Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ. (Rom. 1:1.) The sum and substance of this letter is: to pull down, to pluck up, and to destroy all wisdom and righteousness of the flesh (i.e., of whatever importance they may be in the sight of men and even in our own eyes), no matter how heartily and sincerely they may be practiced, and to implant,1 establish, and make large the reality of sin (however unconscious we may be of its existence). Hence,
Blessed Augustine says in the seventh chapter of his book On the Spirit and the Letter:2 The apostle Paul "contends with the proud and arrogant and with those who are presumptuous on account of their works/' etc.; "moreover, in the letter to the Romans, this theme is almost his sole concern and he discusses it so persistently and with such complexity as to weary the reader's attention, yet it is a useful and wholesome wearying." There have always been some among the Jews and the Gentiles who believed it to be sufficient if they possessed virtue and knowledge, not of the kind that is outwardly put on but that which is inward and comes from the heart. This was also the opinion of many philosophers. The best and sincerest among them, only a few of whom except Socrates are well known, practiced this morality not in order to impress other people or to seek their own glory but adhered to it from a true feeling of virtue and wisdom—and yet they could not refrain from being inwardly pleased with themselves and to praise themselves in their heart as righteous and good men. Of such, the apostle says: "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools/' etc. (Rom. 1:22).
But here just the opposite shall be taught. For in the church we 2 Augustine, De spir. et lit,, 7, 12.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS must not merely see to it that our righteousness and wisdom, which are not worth anything, are neither upheld by our own sense of glory nor extolled by the good opinion of others, but rather, we must take pains that they are destroyed and plucked up from our own complacent inner feeling (even though, according to the Gospel [Matt. 5:15], "the lamp that is lit is not to be put under the bushel but on the stand so that it shines unto all that are in the house" and "the city set on a hill cannot be hid" [Matt. 5:14]).
(For when we ourselves despise them, it will be easy for us not to care for the judgment and praise of others.) As Christ says through the prophet Jeremiah: "to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow" (Jer. 1:10), namely, everything that is in us (i.e., all that pleases us because it comes from ourselves and belongs to us) and "to build and to plant," namely, everything that is outside us and in Christ.
This is also the meaning of Daniel's figure of speech concerning the stone which "smote the image" (Dan. 2:34).3
For God does not want to save us by our own but by an extraneous righteousness which does not originate in ourselves but comes to us from beyond ourselves, which does not arise on our earth but comes from heaven. Therefore, we must come to know this righteousness which is utterly external and foreign to us. That is why our own personal righteousness must be uprooted4—according to Ps. 45 (where we read): "Forget also thine own people and thy father's house" (Ps. 45:10)—just as also Abraham was told to leave his own country. And in the Song of Solomon we read:
"Come from Lebanon, my bride, and thou shalt be crowned" (S. of Sol. 4:8). Also, the exodus of the people Israel has for a long time been interpreted to signify the transition from vice to virtue. But one should, rather, interpret it as the way from virtue to the grace of Christ, because virtues are often the greater and worse faults the less they are regarded as such and the more powerfully they subject to themselves all human affections beyond all other goods.
So also the right side of Jordan was more fearful than the left one.5
But now Christ wants all our feeling to be so bare that, on the one hand, we are not afraid to be cast into confusion on account of our faults, nor delight in praise and vain joy on account of our virtue, yet, on the other hand, we do not glory before men in that 3 Nicholas of Lyra interpreted this passage with reference to Christ, the cornerstone.
4 "Igitur omnino externa et aliena iustitia oportet erudiri. Quare primum oportet propriam et domesticam evelli"
5 Cf. Josh. 3:16 and Ps. 114:1-3: "When Israel went out of Egypt, the house of Jacob from a barbarous people, Judah was made his sanctuary, Israel his dominion. The sea saw and fled; Jordan was turned back." Cf. Lyra's comment on this passage. external righteousness which, coming from Christ, is in us, nor suffer defeat because of those sufferings and evils which befall us for his sake.6
Moreover, a true Christian must be so completely stripped of all that he calls his own that neither honor nor dishonor can affect him, because he knows that whatever honor is done to him is done to Christ, whose righteousness and gifts shine in him, and that whatever ignominy is inflicted upon him is inflicted on him as well as on Christ. But, apart from special grace, much practice is required in order that one may reach this perfection. For even if by his native and spiritual gifts a man is wise, righteous, and good in the sight of men, he is not so regarded by God, especially if he himself considers himself as such. Therefore we must keep ourselves humble in all these respects, as if we were still bare, and look for the naked mercy of God that he may reckon us righteous and wise.7 This, God will do if one has been humble and has not anticipated the divine action by justifying himself and by entertaining too high an opinion of himself—as we read in I Cor. 4:3-5: "I judge not mine own self, but he that judges me is the Lord; wherefore judge nothing before the time/1 etc.
Certainly there are many who, like the Jews and the heretics, for God's sake disregard and willingly give up all goods at their left hand,8 namely, the temporal ones; but there are few who for the sake of obtaining Christ's righteousness regard as nothing the goods at their right hand, namely, spiritual goods and righteous works. Certainly the Jews and the heretics are unable to do this.
And yet, without this, no one can be saved. For we all hope and wish our own achievements to be accepted by God and rewarded by him. But it remains forever true: "It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that has mercy" (Rom. 9:16).
But in order to come to the letter: I do not believe9 that its recipients, in view of the fact that the apostle calls them saints
6 This sentence seems to be inspired by the piety of the mystics who influenced the young Luther, i.e., Bernard of Clairvaux, Tauler, and Staupitz.
7 Luther's exegesis of the letter to the Romans is determined by the emphasis upon humility as its main theme. This was the dominating note also of his interpretation of the psalms. (Cf. WA 3, 575, 25: "humilitas tola iustita.")
Correspondingly, he regarded superbia (pride) as the root of all sin. In this respect, he put special stress upon a theme that was part and parcel of medieval theology. (Cf. Peter Lombard, II Sent., d. 42, c. 7: "Superbia radix cuncti mali, et initium omnis peccati")
8 Luther liked this figure of speech (at or of the right hand, at or of the left hand). It was derived from the Bible and was used in traditional exegesis, esp. by Augustine.
9 This remark may be directed against Nicholas of Lyra, who believed that the letter was written for the purpose of recalling the Roman Christians from an error of faith.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS who are called and beloved of God, were of such a sort that it was necessary for the apostle to mediate between them in their strife and then come to the conclusion that they were all sinners; for if they were Christians, they knew this by their faith. Rather, I think that he took the opportunity of writing to the believers in Rome in order to make available to them a great apostle's witness to their faith and teaching as they struggled with the Jews and Gentiles of Rome who persisted in unbelief and gloried in the flesh over against the humble wisdom of the believers, for these believers had then no choice but to live among them and thus to become involved in contradictions in all they heard and spoke. In this sense he writes in the fifth chapter of Second Corinthians: "We are not again commending ourselves unto you, but speak as giving you occasion of glorying on our behalf, that you may have wherewith to answer them that glory in appearance and not in heart"
It is the duty of a prudent minister of God to hold his ministry in honor and to see to it that it is respected by those who are in his charge.
Moreover, it is the duty of a faithful minister not to exceed his powers and not to abuse his office in pride but, rather, to administer it for the benefit of his subjects.
He must be a "prudent and faithful servant" (cf. Matt. 24:45).
If he is not prudent, he will become useless, unfit, and unworthy of respect. Persons who in unwise humility practice familiarity with nearly everybody and place themselves on one level with those put in their charge cannot but lose the true authority of leadership, and their familiarity breeds contempt. How gravely they sin! For what belongs to God and is put into their stewardship, and what they should cause to be honored, they permit to be despised! If he is not faithful, he turns into a tyrant who wants to terrify by his power. Instead of seeking to make their high position useful to others, such people want to be feared. Yet according to the apostle, the power of their office is given to them not to destroy but to edify.
If we are to specify these two faults, we say that they are: softness and austerity. Of the first we read in Zech. 11:17: "Woe to the worthless shepherd that leaves the flock!" And of the second,
Ezekiel says (Ezek. 34:4): "With force and with rigor have you ruled over them." These are the two main faults from which all the faults of clergymen arise. And no wonder! For softness is rooted in concupiscence, and austerity in irascibility. These are the source of all evil, as we well know. Therefore, it is very perilous to assume an office unless these two beasts have been slain, for they will do the more harm the more power to do harm is available.
In the prologue or preamble of his letter, the apostle presents himself as a most effective example of one who opposes these two monsters. For, in the first place, in order not to be despised by those in his charge as unfit and soft, he magnifies his ministry by endowing it with high honor. In the second place, in order not to be regarded as a willful tyrant, he assures himself of the affection of his subjects by expressing his good will toward them. By a mixture of fear and love he thus prepares them most effectively for the reception of the gospel and the grace of God.
Following the example of the apostle, every clergyman in the church (like an animal that parts the hoof and is clean)10 should first of all clearly distinguish between himself and his office, i.e., between "the form of God" and "the form of a servant,"11 and, regarding himself always as the lowliest of all, perform his office in between fear and love entirely for the welfare and advantage of his subjects. Moreover, he must know that because every office is given only for the welfare of the subjects, he must be willing to give it up if he finds that he cannot administer it to the furtherance of the benefit of his subjects or that he blocks it by his person.
Certainly, this is the whole sin of a clergyman: that he deprives his ministry of its fruit by one or both of these faults; he will be strictly held responsible for his failure.
Hence, the apostle says: "a servant of Jesus Christ/9 In this word, there is majesty as well as humility: there is humility in it in so far as he does not consider himself lord and creator according to the manner of proud tyrants who use their power in such a way that they appear to think of nothing else but their own power as if they had produced it and as if they had not received it from someone else. Therefore, they do not find joy in the fruit of power but merely enjoy power itself.
There is majesty in it in so far as he is glad to serve such a Lord.
For if it is perilous not to honor and welcome a servant of the emperor, what will happen to those who do not honor and welcome the servants of God? The phrase "a servant of Jesus Christ" is therefore a great and terrible word. I believe that "servant" is here a term used for an office and a dignity; it does not refer to Paul's own service and homage of God, i.e., I believe that the apostle
10 Cf. Ley. 11:38:. and Deut. 14:6 ff. These passages were subjected to an allegorical interpretation (e.g., by Lyra). The distinction (made in the Jewish law) between animals that "part the hoof and chew the cud" (and are therefore clean) and animals that "chew the cud but do not part the hoof" (and are therefore unclean) was applied to the difference between the Old and New Testaments. The Jews were regarded as unclean, because they believed in the law (i.e., "chew the cud") and because they do not accept the dogma of the Trinity (i.e., "do not part the hoof").
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS does not wish to call attention to his own personal works by which he serves God privately, because this would exemplify arrogance.
For who can be so bold as to say with finality: I am a servant of God! in view of the fact that he cannot know whether he has done all that God requires of him? So he says of himself in I Cor. 4:3:
"I do not judge mine own self/* For it belongs to God alone to judge and decide whether one is a servant or an enemy. So he calls himself emphatically a servant because he wants to confess that he has received his office over others from God, as if he were to say: I preach the gospel and teach the church; I baptize and do other works which are God's alone. And I do not do all this as a lord who is set over you but as a servant who is commissioned to minister to you. So I am a servant in your behalf, and my "service" does not refer to anything else but my duties toward you. Its ultimate concern is God.
This is not the case in that "service" which all of us are equally expected to render to God. To put it briefly: according to the moral and tropological sense, everyone is a servant of God by and for himself, but, according to the allegorical sense, a certain someone is a servant of God for others and over others and for the sake of others. The latter, therefore, signifies a sublime dignity, and the former, a complete form of submission and humility. Moreover, concerning the one, one can be certain and can glory in it, but not so with respect to the other. Likewise, the one benefits others and serves them, but by the other one everyone gains benefits only for himself. The one is the special gift of some, but the other must be common to all. The one must perform definite and clearly delineated tasks, while the other must do whatever it can. The one can be there without grace, but the other cannot be there except by grace. The one has more worth, but the other is more wholesome. The one is manifested to men in glory, but the other is sufficiently known not even to oneself, as has been stated above.
Called an apostle (Rom.i: 1), i.e., in order to put it more clearly, called to be an apostle or to the apostolate.
By this term he more definitely specifies the nature of his service and his ministry. For many are servants and ministers of Jesus
Christ but not all are apostles. But all apostles are also servants, i.e., ministers, i.e., such as perform the work of the Lord toward and in others as his representatives.
With the first word ("called"), he strikes down three kinds of men who are not called to offices of honor. First, the pseudo apostles, who at that time could be found everywhere and whom the devil sowed like tares among the wheat,12 sending them from i2 Cf. Matt. 13:25. the north like the boiling caldron of Jeremiah.13 Secondly, those who assume an office because of ambition. They may not be false apostles or false servants, inasmuch as they teach what is right and true and lead others in a catholic way, yet because they are not called to this office, they are indicted by this word "called." They may not be "thieves and robbers"14 like the false apostles, but still they are mercenaries who seek their own advantage and not the cause of Jesus Christ; they show concern for their sheep only in so far as they expect to reap a profit of honor, gold, or pleasure.
Today a significant number of these is to be found in the church.
To be sure, the Scripture does not indict and condemn them in the same way as it does the false prophets and the false apostles
(i.e., the heretics and schismatics and the unbelievers) of whom it is written15 that they run although they are not sent and speak without being authorized to do so, and seek after lying (Ps. 4:2), etc. Yet God finds them wanting, because it is not from free love but from grasping cupidity that they assume and seek honor for themselves. Thirdly, similar to these are those who force themselves upon their charges or let themselves be forced upon them.
These are worse than those of the second group but not so bad as those who belong to the first one. But because the holy offices are so sublime, no danger in this world and the next is more to be feared; indeed, there is no greater danger than to assume such an office without a call of God. But, alas, many are today completely insensitive to all this and do not give it the slightest thought. How will they be spared if not even those are secure whom God has called! Judas, the apostle, came to ruin;16 Saul fell;17 and David, the chosen one, fell18—and yet they were sublimely called and anointed! Woe, then, to these wretched ones here.
By the second word ("apostle"), he heightens the dignity of his office and induces all the greater reverence for it upon the part of his charges and hearers. For if one must receive every servant of God with reverence and love (as one who performs God's work in us), how much more so an apostle! He is the supreme messenger and the highest angel of the Lord of Lords, i.e., of Jesus Christ.
Indeed, among the many benefits with which God has richly provided us, we must acknowledge with praise and deepest gratitude also this, that out of his abundant kindness he has given men such power, lest we should be too much frightened and our saliscf.Jer. 1:13.
*5Cf. Jer. 23:21: "I did not send prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied."
17 Cf. I Sam. 15:1 ff. is Cf. II Sam. 11:2 ff.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS vation and the work of God in us should be impeded by too great a dread if he were to perform his work in us either himself or by angels. But like a very kindly physician concerned for our infirmity, he has chosen men like ourselves, beings who are familiar to us and whom we do not need to fear at all, in order that thus his work in us might prosper and proceed most fruitfully under the absence of that fear and terror which, in olden times, the prophets had to suffer when they had to receive the word either from God or from an angel. Even Moses could not bear this fright.
Because the word had not yet been made flesh,19 we were not yet able to comprehend it because of its sublimity and our weakness.
But now it is within our reach and it has become flesh and it is being transmitted to us by men of flesh and blood. But for that reason it is not less to be feared and loved. For it is the same word as before, even if it is no longer terrifying but inspires love. But the time will come when it will be all the more terrifying to those who do not want to revere and love it.
Separated unto the gospel of God. (Rom. 1:1.) This can be understood in a twofold way:
First, according to what is written in Acts 13:2: "The Holy Spirit said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto
I have called them." Then the meaning would be this: only he is placed in the apostolate to the Gentiles, while Peter and the other apostles are assigned to the ministry of the circumcision and the Jews. In this way he defines his ministry more fully: he is not only a "servant" and not only an "apostle of God" but he is also "set apart" from others, in order by himself alone to be sent to the Secondly, according to the word of Gal. 1:15: "But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me even from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles." Then the meaning is this: in preference to other Jews he was ordained by God even from his mother's womb to become an apostle to the Gentiles. This is prefigured by Jeremiah, who was told: "Before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you; I have appointed you a prophet unto the nations" (Jer. 1:5). This, only Paul has truly fulfilled. For in the Scriptures the words "sanctify," "separate," and "set apart" signify almost one and the same thing.
It sounds less pretentious and more modest that he calls himself "set apart" rather than "sanctified," because he does not want to speak arrogantly of himself, is Cf. John 1:14.
For what is consecrated by God as holy is set apart and separated and thus sanctified, namely, separated, from any association with unholy things.
That is why "I have sanctified you" is the same as to say, "I have set you apart from all profane things." And it is the holy will of God that, in terms of the allegorical interpretation, you set yourselves apart from evil men and, in terms of the moral interpretation, from sins.
Therefore, to say "separated unto the gospel of God" is the same as to say: Relieved from all other tasks, I am dedicated, introduced, and consecrated to this single office to teach the gospel, as a priest is set apart and separated in order to offer the sacrifice.
This meaning is more acceptable than the one I mentioned first.
In short, with this word he rebukes those who, though they are set apart to the ministry of God and are therefore in the business of the Lord, are yet involved in other and secular undertakings as if they were of the world. Indeed, the apostle directs our attention to the fact that he is not set apart for any kind of work but solely for the gospel; he says: My chief work is to spread the gospel, as in I Cor. 1:17: "Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel"; the other apostles may be set apart for other kinds of work, but I am set apart for the gospel.
Which he promised afore. (Rom. 1:2.) This he says in order that one should not think that the strongest and most telling proof of the truth of the gospel, namely, that its coming is testified to by the Law and the Prophets, is the fruit of our merits and the invention of human wisdom. For the gospel proclaims what according to prophecy it should proclaim. This proves that before it became what it is, it was foreordained in God's counsel to be what it has become. Thus the glory of this teaching belongs to God alone and not to us and our merits and achievements. Before we came into being, it was ordained—as it says itself: "I was set up from everlasting and of old" (i.e., in the form of the law), "before the earth was" (i.e., the church) which was made through me [scil., wisdom] (Prov. 8:23). It is the gospel, the wisdom and power of God, which has established the church and does all that wisdom says of itself in its own praise.
So it is written in Amos 3:7: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing except he reveal his secret unto his servants the prophets."
And so also in Isa. 48:5 f.: "I have declared it to you from of old"
(i.e., in the old law): "before it came to pass I showed it to you, lest you should say, Mine idol" (i.e., the imagination of my wisdom) "has done them and my molten image has commanded them.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS You have heard it" (at the time of the Law and the Prophets); "behold all this" (namely, now in the time of grace), etc.
Through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures. (Rom. 1:2.) He says this in order to indicate the difference of the gospel from the promise given before the times, about which Titus (Titus 1:2) says: "which God, who cannot lie, promised before times eternal."
For this promise is the foreordination from eternity of all things to come. But the promise through the prophets happens in time and in human words. It is a wonderful sign of God's condescension that, over and above his eternal promise, he gives this pledge in human words, and not only in oral but also in written ones. All this is done in order that, as the promise is fulfilled, they will serve as the evidence that he had planned it so, so that one may recognize that Christianity20 did not originate by accident or in the fate of the stars21 (as many empty-headed people presume), but that it became what it was to be by the certain counsel and premeditated ordination of God. And, for another reason, he rightly adds: "in the Holy Scriptures." For if he had merely said: "through his prophets," the calumny would be possible that he was adducing the dead who, together with their words, no longer exist. But now he refers and points to their writings which are available to this day.
Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. (Rom. 1:3-4.)
As far as I know, this passage has not been adequately and correctly interpreted by anyone. The ancients were blocked by an inadequate interpretation of it, and the moderns because they lacked the Spirit. Nevertheless, making use of the work of others, we are so bold as to test our intellect at it, avoiding any infringement of the spirit of true piety. It seems to me that what the apostle means to say is as follows: The substance, or the object, or (as some say21a) the subject of the gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son of 2 0 Luther writes: "religio
In Luther's time, the term religio had a twofold significance: (1) It meant the monastic life. A monk was called religiosus.
(2) In accordance with Cicero's usage (e.g., De inventione 110), it meant the "service of God." This was also Augustine's understanding of the term (cf. De civ. Dei, X, 3: "Religio
. . . nihil aliud est quam cidtus divinus").
2 1 This reference to astrology may have been inspired by the criticisms of Gerson and Pico della Mirandola.
2 1 a Nicholas of Lyra.
God, born of the seed of David according to the flesh and now established in power as the King and Lord of all and this according to the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead. Here the Greek text22 is most helpful; it reads as follows: "Concerning his
Son, made of the seed of David, who was selected or designated, declared, ordained to be the Son of God in power according to the spirit of sanctification by the resurrection from the dead, even
Jesus Christ our Lord/* Now as to the details: The gospel deals with ''his Son," not with the Son of God as such, but with the incarnate One who was born of the seed of David. This means that he emptied himself and became weak. He who was before all, and who made all, now has himself a beginning and was made.
Yet the gospel speaks not only of the humility of the Son of God by which he emptied himself but, rather, of the glory and power which after his humiliation he received from God in his humanity; in other words: as the Son of God by his humbling and emptying himself was made the son of David in the weakness of the flesh, so by contrast the son of David, who is weak according to the flesh, is now in turn established and declared to be the Son of God in all power and glory; and, as according to the form of God, he emptied himself into the nothingness of the flesh by being born into the world, so, according to the form of a servant, he fulfilled himself unto the fullness of God by ascending into heaven.
Note how very appropriately the apostle chooses his words: he does not say: "who was the Son of God in power/' in the same way in which he says: "who was made according to the flesh." For from the very moment of Christ's conception it was correct to say, in view of the union of the two natures: This Son is the son of David and this man is the Son of God. The first is true because his divinity is emptied and hidden in the flesh. The second is true because his humanity is fulfilled and translated into divinity. And though he was not born as the Son of God but as a human son, he was nevertheless always the Son and is even now the Son of God. But men did not recognize his designation and appointment as the Son of God. Though he was endowed with power over all and was indeed the Son of God, he did not yet exercise it and was not acknowledged as the Son of God. This happened only through the spirit of sanctification. For the Spirit was not yet given because
Jesus was not yet glorified. "He shall glorify me" (John 16:14), he 22 Luther used the Pauline commentary of Faber Stapulensis (Epistolae Pauli
Apostoli. Paris, 1512; 2d ed., 1515). Faber attempted a new translation from Greek into Latin. However, Luther relied chiefly on Laurentius Valla
(Annotationes in latinam Novi Testamenti interpretationem, edited by Erasmus; Paris, 1505).
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS said. Through the apostles, the Holy Spirit designated and declared him to be the Son of God with power over all, to whom everything should be subject because God the Father had made him Lord and Christ.23
This is what is meant by the phrase "who was predestined to be the Son of God," i.e., this man, the son of David according to the flesh, is declared to be the Son* of God in power, namely, set over all things, because he was the son of David in weakness subject to all—and all this "according to the spirit of sanctification."
To him, the glorification of Christ must be attributed, as was stated before.
But the Holy Spirit did this only after the resurrection of Christ.
Therefore, the apostle adds:, "by the resurrection from the dead."
For the Holy Spirit was given only after Christ had risen.
It is therefore obvious that "predestined" is a poor translation, in view of the fact that the Greek text reads "oristhentos/* i.e.,
"designated," in the sense of "designation" and "determination."
So also in the schools, orismos means the "designation," "delineation," and "determination" of something that is declared, manifested, and indicated as something to be held and believed. For a "designation" is an indication that "denotes" something. So then, this passage must be understood as follows: In the gospel, Christ is by the Holy Spirit declared and manifested to be the Son of God in power over all things. Before the resurrection this was not revealed and manifested but was, rather, hidden in the flesh of And when the passage reads: "the spirit of sanctification" rather than the "Holy Spirit," this does not matter much, for it is the same Spirit who in terms of his effect is called either holy or sanctifying.
Furthermore, when the text says: "in power/9 it must be understood to speak of the power over all things according to the prophetic word in Ps. 8:6 and Heb. 1:2: "Whom he appointed heir over all things."
We conclude then: the gospel deals with his Son who was born out of the seed of David, and is now manifested as the Son of God with power over all things through the Holy Spirit that was given from the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ our Lord.
So you see that the gospel is the message about Christ the Son of God, who was first humbled and then glorified through the Holy
To be sure, this genitive: "of Jesus Christ, our Lord"24 is am24 Cf. Valla. Lyra and Faber argue for the ablative. biguous. It can be taken as either a genitive or an ablative, because the meaning of the Greek text cannot be definitely determined.
If it is a genitive, it must be connected with the word "resurrection" so as to read: "by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead." If it is an ablative, it must be connected with the phrase: "concerning his Son, who was born," etc.
And when our translation25 reads: "of the dead," its meaning is obscure even though this does not make much difference. Therefore, we think it is better to translate according to the meaning rather than literally, i.e., " from the dead."
"The gospel" is not only what Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John have written. This is made plain enough in this passage. For it states specifically that the gospel is the word of the Son of God, who became flesh, suffered, and was glorified.
Therefore, it makes no difference whether Matthew or Thomas wrote it down and taught it and in what words and in what language: the gospel of God is the same. It does not matter how many books and authors teach it, for what they all teach is one and the same thing. When, therefore, the apostle says of a certain brother:
"whose praise is in the gospel through all the churches,"27 this is not necessarily to be understood to refer to the Gospel of Luke28 but, rather, to the fact that it was his praise and distinction that he could teach the gospel, i.e., the word of God. So also Apollos and others had similar praise because they knew how to preach Christ well and richly.
Also the passage which says: "according to my gospel" (Rom.
2:16) does not need to be interpreted with reference to the Gospel of Luke, as if Luke had written down what Paul preached or as if what the former had written down the latter had preached. But he says "my" gospel because he himself preached the word of God
"concerning his Son," as the passage we are dealing with puts it.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believes, to the Jew first and to the It is to be noted that in this passage "virtus" is to be understood as "potency" or "power," or as "Muglickeit/'29 which means
26 Corollarium (garland), an appendix, stating a conclusion implied in a foregoing exposition.
28 So Faber, in his Commentary.
LUTIIER: LECTURES ON ROMANS "possibility." And "power of God" does not mean that power by which he is powerful in himself but that power by which he makes powerful and strong. As we speak of "God's gift," "God's creature,"
"God's concern," so we also speak of "God's power" (i.e., the potency which comes from God). So we read in Acts 4:23: "and with great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ," and in Acts 1:8: "And ye shall receive power when the Holy Spirit is come upon you," and in the last chapter of Luke (ch. 24:49): "until you be clothed with power from on high," and in Luke 1:35: "The power of the Most High shall overshadow you."
It is to be noted, secondly, that the "power of God" is here distinguished from the power of men. For this latter power is the potency from which man derives his strength and health according to the flesh and by which he is enabled to do what is of the flesh.
But God has completely annulled this power by the cross of Christ in order to give his own power by which the spirit is strengthened and saved and by which one is enabled to do what is of the spirit
(Ps. 60:11 f.): "Vain is the salvation of man; through God we shall do mightily"; and Ps. 33:16 f.: "The king is not saved by much power; nor shall the giant be saved by his own great strength; a horse is a vain thing for safety; neither shall he be saved by the abundance of his strength." This, then, is the meaning of the phrase "The gospel is the power of God": The gospel is the power of the spirit or the riches, arms, ornaments, and every good of this
Spirit (all that it is able to do) and this comes from God. In the same way, we commonly understand riches, arms, gold, silver, kingdoms, and other things of this sort to mean the power of men by means of which they are enabled to perform their deeds and without which they can do nothing. But as 1 have said before, all these things must be entirely destroyed, or at least the yearning for them; otherwise, the power of God will not be in us. For the rich and powerful do not receive the gospel and therefore neither do they receive the power of God, as it is written: "The poor have good tidings preached unto them" (Luke 7:22). "But," as we read in Ps. 49:6, "they trust in their own strength and glory in the multitude of their riches."
Therefore it is to be noted, in the third place, that whosoever does not really believe is to this day not only "ashamed" of the gospel but also sets himself over against it, at least in his own thought and action. This is because one that finds pleasure and enjoyment in the things of the flesh and the world can necessarily not find taste and pleasure in the things of the Spirit and of God: so not only is he ashamed to bring the gospel to others but he refuses to have it brought to himself. For he hates the light and loves darkness; therefore he cannot bear to be told the truth of salvation.
Moreover, "to be ashamed of the gospel9' is the fault of a clergyman who lacks courage; but to set himself against it and to refuse to hear it is the fault of a layman who has become foolish. This becomes apparent when a preacher lets himself be intimidated by the power or favor or number of his listeners and does not utter the necessary truth, and when an insensitive man in the pew despises the lowliness and humbleness of the word. Then it becomes to him foolishness, as if it were something insane. "The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot know them/' (I Cor. 2:14.) "The mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be." (Rom. 8:7.)
We therefore come to the following conclusion: he who believes in the gospel must become weak and foolish before men, so that he may be strong and wise in the power and wisdom of God, as it is written in I Cor. 1:17, 25: "God chose the foolish things of the world that he might put to shame them that are wise. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." When you therefore observe that the power of God can readily be rejected, let this be a sign of the power of the flesh and the world. This is why all power, wisdom, and righteousness are hidden and buried and not apparent, in accordance with the image and likeness of Christ, who emptied himself in order to hide completely his power, wisdom, and goodness, disclosing only his weakness, foolishness, and harsh suffering. In a similar way, one who is powerful, wise, and at ease must have these goods as if he had them not. That is why the life of the princes of this world and of the lawyers is the most dangerous one, because they must maintain themselves by power and knowledge. For when these are not apparent and when they are hidden even to the slightest extent, they no longer count for anything. But when they are apparent, then "there is death in the pot" (II Kings 4:40), especially if one likes to parade them before men in order that they should be appreciated by them. For it is difficult to despise and hide from one's own esteem what everyone regards highly.
The righteousness of God is revealed. (Rom. 1:17.) Human teachings reveal the righteousness of men, i.e., they teach who is righteous and how a man can be and become righteous before himself and his fellow men. But only the gospel reveals the righteousness of God (i.e., who is righteous and how a man can be i8
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS and become righteous before God) by that faith alone by which one believes the word of God.30 "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that disbelieves shall be condemned." (Mark
16:16.) For the righteousness of God is the cause of salvation.31
Here, too, "the righteousness of God" must not be understood as that righteousness by which he is righteous in himself, but as that righteousness by which we are made righteous (justified) by Him, and this happens through faith in the gospel. Therefore, Blessed
Augustine writes in the sixteenth chapter of his book On the Spirit and the Letter:32 "The righteousness of God is that righteousness which he imparts in order to make men righteous. Just as that is the Lord's salvation by which he saves us/' He says the same thing in the ninth chapter of the same book. The righteousness of God must be distinguished from the righteousness of men which comes from works—as Aristotle in the third chapter of his Ethics™ clearly indicates. According to him, righteousness follows upon and flows from actions. But, according to God, righteousness precedes works and works result from it. Similarly, no one can perform the works of a bishop or a priest unless he is first consecrated and sanctified to such an office; righteous works of men who are not yet righteous can thus be likened to the works of someone who performs the functions of a priest and bishop although he is far from being a priest; in other words, such works are foolish and done for sport and resemble the doings of circus entertainers.
We must note further that the phrase from faith unto faith (Rom. 1:17) is interpreted in various ways. Lyra wants to understand it as if it meant "from unformed faith to formed faith."34
But this is meaningless, because no righteous man lives by an unformed faith. But Lyra says here both of these things, unless he wants to understand the unformed faith as the faith of beginners and the formed faith as that of the perfect. But unformed faith is, strictly speaking, no faith at all but, rather, the object to which faith is directed. At any rate, I do not think that it is possible for 3 0 In his first Commentary on T h e Psalms, Luther remarked on Rom. 1:17-18:
"Haec est conclusio totius Epistolae It is significant that this remark -was made in connection with an exposition of Ps. 31:2: "Deliver me in thy righteousness [in iustitia libera me]" for, as Luther, later on in his life, frequently said, it was the phrase "the righteousness of God" that had caused him deep spiritual trouble, especially in so far as it was to be understood in relation to the "good news" of the gospel.
3 2 Augustine, De spir. et lit., 11, 18; 9,15.
3 3 Aristotle, Eth. Nicom., Ill, 7; V, 9; V, 10. T h e Scholastics generally cited 34 "Ex fide informi ad fidem formatam." anyone to believe by unformed faith—all that one can accomplish by it is to get an insight of what one must believe and thus to remain in suspense.
Others interpret the passage as follows: "from the faith of the fathers of the old law to the faith of the new law/' This interpretation is passable, though one can readily refute it by the argument that the text "The righteous man lives by faith" cannot possibly mean that the righteous man lives by the faith of his ancestors.
The fathers had the same faith as we; there is only one faith, though it may have been less clear to them, just as today the scholars have the same faith as the laymen, only more clearly.
The meaning of the passage appears, then, to be as follows: the righteousness of God is entirely from faith, yet growth does not make it more real but only gives it greater clarity—according to II Cor. 3:18: "We are transformed into the same image from glory to glory," etc., and Ps. 84:7: "They shall go from strength to strength." And just so also "from faith to faith," by always believing more and more strongly, so that he "who is righteous can be justified still" (Rev. 22:11) and so that no one should think that he has already apprehended35 and thus ceases to grow, i.e., begins to backslide.36
Saint Augustine writes in the eleventh chapter of On the Spirit and the Letter:*1 "from the faith of those who confess it by word of mouth to the faith of those who prove it by their obedience."
And Burgos offers this interpretation: "from the faith of the synagogue" (as the starting point) "to the faith of the church" (as the finishing point). But the apostle says that righteousness comes from faith; yet the heathen did not have a faith from which, in order to be justified, they could have been led to another one.
That which is known of God is manifested in them. (Rom.
This is a Greek form of speech which in our language is best rendered in abstract terms, as e.g., "the knowledge of God." So when we read in I Cor. 1:25: "The weakness of God is stronger than men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than men," this means that the weakness and foolishness of God are more powerful, stronger, and wiser than the strength or power and the wisdom of men. All this is said to be God's, not because it is in him, but because it is in us coming from him. The foolishness and weakness of God are the same as the life according to the gospel
36 "Desinat proficere," i.e., "incipiat deficere."
37 Augustine, De spit* et lit, 11, 18.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS by which God makes us appear foolish and weak before men—and this is our outer being. But the wisdom and power of God are the life according to the gospel and the very rule of the Christian life, by which he makes and reputes us wise and strong before himself— and this according to our inner being. Thus there prevails here an alternate relationship: the foolishness and weakness of God before men are wisdom and power before God and, by contrast, the wisdom and power of the world are weakness, even death, before God, as will be explained below in ch. 6 of the letter before us.38
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice. (Rom. 1:18.)
The apostle turns chiefly upon those who in this world have power and knowledge, because he knows that, when they are humbled, also their subjects and the common people will readily humble themselves. Moreover, in his opinion it was they who most strongly opposed the gospel and the word and the life of the cross and incited others to opposition against it. Therefore, he imputes guilt and sin seemingly to these alone and proclaims the wrath of God upon them.
For to no one the preaching of the cross appears so foolish as to the philosophers and the men of power, because it goes contrary to all they are and feel.
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
Some89 (and, unless I am mistaken, also the Master of the Sentences)40 interpret as follows: "By the creature of the world/' i.e.,
"the invisible things of God are seen." But this rendering can easily be refuted by reference to the Greek text which reads:
"Since the creation of the world" or, as it is put in Matt. 25:34:
"from the foundation of the world."
So we must say: "From the creation of the world" (i.e., from the beginning of the world, not merely from now on) it has always been so, that the invisible nature of God was seen and perceived in his works, as will become plain farther on.
The meaning therefore is this: Even if the wise of this world should be unable to perceive that the world is created, they could
*° Peter Lombard, I Sent, d. 3. The Vulgate reads: "A creatura." perceive the invisible things of God in the works of the created world if, namely, they were to regard these works that witness to God, as word and Scripture. "For seeing that in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom knew not God, it was God's pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe/' (I Cor. 1:21.) This interpretation seems to be contradicted by the fact that the text says that they knew God, but the difficulty is readily solved by what we read a little farther on: Even if they knew God, "they refused to have God in their knowledge," i.e., by their actions they gave themselves the appearance of not knowing him.
For the sake of a clearer understanding we must note that the apostle rebukes in these words not the Romans only, as many believe.41 He addresses himself, not to certain persons, but to all people, including the Romans. This can be seen clearly in the words of the apostle below in ch. 3:9 of this letter: "We laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin." He therefore excepts none, because he says "all." One must imagine that, while speaking, the apostle has the entire world before his eyes as if it were one whole body. The members of this body are different; individually they have therefore not done all the apostle charges them with, but altogether they have done all of it (some by committing one fault, and others by committing another), so that he can attribute all these faults to the whole body and not to the head alone. For there can be no doubt that neither all Romans nor all Gentiles were guilty of all of this. But because as nonChristians they were members of this body, they are rebuked one with another. Such is the usage of the Scripture according to the second and fourth rule of Scriptural interpretation, i.e., it passes from a part to the whole and, conversely, from the species to the genus.42 In one breath it speaks in the same way about the good and the evil ones; it assails and even punishes the former together with the evil ones, and it bestows benefits and favors upon the latter together with the good ones. Everyone who addresses himself to the general community must necessarily observe this rule, though experience shows that not all its members are equally
42 In the second prologue to his Postil, Lyra set down four rules for the proper understanding of Scripture. The first deals with Jesus Christ and his church; the second, with the true body of Christ; the third, with the spirit and the letter (in one and the same literal word there is to be found a historical and a mystical meaning); the fourth, with the species and the genus, or with the part of a whole, i.e., with the transition from the one to the other and conversely. ("Quarta regula est de specie et genere sive de parte a toto cum de uno transit ad aliud et e converso")
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS culpable or laudable. Nevertheless, he rebukes the Romans and the people of culture all the more severely and strongly because they are and were the leaders of the world by virtue of their political power and their knowledge. So, following the very order of Baptism, he begins with them as with the head and then gradually goes down to the others and finally includes all in the sentence:
"being filled with all iniquity," etc.
Moral Rule:43 The lesson he teaches here is that the preachers of the gospel must first of all rebuke the prominent leaders among the people, not, to be sure, in their own words produced from their own sick and perturbed minds, but in the words of the Gospel; i.e., they must show how and when they act and live counter to the gospel. To be sure, today the number of such workers is small. In a similar way, according to common belief, John the Baptist poured water upon our Lord from the head down,44 not water that he himself had specially obtained for this purpose, but water from the Jordan. Take note of this mystery lest you tell the story of the gospel in terms of your own wild imagination.
So the letter of Paul is (as all preaching of the word of God must be) like a river that springs from Paradise and like the Nile that inundates all of Egypt. Yet such an inundation must start somewhere. So also the flood which the Lord releases through the apostle Paul covers the whole world and all peoples, but it makes its entry from the heads and leaders of this world and gradually overflows all others. This must be carefully noted. Otherwise, if we follow Lyra and those who agree with him, it will be very difficult to understand the letter, as there will then be no connection between what follows and what precedes, in view of the fact that he sees in the first chapter only the Romans criticized (which opinion also his Prologue supports) and yet what follows must be understood with respect to all nations, indeed the whole mass of the lost human race.45 For it is the purpose of the apostle to demonstrate
Christ as the savior of all men and not only of the Romans or of the Jews at Rome, though, to be sure, he shows him primarily to them—but then together with them also to others.
Because that which is known of God is manifested in them. For 4 3 T h e rule that can be derived from the "moral" or "tropological" interpretation of Scripture. Nicholas of Lyra offered the following definition: "When a Scripture passage is read in terms of what it signifies about what we must do, then this is the moral meaning." (Cf. Ficker, p. 175, n. 9.)
4 4 T h e reference is to popular pictures, esp. in the form of Bible illustrations (e.g., in the Biblia pauperum).
4 5 "Universa massa perditionis"
(Augustine, De gratia et pecc.
*9> 34)ROMANS, CHAPTER ONE God has manifested it unto them. For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable. (Rom. 1:19, 20.)
With this he gives to understand that also the natural goods are to be ascribed to God as the giver. The sentence which follows shows plainly that it is the natural knowledge of God which is here dealt with: it says how he has manifested himself to them by the fact that the invisible things of him are clearly seen from the creation of the world (i.e., are knowable in a natural way from their effects). This means that, from the creation of the world, it has always been the case that the "invisible things of him are clearly seen/' and this is said in order that nobody may cavil and say that only in our time it was possible to know God. For it has been possible to know him from the beginning of the world and at all times, and it is possible now.
But in order that the apostle may be more clearly understood in his arguments, I shall try my hand at explaining what I think he means, in the hope that my readers will either support or criticize me.
That, as we read here, the knowledge of God was open to all men, and especially to idolaters, so that they are without excuses when it is proved to them that they had known the invisible things of God, namely, his very divinity and eternity and power, can plainly be demonstrated by the fact that all who made idols for themselves worshiped them and called them gods or God, believing that God was immortal (i.e., eternal) and also capable and able to help, thereby giving clear evidence that they had the knowledge of God in their hearts. For how could they call a picture or some other created thing God, or believe that created things resembled him, if they had no knowledge of God and what pertains to him?
How could they attribute such qualities to a stone or to that which they thought the stone represented if they did not believe God to be entitled to them? Now when they held that the divine (which, to be sure, they divide into many gods) is something invisible and that he who has divinity is invisible, immortal, powerful, wise, and gracious to those who call upon him, I say, when they hold this so definitely that they profess it also by their actions, namely, by the invocation, worship, and adoration of those in whom they believe divinity to reside, it follows most certainly that they were endowed with a knowledge or notion of the divine nature. And without a doubt, they have it because God gave it to them, as our text says.
Their error was that in their worship they did not take the Godhead for what it is in itself, but changed it by fitting it to their
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS own needs and desires. Everyone wanted the Godhead to be in him whom he happened to like, and thus they turned the truth of God into a lie.
They knew, therefore, that it is the nature of divinity or of God to be powerful, invisible, righteous, immortal, and good, and thus they knew the invisible things of God and his eternal power and divinity. This "major" of the "practical syllogism/'46 this basic theological "insight of the conscience," is in every mind and can never be obscured. But in the "minor" (of the practical syllogism) they erred when they made the statement: This one here, i.e.,
Jupiter or someone else whom this idol represents, is of this sort, etc. Here lay the beginning of the error that led to idolatry: everyone wanted to subsume the Godhead under his own interest. If they had therefore remained in this awareness of God, saying:
"This we know: whosoever this god or this godhead may be, whose nature it is to be immortal and powerful and able to fulfill the prayers of those who call upon him, we will worship and adore him and we will neither call him Jupiter nor say that he resembles this or that but we shall worship him in his very nature whosoever he is (for exist he must),"47 they would without a doubt have been saved, although they did not acknowledge him as the creator of heaven and earth nor recognize any particular part of his handiwork. This, then, is what is meant by the sentence: "That which is known of God is manifest in them."
But where and how is it manifest? Answer: "The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made." One can observe how men and beasts and even things help and further one another according to their greater power and endowment, and how that which is superior and of greater worth either raises or puts down that which is its inferior. In the same way, there must be that in the universe which is sublimer than everything else, which is higher than all and helps all. For men measure God in terms of the benefits they receive from him.
46 According to later medieval Scholasticism (Gerson, Biel, Trutvetter, etc.), the "practical" syllogism (which was distinguished from the "speculative" syllogism) consisted of the following three parts: major premise, syntheresis; minor premise, ratio (indicium); conclusion, conscientia.
Synteresis, originally a misreading of the Greek Syneidesis (conscience), was defined as a "natural inclination" of the soul toward the good, an inextinguishable spark (scintilla) of reason, an inborn habitus. Conscientia
(conscience) was understood in relation to specific actions. It was therefore defined as changeable, either accusing or excusing. Cf. Ficker, p. 177, n. 14; Ellwein, p. 484, n. 25; and for the whole history of the doctrine of conscience down to Luther: E. Hirsch, op. cit., Vol. I (an important, illuminating treatise).
47 "Necesse est esse"
Hence, as we read in Pliny,48 in ancient times people deified their benefactors in order thus to express their gratitude to them.
Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.
If they did not "glorify him as God" ("ut Deum") or as if he were God (sicut Deum), did they then glorify something else than
God? He obviously seems to indicate this, and what follows has the same meaning: and changed the glory, etc. (Rom. 1:23), i.e., they did not worship him as God but as if he were the likeness of an image, and thus they did not worship God but a figment of their own making. This interpretation I readily accept. The Children of Israel, too, were rebuked for having worshiped Baal and calves, and yet they obviously intended to worship the true God in these symbols and idols, and this they were forbidden to do.
How many there are even today who worship him not as if he were God but as if he were as they themselves imagine him for themselves! Look at the odd practices of superstition and see how utterly vain they are! If you disregard what you ought to do and worship God by a work of your own choosing, and believe at the same time that God is one who concerns himself for you and your affairs as if he were another than the one who has manifested himself to you by his commandments—does this not mean exchanging the glory of God for a likeness of the imagination and your own fancy? So, as we can everywhere observe, also today many have fallen victim to a selfish and reprehensible way of thinking.
One can also say simply: "They did not glorify him as God,"4d which means they did not glorify God as it would have been proper for them to glorify him and to give him thanks. The word
"not" then emphasizes the failure to glorify God. If the word "not" negates the adverb "as," then, in accordance with our first interpretation, the act of glorifying is affirmed while the manner by which it is performed is denied. The context allows both interpretations.
Now, take note of the order of the stages of perdition. The first is ingratitude or the failure to be grateful. Thus, Lucifer before the Fall was ungrateful to his Creator. It is the result of self-com48 Pliny, Nat. hist, II, 7 (5), 19.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS placency: forgetting the giver, one delights in accepting gifts as if one had not received them. The second is vanity: one feeds on one's own self and all that is created and enjoys that which lets itself be used, and so one becomes necessarily vain "in his own thoughts," i.e., in all one's plans, efforts, and undertakings. For whatever one looks for and seeks is altogether vain, because one seeks only himself, i.e., his own glory, delight, and advantage. The third is deluded blindness: deprived of the truth and immersed in vanity, one necessarily becomes blind in one's whole feeling and thinking because one is blocked in upon himself. Thus confined to darkness, what else can one undertake but what one who blindly wanders about looks for in his ignorance? For a blind man easily falls into error; indeed, in a way, he is always in error. Therefore the fourth is to be in error toward God, and this is the worst because it leads to idolatry. To have come this far means to have come to the abyss. For to one who has lost God, nothing is left but to be exposed to every kind of turpitude that the devil invents.
The result is that deluge of evils and bloodshed of which the apostle speaks below.
By the same stages, people even today come to commit spiritual idolatry of a more subtle kind, and it is quite frequent: they worship God not as he is but as they imagine and desire him to be.
Ingratitude, namely, and the love of vanity (i.e., the sense of selfimportance and of self-righteousness or, as one says, of "good intentions")50 delude people terribly, so that they become incorrigible, unable to believe anything else but that they behave splendidly and are pleasing to God. Thus, they make themselves a gracious God, though this does not correspond to reality. And so they worship the product of their own imagination more truly than the true God himself, who they believe resembles this product of their fancy. Here now "they change him into the likeness of their own imagination" (Rom. 1:23), which exists only in their corruptible minds that know only carnal desires. See, then, how great an evil ingratitude is: it produces a love of vanity, and this results in blindness, and blindness in idolatry, and idolatry brings about a whole whirlpool of vices.51
50 As his frequent treatment of this theme in these lectures shows, Luther was greatly preoccupied with the theological-psychological notion of "good intention" (bona intentio), especially in so far as later medieval piety and theology prescribed that in order to be acceptable in God's sight (coram
Deo), man must give evidence of a "good" or "pious" intention. Cf. Gabriel Biel, II Sent., d. 40, q. un., n. 2. Ficker (p. 179, n. 14) quotes a passage from the Meissen Breviary: "We must earn the intention of good will [intentionem bonae voluntatis debemus mereri]."
61 "Gurges vitiorum" a term that, according to Ficker (p. 179, n. 22), was part of the apocalyptic terminology of the late Middle Ages.
Gratitude, however, keeps the love for God and thus holds the heart directed toward him. Because it is thereby also illumined, it worships, once it is illumined, only the true God, and to this worship there soon attaches itself the whole chorus of virtues.62
Wherefore God gave them up to the lusts of their own hearts.
This "giving up" is not so much a permission as a commission, a command, of God. This is plainly shown in the last chapter of the first book of Kings (I Kings 22:2,2, f.), where the Lord says to the lying spirit that he should entice Ahab, the King of Israel:
"Thou shalt entice him, and shalt prevail also; go forth and do so."
Then follows the word of the prophet addressed to the same king:
"Now, therefore, behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets." So also David said of him who cursed him (II Sam. 16:10): "Because the Lord has said unto him, Curse
David, • . . let him alone, and let him curse; for the Lord has bidden him/1 In the same way the Lord orders also the devil or the flesh to tempt and overwhelm a man who deserves before God that this should happen to him because of his impiety.
If someone objects and says: God forbids evil, therefore he does not give anyone up to evil, i.e., he does not awaken evil in order that it may dominate and triumph, nor does he command that this should happen, we answer: This is true when he acts in his goodness; but when he punishes in his severity, he causes the wrongdoers all the more to sin against his commandments in order then to punish them all the more.
If we correlate both ideas, we come to the following conclusion: from the viewpoint of the man who is "given up," this "giving up" appears to happen by the permission of God because he withdraws his help from him and deserts him. Then the devil, who is always prepared to expect something of this sort, quickly takes over from God the power of command, or he thinks at least that he has thereby taken it over. In this sense, it happens because God so orders. For it is not correct to say that God orders man to do evil—no, one must rather say that he deserts him so that he cannot resist the devil, who now goes into action by the command and will of God. We may twist and turn the matter as much as we want: we must assert that it is God's will that a man be overwhelmed by sin; moreover, he wills this by his good pleasure in so far as he lets him be overcome by that which he [God] hates most, causing him to become enslaved to that which He intends to pun52 One is reminded of medieval paintings and sculptures depicting a chorus of virtues.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS ish most. For this is the greatest severity: to deliver someone into the hands of him whom he hates most.
It does not follow from this that God wills sin, even though it is done by his will; but what follows is that he does not will it at all and that he hates it. For he lets it be done by his will in order that a man be subjected to what he hates most so that this man may know what a terrible judgment hangs over him; and so God by his will lets that become a fact which he hates most only for the purpose of punishing him, for there is nothing more base than sin. Therefore, in order to let a man who is already covered with shame become subject to sin, He lets that be done which he consistently forbids. Therefore, God lets sin be done, not for sin's sake, but for the sake of penalty and punishment. Just as a man who sins does not will to sin for the sake of sinning (for he would rather that there were no sin) but for the sake of a good which he pursues, so also God wills sin, not for the sake of sin (for he, too, would rather that it were not and he hates all that is sin), but for the sake of punishment and the ill that is contained in it so that he may have regard for the punishment rather than the sin.
This, to be sure, God alone may will. For he is not bound not to will that there be sin, although by his nature he necessarily can neither will nor love it, but he can will and love it, not in so far as it is sin, but in so far as it is punishment. Just so, a father hates to see his son dirtied and stained, yet when the son commits a grave offense, he elects to stain him not in order thereby to please himself but in order to soil the son. Those, therefore, who want to infer from this that God loves and wills evil think in much too simple terms, but still more simple-minded are those who deny that God wills evil only in order that they be not forced to the conclusion that he allows sins to happen.
Therefore, God measures justly when he elects what is evil in sin for the purpose of punishing man, for thereby he elects what is good in sin. For punishment consists (not, as Lyra thinks, in sinning itself per accidens, but) in the vileness of sin. For it is something painful to be or have been subject to a vile sin. The apostle clearly indicates this when he says: "Wherefore God gave them up to sin, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves" (Rom. 1:24). For no other punishment is so ignominious as that which one receives when one is cast into sin. For it is more shameful to be cast into a vile sin than to bear any kind of penalty. Hence, it is not correct to say, as Lyra does, that because
God withholds his grace and thus makes sin possible, sin is per accidens also the penalty for sin. No, nol Sin, or rather the shame which is connected with sin, is in itself the penalty. The fact that grace is withheld is not the punishment. God intends it to be so; he despises sin, to be sure, yet because he cannot bring about shame except in connection with sin, he wills that a man commit sin in order that this shame should overwhelm him. If it were at all possible that such ignominy could become a fact without sin, God would bring this about and he would prohibit sin. But this cannot be.
It is true that God wills evil and sin;53 it is equally true that he understands what evil is and what sinning is. This astounds some authors54 and leads them to assert that the whole Scripture says that he does not will evil and that he hates evildoers. Hence, there must be a contradiction here.
Answer: That he wills evil must be understood in a twofold way (i.e., that he brings it forth from his own will in the same way in which man wills evil—this is impossible with God). He wills evil in a different way—in view of the fact that it remains outside him and that someone else, be it a man or a demon, does it. This is true. For if he did not will it, it would not be done.55 And conversely: He does not will the good because, while he wills that we all should be bound to his commandments, he yet does not will that all obey them. Therefore, all these statements are true: God wills evil; God wills the good; God does not will evil; God does not will the good. But here they raise the objection56 that where there is guilt, there must be free will. But for a profounder theology57 this objection amounts to nothing. To be sure, we are dealing here with the most subtle mysteries of theology, which can be treated only in the circle of experts but not in the presence of simple and inexperienced minds. Because they are able to take only milk but not this very strong wine, they may be plunged into blasphemous thoughts.
For how these two statements can be reconciled and by what criterion they are correct, namely, that God wants to bind me and all other men to himself and yet gives his grace only to whom he wills to give it, and, moreover, that he does not will to give it to all but reserves it for himself to elect some among them—this, I say,
53 Ockham, I Sent., d. 47, q. un. w Cf. Peter Lombard, I Sent, d. 46, 4 ff.; Gabriel Bid, II Sent, d. 37, conch 1, 2 and II Sent, d. 22, q. 1.
5 5 Peter Lombard, I Sent, d. 47, 3.
5 6 Gabriel Biel, II Sent., d. 30, q. 1.
6 7Ficker (p. 182, n. 10) calls attention to a similar judgment of Luther's, expressed in his lectures on The Psalms: "disputatio profundissimi theologi
Pauli" (WA 3, 31,15) and "profunda theologia"
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS we shall see only in the future. Now we can only believe that this is just, because faith is the conviction of things unseen.58 Nevertheless it is true that God never wills any sin for the sake of sin itself. One must, rather, say that according to his will and pleasure he does not justify some in order through them to display an all the greater glory in the elect. And so when he wills sins, he wills them for the sake of something else, namely, for the sake of his glory and for the sake of the elect. This is made clear farther down,59 where it is said that God incited and hardened Pharaoh in order to show his power in him, and again in the passage that says:
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy/' etc.60 In the same way, it is by the fall of the Jews that salvation is given to the Gentiles. In order to show his mercy more clearly to the Gentiles, he caused them to fall. For how could they possibly be evil and do evil if he did not permit it? Indeed, he does this not against his will, but he permits it by his own will. And he wills it in order that the good may shine all the more brightly in contrast to evil.
At this point they cry out in protest and say:61 So, then, one is innocently condemned because he is bound to the commandments and yet is unable to keep them, or one is obliged to do what is impossible. To this the apostle replies: "Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?" (Rom. 9:20). For if your argument is valid, it follows that preaching, prayer, exhortation, yea, even the dying of Christ, are not necessary. But God did not predestine the elect to salvation in this way but through all these means.62 But more of this later.
The lesson to be learned from this text is, then, that when a man yields to such passions, this signifies that, having turned away from God, he has worshiped an idol or changed the truth of God into a lie. For "those who have refused to have God in their knowledge" (Rom. 1:28) can be recognized by the fact that "God" lets them fall into all kinds of vices. And if such portents abound also today, this signifies that much idolatry is being practiced, and of a spiritual kind, of course. It is very bad to change the glory of God into the likeness of an image; this is the sin of blindness and ignorance or of a mistaken heart. But it is worse still not merely to be mistaken but from a perverted mind to worship such things and to adore something created.
60 Cf. Rom. 9:15; Ex. 33:19.
61 Cf. Pierre d'Ailly, Quaestiones super IV libros Sent., Principium in I Sent, G, quinta propos; I Sent, q. 14R. Gabriel Biel, II Sent, d. 28, conch 2.
62 Cf. Rom. 8:29, 33-34.
By comparison, it is less bad "not to have God in one's knowledge." Accordingly, the apostle makes a threefold distinction among those who are given up: a first group is given up to uncleanness (Rom. 1:24 f.); a second one, to unnatural lust (Rom. 1:28 f.); a third one, to "those things which are not fitting" (Rom. 1:28 f.) or not right. The case of the third group is not too surprising.
For where there is no concern for "having the knowledge of God," there the fear of God is necessarily lacking, there men are prone to fall into all kinds of sin. But with respect to the first and second groups, the question arises why exactly this kind of penalty is imposed upon them for this kind of guilt. Answer: Just as one attributes to those who go to see and worship God the highest purity, namely, that of the heart—for this is what they must have if they want to know and worship God—so it is only right, by way of contrast, that those who do not have or refuse to have God in their knowledge should be plunged into the deepest and worst kind of uncleanness, because they are not only unclean of heart (which is the effect of idolatry) but also unclean of body, because those who refuse to be pure of heart cannot be pure of body. For the quality of the souFs relation to God determines the quality of the body's relation to the soul: if one is unclean, then so is the other, and if one is clean, then so is also the other (purity is matched by purity, and impurity by impurity). If they have not glorified God either inwardly or outwardly but, rather, transferred his glory to something else, namely, to an idol, and this out of the fullness of their shameful hearts, it is only right that they should heap shame upon their own bodies and upon one another's (for those who do not give honor to God must dishonor themselves as well as one another). So they receive shame instead of glory for either sin: for having thought God to be like themselves and for having changed him into their own likeness, they must receive the disgrace of uncleanness; and for having transferred their worship from God to something else, they must receive the shame of mutually disgracing their outer bodies. What is more just than that those who turn away from the glory of God should be dishonored, not only in their hearts (and this is idolatry) but also in their bodies?
It is to be noted, however, that, in the opinion of the apostle, not all idol worshipers have done these terrible things but only many among them, as has often been stated. Some did this and others that, but everything together fell at one sweep under God's punishment. There were doubtless many (as, for example, some
Roman consuls) who were not subject to such enormous vices, for a great number of them are famous for having been men of admirable propriety and virtuousness though they were idolaters.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS Nor must one think that he wants these three ways of "being given up/' which he enumerates, to be understood as if they represented the actions of different persons. But it could happen that some were given up to all three, others to one, still others to two— according to the judgment of God. It is the purpose of thev apostle to show that all were sinners and that all were in need of the grace of Christ. Even if they all individually did not commit all these crimes, yet, because every individual among them was an idolater, they were at least in God's sight the associates and equals of those who were given up to that terrible penalty.
It seems that the first part of the second chapter of this letter turns against these same people, as if they had set themselves up as judges over the others despite the fact that they had committed crimes similar to theirs, though, to be sure, not all of them.
Unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves. (Rom. 1:24.) The apostle identifies this kind of dishonor as uncleanness and effeminacy. In I Cor. 6:9 f., he says: "Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, etc., shall inherit the Kingdom of God."
And in Eph. 5:3: "All uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as becomes saints." And in II Cor. 12:21:
"They have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they committed." He calls it also a contumely and a disgrace. For as the glory of the body (at least in this connection) lies in chastity, continence, and, at least, its proper use, so its disgrace consists in its unnatural abuse. Just as a golden vessel is ennobled when it is used as a container of a noble wine, and disgraced when it is used as a container of excrement and filth, so our body (in this respect) is ordained to an honorable marriage and to chastity which is still more honorable. But it is most disgraced and humiliated, not by adultery and unchastity, but by being polluted by an even worse turpitude.
Now "uncleanness," or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual pollution that can be effected in various ways, as by the passionate incitement of lascivious thoughts or by the rubbing of the hands or by the petting of another's body, especially that of a woman, or by obscene movements, etc. I call this kind of uncleanness "intentional" in order to except that pollution which may happen during the night, or even the day, and during waking hours but, as many experience it, is involuntary because it is not brought about intentionally. I call it "individual" because when it happens in sexual intercourse with a person of the same or the other sex it is called by a different name.
Rule: I hardly believe that a young person is chaste if he has no spark of devotion to God in his heart but goes about freely without a concern for God. As he must live either by the flesh or the spirit, either his flesh or his spirit must become inflamed. And there is no better victory over the ardor of the body than the flight and aversion from it by means of devout prayer. For when the spirit is filled with fervor, the body soon cools off and becomes cold, and conversely.
And worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator. (Rom. 1:25.) The second cause for "being given up" is this actual idolatry, just as its first cause was the idolatry of thought in which God was identified with pictures. The penalty for this is all the heavier because the guilt of it is graver. For the disgrace which is passed to another man is all the greater because one disgraces one's body not only at one's own, but at another's, body. Hence, also, the guilt is greater, for the aberration of idolatry and of an empty knowledge of God is now seated not merely in the mind but in deed and action, thus becoming an example and a stumbling block that leads others into temptation. When, within the limits of their reverence for his holy name, they disgrace God in their thoughts by conceiving of him in a fashion that is more than unworthy of him, it is only right that all this should fall back upon their heads, and that they should think and correspondingly act in a way that is unworthy of their humanity.
But, alas, even today a great many people think of God in a way that is unworthy of him; in bold and daring arguments they define
God to be such and such, and not one among them grants God so much honor as to elevate God's all-excelling majesty above his own judgment and comprehension. Instead, they raise their own thinking to such a level that it is no more difficult and terrifying for them to pass judgment on God than it is for a simple cobbler to appraise his leather. In their presumptuousness they dare assert that God's nature, his righteousness, and his mercy are what they think they ought to be, as if they were filled and, indeed, drunk with the spirit that searches the deep things of God,63 which in fact they completely lack. Of this sort are the heretics, the Jews, the folk of spiritual pride, and all who are outside God's grace. For no one can think rightly about God unless the Spirit of God is in him.
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS Apart from him, he will speak and judge wrongly about whatever may come under his judgment—God's righteousness or mercy, himself or others. For the Spirit of God must give testimony to our spirit.64
The third way of "being given up" (which, compared to the others, is less disgraceful) is the failure to know God: They refused to have God in their knowledge (Rom. 1:28). On account of this guilt they are given up to various vices, i.e., there are various and many vices to which or to some of which God has given them up and, if not to all of them, then to some of them. For not all of them are implicated in murder or in all the other vices. And God does not punish and give them all up in the same way, although they all have sinned somehow in the same way. If you ask why this is so, we answer: God wants it so according to his hidden judgment and because he wants all presumptuous talk to be stopped in view of the fact that one man, though a sinner, does at the same time something good, while another does nothing of the kind or, in case he does, does less of it. Nobody has the right to define the rule by which God punishes sins or rewards the good. Accordingly, therefore, when he lets men fall into sin, he nevertheless has mercy on the one and forgives him, while he hardens another and condemns him. Similarly, he lets people live a good life and yet he reproves and rejects the one and accepts and crowns another.
"Being filled with unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:29); for so reads the Greek text, and not "with iniquity."65 In the Holy Scriptures the following distinction is made between unrighteousness and impurity (if one compares the translation66 with the Hebrew text): unrighteousness is the sin of unbelief or the absence of that righteousness which comes from faith, for, as we read in Rom.
1:17; Mark 16: 16, and in many other passages, righteous is he who believes and unrighteous he who does not believe. A man who does not believe is disobedient, and a man who does not obey is unrighteous. For the very character of disobedience is unrighteousness and sin, according to a word of Ambrose, who says:67 "Sin is disobedience of the divine commandments."
"Iniquity," however, is the name for the sin of self-righteousness, which men choose for themselves out of a foolish zeal for piety. Thus it is said in Matt. 7:23: "Depart from me, all you that 65 The Vulgate reads "iniquitate."
Faber translates the Greek "adikia" by 6<* I.e., the Vulgate.
67 Ambrose, De paradiso, 8, 39. work iniquity," precisely with reference to the mighty works they claim to have done in the name of Christ. We can therefore make the following simple definition: iniquity consists in this, that you fail to live up to what you are bound to do, and do instead what seems right to you, while uprightness, by contrast, consists in this, that you do what you ought to do, regardless of what seems right to you. Lawyers, of course, define the same terms differently. Iniquity is then to be taken as a relative or comparative term, specifically in comparison with true righteousness, on the one hand, and self-righteousness, on the other.
Malice (Rom. 1:29) is that perverse tendency in man to do evil despite the good he has received, indeed, the tendency to use for evil purposes all the goods he has received from God or man.
Goodness, by contrast, is the tendency in man to do the good even though his effort is hindered and checked by some wrong done to him; it makes evil serve for good. Yet, in contrast to worldly goodness, a man is not good in the spiritual sense of goodness if he does the good only as long as he prospers and no one opposes him. In German, the accurate meaning of bonus is fromm and of malus, hose. This is the sense also of the saying of Matt. 7:18: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit/' This is said against the foolish people who shift their own guilt upon others and say: "It would not be difficult for me to be good if I could live among good people or could get rid of the bad ones that trouble me."
In similar contrast stand the terms: benignity and malignity.
Benignity is a friendly readiness to live together with others; it is kindness, i.e., the tendency of mind to do good to others and to be indulgent toward them. It is of two kinds: there is the perfect, or Christian, benignity, which remains the same in the face of gratitude or ingratitude; and there is human, or worldly, imperfect benignity, which remains constant only as long as it finds a response but ceases when it encounters ingratitude or some evil.
"You shall be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect" (Matt.
5:48), and "You shall be the sons of the Most High, for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil" (Luke 6:35). Malignity, by contrast, is the perverse and harsh tendency to do ill to others and to be vindictive toward them. It, too, is of two kinds: there is that malignity which is the opposite of that heroic and catholic or Christian kindness: from a perverseness of the heart it inflicts injury upon the grateful and the good, not only upon the evil (and it does not make a halt even before benefactors). This is brutal unkindness. The other sort of malignity is the opposite of human and imperfect benignity: it seeks to harm others and to do them
LUTHER: LECTURES ON ROMANS ill but it makes a halt before benefactors. In this light we can understand the saying of the apostle in Gal. 5:22: "The fruit of the spirit is goodness and kindness."
Wickedness (Rom. 1:29) is that mental perverseness which causes one to avoid intentionally an opportunity to help his fellow man and to protect him from evil. In this sense Blessed Augustine seems to interpret it in his book On Order,68 for he states there that the word "nequitia" (which translated means "wickedness") is derived from nequire (to be unable), so that one (who has nequitia) is unable to do good, namely, from maliciousness. Others behave in this way out of envy or from sheer insolence.
Dissolute (Rom. 1:31) are those who are coarse in their speech, action, and dress, live in dissolute license, and do as they please.
A whisperer (Rom. 1:29) differs from a detractor (Rom. 1:30) in this, that a detractor tries to undermine another's reputation, while the whisperer sows discord by secretly suggesting this to the one and that to the other. Every whisperer is double-tongued, but a detractor is not (Ecclus. 28:15).
«s A similar interpretation is to be found in Augustine, De beata vita, 8, but nowhere in De ordine.