have heard a sermon based on God’s word, declaring that the church is holy. Ponder this and mark it well.” All right, you look at him expectantly to hear what else he has to say; for he does have more to say. Then he abruptly blurts out: “There are still seven weeks till Michaelmas.” Or, “It is a distance of three miles to Halle.” Here you would look at him and say, What sense is there in that? Are you crazy? Are the seven weeks to begin now on the marketplace? Or are the three miles to begin in Wittenberg? “No,” he would reply, “you must understand this to mean from the Day of St. Lawrence to Michaelmas, and from Bitterfeld to Halle.”125 At this point you would be tempted to rejoin: “Go plant a kiss of peace on a sow’s rump! Where did you learn to jabber so foolishly? And what do the seven weeks have to do with your statement that I should note well the sermon that I heard at Wittenberg?” The rabbis treat the angel Gabriel’s words in the same way. They make his speech read thus: “There are seven weeks until the Messiah.” Suppose now Daniel replies, “My dear Gabriel, what do you mean? Are the seven weeks to begin now as you are speaking with me?” “No,” he says, “you must understand this to mean that they begin with the destruction of Jerusalem.” Thank you, indeed, you noble, circumcised rabbis, for teaching the angel Gabriel to speak, as though he were unable to tell of the beginning of the seven weeks, which is all-important, as well as of their middle and their end. No, Daniel is to assume it. This is sheer nonsense. Shame on you, you vile rabbis, to attribute this foolish talk of yours to the angel of God! With this you disgrace yourselves and convict yourselves of being malicious liars and blasphemers of God’s words. But this is just the grammatical side of the matter. Now let us study the theological aspect. These holy, circumcised ravens126 say that the seventy weeks begin with the first destruction of Jerusalem and end with its

About the Jews and Their Lies second destruction. What better method could they have pursued for arriving at this conclusion than to close their eyes and ears, ignore Scripture and the history books, and let their imagination run freely, saying: “This is the way it seems right to us, and we insist upon it. Therefore it follows that God and his angel must agree with us. How could we be wrong? We are the ravens who are able to teach God and the angels.” Oh, what a base, vexatious, blasphemous people, that can merit the Messiah with such penitence! But let us listen to their wisdom. The seventy weeks begin with the destruction of Jerusalem by the king of Babylon; from that event until the coming of the Messiah, the prince (that is, King Cyrus), are seven weeks. Now tell me: Where is this written? Nowhere. Who has said it? Markolf    l the mockingbird, who else might say or write it? At the beginning of this ninth chapter stands Daniel’s clear and plain statement that the revelation regarding the seventy weeks had come to him in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede,127 who had conquered the Babylonian kingdom, which event had been preceded by the first destruction of Jerusalem seventy years earlier. For Daniel clearly states that seventy years of the devastation had been fulfilled, in accordance with Jeremiah 29[:10]. This we also read in 2 Chronicles, the last chapter [36:22]. And yet these two clear passages of Scripture, Daniel 9 and 2 Chronicles 36, must be accounted as lies by the rabbis. They insist that they are right and that the seventy weeks must have begun seventy years before they were revealed to Daniel. Is that not great? Now go and believe the rabbis, those ignorant, untutored asses, who look neither at the Scriptures nor at the history books and who spew forth from their vicious mouth whatever they choose against God and angels. For they herewith stand openly convicted of their lies and their erring arbitrariness.128 Since the seventy weeks which were revealed in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede cannot begin seventy years previously with the destruction of Jerusalem, all their lies founded on this are at once refuted, and this verse of Daniel regarding the seventy weeks must remain for us undefiled and unadulterated—no thanks to them. Eternal disgrace will be their reward for this impertinent and patent lie. With this lie another one also collapses; namely, their claim that the words l

See n. 61, p. 498.

553

127. Darius is first mentioned in Daniel 5. Whether he is a historical figure and who he might be are matters of debate.

128. Luther here begins to explain the word lies in the title of his treatise. He points to Jewish exegesis that denies the christological sense of Old Testament passages; this hermeneutic, he says, is, therefore, a lie.

554

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

about the Messiah, the prince, refer to King Cyrus, who suppos129. Persian King Cyrus conquered edly appeared seven weeks after the destruction,129 although in the Babylonians in 539 bce and issued fact he came ten weeks (that is, seventy years) after the destrucan edict a year later giving the Jews tion. This is recorded in 2 Chronicles 36, Daniel 9, and Ezra 1. freedom to return to Judah. Subtracting Even if I would assume—which is impossible—that the seventy Luther’s “seventy years” from that date weeks began with the destruction of Jerusalem, I could still not puts the Babylonian defeat of Judah and justify this stupid lie. And with this the third lie collapses. For the ensuing captivity at around 609 bce. they say that Cyrus came fifty-two years after the destruction— But the Babylonian invasions of Judah and destruction of the temple are dated the equivalent of seven weeks and three years, or seven and a half to 598/7 and 587/6 bce. weeks. Thus they tear three years, or half a week, from the sixtytwo weeks and add them to the first seven weeks. It is as though the angel were such a consummate fool or child that he could not count up to seven, and says seven when he should say seven and a half. Why do they do this? So that we might perceive how they indulge in lies for the purpose of tearing apart and turning upside down God’s word for us. Therefore they insist that Cyrus came seven and a half weeks (which they call seven weeks) after the destruction, whereas (as was said) he really came ten weeks, i.e., seventy years, later. Nor does the angel tolerate that these weeks be mangled and mutilated, subtracting three years from one and leaving it only four years, and adding to the one that has seven years three more, making it ten years or one and a half weeks. For he says that the seventy weeks are to be taken exactly; they are counted and reckoned precisely. Much less does the angel tolerate the fourth lie—that Cyrus is here called the Messiah—even if the other lies were to be upheld, to the effect that Cyrus had appeared after seven weeks, that is, after fifty-two years. For here we find the unmistakable and simple words of the angel: “Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your A depiction of the biblical character Emperor Cyrus holy city” [Dan. 9:24]. He means to say: In the Great of Persia, who permitted the Judeans to return other chapters I spoke of strange people and to the Holy Land and rebuild God’s temple. kings; but in this verse concerning the sevPainting (c. 1470) by Jean Fouquet (1420−1480). enty weeks I am speaking of your people, of

About the Jews and Their Lies your city, and of your Messiah. And whoever refers this to a different people and to different kings is a wanton, incorrigible liar. The fourth lie is followed by the fifth, in which they divorce the seven weeks from the sixty-two. But these belong together, and there is no reason to separate them, especially since the lie regarding King Cyrus miscarried. It was for this reason that they severed the seven from the sixty-two weeks so that they could give him seven, that is, seven and a half. In biblical Hebrew it is customary to count the years thus: first to give the one, then the other number of years, but with both placed together. We find many illustrations for this in Genesis 5 and 11, where reference is made to the deceased fathers. For instance: “When Seth had lived five years and a hundred years, he became the father of Enosh. Seth lived after the birth of Enosh seven years and eight hundred years” [Gen. 5:6f.]. Similarly Genesis 11[:17]: “Eber lived after the birth of Peleg thirty years and four hundred years.” And Genesis 25[:7]: “Abraham lived one hundred years, seventy years, and five years.” From these illustrations one can easily see how arbitrary it is to separate the seven years from the sixty-two years in this verse. The Latin and German languages prevent such a disruption nicely, since they do not repeat the little word “year” so often, but read the number connectedly, saying: “Abraham lived one hundred seventy-five years.” In that way these words also are to be taken: “From the going forth of the word to the coming of the Messiah, the prince, there are seven weeks and sixty-two weeks.” These two numbers belong together and compose one number, to the coming of the Messiah. The angel has a reason for designating the entire sum of years as seven weeks and sixtytwo weeks. He might have spoken of nine weeks and sixty weeks, or found many different ways to name such a sum, such as five weeks and sixty-four weeks, or six weeks and sixty-three weeks, etc. He must have the seven weeks for the construction of the walls and streets of Jerusalem; and he must have the sixty-two, up to the last week, which is all-important, for in it the Messiah will die, fulfill the covenant, etc. Then comes the sixth lie which says that the walls and streets of Jerusalem were rebuilt for sixty-two weeks (minus three years). That would be up to the last week, after which—as they lie for the seventh time—Jerusalem was again destroyed. For with the last week the seventy weeks are ended. According to this,

555

556

130. The rebuilding of the city walls and temple in Jerusalem are reported in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Exact dates of the reconstruction are difficult to determine, though Luther appears to be correct that the temple was in place by the time of Alexander. 131. This likely refers to King Agrippa II (c. 28–c. 92), great grandson of Herod the Great. He helped the Romans during the Jewish Revolt of 66–70. He was the last of the Herods. 132. Nero ruled as the Roman emperor from 54 to 68. After being driven from the throne in 68, differing reports say that either he committed suicide or was arrested and executed. 133. A Greek warrior at Troy, depicted in the Iliad as ugly, impudent, and thoroughly disliked by all.

134. The procurators mentioned served in succession in the province of Judea between c. 55 and 64.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Jerusalem had not stood again for longer than one week, which means seven years. Go ahead, Jew, lie boldly and unashamedly! Nehemiah stands against you with his book and testifies that he built the walls, set the gates, and arranged the city, and that he himself gloriously consecrated it. Thus the temple was already completed in the sixth year of the reign of Darius (Ezra 7 [6:16]). Alexander the Great found the city of Jerusalem already long completed.130 After him that villain Antiochus found the city even further restored and the temple full of wealth, and he plundered them horribly. The eighth rude lie follows when they interpret the words of the angel, “And after sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be killed, and shall have nothing,” as if the Messiah refers to King Agrippa,131 who was killed and had nothing after his death; no king succeeded him. Why would it not be just as true to say that Emperor Nero132 was the Messiah? He was killed at that time and left no heirs. I believe that they would designate Markolf or Thersites133 as the Messiah rather than accept the true Messiah. How can God, who loves the truth and who is the truth himself, tolerate such shameful, open lies if these are intolerable even to a person who is given to lies or is untruthful or is at least not so strict a lover of the truth? And this eighth lie is a multiple one—in the first place, because they assign different meanings to the word “Messiah” within such a brief passage: there he has to be Cyrus after the seven weeks, here Agrippa after the sixty-two weeks. Just as though the angel were a fool who would point to a different Messiah with every other word! As we heard earlier, the angel is not referring to a foreign people and city, but says, “I am speaking of your people and of your city.” Therefore we must conceive of the Messiah in this verse not as two different beings, but as one—namely, the Messiah of this people and of this city, the Shiloh of Judah who came after the scepter departed from Judah, the Son of David, the chemdath of Haggai. This verse indeed refers to him, excluding all others. For Agrippa was not king in Jerusalem, much less the Messiah, before the last week (that is, after seven and sixty-two weeks). The Romans had graciously granted him a little country beyond the Jordan. The Roman procurators such as Felix, Festus, Albinus, etc., ruled the land of Judea.134 Nor was Agrippa killed after the sixty-two weeks. In brief, all that they say is a lie. Since they now confess, as they have to, that a Messiah was

About the Jews and Their Lies killed after the sixty-two weeks, that is, in the first year of the last week, and since this cannot have been Agrippa (as they would like to have it, in confirmation of their lie), nor anyone else, I am curious to learn where they might find one. It must be someone who lived before the expiration of the seventy weeks and who was killed after sixty-two weeks. Furthermore, as Gabriel says, he must have come from among their people, undoubtedly from the royal tribe of Judah. Now it is certain that since Herod’s time they had had no king who was a member of their people or race. But, on the other hand, it is just as certain that Gabriel must be believed, with his statement regarding a Messiah of their nation. How is this difficulty to be solved? And there is more. They themselves confess that they had no Messiah, that is, no anointed king (“Messiah” means “the anointed one”), between the first and the last destruction of Jerusalem, for the sacred anointing oil, of which Moses writes in Exodus 30[:22ff.], with which kings and priests were anointed, no longer existed after the first destruction. Consequently, Zed­ e­k iah was the last anointed king; his descendants were princes, not kings, down to the time of Herod, when the scepter departed and Shiloh, the true Messiah, was to appear. We want to purge their lies completely. With reference to Daniel’s saying, “And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week” [Dan. 9:27], that is, the last week, they perpetrate the ninth lie, saying that the Romans agreed to a peace or a truce for this last week (or seven years) with the Jews; but since the Jews grew rebellious the Romans returned in three years and destroyed Jerusalem. m Now how does this bear out Gabriel, who says that the peace or truce (as they interpret the word “covenant”) is to last seven years? If it did not endure longer than three years, then Gabriel, who speaks of seven years or the last week, must be lying. Thus the mendacious hearts of these incorrigible liars falsely impugn the truthfulness of the angel Gabriel. Alas, what truce? What peace? Read Josephus and the history books and you will learn that the Romans slew many thousands of Jews a long time before, and that there was no peace up to the time when they were constrained to destroy Jerusalem and the entire country.

m See n. 15, p. 457.

557

558

135. When viewed in terms of the history of exegesis, the Daniel text does not appear to be so unambiguous as Luther here indicates. Already St. Jerome (c. 347–420) had written concerning the interpretation of the “seventy weeks”: “I realize that this question has been argued over in various ways by men of greatest learning, and that each of them has expressed his views according to the capacity of his own genius. And so, because it is unsafe to pass judgment upon the opinions of the great teachers of the Church and to set one above another, I shall simply repeat the view of each, and leave it to the reader’s judgment as to whose explanation ought to be followed.” Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, trans. Gleason L. Archer Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958), 95.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD The tenth and final lie concerns the assertion that the destruction of Jerusalem will last until the end of the strife. They interpret this as meaning: until the strife of their Messiah, who will kill Gog and Magog and conquer the whole world. This is a vicious, miserable lie that is dead before it is born. Let those who maintain that the Messiah appeared before the expiration of the seventy weeks be informed that such a lie was discredited as long as fifteen hundred years ago. Thus the Jews do not retain a single word of Gabriel’s statement intact; they pervert all his words into lies, with the exception of the angel’s prophecy regarding the destruction of Jerusalem. But no one need thank them for believing that and admitting the truth of it now. While they still inhabited Jerusalem, they believed this prophecy still less than they believe now in our Messiah, although it was foretold plainly enough, here in Daniel 9 as well as in Zechariah 14. If they were still dwelling in Jerusalem today, they would invent a hundred thousand lies before they would believe it, just as their ancestors did prior to the first destruction. The latter were not persuaded by any prophet that the holy city of God would be laid waste. They harried them, they raved like mad dogs until they stood face to face with the fulfillment of the prophecy. This has always been a stiff-necked, unbelieving, proud, base, incorrigible people, and so it ever remains. From all of this we gather that Daniel with his seventy weeks takes our position against the Jews’ lies and folly, a position as reliable and firm as an iron wall and an immovable rock, affirming that the true Messiah must have come before the termination of the seventy weeks; that he was killed and made alive again; that he fulfilled God’s covenant (for why should Daniel here be speaking of the Gentiles’ covenant, which, moreover, did not even exist at the time?) in the last week; that he thereby took leave of the city and the people at the end of the seventy weeks; that the city was razed by the Romans shortly after; that the people were destroyed, with their government and all they had—all of this in accordance with the angel’s words: “Seventy weeks of years are decreed or reckoned concerning your people and your holy city” [Dan. 9:24].135 But enough of this! No doubt it is necessary for the Jews to lie and to misinterpret in order to maintain their error over against such a clear and powerful text. Their previous lies broke down under their own weight. But even if they were to lie for a hundred thousand years

About the Jews and Their Lies and call in all the devils to aid them, they would still come to naught. For it is impossible to name a Messiah at the time of the seventy weeks, as Gabriel’s revelation would necessitate, other than our Lord Jesus Christ. We are certain, sure, and cheerful about this, as we snap our fingers at all the gates of hell and defy them, together with all the gates of the world and everything that wants to be or might be exalted, smart, and wise against us. I, a plain insignificant saint in Christ, venture to oppose all of them singlehandedly and to defend this viewpoint easily, comfortably, and gladly. However, it is impossible to convert the Devil and his own, nor are we commanded to attempt this.136 It suffices to uncover their lies and to reveal the truth. Whoever is not actuated to believe the truth for the sake of his own soul will surely not believe it for my sake. I will limit myself for the time being to these four texts— those of Jacob, David, Haggai, and Daniel—wherein we see what a fine job the Jews have done these fifteen hundred years with Scripture, and what a fine job they still do. For their treatment of these texts parallels their treatment of all others, especially those that are in favor of us and our Messiah. These, of course, must be accounted as lies, whereas they themselves cannot err or be mistaken. However, they have not acquired a perfect mastery of the art of lying; they lie so clumsily and ineptly that anyone who is just a little observant can easily detect it. But for us Christians they stand as a terrifying example of God’s wrath. As St. Paul declares in Romans 11, we must fear God and honor his word as long as the time of grace remains, so that we do not meet with a similar or worse fate. We have seen this happen in the case of the papacy and of Muhammad. The example of the Jews demonstrates clearly how easily the Devil can mislead people, after they once digressed from the proper understanding of Scripture, into such blindness and darkness that it can be readily grasped and perceived simply by natural reason, yes, even by irrational beasts. And yet they who daily teach and hear God’s word do not recognize this darkness but regard it as the true light. O Lord God, have mercy on us! If I had to refute all the other articles of the Jewish faith, I should be obliged to write against them as much and for as long a time as they have used for inventing their lies—that is, longer than two thousand years. I stated earlier that they corrupt their circumcision with human ordinances and ruin their heritage

559

136. A reiteration of the note of pessimism concerning the possibility of Jewish conversions to the Christian religion—with the possible exception of his 1523 treatise That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew—which Luther had struck in all of his writings on Jews (see this volume, pp. 400–401). This pessimism is restated in the opening paragraph of the current treatise, as well as already in his treatise On the Sabbatarians (see nn. 10 and r, p. 455.)

560

137. Luther here turns to a new topic, after having discussed in the lengthy middle section of the treatise the nature and timing of the coming of the Messiah. Luther’s new topic is “lies against persons.”

138. Probably a reference to Luther’s arch-antagonist Johann Eck (1486– 1543).

139. Henry of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (see n. 58, p. 495 above). Earlier in 1542, Henry had been driven from his lands by the forces of Elector John Frederick of Saxony (1503–1554) and Philip of Hesse (1504–1567), a Protestant move that Emperor Charles V (1500–1558) subsequently used to declare the war of Schmalkald.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD with their arrogance. In the same manner they also desecrate their Sabbath and all their Holy Days. In brief, all their life and all their deeds, whether they eat, drink, sleep, wake, stand, walk, dress, undress, fast, bathe, pray, or praise, are so sullied with rabbinical, foul ordinances and unbelief that Moses can no longer be recognized among them. This corresponds to the situation of the papacy in our day, in which Christ and his word can hardly be recognized because of the great vermin of human ordinances. However, let this suffice for the time being on their lies against doctrine or faith.137 In conclusion we want to examine their lies against persons, which, after all, do not make the doctrine either worse or better, whether the persons are pious or base. Specifically, we want to look at their lies about the person of our Lord, as well as those about his dear mother and about ourselves and all Christians. These lies are such as the Devil resorts to when he cannot assail the doctrine. Then he turns against the person—lying, maligning, cursing, and ranting against him. That is what the papists’ Beelzebub138 did to me. When he was unable to refute my gospel, he wrote that I was possessed of the Devil, that I was a changeling, that my dear mother was a whore and a bathhouse attendant. n Of course, no sooner had he written this than my gospel was destroyed and the papists carried the day! Similarly, John the Baptist and Christ himself were charged with having a devil [Matt. 11:18; John 8:20] and were called Samaritans—and shortly thereafter John’s and Christ’s doctrine was shown to be false, and that of the Pharisees true. The same thing happened to all the prophets. Recently also, when the stealthy, murdering arsonist of Wolfenbüttel139 —who, next to the archbishop of Mainz, is the holy Roman Church’s one relic and jewel—shamefully slandered and defamed the persons of the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse, both were instantly doomed; but he, the holy man, king over all kings, was crowned with a diadem and gold so heavy that he could not bear it and had to flee. Therefore, whenever you wish to win in an evil cause, do as they do and as the glib babblers do in court when the silver- or gold-fever seizes them. Scold and lie boldly about the person, n Cf. the older work by Ottmar Hegemann, Luther im katholischen Urteil (Munich, 1905), pp. 18f.

About the Jews and Their Lies and your cause will win out. It is like the mother who instructed her child: “Dear son, if you cannot win otherwise, start a brawl.” These are lies in which the liar does not fabricate or err in the chief question at issue (as happens also in religious disputes),140 but nevertheless is well aware that he is lying and wants to lie against the person. He does not dream of proving his point, either by appearances or by truth, and is unable to do so. That is how the Jews, too, are acting in this instance. They blatantly inveigh and lie against and curse the person, against their own conscience. In that way they have long since won their case, so that God had to listen to them. Already for fifteen hundred years they have been sitting in Jerusalem, in a golden city, as we can clearly see. They are the lords of the world, and all the Gentiles flock to them with their chemdath, their coats, pants, and shoes, and permit themselves to be slain by the noble princes and lords of Israel, giving them land and people and all that they have, while the Jews curse, spit on, and malign the Goyim. And you can well imagine that if they would not lie so outrageously, curse, defame, blaspheme, and revile the persons, God would not have heard them, and their cause would have been lost long ago; they would not be lords in Jerusalem today but live dispersed over the world, without seeing Jerusalem, and making their living among the accursed Goyim by means of lying, cheating, stealing, robbing, usury, and all sorts of other vices. So effective is it to curse the person if the cause in question is evil and therefore doomed! Consequently, if you have a poor cause to defend, do not overlook this example of the Jews. They are the noble princes of Israel who are capable of everything. When their cause is lost, they still can thoroughly curse the Goyim. In the first place, they defame our Lord Jesus Christ, calling him a sorcerer and tool of the Devil.141 This they do because they cannot deny his miracles. Thus they imitate their forefathers, who said, “He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of demons” [Luke 11:15]. They invent many lies about the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, saying that our Lord was able to define this name (which they call Schem Hamphoras),142 and whoever is able to do that, they say, is also able to perform all sorts of miracles. However, they cannot cite a single instance of any person who worked a miracle worth a gnat by means of this Schem Hamphoras. It is evident that as consummate liars they fabricate this about our Lord. For if such a rule of Schem Hamphoras were

561

140. Luther may well with his remark offer a commentary on the Marburg Colloquy (1529) and the negotiations at Regensburg (1541).

141. The charges Luther begins to cite here were part and parcel of the standard anti-Judaic allegations of the medieval period. This suggests that he was very much aware of the vulgar, popular polemic which he must have picked up over the years. Indeed, Luther acknowledges knowing about the accusations of ritual murder. In contrast to the 1523 treatise, where Luther acknowledged his doubts about Jewish complicity, here Luther appears to embrace the accuracy. In addition, Luther extensively relied on the works of Margaritha and Porchetus. In many cases, the charges and countercharges are traceable to the earliest polemics between Jews and Christians in the first and second centuries. 142. I.e., “the Ineffable Name.” A more adequate transliteration of the Hebrew would be Shem ha-memphorash. Luther dealt more extensively with this topic in his treatise published in March, 1543, On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ, this volume, pp. 609–66; WA 53:579–648.

562

143. The material in this paragraph, as well in the one that follows, is taken directly from Margaritha. It also did not occur to Luther that the mainstream church has had a way of describing heretics and dissenters very much the same way.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD true, someone else would have employed it before or afterward. Otherwise, how could one know that such power inhered in the Schem Hamphoras? But this is too big a subject; after this little book is finished, I plan to publish a special treatise and relate what Porchetus writes on this subject. o It serves them right that, rejecting the truth of God, they have to believe instead such abominable, stupid, inane lies, and that instead of the beautiful feature of the divine word, they have to look into the Devil’s black, dark, lying behind, and worship his stench. In addition they rob Jesus of the significance of his name, which in Hebrew means “savior” or “helper.” The name Helfrich or Hilfrich was common among the old Saxons; this is the equivalent of the name Jesus. Today we might use the name Hulfrich—that is, one who can and will help. But the Jews, in their malice, call him Jesu, which in Hebrew is neither a name nor a word but three letters, like ciphers or numeral letters. It is as if, for example, I were to take the three numeral letters C, L, and V as ciphers and form the word Clu. That is 155. In this manner they use the name Jesu, signifying 316. This number then is to denote another word, in which Hebel Vorikp is found. For further information on their devilish practices with such numbers and words, you may read Anthony Margaritha. q When a Christian hears them utter the word “Jesu,” as will happen occasionally when they are obliged to speak to us, he assumes that they are using the name Jesus. But in reality they have the numeral letters Jesu in mind, that is, the numeral 316 in the blasphemous word Vorik. And when they utter the word “Jesu” in their prayer, they spit on the ground three times in honor of our Lord and of all Christians, moved by their great love and devotion. But when they are conversing with one another they say, Deleatur nomen eius, which means in plain words, “May God exterminate his name,” or “May all the devils take him.”143 They treat us Christians similarly in greeting us when we go to them. They pervert the words Seid Gott willkommen [literally, “Be welcome to God”] and say, Sched wil kem! which means: “Come, devil,” or “There comes a devil.” Since we are not cono See n. 141, p. 561. p Interpreted by Margaritha in Der gantz Jüdisch glaub to mean “folly and vanity” (thorheyt und eytelkeyt); cf. citation in WA 53:513f. q See n. 27, p. 470 and n. 62, p. 498.

About the Jews and Their Lies versant with the Hebrew language, they can vent their wrath on us secretly. While we suppose that they are speaking kindly to us, they are calling down hellfire and every misfortune on our heads. Such splendid guests we poor, pious Christians are harboring in our lands in the persons of the Jews—we who mean well with them, who would gladly serve their physical and spiritual welfare, and who suffer so many coarse wrongs from them. Then they also call Jesus a whore’s son, saying that his mother Mary was a whore, who conceived him in adultery with a blacksmith.144 I have to speak in this coarse manner, although I do so with great reluctance, to combat the vile Devil. Now they know very well that these lies are inspired by sheer hatred and spite, solely for the purpose of bitterly poisoning the minds of their poor youth and the simple Jews against the person of our Lord, lest they adhere to his doctrine (which they cannot refute). Still they claim to be the holy people to whom God must grant the Messiah by reason of their righteousness! In the Eighth Commandment, God forbade us to speak falsehoods against our neighbor, to lie, to deceive, to revile, to defile. This prohibition also includes one’s enemies. For when Zedekiah did not keep faith with the king of Babylon, he was severely rebuked for his lie by Jeremiah and Ezekiel and was also led into wretched captivity because of it [Jer. 21:1ff.; Ezek. 12:1ff.]. However, our noble ruler of the world and circumcised saints invented this beautiful doctrine against this commandment of God: namely, that they may freely lie, blaspheme, curse, defame, murder, rob, and commit every vice, however, whenever, and on whom they wish.145 Let God keep his own commandment: the noble blood and circumcised people will violate it as they desire and please. Despite this, they insist that they are doing right and good and meriting the Messiah and heaven thereby. They challenge God and all the angels to refute this, not to speak of the Devil and the accursed Goyim who find fault with it; for here is the noble blood which cannot sin and which is not subject to God’s commands. What harm has the poor maiden Mary done to them? How can they prove that she was a whore? She did no more than bear a son, whose name is Jesus. Is it such a great crime for a young wife to bear a child? Or are all who bear children to be accounted whores? What, then, is to be said about their own wives and about themselves? Are they, too, all whores and children of whores?

563

144. Margaritha says, “with a carpenter or a blacksmith vice.”

145. Luther is not consistent in his polemic. On the one hand, he denounces the Jews for defining piety in externals while, on the other, he castigates them openly for committing every conceivable vice. This paragraph serves also as a good illustration for how Luther moves harmoniously from a fairly substantive discussion of Old Testament passages to vile and vulgar attacks on Jewish life and thought.

564

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD You accursed Goyim, that is a different story! Do you not know that the Jews are Abraham’s noble blood, circumcised, and kings in heaven and on earth? Whatever they say is right. If there were a virgin among the accursed Goyim as pure and holy as the angel Gabriel, and the least of these noble rulers were to say that she is an arch-whore and viler than the Devil, it would necessarily have to be so. The fact that a noble mouth of the lineage of Abraham said this would be sufficient proof. Who dares contradict him? Conversely, any arch-whore of the noble blood of the Jews, though she were as ugly as the Devil himself, would still be purer than any angel if the noble lords were pleased to say this. For the noble, circumcised lords have the authority to lie, to defame, revile, blaspheme, and curse the accursed Goyim as they wish. On the other hand, they are privileged to bless, honor, praise, and exalt themselves, even if God disagrees with them. Do you suppose that a Jew is such a bad fellow? God in heaven and all the angels have to laugh and dance when they hear a Jew flatulate, so that you accursed Goyim may know what excellent fellows the Jews are. For how could they be so bold as to call Mary a whore, with whom they can find no fault, if they were not vested with the power to trample God and his commandment under foot? Well and good. You and I, as accursed Goyim, wish to submit a simple illustration by which we, as benighted heathen, might a little comprehend this lofty wisdom of the noble, holy Jews. Let us suppose that I had a cousin or another close blood relative of whom I knew no evil, and in whom I had never detected any evil; other people, against whom I bore a grudge, praised and extolled her, regarded her as an excellent, pious, virtuous, praiseworthy woman, and said: This dunce is not worthy of having such a fine, honorable woman as his cousin; a dog or a wolf would be more fit for him. Then I, upon hearing such high praise of my cousin, would begin to say, against my own conscience: They are all lying, she is an arch-whore. And now I would, though lacking any proof, demand that everyone believe me, despite the fact that I was well aware of my cousin’s innocence, while I, a consummate liar, was cursing all who refused to believe my lie—which I knew in my heart to be just that. Tell me, how would you regard me? Would you not feel compelled to say that I was not a human being but a monster, a repulsive friend, not worthy of gazing at the sun, leaves, grass, or any creature? Indeed, you would consider me to be possessed

About the Jews and Their Lies by devils. I should rather treat my cousin’s disgrace, if I knew of any, as though it were my own, and cover it up if it threatened to become public, just as all other people do. But although no one, including myself, knows but honorable things about her, I dare to step to the fore and defame my cousin as a scoundrel, with false slander, oblivious to the fact that this shame reflects on me. That is the type of human beings—if I should or could call them that—which these noble, circumcised saints are. We Goyim, with whom they are hostile and angry, confess that Mary is not ours but rather the Jews’ cousin and blood relative, descended from Abraham. When we praise and laud her highly, they proceed to defame her viciously. If there were a genuine drop of Israelite blood in such miserable Jews, do you not suppose that they would say: “What are we to do? Can she help it that her son provoked our ire? Why should we slander her? After all, she is our flesh and blood. It has undoubtedly happened before that a bad son issued from a pious mother.” No, such human and responsible thoughts will not occur to these holy people; they must entertain nothing but devilish, base, deceitful thoughts, so that they may in that way do penance and merit the Messiah soon—as they have, of course, merited him now for fifteen hundred years. They further lie and slander him and his mother by saying that she conceived him at an unnatural time. About this they are most malicious and malignant and malevolent. In Leviticus 20[:18] Moses declares that a man must not approach a woman nor a woman a man during the female’s menstrual uncleanness. This is forbidden on pain of loss of life and limb; for whatever is conceived at such a time results in imperfect and infirm fruit, that is, in insane children, mentally deficient, offspring of demons, changelings, and the like—people who have unbalanced minds all their lives. In this way the Jews would defame us Christians, by saying that we honor as the Messiah a person who was mentally deficient from birth, or some sort of demon. These most intelligent, circumcised, highly enlightened saints regard us as stupid and accursed Goyim. Truly, these are the Devil’s own thoughts and words! Do you ask what prompts them to write this, or what is the cause of it? You stupid, accursed Goy, why should you ask that? Does it not satisfy you to know that this is said by the noble, circumcised saints? Are you so slow to learn that such a holy people is exempt from all the decrees of God and cannot sin? They may

565

566

146. Sebastian Münster (1489–1552), eminent Hebraist and professor at the University of Basel, in 1535 published an edition of the Hebrew Bible accompanied by his own translation. The source of the comment mentioned here by Luther is uncertain.

Portrait of Sebastian Münster (c. 1552) by Christoph Amberger (1505−1562)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD lie, blaspheme, defame, and murder whom they will, even God himself and all his prophets. All of this must be accounted as nothing but a fine service rendered to God. Did I not tell you earlier that a Jew is such a noble, precious jewel that God and all the angels dance when he farts? And if he were to go on to do something coarser than that, they would nevertheless expect it to be regarded as a golden Talmud. Whatever issues from such a holy person, from above or from below, must surely be considered by the accursed Goyim to be pure holiness. For if a Jew were not so precious and noble, how would it be possible for him to despise all Christians with their Messiah and his mother so thoroughly, to vilify them with such malicious and poisonous lies? If these fine, pure, smart saints would only concede us the qualities of geese or ducks, since they refuse to let us pass for human beings! For the stupidity which they ascribe to us I could not assign to any sow, which, as we know, covers itself with mire from head to foot and does not eat anything much cleaner. Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the Devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God’s wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie. In his Bible, Sebastian Münster146 relates that a malicious rabbi does not call the dear mother of Christ Maria but haria— i.e., sterquilinium, a dung heap. And who knows what other villainy they may indulge in among themselves, unknown to us? One can readily perceive how the Devil constrains them to the basest lies and blasphemies he can contrive. Thus they also begrudge the dear mother Mary, the daughter of David, her right name, although she has not done them any harm. If they do that, why should they not also begrudge her, her life, her goods, and her honor? And if they wish and inflict all kinds of disgrace and evil on their own flesh and blood, which is innocent and about which they know nothing evil, what, do you suppose, might they wish us accursed Goyim? Yet they presume to come before God with such a heart and mouth; they utter, worship, and invoke his holy name, entreating him to return them to Jerusalem, to send them the Messiah,

About the Jews and Their Lies to kill all the Gentiles, and to present them with all the goods of the world. The only reason that God does not visit them with thunder and lightning, that he does not deluge them suddenly with fire as he did Sodom and Gomorrah, is this: This punishment would not be commensurate with such malice. Therefore he strikes them with spiritual thunder and lightning, as Moses writes in Deuteronomy 28[:18] among other places: “The L ord will smite you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” Those are, indeed, the true strokes of lightning and thunder: madness, blindness, confusion of mind. Although these terrible, slanderous, blasphemous lies are directed particularly against the person of our Lord and his dear mother, they are also intended for our own persons. They want to offer us the greatest affront and insult for honoring a Messiah whom they curse and malign so terribly that they do not consider him worthy of being named by them or any human being, much less of being revered. Thus we must pay for believing in him, for praising, honoring, and serving him. I should like to ask, however: What harm has the poor man Jesus done to these holy people? If he was a false teacher, as they allege, he was punished for it; for this he received his due, for this he suffered with a shameful death on the cross, for this he paid and rendered satisfaction. No accursed heathen in all the world will persecute and malign forever and ever a poor dead man who suffered his punishment for his misdeeds. How, then, does it happen that these most holy, blessed Jews outdo the accursed heathen? To begin with, they declare that Jerusalem was not destroyed nor were they led into captivity for their sin of crucifying Jesus. For they claim to have done the right thing when they meted out justice to the seducer and thus merited their Messiah. Is it the fault of the dead man, who has now met his judgment, that we Goyim are so stupid and foolish as to honor him as our Messiah? Why do they not settle the issue with us, convince us of our folly and demonstrate their lofty, heavenly wisdom? We have never fled from them; we are still standing our ground and defying their holy wisdom. Let us see what they are able to do. For it is most unseemly for such great saints to crawl into a corner and to curse and scold while they are in hiding. Now as I began to ask earlier: What harm has the poor Jesus done to the most holy children of Israel that they cannot stop cursing him after his death, with which he paid his debt? Is it

567

568

147. Edom was the land where the descendants of Isaac’s son Esau were to have settled. The Edomites and people of Israel at times attacked one another. Haman is the enemy of the Jewish people in the book of Ruth.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD perhaps that he aspires to be the Messiah, which they cannot tolerate? Oh no, for he is dead. They themselves crucified him, and a dead person cannot be the Messiah. Perhaps he is an obstacle to their return into their homeland? No, that is not the reason either; for how can a dead man prevent that? What, then, is the reason? I will tell you. As I said before, it is the lightning and thunder of Moses to which I referred before: “The Lord will smite you with madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” It is the eternal fire of which the prophets speak: “My wrath will go forth like fire, and burn with none to quench it” [Jer. 4:4]. John the Baptist proclaimed the same message to them after Herod had removed their scepter, saying [Luke 3:17]: “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing-floor and gather his wheat into his granary, but his chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.” Indeed, such fire of divine wrath we behold descending on the Jews. We see it burning, ablaze and aflame, a fire more horrible than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now such devilish lies and blasphemy are aimed at the person of Christ and of his dear mother; but our person and that of all Christians are also involved. They are also thinking of us. Because Christ and Mary are dead and because we Christians are such vile people to honor these despicable, dead persons, they also assign us our special share of slander. In the first place, they lament before God that we are holding them captive in exile, and they implore him ardently to deliver his holy people and dear children from our power and the imprisonment in which we hold them. They dub us Edom and Haman,147 with which names they would insult us grievously before God, and hurt us deeply. However, it would carry us too far afield to enlarge on this. They know very well that they are lying here. If it were possible, I would not be ashamed to claim Edom as my forefather. He was the natural son of the saintly Rebekah, the grandson of the dear Sarah; Abraham was his grandfather and Isaac his real father. Moses himself commands them to regard Edom as their brother (Deut. 23[:7]). They indeed obey Moses as true Jews! Further, they presume to instruct God and prescribe the manner in which he is to redeem them. For the Jews, these very learned saints, look upon God as a poor cobbler equipped with only a left last for making shoes. This is to say that he is to kill and exterminate all of us Goyim through their Messiah, so that

About the Jews and Their Lies they can lay their hands on the land, the goods, and the government of the whole world. And now a storm breaks over us with curses, defamation, and derision that cannot be expressed with words. They wish that sword and war, distress and every misfortune may overtake us accursed Goyim. They vent their curses on us openly every Saturday in their synagogues and daily in their homes. They teach, urge, and train their children from infancy to remain the bitter, virulent, and wrathful enemies of the Christians.148 This gives you a clear picture of their notion of the Fifth Commandment and how they observe it. They have been bloodthirsty bloodhounds and murderers of Christendom for over fourteen hundred years in word and would undoubtedly prefer to be such in deed. Thus they have been accused149 of poisoning water and wells, of kidnapping children, of piercing them through with an awl, of hacking them in pieces, and in that way secretly cooling their wrath with the blood of Christians. For this they have often been condemned to death by fire. And still God refused

This woodcut (1475) depicts Jews being braided onto the wheel, tortured, and executed.

569

148. Such expression of fear of what has always been a small minority is a chronic theme of anti-Judaism through the centuries.

149. The element of caution in Luther’s phraseology here perhaps indicates some awareness on his part that these accusations remained unsupported. However, the context of the references are the sundry ways Jews express their hostility toward Christians. Only when taken as Luther’s specific illustrations for his general indictments does the whole paragraph make sense. We need to keep in mind that much violence occurred against Jews: in 1510, for example, thirty-eight Jews were executed in Berlin on a charge of desecrating the consecrated host. In 1539, in the context of a policy debate on Jews at the assembly of Protestant estates at Frankfurt, Philip Melanchthon (1493– 1560) presented convincing evidence that they had been innocent (cf. Stern, Josel of Rosheim, 37f., 170). The use of torture to extract “confessions” to such crimes was common.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

570

150. The Jewish community had flourished in medieval France; the exegete Rashi was among its most eminent representatives. However, after some Parisian Jews had been convicted of reconverting a baptized Jew, King Charles VI (1368–1422) took the occasion to expel all Jews from his domain in 1394. 151. Luther mistakenly attributes to Charles the expulsion ordered by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. Charles would have had to be some ten years older to have been able to issue this command; and “dear” emperor seems hardly what Luther thought of Charles. 152. After being charged with treasonable contacts with the Turks, the Jews were expelled from Prague during the years 1541–43. 153. From Regensburg (Ratisbon) in 1519; from Magdeburg in 1492. On the general situation reflected in these expulsions, see the introduction in Kaufmann, Luthers Judenschriften.

to lend an ear to the holy penitence of such great saints and his “dearest” children. The unjust God lets such holy people curse (I wanted to say “pray”) so vehemently though in vain against our Messiah and against all Christians. He does not care to see or have anything to do either with them or with their pious conduct, which is so thickly, thickly, heavily, heavily coated with the blood of the Messiah and his Christians. For these Jews are much holier than were those in the Babylonian Captivity, who did not curse, who did not secretly shed the blood of children, nor poison the water, but who rather as Jeremiah had instructed them [Jer. 29:7] prayed for their captors, the Babylonians. The reason is that they were not as holy as present-day Jews, nor did they have such smart rabbis as the present-day Jews have; Jeremiah, Daniel, and Ezekiel were big fools to teach this. They would, I suppose, be torn to shreds by the teeth of today’s Jews. Now look what a fine, thick, fat lie when they say that they are held captive by us. Jerusalem was destroyed over fourteen hundred years ago, and at that time we Christians were harassed and persecuted by the Jews throughout the world for about three hundred years, as I observed earlier. r We might well complain that during that time they held us Christians captive and killed us, which is the plain truth. Furthermore, we do not know to the present day which devil brought them into our country. We surely did not bring them from Jerusalem. In addition, no one is holding them here now. The countries and the roads are open for them to proceed to their land whenever they wish. If they did so, we would be glad to present gifts to them on the occasion; it would be good riddance. For they are a heavy burden, a plague, a pestilence, a real misfortune for our countries. Proof for this is found in the fact that they have often been expelled forcibly from a country, far from being held captive in it. Thus they were banished from France (which they call Tsorfath, from Obadiah [20]), which was an especially fine nest.150 More recently they were banished by our dear Emperor Charles of Spain,151 the very best nest of all (which they called Sefarad, also on the basis of Obadiah). This year they were expelled from the entire Bohemian crown lands, where they had one of the best nests in Prague.152 Likewise, during my lifetime they have been driven from Regensburg, Magdeburg, and other places.153 r

See pp. 541–42; also p. 572 below.

About the Jews and Their Lies

571

If you cannot tolerate a person in a country or home, does that constitute holding him in captivity? In fact, they hold us Christians captive in our own countries. They let us work in the sweat of our brow to earn an income while they sit behind the stove, idle away the time, fart, and roast pears.154 They stuff themselves, guzzle, and live in luxury and leisure from our hard-earned goods. With their accursed usury they hold us and our property captive. Moreover, they mock and ridicule us because we work and let them play the role of lazy squires at our expense and in our land. Thus they are our masters and we are their servants, with our property, our sweat, and our labor. And by way of reward and thanks they curse our Lord and us! Should the Devil not laugh and dance if he can enjoy such a fine paradise at the expense of us Christians? He devours what is ours through his saints, the Jews, and repays us by insulting us, in llustration of the expulsion of the jews in frankfurt on 23 addition to mocking and cursing both God August 1614. After riots led by Vincent Fettmilch, 1,380 and humans. people of all ages were counted at the gate and put on ships They could not have enjoyed such good on the river Main. In volume by George Keller. times in Jerusalem under David and Solomon with their own possessions as they now do with ours, which they daily steal and rob. And yet they wail that we have taken them captive. Indeed, we have captured them and hold them in captivity just as I hold captive my gallstone, my bloody tumor, and all the other ailments and misfortunes which I have to nurse and take care of 154. “Roast pears”—a proverbial with money and goods and all that I have. Alas, I wish that they expression for laziness. were in Jerusalem with the Jews and whomever else they would like to have there. Since it has now been established that we do not hold them captive, how does it happen that we deserve the enmity of such noble and great saints? We do not call their women whores as they do Mary, Jesus’ mother. We do not call them children of whores as they do our Lord Jesus. We do not say that they were conceived at the time of cleansing and were thus born as idiots, as they say of our Lord. We do not say that their women are haria,

572

155. This is arguably the most radical sentence in the entire treatise, though it conjures up what should be done, not what will or can be done.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD as they do with regard to our dear Mary. We do not curse them but wish them well, physically and spiritually. We lodge them, we let them eat and drink with us. We do not kidnap their children and pierce them through; we do not poison their wells; we do not thirst for their blood. How, then, do we incur such terrible anger, envy, and hatred on the part of these great and holy children of God? There is no other explanation for this than the one cited earlier from Moses—namely, that God has struck them with “madness and blindness and confusion of mind.” So we are even at fault in not avenging the innocent blood of our Lord and of the Christians which they shed for three hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the blood of the children they have shed since then (which still shines forth from their eyes and their skin). We are at fault in not slaying them.155 Rather we allow them to live freely in our midst despite all their murdering, cursing, blaspheming, lying, and defaming; we protect and shield their synagogues, houses, life, and property. In this way we make them lazy and secure and encourage them to fleece us boldly of our money and goods, as well as to mock and ridicule us, with a view to finally overcoming us, killing us all for such a great sin, and robbing us of all our property (as they daily pray and hope). Now tell me whether they do not have every reason to be the enemies of us accursed Goyim, to curse us and to strive for our final, complete, and eternal ruin! From all of this we Christians see—for the Jews cannot see it—what terrible wrath of God these people have incurred and still incur without ceasing, what a fire is gleaming and glowing there, and what they achieve who curse and detest Christ and his Christians. O dear Christians, let us take this horrible example to heart, as St. Paul says in Romans 11, and fear God lest we also finally fall victim to such wrath, and even worse! Rather, as we said also earlier, let us honor his divine word and not neglect the time of grace, as Muhammad and the pope have already neglected it, becoming not much better than the Jews. What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing, and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak,

About the Jews and Their Lies nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a tough mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice: 156 First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no one will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly—and I myself was unaware of it—will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very noses,157 in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know. In Deuteronomy 13[:12ff.] Moses writes that any city that is given to idolatry shall be totally destroyed by fire, and nothing of it shall be preserved. If he were alive today, he would be the first to set fire to the synagogues and houses of the Jews. For in Deuteronomy 4[:2] and 12[:32] he commanded very explicitly that nothing was to be added to or subtracted from his law. And Samuel says in 1 Samuel 15[:23] that disobedience to God is idolatry. Now the Jews’ teaching at present is nothing but the ruminations of rabbis and the idolatry of disobedience, so that Moses has become entirely unknown among them (as we said before), just as in our own day the Bible became unknown under the papacy. So also, for Moses’ sake, their schools cannot be tolerated; they defame him just as much as they do us. It is not necessary that they have their own free churches for this idolatry. Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and de­stroy­ed.158 For they pursue in them the same aims as in their synagogues. Instead they might be lodged under a roof or in a barn, like the gypsies. This will bring home to them that they are not masters in our country, as they boast, but that they are living in exile and in captivity, as they incessantly wail and lament about us before God.

573

156. Most of Luther’s proposals are paralleled in the other anti-Jewish literature of the period, but the specific formulation that follows may be attributed to him. Fortunately, as has been noted above (p. 441), most of the authorities proved unwilling to carry out Luther’s recommendations, whether out of horror at their inhumanity or out of self-interest (since Jews played an important role in the economy). 157. Luther’s rather self-confident statement indicates the ambivalent role of the Old Testament in Christian selfunderstanding.

158. Luther’s recommendation here effectively has little to do with theological or biblical polemics, despite his observation that Jewish homes were centers of the “blasphemous” Jewish religion. Rather, it appears that Luther here embraces arguments of what we have described as “cultural antiJudaism.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

574

159. In the Pfefferkorn-Reuchlin controversy, however, Luther had supported the publication of Hebraic books.

160. Luther anticipates that the political authorities will find his proposals too severe. He envisions and sanctions action against the Jews by a Reuterei, probably meaning a band of robber barons; Jacob R. Marcus, in citing this passage, identifies Luther’s “rich Jew” with “the wealthy Michael,” Court-Jew of Joachim II of Brandenburg. Cf. Jacob R. Marcus, The Jew in the Medieval World: A Source Book (Cincinnati: Sinai Press, 1938), 168. Important to note is that Luther here deals with completely secular topics and thus expresses not religious but cultural anti-Judaism.

Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, curses, and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them.159 Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. For they have justly forfeited the right to such an office by holding the poor Jews captive with the saying of Moses (Deuteronomy 17[:10ff.]) in which he commands them to obey their teachers on penalty of death, although Moses clearly adds: “what they teach you in accord with the law of the Lord.” Those villains ignore that. They wantonly employ the poor people’s obedience contrary to the law of the Lord and infuse them with this poison, cursing, and blasphemy. In the same way the pope also held us captive with the declaration in Matthew 16[:18], “You are Peter,” etc., inducing us to believe all the lies and deceptions that issued from his devilish mind. He did not teach in accord with the word of God, and therefore he forfeited the right to teach. Fifth, I advise that safe conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. For they have no business in the countryside, since they are not lords, officials, tradesmen, or the like. Let them stay at home. I have heard it said that a rich Jew is now traveling across the country with twelve horses—his ambition is to become a Kokhba s —devouring princes, lords, lands, and people with usury, so that the high lords view it with jealous eyes. If you great lords and princes will not forbid such usurers the highway legally, someday a mob may gather against them,160 when from this modest book they have learned the true nature of the Jews and how one should deal with them and not protect their doings. For you, too, must not and cannot protect them unless you wish to become participants in all their abominations in the sight of God. Consider carefully what good could come from this, and prevent it. Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them and put aside for safekeeping. The reason for such a measure is that, as said above, they have no other means of earning a livelihood than usury, and by it they have stolen and robbed from us all they possess. Such funds should be used in no other way than the following: Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should s

See nn. 107–9, p. 542.

About the Jews and Their Lies be handed one hundred, two hundred, or three hundred florins, as personal circumstances may suggest. With this he could set himself up in some occupation for the support of his poor wife and children, and the maintenance of the old or feeble. For such evil gains are cursed if they are not put to use with God’s blessing in a good and worthy cause. But when they boast that Moses allowed or commanded them to exact usury from strangers, citing Deuteronomy 23[:20]— apart from this verse they cannot adduce as much as a letter in their support—we must tell them that there are two classes of Jews or Israelites. The first comprises those whom Moses, in compliance with God’s command, led from Egypt into the land of Canaan. To them he issued his law, which they were to keep in that country and not beyond it, and then only until the advent of the Messiah. The other Jews are those of the emperor and not of Moses. These date back to the time of Pilate, the procurator of the land of Judah. For when the latter asked them before the judgment seat, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” they all said, “Crucify him, crucify him!” He said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” They shouted in reply, “We have no king but Caesar!” [Matt. 27:22; John 19:15]. God had not commanded of them such submission to the emperor; t they offered it voluntarily. But when the emperor demanded the obedience due him, they resisted and rebelled against him. Now they no longer wanted to be his subjects. Then he came and visited his subjects, gathered them in Jerusalem, and then scattered them throughout his entire empire, so that they were forced to obey him. From these the present remnant of Jews descended, of whom Moses knows nothing, nor they of him; for they do not deserve a single passage or verse of Moses. If they wish to apply Moses’ law again, they must first return to the land of Canaan, become Moses’ Jews, and keep his laws. There they may practice usury as much as strangers will endure from them. But since they are dwelling and disobeying Moses in foreign countries under the emperor, they are bound to keep the emperor’s laws and refrain from the practice of usury until they become obedient to Moses. For Moses’ law has never passed a single step beyond the land of Canaan or t

The same German word (Kaiser) underlies the English words Caesar and emperor in this passage.

575

576

161. That is, confiscate a portion of the Jews’ wealth before expelling them. 162. Expulsion of the Jews had already occurred in England, France, Spain, and some German principalities (see above, n. 151, p. 570). Luther’s specific recommendation might suggest that expulsion was his core recommendation, meaning, for example, that burning down houses was not an end in itself but a means toward the end of getting Jews to leave. 163. In this paragraph Luther continues his discussion of an entirely secular topic—alleged Jewish business practices.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD beyond the people of Israel. Moses was not sent to the Egyptians, the Babylonians, or any other nation with his law, but only to the people whom he led from Egypt into the land of Canaan, as he himself testifies frequently in Deuteronomy. They were expected to keep his commandments in the land which they would conquer beyond the Jordan. Moreover, since priesthood, worship, and government—with which the greater part, indeed, almost all, of those laws of Moses deal—have been at an end for over fourteen hundred years already, it is certain that Moses’ law also came to an end and lost its authority. Therefore the imperial laws must be applied to these imperial Jews. Their wish to be Mosaic Jews must not be indulged. In fact, no Jew has been that for over fourteen hundred years. Seventh, I recommend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses, letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow, as was imposed on the children of Adam (Gen. 3[:19]). For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians because of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. But if we are afraid that they might harm us or our wives, children, servants, cattle, etc., if they had to serve and work for us—for it is reasonable to assume that such noble lords of the world and venomous, bitter worms are not accustomed to working and would be very reluctant to humble themselves so deeply before the accursed Goyim—then let us emulate the common sense of other nations such as France, Spain, Bohemia, etc., compute with them how much their usury has extorted from us, divide this amicably,161 but then eject them forever from the country.162 For, as we have heard, God’s anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them! I hear it said that the Jews donate large sums of money and thus prove beneficial to governments.163 Yes, but where does this money come from? Not from their own possessions but from the lords and subjects whom they plunder and rob through usury.

About the Jews and Their Lies Thus the lords are taking from their subjects what they receive from the Jews, i.e., the subjects are obliged to pay additional taxes and let themselves be ground into the dust for the Jews, so that they may remain in the country, lie boldly and freely, blaspheme, curse, and steal. Should not the impious Jews laugh up their sleeves because we let them make such fools of us and because we spend our money to enable them to remain in the country and to practice every malice? Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they suck the marrow from our bones. If it is right for a servant to give his master or for a guest to give his host ten florins annually and, in return, to steal one thousand florins from him, then the servant or the guest will very quickly and easily get rich and the master or the host will soon become a beggar. And even if the Jews could give the government such sums of money from their own property, which is not possible, and thereby buy protection from us, and the privilege publicly and freely to slander, blaspheme, vilify, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ so shamefully in their synagogues, and in addition to wish us every misfortune, namely, that we might all be stabbed to death and perish with our Haman, emperor, princes, lords, wife, and children—this would really be selling Christ our Lord, the whole of Christendom together with the whole empire, and ourselves, with wife and children, cheaply and shamefully. What a great saint the traitor Judas would be in comparison to us! Indeed, if each Jew, as many as there are, could give one hundred thousand florins annually, we should nevertheless not yield them for this the right freely to malign, curse, defame, impoverish by usury a single Christian. That would still be far too cheap a price. How much more intolerable is it that we permit the Jews to purchase with our money the license to slander and curse the whole Christ and all of us and, furthermore, reward them for this with riches and make them our lords, while they ridicule us and gloat in their malice. That would prove a delightful spectacle for the Devil and his angels, over which they could secretly grin like a sow grins at her litter, but which would indeed merit God’s great wrath. In brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule—if my counsel does not please you, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty participants before

577

578

164. Luther turns here in his line of argument from the civil to the ecclesiastical authorities.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD God in the lies, the blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, his dear mother, all Christians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe conduct, or communion with us. Do not aid and abet them in acquiring your money or your subjects’ money and property through usury. We have enough sin of our own without this, dating back to the papacy, and we add to it daily with our ingratitude and our contempt of God’s word and his grace; so it is not necessary to burden ourselves with these alien, shameful vices of the Jews and, over and above it all, pay them for it with money and property. Let us consider that we daily fight with the Turks, u which surely calls for a lessening of our sins and a reform of our life. With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience. And you, my dear noble men and friends who are pastors and preachers,164 I wish to remind you very faithfully of your formal duty, so that you too may warn your parishioners concerning their eternal harm, as you know how to do—namely, that they be on their guard with Jews and avoid them so far as possible. They should not curse them or harm their persons, however. For the Jews have cursed and harmed themselves more than enough by cursing the Man Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s son, which they unfortunately have been doing for over fourteen hundred years. Let the government deal with them in this respect, as I have suggested. But whether the government acts or not, let everyone at least be guided by his own conscience and form for himself a definition or image of a Jew. When you lay eyes on or think of a Jew you must say to yourself: Alas, that mouth which I there behold has cursed and execrated and maligned every Saturday my dear Lord Jesus Christ, who has redeemed me with his precious blood; in addition, this mouth prayed and pleaded before God that I, my wife and children, and all Christians might be stabbed to death and perish miserably. And he himself would gladly do this if he were able, in order to obtain our goods. Perhaps spat on the ground many times this very day over the name of Jesus, as is their custom, so that the spittle still clings to his mouth and beard, if he had a u See n. 38, p. 486 above and Luther’s treatise On War against the Turk (1529) (this volume, pp. 335–89).

About the Jews and Their Lies chance to spit. If I were to eat, drink, or talk with such a devilish mouth, I would eat or drink myself full of devils by the dish or cupful, just as I surely make myself a cohort of all the devils that dwell in the Jews and that deride the precious blood of Christ. May God preserve me from this! We cannot help it that they do not share our belief. It is impossible to force anyone to believe. However, we must avoid confirming them in their wanton lying, slandering, cursing, and defaming. Nor dare we make ourselves partners in their devilish ranting and raving by shielding and protecting them, by giving them food, drink, and shelter, or by other neighborly acts, especially since they boast so proudly and despicably when we do help and serve them that God has ordained them as lords and us as servants. For instance, when a Christian kindles their fire for them on a Sabbath, or cooks for them in an inn whatever they want, they curse and defame and revile us for it, supposing this to be something praiseworthy, and yet they live on our wealth, which they have stolen from us. Such a desperate, thoroughly evil, poisonous, and devilish lot are these Jews, who for these fourteen hundred years have been and still are our plague, our pestilence, and our misfortune. Especially you pastors who have Jews living in your midst, persist in reminding your lords and rulers to be mindful of their office and of their obligation before God to force the Jews to work, to forbid usury, and to check their blasphemy and cursing. For if they punish thievery, robbery, murder, blasphemy, and other vices among us Christians, why should the devilish Jews be scot-free to commit their crimes165 among us and against us? We suffer more from them than the Italians do from the Spaniards,166 who plunder the host’s kitchen, cellar, chest, and purse, and, in addition, curse him and threaten him with death. Thus the Jews, our guests, also treat us; for we are their hosts. They rob and fleece us and hang about our necks, these lazy weaklings and indolent bellies; they swill and feast, enjoy good times in our homes, and by way of reward they curse our Lord Christ, our churches, our princes, and all of us, threatening us and unceasingly wishing us death and every evil. Just ponder this: How does it happen that we poor Christians nourish and enrich such an idle and lazy people, such a useless, evil, pernicious people, such blasphemous enemies of God, receiving nothing in return but their curses and defamation and every misfortune they may

579

165. The implication of Luther’s sentiment is, of course, that Jews do not work. 166. In 1527, Emperor Charles V, reigning also as Charles I of Spain, had invaded Italy, and then left behind his mercenaries to advance upon Rome in a train of destruction and pillaging that became proverbial.

580

167. I.e., legal precedents or agreements, grants of travel and trading rights, etc., made by civic or imperial authorities.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD inflict on us or wish us? Indeed, we are as blind and unfeeling clods in this respect as are the Jews in their unbelief, to suffer such great tyranny from these vicious weaklings, and not perceive and sense that they are our lords, yes, our mad tyrants, and that we are their captives and subjects. Meanwhile they wail that they are our captives, and at the same time mock us—as though we had to take this from them! But if the authorities are reluctant to use force and restrain the Jews’ devilish wantonness, the latter should, as we said, be expelled from the country and be told to return to their land and their possessions in Jerusalem, where they may lie, curse, blaspheme, defame, murder, steal, rob, practice usury, mock, and indulge in all those infamous abominations which they practice among us, and leave us our government, our country, our life, and our property, much more leave our Lord the Messiah, our faith, and our church undefiled and uncontaminated with their devilish tyranny and malice. Any privileges167 that they may plead shall not help them; for no one can grant privileges for practicing such abominations. These cancel and abrogate all privileges. If you pastors and preachers have followed my example and have faithfully issued such warnings, but neither prince nor subject will do anything about it, let us follow the advice of Christ (Matthew 10[:14]) and shake the dust from our shoes, and say, “We are innocent of your blood.” For I observe and have often experienced how indulgent this perverted world is when it should be strict, and, conversely, how harsh it is when it should be merciful. Such was the case with King Ahab, as we find recorded in 1 Kings 20. That is the way the prince of this world reigns. I suppose that the princes will now wish to show mercy to the Jews, the bloodthirsty foes of our Christian and human name, in order to earn heaven thereby. But that the Jews enmesh us, harass us, torment and distress us poor Christians in every way with the above-mentioned devilish and detestable deeds, this they want us to tolerate, and this is a good Christian deed—especially if there is any money involved (which they have filched and stolen from us). What are we poor preachers to do meanwhile? In the first place, we will believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is truthful when he declares of the Jews who did not accept but crucified him, “You are a brood of vipers and children of the Devil” [cf.

About the Jews and Their Lies Matt. 12:34]. This is a judgment in which his forerunner John the Baptist concurred, although these people were his kin. Now our authorities and all such merciful saints as wish the Jews well will at least have to let us believe our Lord Jesus Christ, who, I am sure, has a more intimate knowledge of all hearts than do those compassionate saints. He knows that these Jews are a brood of vipers and children of the Devil, that is, people who will accord us the same benefits as does their father, the Devil—and by now we Christians should have learned from Scripture as well as experience just how much he wishes us well. I have read and heard many stories about the Jews which agree with this judgment of Christ, namely, how they have poisoned wells, made assassinations, kidnapped children, as I have related already.v I have heard that one Jew sent another Jew, and this by means of a Christian, a pot of blood, together with a barrel of wine, in which when drunk empty, a dead Jew was found. There are many other similar stories. For their kidnapping of children they have often been burned at the stake or banished (as we already heard). I am well aware that they deny

A depiction (1349) of the burning of Jews, who were falsely blamed for being a cause of the Black Death epidemic

v

See above, pp. 527, 549.

581

582

168. A misleading statement, inasmuch as during the medieval period Jews customarily enjoyed greater freedom under Islam than under Christianity.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD all of this. However, it all coincides with the judgment of Christ which declares that they are venomous, bitter, vindictive, tricky serpents, assassins, and children of the Devil, who sting and work harm stealthily wherever they cannot do it openly. For this reason I should like to see them where there are no Christians. The Turks and other heathen do not tolerate what we Christians endure from these venomous serpents and young devils.168 Nor do the Jews treat any others as they do us Christians. That is what I had in mind when I said earlierw that, next to the Devil, a Christian has no more bitter and galling foe than a Jew. There is no other to whom we accord many benefactions and from whom we suffer as much as we do from these base children of the Devil, this brood of vipers. Now let me commend those sincerely who feel the desire to shelter and feed them, to honor them, to be fleeced, robbed, plundered, defamed, vilified, and cursed by them, and to suffer every evil at their hands—these venomous serpents and Devil’s children, who are the most vehement enemies of Christ our Lord and of us all. And if that is not enough, let him stuff them into his mouth, or crawl into their behind and worship this holy object. Then let him boast of his mercy, then let him boast that he has strengthened the Devil and his brood for further blaspheming our dear Lord and the precious blood with which we Christians are redeemed. Then he will be a perfect Christian, filled with works of mercy—for which Christ will reward him on the day of judgment, together with the Jews—in the eternal fire of hell! That is speaking coarsely about the coarse cursing of the Jews. Others write much about this, and the Jews know very well that it is cursing, since they curse and blaspheme consciously. Let us also speak more subtly and, as Christians, more spiritually about this. Thus our Lord Jesus Christ says in Matthew 10[:40], “He who receives me receives him who sent me.” And in Luke 10[:16], “He who rejects you rejects me. And he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” And in John 15[:23], “He who hates me hates my father also” In John 5[:23], “That all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him,” etc. These are, God be praised, clear and plain words, declaring that all that is done to the honor or to the dishonor of the Son w See above, p. 527.

About the Jews and Their Lies is surely also done to the honor or to the dishonor of God the Father himself. We Christians cannot have or countenance any doubt of this. Whoever denies, defames, and curses Jesus of Nazareth, the Virgin Mary’s Son, also denies, defames, and curses God the Father himself, who created heaven and earth. But that is what the Jews do, etc. And if you say that the Jews do not believe or know this since they do not accept the New Testament, I reply that the Jews may know or believe this or that; we Christians, however, know that they publicly blaspheme and curse God the Father when they blaspheme and curse Jesus. Tell me, what are we going to answer God if he takes us to account now or on the day of judgment, saying: “Listen, you are a Christian. You are aware that the Jews openly blasphemed and cursed my Son and Me, you gave them opportunity for it, you protected and shielded them so that they could engage in this without hindrance or punishment in your lands, cities, and houses.” Tell me: What will we answer? Of course, we accord anyone the right not to believe omissive et privatim [“by neglect and privately”]; 169 this we leave to everyone’s conscience. But to parade such unbelief so freely in their religious bullyings and before our very noses, eyes, and ears, to boast of it, to sing it, teach it, and defend it, to revile and curse the true faith, and in this way lure others to them and hinder our people—that is a far, far different story. And this is not changed by the fact that the Jews do not believe the New Testament, that they are unacquainted with it, and that they pay it no heed. The fact remains that we are acquainted with it and that we cannot acquiesce in having the Jews revile and curse it in our hearing. To witness this and keep silent is tantamount to doing it ourselves. Thus the accursed Jews encumber us with their diabolical, blasphemous, and horrible sins right in our own countries. It will not do for them to say at this point that Jews care nothing about the New Testament or about the belief of Christians. Let them express such sentiment in their own country or do so secretly. In our country and in our hearing they must suppress these words, or we will have to resort to other measures. These incorrigible rascals know very well that the New Testament deals with our Lord Jesus Christ, God’s Son, while they claim to be ignorant of its contents. My friend, it is not a question of what you know or what you wish to know, but of what you ought to know, what you are obliged to know. As it happens, not only the

583

169. A legal phrase. Toleration extended only to the inward person, not to public expressions of unbelief. This was a widespread sixteenthcentury notion held by reformers.

584

170. I.e., the executioner. 171. The punishment Luther here envisions in his illustration intimates his seriousness. 172. Luther has conflated vv. 11 and 12. The Hebrew original is difficult to interpret; Luther’s rendering, “Kiss the Son,” follows one tradition. The NRSV gives the following translation for these verses: “Serve the Lord with fear, with trembling kiss his feet, or he will be angry, and you perish in the way.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Jews but all the world is obliged to know that the New Testament is God the Father’s book about his Son Jesus Christ. Whoever does not accept and honor that book does not accept and honor God the Father. For we read, “He who rejects me rejects my Father.” And if the Jews do not want to know this, then, as I said, we Christians do know it. Thus if we ourselves do not wish to stand condemned by their sins, we cannot tolerate that the Jews publicly blaspheme and revile God the Father before our very ears by blaspheming and reviling Jesus our Lord, for as he says, “He who hates me hates my Father also.” Similarly we cannot tolerate their stating openly and in our hearing that they have no regard for the New Testament but look upon it as a pack of lies. This is tantamount to saying that they care nothing about God the Father and regard him as a liar, for this is God the Father’s book, it is the word about his Son Jesus Christ. It will not avail them but rather prejudice their case if they plead ignorance or rejection of the book. For it is incumbent on all to know God’s book. He did not reveal it to have it ignored or rejected; he wants it to be known, and he excuses no one from this. It is as if a king were to instate his only son in his place and command the country to regard him as its sovereign (although he would also be entitled to this by right of natural succession), and the country as a whole readily accepted him. A few, however, banded together in opposition, alleging that they know nothing about this, despite the fact that the king had in confirmation of his will issued seal and letters and other testimony. They still insisted that they did not want to know this or respect it. The king would be obliged to take these people by the nape of the neck and throw them into a dungeon and entrust them to Master Hans,170 who would teach them to say, “We are willing to acknowledge it.” The alternative would be to keep them incarcerated forever, lest they contaminate others with their refractory attitude who do want to learn it.171 This is what God, too, has done. He placed his Son Jesus Christ in Jerusalem in his place and commanded that he be paid homage, according to Psalm 2[:11-12]: “Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way.”172 Some Jews would not hear of this. God bore witness by the various tongues of the apostles and by all sorts of miraculous signs, and cited the statements of the prophets in supporting testimony. However, they did

About the Jews and Their Lies then what they still do now; they were obstinate, and absolutely refused to listen to it. Then came Master Hans—the Romans— who destroyed Jerusalem, took the villains by the nape of the neck and cast them into the dungeon of exile, which they still inhabit and in which they will remain forever, or until they say, “We are willing to acknowledge it.” God surely did not do this secretly or in some nook or cranny, so that the Jews would have an excuse without sin for disregarding the New Testament. As I noted above, he gave them a reliable sign through the patriarch Jacob, namely, that they could confidently expect the Messiah when the scepter had departed from Judah. Or, when the seventy weeks of Daniel had expired; or, a short time after the construction of Haggai’s temple but before its destruction. He also informed them through Isaiah that when they would hear a voice in the wilderness (as happened when the scepter had departed), that is, when they heard the voice of a preacher and prophet proclaiming, “Repent, the L ord is at hand, and is himself coming,” then they should be certain that the Messiah had come [cf. Isa. 40:3ff.]. Shortly thereafter the Messiah himself appeared on the scene, taught, baptized, and performed innumerable great miracles, not secretly but throughout the entire country, prompting many to exclaim, “This is the Messiah” [John 7:41]. Also [John 7:31]: “When the Messiah appears, will he do more signs than this man has done?” And they themselves said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs. If we let him go on thus, everyone will believe in him” [John 11:47]. When he was on the cross, they said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself” [Matt. 27:42]. Should God concede that these circumcised saints are ignorant of all this, when they already stand convicted by the four statements cited (Jacob’s, Haggai’s, Daniel’s, and David’s), all of which show that the Messiah must have come at that time? Several of their rabbis also declared that he was in the world and was begging in Rome, etc. x Furthermore, he saw to it that they were warned not to be offended at his person, for in Zechariah 9[:9f.] he announced that he would come to Jerusalem “riding on an ass,” wretched and poor, but as a propitious King who would teach peace, who would “cut off” the chariots, steeds, and bows (that is, not rule x

See n. e, p. 503.

585

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

586

in a worldly manner, as the mad Kokhbaites, these bloodthirsty Jews, rave), and that this poor yet peaceful, propitious King’s dominion should extend to the ends of the world. That is, indeed, a very clear statement, setting forth that the Messiah should reign in all the world without a sword, with pure peace, as a King bringing salvation. I am extremely surprised that the Devil can be so powerful as to delude a person, to say nothing of an entire nation that boasts of being God’s people, into believing something at variance with this clear text. He faithfully forewarned them, furthermore, not to be offended when they see that such a great miracle-worker and poor King, who had ridden in on an ass, would let himself be killed and crucified. For he had had it proclaimed in advance (Daniel 9[:26] and Isaiah 53[:2ff. and 52:14f.]) that “his Servant, who will startle the kings, will be smitten and afflicted”; but all of this will occur because “God laid on him the sins of us all and wounded him for our transgressions, but he was to make himself an offering for sin, intercede for the transgressors, and by his knowledge make many to be accounted righteous.” Such the text clearly states. But the sun has never seen or heard anything more disgraceful than the abuse of this passage by these blasphemous Jews. They apply it to themselves in their exile. At the present we lack the time to deal with this. Alas, should they be the ones who were smitten because of our sin, who bore our transgressions, who made us righteous, and who intercede for us, etc.? There was never a viler people than they, who with their lying, blaspheming, cursing, maligning, their idolatry, their robbery, usury, and all vices accuse us Christians and all mankind more before God and the world than any others. By no means do they pray for us sinners as the text says; they curse us most vehemently, as we proved earlier from Lyra and Burgensis.y Their great slothfulness and malice prompt these blasphemous scoundrels to mock Scripture, God, and all the world with their impudent glosses. This they do in accord with their merit and true worth. After the crucifixion of the King, God first presented the proper signs that this Jesus was the Messiah. Poor, timid, unlearned, unconsecrated fishermen, who did not even have a perfect mas-

y

See n. 86, p. 526.

About the Jews and Their Lies tery of their own language, stepped forth and preached in the tongues of the whole world. All the world, heaven and earth, is still filled with wonder at this. They interpreted the writings of the prophets with power and correct understanding; in addition they performed such signs and wonders, that their message was accepted throughout the world by Jews and Gentiles. Innumerable people, both young and old, accepted it with such sincerity that they willingly suffered gruesome martyrdom because of it. This message has now endured these fifteen hundred years down to our day, and it will endure to the end of time. If such signs did not move the Jews of that time, what can we expect of these degenerate Jews who haughtily disdain to know anything about this story? Indeed, God, who revealed these things so gloriously to all the world, will see to it that they hear us Christians preach and see us keep this message, which we did not invent but heard from Jerusalem fourteen hundred years ago.173 No enemies, no heathen, and especially no Jews have been able to suppress it, no matter how strongly they opposed it. It would be impossible for such a thing to maintain itself if it were not of God. The Jews themselves in their fifteen-hundred-year exile174 must confess that this message has been preached in all the world before their very ears, that it was assailed by much heresy and yet survived. Therefore God cannot be accused of having done all this secretly or in hiding, or of never having brought it to the attention of the Jews or of any other people. For they have all persecuted it vehemently and vigorously these fifteen hundred years. And yet the blasphemous Jews oppose it so impudently and sneeringly, as though it had just recently been invented by a drunkard who deserves no credence. They feel free to revile and damn it with impunity, and we Christians have to offer them room and place, house and home in the bargain, we have to protect and defend them all so that they can confidently and freely revile and condemn such a word of God. And by way of reward we let them take our money and possessions through their usury. No, you vile father of such blasphemous Jews, you hellish devil, these are the facts: God has preached long enough to your children, the Jews, publicly and with miraculous signs throughout the world. He has done so for almost fifteen hundred years now, and still continues to preach this. They were and still are obliged to obey him; but they were hardened and always resisted,

587

173. Apparently a misprint or a mistake in Luther’s manuscript; the figure should be fifteen hundred.

174. Here, perhaps, Luther meant to write “fourteen hundred”; he reckons the precise number of years as 1,468 (cf. above, passim).

588

175. One may consider this sentence as key for Luther’s sentiment: within a few lines then follows the reiteration of his practical notions as to what policies should be followed pertaining to Jews. 176. Addressing himself now to the ecclesiastical leadership, Luther repeats several of his earlier recommendations (above, pp. 573–76). He omits, however, those that have no explicitly religious reference (destruction of houses, denial of safe conduct, prohibition of usury, and assignment to manual labor), and adds a new point—the fourth in the present list— concerning use of the name of God. In concise form, Luther’s summary confirms that the distinctive feature of his treatise lies in his turning the cultural and theological polemic into a harmonious whole. The repetition of the advisories probably finds its explanation in the fact that this entire concluding section is a highly emotional reiteration of points previously made.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD blasphemed, and cursed. Therefore we Christians, in turn, are obliged not to tolerate their wanton and conscious blasphemy. As we heard above, “He who hates the Son also hates the Father” [John 15:23]. For if we permit them to do this where we are sovereign, and protect them to enable them to do this, then we are eternally damned together with them because of their sins and blasphemies, even if we in our persons are as holy as the prophets, apostles, or angels. Quia faciens et consentiens pari poena [“Because doing and consenting deserve equal punishment”]. Whether doer, adviser, accomplice, consenter, or concealer—one is as pious as the other. It does not help us (and the Jews still less) that the Jews refuse to acknowledge this. As has already been said, we Christians know it, and the Jews ought to know it, having heard it together with us for almost fifteen hundred years, having beheld all sorts of miracles and having heard how this doctrine has survived, by nothing but divine strength, against all devils and the whole world. This is certain, borne out by such an enduring and impressive testimony in all the world, that “He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father,” and that he who does not have the Son cannot have the Father. The Jews ever blaspheme and curse God the Father, the Creator of us all, just by blaspheming and cursing his Son, Jesus of Nazareth, Mary’s Son, whom God has proclaimed as his Son for fifteen hundred years in all the world by preaching and miraculous signs against the might and the trickery of all devils and humans; and he will proclaim him as such until the end of the world. They dub him Hebel Vorik, that is, not merely a liar and deceiver, but lying and deception itself, viler even than the Devil. We Christians must not tolerate that they practice this in their public synagogues, in their books, and in their behavior, openly under our noses, and within our hearing, in our own country,175 houses, and regimes. If we do, we together with the Jews and on their account will lose God the Father and his dear Son, who purchased us at such cost with his holy blood, and we will be eternally lost, which God forbid! Accordingly, it must and dare not be considered a trifling matter but a most serious one to seek counsel against this and to save our souls from the Jews, that is, from the Devil and from eternal death. My advice, as I said earlier, is: 176 First, that their synagogues be burned down, and that all who are able toss in sulphur and pitch; it would be good if some-

About the Jews and Their Lies one could also throw in some hellfire. That would demonstrate to God our serious resolve and be evidence to all the world that it was in ignorance that we tolerated such edifices, in which the Jews have reviled God, our dear Creator and Father, and his Son most shamefully up till now, but that we have now given them their due reward. Second, that all their books—their prayer books, their Talmudic writings, also the entire Bible177—be taken from them, not leaving them one leaf, and that these be preserved for those who may be converted. For they use all of these books to blaspheme the Son of God, that is, God the Father himself, Creator of heaven and earth, as was said above; and they will never read them differently. Third, that they be forbidden on pain of death to praise God, to give thanks, to pray, and to teach publicly among us and in our country.178 They may do this in their own country or wherever they can without our being obliged to hear it or know it. The reason for this prohibition is that their praise, thanks, prayer, and teaching are sheer blasphemy, cursing, and idolatry, because their heart and mouth call God the Father Hebel Vorik as they call his Son, our Lord Jesus, this. For as they name and honor the Son, thus they also name and honor the Father. It does not help them to use many fine words and to make much ado about the name of God. For we read, “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” [Exod. 20:7]. Just as little did it avail their ancestors at the time of the kings of Israel that they bore God’s name, yet called him Baal. Fourth, that they be forbidden to utter the name of God within our hearing. For we cannot with a good conscience listen to this or tolerate it, because their blasphemous and accursed mouth and heart call God’s Son Hebel Vorik, even as they call his Father the same. A Jew cannot and will not interpret this otherwise, just as we Christians too cannot interpret it otherwise, we who believe that however the Son is named and honored thus also the Father is named and honored. Therefore we must not consider the mouth of the Jews as worthy within our hearing. He who hears this name from a Jew must inform the authorities, or else throw sow dung at him when he sees him and chase him away. And may no one be merciful and kind in this regard, for God’s honor and the salvation of us all, including that of the Jews, are at stake!

589

177. Exceeding in severity the former recommendation, which did not demand confiscating the Bible itself.

178. In the first iteration Luther had written only of the prohibition of teaching, not of worship (though the destruction of the synagogues was no doubt intended to put an end to all such activities). Both lists indicate that the category of blasphemy was central to Luther’s theological reflection. Puzzling also is that Luther offers his list of practical advisories twice in the treatise. Since Luther’s printers had a way of yanking manuscript pages from him as he had written them, he may have offered his advisories again to make absolutely sure that the readers got his sentiment. The sharpening of the second iteration suggests again that as Luther wrote he increasingly became more categorical.

590

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD And if they, or someone else in their behalf, were to suggest that they do not intend any such great evil, or that they are not aware that with such blaspheming and cursing they are blaspheming and cursing God the Father—alleging that though they blaspheme Jesus and us Christians, they nonetheless praise and honor God most highly and beautifully—we answer as we have done before: that if the Jews do not want to admit this or try to put a better face on it, we Christians at least are bound to admit it. The Jews’ ignorance is not to be excused, since God has had this proclaimed for almost fifteen hundred years. They are obliged to know it, and God demands this knowledge of them. For if anyone who hears God’s words for fifteen hundred years still constantly remarks, “I do not want to acknowledge this,” ignorance will provide a very poor excuse. The individual thereby really incurs a sevenfold guilt. To be sure, they did not know at that time that it was God’s word; but now they have been informed of it these fifteen hundred years. They have witnessed great signs. Yet they have raged against this, and because of it lived in such exile for fifteen hundred years. All right, let them even now hear and believe it, and all will be simple. If they refuse, it is certain that they will never acknowledge it but are bent on cursing it forever, as their forebears have done for these fifteen hundred years. So we Christians, who do acknowledge it, cannot tolerate or take upon our conscience their willful, everlasting ignorance and blasphemy in our midst. Let them wander back to their country, be ignorant and blaspheme there as long as they can, and not burden us with their wicked sins. But what will happen even if we do burn down the Jews’ synagogues and forbid them publicly to praise God, to pray, to teach, to utter God’s name? They will still keep doing it in secret. If we know that they are doing this in secret, it is the same as if they were doing it publicly. For our knowledge of their secret doings and our toleration of them implies that they are not secret after all, and thus our conscience is encumbered with it before God. So let us beware. In my opinion the problem must be resolved thus: If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country. Let them think of their fatherland; then they need no longer wail and lie before God against us that we are holding them captive, nor need we then any lon-

About the Jews and Their Lies ger complain that they are burdening us with their blasphemy and their usury. This is the most natural and the best course of action, which will safeguard the interest of both parties. But since they are loath to quit the country, they will boldly deny everything and will also offer the government money enough for permission to remain here. Woe to those who accept such money, and accursed be that money, which they have stolen from us so damnably through usury. They deny just as brazenly as they lie. And wherever they can secretly curse, poison, or harm us Christians they do so without any qualms of conscience. If they are caught in the act or charged with something, they are bold enough to deny it impudently, even to the point of death,179 since they do not regard us worthy of being told the truth. In fact, these holy children of God consider any harm they can wish or inflict on us as a great service to God. Indeed, if they had the power to do to us what we are able to do to them, not one of us would live for an hour. But since they lack the power to do this publicly, they remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts. Their prayers and curses furnish evidence of that, as do the many stories which relate their torturing of children and all sorts of crimes for which they have often been burned at the stake or banished. Therefore I firmly believe that they say and practice far worse things secretly than the histories and others record about them, meanwhile relying on their denials and on their money. But even if they could deny all else, they cannot deny that they curse us Christians openly—not because of our evil life, but because we regard Jesus as the Messiah, and because they view themselves as our captives, although they know very well that the latter is a lie, and that they are really the ones who hold us captive in our own country by means of their usury, and that everyone would gladly be rid of them. Because they curse us, they also curse our Lord; and if they curse our Lord, they also curse God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. Thus their lying cannot avail them. Their cursing alone convicts them, so that we are indeed compelled to believe all the evil things written about them. Undoubtedly they do more and viler things than those which we know and discover. For Christ does not lie or deceive us when he adjudges them to be serpents and children of the Devil, that is, his and all his followers’ murderers and enemies, wherever they find it possible.

591

179. Probably a reference to the practice of extracting confessions by the use of torture. Cf. above, n. 149, p. 569.

592

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD If I had power over the Jews, as our princes and cities have, I would deal severely with their lying mouth. They have one lie with which they work great harm among their children and their common folk and with which they slander our faith so shamefully: namely, they accuse us and slander us among their people, declaring that we Christians worship more than one God. Here they vaunt and pride themselves without measure. They beguile their people with the claim that they are the only people, in contrast to all the Gentiles, who worship no more than one God. Oh, how cocksure they are about this! Even though they are aware that they are doing us an injustice and are lying on this point as malicious and wicked scoundrels, even though they have heard for fifteen hundred years, and still hear, that all of us Christians disavow this, they still stuff their ears shut like serpents and deliberately refuse to hear us, but rather insist that their venomous lies about us must be accepted by their people as the truth. This they do even though they read in our writings that we agree with Moses’ words in Deuteronomy 6[:4]: “Hear, O Israel, the L ord our God is one God,” and that we confess, publicly and privately, with our hearts, tongues and writings, our life and our death, that there is but one God, of whom Moses writes here and whom the Jews themselves call upon. I say, even if they know this and have heard and read it about us for almost fifteen hundred years, it is of no avail; their lies must still stand, and we Christians have to tolerate their slander that we worship many gods. Consequently, if I had power over them, I would assemble their scholars and their leaders and order them, on pain of losing their tongues down to the root, to convince us Christians within eight days of the truth of their assertions and to prove this blasphemous lie against us, to the effect that we worship more than the one true God. If they succeeded, we would all on the selfsame day become Jews and be circumcised. If they failed, they should stand ready to receive the punishment they deserve for such shameful, malicious, pernicious, and venomous lies. For, thanks be to God, we are after all not such ducks, clods, or stones as these most intelligent rabbis, these senseless fools, think us, that we do not know that one God and many gods cannot truly be believed in simultaneously. Neither Jew nor Devil will in any way be able to prove that our belief that the one eternal Godhead is composed of three per-

About the Jews and Their Lies sons implies that we believe in more than one God.180 If the Jews maintain that they cannot understand how three persons can be one God, why then must their blasphemous, accursed, lying mouth deny, condemn, and curse what it does not understand? Such a mouth should be punished for two reasons; in the first place, because it confesses that it does not understand this; in the second place, because it nevertheless blasphemes something which it does not understand. Why do they not first ask? Indeed, why have they heard it for fifteen hundred years and yet refuse to learn or understand it? Therefore such lack of understanding cannot help or excuse them, nor us Christians if we tolerate this any longer from them. As already said, we must force them to prove their lies about us or suffer the consequences. For he who slanders and maligns us as being idolatrous in this respect, slanders and maligns Christ, that is, God himself, as an idol. For it is from God that we learned and received this as his eternal word and truth, confirmed mightily by signs and confessed and taught now for nearly fifteen hundred years. No person has yet been born, or will ever be born, who can grasp or comprehend how foliage can sprout from wood or a tree, or how grass can grow forth from stone or earth, or how any creature can be begotten. Yet these filthy, blind, hardened liars presume to fathom and to know what is happening outside and beyond the creature in God’s hidden, incomprehensible, inscrutable, and eternal essence. Though we ourselves can grasp only with difficulty and with weak faith what has been revealed to us about this in veiled words, they give vent to such terrible blasphemy over it as to call our faith idolatrous, which is to reproach and defame God himself as an idol. We are convinced of our faith and doctrine; and they, too, ought to understand it, having heard for fifteen hundred years that it is by God and from God through Jesus Christ. If these vulgar people had expressed themselves more mildly and said, “The Christians worship one God and not many gods, and we are lying and doing the Christians an injustice when we allege that they are worshiping more than one God, though they do believe that there are three persons in the Godhead; we cannot understand this but are willing to let the Christians follow their convictions,” etc.—that would have been sensible. But now they proceed, impelled by the Devil, to fall into this like filthy sows fall into the trough, defaming and reviling what they refuse

593 180. This subject was to receive major attention in Luther’s treatise published later in 1543, The Last Words of David. The subject also played a prominent role in the anti-Jewish treatises of both Lyra and Paul of Burgos; the latter devoted seventeen chapters in Scrutinium (Part I, Distinction 9) to the doctrine of the Trinity, refuting the accusation of polytheism.

594

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD to acknowledge and to understand. Without further ado they declare: We Jews do not understand this and do not want to understand it; therefore it follows that it is wrong and idolatrous. These are the people to whom God has never been God but a liar in the person of all the prophets and apostles, no matter how much God had these preach to them. The result is that they cannot be God’s people, no matter how much they teach, clamor, and pray. They do not hear God; so God, in turn, does not hear them, as Psalm 18[:26] says: “With the crooked you show yourself perverse.” The wrath of God has overtaken them. I am loath to think of this, and it has not been a pleasant task for me to write this book, being obliged to resort now to anger, now to satire, in order to avert my eyes from the terrible picture which they present. It has pained me to mention their horrible blasphemy concerning our Lord and his dear mother, which we Christians are grieved to hear. I can well understand what St. Paul means in Romans 10 [9:2] when he says that he is saddened as he considers them. I think that all Christians experience this when they reflect seriously, not on the temporal misfortunes and exile which the Jews bemoan, but on the fact that they are condemned to blaspheme, curse, and vilify God and all that is God’s, for their eternal damnation, and that they refuse to hear and acknowledge this but regard all of their doings as zeal for God. O God, heavenly Father, relent and let your wrath over them be sufficient and come to an end, for the sake of your dear Son! Amen. I wish and I ask that our rulers who have Jewish subjects exercise a sharp mercy toward these wretched people, as suggested above, to see whether this might not help (though it is doubtful). They must act like a good physician who, when gangrene has set in, proceeds without mercy to cut, saw, and burn flesh, veins, bone, and marrow. Such a procedure must also be followed in this instance. Burn down their synagogues, forbid all that I enumerated earlier, force them to work, and deal harshly with them, as Moses did in the wilderness, slaying three thousand lest the whole people perish. They surely do not know what they are doing; moreover, as people possessed, they do not wish to know it, hear it, or learn it. Therefore it would be wrong to be merciful and confirm them in their conduct. If this does not help we must drive them out like mad dogs, so that we do not become partakers of their abominable blasphemy and all their other vices and thus merit God’s wrath and be damned with them. I have

About the Jews and Their Lies done my duty. Now let everyone see to his. I am exonerated.181 Finally I wish to say this for myself: If God were to give me no other Messiah than such as the Jews wish and hope for, I would much, much rather be a sow than a human being. I will cite you a good reason for this. The Jews ask no more of their Messiah than that he be a Kokhba and worldly king who will slay us Christians and share out the world among the Jews and make them lords, and who finally will die like other kings, and his children after him. For thus declares a rabbi: You must not suppose that it will be different at the time of the Messiah than it has been since the creation of the world,182 etc.; that is, there will be days and nights, years and months, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest, begetting and dying, eating and drinking, sleeping, growing, digesting, eliminating—all will take its course as it does now, only the Jews will be the masters and will possess all the world’s gold, goods, joys, and delights, while we Christians will be their servants. This coincides entirely with the thoughts and teachings of Muhammad. He kills us Christians as the Jews would like to do, occupies the land, and takes over our property, our joys and pleasures. If he were a Jew and not an Ishmaelite, the Jews would have accepted him as the Messiah long ago, or they would have made him the Kokhba. Even if I had all of that, or if I could become the ruler of Turkey or the Messiah for whom the Jews hope, I would still prefer being a sow. For what would all of this benefit me if I could not be secure in its possession for a single hour? Death, that horrible burden and plague of all humankind, would still threaten me. I would not be safe from him; I would have to fear him every moment. I would still have to quake and tremble before hell and the wrath of God. And I would know no end of all this, but would have to expect it forever. The tyrant Dionysius illustrated this well when he placed a person who praised his good fortune at the head of a richly laden table. Over his head he suspended an unsheathed sword attached to a silk thread, and below him he put a red-hot fire, saying: Eat and be merry, etc.183 That is the sort of joy such a Messiah would dispense. And I know that anyone who has ever tasted of death’s terror or burden would rather be a sow than bear this forever and ever. For a sow lies down on her featherbed, on the street, or on a dung-heap; she rests securely, snores gently, sleeps sweetly, fears neither king nor lord, neither death nor hell, neither the Devil

595 181. In this and the preceding paragraph, Luther remarks on the difficulty of writing the treatise, offers a brief and pointed prayer for the Jews, and summarizes recommendations to the authorities. All give the impression that this was intended as the conclusion of the treatise. A brief section follows, however, dealing with the contrast between Jewish and Christian notions of Messiahship, and referring once more, in conclusion, to the four major proof texts discussed in the main body of the work. Several motifs in this concluding section, e.g., those of the peaceful character of Christ’s kingdom and its universal extent, are found also in the conclusion of Lyra’s Pulcherrimae quaestiones. 182. Luther gives no source, but cf. the citations given by Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages (London: J. M. Dent & Sons, 1932), 356. Cohen, however, notes that this is a minority opinion in the Talmud.

183. The story told by Cicero (106–43 bce) in Tusculan Disputations 5.61 of Dionysius II of Syracuse (c. 397–343 bce) who lowered a sword over the head of his courtier Damocles, as he sat at Dionysius’s sumptuous table.

596

The Sword of Damocles, illustrated by Wenceslaus Hollar (1607−1677)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD nor God’s wrath, and lives entirely without care so long as she has her bran. And if the emperor of Turkey were to draw near with all his might and his wrath, she in her pride would not move a bristle for his sake. If someone were to muse her, she, I suppose, would grunt and say, if she could talk: You fool, why are you raving? You are not onetenth as well off as I am. Not for an hour do you live as securely, as peacefully and tranquilly as I do constantly, nor would you even if you were ten times as great or rich. In brief, no thought of death occurs to her, for her life is secure and serene. And when the butcher performs his job with her, she probably imagines that a stone or piece of wood is pinching her. She never thinks of death, and in a moment she is dead. Neither before, during, or in death did she feel death. She feels nothing but life, nothing but everlasting life! No king, not even the Jews’ Messiah, will be able to emulate her, nor will any person, however great, rich, holy, or mighty he might be. She never ate of the apple that taught us wretched people in Paradise the difference between good and evil. What good would the Jews’ Messiah do me if he were unable to help a poor man like me in face of this great and horrible lack and grief and make my life one-tenth as pleasant as that of a sow? I would say: Dear Lord God, keep your Messiah, or give him to whoever will have him. Instead, make me a sow. For it is better to be a live sow than a man who is eternally dying. Yea, as Christ says: “It would have been better for that man if he had not been born” [Matt. 26:24]. However, if I had a Messiah who could remedy this grief, so that I would no longer have to fear death but would be always and eternally sure of life, and able to play a trick on the Devil and death and no longer have to tremble before the wrath of God, then my heart would leap for joy and be intoxicated with sheer delight; then would a fire of love for God be enkindled, and my

About the Jews and Their Lies praise and thanks would never cease. Even if God would not, in addition, give me gold, silver, and other riches, all the world would nonetheless be a genuine paradise for me, though I lived in a dungeon. That is the kind of Messiah we Christians have, and we thank God, the Father of all mercy, with the full, overflowing joy of our hearts, gladly and readily forgetting all the sorrow and harm which the Devil wrought for us in Paradise. For our loss has been richly compensated for, and all has been restored to us through this Messiah. Filled with such joy, the apostles sang and rejoiced in dungeons and amid all misfortunes as did even young girls, such as Agatha, Lucia, etc.184 The wretched Jews, on the other hand, who rejected this Messiah, have languished and perished since that time in anguish of heart, in trouble, trembling, wrath, impatience, malice, blasphemy, and cursing, as we read in Isaiah 65[:14f.]: “Behold, my servants shall sing for gladness of heart, but you shall cry out for pain of heart, and shall wail for anguish of spirit. You shall leave your name to my chosen for a curse, and the Lord God will slay you; but his servants he will call by a different name.” And in the same chapter we read [vv. 1f.]: “I was ready to be sought by those who did not ask for me; I was ready to be found by those who did not seek me. I said, ‘Here am I, here am I,’ to a nation that did not call on my name (that is, who were not my people). I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people.” We, indeed, have such a Messiah, who says to us (John 11[:25] NRSV): “I am the resurrection and the life; those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die.” And John 8[:51 NRSV]: “Very, truly, I tell you, whoever keeps my word will never see death.” The Jews and the Turks care nothing for such a Messiah. And why should they? They must have a Messiah from the fool’s paradise, who will satisfy their stinking belly, and who will die together with them like a cow or a dog. Nor do they need him in the face of death, for they themselves are holy enough with their penitence and piety to step before God and attain this and everything. Only Christians are such fools and timid cowards who stand in such awe of God, who regard their sin and his wrath so highly that they do not venture to appear before the eyes of his divine Majesty without a mediator or Messiah to represent them and to sacrifice him-

597

184. St. Agatha of Sicily was martyred in c. 251. St. Lucia of Syracuse was martyred in 304 during the persecution of Emperor Diocletian (245–316).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

598

self for them. The Jews, however, are holy and valiant heroes and knights who dare to approach God themselves without mediator or Messiah, and ask for and receive all they desire. Obviously the angels and God himself must rejoice whenever a Jew condescends to pray; then the angels must take this prayer and place it as a crown on God’s divine head. We have witnessed this for fifteen hundred years. So highly does God esteem the noble blood and circumcised saints because they can call his son Hebel Vorik! z Furthermore, not only do we foolish, craven Christians and accursed Goyim regard our Messiah as so indispensable for delivering us from death through himself and without our holiness, but we wretched people are also afflicted with such great and terrible blindness as to believe that he needs no sword or worldly power to accomplish this. For we cannot comprehend how God’s wrath, sin, death, and hell can be banished with the sword, since we observe that from the beginning of the world to the present day death has not cared a fig for the sword; it has overcome all emperors, kings, and whoever wields a sword as easily as it overcomes the weakest infant in the cradle. In this respect, the great seducers Isaiah, Jeremiah, and all the other prophets do us great harm. They beguile us mad Goyim with their false doctrine, saying that the kingdom of the Messiah will not bear the sword. Oh, that the holy rabbis and the chivalrous, bold heroes of the Jews would come to our rescue here and extricate us from these abominable errors! For when Isaiah 2[:2f.] prophesies concerning the Messiah that the Gentiles shall come to the house and mountain of the Lord and let themselves be taught (for undoubtedly they do not expect to be murdered with the sword; in this case they would surely not approach but would stay away), he says [v. 4]: “He (the Messiah) shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.” Similar sorcery is also practiced upon us poor Goyim in Isaiah 11[:9]: “They shall not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord.”

z

See n. p, p. 562; pp. 588–89.

About the Jews and Their Lies We poor blind Goyim cannot conceive of this “knowledge of the Lord” as a sword, but as the instruction by which one learns to know God; our understanding agrees with Isaiah 2, cited above, which also speaks of the knowledge which the Gentiles shall pursue. For knowledge does not come by the sword, but by teaching and hearing, as we stupid Goyim assume. Likewise Isaiah 53[:11]: “By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous”; that is, by teaching them and by their hearing him and believing in him. What else might “his knowledge” mean? In brief, the knowledge of the Messiah must come by preaching. The proof of this is before your eyes, namely, that the apostles used no spear or sword but solely their tongues. And their example has been followed in all the world now for fifteen hundred years by all the bishops, pastors, and preachers, and is still being followed. Just see whether the pastor wields sword or spear when he enters the church, preaches, baptizes, administers the sacrament, when he retains and remits sin, restrains evildoers, comforts the godly, and teaches, helps, and nurtures everyone’s soul. Does he not do all of this exclusively with the tongue or with words? And the congregation, likewise, brings no sword or spear to such a ministry, but only its ears. And consider the miracles. The Roman Empire and the whole world abounded with idols to which the Gentiles adhered; the Devil was mighty and defended himself vigorously. All swords were against it, and yet the tongue alone purged the entire world of all these idols without a sword. It also exorcised innumerable devils, raised the dead, healed all types of diseases, and snowed and rained down sheer miracles. Thereafter it swept away all heresy and error, as it still does daily before our eyes. And further—this is the greatest miracle—it forgives and blots out all sin, creates happy, peaceful, patient hearts, devours death, locks the doors of hell and opens the gate of heaven, and gives eternal life. Who can enumerate all the blessings effected by God’s word? In brief, it makes all who hear and believe it children of God and heirs of the kingdom of heaven. Do you not call this a kingdom, power, might, dominion, glory? Yes, most certainly, this is a comforting kingdom and the true chemdath of all Gentiles. And should I, in company with the Jews, desire or accept bloodthirsty Kokhba in place of such a kingdom? As I said, in such circumstances I would rather be a sow than a man.

599

600

185. Tiberius (Tiberius Caesar Augustus) was emperor of the Roman Empire from 14 to 37. Hadrian reigned 117–138. He put down the Jewish revolt led by Simon bar Kokhba in 136. He banished Jews from Judea and renamed it Syria Palestina; he also ordered a public burning of the Torah and prohibited the practice of Judaism. 186. Eusebius (c. 260–c. 339) was a Roman historian and Christian polemicist. He became bishop of Caesarea in Palestine in c. 314.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD All the writings of the prophets agree with this interpretation, that the nations, both Jews and Gentiles, flocked to Shiloh after the scepter had been wrested from Judah (as Jacob says in Genesis 49); likewise, that the seventy weeks of Daniel are fulfilled; that the temple of Haggai is destroyed, but the house and throne of David have remained until the present time and will endure forever. On the other hand, according to the mischievous denial, lying, and cursing of the Jews, whom God has rejected, this is not the meaning of these passages, much less has it been fulfilled. To speak first of the words of Jacob in Genesis 49, we heard before what idle and senseless foolishness the Jews have invented regarding them, yet without hitting upon any definite meaning. But if we confess our Lord Jesus and let him be the “Shiloh” or Messiah, everything agrees, coincides, rhymes, and harmonizes beautifully and delightfully. For he appeared promptly on the scene at the time of Herod, after the scepter had departed from Judah. He initiated his rule of peace without a sword, as Isaiah and Zechariah had prophesied, and all the nations gathered about him—both Jews and Gentiles—so that on one day in Jerusalem three thousand souls became believers, and many members of the priesthood and of the princes of the people also flocked to him, as Luke records in Acts 3 and 4. For more than one hundred years after Jesus’ resurrection, that is, from the eighteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius until the eighteenth year of the reign of Emperor Hadrian,185 who inflicted the second and last bloodbath on the Jews, who defeated Kokhba and drove the Jews utterly and completely from their country, there were always bishops in Jerusalem from the tribe of the children of Israel, all of whom our Eusebius186 mentions by name (Eccl. Hist., Bk. 4, ch. 5). He begins with St. James the apostle and enumerates about fifteen of them, all of whom preached the gospel with great diligence, performed miracles and lived a holy life, converting many thousands of Jews and children of Israel to their promised Messiah who had now appeared, Jesus of Nazareth; apart from these there were the Jews living in the Diaspora who were converted together with the Gentiles by St. Paul, other apostles, and their disciples. This was accomplished despite the fact that the other faction, the blind, impenitent Jews—the fathers of the present-day Jews—raved, raged, and ranted against it without letup and without ceasing, and shed

About the Jews and Their Lies

601

much blood of members of their own race both within their own country and abroad among the Gentiles, as was related earlier also of Kokhba. After Hadrian had expelled the Jews from their country, however, it was necessary to choose the bishops in Jerusalem from the Gentiles who had become Christians, for the Jews were no longer found or tolerated in the country because of Kokhba and his rebellious followers, who gave the Romans no rest. Yet the other, pious, converted Jews who lived dispersed among the Gentiles converted many of the children of Israel, as we gather from the epistles of St. Paul and from the histories. But these always and everywhere suffered persecution at the hands of the Kokhbaites, so that the pious children of Israel had no worse enemies than their own people. This is true today in the instance of converted Jews. The Gentiles all over the world also gathered about these pious, converted children of Israel. This they did in great numbers and with such zeal that they gave up not only their idols and their own wisdom but also forsook wife and child, friends, goods and honor, life and limb for the sake of it. They suffered everything that the Devil and all the other Gentiles, as well as the mad Jews, could contrive. For all of that, they did not seek a Kokhba, nor the Gentiles’ gold, silver, possessions, dominion, land, or people; they sought eternal life, a life other than this temporal one. They were poor and wretched voluntarily, and yet were happy and content. They were not embittered or vindictive, but kind and merciful. They prayed for their enemies, and, in addition, performed many and great miracles. That has lasted uninExpulsion of the Jews in the reign of   Emperor Hadrian terruptedly from that time on down to the (135 ce ): “How Heraclius turned the Jews present day, and it will endure to the end of out of Jerusalem.” Facsimile of a miniature in the world. “Histoire des Empereurs,” Manuscripts of the Fifteenth It is a great, extraordinary, and wonderCentury, in the Library of the Arsenal, Paris. ful thing that the Gentiles in all the world

602

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD accepted, without sword or coercion, with no temporal benefits accruing to them, gladly and freely, a poor man of the Jews as the true Messiah, one whom his own people had crucified, condemned, cursed, and persecuted without end. They did and they suffered so much for his sake, and forsook all idolatry, so that they might live with him eternally. This has been going on now for fifteen hundred years. No worship of a false god ever endured so long, nor did all the world suffer so much because of it or cling so firmly to it. And I suppose one of the strongest proofs is found in the fact that no other god ever withstood such hard opposition as the Messiah, against whom alone all other gods and peoples have raged and against whom they all acted in concert, no matter how varied they were or how they otherwise disagreed. Whoever is not moved by this miraculous spectacle quite deserves to remain blind or to become an accursed Jew. We Christians perceive that these events are in agreement with the statement of Jacob found in Genesis 49: “To the Shiloh or Messiah (after the scepter has dropped from the hands of Judah) shall be the obedience of the peoples.” We have the fulfillment of this before our eyes: The peoples, that is, not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, are in perfect accord in their obedience to this Shiloh; they have become one people, that is, Christians. One cannot mention or think of anyone to whom this verse of Jacob applies and refers so fittingly as to our dear Lord Jesus. It would have had to be someone who appeared just after the loss of the scepter, or else the Holy Spirit lied through the mouth of the holy patriarch Jacob, and God forgot his promise. May the Devil say that, or anyone who wishes to be an accursed Jew! Likewise the verse regarding the everlasting house and throne of David fits no other than this our Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth [2 Sam. 23:5]. For subsequent to the rule of the kings from the tribe of Judah and since the days of Herod, we cannot think of any son of David who might have sat on his throne or still occupies it today “to preserve his throne eternally.” Yet that is what had to take place and still must take place, since God promised it with an oath. But when this Son of David arose from the dead, many, many thousands of children of Israel rallied about him, both in Jerusalem and throughout the world, accepting him as their King and Messiah, as the true Seed of Abraham and of their lineage. These were and still are the house, the kingdom, the throne of David. For they are the descendants

About the Jews and Their Lies of the children of Israel and the seed of Abraham, over whom David was king. That they have died and lie buried does not matter; they are nonetheless his kingdom and his people before him. They are dead to us and to the world, but to him they are alive and not dead. It is natural that the blind Jews are unaware of this; for he who is blind sees nothing at all. We Christians, however, know that he says in John 8[:56] and in Matthew 22[:32.]: “Abraham lives.” Also in John 11[:25]: “Those who believe in me, though they die, yet will live.” Thus David’s house and throne are firmly established. There is a Son occupying it eternally, who never dies, nor does he ever let die those who are of his kingdom or who accept him in true faith as King. That marks the true fulfillment of this verse that declares that David’s throne shall be eternal. Now let all the devils and Jews, Turks, and whoever wants to concern themselves with it also name one or more sons of David to whom this verse regarding the house of David applies so precisely and beautifully, since the time of Herod, and we shall be ready to praise them. To such kingdom and throne of David we Gentiles belong, along with all who have accepted this Messiah and son of David as king with the same faith, and who continue to accept him to the end of the world and in eternity. Jacob’s saying in Genesis 49[:10] states: “To him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” This means not only one nation, such as the children of Israel, but also whatever others are called nations. And latera we read in Genesis 22[:18]: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves.” In this verse we find the term “Goyim,” which in the Bible commonly means the Gentiles, except where the prophets also call the Jews this in a strong tone of contempt. To summarize, the blessing of God through the seed of Abraham shall not be confined to his physical descendants, but shall be spread among all the Gentiles. That is why God calls Abraham “father of a multitude of nations” [Gen. 17:5]. There are many more such statements in Scripture. The reason that Scripture calls this kingdom “David’s throne” and calls the King Messiah “David’s Seed” is found in the fact that this kingdom of David and the King Messiah did not come from us Gentiles to the children of Abraham and Israel, a This should of course read “earlier.”

603

604

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD but came from the children of Abraham and Israel, as the Lord himself says in John 4[:22]: “Salvation is from the Jews.” Even if we are all descended from Adam and partake of the same birth and blood, nevertheless all other nations were shunted aside and solely Abraham’s seed was selected as the nation from which the Messiah would come. After Abraham only Isaac, after Isaac only Jacob, after Jacob only Judah, after Judah only David was chosen, and the other brothers, each in his turn, were pushed aside and not chosen as the lineage from which the Messiah was to come. But everything, all things, happened for the sake of the Messiah. Therefore the whole seed of Abraham, especially those who believed in this Messiah, were highly honored by God, as St. Paul says in Acts 13[:17]: “God made the people great.” For it surely is a great honor and distinction to be able to boast of being the Messiah’s relative and kin. The closer the relationship, the greater the honor. However, this boasting must not stem from the idea that Abraham’s and his descendants’ lineage is worthy of such honor; for that would nullify everything. It must be based rather on the fact that God chose Abraham’s flesh and blood for this purpose out of sheer grace and mercy, although it surely deserved a far different lot. We Gentiles, too, have been honored very highly by being made partakers of the Messiah and the kingdom and by enjoying the blessing promised to Abraham’s seed. But if we should boast as though we were deserving of this, and not acknowledge that we owe it to sheer, pure mercy, giving God alone the glory, all would also be spoiled and lost. It is as said in 1 Corinthians 4[:7]: “What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?” Thus the dear Son of David, Jesus Christ, is also our King and Messiah, and we glory in being his kingdom and people, just as much as David himself and all children of Israel and Abraham. For we know that he has been instated as lord, king, and judge over the living and the dead. “If we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord”; that is, we will also live after death, as we just heard, and as St. Paul preaches in Romans 14[:8]. We look for no bloodthirsty Kokhba in him, but the true Messiah who can give life and salvation. That is what is meant by a son of David sitting on his throne eternally. The blind Jews and Turks know nothing at all of this. May God have mercy on them as he has had and will have on us. Amen.

About the Jews and Their Lies No one can one produce a Messiah to whom the statement in Daniel 9 applies other than this Jesus of Nazareth, even if this drives the Devil with all his angels and Jews to madness. For we heard beforeb how lame the lies of the Jews regarding King Cyrus and King Agrippa are. c However, things did come to pass in accord with the words of the angel Gabriel, and we see the fulfillment before our eyes. “Seventy weeks of years,” he says, “are decreed concerning your people and your holy city.” He does not mention the city by name, Jerusalem, but he simply says “your holy city”; nor does he say, “God’s people,” but simply “your people.” For this people’s and this city’s holiness are to terminate after the expiration of the seventy weeks. In its place a new people, a new Jerusalem, and a different holiness would arise in which one would no longer have to propitiate sin annually with sacrifice, worship, and holiness in the temple and yet never become righteous and perfectly holy, because the atonement had to be repeated and sought anew with sacrifice every year. Rather, the Messiah would bring eternal righteousness, make misdeeds not serious, check transgressions, atone for sin, fulfill prophecies and visions, etc. Where sin has been forever removed and eternal righteousness is found, sacrifice for sin or for righteousness is no longer required. Why should one sacrifice for sin if it no longer exists? Why should one seek righteousness by worshipful service to God if this righteousness is already at hand? But if sacrifice and worship are no longer necessary, of what use are priests and temple? If priests and temple are no longer necessary, why do a people and a city need to be served by them? It must develop into a new people and city which no longer need such priests, temple, sacrifice, and worship, or it must be laid low and destroyed together with the useless temple and worship, priests and sacrifice. For the seventy weeks pronounce the final judgment and put an end to them together with city and temple, priests, sacrifice, and worship. The Christian church, composed of Jews and Gentiles, is such a new people and a new Jerusalem. This people knows that sin has been removed completely by Jesus Christ, that all prophecy has been fulfilled, and eternal righteousness has been established. For whoever believes in him is eternally righteous, and all b See pp. 554–55. c See n. 120, p. 550 and n. 131, p. 556.

605

606

187. As rendered in Luther’s German text.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD their sins are forever made of no consequence, they are atoned for and forgiven, as the New Testament, especially St. Peter and St. Paul, strongly emphasizes. We no longer hear it said: Those who offer guilt-offerings or sin-offerings or other offerings in Jerusalem become righteous or have atoned for their sin; but now we hear: “Those who believe and are baptized will be saved; but those who do not believe will be condemned” [Mark 16:16], no matter where in the wide world they may be. They need not travel to Jerusalem; no, Jerusalem has to come to them. David, too, proclaimed this in Psalm 40[:6ff.]: “Sacrifice and offering you do not desire; but you have given me an open ear” (that is, the ears of the world, that they might hear and believe and thus be saved without sacrifice, temple, and priests). “Burnt offering and sin offering thou hast not required. Then I said, ‘Lo, I come; in the roll of the book it is written of me; I delight to do thy will, O God.’” Indeed, this is the Messiah who brought righteousness through his will and obedience. This is the message of the books of Moses and of all the prophets. Thus also Gabriel says that the sacrifice will not be adequate; he declares that the Messiah “shall be cut off and have nothing” [Dan. 9:26]. Of what will he have nothing? Find out about what he is talking. He is speaking to Daniel about his people and his holy city. He will have none of these, so that their holiness will no longer be with him and in him. Thus Psalm 16[:4] says: “I do not want their libations of blood, nor will I take their names upon my lips.”187 So also we read in Isaiah 33 [cf. v. 24]: “The people who will dwell in the new Jerusalem will be called Nesu awon, levatus peccato: a people forgiven of all sin.” And Jeremiah 32 also promises another, a new, covenant in which not Moses with his covenant shall reign, but rather, as he says: “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more” [Jer. 31:34]. This is, indeed, a covenant of grace, of forgiveness, of remission of all sins eternally. That cannot, of course, be effected by the sword, as the blood-thirsty Kokhbaites aspire to do. No, this was brought into the unworthy world by pure grace through the crucified Messiah, for eternal righteousness and salvation, as Gabriel here declares. As was said before, this saying is too rich; the whole New Testament is summed up in it. Consequently, more time and space would be needed to expound it fully. At present it will suffice if we are convinced that it is impossible to understand this statement as referring to any other Messiah or King than our Lord

About the Jews and Their Lies Jesus of Nazareth. This is true also for the reason that at that time, in the last week, no other Messiah than this one was killed; for as Daniel’s words clearly indicate, there must be a Messiah who was killed at that time. And, finally, also Haggai’s statement fits no one else. For from Haggai’s time on there was no one who might with the slightest plausibility be called “the chemdath of all the Gentiles,” their delight and consolation, except Jesus Christ alone. For fifteen hundred years Gentiles have found their comfort, joy, and delight in him, as we perceive clearly and as the Jews themselves confirm with their cursing to the present day. For why do they curse us? Solely because we confess, praise, and laud this Jesus, the true Messiah, as our consolation, joy, and delight, from whom we will not be parted or separated by weal or woe, in whom and for whom we confidently and willingly live and die. And the more the Jews, Turks, and all other foes revile and defame him, the more firmly will we cling to him and the dearer we will be to him, as he says [Matt. 5:11f.]: “Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven.” All praise and thanks, glory and honor be to him, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, the one true and veritable God. Amen. So long an essay, dear sir and good friend, you have elicited from me with your booklet in which a Jew demonstrates his skill in a debate with an absent Christian. d He would not, thank God, do this in my presence! My essay, I hope, will furnish a Christian (who in any case has no desire to become a Jew) with enough material not only to defend himself against the blind, venomous Jews, but also to become the foe of the Jews’ malice, lying, and cursing, and to understand not only that their belief is false but also that they are assuredly possessed by all devils. May Christ, our dear Lord, convert them mercifully and preserve us steadfastly and immovably in the knowledge of him, which is eternal life. Amen.

d See p. 445.

607

Title page of On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of   Christ (Vom Schem Hamphoras: und vom Geschlecht Christi), published by Jacob Cyriacus in Wittenberg in 1543

�

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ 1543

BROOKS    SCHRAMM

INTRODUCTION

Though Luther’s comments on the Jews and Judaism easily run into the many thousands, the documents in which the central focus is on the Jewish question are five: That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew (1523); Against the Sabbatarians (1538); On the Jews and Their Lies (1543); On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ (1543); and On the Last Words of David (1543). a Both Thomas Kaufmann and Stephen Burnett have suggested that the three 1543 treatises are best conceived as a unit and constitute a threepronged polemical response on Luther’s part to the challenges posed by the Christian Hebraists who were, in his view, becoming more and more influenced by Jewish biblical interpretation. b a In German these writings are called Luthers Judenschriften. The sermon appendix, Admonition against the Jews (1546), rightly belongs in this collection as well. Hereafter: Born a Jew; Sabbatarians; Lies; On the Schem Hamphoras; Last Words. b On Christian Hebraism, see Heiko A. Oberman, “Discovery of Hebrew and Discrimination Against the Jews: The Veritas Hebraica as DoubleEdged Sword in Renaissance and Reformation,” in Germania Illustrata: Essays on Early Modern Germany Presented to Gerald Strauss, ed. Andrew C. Fix and Susan C. Karant-Nunn (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal, 1992), 19–34; Stephen G. Burnett, Christian Hebraism in the Reformation Era [1500–1660]: Authors, Books, and the Transmission of Jewish

609

610

This scene depicts the death of Luther’s daughter Magdalena, who died in September of 1542 while he worked on Lies. This illustration is part of a series titled Dr. Martin Luther, der deutsche Reformator: in bildlichen Darstellungen von Gustav König (Hamburg: Rudolf Besser, 1847).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD In this compelling model, Lies is the primary and most important document, while the two subsequent treatises function as appendices to it. c Luther had worked on Lies during the fall and early winter of 1542, and the treatise was in print in January 1543. Toward the end of Lies, he announces his intention to write on Jewish reverential practices and beliefs concerning the ineffable name of God, d an intention that was fulfilled with the March 1543 appearance of On the Schem Hamphoras. This second treatise represents a substantial expansion of the brief section on “Jewish lies against persons” in the first treatise. e At the very end of the second treatise, he announces his forthcoming work on the Last Words, which then appeared in August 1543. Being the shortest, On the Schem Hamphoras was the most reprinted of the three 1543 treatises during the sixteenth century.f Part one (On the Schem Hamphoras) of the treatise had a twofold impetus. The first was Luther’s engagement with Toledot Yeshu, the Jewish counterlife of Jesus, which presents him as a magician empowered by knowledge of the ineffable name of God. Luther here translates into German a Latin version of Toledot Yeshu known to him from a recently published work of the fourteenthcentury Carthusian monk, Porchetus Salvaticus (d. c. 1315), g which he then proceeds to savage mercilessly. The second came from the Jewish convert, Antony Margaritha (c. 1500–1542),h from whom Luther had learned about Jewish mystical practices connected to the divine name and the interpretive procedure

Learning (Leiden: Brill, 2012); idem, “The Strange Career of the Biblia Rabbinica among Christian Hebraists, 1517–1620,” in Shaping the Bible in the Reformation: Books, Scholars, and Their Readers in the Sixteenth Century, ed. Bruce Gordon and Matthew McLean (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 63–83. c See Thomas Kaufmann, Luthers ‘Judenschriften’: ein Beitrag zu ihrer historischen Kontextualisierung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 110–27; Stephen G. Burnett, “Jews and Luther/Lutheranism,” in Dictionary of Luther and the Lutheran Traditions, ed. Timothy J. Wengert, et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, forthcoming). d See LW 47:256. e See LW 47:254–67. f See VD 16 I:12:486–87. g See n. 14, p. 622 below. h See nn. 12 and 13, pp. 618–19.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

611

Title page of Luther’s The Last Words of   David (Von den Letzten Worten Davids), published in Wittenberg, 1543

known as gematria,1 which he then savages in similar fashion. Contrary to the claim of the editors of the treatise in WA 53 (F. Cohrs and O. Brenner) that the less polemical part two (On the Lineage of Christ) has no inherent connection to part one, Luther’s harmonization of the genealogies of Matthew 1 and Luke 3 constitutes his own presentation of the true origin of Jesus over against the blasphemous story told in Toledot Yeshu.i Part two is structured around a syllogism that Luther develops: (1) Jesus, the Messiah, is the son of David; (2) Mary is a virgin; (3) therefore, Mary must be Davidic. The tenor of part one is particularly harsh, riddled as it is with biting sarcasm, opprobrium, and considerable scatological i

See Peter von der Osten-Sacken, Martin Luther und die Juden: Neu untersucht anhand von Anton Margarithas “Der gantz Jüdisch glaub” [1530/31] (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002), 140.

1. Interpretation based on the numerical value of words and phrases.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

612

2. Justus Jonas (1493–1555), a colleague and close friend of Luther, who translated many of Luther’s German works into Latin. 3. Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560). Luther’s closest scholarly confidant in Wittenberg and author of the Augsburg Confession and the Apolog y to the Augsburg Confession. 4. Philip of Hesse (1504–1567). Major German Protestant prince and opponent of Emperor Charles V (1500–1558). 5. Andreas Osiander (1498–1552). Of   Luther’s closest associates, this gifted Hebraist was the most tolerant in matters Jewish.

language. In the words of Thomas Kaufmann, the treatise is “the ugliest and linguistically dirtiest document that Luther had ever written.”j The reception of the treatise among Luther’s inner circle was lukewarm. Justus Jonas,2 who had translated Lies into Latin (although he excised some portions), did not translate this treatise at all. Philip Melanchthon3 had sent a copy of Lies to Prince Philip of Hesse,4 together with a recommendation of the book, but when he sent the same prince a copy of On the Schem Hamphoras, he only included the comment: “So that Your Princely Grace can see what his [i.e., Luther’s] current work is right now.” Andreas Osiander5 flatly rejected the book. When a disparaging letter about the book that Osiander had written to the Venetian R. Elias Levita 6 came into Melanchthon’s possession, Melanchthon burned the letter so that Luther would not see it.7 The Swiss reformers reacted strongly against the treatise. Heinrich Bullinger8 called it very filthy. The “True Confession of the Servants of the Churches in Zurich” described it as swinish and shitty, and went on to say that if it had been written by a swineherd rather than a shepherd of souls that would constitute

6. R. Elias Levita (1469–1549), a German-born Hebrew grammarian who flourished in Italy. 7. It is possible that Melanchthon sympathized with Osiander more than he was able to say openly. See Timothy J. Wengert, “Melanchthon and the Jews: A Reappraisal,” in Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany, ed. Stephen G. Burnett and Dean Phillip Bell, Studies in Central European Histories 37 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 114–15. 8. Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575), a Roman Catholic convert and supporter of Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531), a major Swiss reformer.

Painting of Adreas Osiander by Georg Pencz (1500–1550)

j

Thomas Kaufmann, Luthers Juden (Stuttgart: Reclam, 2014).

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ but a small excuse. k And Roman Catholic deputies at the Diet of Worms (1545) described the treatise as “cruel as if written in blood.”l From the Jewish side, the issue was taken up by R. Josel of Rosheim (c. 1478–1554), the chief spokesperson for the Jews of Germany. In May 1543, in the wake of the publication of Lies, Josel wrote a letter to the Strassburg city council expressing amazement at how a man of God could have written “such a crude, inhuman book full of abuse and slander” and calling for a public debate with Luther, just as he had debated with, and defeated, Margaritha at the Diet of Augsburg in 1530. m The council agreed to Josel’s plea to stop the circulation of a new printing of the treatise and agreed that pastors were “not to preach turmoil from the pulpit.” n In July 1543 Josel wrote a second letter in which he addresses both Lies and On the Schem Hamphoras: He [Luther] does not know the thoughts of any man— whether he is a believer, whether he is close or far from God—and yet, without giving them a hearing, he would dare to annihilate all of Jewry in this world and in the world to come, and would without hesitation deny them all hope or comfort in God—as though he was sent by God to preach these words . . . no learned person has ever contended that we unfortunate Jews should be treated brutally, in such a tyrannical manner . . . my brethren have now been assaulted in a number of localities, in Meissen and within the jurisdictional authority of Braunschweig and its vicinity, on account of this booklet that was printed. . . . I find it strange [I am amazed] that so erudite a person be permitted something of this kind to be printed. o k The material in this paragraph is summarized from the introduction to the treatise in WA 53:573–74. l Quoted in David Nirenberg, Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition (New York: Norton, 2013), 535 n. 27. m Selma Stern, Josel of Rosheim: Commander of Jewry in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, trans. Gertrude Hirschler (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1965), 92. n Ibid. o Chava Fraenkel-Goldschmidt, The Historical Writings of Joseph of Rosheim: Leader of Jewry in Early Modern Germany, ed. Adam Shear, trans. Naomi

613

614

9. A similar two-pronged attack, against the Jews and against the Christian Hebraists, is also characteristic of Lies.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Luther had already anticipated these types of reactions to his new treatise, as is evident from his prayer for divine understanding: “Oh, my God, my dear Creator and Father! I trust that you will graciously credit me that I have—most reluctantly—had to speak so shamefully about your divine majesty against your cursed enemies, devils, and Jews. You know that I have done this out of the flame of my faith and for the honor of your divine majesty. For this is a matter of utmost seriousness to me.” The scatological language in particular was designed to provoke the Devil in such a way that he would hear Luther “loud and clear,” p as can be seen in Luther’s own rationale for writing the treatise: “I wanted to write this at this time to honor, praise, and thank our dear Lord, to strengthen our faith, and to mock and anger the wretched Devil and his circumcised saints.” From Luther’s own perspective, the treatise is his defense of the Second Commandment and the proper use of the name of God over against the Jews, while simultaneously attacking the authority of the rabbis and their influence on the Christian Hebraists.9

Toledot Yeshu Toledot Yeshu (“The History or Life of Yeshu”) is the common title given to polemical Jewish versions of the birth, life, and death of Jesus of Nazareth. There was never a single, unified version of Toledot Yeshu, and certainly not a single author, but, rather, various versions that grew and developed over time. The versions contained both harmonious and competing details. The story rarely, if ever, circulated on its own but was normally copied in the margins of other Jewish texts. Given its strident satirical character, Toledot Yeshu was not intended for external circulation, and Christian knowledge of the story derived primarily from Jewish converts to Christianity. The study of this Jewish life of Jesus has taken an enormous step forward with the 2014 publi-

Schendowich, Studies in European Judaism 12 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 408–17. Josel denies prior awareness of Toledot Yeshu and related traditions, yet a person of his stature would certainly have had full knowledge of Jewish anti-Christian literature. p Heiko A. Oberman, “Teufelsdreck: Eschatology and Scatology in the ‘Old’ Luther,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 3 (1988): 450.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ cation of Michael Meerson and Peter Schäfer, eds., Toledot Yeshu: The Life Story of Jesus. q According to Meerson and Schäfer, the best estimate for the earliest origins of Toledot Yeshu is c. 500 ce, with the ninth century ce marking the point when the story had achieved a coherent form. Traditions about the birth of Jesus were not added to the story until the fourteenth century.

Title page from Johannes Christoph Wagenseil’s 1681 publication of The Flaming Spears of Satan (Tela ignea Satanae), which included the text of “Sepher Toldot Yeshu” (“The Book of the Life of Yeshu”).

q 2 vols., Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 159 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014). The publication includes an online database of all Toledot Yeshu manuscripts. See also Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch, eds., Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011); Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

615

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

616

In 1263, the Dominican friar Raimundus Martini (d. c. 1284) of Spain published his anti-Jewish work, Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Judaeos (“Dagger of Faith against the Moors and Jews”), which contained a Latin translation of a version of Toledot Yeshu known to him. r Approximately fifty years later, the Carthusian monk Porchetus Salvaticus of Genoa published his own anti-Jewish work, Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebreos (“Porchetus’s Victory against the Godless Hebrews”), in which he merely copied Martini’s Toledot. In 1520, Porchetus’s fourteenthcentury book was printed in Paris and subsequently came into Luther’s possession. s Luther’s translation of Porchetus in On the Schem Hamphoras (the first ever in German) thus represents a thirteenth-century version of the story, and one that did not yet contain a birth narrative.t In its broadest development, Toledot Yeshu tells the story of Jesus under the following rubrics: (1) “Title”; (2) “Preamble”; (3) “Birth Narrative”; (4) “Heresies and Crimes of Yeshu”; (5) “Stealing the Name”; (6) “Yeshu in the Galilee”; (7) Bringing Yeshu to Justice”; (8) “The Trials of Yeshu”; (9) “Execution”; (10) “Burial”; (11) “Acts of Eliyahu”; (12) “Acts of Nestor and Shim’on”; and (13) “The Finding of the Holy Cross.”  u Martini’s, and thus Luther’s, version included only 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Luther’s knowledge of the broader tradition, however, was not restricted to this single thirteenth-century example, because Margaritha’s Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (“The Entire Jewish Faith”) contained abundant references to Toledot Yeshu and in a form developed well beyond Martini’s version. The Jewish name for Jesus, Yeshu, was a particular irritant to Luther. In those Toledot Yeshu versions that discuss it, Jesus’ original name was Yehoshua‘ or Yoshua‘ or Yeshua‘, but the name

r

An English translation of Martini’s Latin Toledot Yeshu is provided in Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 1:10–12. s See Gerhard Kattermann, “Luthers Handexemplar des antijüdischen Porschetus in der Landesbibliothek Karlsruhe,” Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 55 (1938): 45–50. Luther’s personal copy, with marginal annotations, is extant and accessible online: http://digital. blb-karlsruhe.de/id/33266. I am indebted to Stephen Burnett for this information. t Material in this paragraph summarized from Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 1:10–16. u See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 1:40–125.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

617

Title page from Luther’s personal copy of Porchetus’s Victory against the godless Hebrews (Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebreos)

was then shortened to Yeshu (wvy) when the irregular circumstances of his birth were uncovered. In Lies, Luther was aware of two traditions regarding this three-letter name, both drawn from Margaritha.v One is that the numerical value of Yeshu, 316, is equivalent to the Hebrew word for “and emptiness” (va-riq; qyrw), and thus constitutes a slur.10 The other is that the letters of   Yeshu are an acronym for the phrase “yi-mach (jmy) shemo (wmç) ve-zikhro” (wrkzw) “may his name and his memory be erased [from the book of life],” thus constituting a curse. This latter usage is common in Toledot Yeshu manuscripts that include Title and Preamble, sometimes even lengthened to: “may his name and his memory and the memory of his memory be erased.” Another common practice is to follow the introduction of the name Yeshu with the curse from Prov. 10:7: “May the name of the wicked rot” ( bqry µy[vr µv ) . This derives from the epithet consistently attached to Yeshu in the tradition, “the wicked one” ([vrh), and which Luther is aware of from Porchetus’s Toledot Yeshu.

v

See LW 47:257.

10. Three times each day, Jews recite the prayer known as ‘Aleinu (“it is incumbent on us”), which contains a phrase from Isa. 30:7 and 45:20 that came to be understood as referring to the Christians: “For they worship emptiness and vanity, and pray to a God who cannot save.” Margaritha revealed that after praying these words, Jews would spit on the ground. See Lies, this volume, p. 562; LW 47:257.

618 11. The significance of the number 72 derives from a gematria of the Tetragrammaton in the shape of a pyramid: Y = 10 YH = 15 YHW = 21 YHWH = 26 72 12. A second, revised edition was published in 1531.

Title page of the second edition of Margaritha’s The Entire Jewish Faith (Der gantz Jüdisch glaub) (Augsburg: Heynrich Steyner, 1531)

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

Schem Hamphoras and Margaritha Schem Hamphoras is Luther’s transliteration of the Hebrew phrase that means “the ineffable name of God” (çrwpmh µç; shem hameforash).w The term is rabbinic and is attested as early as the Mishnah, c. 200 ce, where it is a circumlocution for the Tetragrammaton, the unspeakable four-letter name of God: hwhy (YHWH). By the high Middle Ages, however, Jewish mystical traditions (Kabbalah) had significantly developed notions about the Name and the names of God and their associated powers. x These notions lie behind Toledot Yeshu’s claim that Jesus’ miracleworking powers resulted from his having stolen the Name. But it was from Margaritha that Luther had learned about the Jewish mystical practice of deriving the names of seventy-two angels from the Hebrew text of Exod. 14:19-21, each verse of which contains seventy-two letters.11 As he makes clear in this treatise, he regarded such a practice, as well as any attempts to make exegetical or theological claims on the basis of the numerical values of Hebrew letters and words, as sheer nonsense and quintessentially rabbinic. In this treatise, Luther uses Schem Hamphoras as a cipher for all such practices. In 1530, the Jewish convert Antony Margaritha published Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (“The Entire Jewish Faith”),12 a volume that would eventually make an immense impact on Luther’s thinking about the Jews. The son and grandson of prominent German Jewish rabbis translated into German for the first time the Jewish daily prayer book, offered commentary on it, and also described Jewish ritual practices.y Luther regarded him as an expert witness, and his influence saturates both Lies and On the

w The literal sense of the phrase is “the fully explicated name.” x On the roots of Jewish mystical thought, see Peter Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009). y On Margaritha, see the superb volume by Michael T. Walton, Anthonius Margaritha and the Jewish Faith: Jewish Life and Conversion in SixteenthCentury Germany (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2012). Also, Maria Diemling, “Anthonius Margaritha on the ‘Whole Jewish Faith’: A Sixteenth-Century Convert from Judaism and His Depiction of the Jewish Religion,” in Burnett and Bell, eds., Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation, 303–33.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ Schem Hamphoras.13 Not only was Margaritha knowledgeable about the traditions of Toledot Yeshu, which he alludes to numerous times, but he also knew well the Sefer Nizzachon Vetus (“The Old Book of Victory”), which was a vigorous, virtually pointby-point Jewish rebuttal of Christian interpretations of the Old Testament. z In addition, Margaritha knew the Sefer Ikkarim (“The Book of Fundamentals”) of R. Joseph Albo (1380–1444), a work that responds to Christian teachings about the Messiah. a Through Margaritha Luther thus had access to a wealth of Jewish anti-Christian polemic, and it is hard to overestimate the impact that such polemic had on him.b On the Schem Hamphoras is a central example of him striking back against it with the full force of his rhetorical arsenal.

Outline The major components of Luther’s two-part treatise are as follows: Introduction Making good on the promise made in Lies Impossibility of converting the Jews Part One: On the Schem Hamphoras Translation of Porchetus’s Toledot Yeshu

z

On Nizzachon, see David Berger, The Jewish–Christian Debate in the High Middle Ages: A Critical Edition of the Nizzahon Vetus (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1979). a On Margaritha’s knowledge of Nizzachon and Ikkarim, see Walton, Margaritha, 45, 57, 93–94. b On Jewish anti-Christian polemic, see Yaacov Deutsch, “Jewish AntiChristian Invectives and Christian Awareness: An Unstudied Form of Interaction in the Early Modern Period,” Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 55 (2010): 41–61; Hanne Trautner-Kromann, Shield and Sword: Jewish Polemics against Christianity and the Christians in France and Spain from 1100–1500 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993); Ruth Langer, Cursing the Christians? A History of the Birkat Haminim (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012); Israel Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb: Perceptions of Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, trans. Barbara Harshav and Jonathan Chipman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006).

619 13. It seems that Luther had again read Margaritha just prior to his writing of Lies. See LW 47:268: “What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming” (emphasis added). See Kaufmann, Luthers Juden, 111–12.

620

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Attack on Toledot Yeshu Against the authority of the rabbis Against the Devil as “author” of Toledot Yeshu Attack on the Schem Hamphoras Jews charged with misuse of God’s name Against the papistic equivalent of Schem Hamphoras Against the Schem Hamphoras proper Explanation of gematria Judensau Luther’s prayer Against toleration of the Jews Against reverencing the Tetragrammaton Part Two: On the Lineage of Christ (i.e., the Davidic lineage of Mary) FIRST PROOF: FROM THE OT Syllogism regarding Mary’s Davidic lineage Jesus, the Messiah, is the son of David Mary is a virgin Therefore Mary must be Davidic Today’s Jews are not real Jews (53:613,12ff.) Atrocity stories Luther’s crystal ball Only a small remnant of real Jews remains Jewish blood is mixed and watery Jewish rejection of the New Testament The NT as “book of the Messiah” & Holy of Holies vis-à-vis the OT The Jews’ own OT is against them The Jews must accept, or they are damned eternally The Messiah is promised in the OT, but not the Messiah the Jews want The OT = “the old and holy”; The NT = “the new and most holy” Summation: The Jews know nothing of Scripture Return to the syllogism SECOND PROOF: FROM THE NT Differences in the genealogies: the key is Matthes/ Mathan

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

Mary (Luke: from Heli) and Joseph (Matt.: from Jacob) are cousins, grandchildren of Matthes//Mathan To accept the Messiah is to let go of the OT, circumcision, priesthood, etc. ‘Alma: Isa. 7:14 ‘Alma: Gen. 3:15 ‘Alma: Gen. 49:10 Conclusion: Against rabbinic interpretation Address to the “good” Hebraists Announcement to write on the Last Words of David

Text and Translation Until now, the translation of Gerhard Falk has been the only complete translation of Luther’s treatise in English. c The translation, however, needs to be replaced. Presented here is a new translation of part one together with the final conclusion that occurs at the end of part two. The book is scheduled to appear in the new series of Luther’s Works from Concordia Publishing House.d The translation has been made directly from WA 53:579–648, and I have regularly consulted Holsten’s modern German version. e In the matter of difficult idioms, I have benefited greatly from an unpublished English translation of the treatise by my former student, Dr. (University of Chicago) Claudia D. Bergmann, Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin, University of Erfurt. Insofar as possible, I have attempted to render the same German words and phrases consistently throughout the document. Any errors, minor or egregious, are mine alone.

c

Gerhard Falk, The Jew in Christian Theolog y: Martin Luther’s AntiJewish “Vom Schem Hamphoras,” Previously Unpublished in English, and Other Milestones in Church Doctrine Concerning Judaism (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1992), 163–224. d Luther’s Works: American Edition, New Series, ed. Christopher B. Brown (St. Louis: Concordia, 2009–). e Walter Holsten, ed., Martin Luther: Schriften wider Juden und Türken, suppl. vol. 3 in Martin Luther: Ausgewählte Werke, ed. H. H. Borcherdt and Georg Merz, 2d ed. (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1938).

621

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

622

Acknowledgments This presentation of Luther’s treatise is dedicated to Herman J. Selderhuis, Director of Refo500, and to the professional colleagues and staff of the Johannes a Lasko Library in Emden, Germany (J. Marius J. Lange van Ravenswaay, director), in grateful acknowledgment of the Hardenberg Fellowship (and the accompanying Ungestörtheit) that made this work possible, January 1– February 28, 2015.

�

14. Porchetus Salvaticus, Victoria Porcheti aduersos impios Hebreos [Porchetus’s Victory against the Godless Hebrews] (Paris: Guillerm Desplains, 1520). Luther had his own copy of the book. On Porchetus’s treatise, see Sergio La Porta, “A Fourteenth-Century Armenian Polemic against Judaism and Its Latin Source,” Le Muséon 1 (2009): 93–129. 15. The phrase “those who want to become Jews” (and variations thereof) occurs numerous times in the treatise and reminds one of the beginning of Sabbatarians (LW 47:65). While there are documented cases of converted Jews who later returned to Judaism (see Walton, Margaritha, 19), no such documentation exists for Lutheran conversions to Judaism during Luther’s lifetime. The phrase is best regarded as a rhetorical trope by which Luther wants even the possibility of Christian conversion to be unthinkable. The reader should also bear in mind that Christian conversion to Judaism was still a capital offense in Luther’s day.

ON THE SCHEM HAMPHORAS AND ON THE LINEAGE OF CHRIST Doctor Martin Luther

I

N  f MY RECENT BOOKLET g I promised to write more about the lies and blasphemies that the crazy, miserable Jews perpetrate about their Schem Hamphoras, h about which Porchetus writes in his book entitled Victoria.14 Herewith I intend to have done just that, in order to honor our faith and to oppose the devilish lies of the Jews. I also do this so that those who want to become Jews might see what kinds of lovely articles they have to believe and adhere to if they want to be among the damned Jews.15 As I expressly pointed out in that previous book-

f

WA 53:579. The beginning of each WA 53 page is marked to make it easier for readers to compare this translation with the original. g A reference to Lies (January 1543), see this volume, pp. 441–607; LW 47:137–306. For Luther’s stated intention to write the present treatise, see LW 47:256. h Luther’s transliteration of the Hebrew phrase meaning “the ineffable name (of God)” has been preserved throughout.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ let, it was not my intention to write against the Jews, as if I hoped to convert them. Therefore I did not title it Against the Jews but rather On the Jews and Their Lies, so that we Germans might have historically based knowledge of what a Jew is, and thus warn our Christians about them, as one would warn about the Devil himself, and also to strengthen and honor our faith. I do not write to convert the Jews, for that is about as possible as converting the Devil.16 Just as we must teach and write about the Devil, hell, death, and sin, what they are and do, not so that we can turn the Devil into an angel, hell into heaven, death into life, sin into sainthood, all of which is impossible, but rather so that we will beware of them, so I write about the Jews. For a Jew or a Jewish heart is as hard as wood, stone, or iron, as hard even as the Devil, such that it can in no way be moved. If Moses came with all the prophets and performed all the miraculous works before their eyes to make them leave their hardened minds behind—just as Christ and the apostles did in their presence—it would all still be in vain. Even if they were so gruesomely punished that the streets ran with blood, and one had to count their dead not in hundred thousands but in ten times a hundred thousand, as happened to Jerusalem under Vespasian17 and to Bittor18 under Hadrian,19

623

16. In Born a Jew (1523), this volume, pp. 391–439; LW 45:199–229. Luther had publicly advocated both toleration of and friendliness toward the Jews, in the hope that a number of Jews would be attracted to the rediscovered gospel proclaimed by the reformers. That hope proved to be unfounded, and Luther came to believe that he had made a grave mistake in 1523. On the impossibility of converting the Jews, see Lies, this volume, pp. 455–56; LW 47:137. 17. Vespasian (9–79), Roman emperor at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 ce. Prior to becoming emperor, he was commander of the Roman forces fighting against the Jews in their first revolt, 66–70 ce. His son, Titus (39–81), presided over the actual destruction of the city and temple in 70 ce. 18. Bar Kokhba (an Aramaic name meaning “the son of the star” [Num. 24:17]) was the Jewish messianic leader of the second revolt against Rome in 132–135 ce. Bittor, or rather Bethar, seven miles southwest of Jerusalem, was the site of his last stand in the summer of 135. 19. Hadrian (76–138), Roman emperor at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, 132–135 ce.

Arch of    Titus, Rome

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

624

20. Luther does not go on here to explain what he thinks Paul actually means. In his early lectures on Romans 11, he had already signaled his suspicions about the traditional belief that the Jews would convert at the end of time (see LW 25:101–3; 428–32). 21. The following two paragraphs leading up to the translation of Toledot Yeshu are the words of Porchetus, not Luther.

22. WA 53:581.

nevertheless they would still claim to be right. If they had to be in exile another 1,500 years beyond the 1,500 they have already endured, nevertheless God must be a liar while they are truthful. In i sum, they are the Devil’s children damned to hell. If there is anything human left in any of them, for such this treatise might be useful. One can hope for the whole bunch as one will, but I have no hope in that regard. I also know no biblical text that supports such hope. If we cannot convert the large bunch of our own Christians but must be content with a small little bunch, how much less is it possible to convert all these Devil’s children. It amounts to nothing that a number of people derive from Romans 11[:25-26] j the delusion that all Jews will be converted at the end of the world. St. Paul means something completely different.20

From Part 1, Chapter 11 of Porchetus’s Book, Translated by Dr. Martin Luther Now21 we will see how the Jews have always been so hostile toward the miraculous deeds of Christ that they attribute them to Beelzebub, k the prince of devils. As he himself says in John 15[:24], “no one has ever before performed” so many great and miraculous works as I have. It is also unheard of that anyone else, in their own name, made the blind see, the deaf hear, the lame walk, and the dumb speak, as Isaiah previously prophesied in chap. 35[:4-6]: “God the requiter will come and help you. Then the eyes of the blind and the ears of the deaf will be opened; then the lame will leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb will sing praise.” Beyond 22 these four miraculous signs he performed yet many others: he wakened the dead, cleansed the lepers, healed many who were sick, and performed such signs that only God alone

i j

WA 53:580. Luther quotes biblical texts only by chapter number. A 1551 Greek New Testament, printed in Geneva by Robert Estienne (Étienne) [1503–1559], was the first Bible to include verse numbers. Any material in this translation that is between brackets does not occur in Luther’s original text.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ could have performed. But Jewish malice, which has always dealt in malicious tricks, has dared to slander and defile these same signs with lies. They have made up a book against Christ, in which they write these lies: At23 the time of Queen Helene,24 who ruled over the entire land of Israel, Jesus Ha Notzri25 came to Jerusalem. In the temple of the Lord he found the stone on which in former times the ark of the Lord was placed. On this stone was written: Schem Hamphoras.l Whoever learned and understood the letters of this name could do whatever they wanted. But our sages were concerned that if the children of Israel were to learn the name, they would then be able to destroy the world by means of it. Therefore they made two dogs out of copperm and placed them on two pillars in front of the door of the temple. If someone entered and learned the letters of the aforementioned name and then tried to leave, the copper dogs would bark at them so viciously that out of great terror they would forget the name and the letters that they had learned. In this manner,n Jesus Ha Notzri came and entered the temple. He learned the letters and wrote them on a piece of parchment. Then he sliced open his leg and placed the piece inside. And because he spoke the name, he felt no pain, and the skin came back together as it was before. When he left the temple, the copper dogs barked at him, and he immediately forgot the name. But when he got home, he sliced open his leg with a knife and took out the piece of parchment on which were the letters of the Schem Hamphoras, and he learned them again.26

k See Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15, 18, 19. l Porchetus’s transliteration is: “Sem hamme foras.” For rabbinic references linking the ineffable name to the foundation stone in the temple, see m. Yoma 5:2; b. Yoma 54b; b. Sanh. 26b; Tg. Ps.-J. Exod. 28:30; Tg. Eccl. 3:11; Tg. Cant. 4:12. m The Latin term, aereus, means copper or bronze. Luther renders with ertz here and later with ehern, both of which can mean either copper or bronze. In this translation, “copper” has been used throughout. n WA 53:582.

625 23. Porchetus’s version of Toledot Yeshu, which he himself had copied from Martini (see the introduction), begins here. WA 53:580–86 provides Porchetus’s Latin text. Luther’s was the first translation of Porchetus into German. See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, “Stealing the Name,” 64–69. 24. In the Toledot Yeshu tradition, three different “Helenes” occur: (1) an alternative name for Salome Alexandra (139–67 bce), wife of Alexander Janneus (c. 126–76 bce), who became the reigning queen of Israel after his death; (2) Helene of Adiabene, a first-century convert to Judaism; and (3) Helena Augusta (c. 255–329 ce), mother of Constantine. Helene of Adiabene is the most likely originally intended figure. In Porchetus’s Toledot Yeshu, the identity of Helene is not further specified. As seen below, Luther assumes that the reference here is to Helena Augusta, and, thus, a glaring anachronism. On the origin and relationship of the three Helenes, see Galit Hasan-Rokem, “Polymorphic Helena: ‘Toledot Yeshu’ as a Palimpsest of Religious Narratives and Identities,” in Toledot Yeshu [“The Life Story of Jesus”] Revisited, 247–82. 25. Porchetus’s Latin text reads, “Iesu noçri, id est: Iesus nazarenus” (Jesu Notzri, i.e., Jesus of Nazareth). “Iesu noçri” is a Latin transliteration of the traditional rabbinic name for Jesus, Yeshu Ha-Notzri (Yeshu the Nazarean). Luther’s “Jhesus Ha Notzri” is thus a mixed form and avoids the pejorative pronunciation of Jesus’ name, Yeshu. On Luther’s hostility toward the name Yeshu (Luther = “Jesu”), see Lies (this volume, pp. 561–62; LW 47:256–57). 26. On Jesus’ stealing of the ineffable name, see Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, 1:64–69.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

626 27. In those versions of Toledot Yeshu that include a birth narrative (which Porchetus’s does not), Jesus’ mother is sometimes called an adulterer and sometimes a prostitute. A common claim is that she conceived Jesus during her menstrual period, thus making him a ben niddah (the son of a menstruating woman). Luther deals at length with these Jewish accusations against Jesus and his mother in Lies, this volume, pp. 560–72; LW 47:254–67. 28. Isa. 7:14. Luther will deal at length with this passage in part two of the treatise. 29. In the Toledot Yeshu tradition, this is a likely allusion to Dan. 11:14 (“the violent or lawless ones among your people”), and it serves as a pejorative description of the Jewish followers of Jesus. See William Horbury, “The Depiction of Judaeo-Christians in the Toledot Jeshu,” in The Image of the JudaeoChristians in Ancient Jewish and Christian Literature, ed. Peter J. Tomson and Doris Lambers-Petry, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 158 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 280–86.

Then he gathered to himself 310 young men of Israel and said to them, “Look, the sages say that I am a whore’s child.27 That is because they want to rule over Israel. But you know that all the prophets prophesy about the Messiah. I am he, that is true. And Isaiah prophesied about me: ‘Look, an Alma is pregnant and will bear a son and will name him Emmanuel.’   28 My grandfather David also prophesied about me and said: ‘The Lord said to me, “You are my son, today I have begotten you.”’   o Thus, my mother bore me without the aid of a man; it was by God’s power alone. Therefore it is not I but rather you who are whore’s children, as Hosea says: ‘I will not have mercy on your children, because they are whore’s children.’”   p Then the young men of Israel answered him, “If you are the Messiah, then give us a sign.” “What kind of a sign do you want from me?” They said, “Makeq a lame man stand just as we are standing.” He said, “Bring one to me.” Immediately they brought a lame man to him, one who had never walked on his own feet, and he spoke the Schem Hamphoras over him. At that very moment he got up and stood on his feet. Then they all bowed before him and said, “He is without any doubt the Messiah.” They also brought a leper to him, over whom he spoke the name and upon whom he placed his hands, and he was immediately healed. As a result, many worthless people from our nation29 went over to his side. But when the sages saw that Israel had begun to believe in him, they captured him and brought him to Queen Helene, who ruled the land of Israel at that time. They said to her, “Gracious Lady, this man practices magic   r and leads the world astray.” Jesus Ha Notzri answered, “Gracious Lady, in former times the prophets prophesied about me, and one of them says: ‘A branch will grow out of the stock of Jesse.’  s I am the branch. And about this branch David says: ‘Happy is the one who does not follow the counsel of the godless.’”   t She said, “What this man says, is it written in your law?” They answered, “Yes, it is written in our law, but what is written is not about him. Rather Deut. 13[:5] is written about him: ‘That prophet shall be put to death, because he has taught wrongly about God.’ This, however, is what o p q r

s t

Ps. 2:7. Hos. 2:4 (H 2:6). WA 53:583. The medieval Latin sortilegium has the general meaning of sorcery or witchcraft. Luther’s term, zeuberei (Zauberei), can mean any of wizardry, witchcraft, sorcery, magic, etc. This translation renders with “magic” throughout. Isa. 11:1. Ps. 1:1.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ is written about the Messiah: ‘When he comes, Judah will be saved.’”  u At that, thisv godless one30 answered and said to the queen, “I am he, for I can waken the dead.” The queen sent her most loyal servant with them, and the godless one made a dead person live by means of the Schem Hamphoras. At that moment, the queen was terrified and said, “This is truly a great miraculous sign.” She derided the sages, and they had to leave her presence in disgrace. This caused them and those from Israel great sorrow. And Jesus Notzri left and went to upper Galilee.w The sages came again to the queen and said to her, “Gracious Lady, this man practices magic and leads the creatures astray.” She then sent her soldiers to capture him, but the people in Galilee would not allow it, and they fought against them. But he said, “Do not fight for me. The power of my father in heaven and the signs that he gave me will defend me.” And the people in Galilee made birds out of clay for him, and when he spoke the Schem Hamphoras over them, the birds immediately flew away. Then they fell on their faces and worshiped him. At that same hour he commanded them to bring a large millstone and throw it into the sea. After they had done so, the godless one spoke the Schem Hamphoras, by which he caused the stone to float on the sea. He then satx on the stone and said to the soldiers, “Go back to your lady and tell her what you have seen.” Then he got up before their eyes and walked on the sea.y Thez soldiers went and told Queen Helene everything that they had seen. She became exceedingly terrified and had the sages summoned. She said to them, “You say that this man, Jesus Notzri, is a magician. But you should know that the signs that he performs prove that he is the true son of God.” But they said, “Gracious Lady, let him come here, and we will expose his malevolence.” Meanwhile the elders of Israel had gone and allowed a man named Judas Iscariot to enter the temple, into the holy of holies. There he learned the letters of the Schem Hamphoras, in the same way that Jesus Notzri had learned them. He sliced open the flesh of his leg and did everything that that one31 had done.

u v w x y z

Jer. 23:6. WA 53:584. See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, “Yeshu in the Galilee,” 70–75. WA 53:585. See Matt. 14:25-26; Mark 6:48-49; John 6:19. See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, “Bringing Yeshu to Justice,” 76–81.

627 30. In Toledot Yeshu, a common epithet of Jesus is [vrh (Ha-Rasha‘), “the wicked one.” The term that Luther uses here, Gottloser (godless one), is the term he uses in his German Bible to translate the same Hebrew term.

31. “That one,” a common epithet of Jesus in the Toledot Yeshu tradition. The term is derived from Lev. 22:28.

628

32. A sarcastic remark, implying that Luther wants to venerate them. 33. Luther’s text reads at this point: “der Teuffel hat in die N. geschmissen,” literally, “the devil has thrown (something) into the N.” WA 53:587 n. 3 suggests Niderwat (Niederwat; pants) as a possibility. If so, and such would fit the context, the meaning would be “the devil has shit his pants” (taking geschmissen as a euphemism for geschissen). However, given the other numerous scatological references in the treatise, it is unclear why only this one would have been suppressed.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Then Jesus Notzri came with his companions, and the queen commanded the sages to come as well. And he stepped before the queen and said, “David prophesied about me: ‘Dogs have surrounded me, the company of the evil ones has encompassed me.’  a However, this is also said about me in Jer. 1[:8]: ‘Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you to deliver you, says the Lord.’” But the sages contradicted him. Then he said to the queen, “I will ascend to heaven, for David said of me: ‘Rise up, O God, above the heavens.’”b And by means of the name of the Schem Hamphoras, he raised his handsc like wings and flew between heaven and earth. When the sages saw this, they told Judas Iscariot to say the Schem Hamphoras and go up after him. He flew up and wrestled with him, and both of them fell back down. The godless one broke one of his arms, and the Christians mourn this event every year before their Easter celebration. At   d that hour the Israelites grabbed him, wrapped him in cloths, and whipped him with switches from pomegranate trees. They said to Queen Helene, “If he is God’s son, let him tell us who whipped him.”e But he was not able to do so. The Queen said to the sages, “Look, he is in your hands. Do with him as you please.” Then they grabbed him and took him to the gallows. But whatever tree or beam on which they tried to hang him would break in two, because by means of the Schem Hamphoras he had put all the trees and wood under oath so that they could not hold him. So they went and got a cabbage stalk, which does not grow from a tree but rather from herbs, and hung him on it. This is no miracle, because every year in the temple a stalk grows from which hangs about one hundred pounds of seed. End of citation. Wheref are those worthless Christians now, who either became or want to become Jews? Come here for a kiss. 32 The Devil has [. . .] 33 and emptied his stomach once again. This is a proper temple, which the Jews and those who want to be Jews ought to kiss,

a Ps. 22:17. b Ps. 108:6. The Hebrew text of this verse reads, “Be exalted, O God, above the heavens.” c WA 53:586. d See Meerson and Schäfer, Toledot Yeshu, “Execution,” 92–100. e Cf. Matt. 26:68; Luke 22:64. f WA 53:587.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ gorge on, g guzzle, and worship. In turn, the Devil will gorge on and guzzle whatever his disciples spew out, whatever they eject both from above and from below. The proper guests and hosts have gotten together and have cooked and arranged everything properly. O how justly have things happened to both of them! The Devil was created as a beautiful angel, so that he might sing the eternal “Te Deum laudamus”34 with his holy angelic mouth, together with the other holy angels. But he could not handle that, and so he became a Devil who now gorges himself with his angelic snout. He passionately gorges on what the Jews spew out and squirt from their lower and upper mouths. 35 Indeed, that has become his dainty morsel, on which he grazes like a sow behind a fence on St. Margaret’s Day. 36 That is exactly how he wanted it.

In this example of visual scatological polemic, the pope is worshiped as an earthly god. The image, by Lucas Cranach the Elder, appeared in Luther’s 1545 treatise Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil.

Therefore, what has happened to the Jews serves them right. They were called and chosen to be God’s mouth, as both Jeremiah and Ps. 81[:11] say, “Open wide your mouth and I will fill it.” But they held fast their mouth, eyes, ears, nose, their entire heart, and all their powers. Then the Devil came, and to him they g The verb fressen (to eat) is properly used only for animals. When used for people it is highly pejorative. The English “gorge” is an approximation.

629

34. The Te Deum or Te Deum laudamus (“You, O God, we praise”) is a Latin hymn of praise to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, likely dating from the fifth century ce. 35. “Maul” is used for the mouths of animals. When used of humans, it is highly pejorative. In the late medieval and early modern periods, it was common to associate the devil with scatological imagery. Luther was a master practitioner in this regard. See his late treatises Against Hanswurst (1541), LW 41:185–256; and Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil (1545), LW 41:263–376; also Oberman, “Teufelsdreck.” 36. St. Margaret of Antioch (Pisidia), virgin-martyr and helper of women in childbirth, died in 306 ce. Her feast day in the West is 20 July.

630

37. Teuffels dreck, literally “Devil’s filth,” is one of Luther’s choicer words. In its technical sense, it refers to asa foetida, a vile-smelling gum resin derived from certain Asiatic plants and used as a malodorous medicine (see WA 30/3:45). Luther, however, often uses the term in a more literal sense for the devil’s own turds or shit, the worstsmelling thing that one could imagine (e.g., “Es ist doch, wie ich offt gesagt: Jch bin der reiffe dreck, so ist die welt das weite arschloch; drumb sein wir wol zu scheiden.” WA TR 5:222,17–18; #5537). 38. Matt. 27:25. In Christian antiJewish polemics, this passage has functioned as the proof text implicating all subsequent Jews in the death of Jesus. 39. A sarcastic reference to Toledot Yeshu itself as the “Jewish catechism” (Stephen Burnett, “Luther’s Hidden Foe: The Jewish ‘Life of Jesus’ [Toledoth Yeshu] and Luther’s Polemical Response in On the Ineffable Name [1543],” Sixteenth Century Studies Conference, New Orleans, LA, October 16–19, 2014). 40. Luther’s central mode of attack in Toledot Yeshu is to disprove any claims to historical veracity due to its egregious anachronistic linking of the lifetime of Jesus to that of Helene, the mother of Constantine. See the introduction.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD opened wide their eyes, throat, ears, heart, and all their senses. He in turn befouled and squirted them so full that pure Devil’s turds37 dripped and flowed out of all of their orifices. Yes, their hearts liked the taste of it, and they smacked their lips like sows. That’s what they wanted. Now shout again, “Crucify him, crucify him.”h Cry out again, “May his blood come upon us and our children.”38 I think it has come, and it has found you. Nevertheless, we want to take a close look at the lovely articles of the Jewish faith that are stated in this text, so that whoever desires to become a Jew will be satisfied. If you want to become a real Jew, then listen and learn the catechism 39 of the holy Jewish faith, albeit not in God’s name. First, you must believe that Helene was queen in the land of Israel or Canaan when our Lord Jesus Christ lived, taught, and performed miracles. 40 Don’t be confused by the fact that not only the evangelists and apostlesi but also the entire Roman Empire as it existed at the time opposed this, as well as the Jews’ own testimony and exile, which began at the time of Vespasian 250 years before Helene was born. Rather, think to yourself in this way: the rabbis who wrote this book cannot err.41 Rather, heaven and earth, together with God, all angels, and creatures, must err. That is what you must believe if you want to become a real Jew. You must also believe everything that is written here about Queen Helene, how she treated Jesus Ha Notzri and how she let him be treated, 250 years before she was born. For if one wants to become a Jew, this is part of the catechism that one must know. Perhaps someone will contradict this and say, “At the time of Helene, the Jews had already been gone from the land for two hundred years and had been dispersed throughout the world, and Jerusalem had neither temple nor government!” Against such, you must smile derisively at the cursed Goyim42 and say, “Our rabbis wrote it and therefore it must be so, even if God and

41. Luther will develop this theme at length below, as much of the treatise juxtaposes biblical authority to rabbinic authority. 42. As in Lies, Luther uses the Jewish word for Gentile/Gentiles: Goy/ Goyim (literally nation or nations).

h Luke 23:21; John 19:6. Cf. Mark 15:13. i WA 53:588.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ all writings and creatures say otherwise.” God has to want what the rabbis want.43 Second, you must believe that at that time two copper dogs, even without the use of the Schem Hamphoras, were able to bark, which no other has been able to do either before or since. And that their copper eyes could keenly see who entered and exited, and who inscribed the letters on the stone and who copied them. Those must have been really keen eyes, especially given that they were made of copper and were able to see through such thick walls, doors, and curtains. At this point, it might trouble you that from the beginning of the world all living dogs, which are naturally able to bark, would not believe such things if they were able to hear and understand them, and much less the copper dogs themselves. But don’t let this trouble you. Whatever the rabbis say is correct. If you want to be a pious Jew, don’t ask any more about it. Here you must believe that the sages in Israel at that time were no smarter than to have two copper barking dogs guard the Schem Hamphoras. Even the cursed Goyim could have found other methods, such as iron doors, bars, and the like. If it dawns on you that the sages of Israel had less sense than the copper dogs themselves, then rid yourself of such thoughts and think: Well, whatever the rabbis say is correct and can’t be a lie. Third, you must believe that every year in the temple in Jerusalem there grew a large cabbage stalk that was stronger than any beam on the gallows, and that one hundred pounds of seed grew from it. Here you must believe that Jerusalem had a temple two hundred years after the city’s destruction. And j not only that but that it also served as a cabbage garden and a temple at the same time. If all the histories, Moses and all the prophets, and even God with all the angels contradict this, it must be a lie, because the Jewish faith must be correct. Note this well if you want to become a Jew. Finally, you must acquiesce in whatever a rabbi says; that is, no matter how strange it is, you must believe that it is correct, regardless of whether God commanded and said otherwise. For Moses commanded them in Deut. 17[:8-11]: “If they do not understand a matter, they shall go to the priests and judges who j WA 53:589. k Wordplay in German: beschlossen and beschissen.

631 In traditional Jewish thought, the world is divided into two camps: God’s chosen people, Israel, and the Nations (i.e., the Goyim) of the world. Though Goyim in itself is a neutral term (in the Bible, for example, Israel is also called a Goy [nation]), it often has a strong pejorative edge to it in rabbinical writings, and especially so in the writings of late medieval and early modern Judaism. Via Margaritha, Luther is well informed on this pejorative usage. 43. Luther regarded the rabbis as the primary impediment to Jewish conversion to Christianity. In this regard, he has clearly been influenced by Margaritha. See Walton, Margaritha, 19.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

632

44. Luther’s source here is Porchetus, Victoria (text provided in WA 53:589 n. 3), where Porchetus relates Rashi’s comment at Deut. 17:11. Rashi, R. Solomon son of Isaac (1040–1105, Troyes, France), is the most influential of all of the medieval Jewish biblical commentators. Though Rashi’s comment is certainly “pro-rabbinic,” the actual quote is as follows: “RIGHT OR LEFT. Even if he says to you about right that it is left, and about left that it is right. How much more so when he says to you about right that it is right and about left that it is left.” Christian polemicists seized on the first part of the quote to the exclusion of the second part. Porchetus, for example, does not cite the second part of the quote. 45. On the significance for Luther of the visit of the three (or two) Jews, which took place in 1526, see Brooks Schramm and Kirsi I. Stjerna, eds., Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People: A Reader (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 104–6. 46. At the conclusion of this treatise, Luther will clarify exactly what he thinks about rabbinic interpretation.

are at the place that God has chosen. They shall (so he says) give you a judgment according to the law. What they teach you, that you shall do. And you shall keep the law that they give you, departing neither to the right nor to the left.” Here it is determined (I almost said “soiled”) k that a Jew shall believe everything that the rabbis say and not depart from it. Therefore they now say that they must believe their rabbis even if they say that the right hand is the left and the left is the right, as Porchetus relates.44 This is the way the three Jews who visited me acted. When I tried to urge them to the text, they said that they had to believe their rabbis, and they wouldn’t give me any biblical text [on which they based their arguments].l So, because of my own experience in this matter, I believe Porchetus all the more.45 If you now want to become a pious, faithful Jew, resign yourself, as stated before, to believe what the rabbis say, even if it is against God, reason, the angels, or all creatures. For here you hear that a Jew should believe that the right hand is not the right hand, if a rabbi says so. God indeed said and also created, ordered, and expressly determined that the right hand should be and be called the right hand, as all angels and creatures profess. But this is only the truth until a rabbi comes and says, “No, that is not the case, rather the one I call the right hand is the right hand.” What are the word and work of God together with the testimony of all angels and creatures against a rabbi, who is so much higher and better than God and all creatures?46 And what’s more, you must believe that the events in the story of Queen Helene, her sages, and Jesus took place two hundred years before she was born. Also, that a cabbage stalk m grew annually in the temple, thicker than any beam, which could bear one hundred pounds of seed. Also, that copper dogs can bark. Also, that Jesus performed miracles by means of the Schem Hamphoras, and that Judas Iscariot did as well, as stated above. Indeed, if a rabbi were to put some thick and some thin stuff in a bowl under your nose and say, “Here is a delicious almond porridge,” l

Translation of the last phrase uncertain: “wo ich sie zum text dringen wolt, sprachen sie, Sie muesten jhren Rabinen gleuben, wolten mir keines Texts gestehen.” Another possibility: “They wouldn’t allow me to appeal to any (biblical) text.” In a sermon from 1526 on Jeremiah 23, Luther’s first reference to this incident, he states: “They did not stay with the text but tried to escape it” (WA 20:569,36–37). m WA 53:590.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ you would have to say that you had never eaten a better porridge in your entire life. Say anything else, you endanger your life. For whoever has the power to say that right is left and left is right, despite what God and all creatures say, can also say that their backside mouth is their frontside mouth, and that their stomach is a pot of porridge and a pot of porridge is their stomach. After you have learned such things and come to believe them, then go quickly and get yourself circumcised, 47 before the copper dogs notice and come from Jerusalem and bark out of you such elevated understanding of the most holy Jewish faith, or before the seducer Ha Notzri bewitches you into the Christian faith. For now you are an upright, fine, holy, smart Jew. You yourself can now call the left right and make your stomach into a pot of porridge, and you and all Jews will have enough to gorge on for your entire lives, even if you were to invite all devils to join you. Thanks be to such high heavenly rabbis by whom you have been taught so well and been so profoundly sanctified that God and all the angels must be amazed at your sanctity. The cursed Goyim are not worthy enough to sniff or hear any of this. Well then, perhaps one of the merciful saints among us Christians might think that I have spoken too coarsely and in too unsavory a manner against the poor, miserable Jews, by dealing with them so mockingly and so scornfully.48 O Lord God, I am much too minor to mock such devils. I would really like to do it, but they are far better than I at mocking. They have a God who is a master at mocking, and he is called the wretched Devil and the evil spirit. Whatever I can do to mock him into anger I should do, because he has surely earned it. In case you haven’t noticed, I would like to show you what an unspeakable mocker he is. In this book, the proud, evil spirit promulgates a threefold mockery.49 First, he mocks God the creator of heaven and earth, together with his son Jesus Christ, as you yourself see, if as a Christian you believe that Christ is God’s son. 50 Second, he mocks us and all Christianity, because we believe in this son of God. Third, he mocks his own Jews n by giving them such shameful, foolish, and stupid things, like copper dogs and cabbage stalks, etc. If they could understand, all dogs would bark themselves to death over such crazy, raging, senseless, furious, mad n WA 53:591.

633

47. For Luther’s concerns about the possibility of Christians submitting to circumcision, see Sabbatarians (1538), LW 47:65.

48. Cf. Lies, LW 47:228: “Someone may think that I am saying too much. I am not saying too much, but too little; for I see their writings.” Luther wants there to be no doubt that he knows exactly what he is doing in writing so forcefully.

49. A counterassertion against Toledot Yeshu, namely, that the devil is its author. 50. This argument follows the logic of consistent trinitarian thinking: to mock the Son is to mock the Father. But the strongest influence on Luther here is the Gospel of John (e.g., 10:30: “I and the Father are one”).

634

51. The biblical roots of this explosive yet traditional Christian polemic are in the Gospel of John, especially 8:44: “You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” 52. That is, Jewish transgressions against Christianity are willful as opposed to being based in ignorance.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD fools. Is this not a master mocker, who with one kind of mockery is able to achieve such a great threefold mockery? The fourth mockery is that he has hereby mocked himself, as we, praise God, will see with joy on the last day. Thus, the Jews hereby also mock themselves the most, in that they obey the Devil, their God,51 in such mockery, and as a result they become such crazy fools. For they do not do this in a mistaken manner but rather because they know very well, and natural God-given reason warns, shows, and convinces them that such things cannot be true. Still they are smug about it, it pleases them, and they are eager to hear, learn, and preach such palpable, shameful lies and blasphemy from the Devil against us Christians and against Jesus Ha Notzri.52 O how just! Master and pupil have come together in the right school. Further, beside such mockery, they prove all the more their super-heavenly mastery when they say that Jesus Ha Notzri (which should rightly be “Jesus of Nazareth”) performed his miraculous signs by means of the Schem Hamphoras (which itself should rightly be “the interpreted name”). o More about that later. Here they confess, as they certainly have to, that the miraculous signs of Jesus Ha Notzri were genuine, authentic signs. And they testify and hereby damn themselves, just like their forebears in the gospel did, that he wakened the dead, made the lame walk, cleansed the lepers, etc. Works such as these can only be ascribed to the one, eternal, divine power. Humans and angels cannot do them, much less create creatures out of nothing. All reason must admit this. Now behold this tender fruit, the circumcised saints. p They ascribe such divine works and miraculous deeds to the Schem Hamphoras, that is, to the empty, dead, miserable letters, if they are written in ink in a book, or if they hoverq on the tongue, or even if they are carried in the heart of the godless. The Schem Hamphoras be what it will, nevertheless it is and can be nothing other than empty, dead, powerless letters. And this is the case even if it were in God’s Holy Scripture itself, which would be so

o “Der ausgelegte Name.” p “Die beschnitten(en) Heiligen” (the circumcised saints) is one of Luther’s favorite sarcastic pejoratives in both this treatise and in Lies. The phrase does not occur elsewhere. q The same verb is used in Luther’s translation of Gen. 1:2.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ much the worse. The Jews jabber about it but don’t know what they are jabbering about. What are letters able to do on their own accord when nothing morer is added to them? What help are they for the devils, Turks,53 Jews, and all the godless who constantly misuse the letters and even God’s name, against the Second Commandment? Are not Satan and the names and works of all the godless also written in holy letters? But the crazy Jews ascribe divine power to the Schem Hamphoras, to the mere empty letters, without any promise or commandment of God.54 For they say that even the godless and the seducers can perform many miracles and divine works by means of these letters. Where are they now, these circumcised saints, who boast against us Christians that they alone are the ones who honor the one true God, since we cursed Ha Notzrims worship three Gods? 55 Here they so fully ascribe the divine power and honor to the mere empty, dead letters in the Schem Hamphoras, that even the godless and the seducers—against God’s will and prohibition in the Ten Commandments—can do their own works of divine majesty. Oh, what holy children of God they are. Beyond the one God, they make as many Gods as there are letters in the Schem Hamphoras, which are supposed to be 216 as will be discussed below. That is, they worship 216 thousand devils and not the true God, whom they shamefully blaspheme with the Schem Hamphoras and whose divine honor they steal, in order to give it to the miserable letters. Look how justly things have happened to the crazy Jews. They did not want to accept Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah and God’s Son, and thereby remain with the one true God, as we Christians have remained. For one who accepts Jesus Christ as the Messiah with true faith, it is impossible that they should or could accept more than the one true God. Conversely, for one who does not accept Jesus Christ as Messiah with true faith, it is impossible that they will remain with the one true God.56 Rather such a one must, as the Devil desires, accept foreign and numerous other gods, even if they are merely pure, dead, worthless letters, or the Schem Hamphoras, which are large bags filled with

r s

WA 53:592. Ha Notzrim, the standard rabbinic term for Christians: “The Nazarenes.”

635

53. When Luther speaks of the “Turks,” he often is referring to the Ottoman Turks who threatened Europe in Luther’s time, but he can also use the term for Muslims in general.

54. For Luther, all of rabbinic practice and teaching falls under the rubric of human-made, rather than biblically based, religion.

55. Christian trinitarian theology has always had to defend itself against the charge of polytheism, and Luther was particularly sensitive to the accusation.

56. In 1215, the Fourth Lateran Council decreed: “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (there is no salvation outside the church).

636

57. This a paraphrase of a passage from the Large Catechism on baptism: “But the Scriptures teach that if we piled together all the works of all the monks in a heap, no matter how precious and dazzling they might appear, they would still not be as noble and good as if God were to pick up a straw” (BC, 458,12). 58. WA 53:593.

59. For Luther on baptism, in addition to the catechisms, see esp. The Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism (1519), TAL 1:203–23; LW 35:29–43; Concerning Rebaptism (1528), TAL 3:275–315; LW 40:229–62.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD piles of devils. Indeed, the Jews wanted to have such gods instead of the true God in Jesus of Nazareth. Here they might say: But you Christians do exactly the same thing. You speak words over the water and it becomes baptism that washes away all sins and makes newborn human beings. Also, you turn bread and wine into body and blood by means of words. Also, you lay hands on the head of a sinner and forgive their sins by means of words. Your own Luther writes as follows: “Whoever picks up a piece of straw in God’s word, performs a better work than all the monks, nuns, bishops, popes, etc.”57 Now the words are indeed nothing other than mere empty,58 poor letters, to which you nevertheless attribute works of divine majesty, such as the forgiveness of sins, new birth, and redemption from death. We Christians have been sufficiently taught and instructed about this, and it is not necessary to deal with it here. However, to put it briefly, we Christians say that the water is of course nothing but water, the word is nothing but mere empty letters, which in themselves cannot accomplish anything, much less accomplish a divine work in us. For water and letters do not make a baptism.59 I have often seen a horse or an ox slurp up a bucket full of water. If you were to speak the words of baptism over the water, the horse would not then slurp baptism and would also not be reborn. There is more to it than that. Baptism, however, is the kind of thing from which all thirsty devils would not even drink a drop, because it would become a poisonous herb for them, which would burn them like hellfire. Rather, when they see baptism they flee as far away as they can, and they don’t dare stay there. Why? They surely have no regard for water and letters. We do this because God commanded and ordered us to add our hands and tongues and pour the water over the one being baptized together with the words or letters that God ordered. In addition, God promised and most certainly assured us that God would be present with God’s divine grace and power, and that it would be God who would perform such a work. Here you can grasp that we Christians do not ascribe any divine power to the water or the letters, nor do we say that it is our doing. Rather, we confess that it is and remains God’s alone. It is God who shows and proves to us such things in a manner that pleases God, namely, through water and word and letters. These are not empty letters or mere water such as a cow slurps, rather, God binds him-

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ self to them so to work God’s grace and power in us and through us, as God’s instruments. And, thus, in baptism (and nowhere else) water and letters are full of and rich with God’s grace and power. Therefore, God promised and revealed that God would do the work: “Go, baptize,” God says, not in your name but “in the name of etc. . . . ,” so that it might be a work of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.t That is why we also reject the pope together with his entire church, who has filled the whole world with such fraud, u magic, and idolatry.60 For he also has his own particular Schem Hamphoras, by which he goes and bewitches the water with mere empty, meaningless letters. Then he pretends that it is holy water which is able to wash away sins and drive out the Devil, and which also has many other powers. He wants to emulate God like a monkey. Also, he likewise bewitches the dear waxv with worthless, empty letters and sells it to emperors and kings as the holy Agnus Dei,61 which is supposed to have many many powers. He supports himself by this, indeed, he has become rich in the world, just like an arch-blasphemous fraud, magician, and idolator. Thus, he also bewitches caps and plates and the whole world with mere words or letters, so that they might become monks, nuns, and priests, say and sell masses, call on and celebrate the saints, sell indulgences, worship the bones of the dead, serve the Devil, and earn heaven through their own works, namely, that heaven where the Devil is abbot and bishop. It is all the worse that he utilizes the good words of Scripture and God’s name for this purpose. God did not command him to do this but rather in fact strongly forbade it. It is written: “You shall not misuse God’s name.” 62 Therefore, God’s power is not linked with it but only mere empty, powerless letters. If on occasion something happens through them, it is not God’s work but rather the Devil’s, in order to strengthen (with God’s permission) his lies and magic and seduce the unbelievers, and also to tempt and warn the believers that the witchesw and other sorceresses often do great damage. The Turks also have such fraud among t Matt. 28:19. u The term geucklerey (Gaukelei) literally meant gesticulation, jugglery, trickery. “Fraud” is an approximation of Luther’s intended meaning. v WA 53:594. w “Die Milch diebe” (the milk thieves).

637

60. Even when Luther is dealing with Jewish matters, he can move easily into an attack on the papacy.

61. Agnus Dei, “Lamb of God.” See On the Councils and the Church (1539), TAL 3:433; LW 41:168; and Von dem Geweihtem Wasser und des Papstes Agnus Dei (1539) [“On the Consecrated Water and the Agnus Dei of the Pope”], WA 50:668–73.

62. Exod 20:7; Deut. 5:11. From Luther’s perspective, what he is doing in part one of this treatise is defending the Second Commandment, which he regarded as second only to the First: “If you are asked, ‘What does the Second Commandment mean?’ or, ‘What does it mean to take the name of God in vain or to misuse it?’ you should answer briefly: ‘It is a misuse of God’s name if we call upon the L ord God in any way whatsoever to support falsehood or wrong of any kind’. . . . Let us learn and take to heart how much is at stake in this commandment and diligently guard against and avoid every misuse of the holy name as the greatest sin that can be committed outwardly”; see Large Catechism (BC, 392).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

638

them. In warx they carry with them Arabic letters which are beautifully written (I have actually seen some of them), that through such mere empty letters, or as they say, through such good holy words, they might be safe from weapons and danger.y Thus, the Devil fills the whole world with magic, idolatry, and fraud, as if he doesn’t have anything better to do than establish a special Schem Hamphoras in every place. At this point, I think the reader should be primed to learn what the Jews’ Schem Hamphoras actually is. As I have already stated, I know and am sure that it is nothing other, nor can be nothing other, than purely empty, meaningless, poor letters. But in order to expose their folly and the Devil’s malice, I will explain

Islamic talisman shirt, fifteenth–early sixteenth century, India

x y

See also Luther’s treatise On War against the Turk (1529), in this volume, 335–89. See Venetia Porter, “The Use of the Arabic Script in Magic,” in The Development of Arabic as a Written Language, ed. M. C. A. Macdonald, Supplement to Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies 40 (Oxford: Archaeopress, 2010), 131–40; Christiane Gruber, “A Pious Cure-All: The Ottoman Illustrated Prayer Manual in the Lilly Library,” in The Islamic Manuscript Tradition: Ten Centuries of Book Arts in Indiana University Collections, ed. Christiane Gruber (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010). On calligraphy in Islam, see Alain George, The Rise of Islamic Calligraphy (Berkeley: Saqi, 2010).

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ it here as best as I can and know. Whoever has nothing else may read Antony Margaritha.63 In Exodus 14[:19-21] there is a text that reads as follows: “And64 the angel of God, who had been going before the army of Israel, arose and moved behind them. And the pillar of cloud also moved from before65 them and went behind them, and it came between the army of the Egyptians and the army of Israel. Now it was a dark cloud, and it illuminated the entire night, such that the entire night neither was able to come near the other. And Moses stretched his hand over the sea, and the Lord drove it away by a strong east wind the entire night, and it dried up the sea, and the waters were divided.” In Hebrew this text contains 216 letters, which they divide into three rows or verses, with each having 72 letters. One could easily make six good verses out of the passage, but the rabbis won’t have it. Now note well the high art of the Schem Hamphoras. Align the three rows so that each letter is directly beneath the one above it. Then take the first letter in the first row and the last letter in the second row and the first letter in the third row, and put them together to form a word of three letters. Do the same with all the letters in the three lines or rows and you will have 72 words of three letters each. This works very easily with the Hebrew alphabet, since all of the letters represent numbers or number-letters.66 For they count with letters just like the Greeks do. But we have no more

The 72-letter name of God

639 63. Anthonius Margaritha, Der gantz Jüdisch glaub [“The Entire Jewish Faith”] (1530/1531). This work by the Jewish convert to Christianity became Luther’s primary conduit into the world of Jewish thought and practice. WA 53:594–95 n. 7 provides the lengthy passage from Margaritha on which Luther is directly dependent. 64. WA 53:595. 65. WA 53:596.

66. In other words, each letter of the Hebrew alphabet has a numerical value: the first letter ’alef   (a) = 1; the second letter bet (b) = 2; the tenth letter yod (y) = 10; the eleventh letter kaf    (k) = 20; etc. This, in turn, means that Hebrew words, phrases, and sentences also have numerical values, i.e., the sum total of their respective letters. The exegetical practice known as gematria is based on this principle. It enables the interpreter to make connections between words, phrases, and sentences that have an equivalent numerical value, even though there may be no actual contextual relationship between or among them. The practice has its roots in the early rabbinic period, but it was most fully developed in medieval Judaism. As is evident in this treatise, Luther regarded it as a completely specious form of interpretation. See Encyclopedia Judaica, 7:370–74.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

640

than seven number-letters: C, D, I, L, M, V, X. In order to show us Germans how this works, I will nevertheless try to provide a rough example by making three rows of twelve letters each, so that the text would look like this:

L

V

C

I

M

I

L

X

D

I

C

V

L

V

X

L

I

C

V

M

D

V

M

I

I

V

D

I

C

V

D

I

C

L

I

I

Now I take the first letter L in the first row and the last I in the second row and the first I in the third row, and thus the word becomes LII. If you do the same with the second letters as well, the word becomes VMV. If you do the same with the third letters, the word becomes CVD. If you do the same with the fourth letters, you have the word IDI, and so forth. This is what the Jews do with the three verses of Moses and thereby create 72 words of three letters each. These artfully created three-letter words do not mean anything, and are not supposed to mean anything, just as you can see from our example, where for us Germans the four words LII, VMV, CVD, and IDI have no meaning. However, when the actual text of Moses is read as it is, it has its natural meaning. I z would have liked to make my example clearer, but the number-letters cannot fully show it. But with a little thought, though, it would be as if to say:

67. Apparently, Luther means that he was not able to use these letters in his previous chart.

Luci milcks die Ku, [Lucy, milks the cow,] Luxle kum du zu mir, [Luxle, come to me,] Juede kawe du die klyen. [Jew, chew the bran.]

68. Wendisch refers to the Slavic languages in eastern Germany.

But because k, a, e, n, etc. are not number-letters, I had to omit them67 and, thus, have spoken that terrible Wendish68 or Danish German.69

69. “Wendisch oder Denisch Deudsch” means strange or foreign-sounding German, or simply gibberish.

z

WA 53:597.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ Now you might ask, “What have these 72 three-letter words made out of the text of Moses?” Well, listen to the second part of this great art. They are supposed to represent numbers or number-letters and no longer reading letters; not grammatically as one would read them in school but rather numerically as one would read them in a mathematics school. As in my example you must not read LII as you would in school but rather as you would in a revenue office or in a place where calculations are made, where one does not read it as the word l-i-i but rather as 52. The second word is not read as v-m-v but rather as 1,010. The third word is not read as c-v-d but rather as 605. The fourth word is not read as i-d-i but rather as 502, and so on. Thus, all the letters in the text of Moses must become numerical, because grammatically they do not serve the Schem Hamphoras. In addition, and third, you must learn that the 72 three-letter words created from the text of Moses are actually the names of 72 angels (I almost wrote the word devils). Thus, when I say the four words in my example, LII, VMV, CVD, and IDI, I am also giving the names of four angels. Numerically, one is called 52, the second 1,010, the third 605, the fourth 502. And thus the 72 angels are given purely number-names: one is 17, another is 22, another is 79, and so on. What are these 72 names of angels supposed to mean numerically? Clear your throat, we’re about to get at it. We are coming to the central issue. You have already heard how the entire text of Moses in Exodus 14 has become purely numerical or numberletters, divided into 3 x 72 names of angels.70 Now you must learn that these same numerical letters will once again become grammatical or reading letters, while at the same time remaining numerical. It works this way: The first angel, LII, has the numerical value of 52. Now go and look for another word or two which also has the numerical value of 52, but a the words must refer to names for God or to powers or works of God. Thus, if I were to follow my example: “God’s love is pervasive.”b Here you hear an understandable statement—that the love of God does and is able to do everything—and all of the letters are grammatical or reading letters. Nevertheless, within it you find the name of the angel whose numerical value is 52.71 That is, one L and a WA 53:598. b “Gottes liebe ists gar.”

641

70. It would be more accurate for Luther to have said, “216 letters divided into 72 angel names.”

71. In other words, in Luther’s hypothetical example, if the numerical value of “God’s love is pervasive” is 52, then this phrase links up with the angelic name which also has the numerical value of 52. This then becomes the meaning of that particular angelic name, which in itself has no other meaning than as a numeric value.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

642

72. Luther is drawing directly from Margaritha in making this point. See Walton, Margaritha, 55.

two II’s, which equal 52. You can look for other such examples for yourself. For instance, “God is a good helper,” c or “God gives salvation.” d There you hear understandable statements in accord with grammar or reading-letters, while at the same time you have within these statements the numerical or number-letters, which correspond to the name of the first angel. You do the same with the other names of the 72 angels, that is, with the entire text of Moses in Exodus 14, into which these 72 angel names are divided, as you have already heard. Here you can see how God’s name or what is said about God’s action are blended in with the 72 angel names. Thus, there is an interpreted or outspread name e throughout the entire text of Moses, that is throughout all 72 angel names, and this is called the Schem Hamphoras, or the interpreted name.f Gimmicksg like this work well in Hebrew because they can make all letters numerical, and they can find different words for LII, which is 52. We are not able to do this with our alphabet, because we only have a few, namely seven, numerical letters: C, D, I, L, M, V, X. Therefore, although I can also write LII with the letters xxxxxii or xl and xii, I can’t make a grammatical word or statement out of it like they can in Hebrew. Especially for us Germans, letter x is rarely used, and the German language really has no need for it. Therefore, in this statement, “God’s love is pervasive,” we have to borrow some grammatical letters so that the name of angel LII (52), can be written both numerically and grammatically. Here you might point out that by using the same method, one could make something different out of the number-letters, both in Hebrew and Latin, or even in German. For example, “Satan is a good helper”; “Satan gives salvation.”72 These also add up to LII, the name of the first angel, i.e., 52. Or, “Hans is a good

c d e f

“Gott hilfft fein.” “Gott gibt heil.” “Ein ausgelegter oder ausgebreiter Name.” On Jewish magical practices relating to the divine name, see Gideon Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 254, 306–7; Joshua Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition (New York: Atheneum, 1970, repr.), 90–97; Ephraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1975), 124–34. g Alfentzerey (“Alfanzerei”).

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ helper,” etc. As a result, the Schem Hamphoras would also become the interpreted name of the Devil and of a human being, or of anything that I wanted. But, dear Goy, you have already heard above that you must believe and do whatever the rabbis say and want. If not, the copper dogs from Jerusalem might come and bark you to death. Or what’s worse, a cabbage stalk from the temple bearing one hundred pounds of seed might fall on you and kill you. Finally, in order that the Schem Hamphoras be fully complete, they add to it the Benedicite73 or prayer. They attach a h verse from the Psalter to each name of the 72 angels, and thus the prayer has 72 verses.74 They do this with the pious notion (pay close attention) that each verse contains the great name of God, Jehovah,75 which is called the Tetragrammaton.76 However, do not pronounce the letters but say Adonaii instead, because the name is ineffable.77 More about this later. Now you have the Schem Hamphoras full and complete. Now you are not merely a circumcised, real Jew, but you can also perform all kinds of miraculous signs, just like the seducer, Jesus Notzri did. Now run quickly to Jerusalem and command the copper dogs by means of the Schem Hamphoras to beget 100,000 young copper dogs, each of which can bark ten times louder than the two old dogs. Have them bark at the cursed Goyim in all the world and make them deaf, blind, and stupid; even bark them to death. And, thus, the world will be conceded to the holy children of Israel, and this even prior to the coming of their Messiah, Kokhab.j But how can it be that they have not made use of the art and power of the Schem Hamphoras during their 1,500 years of exile? Or especially when they were destroyed by the Romans and Vespasian k (because that was certainly the time to perform miracles)? Or afterwards, when they along with their Messiah, Kokhab, were slain and scattered by Hadrian? l The rabbis respond that they are currently not pious enough and are, thus, experiencing

h WA 53:599. i

The generic Hebrew word for lord, master, mister. kuvrio~ (kurios) in Greek, Dominus in Latin, Herr in German. j On Bar Kokhba, see n. 18, p. 623. k Vespasian, see n. 17, p. 623. l See n. 19, p. 623.

643 73. From benedicite omnia opera Domini Domino (“Bless the Lord, all [you] works of the Lord”), the beginning of the “Song of the Three Young Men” in the Greek and Latin versions of Daniel 3. In Protestantism, the “Song of the Three Young Men” is regarded as an apocryphal text because it does not occur in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of Daniel. 74. WA 53:594–95 n. 7 provides the text from Margaritha that Luther is drawing on. The prayer in question derives from the Jewish esoteric tradition (“Kabbalah”). It was most likely handwritten in the margins of Jewish prayer books. See Walton, Margaritha, 54–55. 75. On “Jehovah,” see n. 103, p. 654. The logic of the method in question is that each of the seventy-two names was given a biblical verse that contained both the letters of the name itself plus the letters of the Tetragrammaton. In Chayey Ha-‘  Olam Ha-ba (“The Life of the World to Come”), the thirteenthcentury Jewish mystic, Abraham Abulafia (1240–1291; Italy; Sicily), describes a method of meditating on the seventy-two names of God. (On Abulafia, see Harvey J. Hames, Like Angels on Jacob’s Ladder: Abraham Abulafia, the Franciscans, and Joachimism [Albany: State University of New York Press, 2007]). 76. Technical term for the four-letter personal name of God, hwhy, Y (J in German), H, W, H. 77. It is not known precisely when the Jewish practice of not pronouncing God’s personal name began, but it is firmly entrenched by the third century bce at the latest. The New Testament itself takes for granted that the Tetragrammaton is not pronounced.

644 78. The question of the rationale for and the duration of the exile was central for Jewish thought in the late Middle Ages. See Luther’s treatment of this topic in Sabbatarians, LW 47:65–78. 79. Perhaps nothing about Judaism agitated Luther more than the ongoing Jewish claim to be the chosen people of God. A severe critique of this fundamental Jewish conviction is a central topic in Luther’s Lectures on Genesis (1535–1545), LW 1–8. See also Brooks Schramm, “Populus Dei: Luther on Jacob and the Election of Israel (Genesis 25),” in The Call of Abraham: Essays on the Election of Israel in Honor of Jon D. Levenson, ed. Gary A. Anderson and Joel S. Kaminsky, Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity 19 (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2013), 280–305. 80. On the linking of the Jews with Judas, see Luther’s superscription to Psalm 109 in his 1533 Summarien über die Psalmen (“Summaries of the Psalms”): “Ps. 109 is a prayer-psalm, prayed in Christ’s person against his betrayer, Judas, and [against] the Jews, his crucifiers. He complains fiercely about them and prophesies to them about how, being hardened by the wrath of God, they must perish and frightfully rot, just as we see all of this fulfilled before our very eyes” (WA 38:54,24–27).

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD the disfavor of God in exile.78 In addition, they claim that after so long a time, the power of the 72 angels has been forgotten. But how is this possible? Aren’t they still the eternal, noble blood and the circumcised saints, God’s own people before the whole world, the dear children of Israel who worship only one God? 79 Such a people cannot be in disfavor (otherwise Scripture would be wrong) like the cursed Goyim, who worship more than one God and regard Jesus Ha Notzri as Messiah. It is they who must be in disfavor, and no Schem Hamphoras can help them. Furthermore, how could the sages have been so stupid as to have forgotten the power of the angels in the Schem Hamphoras? Those who were so smart that they had such a treasure guarded by two copper dogs? They also had so much power over it that they allowed Judas Iscariot to enter. But they could enter whenever they wanted to and become like Judas Iscariot in all their actions, just as they are today. 80 Therefore, the great treasure of this art, which they inherited from Judas Iscariot and from their forebears, must surely still be with them. It cannot be so easily lost. Otherwise, how can they still write and speak about it with such certainty? You cursed Goy. You are an especially dumb fellow who will not and cannot learn m anything new. Didn’t you hear what was stated above? When a rabbi says the right hand is left, it is left. When he says the left hand is right, it is right. Therefore, when a rabbi now says that the art of the Schem Hamphoras has been lost, it is lost. But if he says that they still have it, then they still have it. If he says that they are in disfavor, then they are in disfavor. If he says that they alone are God’s dear chosen people, then they certainly are. At this point you might well ask me: whence do the Jews get this high wisdom, such that the text of Moses, the holy innocent letters, should be divided into three parts and numerical or number-letters be made out of it? And also that they then name 72 angels and thus constitute the entire Schem Hamphoras? Leave me in peace about that. Ask the rabbis and they will tell you all about it. Yes, before I become a Jew, I would like to hear your opinion in advance. For thereafter I know that I would have to

m WA 53:600.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

645

Wittenberg Judensau, St. Marienkirche

believe the rabbis. But you have promised me the Jewish catechism. Keep your promise. Well, I do not know exactly whence they got it, but I can make a guess. Here in Wittenberg on our parish church there is a sow carved in stone. 81 Under her, young piglets and Jews lie sucking. Behind the sow stands a rabbi who lifts the sow’s right leg and with his left hand he pulls her rear end over himself. He bends down and looks most studiously under her rear end at the

81. High on the exterior wall of St. Mary’s Church in Wittenberg (the church where Luther preached most of his sermons), at the southeast corner (i.e., facing Jerusalem), there is a small, weathered sandstone relief of an image that was popular in German churches from the twelfth to fifteenth centuries: “die Judensau” (the Jewish

646 Sow). The image portrays a large sow with Jewish children sucking and a male Jew staring intently into the sow’s behind. Luther invokes this image, which is still in place today, as the ideal illustration of the source of rabbinic knowledge in general and of the Schem Hamphoras in particular. Circa 1570, an inscription was added to the relief, inspired by Luther’s treatise: “Rabini Schem HaMphoras” (the Rabbis’ Schem Hamphoras); see Isaiah Shachar, The Judensau: A Medieval Anti-Jewish Motif and Its History (London: Warburg Institute, 1974). In the early 1980s, after an extended discussion about the Judensau image, the community of St. Mary’s Church decided that the image should remain in place as a warning about the horrors of the recent past. In addition, a Mahnung (a reminder or warning plate) was commissioned and placed on the ground directly beneath the Judensau, the inscription to which reads: “God’s own name, the reviled Schem Hamphoras, which the Jews prior to the Christians regarded as virtually unspeakably holy, died in six million Jews under the sign of a cross.” 82. The Talmud, written in Aramaic and Hebrew and codified c. 500–600 ce (there are actually two, the Babylonian [the most commonly studied] and the Jerusalem), is the central document of rabbinic Judaism. Massive in extent and encyclopedic in content, it was a consistent target of Christian antiJewish polemic. In Christian writings, Talmud is often a cipher for anything rabbinic. In Luther the term is always negative.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD Talmud 82 inside, as if he wanted to read and see something difficult and special. This is most likely where they get their Schem Hamphoras from. For previously there were very many Jews in these areas. This is proved by the names of towns and villages, and also of citizens and n peasants, which are still in Hebrew today. So, some educated, honorable man, who was an enemy of the foul lies of the Jews, had such an image made. Thus, even today among the Germans it is said (to put it crudely) of one who has great wisdom without cause: “Where did he read that? In a sow’s behind.” To this end, one could easily manipulate the word, Schem Hamphoras, and make it, Peres Shama, o or boldly master it like the Jews do and make it Shamha Peresp so that it sounds similar. 83 As if a German would understand Nerren [fools] when hearing or reading Neeren [to feed], or “He has improved [gebessert] my property” as “He has watered” [gewessert]. Thus the wretched,

Wittenberg Mahnung (warning plate), St. Marienkirche

83. Luther’s derogatory word-game actually works in Hebrew.

n WA 53:601. o Literally in Hebrew, “shit is there” or “shit is its name.” p Literally in Hebrew, “there is the shit.”

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ evil spirit mocks his captive Jews and lets them say Schem Hamphoras and believe and hope that there are great things associated with it. But he actually intends Sham Haperes, which means “Here is the crap.” Not the kind that’s on the streets but the kind that comes out of the stomach. Sham means “here” or “there.” Peres is what the sow and all animals have in their intestines, as Moses uses it in Leviticus q where he commands that the sin offering be burned with skin and hair and all its Peres, i.e., its dung, etc. For the Devil has possessed and captured the Jews so that (as St. Paul says) r they must follow his will and act like fools, lie, blaspheme, and even curse God and all that belongs to God. As a reward he gives them his mockery, the Shamhaperes, and helps them believe that this and all their lies and foolswork are a precious thing. They do not complain and cry out about such horrible captivity, nor do they beg with even the slightest sigh to get out of it. Rather, they are happy to be in it, regard it as an especially great freedom, and want us Christians to be in it with them. But they do cry out about their Roman captivity, where they are not held captive by us but rather we by them, and this in our own country together with all our money and property. 84 Because they are so well off, they treat us like the Devil treats them. They mock us to our shame, just as the Devil mocks them to their eternal damnation. In order to make clear how the mad Jews deal in deceitful fraud, they allow the previously mentioned text to stand, where God commands and promises Moses that he should divide the sea with his staff and lead the children of Israel through it. s Yes, this is the real central text, the most important one, in which God promises and commands what would happen. The senseless Jews, however, do not inquire about that but rather take the story and try to replicate with empty letters what God did in the past through God’s word and commandment. Theyt make no distinction between God’s word and work on the one hand and their own worthless, senseless deceitful fraud on the other.

q r s t

Lev. 4:11; 8:17. 2 Tim. 2:26. Exod. 14:16. WA 53:602.

647

84. This type of rhetoric is very close to that in Lies and is an obvious lowestcommon-denominator appeal to the masses. See esp. p. 528 in this volume; LW 47:217–[18].

648

85. Regarding the belief that the ineffable name could be used to control nature, see Walton, Margaritha, 125.

86. Luther knew from Margaritha that Jewish daily life was filled with expectations for the coming of the Messiah. Margaritha himself was likely aware of the prophecy of Abraham ben Eliezer Ha-Levi (1460–1530) from 1517 that the Messiah would come in the year 1530 (see Walton, Margaritha, 46–47). Luther also knew from Margaritha that contemporary Jewish messianic expectation had a stridently anti-Gentile character to it, and he was horrified by this. On the anti-Gentile character of late medieval and early modern Jewish messianism, see esp. Yuval, Two Nations in Your Womb.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD They also say that whoever knows the power and the virtue of the 72 angels is able by means of the Schamhaperes to compel them to demonstrate their power. 85 First, they are indeed correct in saying that whoever knows the power of those 72 angels can surely perform all miracles by means of this knowledge. Just as it is surely true that whoever has a donkey that shits gold will certainly have money. But where can one find such a donkey? In never-never land. u In the same way, the 72 angels of the Jews are nowhere to be found except in never-never land. They were not, and will never be, created. Therefore, they are correct when they say that whoever knows the power of these angels is able to perform miracles, as many and as often as they want. We will also see that by means of such angelic power they will try to force God to send their Messiah—whether God wants to or not to take back Jerusalem. 86 How can this fail? Second, we see how the crazy, senseless fools want to bewitch the angels and bring them under their control with mere meaningless letters, and set themselves above God so that the angels will have to do what they want them to do. This is what they are: the saintliest saints of all,v who alone worship one God. For, according to them, worshiping one God means naming one God with their mouths and exhibiting themselves before the one God with kneeling and bowing, while with their hearts they worship mere letters, namely, many thousand lies and devils. For, whatever the heart relies on and trusts, that is its God.w As we Christians, the mad, cursed Goyim, say: When the mouth is silent and the knee does not bow, yet the heart bows without ceasing— which means to place its confidence, its comfort, and its trust in the one God—this is what it means to worship the one God properly and well without ceasing. But among these circumcised saints, this is regarded as pure foolishness. They are able to name the one God with their mouthsx (which is enough by itself) while at the same time making as many angels and gods for themselves out of letters as they want. And they do not just simply trust in them (what we mad u “Im Schlauraffen Lande.” v “Die Heiligen aller Heiligen.” w See Luther’s explanation of the First Commandment in the Large Catechism (BC, 386). x “Mit dem Maul.”

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ Goyim would call worship) but they also bewitch them into doing whatever they want. Shouldn’t a Goy rightly want to become a Jew, since having found such great power one is able to make gods and angels as one pleases? On the other hand, we cursed Goyim can do nothing more than believe that the one God made everything and that the angels rule us and not we them. In sum, a Jew is as full of idolatry and magic as nine cows have hair.y That is: innumerable and unending, just like the Devil, their God, is full of lies. If    z only they would use such deceitful fraud with letters as when children are taught the letters in school. They have to recite the alphabet forwards and backwards and arrange the letters in such a way that they can form syllables and practice reading. Or they make pictures or images with the letters, as some boys were skilled at doing in the past. We could tolerate this as a kind of amusing children’s game, because Hebrew letters lend themselves to this sort of thing better than other letters. But to ascribe power to mere empty, meaningless, poor letters, and such power that is able to perform miracles even at the hands of the godless and the enemies of God, that is not only disgustinga and Scham Haperes but also the wretched, blasphemous Devil himself with all of his malice from hell. In this way the Jews worship as many devils, indeed as many thousands of devils, as the angels they invent through their Scham Haperes (as stated above). For they rely on and believe as true something that is a pure lie. The prophets call this idolatry, confidere in mendacio, to trust in a lie; b while glory belongs to God alone. Look at what fine saints the Jews are. They damn us cursed Goyim, claiming that we worship more than one God, while they alone, the blessed fruit of the noble blood, the circumcised saints, worship the one God. This is true. If the 72 invented angels, that is, the 72 thousand devils, are called the one and only God, then they certainly worship only one God. Look as well at what a great new miracle-working saint you have become, when you denied Christ and became a Jew. For through the Scham Haperes you can y

According to WA 53:602 n. 5, this comparison is not otherwise attested. z WA 53:603. a “Pfu dich an.” b Jer. 7:4.

649

650

87. Once again, the charge of Jewish willfulness rather than ignorance. 88. The French Franciscan Nicholas of Lyra (1270–1349) was a gifted Hebraist and prolific biblical commentator. His Latin Bible commentaries (Postilla), in which he translated numerous comments of Rashi, were the only conduit for most Christian scholars into the work of the great Jewish interpreter. Here Luther is specifically referring to Lyra’s anti-Jewish treatise, Pulcherrimae quaestiones Iudaicam perfidiam in catholicam fide improbantes (“Most excellent inquiries rejecting Jewish perfidy against the Catholic faith”), normally referred to as Contra Iudaeos (Against the Jews). 89. Paul of Burgos (“Burgensis”; 1351– 1435), a Spanish rabbi (R. Shlomo Ha-Levi) who converted to Christianity and became a bishop. His Additiones (marginal additions) to Lyra’s Postilla were highly influential. Here Luther is specifically referring to Burgos’s antiJewish treatise, Dialogus Pauli et Sauli contra Judaeos, sive Scrutinium Scripturarum (Dialogue of Paul and Saul against the Jews, or an Inquiry into the Scriptures), normally referred to as Scrutinium Scripturarum. 90. In a rather candid moment, Luther seems to be at a loss in explaining the gravity of the problem he is dealing with in this treatise. 91. Deut. 28:28. In Luther’s writings against the Jews, he repeatedly quotes this verse. The curses of the covenant articulated in Deuteronomy 28 played a profound role in shaping Luther’s understanding of postbiblical Judaism.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD turn all devils into the one God, which is something that not even God is able to do. Therefore, think about it and thank the rabbis for their almighty filthy shit c (oh, how I wanted to say Scham Haperes). Yes, this is what happens if one does not listen to God’s word but instead wants to blaspheme ceaselessly: one must then listen to and worship all devils. It is as the Lord Christ says in John 5[:43]: “I came in the name of my father, and you did not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him.” If they would just let such deceitful fraud and fool’s play be evident lies, in the manner of fools and jugglers, and confess that what happens through the Schamhaperes are not real miraculous signs, one could hope that they might tire of such fool’s play and eventually abandon it. But instead they add to it d the wretched, malicious stain that they trust this stuff as if it were the very truth of God. They make a liturgy and idolatry out of it, and they refuse to regard what happens through the Schem Hamphoras as false miraculous signs. They take seriously that real divine power is at work in it, as was stated in the text quoted above that Jesus, the godless one, wakened a dead person in the presence of Queen Helene, just as their forebears had confessed that Jesus had truly cast out the Devil, and that it was not fake, but that he had done it in the name of Beelzebub. For their Schem Hamphoras is naturally supposed to be able to do everything. Lastly, it is excessive blasphemy to attribute the divine power to perform miraculous signs by means of the Schem Hamphoras even to the godless, to Judas Iscariot, and to the seducer (as they blaspheme), Jesus Ha Notzri. This is what they knowingly teach. 87 Such teaching also moved Lyra, 88 Burgos, 89 and many others, but they did not attack it fiercely enough. I do not know how I am supposed to speak and write about this.90 If I say that the Jews are crazy, blind, insane (as Moses says of them),91 and full of devils, this still falls short of describing those who want to worship the one God while at the same time spitting out such blasphemies, and even teaching this as a law. Whoever is able may grasp what it means that the divine, eternal majesty of the dear creator of us all—who is praised and is to be praised into eternity—should be reviled by these damned devils’ children; c “Fur jhr allmechtigen Sch[m]eisdreck.” d WA 53:604.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ that through God’s miraculous works that God alone does and can do (Ps. 72[:18]), God is a witness, a confirmer, and a defender of all e the lies, seduction, errors, idolatry, blasphemy, and of all the abominations that they attribute to our Lord Jesus Christ; or that it is asserted that God either could not or would not defend himself against the false prophet, Scham Haperes. I am unable to understand this in any other way but that they turn God into the Devil, indeed into the servant of all devils, who aids, strengthens, and performs all of the evil that the Devil desires.92 He loves and delights in seducing poor souls, disgraces

Title page of Paul of Burgos’s Dialogue of Paul and Saul against the Jews, or an Inquiry into the Scriptures (Dialogus Pauli et Sauli contra Judæos, sive Scrutinium scripturarum) (1591 printing)

e

WA 53:605.

651

92. This can be regarded as the fundamental accusation that Luther levels in the treatise.

652 93. Luther’s prayer for divine understanding of and sympathy with his reasons for writing the treatise in the way he has. A similar thought is expressed in Lies, LW 47:291: “The wrath of God has overtaken them. I am loath to think of this, and it has not been a pleasant task for me to write this book, being obliged to resort now to anger, now to satire, in order to avert my eyes from the terrible picture which they present.” 94. Luther’s term Heiden is literally “heathen” or “pagans.” In his German Bible, Heiden is one of the translations for Hebrew Goyim (nations), while at other times he uses Völker (nations or peoples). Our English word Gentiles comes from the Latin gentes (nations). In this document, Heiden is translated “Gentiles,” which carries the basic sense of non-Jews. 95. A “Dante-esque” flourish. 96. In Lies (this volume, pp. 560–72; LW 47:254–67), Luther had summarized the various Jewish blasphemies against Jesus and his mother that he had learned about from his expert witness, Margaritha. Knowledge of these blasphemies, together with the testimony of Toledot Yeshu, led him to the conviction that continued toleration of the Jews would implicate Christians in those same blasphemies. In his last word on the Jewish question, Admonition against the Jews (7 or 14/15 February 1546), he states: “Now, the way things stand with the Jews is this: that they daily blaspheme and slander our Lord Jesus Christ. Since they do this, and we know about it, we should not tolerate it. For if I tolerate in my midst someone who slanders, blasphemes, and curses

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD himself with his own miraculous works, and rages against himself. In sum, he is worse than all the Jews, indeed worse than all devils. Oh, my God, my dear Creator and Father! I trust that you will graciously credit me that I have—most reluctantly—had to speak so shamefully about your divine majesty against your cursed enemies, devils, and Jews. You know that I have done this out of the flame of my faith and for the honor of your divine majesty. For this is a matter of utmost seriousness to me.93 But your judgment is just, f “Iustus es Domine.” g Yes, this shall be the punishment for the Jews and no one else, who have despised your word and miraculous works for so long and continuously: that they might not, as a result of sin and death, fall like other human beings, Gentiles,94 and what not, into the the upper part of hell, nor into the middle of hell, but rather into the abyss of hell, where no one can fall any deeper.95 For this is also their sin, which cannot be any worse: not only do they despise you, the true eternal God, with disobedience and blasphemy toward your word, but they also want to turn you yourself into the Devil and into the servant of all devils, so that you, in your glorious divine power, might be a witness and serve the Devil in his lies, blasphemies, murder, and whatever other works of the Devil there may be. Just, just are your judgments, heavenly Father. They wanted to blaspheme, and this they have done more than enough.96 In Deut. 18[:22] Moses writes that God will not bring about a miracle or a sign if the word is spoken by a false prophet. He says, “This is how you will know: if what the false prophet has said does not come to pass, then it is certain that the Lord did not speak that word.” But these devils say that Jesus Ha Notzri was a seducer and a false prophet, and yet real miraculous signs—such as waking the dead, making the lame walk, and cleansing lepers (which no one but God alone is able to do)—have happened through this seducer. It would be no miracle if God’s wrath and hellfire had long ago plunged us Christians, who tolerate such cursed, evident blasphemers, into the abyss of hell together with the Jews. But we have been saved by the fact that we were not aware of this, and for that reason we are not guilty of their

f Ps. 119:137. g “You, O L ord, are just.”

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

653

dreadful deeds.97 But from now on, dear princes and lords, you who protect and tolerate Jewsh in your jurisdiction, pay attention to what they do.98 I want to be exonerated.99 Here it is not merely Christ our Lord and the Father in Christ who is being reviled but rather God the Father himself in himself, that is, in his divine majesty, is being reviled worse than Christ, and is being turned into the Devil and the servant of all devils.100 Cry out some more, Jew, cry out: “Crucify him, his blood be on us and our children.”i What you wanted has in fact come to pass. Enough has been said about this. The heart and ears of a Christian would much rather not have to listen to or think about such things, because they are too dreadful, horrible, and monstrous.j Over against these dreadful things, the foolishness that they spew about the name Tetragrammaton is perhaps not as bad. But I need to say a little bit about this as well in order to reveal their folly to us Germans. In sacred Scripture God has many names, but above all they count ten. Among these there is one that they regard as the greatest and the holiest, the Tetragrammaton.101 While the other names can occasionally refer also to angels and other creatures, this one name only ever refers to God. Here they are so holy and spiritual that they will not say the name with their mouths. They will either say another name in its place or they will use the four letters of the name: Jod, He, Vav, He. They do this because the name is supposed to be ineffable. Thus, St. Jerome102 says that because the Greeks did not know these letters, they read them as “PIPI,” regarding the Hebrew letter He as the Greek letter P. k First, I don’t make much out of what they say about the ten names, because it’s nothing new. St. Jerome indicates in his letter to Marcella that they count the names as follows: El, Elohim, Elohe, Zebaoth, Elion, Ehie, Adonai, Ja, Jehova, Sadai.l Others do it differently. It makes no difference to me, because there are many

my Lord Christ, then I make myself a participant in the sins of another [1 Tim. 5:22]” (LW 58:458).

h WA 53:606. i Matt. 27:25. j The translation “monstrous” derives from the suggestion in WA 53:606 n. 2 that Luther’s term unmesslich means über die Massen gross or ungeheuer.

102. Hieronymos, St. Jerome (c. 347– 420), the translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible. Because his Old Testament was translated directly from the Hebrew, it superseded the “Old Latin” version, which had been translated from the Greek.

k Greek P    I   P    I when read from right to left looks similar to Hebrew hwhy. l In Hebrew, la, µyhla, yhla, twabx, ˜wyl[, hyha, ynda, hy, hwhy, ydv.

97. A continuation of the argument made in Lies (this volume, p. 573; LW 47:268) that his prior advocacy for toleration of the Jews was based on ignorance of their blasphemy. 98. In Lies, Luther had threatened the princes with mob violence if they failed to do their jobs in expelling the Jews (this volume, p. 574; LW 47:270). 99. Luther wants to be exonerated of the charge of having advocated the toleration of Jews in German lands, which he had explicitly done in public fashion with his Born a Jew (1523) (this volume , pp. 398–439; LW 45:199–229). He expresses the identical sentiment in Lies (this volume, pp. 594–95; LW 47:292). 100. Earlier, Luther had argued that blasphemy against the Son is blasphemy against the Father. Here he is “upping the ante,” as it were, and charging the Jews with direct blasphemy against God the Father. 101. Luther had already registered his distaste for Kabbalistic practices surrounding the Tetragrammaton in his Second Lectures on the Psalms (Operationes in Psalmos, 1518–1521; WA 5; AWA 1–2) and in his 1519 Lectures on Galatians. See esp. LW 27:221–22, where he argues that Christ is the true Kabbalah of the name of the Lord, as opposed to the Tetragrammaton.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

654

103. The practice of pronouncing the Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” developed in Christian circles sometime in the late Middle Ages and derived from a misunderstanding of the Masoretic vowel-pointing system. The result is a nonsensical form. Luther assumed that the pronunciation was correct. However, he does not use Jehova in his Bible translation but consistently renders the Tetragrammaton with “HERR” in all capital letters, the German equivalent of    ynda (Adonay).

more names for God in Scripture than these. For example: “Ab, Bore, Or, Hai, etc.,” m that is, Father, Creator, Light, Life, Salvation, and such—and whatever else that is or is called good must be assigned above all to God as the one who has it in himself. It is as Christ says: “God alone is good.” n We, however, receive everything that we have and are from God. But now we want to deal with the single name that is called Jehovah, with which the Devil and the Jews perpetrate much magic and all kinds of misuse and idolatry. Grammatically speaking, this name Jehovah derives from the word Haioo or Havo, p which is fuitq in Latin (in the past tense), or esse. r In German it is Wesen [being] s or Sein [existence]. And the “J” can function as nota nominis verbalis,t as in Jehoshaphat, Jesaias, Jeremiah, and many other names. The name is essentially Ensu in Latin and ONv in Greek. We Germans would have to say Er ists [he is it]. Thus, in Latin it is a Trigrammaton, in Greek a Digrammaton, and in German a Hexagrammaton, or we could simply say IST [HE IS] and make it a Trigrammaton. When they claim that the name Jehovah is supposed to be ineffable, they do not know what they are babbling. If they are referring to the letters, then that can’t be true because it is read as Jehovah.103 If it can be written with pen and ink, then why can’t it be spoken with the mouth, which is much better than pen and ink? Or, why don’t they call it unwritable, or unreadable, or unthinkable? In sum, it’s a trivial issue.w If they do this out of respect, then they also ought to do the same with all the other names and regard them as ineffable as well. For the text says: “You shall not misuse God’s name.” x Therefore, this is a trivial issue as well.y Scripture never

m n o p q r s t u v w x

In Hebrew, ba, arwb, rwa, yh. Matt. 19:17. In Hebrew, wyh. In Hebrew, wwh. “He was.” “To be.” WA 53:607. “The sign of a verbal noun.” “Being; existence.” “Being; existence.” “Es ist faul ding.” WA 53:607 n. 1 suggests “eine nichtige Sache.” Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ says that any of God’s names are ineffable. Otherwise, everyone who misuses God’s name would be innocent, because they could then say that they were not permitted to use God’s name, much less misuse it.104 Actually, God’s being, might, wisdom, benevolence, and whatever else can be said about God are all ineffable, immeasurable, unending, incomprehensible, etc. It is not the letters or syllables that are ineffable but rather that which is meant by them. Yes, this is the way one should speak about the ineffable name of God.105 For God does not receive God’s being from anyone, and God has neither beginning nor end but rather exists from eternity in and from Godself. Thus, God’s “being” cannot mean “was” or “will be,” because God never began and cannot begin to become. God never ended and cannot stop being. Rather, with God it is pure “is” or “being.” That is Jehovah. When a creature is created, then God’s being is already there. And whatever will be, God is already there with God’s being. This is the way that Christ spoke about his divinity in John 8[:58]: “Before Abraham was, I am.” He does not say, “I was,” as if thereafter he was no more but rather “I am,” which means, “My being is eternal. It did not come into being nor will it become; it is, rather, pure ‘IS’.” Therefore, just as God’s “is,” “am,” or “being” are incomprehensible, so are they also ineffable. For no creature can comprehend that which is eternal. Thus, the angels are eternally blessed because they can never see enough of or rejoice enough in the eternal being of God, nor can they comprehend it. If one could comprehend it, it would not be eternal and would itself have an ending or a beginning. It could not give being to anyone or preserve it, because it would be uncertain of its own being. z Further, God’s wisdom, power, benevolence, etc. are eternal and incomprehensible because they are all God’s divine being itself. Third, and this is more important, in the divine being there are God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three persons in one eternal, incomprehensible being. Yes, saying things such as this about God is what an incomprehensible, ineffable name means. Who would want to name such a wondrous being, think it through to the end, express it all, and explicate it in writing? This may be the reason that the ancestors called the name Jehovah ineffable, y z

“Darumb ist das auch faul.” WA 53:608.

655

104. Ironically, the original reason for not pronouncing the Tetragrammaton was precisely this, with the idea being that the best way not to misuse God’s name is not to use it at all.

105. In contrast to his long, satirical description of the Jewish Schem Hamphoras, Luther now proffers the proper way to speak of the ineffable God. What is ineffable about God is God’s divine being.

656

106. A similar thought is expressed in Lies, this volume, p. 595; LW 47:292–93: “If God were to give me no other Messiah than such as the Jews wish and hope for, I would much, much rather be a sow than a human being. I will cite you a good reason for this. The Jews ask no more of their Messiah than that he be a Kokhba and worldly king who will slay us Christians and share out the world among the Jews and make them lords, and who finally will die like other kings, and his children after him.” Luther regarded the book of Esther as the primary culprit in the development of such harsh anti-Gentile hopes.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD because, grammatically speaking, it refers to God’s being, which, as you have heard, is called a pure “IS” from eternity, and in three persons. This is why one should take the trouble to learn to recognize this Jehovah, that is, divine being, and look for it in Scripture, a where God is revealed through God’s word in this life, whereas in the life to come God will be revealed apart from the word. But this is too much for the Jews, indeed it is nothing at all. Rather, this is what the tender saints do. They honor the letters of the name Jehovah with their mouths, saying that it should and must be ineffable, but the divine being, which is what the letters refer to, they comprehend and measure in cubits, pounds, and pecks, so to make it as large, as long, as wide, as deep, as heavy, and as full as they want. But note that God had promised them the Messiah, whom God also sent in accord with God’s divine, wonderful, incomprehensible wisdom. Then they come and dictate to God an image or a form, place a measure and a constraint on God’s wisdom, and thus prescribe how God should send the Messiah, namely, in the manner that Kokhba chose and not in the manner that Jesus of Nazareth chose. For their Messiah should not be crucified but rather should kill the Gentiles and establish the Jews as lords of the world.106 The eternal divine being and its eternal, incomprehensible wisdom are not supposed to find or perceive any other way. No, but as previously described they are to be constrained, limited, and restricted by human beings. Where this is not the case, God cannot remain as their God. For they are the ones who can set boundaries for God, weights, methods, and forms, not only with respect to God’s works but also in God’s eternal divine being, such that God cannot be three persons in one single being. They stand there with their circulus and angle measure, with cubit and perpendicular measure. They will not permit God to be an incomprehensible being, nor will they allow themselves to be less smart, wise, and prudent than God himself. What can this mean, that the Jews neither name nor pronounce the letter-name with their mouths, while withb their hearts they not only name, pronounce, and judge God’s divine being, the true Jehovah, but

a See John 5:39. b WA 53:609.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ they also compel and force it into their constraints? Well, they have to do so.107 As Isaiah prophesies in chap. 29[:13], it is their manner to honor the letters with their mouths while desecrating and blaspheming with their hearts. Still, God should allow himself to be played a fool, while they swallow the kernels and spit the husks in his face.108 They are the type of people who do nothing correctly, either in life or in speech, rather they must have a purely twisted, blind, crazy, senseless nature, as Moses says. c They think it is something special that they do not pronounce the name Jehovah, while they do not see that, in their disgraceful misuse, they draw the name into their Scham Haperes. They adorn, honor, and strengthen their 72 fictitious angels (which are in fact 72 lies and devils) with the same holy name of God, and in addition they promulgate all kinds of magic, fraud, and idolatry. I wish (and they would certainly be worthy of it) that they would not only not say the name Jehovah but that they would also not say, read, write, hear, or even have a single letter in the entire Scripture. For they only need it in order to desecrate God, dishonor the Scripture, and damn themselves.109 Dear brother, how can it be otherwise? If God’s word does not enlighten us and show us the way (Ps. 119[:105]), and if God’s light does not shine on us in a dark place (2 Pet. 1[:19]), then there can be nothing but darkness, errors, and lies that we invent for ourselves. Look at our experience under the papacy. We removed God’s divine word from before our eyes and replaced it with human teaching. We worshiped thick darkness, lies, and abominations with our Masses, purgatory, worship of the saints, monasticism, and our own works, etc. Now the Jews do not have a single word of God, and therefore there must be only pure darkness. Circumcision and the law of Moses are only valid until the Messiah comes, and then the Messiah will teach them another law (Deut. 18[:18]),110 which he in fact did. But they did not want to accept it. So, they have to do it this way: they do not do what God wants, rather God should do what they want. At the time when Moses’ law was commanded to them, they did not want to do it, and that is the reason that they killed all the prophets. But now when it is no longer commanded to them, they want to

c

Another allusion to Deut. 28:28.

657 107. The force of such expressions regarding the Jews, e.g., “It has to be this way,” or “It must be this way,” should not be weakened. 108. Luther uses the same proverbial expression in To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, TAL 1:459; LW 44:210: “The pope gobbles the kernel while we are left playing with the husk!”

109. In Lies, Luther advocates confiscating from the Jews not only their prayerbooks and rabbinic texts but also their Bibles as well; this volume, p. 589; LW 47:286.

110. A consistent teaching of Luther’s: the law of Moses terminates with the coming of the Messiah. Thus, rabbinic Judaism follows and explicates a law that is no longer in force. This is what he means when he says that “the Jews do not have a single word of or from God.” See esp. his sermon How Christians Should Regard Moses, TAL 2:127–51; LW 35:161–74.

658

111. Regarding Luther’s accusation that Jews would kill Christians if they could, see Lies (LW 47:288): “Indeed, if they had the power to do to us what we are able to do to them, not one of us would live for an hour. But since they lack the power to do this publicly, they remain our daily murderers and bloodthirsty foes in their hearts.”

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD do it, and this is the reason that they kill the Messiah and all of his Christians. In former times they actually did it. Now it is the complete will, eagerness, and wish of their hearts to do so.111

The alleged ritual murder of Simon of Trent in 1475, illustrated in Herman Schedel’s Weltchronik (1493)

The wrath of God has come upon them, as they rightly deserved. d

d See Lies, this volume, p. 594; LW 47:291, for the same sentiment.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ

Part Two e [On the Lineage of Christ] [. . .]

[Conclusion of the Treatise]

f

Ig wanted to write this at this time to honor, praise, and thank our dear Lord, to strengthen our faith, and to mock and anger the wretched Devil and his circumcised saints. For I know quite well how they defile and blaspheme the passages that I have quoted.112 Therefore, no one can say that I do not know what they are about and that I have damned them without first hearing them out. Nor can anyone say that I would not treat them so petulantly if I knew their thinking.113 Actually (God be praised), I know quite well what their wisdom in Scripture is, and I have proven this in my prior booklet where I dealt with the statement of Jacob in Gen. 49[:10],114 with Hag. 2[:6-7],115 with Dan. 9[:24ff.],116 and also in the article concerning circumcision and the nobility of blood-lineage.h In this booklet concerning the Scham Haperes, I have dealt with Isaiah 7 and similar passages. I did not want to deal with anything about which I am uninformed. I also want to highlight their interpretive art regarding the statement in Jer. 31[:22], “A woman will encircle a man.” i They say that the people Israel is the woman and God is the man. Israel engaged in idolatry and became   j a whore, but then she converted and repented and once again encircled and reconciled with the man, i.e., God. Although the words could be read in this way, this

e f

WA 53:610. The only portion of part two of the treatise translated here is the conclusion. See above on the text and translation in the introduction, p. 621. g WA 53:643,23. h This last is either a reference to Sabbatarians (LW 47:65–98) or, more likely, to Luther’s extensive lecture on Genesis 17 and the covenant of circumcision (LW 3:75–175). i Luther is drawing directly from Margaritha. WA 53:644 n. 4 provides Margaritha’s text. j WA 53:644.

659 112. A reference to the texts that Luther discusses in part two, which deal with the identity and lineage of Christ. These same passages will be enumerated again below. 113. With the help of Porchetus and Margaritha, Luther is convinced that he knows more than enough about Judaism. In many respects, though, Porchetus and Margaritha only confirmed what he had already “known” about the Jews since the earliest days of his academic career. Already in the First Lectures on the Psalms (1513–15), his view of the Jews and Judaism is firmly in place: “According to Luther, the Jew represents that religious attitude which constitutes the most direct contrast to justification by faith”; Kaufmann, Luthers Juden, 51. 114. The “Shiloh” prophecy, one of Luther’s central christological proof texts. In his reading, the passage proves that the earthly kingdom of Israel will end with the coming of the Messiah. The close proximity of the coming of Christ and the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple was a favorite theme of Christian anti-Jewish polemic, going back at least to Justin Martyr (c. 100– 165) and Tertullian (c. 150–c. 220). 115. Another central proof text, which in Luther’s reading proves the messianic inclusion of the Gentiles, which has been fulfilled in the Christian church. 116. Already in Born a Jew (1523) and then again in the Preface to the Prophet Daniel that he composed in 1530, Luther argued that the timing of the coming of Christ coincided precisely with this prophecy. See LW 35:294–316. He also treated this passage at length in Lies, this volume, pp. 596–607; LW 47:229–54.

660

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD is not actually the case. For how can such a thing be called something new created on earth? The people of Israel never became a whore and then converted, did they? Just ask the book of Judges about this. But here the rule that was stated above applies: What a rabbi calls new is new, and what he calls old is old, as is the case with the left hand and the right hand. But there is an even higher interpretive art with regard to this passage. They say that the woman is to be understood as a whore. But when they have a wedding, they lead the bride around the groom three times in order to fulfill the statement of Jeremiah that “a woman will encircle a man.” In this interpretation, “nekefa,”  k the woman, means a virgin, but in the other it means a whore. How can this be? Because the rabbis cannot err. If they say that a whore is a virgin and a virgin is a whore, then the rule applies: the left hand is the right if a raven l calls it right. However, when a woman or a bride is led around the man three times, such a new thing is never supposed to have happened before, for Jeremiah says, “There will be something new on the earth, created by the Lord.” m But here a rabbi has set the matter straight by saying that what he calls new is new and what he calls old is old, etc. To summarize, these desperate, devil’s lying mouths think that sacred Scripture belongs to them. They treat it like a piece of paper out of which they can make little men, birds, houses, and cat-chairs n as they wish. And whatever they say about Scripture, both their Jews and we Christians are supposed to accept as correct. Therefore, once again I want to pronounce judgment on the cursed rabbis. First, sacred Scripture belongs neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the angels, and certainly not to the Devil, but rather to God alone. God alone spoke and wrote it, and God alone shall be the one to explain and interpret it where necessary. The Devil and human beings shall be students and listeners. Second, on pain of losing divine grace and eternal life, it is forbidden for us Christians to believe or regard as right the

k Hebrew for “female,” hb  qn. l German word-play: Rabi; Rabinen (rabbi; rabbis) and Rabe; Raben (raven; ravens). See also Lies, this volume, p. 552; LW 47:246, where the same expression is used twice. m Jer. 31:22. n Katzenstuel, a children’s toy.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ scriptural interpretations and glosses of the rabbis.117 We are, however, permitted to read them in order to see what kind of damned devilish work they’re up to, and so protect ourselves from it. For thus says Moses in Deut. 28[:28]: “God will strike you with madness, blindness, and craziness of heart.” Moses did not say this about the cursed Goyim but rather about his circumcised saints, the noble blood, the princes of heaven and o earth, who call themselves Israel. Hereby all of their interpretations, glosses, and exegesis of Scripture are damned by God as pure madness, blindness, and craziness. God regards and judges all of their labor over Scripture these past 1,500 years as not only false and lies, but also as pure blindness and a crazy, insane thing. In accord with this judgment, so it is with their works and their deeds, as you saw above regarding the statement of Jacob in Gen. 49[:10], in Hag. 2[:6-7], in Dan. 9[:24ff.], in the material on the Schem Hamphoras, and on the “Alma” p in Isa. 7[:14],118 and on the “Nekefa” in Jer. 31[:22]. In sum, they do the same thing with all statements that speak about the Messiah and true faith. A crazy person must rave. q Isaiah 29[:13-14] confirms this judgment: “Therefore, because this people draw near to me with their mouths and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and they worship me according to human commandments that they teach, so I will deal with this people in miraculous, indeed in the most miraculous and strangest of ways. The wisdom of their sages shall perish, and the understanding of their clever ones shall become hidden.” This was not said about us Goyim but rather about the people Israel, who had important, wise, clever people and prophets, and who still have the same books. But because they became a false, hypocritical lying-people, who honor God with their mouths but go to the Devil with their hearts, they shall lose and not possess the wisdom and understanding of the prophets. Rather, because they pay God with their mouths (that is, with the husks) and serve the Devil with their hearts (that is,

o WA 53:645. p Hebrew for “maiden” or “young woman,” hml[ (almah). q “Ein rasend mensch mus rasen.”

661 117. Here begins a frontal attack on the Christian Hebraists. See the introduction for bibliography on Christian Hebraism.

118. The Greek translation of this passage uses parqevno~ (parthenos; “virgin”), rather than “young woman.” Matthew and Luke reference the passage in its Greek form, and the Christian doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ is based upon it. Already in antiquity, Jewish and Christian interpreters clashed over the proper interpretation of Isa. 7:14. Luther deals at length with this passage in part two of the treatise.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

662

119. A persistent claim of Luther’s, in which he argues that the Jews know Hebrew grammar but have no knowledge of theology, i.e., the subject matter (res; Sache). A Table Talk expresses the sentiment concisely: “The Jews do not understand the Bible, because they do not understand its subject matter” (WA TR 5:212,25–26; #5521). He makes similar claims repeatedly in the Lectures on Genesis (1535–1545), LW 1–8.

120. A reference to a botched circumcision. Luther uses the same term (“zerschneittung”) in his translation of Phil. 3:2 in the Luther Bible.

with the kernel), so shall they in turn have the letters (the empty shells) in the Scripture, but the kernel, the proper understanding, they shall not sense.119 Just before this passage, in the same chapter, he says: “The prophecy of all the prophets shall be to you like the word of a sealed book or letter. When it is given to someone to read, whether that person can read or not, they must say: ‘I can’t read it because it is sealed,’ etc.” r And this is the reality with the blind, crazy Jews. They do indeed have the book, but they have no understanding, whether of the Messiah or of the law of Moses, not even in a single verse. Thus, the Gentiles and poets can teach much better things than the Jews, even when they are at their best. There are many more of these passages in the prophets, especially Ps. 69[:23-24], which Paul draws on in Rom. 11[:9]: “May their table become a rope for them, as retribution and as a trap. May their face become dark, so that they cannot see,” etc. St. Paul portrays them well in 2 Cor. 3[:15-16] when he speaks about these Jews since the time of Christ (for it cannot be understood of anyone else): “To the present day, whenever Moses is read, the cover remains over their heart, because their mind is hardened. s But if they were to convert tot the Lord, the cover would be removed.” Thus the Lord himself proclaimed to them in Matt. 8[:12]: “The children of the kingdom will be thrown out into the darkness.” And in John 8[:21]: “I am going away, and you will look for me and die in your sins, because where I am going you cannot come.” And what else does St. Paul do in all of his letters but excoriate the Jews as dogs, mutilated,120 completely blind, and hardened, before whom one should be on guard. If a Christian were to look for understanding of Scripture among the Jews via this judgment and damnation, that would be like looking for sight among the blind, intelligence among the crazy, life among the dead, and grace and truth with the Devil. Such a Christian would rightly become mad, blind, and crazy just like his or her teachers who are damned by God. It is well and good to learn the language and the grammar from them,

r s t

Isa. 29:11. This last phrase is added by Luther. WA 53:646.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ just as they learn the German language from us, the Italian language from the Italians, u and wherever they are they learn the language of that country. But they do not learn our faith or our understanding of Scripture. Therefore, we should also learn the language from them, but we should avoid their faith and understanding, because it is damned by God. For this reason, our Hebraists (I want to ask them to do so for God’s sake) should be urged to take on the work of cleansing the holy ancient Bible of its Jewish Peres and Judas-piss.v Wherever they are able to alter the vowel points, disjunctive and conjunctive accents, constructions, significations,121 and whatever else the grammar allows, and thus turn the text away from the Jewish understanding in a way that rhymes with the New Testament, they should do this confidently and joyfully. In Rom. 12[:6] St. Paul teaches: “Prophecy shall be analogous to,” that is, consistent with, “faith.”122 This is what they have done to us, that is, to the Bible, for 1,500 years. Wherever they have been able—through the use of vowel points, disjunctive and conjunctive accents, etc.—to turn the Bible away from our Messiah and faith and thus make it contradict the New Testament, this they have done with great and crazy diligence. This is apparent in the examples mentioned above from Gen. 49[:10]; Hag. 2[:6-7]; Dan. 9[:24ff.]; Isa. 7[:14], and elsewhere.123 Such is the case with Isa. 9[:6 (Heb. 9:5)], where they make the text say, “Vayiqra Schemo, Pele, etc.”: “Thew Wonderful One, Advisor, God, Hero, Eternal Father will call the Messiah Prince of Peace.” Here one sees their arbitrariness. Therefore, their vowel points and constructions should be discarded, and the text should be read as we read it, because the grammar of the letters does allow “Va-yiq-ra” x to be read as “Va-yi-qa-re.” y 124 In this way,

u Luther’s terms Walen (Wahlen) and Welssche (Wälsche) are easily misunderstood as “Wales” and “Welsh.” In fact, they refer to the Romance-language-speaking lands and peoples of   Italy and France. v A phrase apparently unique to Luther. w WA 53:647. x “He calls/names.” y “He is called/named.”

663

121. All of these are technical terms that pertain to various aspects of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible, namely, the vowels and the punctuation (cantillation) marks that were added to the consonantal text beginning in roughly 500 ce. Because the Hebrew Bible was originally written without vowels or punctuation marks, many words and phrases are ambiguous and allow for multiple interpretations. The Masoretic notations were designed in part to remove these ambiguities. 122. Luther understands Paul to mean that Old Testament prophecy must be interpreted in a way that is consistent with New Testament faith, i.e., the gospel. This he makes clear in his marginal gloss to Rom. 12:6: “Any prophecy, no matter how valuable it may be, that leads toward works and not purely toward Christ as the only comfort, is nevertheless not consistent with faith,” WA DB 7:68. See also Lectures on Romans, chap. 12, LW 25:444–46. 123. This entire section foreshadows the arguments that Luther will make in his treatise, Last Words, LW 15:265–352. 124. Luther wants to be free to alter the vowels of the Masoretic Text, especially in those cases where doing so generates a reading more compatible with the New Testament.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD

664 125. An accusation of Jewish perfidy in the transmission of the Hebrew Bible. 126. A central burden of Luther’s career as professor of Bible was his attempt to demonstrate that the two Testaments of the Christian Bible represent a unified witness to Jesus, the Messiah and Son of God. Much of his antagonism toward the Jews and Judaism—and toward the Christian Hebraists—is a logical corollary of this central issue. See Schramm and Stjerna, Martin Luther, the Bible, and the Jewish People. 127. Bernhard Ziegler (1496–1552), who was a member of Luther’s Old Testament translation team (“the Wittenberg Sanhedrin”), enjoyed Luther’s full respect as a Hebraist. In Last Words, Luther cites Ziegler as his expert authority for the controversial translation of 1 Chron. 17:17 (LW 15:286–87). On Ziegler and other Reformation-era Christian Hebraists, see Stephen G. Burnett, “Reassessing the ‘Basel-Wittenberg Conflict’: Dimensions of the Reformation-Era Discussion of Hebrew Scholarship,” in Hebraica Veritas? Christian Hebraists and the Study of Judaism in Early Modern Europe, ed. Allison P. Coudert and Jeffrey S. Shoulson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), 181–201.

all of the names remain in the nominative case. z The Hebraists will be able to find more such examples, so that we can honorably take back from these thieves what they have so shamefully stolen over these last 1,500 years, and perhaps even longer than that.125 For the central thing must be true: the ancient Holy Scripture points to and testifies to the Messiah and our faith. Whoever does not understand it in this way cannot have it.126 This is the reason I said that Moses and the Scripture are not known among the Jews, not even the old, true Moses, because they have so shamefully befouled him with their Judas-piss. That Moses wants to be a faithful witness to the Messiah is certain. But because they so shamefully injure the Messiah, it is impossible for them to understand Moses properly in a single pasuq. a I would like to see this work taken up by my dear friend, Mr. M. Bernhard Ziegler, professor of Hebrew in Leipzig,127 that he would produce something like the other Hebraists (praise be to God) have, but without much success.128 For he is a particular enemy of the Jewish Judas-piss.129 He could accomplish something if he would gather the other Hebraists and cleanse the Hebrew Bible for us. If it is to be pure and in proper Hebrew again, we Christians, who have the Messianic understanding,130 will have to do it. As Paul says in 1 Cor. 2[:16]: “We have the mind of the Messiah.” And Luke 24[:27] b says: “He opened their mind to understand the Scripture.” And Matt. 13[:11] says: “To you it has been given to understand the secret of the kingdom of heaven.” If anyone wants to attack or criticize me by claiming that I have sometimes made mistakes in translating, I will gladly accept that, for how often did Jerome make mistakes? And I see

128. Luther may have in mind here Johann Forster (1496–1558), professor of Hebrew at Wittenberg and member of the Old Testament translation team. 129. Meaning that he was fully in Luther’s camp regarding the translation of the Hebrew Bible in the direction of the New Testament. 130. This is why, for Luther, only Christians can understand the Old Testament.

z

That is, “He [i.e., the Messiah] is [will be] called: the Wonderful One, Advisor, God, Hero, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace,” as opposed to “The Wonderful One, Advisor, God, Hero, Eternal Father will call the Messiah Prince of Peace.” a The rabbinic Hebrew term for a sentence or verse. b This is a strict paraphrase.

On the Schem Hamphoras and On the Lineage of Christ that these two fine men, Sanctes131 and Münster,132 have translated the Bible studio incredibili & diligentia inimitabilic and have accomplished much thereby. But at times the rabbis are too strong for them, and they have erred with regard to “Analogia des glaubens,” d because they gave in too much to the glosses of the rabbis. I myself have too often followed their translation and must therefore revoke some of it, especially 2 Sam. 22[:1ff.] with respect to verbis novissimis David, e which I will soon do.133 In this manner, the Jewish understanding of the Bible could be nicely weakened. It is an advantage that Moses and the Prophets did not writef with vowel points, which are a new human invention that came about after their time. Therefore, it is not necessary to adhere to them as closely as the Jews would like, especially in cases where they could be used to contradict the New Testament. The same should be done with the equivocatio   g

Portrait of a Man— probably a portrait of Sebastian Münster (1488–1552) by Joos Van Cleve (c. 1485−1540)

c d e f g

“With incredible zeal and incomparable diligence.” “The analogy of faith.” “The last words of David.” WA 53:648. “Ambiguity,” i.e., when a word allows for more than one meaning.

665 131. Sanctes Pagninus (1470–1536; Italy; France). A Dominican scholar who in 1528 published a highly literal Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible, which proved to be of significant use for scholars interested in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. 132. Sebastian Münster (1489–1552; Germany; Basel). A supremely gifted Hebraist, in 1534/35 he published his master work, Biblia hebraica latina, a Latin translation of the Hebrew Bible with footnotes and annotations containing numerous references to the medieval Jewish biblical commentators. See image of Münster, p. 556 in this volume. For Münster’s position regarding the Jews, see Stephen G. Burnett, “A Dialogue of the Deaf: Hebrew Pedagogy and Anti-Jewish Polemic in Sebastian Münster’s Messiahs of the Christians and the Jews (1529/39),” ARG 91 (2000): 168–90. 133. Last Words, LW 15:265–352, in which Luther lays out the ground rules for the proper Christian interpretation of the Old Testament, was published in August 1543, the third and final installment in his 1543 anti-Jewish writings. Here he expresses regret for having previously given too much credence to rabbinic interpretation; LW 15:269.

666

134. This brief statement captures Luther’s entire “problem” with rabbinic biblical interpretation.

135. The statement is somewhat odd, in that he has just announced his intention to write on “The Last Words of David.” In addition, in Advent 1543 and Lent 1544 he gave special lectures on Isaiah 9 (Enarratio capitis noni Esaiae; WA 40/3:597–682) and Isaiah 53 (Enarratio 53. capitis Esaiae; WA 40/3:685–746), both of which are centrally concerned with matters of Jewish biblical interpretation.

CHRISTIAN  LIFE   IN  THE WORLD and the distinctio  h where they function against the New Testament. The Jews love to make everything doubtful and uncertain.134 Therefore, whenever there is an equivocatio in a word, one should choose the significatioi that agrees with the New Testament, and, thus, it will be certain. The correct significatio is the one which is a strong witness and support for the New Testament. The other significatio, that is, the empty husks and Peres, can remain with the Jews, without witness or support. This is the mandate for the Hebraists. I will leave things here and not have any more to do with the Jews, nor will I write any more about them or against them.135 They have had enough. If any want to convert,136 may God bless it, so that they (or at least some) might with us recognize and praise God the Father, our Creator, together with our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit forever. Amen.

136. Here Luther returns to the beginning of the treatise.

h “Disjunctive accents.” i “Meaning.”

Image Credits

xii, xiii (maps), © 2006 Lucidity Information Design, LLC. Used by permission. 3, 11, 33, 73, 79, 82, 102 (Maximian), 117, 129, 154, 182, 184, 192, 202, 204, 206, 228, 231, 244, 246, 248, 249, 257, 271 (Alexander), 277, 280, 282, 287, 289, 297, 306 (Duke William), 329, 336, 337, 346, 349, 383, 387, 393, 397, 401, 402, 405, 420, 421, 440, 442 (Reuchlin), 451, 457, 495, 515, 527, 531, 533, 543, 581, 601, 612, 629, 645, 658, Wikimedia Commons. 10, 390, 611, The Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago (Gruber Rare Books Collection). Used by permission. 12, Wikimedia Commons /Clemensfranz /Creative Commons Share alike 3.0. 16, 19, 21, 23, 32, 48, Staats-und Stadtbibliotek Augsburg. Used by permission. 19, 40, 43, Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel. Photo by Elizabeth Marjorie Plummer. Used by permission. 35, SLUB Dresden/Digitale Sammlungen aus: Hist.eccl.E.237,4. Used by permission. 36, 107, 121, 130, 132, 141, 168, 174, 247, 250, 259, (Passional Christi), 265, 293, 317, 326, 334, 464, 474, Courtesy of the Richard C. Kessler Reformation Collection, Pitts Theological Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 52, Wikimedia Commons / Acquired by Henry Walters with the Massarenti Collection, 1902. 68, HIP / Art Resource, NY. 69, Wikimedia Commons / Anna Moraht-Fromm und Hans Westhoff: Der Meister von Meßkirch. 89, 100, 102, 151, 234, 311, 424, 428, 490, 509, 539, Courtesy of Pitts Theological Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University. 103, 158 (Jakob Fugger), 373, 413, Wikimedia Commons / The Yorck Project: 10,000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. 137, University of Houston Digital Library. 149, bpk Bildagentur / Art Resource, NY. 158, (Anton Fugger) Wikimedia Commons / Given by friends of the Louvre. 170, Wikimedia Commons / Jacek Halicki.

667

Image Credits

668

173, Wikimedia Commons / Aquired by Henry Walters, 1905. 186, 195, Snark / Art Resource, NY. 214, Wikimedia Commons / Joseph Theil. 241, © dpa picture alliance / Alamy Stock Photo. 253, The United Stated Library of Medicine Digital Collection. 255, Wikimedia Commons / Photo by Dnalor_1 (Wikimedia Commons, Lic. CC-BY-SA 3.0). 259, (Gaza’s Greek grammar) Courtesy of the Trustees of the Edward Worth Library. 260, Wikimedia Commons, Web Gallery of Art. 263, Wikimedia Commons / Soncino Blaetter, Berlin, 1929. Jerusalem, B. M. Ansbacher Collection. 271, (Children’s Games) Wikimedia Commons / CQEeZWQPOI2Yjg at Google Cultural Institute. 275, Wikimedia Commons / Staatliche Kunsthalle Karlsruhe. 279, Album / Art Resource, NY. 285, Foto Marburg / Art Resource, NY. 298, Wikimedia Commons / Staatsbibliothek München. 301, Wikimedia Commons / Michael Sander. 306, (Louis X) Wikimedia Commons / Kunsthistorisches Museum Wien, Gemäldegalerie. 308, Scala / Art Resource, NY. 316, Wikimedia Commons / Manuel Gómez. 324, Wikimedia Commons / Originally from Johann Ludwig Gottfried: Historische Chronica der vier Monarchien (1629–1632). 333, Granger, NYC. All rights reserved. 342, Wikimedia Commons / Les Collections de l’Histoire Les Turcs. 351, (Charles V) Wikimedia Commons / Panorama de la Renaissance by Margaret Aston; (Pope Julius) Wikimedia Commons / National Gallery, London. 359, Wikimedia Commons / Library of Congress. 360, Universal Images Group / Art Resource, NY. 368, 383, Erich Lessing / Art Resource, NY. 394, Wikimedia Commons / Scanned from Four Gothic Kings, Elizabeth Hallam, ed. 395, Copyright © 19th era 2 / Alamy Stock Photo.

Image Credits 399, Gianni Dagli Orti / The Art Archive at Art Resource, NY. 403, bpk, Berlin / Art Resource, NY. 411, Wikimedia Commons / www.drawingsofleonardo.org. 418, Wikimedia Commons / Eigentum des Kaiser-Friedrich-Museumsvereins. 423, Werner Forman / Art Resource, NY. 431, Wikimedia Commons / Muzéo. 435, Wikimedia Commons / www.wildwinds.com/coins/. 438, Album / Art Resource, NY. 442, (Bullinger) Wikimedia Commons / Geschichte des Kantons Zürich. Bd. 2, Frühe Neuzeit. Werd: Zürich 1996. 446, INTERFOTO / Alamy Stock Photo. 448, Creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/. 453, Copyright © Bodleian Libraries / The Art Archive at Art Resource. 487, Wikimedia Commons / Wenceslaus Hollar Digital Collection, Thomas Fisher Rare Book Library. 554, Wikimedia Commons / http://expositions.bnf.fr/fouquet/grand/f063. 566, Wikimedia Commons / Art Renewal Center. 569, INTERFOTO / Alamy Stock Photo. 571, Copyright: © Art Directors & TRIP / Alamy Stock Photo. 596, Wikimedia Commons /Wenceslas Hollar Digital Collection Plate number: P450a. 608, Center for Jewish Digital Collections. 610, Wikimedia Commons / Reformationart.com. 615, With the courtesy of Kedem Auction House Ltd. 617, Badische LandesBibliotek, Karlsruhe. 618, Rare Books and Special Collections, Firestone Library, Princeton University / graphicarts.princteon.edu. 623, Wikimedia Commons / Jebulon. 638, Metropolitan Museum of Art / Purchase, Friends of Islamic Art Gifts, 1998. 651, archive.org / CC0 1.0 Universal. 665, Wikimedia Commons / Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid.

669

Index of   Scriptural References

OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW BIBLE GENESIS

1:1–2577 1:2634 1:2–1865 1:2224 1:26113 1:27–2841–42 1:28 41–42, 66, 74 1:3141 221 2:7 411, 416 2:18–2422–23 2:21–22 411, 416 2:24 25, 364 3 364, 407 3:9409 3:15395–96,  407–10, 621 3:19 76, 463, 576 4:14–1590 5555 5:6f555 6:1–1373 7:1–24353–54 7:17–24310 9:691 9:18465 10–11462 10:2ff465 10:9361 11555 11:17555

11:26474 11:2949 13:10–13378 14 126, 325 14:8–1699–100 14:17376 15460–61 17 460–61, 468,  476–77, 659 17:5603 17:7, 8, 11 478 17:12f468–69 17:14460 17:23325 18:22–32356 18:24–33376 18:27463 19:1–2473 19:1–25 73, 254 19:12–29311 19:24310,  353–54, 381 19:24–28310, 353–54 20:2–7126 20:1249 22:18 395, 410,  412, 603 22:21474 24417 24:16, 43 417 25644 25:1ff469 25:7555 25:23464 28–3376

28:15421 29:23–2554 32:1076 39:5375 41428 41:34181 41:36152 41:37–46100 41:40428–29 41:48–57150 43:8–9143 44143 44:14–34143 47:13–26150 47:24, 26 150, 181 48143 49 422–27, 450,  496, 530, 532,  542, 545–46,  600, 602 49:8, 9 496 49:10 395, 421, 424–25,  491–93, 495,  500, 502, 508,  518, 525, 621,  659, 661, 663 49:10–12395, 422–23,  426, 428 49:11–12426 EXODUS

1:21509 2:8417 3417

671

Index of   Scriptural References

672 3:7–8290 6:5–7321 7–12157 13:47–14:29421 14:16647 14:19–21 618, 639 18:17–24279 20:4311 20:7 589, 637, 654 20:12163 20:19486 21126 21:13126 21:1490–91 21:23–2591 22:16–1756 22:24438 22:25484 22:28204 23204 23:2179 29:36434 30:22ff557 31 291, 324 33:20476 34:33ff486 36476 LEVITICUS

4:11647 8:15434 8:17647 14:52434 18 35, 49 18:6–1848–49 19:18177–78 20:18565 22:28627 25:8433 25:10ff181 25:35ff484 25:36, 37 438 26:36307 26:40ff548 26:41471

NUMBERS

6:1–21360–61 14:40–45216 16482 16:31–35329 19:19434 21:21–30216 22:28122 24542 24:5ff549 24:17 421, 542, 623 24:17–19542 25:8–13251 35:6–29126 DEUTERONOMY

1:19–46373 2:26–37216 4:2 470, 573 4:29ff548 5:8311 5:11 310, 319,  637, 654 5:29179 6:4592 9:4f549 9:5499 10 291, 324 10:16470 12325 12:17291 12:32 470, 573 13:5626 13:12ff573 15:4166 15:7–8175 15:11 166, 172 17 291, 324 17:8–11631 17:10ff574 17:11632 17:18273 18325

18:4291 18:18657 18:22 312, 652 20233 20:10–12125 21:18–21252 22:22–2460 23:7568 23:19f484 23:20 438, 575 24:1–459 25325 25:5–949–50 25:2545 28650 28:18567 28:28 650, 657 28:57425 30:1ff548 31:25–26273 31:27482 32502 32:7252 32:21 478, 489,  529, 541 32:35312 39:4–13126 JOSHUA

1:5145–46 3221 7:1–5221 10:10544 24:2f462–63 JUDGES

3:9500 3:15–30376 4:4–5:31376 6:11–8:28376 7500 7:20225 8:23500 9:22–57328–29

Index of   Scriptural References 10:11ff373 11:37–38413 12:1–6216 13:2–16:31376 14:1–228 14:4107 15:11107 15:4490 16:1–2173 19–20254 20:18–25374 20:22374 21500

16:16–19199 16:22–17:23376 16:23123 17:1–23123 18:14–15329 20:10124 20:22329 22:1ff665 23450 23:2f505 23:4506 23:5 491, 505, 602 24:10 354, 356

1 SAMUEL

1 KINGS

2:30229 4:3500 10500 12:15350 14:6376 15:23573 15:33100 20:6–12209 22:18376 24:1–7209

1510 2:5–6124 3495 3:6–10356 3:9 120, 126–27 6:796 9499 9:3, 6f 488 10–12514 11:1–1373 12501 15:25–29201 16:18329 17:1320 18:40100 20580 21:27–29354 22:2–40216

673 11:1ff519 14:8–14216 16:20511 18:1–2415 19:14–19356 23:29216 24:14268 1 CHRONICLES

17:11–14509 18509 24, 28, 29 510 2 CHRONICLES

2 SAMUEL

3:27124 7509–10 7:4–1396 7:5508 7:8509 7:11508–9 7:12f506–7 7:12ff491 7:12–14, 12–16 395, 414, 509 7:14510 11 53, 73 11–1273 12:13548 13:1349 15:32–37199

5:1353 6:153 7:1533 14:11–12356 19:4–7123 20:5–12356 21:7506–7 22:11532 24:2356 24:22160 28:27511 28:27–29:1415 30–31514 33:10–13354 34:33356 36553–54 36:22553 36:22–23433–34 EZRA

2 KINGS

1:17511 3:14375 4:1–7356 5474 5:1–27375 8:19506–7, 518–19 9ff507 9:27–28201

1 424, 554 1:1–3433–34 1:8–11423 2:1ff515 2:70515 3:28423 4:6434 6:16556 7556

Index of   Scriptural References

674 NEHEMIAH

2–6434 2:1433–34 2:1–11434 ESTHER

1:12–2:1761 10:3429 JOB

34:30206 39:14–16254 41:25–34, 27 116 42:10, 12 165 PSALMS

1:1626 1:3266 2423–24 2:2 369, 530 2:4246 2:692 2:7626 2:8 424, 428 2:11–12584 3:6310 5:4ff473 7:8–9110 7:12–13354 7:16332 11:4–7157 13:3164 14:3164 14:7401 15438 16:4606 18530 18:26 369, 594 19:3–4530 22:10–11421 22:17628 32:127 32:1f486 32:5548

32:6486 33:17f353 34:17483 37:16136 37:25 76, 165 40:6ff606 44:6–7374 46:5290 50:15 320, 483 51487 51:5 77, 466 51:7 434, 434 55:23144–45 60:10–12374 63:11106 68:5255 68:30214–16 69:23–24662 72423–24 72:8–11424 72:18650–61 74497 76:4361 78 252, 421 78:5–6252 81:11629 81:11f478 8286 82:2–4163 89423–24, 511 89:1–4, 19 511 89:4, 29, 36–37423–24 89:35–37518 90:80307 91:15320 95:10482 102499 103:7481 105:22474 107:40117–18,  300, 307 108:6628

109 325, 644 109:18526 110262 110:1421 110:396–97,  262, 421 110:4518 111:3506 113113 115:16113 119:105657 119:137652 121:1320 122:7424–25 129266 130:3499 132:11518 143:2 486, 499 145:19483 147:10353 147:11374 147:19f481 147:19–20 260, 406 PROVERBS

1:24–26272 3:9325 5:1870 6:1–5142 10:7617 11:22485 13:2429–30 1859 18:22 59, 66–68, 75 19:1424 20:16142 20:22107 22:1530 22:26142 23:1430 24:21204 24:29107 25:21–22168–69 26:7200

Index of   Scriptural References 27:1144 27:13142 28:16120 30:19417 31:10–3167 ECCLESIASTES

1:2–3, 14 144 2:11, 21, 24–25 144 3:11–14, 22 144 5:8–9224 5:18–20144 7:16197 7:2662 9:970 10:1197 10:16120 1170 12:13 144, 179 SONG OF SOLOMON

1:3, 6:8

417

ISAIAH

1:23 158, 163 1:23–26163 2:2f 525, 598 2:4 96–97, 598 3:4115 4:1413 6:9491 7:14 395, 415–18,  621, 626,  661, 663 8:14–15545 9666 9:6663 9:6f 496, 514 9:7518 10:5352–53 11:1626 11:4116 11:9 96–97, 598

28504 28:20159 29:11662 29:13–14661 30:7617 33:24606 34536 40:3ff585 40:7–8247–48 42:4421 45:20617 48:4 482, 488 52:14f586 53 525, 666 53:2ff586 53:6486 53:8393 53:11599 55:970 55:11 232, 357 61:8325 62:1246 65:1f597 65:2272 65:14f597 66508 66:2480 JEREMIAH

1110 1:8628 4:4471 6:10471–72 7:4649 15:1331 17:9–10110 18:9–11354 21:1ff563 21:7377 23632 23:6 504, 627 24, 29 429 29:7537 29:10553

675 31:22659–61 31:34606 33:25516 EZEKIEL

4:4–5433 12:1ff563 13:5356 14:14331 22:20158–59 22:30–31356 28:13, 17 438 33:9388 38:2386 DANIEL

1100 2:48507 3643 5 429–36, 553 5:29429 6:1–3429 7217 7:14518 9 429–36, 450,  533, 535, 545, 553–54,  558, 605 9:10539 9:24 433–34, 491,  538–39, 546,  554, 558, 659 9:24ff 550, 661, 663 9:24–27 395, 429, 433 9:25 433–34, 550 9:25f550 9:26434–35,  586, 606 9:27 436, 539, 557 11–12535

Index of   Scriptural References

676 11:4626 11:34532 11:39, 43 174

NEW TESTAMENT

HOSEA

MATTHEW

1:9 457, 489,  529, 541 2 485, 489 2:4, 6 626 2:23 529, 541 11:1ff549 13:11115

1:11–12423 1:18419–21 1:1959 1:23416 1:25419–20 2:9323 3:7, 9 459–60 3:10382 4:1792 5 96, 145, 187 5:11f607 5:17–2292 5:18422 5:20–44380–81 5:25, 39–40 88 5:3158 5:34–39105–6 5:38–41 79, 91, 315 5:39 88, 94, 98,  104, 60, 184,  196, 315,  345, 347 5:39–41 196, 315, 345 5:39–42196 5:40 88, 145, 161–62, 164–65,  196, 315 5:42 145, 151, 167–68, 175–76, 196 5:43–45184 5:44 91, 105–6,  176, 184, 315 5:45 184, 352 5:48105–6 6315 6:9319

JOEL

2:28–32285 OBADIAH

20570 MICAH

4:1f525 HAGGAI

1:1423 2 450, 501–2, 545 2:6f529 2:6–7 659, 661, 663 2:6–9 491, 521,  538, 542 2:7f533 2:9 395, 437, 524–25 2:9b538 2:23423 ZECHARIAH

5536 5:2, 6 535–36 8:23437 8:223395 9:9f585 11:12535–36 12:10535–35 14558

6:10320 6:11144–45 6:12141 6:13320 6:24226 6:25, 31, 33 76 6:33 76, 92 7315 7:1 204, 209 7:3312–13 7:3–5206 7:12 172, 177–78,  207, 211 7:16363 7:17–1893 8:12662 10 109, 325 10:792 10:10225–26 10:14580 10:23 201–2, 323 10:25625 10:28109 10:32357 10:34529 10:35–37163 10:40582 11:11–1991 11:18 91, 460, 560 12:24, 27 625 12:34580–81 12:46399 13:11664 14:20260 14:25–26627 15:4163 15:4ff536 15:970 16:18 108–9, 574 17:2798 18108–9 18:5, 10 272 18:6 254, 272 18:6–7254

Index of   Scriptural References 18:15–1760–61 18:28143 19:3–958 19:1025 19:12 38, 42,  45, 54 19:16–2288 19:17 88, 654 19:21 88, 381 19:29 226, 380 21:13536 22:21 1, 113, 230 22:32603 22:37380 22:39177–78 23536 23:5–7239 23:34323 24299 24:15ff433 24:35422 24:50144–45 25285–86 25:31–45292 25:31–46167 25:42–43171 26:24596 26:49198 26:52 91, 310,  316, 328,  347, 382 26:52–5396 26:62–63106 26:68628 27:22575 27:25 630, 653 27:42585 28:19637 MARK

1:1–15433 1:1492 3:22625 6:3399 6:48–49627

9:23232 10:2–1258 13299 14:5290 14:72354 16:16606 LUKE

1:27416 1:3392 1:35409 1:38, 42 421 1:46–55407 1:48532 1:52309 2224 3:11148 3:14 91, 101,  194, 224 3:17568 3:21–23433 3:23433–34 6:27–28 161, 176 6:27–35176 6:29–30 145, 176 6:30 145, 151,  167–68, 176 6:30–31151 6:31 128, 151, 172, 177–78 6:32–35 168, 176 6:34175 6:35 146, 168–69,  175–77, 179 6:39487 10:7139–40,  142, 225 10:16 247, 582 11:15, 18, 19 561, 625 11:17–20422 11:21529 11:41147 12:16–21144

677 12:17183–84 14:12–14167 14:26163 14:31386 15:7355 15:13630 16:10166 18:10–14354 19:1–10354 19:46536 21299 21:20, 22 458 21:26300 22:25119 22:55198 22:64628 23:21630 23:24317 23:2930 23:34161 23:40–42354 24:27664 JOHN

1:1–14230 2:1–1117 2:12399 2:20434 3:6462 3:17347 3:20–21123 4:22 458, 603–4 5:23582 5:39656 5:43650 6 291, 324 6:15347 6:19627 6:51358 7:31, 41 585 8123 8:1159 8:20560 8:21662 8:39460

Index of   Scriptural References

678 8:44634 8:51597 8:56603 10:5, 14, 27 108–9 10:30633 11:25 597, 603 11:47585 12:4–5109 13:1–17292 14:14320 14:30248–49 15:23 582, 588 15:24624 17378 18:10 160, 316 18:22–23160 18:36 92, 96,  194, 347 18:36–3792 19:5303 19:6630 19:11 160, 378 19:15575 35:4–6624 ACTS

1:7144 1:14399 1:22433 2:1–11258 2:4261 2:5ff516 2:38–39434 4 113, 226 5:29 113, 126,  185, 226, 246 8:27–39101 10:1–2, 34–48 101 10:46261 13:7–12101–2 13:17604 14 291, 324 15:10–11380 20:35164

ROMANS

1:2260 1:17434 1:24–2865 1:28 65, 111, 381 2:1–3300 2:14–15138 2:15 128, 138, 1 72 3476 3:1ff476 3:1–2259–60, 406 3:8312–13 3:17164 3:2094 3:27462 4:727 6:3109 793–94 7:2–3 27, 60 7:794 9:2594 9:5 404, 458 10594 10:2489 10:9357 10:17119 11 559, 572 11:25–26624 1290 12:4348 12:6663 12:10118 12:19 79, 88, 91,  204, 209,  312, 314, 315 12:20168–69 13284 13:1 90, 97, 102,  112, 184–85, 192–93, 195–96,

 200, 221,  230, 310 13:1–4192,  195–96, 200 13:1–5 196, 200 13:1–7200 13:2 222, 312 13:3 94, 113, 163,  192, 195–96, 200 13:3–4 163, 192,  195–96, 200 13:4 99, 102, 147,  163, 192,  195–96, 200,  214, 217,  312, 362 13:7 112–13, 200 13:12135 14:1164 14:17178 15:1–2164 1 CORINTHIANS

2:14 123, 491 2:16664 3:11–15365 3:21–2326 4:7604 4:11323 4:1550 6:1–2315 6:1–8318 6:4–5164 6:7 147, 164 788 7:2 63, 72 7:3–727 7:4–5 27, 61 7:6–925 7:7 25, 46 7:9 2, 63 7:10–1162 7:12–1351 7:1475

Index of   Scriptural References 7:19100 7:21–24325 7:25–28161 7:28 71, 161 7:32–3475 9325 9:5399 9:7 142, 227 9:14226 9:19–22 101, 404 9:22 101, 164 10:3–4100 12100–101 12:4–30264 12:10261 12:13101 12:14–26348 13:4–7226 13:5178 14:2–19261 14:27, 29 266 14:40348 15551 15:24222–23

679

2:15–16327–28 2:21416 3414 3:17409 3:19–2594 3:24 94, 256 3:27109 3:28 92, 326 4:4414 5325–26 5:13326 6:7213 6:15100

3:2, 12 55 4:4102–3 4:10320 4:13273 5325 5:22 111, 652–53 6:1–2325 6:9–10136

EPHESIANS

TITUS

1408 2:3408 4:4–650 4:11264 5:21–6:997 5:22–23, 29–31, 32 26 6:5–9325 6:12 116, 350 6:17 260, 381

1 291, 324 1:655 2:9–10325 3:1196

2 CORINTHIANS

1319 3:13ff486 3:15–16662 4323 5:17100 6:1–2251 10:4319 10:4–5115–16 11:20315 12:1–6266 12:9319

PHILIPPIANS

GALATIANS

2 THESSALONIANS

1:6327–28 1:8416 1:19399 293–94,  291, 324 2:8379

2:3–10, 4

2:7121 3:2662 3:4266

2 TIMOTHY

2:26647 3:1159 4:13273

HEBREWS

6:16106 13:5315 JAMES

4:13–16144 4:15 144, 146 5:16–17320 5:17 320, 356 1 PETER

COLOSSIANS

3:22–25325 1 THESSALONIANS

4:563–64 5:14164

363

1 TIMOTHY

1:993 2:1–2204 3 291, 324

291 2:13 97, 112–13 2:13–14 192, 195 2:14 94, 195–96,  312, 340,  362, 373 2:16 318, 322 2:18314 2:19126 2:23 160, 317 3312 3:151 3:991 4:11109

Index of   Scriptural References

680 5:5118 5:7–10317 2 PETER

1:19657 2:13–1490 2:14 47, 90 2:22479 2:7–8378

1 JOHN

REVELATION

2:15–1625 2:18 288, 363 4:1309 4:3363 5:2179 5:14320

3:20251 1351 17:1492 19:1692 20340–41 20:8f386

2 JOHN

7363

Index of   Names

Abednego (biblical figure), 100 Abel (biblical figure), 99 Abelard, Peter, 422 Abijah (biblical figure), 415 Abraham (biblical figure), 49, 76, 99–100, 126, 161, 194–95, 325, 356, 376, 393, 395, 399, 403, 405–14, 421, 428, 458, 460–70, 474, 479, 482– 83, 513–15, 520, 539, 555, 564–65, 568, 595, 602–4, 642–44, 648, 655 Absalom (biblical figure), 49, 329 Abulafia, Abraham, 643 Acacius of Cappadocia, Saint, 102 Adam and Eve (biblical figures), 21–23, 406–10, 412, 466 Aesop, 115, 208 Agatha, Saint, 271, 597 Agnes (martyr), 271 Agricola, Johannes, 36, 208, 452 Agricola, Rudolph, 258 Agrippa (king), 550, 556 Ahab (biblical figure), 320, 354 Ahaz (Ahaziah; biblical figure), 415, 506–7, 511, 519, 532 Akiba ben Joseph, 542 Albert of Brandenburg (archbishop), 173 Albert of Prussia (duke), 212 Albo, R. Joseph, 619 Aleandro, Girolamo, 36 Alexander de Villedieu, 270–71 Alexander the Great, 204, 519, 531, 533, 556 Altdorfer, Albrecht, 373 Alveldt/Alveld, Augustin von, 34–36, 39, 44, 47, 60 Amberger, Christoph, 287, 306, 566

Ambrose, Saint, 174–75 Amman, Jost, 149 Amnon (biblical figure), 49 Amsdorf, Nicholas, 279, 367 Andlau, Peter von, 223 Angelo Carletti di Chivasso, 39, 47 Annas (high priest), 160–61, 198 Annius, John, 433 Anthony, Saint, 213 Antiochus Epiphanes, 430, 519, 531–33, 535, 537–38, 556 Antoninus Florentinus (archbishop), 430 Appian, 519 Aristotle, 64, 134, 208, 276, 278–79, 412, 484 Arius (bishop), 362 Armssheim, Johann von, 263 Artaxerxes (Macrocheir) Longimanus, 433–34 Ascanius von Cramm. See Assa von Kram Aschwin IV. See Assa von Kram Asper, Hans, 443 Assa von Kram, 183–84, 188, 190, 352 Athanasius, 263, 362 Augustine, Saint, 2–4, 25–26, 28, 51, 70, 75, 88, 100, 111–12, 129, 147, 161–62, 174–75, 242–43, 260–63, 310–11, 345, 353, 361–63, 409, 419, 456, 466 Balaam (prophet), 421, 542, 549 Balbi, 274 Barbarossa (pirate), 368 Bar Kokhba, Simon, 542–44, 599–600, 623, 643, 656 Baron, Salo W., 503

681

Index of   Names

682

Barth, Karl, 83 Basil of Caesarea (bishop) 242–43, 263 Bauer, Bruno (pastor), 13 Bauernjörg, 287 Benedict of Nursia, Saint, 43, 242–43 Benham, Barthel, 387 Benham, Hans Sebald, 285 Bergmann, Claudia D., 621 Bergmann, Johann, 137 Bernard (baptized Jew), 402 Bernard of Clairvaux, Saint, 264–65 Bernard van Orley, 383 Bernhardi, Bartholmäus (Bartholomew), 33–35 Bessarion, Basil, 259 Biel, Gabriel, 150, 168, 176 Bildenhauer, Claus, 13 Bonaventura/Bonaventure, Saint, 168, 277 Boniface VIII (pope), 89, 344 Bornkamm, Heinrich, 297 Brandt, Walter I., 86–87, 135, 246 Brant, Sebastian, 64, 66, 137 Brecht, Martin, 9, 75, 83, 93, 237, 247, 284, 297, 324, 330, 333 Bruegel, Pieter, the Elder, 271, 308 Bucer, Martin, 128, 447 Bugenhagen, Johannes, 10, 15, 297–98 Bullinger, Heinrich, 443, 612 Burgensis/Burgos. See Paul of Burgos (Burgensis) Burgkmair, Hans, 78, 298 Burnett, Stephen, 393, 609–10, 612, 616, 618, 630, 664–65 Cain and Abel (biblical figures), 99 Cajetan, Thomas (cardinal), 18 Caligula (emperor), 495, 535 Calixtus II (pope), 438 Calvin, John, vii Cambyses (king), 433–34 Castiglione, Baldassare, 25 Cato the Elder (statesman/writer), 158–59

Caussin, Nicholas, 539 Cecilia (martyr), 271 Cesarini, Julian, the Elder (cardinal), 350 Chaireddin (governor), 368 Charles I (emperor), 532, 579 Charles V (emperor), 80–82, 89, 133, 158–59, 185, 204, 216, 246, 248, 278, 337, 350–53, 367–68, 372–73, 382–84, 386, 388, 560, 570, 579, 612 Charles VI (king), 570 Chéradame, Jean, 73 Christian II, 203–5, 209–10 Christopher, Saint, 230 Chrysostom, John, 100 Cicero, 64, 187, 197, 220, 595 Clemen, Otto, xi, 135 Clement of Alexandria, 256 Clement VII (pope), 351, 363, 383 Clovio, Giulio, 351 Cochlaeus, Johannes, 192, 338 Cohen, Abraham, 595 Constantine (emperor), 2, 7, 625, 630 Cornelius (centurion), 101–2 Cranach, Lucas (Lukas), the Elder, 33, 184, 250, 259, 265, 275, 610, 629 Cranach, Lucas, the Younger, 257 Crivelli, Carlo, 260 Cruciger, Kaspar (Caspar), 10, 15 Cuspinian, Johann, 338 Cyprian, Saint, 69 Cyriacus, Jacob, 608 Cyrus (emperor/king), 424, 430, 432–34, 474, 515, 550, 553–56, 605 D’Albret, Jeane, 402 Dam, 36 Damocles (courtier), 595, 596 Daniel (biblical figure), 100, 217, 331, 340, 429, 433, 435, 474, 501, 507, 515–16, 531, 538, 542, 546, 549–50, 552–53, 557–59, 570, 585, 600, 606–7

Index of   Names Dante, 652 Daret, Jacques, 420 Darius Hystapsis/Longimanus (king), 433–35, 474, 553, 556 David (biblical figure), 53, 73, 96, 100, 113, 123–24, 161, 194–95, 198–99, 209, 260, 273, 354, 356, 376, 391, 395, 408, 412, 414–16, 423–25, 427–28, 432, 465–66, 473, 477, 481–82, 486, 491, 496, 499, 503, 505–20, 524, 531–33, 536, 547–49, 556, 559, 566, 571, 585, 600, 602–4, 606, 611, 620, 626, 628, 665 De Balbis, 274 De Vio, Gaetanus Tommaso. See Cajetan, Thomas (cardinal) Diocletian (emperor), 52, 68, 102, 230, 363, 597 Dionysius, 207 Dionysius II, 595 Dionysus, 495 Donatus, Aelius, 270 Dreschel, Thomas, 237 Dungersheim von Ochsenfurt, Hieronymus, 34–36, 44 Duns Scotus (John Duns), 277 Dürer, Albrecht, 137, 158, 206, 241, 279, 397, 418 Eberhard of Bethune, 274 Eberlin, Johann, 43, 244 Eck, Johannes, 18, 34, 36, 172, 447–48, 560 Elijah (biblical figure), 320, 467 Elliger, Otto, 490 Emser, Hieronymus (Jerome), 34, 36, 44, 60, 192, 265 Erasmus of Rotterdam, vii, 73, 85, 161, 244, 254, 258, 261, 264, 278, 338, 476–77, 520 Ernst (duke), 183–84 Esau (biblical figure), 464, 568 Eskrich, Pierre, 151, 509

Esschen, Johann van den, 247 Estes, James M., 80, 82–84, 86, 115, 120, 268, 308 Esther (biblical figure), 61, 429, 473–74, 656 Estienne (Étienne), Robert, 624 Euripides, 64 Eusebius, 386, 600 Eve. See Adam and Eve Ezekiel (prophet), 501 Ezra (biblical figure), 424, 434, 515–16 Felicity (martyr), 271 Ferdinand, (archduke) and Isabella, 114, 289–90, 305, 337, 386–87, 532–33, 570 Fettmilch, Vincent, 405, 571 Ficino, Marsilio, 25 Fidus (bishop), 69 Folz, Hans, 128–29 Forster, Johann, 664 Fouquet, Jean, 554 Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros (cardinal), 277 Francis I (king), 216, 248, 278, 337, 350– 51, 382–83 Frederick the Wise (elector), 35, 81, 87, 110, 183, 185, 190, 209, 215, 217, 257, 275, 344 Fries, Lorenz, 74 Froschauer, Christoph, 253 Fugger, Anton, 158–59, 173 Fugger, Jakob, xii, 158 Fugger family, 158–59, 173, 549 Gabriel (biblical figure), 429–30, 432–35, 538, 546–48, 552, 557–59, 564, 605–6 Galen, 74, 412 Gall, Saint, 346, 552 Gallen, Saint, 203 Gama, Vasco da, 137 Gaza, Theodore, 259 Gellius, Aulus, 64

683

684

Index of   Names Genghis Khan, 205 George, Saint, 230–31 George the Bearded (of Albertine Saxony; duke), 33–34, 36, 61, 82–83, 89–90, 110, 114, 184, 192, 289–90, 302–3, 333, 400 Gereon, Saint, 102 Gesner, Conrad, 253 Geyer, Florian, 212 Gnesius, Heinrich, 404 Gratian, 38, 51, 59, 110, 161, 173 Greenway, John, 154 Gregorius (pope), 346 Gregory I, 173 Gregory IX, 38 Grumbach, Argula, 402 Grünewald, Matthias, 103 Guillaume de Paris, 451 H.A., monogrammist, 168 Hadassah. See Esther (biblical figure) Hadrian, 542, 544–45, 600–601, 623, 643 Haggai (biblical figure), 547, 549 Hailperin, Herman, 493, 503 Ha-Levi, Shlomo (rabbi), 650 Haman (biblical figure), 568 Hannibal, 215 Hans Maier zu Schwaz, 158 Hausmann, Nicholas, 35, 46, 339 Heinrich (duke), 184 Helena Augusta, 625 Helene of Adiabene, queen, 625–28, 630, 632, 650 Helfenstein, von (count and countess), 324 Helvidius Auxentius, 419, 421 Henry (duke), 495, 560 Henry VIII (king), 36, 240 Heraclius, 601 Herodotus I, 430 Herod the Great (king), 114, 383, 422, 424, 434, 496–98, 504, 506, 508–9, 512, 515–17, 531–32, 534, 539–40, 556–57, 568, 600, 602–3 Herrad von Landsberg, 255

Hezekiah (biblical figure), 415, 477, 514 Hilary, Saint, 261, 263 Hippocrates, 74 Hirsch, Emanuel, 222 Hispanus, Laurentius, 178 Hitler, Adolf, 222 Holbein, Hans, the Younger, 195, 244 Hollar, Wenceslaus, 487, 596 Hopfer, Daniel, 182, 228 Hosea (biblical figure), 491 Hugh of St. Victor, 56 Hus, Jan, 247 Hyrcanus, Johanan (John), 424, 531 Innocent III (pope), 369, 438 Irenaeus of Lyon (bishop), 242–43 Isaac (biblical figure), 464, 513, 568 Isabella. See Ferdinand (archduke) Isaiah (prophet), 273, 415–16, 479, 481, 491, 513, 598 Iscah (biblical figure), 49 Jacob, Saint, 54, 76, 143, 170, 426, 458, 461, 463–64, 469, 481, 492, 501–2, 504–5, 508, 512–15, 518, 521–22, 524–26, 528, 542–43, 545–47, 549, 559, 585, 600, 602–4, 620, 644, 659, 661 Jacob Gipher of Göppingen (Bernard; rabbi), 402 Jacobs, Charles M., 82, 135, 190, 288, 341 James the Greater, Saint, 29, 144, 146, 172, 600 Japheth (biblical figure), 465 Jeanne d’Albret, 402 Jechoniah (king), 422, 423 Jehovah, 643, 654, 657 Jeremiah (biblical figure), 429, 471, 476, 479–81, 491, 501, 513–16, 519–20, 537, 563, 570, 598 Jerome (Eusebius Sophronius Hieronymus), Saint, 39, 64, 100, 147, 175, 260–63, 270, 300, 359, 419, 550, 558, 653, 664

Index of   Names Jesus Christ arrested, 317 ascension, 259 bearing cross, 121 birth of, 394–97, 408 born a Jew, 6–7, 390–439 on cross/crucifixion, 121, 316, 318– 19, 354, 405, 427 death of, 435 epithet, 627 as infant, 421 lineage of, 609–24, 659–66 as Messiah, 303, 395, 400, 414, 423, 427–28, 433, 437, 446, 453, 535, 538, 635 siblings, 399, 419 suffering of, 265, 316, 318–19 See also Messiah Jethro (biblical figure), 279 Jezebel (biblical figure), 354 Joachim (elector), 114, 452, 574 Joanna of Castile, 532–33 Joash (Josiah; biblical figure), 356 Job (biblical figure), 474 Joesphus, 519, 534, 539, 541, 557 Johann VII von Schleinitz (bishop), 34–35 John-Baptist de Gratia-Dei, 491 John Frederick (duke/elector/prince), 10–11, 14, 81–82, 87, 127, 183, 190, 192, 217, 257, 452, 560 John of Genoa, 274 Jonah (biblical figure), 359, 474 Jonas, Justus, 612 Josel (Joseph) of Rosheim, 404, 447–48, 451–52, 569, 613–14 Joseph (father of Jesus), 59, 100, 150–52, 181, 216, 395, 398–99, 411, 423, 428–29, 474, 620 Josephus, 519, 534, 539, 541, 557 Joshua (biblical figure), 273 Josiah (Joash; biblical figure), 356 Judah (patriarch), 415, 492, 495–519, 532–33, 543, 545, 556, 585, 600 602, 604

Judas (apostle/disciple), 198–99, 577, 644, 663–64 Judas Iscariot, 627–28, 632, 650 Julian the Apostate (emperor), 102 Julius II (pope), 350–51 Juvenal, 64, 328 Karlstadt, Andreas Bodenstein von, 18, 33–35, 44, 95–96, 186, 204, 217, 235–37, 257, 283, 305, 366, 402, 504, 551 Kaufmann, Thomas, 336, 455, 609–612 Keller, George, 571 Korah (biblical figure), 329 Krell, Hans, 82 Kykkotissa, 399 Lactantius, 300 LeClerc, Jean, 311 Lefèvre d’Étaples, Jacques, 332 Leonardo da Vinci, 411 Leo X (pope), 18, 80, 117, 173, 178, 185, 246, 338, 341, 343, 371 Levenson, Jon D., 405, 644 Levita, Elias (rabbi), 612 Link, Wenceslaus, 278 Lombard, Peter, 56, 204, 277 Lot (biblical figure), 331 Lotzer, Johannes, 74 Lotzer, Sebastian, 187, 284–85, 288–90, 322 Louis II (king), 337, 350, 385 Louis X (duke), 305–6 Lucia, Saint, 597 Lucius (bishop), 362 Lucretius, 64 Lucy of Syracuse, Saint, 51, 68, 271 Lufft, Hans, 135 Luke, Saint, 101, 416–17, 516, 600, 661 Luther, Katherine (Katie) von Bora (Luther’s wife), 9–15, 46, 54, 270, 392 Luther, Magdalena, daughter, death of, 610

685

686

Index of   Names Luther, Martin biblical interpretation methods, 451 birthtown (Eisleben), 392 christological center, 394–97, 415 as Doctor of Bible, university position, 297 excommunicated, 15, 80, 90, 117, 171, 185, 232, 246, 338, 400 in exile, 34, 186 as father, 270 financial situation, 13, 249 as heretic, 171, 399–400, 406 high treason, pronounced guilty of, 185 hometown (Mansfeld), 216 intellectual property rights, 22 last sermon, 392 last will and testament, 9–15 marriage, 46, 54, 71, 270 as nominalist, 279 opponents, 35–36, 39, 44, 47, 304, 333, 338, 341, 400, 560 political theology of, 189, 191 as preacher, 22 printing, role of in spreading his message, 323 on reason, 164 salary at university, 249 as theologian, 22 Lützelburger, Hans, 195, 329 Lyra. See Nicholas of Lyra Maccabeus, Judas (priest), 430–31, 519 Maccabeus, Simon (priest), 531 Madonna, 397, 399. See also Mary (mother of Jesus) Magnus, Albertus, 278 Malchus (biblical figure), 317 Malthus (biblical figure), 160 Manasseh (biblical figure), 354 Manutius, Aldus, 259 Map, Walter, 64 Marcella, 653 Marcellinus, 88

Marcuello, Pedro, 533 Marcus, Jacob R., 574 Margaret of Antioch, Saint, 68, 629 Margaritha, Antony, 448, 459, 467, 470, 491, 498, 561–63, 610–11, 613, 616–19, 622, 631, 639, 642–43, 648, 652, 659 Marius, Gaius, 64 Mars (god of war), 364 Martin, David, 102, 350, 403 Martin, Raymund, 470, 502, 532 Martini, Raimundus, friar, 616, 625 Martin V (pope), 350, 403 Martorell, Bernat, 231 Justin Martyr, Saint, 415–16, 492, 543, 659 Mary (mother of Jesus), 59, 238, 302, 359–61, 394–400, 404–21, 620. See also Madonna Mary of Burgundy, 532 Matthew, Saint, 416–17, 419–20, 661 Maurice, Saint, 102–3 Maximian (emperor), 102 Maximilian I (emperor), 206, 212, 336, 344, 350–51, 373, 532 Mayer, Johannes. See Eck, Johannes Megasthenes Persa, 433 Mehmed II (sultan), 248 Meister von Meßkirch, 69 Melanchthon, Philip, xii, 10, 15, 34, 79–80, 86, 94, 128, 172, 194, 241, 244, 249, 258, 261–62, 267–68, 275, 297–98, 308–9, 336, 344, 433, 443, 569, 612 Merian, Matthäus, the Elder, 324 Meshach (biblical figure), 100 Messiah, 422–28, 432, 446, 448, 450, 453, 547, 560, 620–21, 657, 664. See also Shiloh Metasthenes, 433–34 Metellus Numidicus, 64 Michael from Posen, 403 Michelangelo, 316 Mirandola, Giovanni, 25

Index of   Names Mircea II, 349 Moab, 542–43 Muhammad, 339, 357–62, 364, 378, 380, 384, 400, 523, 559, 572, 595 Muhammad II (Mehmed the Conqueror), 384 Monica (mother of Augustine), 51 Mordecai (biblical figure), 429, 516 More, Thomas, 244 Moses (biblical figure), 56, 58–59, 91, 100, 105, 113, 120, 125–26, 180– 81, 191, 194–95, 226–27, 233, 252, 273, 279, 312, 321, 380, 406, 409, 417, 420, 427, 434, 436, 458–99, 509, 517, 529, 533, 541, 547–49, 557, 560, 565–68, 572–76, 592, 594, 606, 623, 631, 639–42, 644, 647, 650, 652, 657, 661–65 Mühlmann, Siegfried, 86 Münster, Sebastian, 566, 665 Müntzer, Thomas, 135, 184, 217, 236–38, 257, 284, 301–2, 304–5, 313, 332–33, 363, 366, 504, 543 Murad II, Sultan, 349 Murner, Thomas, 36 Mustafa, 360 Naaman (biblical figure), 474 Naboth (biblical figure), 354 Nadler, Jörg, 21–22 Nathan (biblical figure), 509 Nazianzen, Gregory, 263 Nebuchadnezzar, 474 Nehemiah (biblical figure), 430, 432, 434–35, 516, 519, 556 Nero (emperor), 495, 556 Niccolò di Segna, 52 Nicholas of Lyra, 435, 448, 450–51, 456–57, 491, 493, 496, 500–504, 521, 524–27, 532, 535, 537–38, 542, 546, 550, 586, 593, 595, 650 Nicholas of Myra, Saint, 170–71 Nicholas V (pope), 259 Nineveh (biblical figure), 354, 474 Noah (biblical figure), 465

Origen of Alexandria, 100, 263 Osiander, Andreas, 402, 443, 447, 612 Ovid, 64 Pablo de Santa Maria, 457 Pagninus, Santes, 665 Pantaleon, Heinricus, 326 Patricius, 51 Paul II (pope), 251 Paulinus, 174 Paul of Burgos (Burgensis), 448, 450–51, 456–57, 470, 491, 493–94, 496, 504, 525, 527, 532–33, 536–37, 542, 546, 550, 586, 593, 650–51 Paul, Saint, 1–2, 26, 50–52, 61–65, 71–72, 75, 79, 91, 93–94, 97, 100–103, 106, 112, 115–16, 118–19, 135–36, 142, 147, 159, 163–64, 168, 184– 85, 195–96, 204, 214, 222–23, 227, 251, 259–61, 264, 266, 273, 319, 325–28, 365, 379, 381, 394, 404, 408–9, 414, 416, 420, 457–58, 462, 476, 478, 489, 491, 504, 559, 572, 594, 600–601, 604, 606, 624, 647, 662–63 Peringer, Diepold, 293 Perpetua (martyr), 271 Peter, Saint, 51–52, 91, 94, 97, 100–102, 109, 112–13, 118, 160, 170, 173, 185, 195, 198–99, 246, 316–17, 354, 378–80, 479, 606 Petrarch, Francesco, 25 Pfefferkorn, Johannes, 262, 443, 574 Pfeifer, Heinrich, 284 Phaedrus, 208 Pharaoh, 151, 290, 321, 420–21, 428, 458, 474, 520 Philip I of Hesse, 81–82, 184, 333, 335, 339, 341, 351, 402, 452, 560, 612 Philip (king), 204 Philip, Saint, 101 Philip the Faie, 532 Philo of Alexandria, 430, 433 Piero de Cosimo, 413 Pilate, Pontius (emperor), 575

687

Index of   Names

688

Pirkheimer, Willibald, 241, 244 Plato, 459 Plutarch, 64 Polybius, 519 Porchetas/us Salvagus/Salvaticus, 448, 493, 501, 561–62, 610, 616–17, 619, 622, 624–26, 632, 659 Posnanski, Adolf, 492 Posset, Franz, 243–44, 264 Priscus Artaxerxes Assuerus, 433–34 Probst, Christopher J., 397 Proost, Jacob, 82–83 Pseudo-Philo, 433–34, 540 Quirinus, Saint, 213 Raphael, 351 Rashi, Solomon ben Isaac (rabbi), 423, 450–51, 493, 503, 546, 550, 570, 632, 650 Rebekah (biblical figure), 417, 458, 463–64, 568 Rehoboam (king), 518–19 Reuchlin, Johannes, 258, 262, 443, 551, 574 Rhegius, Urbanus, 326–27 Riccoldo, 341 Riezler, Sigmund, 82 Rubens, Peter Paul, 431 Sachs, Hans, 66, 149 Samson (biblical figure), 100, 107, 198, 376, 490 Samuel (biblical figure), 198, 273 Sarah (biblical figure), 49, 412, 458, 460, 463–65, 490, 532, 568 Sarai (biblical figure), 49 Sattler, Michael, 347, 376 Schäufelein, Hans, 132 Schedel, Herman, 658 Schindel, J. J., 86–87 Schlick, Wolfgang (count), 450, 455 Schönsperger, Johann, 19 Schultz, Robert C., 190, 341 Schwarzenberg, Johann Freiherr von, 79

Schwiebert, Ernest George, xii, 169, 171 Seberger, Wolf (Luther’s servant), 11, 13 Selderhuis, Herman J., 622 Selim I (sultan), 336–37 Seneca, 64 Sennacherib (king), 515 Sergius Paulus, 101 Shadrach (biblical figure), 100 Sheba (biblical figure), 329 Shiloh, 422–28, 491–92, 497, 500–503, 509, 522, 525, 530, 540, 556–57, 600, 602, 659. See also Messiah Sigismund, John, 342 Simon of Trent (martyr), 527, 658 Socrates, 64 Solomon (king), 53, 59, 62, 66–68, 70, 73, 75, 96, 120, 124, 127, 142, 144, 168–69, 197, 200, 204, 224, 226–27, 272–73, 356, 375, 414, 428, 432, 451, 485, 488, 495, 499, 509–11, 524, 532–38, 571, 632 Spalatin, Georg, 13, 132, 136, 247, 275 Spener, Philipp Jakob, 442 Speratus, Paul, 266 Staupitz, Johann von, 244 Storch, Nicholas, 237 Strauss, Jakob, 132 Stübner, Markus, 237 Suleiman the Magnificent (sultan), 232, 248, 335–38, 342, 348–49, 351 Sulla (general/statesman), 64 Süßkind of Trimberg (Jewish poet), 393 Tallat (Tollat) von Vochenberg, Johann, 74 Tamar (biblical figure), 49 Terence, 74, 197, 208 Tertullian, 659 Theophrastus, 64 Thomas (apostle), 172 Thomas Aquinas, Saint, xii, 4, 51, 242– 43, 277–79, 401, 422 Tiberius (Caesar Augustus; emperor), 600 Titian, 11, 248

Index of   Names Titus (emperor), 55, 423, 430, 432, 435, 456–57, 541, 623 Titus, Saint, 196 Tommaso de Vio, Gaetanus. See Cajetan, Thomas (cardinal) Tomyris (queen), 430 Trajan (emperor), 542 Trebizond, George, 259 Truchsess of Waldenburg, Georg, 287

Wagenseil, Christoph, 615 Werden, Johann von, 274 Werthen, Dietrich von, 33–34 Wertinger, Hans, 306 William IV (duke), 82, 114, 305–6 William of Ockham, 277–78 Władysław III, 349–50

Ulrich von Hutten, 73–74, 247, 338 Ulrich von Richenthal, 403 Urban II (pope), 369

Yusuf of Erzurum, 360

Van Cleve, Joos, 665 Van der Weyden, Rogier, 129 Venus, goddess of love, 364 Vespasian, 456–57, 545, 623, 630, 643 Victor of Carben, 491 Virgil, 551 Viterbo, 433 Vitus, Saint, 213 Vogelsang, Erich, 222 Volusian, 88 Von Eyb, Albrecht, 19–20, 22 Vos, Henry, 247

Xerxes I (king), 433–34

Zacchaeus (biblical figure), 354 Zadok (high priest), 536 Zeus, 519 Ziegler, Bernhard, 664 Zimri (biblical figure), 329 Zülsdorf, Lady. See Katherine (Katie) von Bora Zwilling, Gabriel, 34, 233 Zwingli, Ulrich, 443, 504, 612

689

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others   

About the Jews and Their Lies, 6–7, 391–93, 401, 405, 422–23, 428, 433, 437, 439, 440–607, 609–10, 613, 618–19, 622–23, 625–26, 630, 633, 647, 652–53, 656, 658–59 Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, 4–6, 53–55, 87, 134, 136, 162, 172–73, 185, 227, 276, 279, 283, 286–87, 307–8, 345, 385, 657 Admonition against the Jews (Luther’s last sermon), 392, 422, 609, 652 Admonition for/to Prayer against the Turk(s), 233, 341 Admonition to Peace, A Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, 5–6, 133, 187, 201–2, 212, 238, 280–333, 343 Admonition to the Clergy That They Do Not Fail to Preach against Usury, 132 Admonition to the Pastors, 341 Adoration of the Sacrament, The, 266 Aeneid (Virgil), 551 Against Gaudentius (Augustine), 363 Against Hanswurst, 495, 629 Against Heresies (Irenaeus), 243 Against Jovinians (Jerome), 39, 64, 419 Against the Heavenly Prophets in the Matter of Images and Sacraments, 257, 305, 312, 543 Against the Jews (Contra Judaeos) (Lyra), 623, 650 Against the Murdering and Plundering Hordes of the Peasants, 313 Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants, 333 Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants, 188, 196, 198, 238, 332–33, 377 Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil, 629 Against the Sabbatarians, 391, 423, 428, 455–57, 474, 505, 524, 535, 559, 609, 622, 633, 644, 659 Altarpiece of the Virgin (St. Vaast Altarpiece) (Daret), 420 Antiphonary of Hartker, 346 Antiquities of the Jews, 534 Apology to the Augsburg Confession (Melanchthon), 612 Army Sermon against the Turk(s), 233, 340, 358 Ars minor/Ars grammatica (Donatus), 270 Assertio omniurn articulorum, 265 Attic Nights (Aulus Gellius), 64

691

692

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others Augsburg Confession, xi, 236, 612 Avoiding the Doctrines of Men, 55 Babylonian Captivity of the Church, The. See On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church Biblia hebraica latina (Münster), 665 Bondage of the Will, The, 264 Booklet on the Religion and Customs of Turks, 341 Book of the Life of Yeshu, The, 615 Book on Marriage (von Eyb), 19 Breviarium de temporibus (Philo), 430, 433, 540 Briefe und Schriften (Müntzer), 135 Brothers, The (Terence), 74 Bulla Coena Domini, 90 Business and Usury. See On Business and Usury [Trade] Catena Aurea, 264 Catholicon (John of Genoa), 274 Chaldaean Bible, 493–94, 497, 498–99, 500, 502–3 Children’s Games (Bruegel), 271 Christian Instruction (Augustine), 263 Christ on the Cross (Michelangelo), 316 Chronicle of the Council of Constance, 403 City of God, The (De civitate Dei) (Augustine), 2–3, 88, 112, 345, 361 Colloquies (Erasmus), 73 Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount (Augustine), 162 Complutensian Polyglot Bible, 277 Concerning Rebaptism, 636 Concerning the Improvement of the Christian Estate, 271 Confession of Faith, 408 Confessions (Augustine), 51 Contra Judaeos (Against the Jews) (Lyra), 623, 650 Corpus juris canonici I, 38, 173 Corpus juris canonici II, 38 Craecismus (Eberhard of Bethune), 274 De bono conjugali (Augustine), 28, 70 Decet Romanum Pontificem (papal bull), 90, 246, 406 Decretum (Gratian), 38, 51, 59, 110, 161 De Haeresibus (Augustine), 419 De Libero Arbitrio (Erasmus), 476 De morbo Gallico (Ulrich von Hutten), 73 Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (Margaritha), 448, 459, 467, 470, 498, 562, 611, 616, 618, 639 De Rudimentis Hebraicis (Reuchlin), 443

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others De Servo Arbitrio, 476, 520 De votis monasticis, 54 Dialogue with Trypho (Martyr), 415–16, 492 Disputation against Scholastic Theology, 276 Dissuasion of   Valerius to Rufinus the Philosopher That He Should Not Take a Wife, The (Map), 64 Divine Institutes (Lactantius), 300 Dormi secure (Johann von Werden), 274 Economic History Review, The, 154 Education of a Christian Prince (Erasmus), 85 Enarrationes in Psalmos (Augustine), 261 Entire Jewish Faith, The. See Der gantz Jüdisch glaub (Margaritha) Epistola (Jerome), 419 Explanation of the 95 Theses, 171, 338, 343, 349 Exposition on the Lord’s Prayer for Simple Laity, An, 355 Exsurge Domine (papal bull), 117, 171, 185, 246, 343 Figures des histoires de la Saincte Bible (LeClerc), 311 First Apology (Martyr), 543 First Lectures on the Psalms, 416, 659 Flaming Spears of Satan, The (Wagenseil), 615 Flores grammaticae (Ludolf von Luchow), 274 Florista, 274 Forced Response to a Letter Sent by a Nun in a Convent to Her Married Sister, A (pamphlet), 70 Four Books of Sentences, 277 Freedom of a Christian, The, 93, 185, 283, 298, 303–4, 307 German Bible, 423, 435, 627, 652 Gallican Psalter (Jerome), 263 German Psalter, 164 Glossa ordinaria, 264 Grandes Chroniques de France, 402 Grecista, 274 Hausspostil D. Martin Luthers, 317 Hebrew Bible, 396, 445, 493, 497, 566, 663–65 Heidelberg Disputation, 316, 502 Historie des Ouden en Nieuwen Testaments (Martin), 102 History of Herodotus, The, 430 Holy and Blessed Sacrament of Baptism, The, 636 Hortulus animae, 265 Hortus deliciarum (Herrad von Landsberg), 255 How Christians Should Regard Moses, 100, 180, 657

693

694

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others Iliad, The (Homer), 493, 556 Immaculate Conception (Piero de Cosimo), 413 Instructions of the Visitors to the Parish Pastors, 86 Inter multiplices (papal bull), 178 Invocavit Sermons, 81, 95, 237 Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel, 558 Jewish War, The, 541 Journal of Family History, 27 Journal of Medieval History, 45 Journal of the History of Ideas, 279 Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows, The, 65 Labyrinthus (Eberhard of Bethune), 274 Large Catechism, The, 138, 143, 180, 408, 636–37, 648 Latin Psalter (Psalterium Romanum), 262–63 Last Words of David, The, 391, 428, 455, 505, 593, 609, 611, 621, 663, 665–66 Lectures on Galatians, 653 Lectures on Genesis, 662 Lectures on Romans, 300, 663 Lectures on the Gospel of John (Augustine), 75 Letters of Obscure Men, 262 Letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage, The (Cyprian), 69 Letter to the Christian Nobility of the German People Concerning the Improvement of the Christian Estate, 4–5, 6, 134, 136, 162, 185, 279, 385 Letter to the Princes of Saxony Concerning the Rebellious Spirit, 302, 304, 308 Little [Personal] Prayer Book, 355 Loci communes (Melanchthon), 128, 172, 267 Long Sermon on Usury, 131, 145, 159, 283 Lord’s Sermon on the Mount, The (Augustine), 129 Lutheran Quarterly, 336 Lutheran Theological Journal, 404 Luther’s Correspondence, 82 Luthers Juden (Kaufmann), 612, 619, 659 Luthers Judenschriften, 455, 570, 609–10 Luther’s Works, vii, xi, 131, 442–43, 451, 454, 621 Madonna and Child (Kykkotissa), 399 Magnificat, The, 398, 401, 403, 406–7, 409–11, 430 Maidenbergers ertzbischof, An (Karlstadt), 35 Manuscripts of the Fifteenth Century, 601 Masoretic Text, 654, 663 Missive an Hartmut von Cronberg, 90

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others 95 Theses, 170, 172, 400 Nuremberg Chronicle, 271 Old Latin Psalter (Psalterium Romanum), 262–63 On Business and Usury [Trade], 4, 130–81, 257, 269, 283, 438, 484 On Duties (Cicero), 220 On Monastic Vows, 412 On Moral Obligation (Cicero), 197 On Secular [Temporal] Authority, 78–129, 147, 152, 187, 192, 194, 196, 212, 233, 256, 269, 283–84, 304, 310–11, 315, 344, 348, 496 On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 18, 26, 35, 39, 44, 47, 50, 52, 54–57, 75, 80, 119, 268, 289 On the City of God. See City of God, The (Augustine) On the Consecrated Water and the Agnus Dei of the Pope, 637 On the Councils and the Church, 637 On the Estate of Marriage, 6–7, 18–19, 32–77, 141 On the Jews and Their Lies. See About the Jews and Their Lies On the Last Words of David. See Last Words of David, The On the Lineage of Christ, 6, 609–24, 659–66 On the Misuse of the Mass, 53 On the Papacy in Rome, 84 On the Sabbatarians. See Against the Sabbatarians On the Schem Hamphoras [Ineffable Name] and On the Lineage of Christ, 6–7, 391–92, 402, 405, 411, 417, 421, 425, 428, 437, 439, 443, 448, 455, 493, 523, 561, 608–66 On War against the Turk(s), 4, 117, 233, 334–89, 400, 578, 638 On Whether a Man Should Take a Wife or Not, 19 Open Letter on the Harsh Book against the Peasants, An, 196–98, 333 Peace, Order, and the Glory of God (Estes), 80, 82–84, 86, 115, 268, 308–9 Persons Related by Consanguinity and Affinity Who Are Forbidden to Marry according to the Scriptures, The, 35, 48–49, 51 Portrait of a Man (Van Cleve), 665 Postilla (Lyra), 500, 502–3, 524, 546, 650 Preface to an Ordinance of a Common Chest, 167 Preface to Daniel, 433 Preface to the Glosses of his First Psalm Lectures, 416 Preface to the Latin Works, 394 Preface to the Prophet Daniel, 659 Promptuarii Iconum Insigniorum, 531 Proverbs (Agricola), 208 Psalterium Romanum (Old Latin Psalter), 262–63 Pugio Fidei (Martin), 502 Pulcherrimae quaestiones (Lyra), 521, 525–26, 538, 595

695

696

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others Quran, 336, 339, 341, 358–67, 378, 380–82, 386 Refutation of a Jewish Book (Eck), 447 Refutation of the Quran (Riccoldo), 341 Remedii Amoris (Ovid), 64 Reply to the Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia. See Admonition to Peace Rhetoric (Aristotle), 208 Satires (Juvenal), 64, 328 Schoolmaster, The (Dürer), 279 Schutz vnd handthabung der Sibenn Sacrament Wider Martinum Luter, 36 Scottish Journal of Theology, 189, 290 Scrutinium scripturarum (Burgos), 532, 542, 546, 650–51 Second Lectures on the Psalms, 403, 653 Self-Tormentor (Terence), 197 Seminary Ridge Review, 283 Septuagint, 260–63, 416–17, 550 Serfdom and Slavery (Rhegius), 326–25 “Sermon on Daniel” (Müntzer), 217 Sermon on Keeping Children in School, A, 370 Sermon on Prayer and Procession during Rogation Days, 355 Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, A, 1–2, 6–7, 16–31, 33, 37–38, 41–42, 67 Sermon on the Holy and Noblest Sacrament of Baptism, A, 26 Ship of Fools (Brant), 66, 137 Short Sermon on Usury, 131, 145, 159, 283 Sicut Judaeis, 438–39 Sincere Admonition to All Christians to Guard against Insurrection and Rebellion, A, 82, 87, 118, 186, 283, 304–5, 345 Smalcald Articles, 408 Study of Madonna with Child with Hand and Sleeve (Dürer), 397 Summa angelica, 47 Summa grammaticalis (John of Genoa), 274 Summa historialis (Antoninus Florentinus), 430 Summarien uber die Psalmen (“Summaries of the Psalms”), 644 Summa Theologica (Thomas Aquinas), 51 Suppotatio annorum mundi, 430, 433–35, 457, 531 Sword of Damocles, The (Hollar), 596 Talmud Sanhedrin, 423 That a Christian Assembly or Congregation Has the Right and Power to Judge All Teaching and to Call, Appoint, and Dismiss Teachers, Established and Proven by Scripture, 82, 290, 324 That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew, 6–7, 390–439, 442, 444, 446, 455, 492, 504, 538, 559, 609, 623, 653, 659

Index of  Works by Martin Luther and Others That Parents Should Neither Compel nor Hinder the Marriage of   Their Children and That Children Should Not Become Engaged without Their Parents’ Consent, 65 That to Take or Demand Interest Is against Our Christian Faith (Strauss), 132 Themelios, 355 Toledot Yeshu, 610–11, 614–20, 624–28, 630, 633, 652 To the Christians in Bremen, 305–6 To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools, 4–5, 234–79 Tractatus super psalmos (Hilary), 261 Treatise Concerning the Ban, 171 Treatise on the Sovereignty of the Emperor (Peter von Andlau), 223 Tusculan disputations (Cicero), 595 Twelve Articles of the Peasants, The (Lotzer), 280–333 Twelve Articles of the Peasants in Swabia, Reply to The. See Admonition to Peace Unam sanctam (papal bull), 344 Vetus Latina, 260 Victoria Porcheti adversus impios Hebraeos/Hebreos (Victory against the Impious Jews) (Porchetus), 448, 493, 501, 616–17, 622 Visitation, The (Daret), 420 Von dem Eelichen Leben, 40 Vulgate Bible, 22, 59, 111, 120, 147, 160, 164, 260, 262–63, 266, 300, 332, 374, 435, 653 Weimar Ausgabe, vii, 341 Welchronik (Schedel), 658 When God Created His World (Talmud), 453 Whether Soldiers, Too, Can be Saved, 3–4, 83, 182–233, 341, 346, 348, 352, 366

697

Index of Subjects   

academic regalia, 238 Advent, 17, 57, 93, 299–300, 666 agriculture, 227, 288–89, 291 Aldine Press, 259 Aleppo, 385 allegory, 263, 266, 451 alms, 147, 172 Altenburg, canons of, 115 Anabaptists, 86, 196, 237–38, 342, 347, 353, 376, 447 analogies, 67 anatomy, human, 411–12, 414 annates, 346 anthropology, 523 Antichrist, 173–74, 288–90, 380 papacy/pope as, 258–59, 309–10, 340, 363–64 anti-Christian polemics, 614, anticlericalism, 289 anti-Jewish polemics, 6–7, 391–92, 397–98, 423, 441–42, 445, 448, 456, 463, 478, 484, 491–92, 498, 527, 535–36, 546, 550, 561, 563, 573, 588–89, 593, 609, 611, 614, 622, 629–30, 632, 634, 646, 650, 659, 665 anti-Jewish slander, 401–2 anti-Judaism, 449, 474, 481, 484, 492, 498, 527 cultural, 6–7, 454, 573–74 and fear, 569 antinomianism, 290 antipapal polemics, 90 antipapal sentiment, 247

anti-Semitism, 394, 397, 401, 446, 449, 451, 455, 474, 527 apostles, 25, 44–45, 75, 83, 103–4, 109, 184–85, 192, 246, 258, 260–61, 264, 273, 345, 361, 379, 404, 406, 457, 465, 486, 489–90, 516, 584, 588, 594, 597, 599–600, 623, 630. See also disciples Arabs, 335, 435 Aramaic Targumim, 493–94 Arch of   Titus (Roman Forum), 423 Arianism/Arians, 174, 362, 419 Ash Wednesday, 371 Assyria, 204, 207, 328, 487, 515 astrology/astronomy, 299–300 Augustinians, 167, 178, 487 authority governmental/political, 496 and hierarchy, 211 symbols of, 187 See also secular authority; temporal authority Babylonian captivity, 268, 422–23, 430, 506–7, 516, 520, 535, 537, 548, 554, 570 baptism, 26, 69, 174, 191, 233, 305, 353, 396, 403, 438, 636 barett (hat), 418 Bar Kokhba revolt, 542–43, 599–600, 623, 643, 656 Battle of Chaeronea, 204 Battle of Frankenhausen, 184, 217, 352 Battle of Ingostadt, 212

699

700

Index of   Subjects Battle of Kappel, 205 Battle of Kosovo, 248 Battle of Marignano, 184 Battle of Mohács, 232, 248, 337–38, 348, 350, 385 Battle of Pavia, 216, 248, 350, 382–83 Battle of Soltau, 184 Battle of   Varna, 248, 349–50 Bebenhausen Abbey (Tübingen), 240 beggars, 153 Belgrade, 248, 337, 342 Berlin, 446, 569 biblical study, 260 bigamy, 45, 57–58 Bitterfeld, 552 Black Company, 212 Black Death epidemic, Jews blamed for, 581 Black Plague, 12 blasphemy, 51, 64–66, 80, 89, 105, 112, 115, 190–91, 288, 301, 315, 320, 339, 343, 357, 361, 366, 369, 377– 78, 398, 453, 456, 459–61, 463, 467–69, 472–73, 475–77, 480, 483, 485, 487, 491, 498–500, 503–4, 512, 527, 543, 549–50, 552–53, 561–64, 566–68, 572–74, 576–80, 582–84, 586–94, 597, 611, 619, 622, 634–35, 637, 647, 649–53, 657, 659 Bohemian Brethren, 266 brotherhoods, 169 bulls. See papal bulls Bundschuh movement/uprising, 281, 293 business and bankruptcies, fraudulent, 155 bondsmen and sureties, 142–43 brotherhoods, 169 deceitful trade practices, 173 food regulations, 140 goods, exchanging, 148 imports and exports, 136–37

just prices, 139, 142 merchant fairs, 170–71 monopolies, 150, 158–59 and profiteering, 137, 150 property insurance, 142 tolls for traveling merchants, 156 and trade, 131, 135–37 trades and tools, 141 and usury, 4, 117, 130–81, 257, 269, 283, 322, 392, 438 Byzantine Empire, 248, 252, 259 Calvinism, 133, 135 Cana, wedding at, 17–18 Canaan, 216, 221, 469, 487, 498–99, 515, 548–49, 575–76, 630 canonists, 38, 51, 60, 178, 494 canonization, 173 canon law, 173 on adoption, 51 on adultery, 61 on consanguinity, 47–48 on divorce, 57–58 on marriage, 38–39, 44–45, 55–56, 59–60 See also law canons of Altenburg, 115 Carmelites, 167 carnival masquerades, 371 castration, 46 Catacomb of Priscilla (Rome), 421 catechisms, 403 Catholicism/Catholics, 2, 36, 86, 90, 174, 185, 205, 243, 364, 381–82, 388, 406, 445 Catholic Mass, 95 celibacy, 2, 19, 25, 33–34, 37, 42–44, 46–47, 54–55, 65, 73, 75, 77, 95, 345, 408, 412 Chaeronea, 204 chastity, 18–19, 25, 28, 38, 43, 54, 58, 60, 65, 69–70, 72–73, 88, 364, 381 chemdath, 530–31

Index of   Subjects childbirth, 68, 629. See also motherhood; procreation children Jewish, 438 as virtuous, 29 Christendom/Christian community, term, usage, 84 Christian education. See schools, Christian Christianity/Christians and aloofness from society, 2, 4 conversions for non-Christians, 51, 52 conversions to Judaism, 505, 622 conversions in Turkish lands, 357 Hebrews as first true, 421 Jewish conversions to, 401, 403, 405, 438–39, 443, 445, 455, 458, 491, 505, 559, 607, 622, 624, 631 disputations with Jews, 395 and Judaism, 395 as licensed, authorized, privileged religion, 2 as mercenaries, 223–26 as official religion of Roman Empire, 447 spiritual weapons of, 347–52 Christian schools. See schools, Christian Christian Union of the Peasants of Upper Swabia, 296, 297, 330 christology, 261, 394–98, 404, 408, 422 church Eastern Orthodox, 252 as sanctuary/charity, 155 and state, 4, 146, 243, 447 vs. synagogue, 488 term, usage, 84, 109 See also specific church(es); specific religion(s) church councils, 38, 44. See also specific council(s) circumcision, 100, 260, 399, 450, 452, 460–61, 467–83, 487–88, 522–29,

536, 540, 550, 552, 559, 563–65, 585, 592, 598, 614, 621, 633–35, 643–44, 648–49, 657, 659, 661–62 Cistercians, 264 civil order, 222, 348 clergy, criticism of, 75 coins, 138, 140, 249, 366, 435, 543 common good, 255, 314 Company of Merchant Adventurers (London), 154 confession, 168, 375 conflation, 266 conscience, 296, 309, 352–58, 388 Constantinople, 117, 140, 248, 252, 336, 384 Council of Constance, 403 Council of Ephesus, 398 Council of Nicaea, 2, 362 councils, church. See church councils counsels, Evangelical, 381 creation, orders of, 6 cross, theology of, 320, 502 crusades, 117, 338, 369, 371 cursing, 589, 607 death, life after, 536–37 death taxes, 295 Decalogue (Ten Commandments), 128 dialectics, 243, 251, 255, 277 didactics, 258 Diet of Augsburg, 18 Diet of Speyer, 388 Diet of Trier-Cologne, 150, 159 Diet of Worms, 159, 162, 296–97, 305, 344, 399, 613 disciples, 78, 144, 184, 198, 259, 345, 363, 600, 629. See also apostles dissenters, 562 divine law, 128, 149, 291, 297, 310 Divine Providence, 2 divorce, 39, 45, 47, 51, 53, 57–64. See also marriage Dominicans, 167, 178, 250, 262 Donatists, 363

701

702

Index of   Subjects Easter, 57, 628 Eastern Orthodox churches, 252 ecumenical creeds, 398 Edict of Worms, 89–90, 185, 388 Edom/Edomites, 568 education in antiquity, 255 classical models, 255 lack of as sin, 254 and pedagogues’ roles, 256 See also schools, Christian; languages; libraries egalitarianism, 363 Egypt, 100, 140, 150, 151, 157, 181, 216, 286, 375, 386, 399, 429, 434–35, 469, 475, 481, 494, 520, 533, 540, 543, 575–76, 639 Eisleben, 298, 391–92, 422 emperors, 203 role of in Middle Ages, 369 role of in struggle against Turks, 367–76 as symbolic leaders, 447 end of the world/end times, 1, 299–300, 340–41, 364, 383–85, 386, 530, 588, 601, 603, 624 engagement, marriage. See marriage, betrothal England, 137, 140, 240, 371, 386, 402–3, 576 Enlightenment, 538 Epiphany, 10, 15, 17, 57 Ernestine Saxony, 34, 110, 183, 192 eschatology, 309, 364, 614 etymology, 274, 494 Eucharist, 174, 96, 271, 381, 446, 551 eunuchs, exempt from marriage, 42, 44–46 Eurasia, 205 Evangelical (Lutheran) church, established as state church, 183 Evangelical counsels of perfection, 345, 381 Evangelical Mass, 95

Evangelicals, 321 excommunication, 381 of Luther, 15, 80, 90, 117, 171, 185, 232, 246, 338, 400 exegesis/exegetes, 242, 256, 260–62, 265– 66, 297. See also Jewish exegesis faith, 62, 71, 403, 410, 665 Fall, the, 21, 23–25, 406–10 false gods, 220, 412, 536, 602 false gospel, 318 false love, 24–25, 30 false prophets, 302, 305, 315, 325, 327, 332, 471, 651–51 female body, 414 Fettmilch Riots (Frankfurt), 405, 571 Florista (Latin syntax), 274 forgiveness, 168, 290, 304 France, 663 Jews, expulsion from, 402–3, 570, 576 Franciscans, 167, 178, 250, 487 Franconian army, 284 Frankenhausen, 183–84, 217, 333, 352 Frankfurt fair, 138 Frankfurt, Jews in, 405, 569, 571 fraud, 637–38 free choice/free will, 42–43, 46 freedom, Christian, 325–26 Freundschaft. See marriage, consanguinity Galatians, 327–28 Garden of Eden, 21 genealogy, spiritual, 462 Gentiles, 138, 379, 403–4, 410, 412, 438, 444, 459, 475, 483, 523, 536, 601, 630–31, 648, 652, 656, 659 Germany Jews, expulsion from, 576 political subdivisions, map, xv Gethsemane, 317 Glory, theology of, 502 glosses, 110, 161, 416 God as author of truth, 243 false, 220, 412, 536, 602

Index of   Subjects hidden, 520 in himself vs. in his revelation, 476 godparents, 50 God’s covenant, 509 God’s Temple, 554 Golden Rule, 283, 312 good works, and salvation, 29 gospel adherents to, 321 false, 318 vs. law, 499 in Old Testament, 499 transforming power of, 290 Gospels, common misunderstanding of as new law books, 93 Goths, 174 government, role of, Luther’s writings on, 344–47 grace, 26, 290, 304, 366 grammar, 239, 255, 258, 264, 274, 277, 642, 662–63. See also languages Greco-Roman literature, 64–65 Greece, 140, 204, 258–59, 384, 386, 531 greed, 300–301 Greek language, study of, 258–59, 263, 265 Greenway Chapel (Tiverton, Devon), 154 gregorian chants, 346 Haggadah, 493 Haggai lectures (Luther), 437 hagiographies, 52 Hanseatic League, 209 Hapsburgs (Austria), 203 Harz Mountains (Germany), 216, 217 heathens, 28–29, 51, 64, 74, 76, 88, 102–3, 105, 128, 157, 162, 164, 195, 197, 201, 203–4, 207, 218–20, 228, 252–53, 256, 279, 287, 314–16, 318, 320–21, 328, 344, 346, 355, 360, 369, 377, 384, 401, 404, 459, 463, 472–73, 488, 564, 567, 582, 587, 652 Hebraism/Hebraists, 393, 551, 566, 574, 609–10, 612, 614, 621, 650, 661, 663–66

Hebrew language, 262–63, 265, 443, 639, 662 Hebrews, as first true Christians, 421 Hebrew Scriptures, 479, 503, 536 Hebrew studies, 443 hellebore, 110 Hellenism, 536 heresy/heretics, 51–52, 80, 115–19, 171, 185, 243, 247, 269, 303, 305, 345, 347, 350, 362, 376, 395–96, 399– 401, 406, 408, 419, 436, 471, 478, 526, 530–31, 562, 587, 599, 612 hermeneutics, 297, 394–95, 419, 447–48, 553 Hermits. See Augustinians hexameters, 270, 274 hierarchy, and authority, 211 high treason, 185 Holy Land. See Jerusalem Holy Roman Empire, 78, 80, 117, 185, 216, 223, 248, 335, 350–51, 353, 373, 386, 388, 438, 532 Holy Scriptures, 267, 271, 273–74, 406, 438 Holy Spirit, 257, 261, 296, 326, 408–9, 411–12, 419 homosexuality, 65, 381 humanism/humanists, 19, 25, 64, 161, 242, 244, 251, 257–58, 262, 275, 443 Hungarian Lutheran Church (Budapest, Hungary), 12 Hungary, 12, 117, 232, 248, 337, 342, 348–50, 385–88 husbandry, 103. See also marriage Hussites, 266 hypocrisy/hypocrites, 64, 95, 309, 364– 67, 414 iconoclasm/iconoclasts, 186, 237, 366 idolatry, 186, 301–2, 311, 354, 366, 369, 485, 589, 638, 649 Idumaneans, 424 immortality, of soul, 361 Imperial Diet, 80, 372

703

704

Index of   Subjects Imperial Diet of Nürnburg, 348 Imperial Diet of Speyer, 348 Imperial Regency Council, 89–90 indulgences, 4, 30, 31, 169, 170–71, 251, 369, 385 Ingostadt, Battle of, 212 intercourse. See sexuality Islam, 252, 276, 335–36, 338–39, 341, 582 Islamic talisman shirt, 638 Israel, 100, 107, 125, 194–95, 201, 216, 221, 260, 268, 272–73, 290, 311, 320–21, 328, 354–56, 373–74, 414, 422–24, 359, 376, 405, 406, 457, 459, 488, 515, 543 Israelites, 374 Italian War, 383 Italy, 204, 206–7, 215–16, 259, 381, 383, 386, 579, 612, 663 Janissaries, Ottoman, 349 Jehovah’s Witnesses, 538 Jerusalem, 29, 185, 354, 414, 422–24, 456–58, 461, 463, 471, 475, 487– 89, 491, 496–97, 507, 512, 514–17, 523–24, 526, 531–36, 541–47, 550–58, 561, 566–67, 570–72, 575, 580, 584–85, 587, 600–602, 605–6, 625, 630–31, 633, 642–43, 645–46, 648 captured, 435 destruction of, 422–23, 427, 429–36, 456–57, 497–98, 503, 517, 519, 536, 539, 541, 545, 547, 552–54, 557–58, 572, 623, 659 Jews, expulsion during Hadrian reign, 601 Jews, return to from exile, 424 rebuilding of, 429–36, 519, 550, 554, 556 Jewish anti-Christian polemics, 614, 619 Jewish-Christian relations, 405, 439 Jewish exegesis, 400, 404–5, 433, 456, 492, 505, 525, 538, 553, 558, 570 Jewish Revolt (66-70), 556

Jews, 6–7, 390–666 accusations/allegations against, 549, 561, 569 attitudes, 526 baptism of, 396, 403, 438 Black Death epidemic, blamed for, 581 receiving blessings, 403 as blind to obvious/literal meaning of scriptures, 503 blood libel accusations, 445 burning of, 581 business practices, 576 as captives, 435 charge of deicide, 535 children in school, 438 closeness to Christ, 444 confessions, extracting, 591 confiscating their texts, 657 confiscating their wealth, 576 conversions to Christianity, 401, 403, 405, 438–39, 443, 445, 455, 458, 491, 505, 559, 607, 622, 624, 631 counterarguments to, 415 denouncement of, 461, 463 disputations with, 262–63, 395 and doctrine of veil, 473 as enemies, 400, 429, 439 execution, punishment, and torture of, 569, 584, 591 exegetical self-confidence, 405, 469, 480 expulsions of, 392, 396, 402–3, 405, 570–71, 576, 601 and final solution, 6, 451 as God’s first people, 405 harsh treatment of, 402, 404, 444 historical mistreatment of, 443–45 Islam, freedom under, 582 Judaea, banished from, 600 kosher laws, 401 as lazy, 571 and their lies, 6–7, 440–607, 455–607 as murderers, 527, 561, 658

Index of   Subjects as non-working, 576 persecution of, 394, 402 plundering of, 405 prayer recitation, 617 regulated and protected, 438–39 relatives of through Mary’s seed, 404–6 rights, 439 spiritual genealogy, primacy of, 462 suffering of, 437, 457–58 tolerance toward, 404 usury as unacceptable, 438 winning some with proper treatment, 400–404 yellow badges, forced to wear, 394 Judaea/Judea, 435, 531, 539, 556, 600 Judaism, 6–7, 262, 303, 390–666 and Christianity, 395 as dead religion/end of, 428–29 divergence between Christianity, 504 forerunners to modern, 537 messianic expectation, 422–23, 430, 433, 437, 496, 648 New Testament, rejection of, 620 postbiblical, 650 prohibited, 600 rabbinic, 646, 657 Judensau, 401, 620, 645–46 judges, 2, 99, 123, 162, 164–65, 191, 199, 204, 210, 223, 312–14, 542, 631–32 Junkers (arrogant nobleman), 108 jurists, 19, 49, 51, 56, 85, 106, 120, 128, 129, 162, 178, 277, 495 justice, natural, 312 Kabbalah, 618, 643, 653 Kappel, Battle of, 205 Kingdom, 427–29 kingdoms, two, (spiritual and worldly), 298–99, 310–11, 314, 321–22, 325–27 knightlets (   Junckerlin), 198, 212 Knights of St. John, 349 Koran, 359, 400, 494

Kosovo, Battle of, 248 Kristallnacht, 442 Ktav Ivri (Paleo-Hebrew alphabet), 543 Kunsthistorisches Museum (Vienna, Austria), 368 Landsknechten (soldiers), 182, 228, 285 languages, 251 common good, contribution of to, 267–69 errors from not knowing, 261–67 etymologies for studying, 274 gift and necessity of, 257–59 hexameters for studying, 274 and preservation of gospel, 259–61 study of, 258–61, 263, 265, 270, 279, 662–63 See also specific language(s) Last Judgment, 347, 389 Lateran Council, 412 Fourth (4th), 47–48, 51, 55, 635 Fifth (5th), 178, 336, 361 Latin decadence of style in later Middle Ages, 270–71 dictionary, 274 grammar, 243, 270 as language of court, university, church, 251 medieval decline of 274 study of, 258 syntax (Florista), 274 law civil, 196 common, 314 divine, 128, 149, 291, 297, 310 ecclesiastical, 382 enforced with equity, 120 vs. gospel, 499 natural, 128, 138, 172, 299, 310, 312, 315, 321, 484 in New Testament, 499 See also canon law League of Cognac, 383

705

706

Index of   Subjects Leipzig disputation, 18 Lent, 57, 117, 371, 666 liberal arts, 255, 258 libraries, 273–78. See also education life after death, 536–37 Loccum Abbey, 240 Lombard’s Sentences, 277 Lord’s Prayer, 141, 144, 232, 319–20, 551 Lord’s Supper, 292, 305, 396 love false, 24, 25, 30 goddess of (Venus), 364 married, 25, 30 natural, 25, 30 for others, Christian ethic of, 307 types (three), 25 Lüne Abbey, 240 Lüneburgers, 184 Lutheran church established as state church, 183 Lutheranism, 149, 183, 242, 305, 448, 495, 610 Maccabean period, 532 Maccabees, 430, 519–20, 532, 538 Macedonia, 204, 519 Magdeburg, 570 magic, 626, 638, 642, 649 Mansfeld, as Luther’s hometown, 216 maps Europe, during Reformation, xiv Germany, political subdivisions (Luther’s time), xv Marburg Colloquy, 561 Marienkirche (Germany), 12, 401 Marignano, Battle of, 184 marriage, 1–2, 6–7, 16–77, 399 and adoption, 51 and adultery, 39, 41–42, 52–53, 58–61 age requirements, 24, 28, 56–57, 77, 418 for all individuals, 42–43, 60 antimarriage, 64 and betrothal, 27–28, 56–57

and bigamy, 45, 57–58 canon law, 38–39, 44–45, 56, 59–60 and celibacy, 19, 25, 33–34, 37, 42–44, 46–47, 54–55, 65, 73, 75, 77 and chastity, 18–19, 25, 28, 38, 43, 54, 58, 60, 65, 69–70, 72–73 clandestine, 28, 56–57 clerical, 35, 43–44, 55, 82 and conjugal relations, 26–28, 44–45, 53, 59, 61–63 and consanguinity, 35, 47–50 consensual, 27–28 consummated, 56 contractual nature of bound by oath, 27 couples must see good in, 71–72 in daily life, 63–77 as devotion, 31 as divine and natural imperative, 42–43, 66 and divorce, 39, 45, 47, 51, 53, 57–64 estate of, 6–7, 16–31, 32–77, 103–4, 141, 191 exceptions/exemptions from, 42–47, 51–52, 60 and faith, 62, 71 and fidelity, 26 financial concerns should not prevent, 76 forbidden, 381 and fornication, 52, 58, 73 and frigidity, 62 and gender/sexual identity, 41 God as sole partner, 24 as godly and an honorable, 19, 29 God’s role in choosing spouse, 66 with God through law, 481 and good wife, 67 as good work, 29 for greatest number of people, 57 happiness and faith, 71 and hermaphroditism, 41 and holy orders, 55 and homosexuality, 65

Index of   Subjects humility in, 67 impediments to, 39, 47–57 as imperative, 22 and impotence, 39, 44–45, 58 and incest, 35 as institution, 63 laws, 38 legal cases concerning, 41, 45 and lust, 24 for males and females, 41 medieval, 27 and misogamy/misogyny, 39, 64–66, 71 monastic, 35, 43–44 Muslims on, 364–67 as mystery, 26 pagan vs. divine teachings on, 66 parental consent for, 24, 28, 56–57, 77 as piety, 29, 31 and premarital sex, 52 as preventative for sin, 25 for procreation, 20, 26, 28–29, 38, 42–44, 46 in Quran, 339, 364–66, 378, 381 reasons for, 26 religiously mixed, 51 remaining unmarried possible for some, 46 as sacrament, 26, 36 secret, 28, 56–57 separation, 39, 47, 53, 59–60, 62 as sermon theme, 17 sexuality within, 25, 27, 44, 52, 61–64 and sodomy, 41–42 spiritual and worldly benefits of, 25 and spiritual purity, 75 and syphilis, 73 and Turks, 378 two-step process, 27 unmarried by divine gift of grace, 71 unmarried women with children, 57 until death, 55–56 unwilling grooms, 56

valid, 27, 28, 56–57 who may enter into, 41–57 wives and salvation, 70 See also divorce; husbandry; weddings marriage-devil, 66 martyrdom/martyrs, 67, 69, 102, 162, 230, 271, 305–6, 527, 542, 587, 597, 629 masquerades, carnival, 371 Mass of the Holy Ghost, 388 matriarchs, 396, 403, 406, 412. See also motherhood Maulbronn Abbey, 240 medieval monastic theology, 345 mendicant brothers/orders, 167, 250 mercenaries, 182, 184, 189, 223–26, 228, 230, 245, 383, 579. See also soldiers Michaelmas, 552 mob justice, 203–5, 402, 653 Modernists, 278, 279 Mohács, Battle of, 232, 248, 337–38, 348, 350, 385 monasteries, 240–41, 271, 288, 346. See also specific monasteries Monastery of Saint Catherine Sinai Egypt, 399 monasticism/monastic orders/vows, 43–44, 54–55, 65, 70–71, 243–44, 262, 345, 419, 487, 657 Mongols, 205 Monks, Luther’s criticism of, 243–44 monstrance, 174 motherhood, 70, 414. See also childbirth; matriarchs; parenthood Mount Hira, 360 Mughal Dynasty, 359 Mühlhausen, 301–2, 324 Muslims, 90, 314, 335–36, 385, 480, 635 as hypocrites, 364–67 as liars, 359–61 on marriage, 364–67 as murderers, 361–64 See also Turks mysticism, 618

707

708

Index of   Subjects National Socialism, 222 Nativity story, 408 natural justice, 312 natural law, 128, 138, 172, 299, 310, 312, 315, 321, 484 Nazarenes (Christians), 635 Nazirites, 361 Nazism, 6, 397, 442 Nestorians, 409 Neuss, 213 New Testament, 1, 90, 92, 101, 164, 260, 277, 399, 411, 416, 419, 421, 488, 499, 537, 620, 624, 643, 663, 664 Nicene Creed, 261 Nineveh, 474–75, 515 Nominalists, 279 nonbelievers/unbelievers, 51–52, 71, 77, 105, 369, 376, 379, 458, 486, 491, 583, 637 Nuremberg, 443, 527 obedience, and secular authority, 79–129 offices, 191–94, 347–52 offspring. See parenthood; procreation Old Swiss Confederacy, 203, 206 Old Testament, 100, 115, 152, 262, 266, 273–74, 277, 354, 386, 394, 406, 410, 415–16, 421–23, 433–34, 442, 448–49, 481, 488, 491, 499, 538, 553, 563, 573, 620–21, 654, 663, 664–65 oppression, 187, 286, 297, 299–300 orders of creation, 6 ordination, 46, 55, 119, 236 original sin, 26, 409, 466 orthography, 274 other/otherness, 474, 536 Ottoman Empire, 4, 232, 248, 340, 348, 400 paganism/pagans, 19, 36–39, 52, 64–67, 70, 74, 101–2, 112, 268, 276–77, 279, 404, 432, 452, 537, 652 Palestine, 263, 369, 536, 539, 600

palliums, 89, 173, 346 papacy/papists, 9, 89, 185–86, 346, 400, 447, 477, 637 as Antichrist, 258–59, 309–10, 340, 363–64 on marriage, 44–45, 47–48 See also pope papal bulls, 80, 89–90, 117, 171, 178, 185, 232, 246, 343–44, 406 parenthood care of children, 252–55 as godly work, 67 as good work, 29, 67 moral and pastoral role of, 75 spiritual role of, 28–29 See also motherhood; procreation Passover, 445 pastors, choosing and appointing, 290, 308, 324 patriarchs, 6, 76, 136, 143, 195, 325, 396, 403, 406, 412, 422, 444, 458–59, 461–64, 479, 492, 496–97, 508, 512, 585, 602 patristic theology/patristics, 242–45, 259, 263–65, 450, 526 Pavia, 216, 248, 350, 382–83 peasants, 112, 543, 646 fighting Landsknechten, 285 in inferior position, 212 rebellions/uprisings, 5–6, 197, 293, 304, 321 advancing agenda of Satan, 318 slaughtered in Frankenhausen, 333 in Swabia, 5–6, 280–333 in Thüringia, 313, 332–33 tied shoe emblem on banner, 282 wars, 203, 212 weapons, 329 See also serfs Peasants’ Revolt/War (Germany), 5–6, 118, 184, 187, 192, 194–95, 197, 201, 217, 221, 237–38, 247, 280– 333, 343, 352, 363–64, 366, 543 pedagogy/pedagogues, 244–45, 256, 278, 665

Index of   Subjects penance handbooks (penitentials), 42 Pentateuch, 113 perfection, Christian, 88, 345, 381 perjury, 226, 377–78 Persia/Persians, 328, 359, 429–30, 433– 35, 515, 533 Pharisees, 239, 354, 462, 537, 560 Philistines, 107, 376, 490, 496 philosophy/philosophers, 19, 64, 243–44, 270, 276–77, 279 pietism, Prussian, 442 polemics, 9, 65, 70, 212, 244, 335, 338, 364 antipapal, 90 Christian, 488, 600 See also anti-Jewish polemics political rebellion, 185–86, 194, 198, 304, 321 polytheism, 593, 635 poor, sturdy, 224 pope as Antichrist, 258–59, 309–10, 340, 363–64 condemnation of, 364 as enemy of Christendom, 400 as evil, 380–82, 389 as symbolic leader, 447 compared to Turks, 363, 380–82, 389 See also papacy/papists Portugal, 136–37 postils, 93, 317, 451 Prague, 217, 570 prayer, and warfare, 355–58, 375 pregnancy, 419 priests, tonsure worn by, 55 printing, role of in spreading Luther’s messages, 323 procreation, 20, 26, 28–29, 38, 42–44, 46, 409. See also childbirth; parenthood procurators, 556, 575 prophets, 100, 237, 257, 302, 305, 315, 325, 327, 332, 396, 471, 537, 546, 651–52

prosody, 274 Protestantism/Protestants, 14, 133, 183, 205, 212, 222, 242, 278, 332, 341, 388, 447, 569, 643 proverbs, 61, 73, 122, 142–43, 165, 206, 267, 347, 532, 571, 579, 657 Prussian pietism, 442 psalters, 145, 164, 262–63, 300, 332, 374, 483, 643 Punic War, Second, 215 Quedlinburg Abbey, 240 quinquernells, 155 rabbis, compared to ravens, 552, 660 reason, 164, 258 rebellion, political, 185–86, 194, 198, 304, 321 Red Sea, 420–22 reformation/reformers, defined, 244 Reformation, viii, xi, 51, 85, 90, 114, 117, 140, 183, 185, 187, 190, 204, 217, 242–44, 261, 268, 278–79, 281–83, 285, 297, 310–11, 336, 338, 341, 363, 369, 400, 450, 543, 609, 664 German, 81 and German peasants, 282, 290 Lutheran, 14, 240–41, 326, 443 Protestant, x, 133, 242 Reformation Europe, xiv, 311 Reformation of the Order of Preachers, 244 Regensburg (Ratisbon), 447, 561, 570 reliquaries (relics), 173, 213 Rentenkauff, 181 repentance, 92, 112, 216–17, 287, 302, 330 of Jews, 549 and warfare, 339, 341, 343, 352–55, 357, 367–68, 373, 384 reproduction, human, 411–12 Reydaniya, 385 rhetoric, 161, 187, 197, 243, 251, 255, 258, 265, 274, 276, 619, 622, 647 Rhodes, 348–49

709

710

Index of   Subjects righteousness, 191–94, 196–97, 298, 301, 304, 310, 394–95, 450, 478, 504, 549 Roman Catholic Church, 2, 36, 174, 242, 289, 303, 382, 443–45 Roman Empire, 2, 447, 600 Roman Forum, 423 Romanists, 289, 320, 333 Rome, 140, 351, 579 Rule of St. Benedict, 43 Sabbatarians, 447, 455, 475, 502, 517 sacraments baptism as, 26 and circumcision, 478 defined, 26 and grace, 26 marriage as, 26, 36 of Roman Catholic Church, 174 vs. word and faith, 477 See also specific sacrament(s) Sadducees, 239, 536–37 Saint Catherine’s Monastery (Sinai, Egypt), 399 Saint Lucy’s Day (December 13), 52 saints, and healing of illnesses, 213 salvation and counsels of perfection, 345, 381 and good works, 29 gospel message of, 327 and grace, 304, 366 of wives, 70 Sanhedrin, xiii, 161, 423, 496, 532, 664 Santiago de Compostela (Spain), 29, 172 Satan, 34, 237, 303, 309, 318, 381, 615, 635, 642 satire/satirists, 64, 262 scatology, 392, 397, 611–12, 614, 628–29 Schem Hamphoras, 6, 391–92, 401–2, 405, 411, 417, 421, 425, 428, 437, 439, 443, 448, 455, 493, 523, 561–62, 608–58, 661 Schleitheim Confession, 342–43 Schmalkald, war of, 560 Schmalkaldic League, 14, 183

Scholasticism/Scholastics, 88, 134, 139, 142, 145, 175, 177, 242–44, 251, 258, 262, 276–78, 401, 422 schools, Christian, 4–5, 234–79 and care of children, 252–55 and classical education at heart of church and society, 239–41, 245 curriculum, 273–74 established and maintained, 4–5, 234–79 general benefit to society, 255–56 and history, study of, 278 Luther’s vision for, 242–43 military exercises, 256 necessary role of for church and society, 239–41, 245 poor condition of, 247–51 practical proposal for educating children, 269–73 public, reform in German, 244 remedy at hand, 251–52 Scriptures, study of, 267 See also education sects, 92 secular authority, 45, 60, 78–129, 187, 192, 196, 212, 233, 239, 256, 268, 269, 283, 308–9, 392, 496 how far extended, 108–19 how princes make use of it, 119–29 and obedience, 79–129 See also temporal authority self-assertion, 303, 325 self-centeredness, 98 self-confidence, 316, 469, 480 self-control, 27 self-defense, 161, 163, 214–21, 233, 346, 398–400 self-indulgence, 326 self-interest, 150, 307, 322, 368, 573 self-restraint, 326 self-seeking, 148, 152 self-understanding, 2, 573 separation. See divorce; marriage serfdom/serfs, 54, 292–93, 295, 325–27. See also peasants

Index of   Subjects Sermon on the Mount, 88, 129, 135, 162, 187–88, 352 servitude, 6, 54–55, 451 sexuality gender identity, 41 intercourse, 419–20 in marriage, 25, 27, 44, 52, 61–64 and procreation, 409 shalom (peace), 96, 425, 514 shrovetide, 117 Shrove Tuesday, 371 Sicily, 207, 495 sin alien, 111 grave/mortal sins, 254 and nature of humans, 228 original, 26, 409, 466 secret, 42 venial, 254 Siyer-i Nebi, Turkish epic, 360 social ethics, 4 social peace, 321 social reform, 327 Sodom and Gomorrah, 311, 381 soldiers, 239, 255–56, 317, 329, 338, 341, 346, 348, 350–52, 364, 366, 544, 627 can be saved, 3–4, 182–233 as divinely ordained vocation, 191 Gospel as talisman, 230 military service responsibility, 224 patron saint of (St. George), 230 and personal glory, 228–30 reliance on God’s strength in battle, 373–75 spiritual attitude of, 230–33 See also mercenaries; warfare solifidianism, 290, 304 Soltau, Battle of, 184 sophists, 88, 91, 96, 98, 105, 110, 264, 267, 270, 276, 278, 315, 400–401, 422, 444 soul, immortality of, 361 Spain, 402–3, 576 spice trade, 136–37

state, and church, 4, 146, 243, 447 St. Egidien/St. Giles School (Nuremberg), 241 St. Gallen monastery/Abbey of St. Gall (Switzerland), 203 St. Jacob’s chapel (Kłodzko), 170 St. Mary’s Church (Wittenberg), 645–46 St. Peter’s basilica (Rome), 170 St. Peter’s Church (Tiverton, Devon), 154 sturdy poor, 224 supercessionism, 450 Swabia, peasants in, 5–6, 280–333 Swabian League, 287, 291, 297–98 Swiss Brethren, 343 Switzerland, 42, 184, 203, 206 synagogues, 447, 471, 487–88, 526, 589 Syria, 76, 216, 252, 375, 386, 428, 434, 496, 519, 533 Syria Palestina, 600 Talmud, xiii, 423, 443, 447, 453, 505, 536–37, 542, 544, 550, 566, 574, 589, 595, 646 Tatars, 205 temporal authority, 187, 198, 212, 256, 344, 371–73, 427. See also secular authority Ten Commandments, 88, 310–12, 484–85 Tetragrammaton, 618, 620, 643, 653–55 theology/theologians, 297 of the cross, 316, 320, 322 Lutheran, 149 patristic, 263–65, 526 political, 189, 191 professors of, 236 study of/as discipline/science, 243, 258 Theotokos, 398, 399, 412 Thomism, 279 Thüringia, 87, 187, 216, 238, 284, 313, 332–33, 442 tithes (taxes), 189, 250, 291–92, 308, 325 tonsure, worn by priests, 55

711

712

Index of   Subjects Topkapi Palace Museum (Istanbul, Turkey), 360 Torah, 481, 536, 537, 600 trade. See business travelers, patron saint of (St. Christopher), 230 Treaty of Madrid, 216, 383 Trinitarian theology, ix–x, 261, 447, 593, 633, 635 Truth, God as author of, 243 Tunis, 368 Turkey, 248, 358, 360, 364, 384, 595–96 Turks, 3–4, 291, 334–89, 447, 570 Arabs, ethnic differences between, 335 emperors and princes, role in struggle against, 367–76, 387–88 as enemy of Christendom, 400 as evil, 380–82, 389 fighting against with good conscience, 352–58 Greece, invasion, 258 as heathens, 314 as threat to Holy Roman Empire, 117 invasion by, 71 Jerusalem, capture of, 435 Luther’s writings on, 233 Ottoman, 117, 232, 314, 336, 348, 385, 435, 480, 635 pope compared to, 363, 380–82, 389 powerful army, need for in struggle against, 385–88 spiritual weapons against, 347–52 supremacy in Muslim world, 385 sympathizers, 376–79 siege of Vienna, 117 war against, 3–4, 117, 232–33, 334–89 wickedness of, 378 See also Muslims tyranny/tyrants, 51, 57, 112, 114, 116, 153, 198, 201–3, 205–14, 220–21, 223, 278–79, 300, 302, 304, 317, 328–29, 331, 352, 356, 389, 519, 530, 580, 595

unbelievers/nonbelievers, 51–52, 71, 77, 105, 369, 376, 379, 458, 486, 491, 583, 637 usury and business, 4, 117, 130–81, 257, 269, 283, 322, 392, 438 condemnation of, 438 defined and practice of, 146, 175, 484 and finance, 136 interest, 178 and Jews, as unacceptable, 438 key criticism of, 550 Luther’s sermons on, 484 money lender at work, 132 objectionable zins contracts, 156 payments as gifts, 177 and profiteering, 137 prohibitions, 146, 175 property insurance, 142 Varna, Battle of, 248, 349–50 Varna Crusade, 350 Vatican Councils, 2 Venetian republic, 383 Vienna, 4, 117, 206, 305, 335–36, 338–40, 342–43, 348, 367–68, 388 virginity, 25, 30, 42, 46–47, 75, 161, 395– 96, 398, 400, 408, 410, 412–21 Visigoths, 112 vocabulary, 258, 264, 276. See also languages Waldensians, 266–67 warfare, 3–4, 126, 182–233, 319, 348, 354, 378, 386, 536 of aggression, 346 armor, 257 and confession, 375 early Christian texts, 185 foreign, opposition to, 257 god of (Mars), 364 in good conscience, 352–58 as just, 3–4, 217–21, 346, 353 justification for participation in, 354

Index of   Subjects legitimacy of with equals, 233 military strategy, 385 as moral concern, 3–4 of necessity vs. of selfish desire, 217–21 for personal glory, 228–30 powerful army, need for, 385–88 and prayer, 355–58, 375 reliance on God’s strength in battle, 373–75 as spiritual battle, 375 spiritual weapons, 347–52 strong leadership as crucial to success, 375–76 unjust, 226–27 and violence, 185 See also soldiers; Turks; specific battle(s) War of Schmalkald, 14

Wartburg Castle (Eisenach, Thuringia), Luther in exile, 34 Watchtower Society. See Jehovah’s Witnesses weddings, 17–19, 27, 35, 40, 43, 57, 308. See also marriage Weingarten, 284, 288, 330 Weinsberg, 324 Western schism, 350 Wittenberg, parish church, 521 Wittenberg Sanhedrin, 664 Wittenberg University, 13, 275 World War I, 222 Yahweh, banned, 519 Zinskauf, 132, 180–81 Zwickau, 34–35, 37, 61, 217, 237, 257, 301, 339

713

ILLUMINATING THE ESSENTIAL WRITINGS OF MARTIN LUTHER PRAISE FOR THE ANNOTATED LUTHER SERIES Hans J. Hillerbrand is professor emeritus, Duke University Department of Religion. He has served as president of the Society for Reformation Research and the American Society of Church History. His many publications include volumes on Christian history, Protestantism, and the Reformation. 

“As no other comparable series, The Annotated Luther provides the reader, whether lay or ordained, with a collection of the Wittenberg reformer’s most important writings that is at once learned and highly accessible. Here Luther’s works are presented in up-to-date translation with helpful introductions, explanatory notes, and engaging images. A must for the student and scholar of Luther alike!” Ronald K. Rittgers Valparaiso University

PRAISE FOR VOLUME 5

GENERAL EDITORS Hans J. Hillerbrand Kirsi I. Stjerna Timothy J. Wengert

“Luther believed that the Christian life could and should be lived out fully within the world. He taught that rulers, pastors, husbands and wives, business people, craftsmen, and soldiers all served God by fulfilling their responsibilities within their vocations. The Annotated Luther, Volume 5 provides contemporary translations of Luther’s treatises on marriage, schools, business and moneylending, soldiers and warfare, and politics as well as his views on the Jews and Turks. Luther’s attempts to relate the gospel to human activity in all spheres of life all repay careful study, even where they appear dated or wrong. The scholars who translated, introduced, and annotated them have done their readers a great service.” Stephen Burnett University of Nebraska-Lincoln “Judiciously selected and expertly introduced by leading scholars, the works in this volume reveal Luther’s views on a wide range of themes pertaining to Christian life in the world—from marriage to war to interactions with Turks and Jews. The writings presented here rank among Luther’s most important and profound works—as well as, sometimes, his most disturbing. With helpful introductions that illuminate the contexts in which Luther wrote, no other single volume offers a better starting point for students, pastors, and all readers interested in how Luther confronted the ever-present question, ‘How is the Christian to live in society?’” Vincent Evener Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

Religion / Reformation History / Theology

THE A N N O TAT E D LUTHER

5

T H E A N N O TAT E D L U T H E R Volume 5 of the Annotated Luther series presents a number of Luther’s writings that reveal the reformer’s view of Christian life as it intersects with the world. The topics range widely from Luther’s perspectives on marriage, schools and education, business and lending, war and serving as a soldier, the role of secular leaders, and his view of the Turks and the Jews.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD VOLUME 5

Each volume in The Annotated Luther series contains new introductions, annotations, illustrations, and notes to help shed light on Luther’s context and interpret his writings for today.

CHRISTIAN LIFE IN THE WORLD

“The Annotated Luther series provides a very welcome resource for meeting Luther again in the contemporary world. With language refreshed for our time, we can see more clearly Luther as a man who is actively grappling with a society undergoing dramatic challenges economically, religiously, and socially. By providing skilled commentary from scholars around the world and from diverse theological perspectives, this work will be of great help for modern Christians seeking to adapt and extend the insights from the Reformation to modern challenges.” Maria E. Erling Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg

Hillerbrand

Volume 1: The Roots of Reform Volume 2: Word and Faith Volume 3: Church and Sacraments Volume 4: Pastoral Writings Volume 5: Christian Life in the World Volume 6: The Interpretation of Scripture

Hans J. Hillerbrand Editor