The Lectures of Dr. Martin on the First Epistle to Timothy It is the intention of Paul1 that we should be rich in the Word of God (1 Cor. 1:5), because our adversary, the devil, prowls around
(1 Peter 5:8). Therefore it is not only pleasing to God but also nec¬ essary for us that we abide in the Word of God, and we have no other weapons (Eph. 6:10-17). Lest we become lazy, then, we want to de¬ vote ourselves to our food, and while we have the light, we want to give attention to the light; because the time will come when we would be glad to study if we could. I have taken up the Epistle to Timothy, in which Paul establishes not only the bishop but all the ecclesiastical orders. The epistle is not didactic, and it does not strive to establish basic teaching. Rather, it establishes the church and sets it in order.
And yet, in the midst of this process Paul does not neglect to add very important doctrinal subjects. It was characteristic of the Chris¬ tians to be daily involved with these subjects.
1. Paul, an apostle. So also we generally write to our friends dif¬ ferently from the way we write to strangers. After all, our friends have observed our habits of speech, and from such habits they have looked into our heart. Paul maintains this usage to address his dis¬ ciples in more familiar fashion than the rest of the churches, which he addresses quite timidly and respectfully because of his reverence for Christ. With his disciples Paul also speaks a bit more confidently.
You know why he boasts this way over his calling, because it is every preacher's own certain boast that he knows he is pursuing the doctrine commanded to him and demanded of him. So those who do a bad job of teaching sin on both sides. On the one hand, they have the authority and the ministry, as in the case of the papists, but they do not teach; the factious spirits and heretics, on the other hand, run into it, but they do not have the call. When the call is present, genuine doctrine should also be present, so that one can teach, etc. The call is as significant as the doctrine. For where there is a legitimate call, our Lord God does not let the Word fail. For example, however wicked the papists may be, they still do preach Christ's suffering and 1 Luther began these lectures on Jan. 13, 1528.
[W, XXVI, 4, 5] all the articles that we also preach. So they do have the call. In fact, the Gospel gives such dignity to this ministry that it may be of service to what remains of the Word. There is, then, a very great power resident in the call. Where it is a legitimate call, there God is not completely absent. In a marvelous way He calls and draws those who are His, even though the wicked keep on sinning. But the call never exists without doctrine. On the contrary! Where there is no call, damage is almost always involved. We read in Jer. 23:21, "I did not send you." He always reproaches their very doctrine whenever he reproaches their running and rashness. Indeed, even Enthusiasts preach a little of the Gospel. So Paul is not boasting in vain that he has been called to preach. Now, we have either a divine call or a hu¬ man one. Our calling today, unlike that of the apostles, does not come directly from heaven. Rather, the state calls, or I do it myself.
Also, there are fraternal calls through men. Yet they also come from Christ, because I am called in this way the same as if Christ were calling. After all, we must be subject to each other in love. So Paul boasts more than someone else might because he is an apostle "by command of our Savior," and he says in substance: "I have a call from heaven. I have been called miraculously." This is something that had to happen in the primitive church.
Of the Lord our Hope. This is an addition and a note of familiarity.
He does not speak thus to the churches. That calling of his indicates many things, as if he were saying: "My dear Timothy, you know me."
Later, in 2 Tim. 3:10 ff., he says: "You know my teaching. You have observed all of the many things I have suffered and the false brothers
I have had. You have seen from how many directions spies have set up attacks on me. And you know, too, that I have no hope other than
Christ. You have worked together with me in persecution, and you know that I trust in no man. So I write to you in a more familiar fashion, because Christ is our Hope."
2. To Timothy. He also writes this way to Titus. My true child.- He distinguishes this son Timothy from his other sons. In another epistle
(Phil. 2:20) he commends Timothy because, as he says, "I had no one like him, . . . They all look after their own interests." In sum he says: "This is my best-loved son. He does the same things I do, is
2 Luther here comments on the Latin word germano ("my own true"), which does not occur here in the Vulgate text; dilecto is used instead. But in a similar emotional situation in Phil. 4:3 germane compar ("my own true yokefellow") is used.
[W, XXVI, 5, 6] interested in the same things, endures the same things, etc. He mirrors his father in all his ways and mannerisms." He also writes (2 Cor.
12:18): "I sent Titus to you. . . . Did we not take the same steps?"
Furthermore, his other sons did not have so close a relationship. Tim¬ othy was his son not in the flesh but by the Spirit, for Paul had fathered him in the Holy Spirit through the Word.
Grace, mercy, and peace. This is the forgiveness of sins, peace, joy, and the soul's freedom from care. He clearly distinguishes be¬ tween these and gifts of the world. He also adds a third word which he does not generally use in his letters to the churches — "mercy."
Why does he add it here? Every theologian has been established as a bishop of the church to bear the troubles of everyone in the church.
He stands on the battle line. He is the prime target of all attacks, difficulties, anxieties, disturbances of consciences, temptations, and doubts. All these hit the bishop where it hurts. Still greater trials follow. The princes of the world and the very learned seek him out.
He is made a spectacle for both devils and angels. So then, it is enough to pray for two things for the rest: that they be in grace and peace; yet for a bishop one must add "mercy," not only that God would deign to give His grace that he might have forgiveness of sins and peace but that He would have constant mercy on him, that He would heap many gifts on him with which to serve his brothers; also, that God would grant him mercy because he constantly endures great tribulation. Were he to have no other temptation, it would be enough that he must battle with devilish heretics, who direct their efforts to turn away the hearers and brothers — a most troublesome situation.
Satan meets him on the field and assails him in a spiritual battle. Satan takes from him the beautiful statements of Scripture and corrupts them, just as he did with Christ in the desert (Matt. 4:6,10): "He will give His angels charge," and "if you will worship me." The office of a bishop is a great responsibility, one that Christ first held in the church. Therefore there is need to abide in prayer; that is why one must pray for grace and peace. Each man has his own temptation. But the bishop is the womb of the Lord Jesus, in which he carries others through the Word, to comfort the sad, convince the foolish, and teach the unlearned.
From God the Father. Because that peace which exists in our conscience is deeply involved in troubles, nothing is less apparent in Christians than peace. Yet it is a peace from God the Father and [W. XXVI, 6, 7] from Christ, who was crucified, as well as from the Father of the Crucified. "In the world you have tribulation" (John 16:33). There¬ fore where that peace is preserved, it signifies the peace of Him who was crucified. Whoever wants the grace of God must have it spiced with the wrathful madness of the world, Satan, and his own flesh.
Mercy must be surrounded with the base cruelty of the world, the flesh, and the devil.
3. As I urged you. Here you see two things. First there is the example of Paul — an example that he reveals to us in his great con¬ cern. Whenever Paul goes away, he cannot rest until he writes an encouraging letter. He did hardly anything else for the 24 years dur¬ ing which he was an example to all the bishops to have concern, not just when they are present with the Word but also in prayer, etc. — to think how they may preserve their hearers, the churches, in the true faith, lest they fall away because of tyrants or bellwethers. This is an example of apostolic solicitude. The second thing we see is his warning to us not to feel smug. It was not for nothing that he wrote to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 3:8,5): "Now we live, since you stand fast," and "We sent ... to you for fear that somehow the tempter had tempted you, etc." What forced Paul to write this way was that he knew the fury and cleverness of Satan, as he says there: "Why, where I am present, he rises up against my face. What would he not do if I were absent? He never sleeps; he never stops." Paul's request is not absolute. "As I exhorted you" would have been better.3 Remain.
He approaches Timothy in friendly fashion. He avoids a word of command. He does not say, "I commanded you," but rather, "I urged,
I exhorted." After all, in the church the arrangement should be that each man be a joyful servant of God. No one in the church ought to be forced; such compulsion does not please God. Under the guidance of the Spirit, a willing people ought to act freely — not as the pope has learned, to go at everything with thundering threats.
That is the way of Moses. In the church he advises the disciples that their service should be joyful, voluntary, and free. Remain. Why?
To do nothing? To make money? No! Rather "that you may charge."
This is an elegant expression. Obviously to charge those false teachers and his hearers not to preoccupy themselves. "You should do the work of two men: of an evangelist and of a teacher. Charge them not to teach; charge the pupils not to listen," because we cannot resist them.
3 Luther means to say hortatus sum would have been a better translation for the Greek jiapExoAtcra than the Vulgate's rogavi.
If we close the mouth of one, ten more appear. We cannot avoid the false apostles and false teachers. We are not allowed to kill them, as the papists do, but we may teach against them with mouth and Word, even though we may not battle them with the sword. If they do not come to their senses, let us avoid them; let us abandon them to their own inclinations. So it is bearable when he says, "that you may charge." "To teach any different doctrine" is an elegant expression.
In Acts it is translated differently — "to speak in other tongues."
We Germans also speak this way: Johannes Hus ist ein ander und neu Paulus. So also here: "You should charge them not to become new authors who are teaching something different and better." With this expression he means the arrogance of the false apostles, because they cannot be content. They cannot stay in the pattern. They cannot, as Jude says (v. 3) "contend for the faith which was once . . . deliv¬ ered." For wicked men will come, and they will not persevere. They always have this fault of teaching something different and new.
A wicked spirit, not rooted in solid doctrine, causes this. It always looks for something new and a better doctrine. "Timothy, you tell them to remain in their former pattern, lest they develop sects." This fault the new author, the Gentile Cato, has. The religious call this the vice of singularity, as in the case of the monk who was discontent with his own rule and wanted a hair shirt. In my order the older monks used to fight hard against singularity, and that was good. The same thing happens in senates and legislatures. When the head man does not want to stay in the realm of the usual but wants to be wiser than the rest, he upsets everything. Bishops do the same thing. We must not hope, however, to be free of such disrupting influences.
Therefore the bishop and those of us who are in the offices of the Word must be urged to charge Christians to remain in their former pattern, which was handed down from the apostles.
4. To occupy themselves with myths. Paul again speaks of myths deprecatingly when he speaks of a very spiritual spirit. It has to be the Word of the Lord; the flesh is of no avail.4 He firmly calls them myths, because everyone who departs from the doctrine once deliv¬ ered does not teach the Lord's Word but myths which are his own dreams and mere poison. Today the Enthusiasts teach nothing.but myths, because they depart from the doctrine once delivered. They are therefore heterodox teachers who, with much boasting, teach only
[W, XXVI, 8] myths. He attaches this word scornfully to their boasting, where they boast about revelations, spirits, and absolute truth. Is salutary doc¬ trine mere myths to Paul? No. Their hearers must be admonished not to be impressed with words like "glory" and "God." They make a great show, but actually it is all myths.
With genealogies. They were involved in these too. These have nothing to do with Christianity or Judaism. The Jews were of the opinion that they were a separate and unique people; that if any of the Gentiles were saved, they had to participate in the Jews' rituals.
This is what they used to call incorporating with the Jews. That is where the power lay to preserve their people, genealogy, and polity; to know how many proselytes they had. It is an article of faith and an absolute necessity to know of what tribe you were born. You see,
Moses makes distinctions among the tribes, and that is the reason for the necessity. They consider that article of the same significance as the Enthusiasts consider bread and wine. Even if some of this still existed, it is not important now. There is no longer a distinction of tribes or differences of title. As a result, we now have infinite and unending genealogies. Still, it was necessary for Christ to have been of the tribe of Judah, because so it was written. But what they later observed among the other tribes is of no importance. In this way, they develop many thousands of superstitions from one example.
After all, what need is there for the other tribes to be designated along with the tribe of Judah? Let it be void the moment Christ would come. This is the way they distinguished their people from the Gentiles, as the great question arises in Matthew and Luke: if we ignore faith in Christ, do the Jews still stand in that glory? You are inferior people, because the Jews are sealed with a certain number and you are not. Thus 5 miserable souls of the Gentiles have perished because of such worthless ideas, and they cannot be brought to a definite end.
These 0 are outstanding precepts and descriptions of wicked doc¬ trines — that wicked doctrines place high value on their titles and are called spiritual precepts, the traditions of Moses and the fathers.
But they are actually pure myth. That would be enough, but this is the worst of it, that they carried the condition that they never achieved the goal. Later on (2 Tim. 3:7) he writes: "They will listen to any5 We have read sic for si.
6 The lecture of Jan. 14 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 8, 9] body and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth." Hellfire is in the human tradition, as Paul writes to Titus (1:14), "of men who reject the truth." It would be tolerable to keep human tradition ex¬ cept that it gives rise to questions. Let what is doubtful be doubtful.
So he has given the genealogies the genuine description — "endless."
This is the way our Enthusiasts first began to have doubts about the Sacrament. Now they will slide along from one error into another, and finally they will slip so far as to deny God. Thus one question always gives rise to another. This is what happened with the decrees of the pope. One decree generated 10 more, and one council generated
10 others. Our theologians had the same experience with the Sen¬ tences.7 Meanwhile, what result has come from losing a genuine knowledge of Christ? As he says later (v. 5), "The aim of our charge" is that one believe in Christ and love his neighbor. Here you know what is involved. Beyond this there is no way of finding the goal.
How many rules and prayers and strange regulations have the monks used? Having abandoned the chief doctrine, they generally devote themselves to inconsistent and endless doctrines. Not only do they go on endlessly; they also require fruitful creativity, provide a good deal of work. They generate endless questions, the one rising from the other. He wants to say: "You keep us mighty busy with those questions of yours. They beget as their offspring another ques¬ tion. That is, they produce one doubt after another." That is won¬ derful fruit indeed! Scholastic theology was like that, with every¬ thing uncertain and yet requiring great effort. One teaches, or he learns, the fundamentals of Scotus, and later he has nothing except uncertainty and doubt. But if I believe in Christ, I love my brother,
I carry my cross; I am not tossed on an uncertain sea, but I have this confidence, that my call is God-pleasing, because that is His Word.
First, these genealogies are unending. Second, they are restless and uncertain. This is the restlessness of a reed stirred by the wind — a great achievement. The Enthusiasts are so busy with these thoughts that they do not listen. Satan has blinded them and now possesses them.
Rather. It is the customary trick of all false doctrines to neglect "godly edifying." They have a head swollen with their own thoughts and their heart obsessed with their own speculations. We have enough
7 Luther often criticized the proliferation of the Sentences. Cf. p. 85, n. 12, above.
[W, XXVI, 9, 10] examples of this today. The Enthusiasts write one book after another.
In these they teach faith and love, but they urge that which they have in their heart. Then Satan assails them. He allows them neither time nor place to think about anything else, because they want to bring this to the people. When this occurs, they want to edify, but nothing happens, so they never do edify. "Godly edifying" occurs in Paul's writings as in 1 Cor. 3: "I have built upon stone," 8 and in Eph. 2:20:
"Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone." To edify is nothing else but that I be planted and prepared by the Word of faith and love as a habitation for God so that I begin to believe that through this faith
Christ lives in me and I am built on Christ. Timothy, then, should urge the good bishops that this faith, etc. They say, however: "The matter of faith is easy. We have to dig into and carefully investigate the Scriptures." He describes very carefully the character and genius of the spirits. When they have given much thought to their own ideas and then are asked about faith, there is no answer, no "godly edifying" that relates to God or the things of God. God is the Builder. But Paul does not mean this here. He means instead that which relates to God, that is, the spiritual edifying in Christ. He asserts that to build is to urge that faith carefully, to root it, to protect it, that people may grow in faith and love. All people are children, sucking infants in their faith, for faith overcomes death and holds this life in contempt. To be so built on Christ is 9 to be firmly fixed, so that we hold not only gold but also life and death in contempt. We have this doctrine still written down on a tablet but not yet expressed in life. You haven't reached the highest level of doctrine, have you? Yet we are all Christians.
5. The aim of our charge looks to this goal, that you not doubt, etc.
This is the aim of all charges and laws — of God as well as of man — in all the world. It is the law of a good conscience. This is a beau¬ tiful text. "The aim" is not to increase questions and to leave con¬ sciences unsure after all their difficulties but to bring consciences to the point that they know this for sure. This is the "aim of our charge": that they know how their relationship with God in this world stands.
The man who knows languages well certainly can come up with a word, because he knows the "aim" of languages. When he hears a strange statement, he says that it does not relate to his language. So, too, in spiritual matters. When a man knows how he stands with God,
8 The reference is perhaps to 1 Cor. 3:10: "I laid a foundation."
9 We have read est for et.
[W, XXVI, 10] with people, with the devil, and with sin, he sees every aim. That no person can do from human traditions. Were a Carthusian monk to wear a hair shirt for a hundred years, he would not realize his aim, he would not know how to please God. But if anyone believes in Christ and loves his brother, he is certain that he is pleasing God.
Then he is satisfied and content. But if a Carthusian keeps his rule, he still is afraid that it is not enough, that is, that it is not the be-alland-end-all of certainty, that the rule does not have an end, that the rule does not mean what he is striving for and what he stands in, and that the law thus does not come to an end and make no further demands.
What is the "aim of our charge"? Love. This is the full thunder¬ clap against a human doctrine that cannot reflect love from a pure heart, etc. Paul gives a beautiful description: a faith from an un¬ pretending heart is the tree, or root. Its fruit is love. With individual phrases, he punctures wicked doctrines.
First, a pure heart. What is this? Titus 1:15: "To the pure all things are pure." What value is there in your teaching people by genealogies and myths the purities of the Law (as also the Enthusiasts do) but not the purities of the heart? The pure heart simply does not get stuck in anything, not in shamelessness, properly called greed and lust. This expression has a wider application. You see, a pure heart loves nothing except God, as Christ explains in Matt. 5:8. I have an impure heart when I become attached to anything beside the mercy of God. A psalm says: "They purify my raiment, etc." 10 But what is inside? Outside they are righteous, but inside they are abominable, because they trust in their own works, and from this they develop their own laws, etc., and think: "If I keep these laws, I have a kindly
God; if I don't, He will be angry." This is the most impure and wicked heart of all. Even the prostitute's heart that keeps thinking about a man is not so shameless. This is the heart of a man who takes his own merits to heart. He evaluates God according to the image which he imagines in his heart. He sees neither his own sin nor the righteous¬ ness of God. The Law therefore demands that you have a pure heart, that you reject all your own righteousness, that you place no con¬ fidence in righteousness, power, or wealth, but in the mercy of God.
The pure heart, then, is one that knows that it is saved solely by the 10 The passage Luther had in mind has not been identified.
[W, XXVI, 10, 11] mercy of God and that it is special for that same reason. That heart says: "No matter how holy and learned I am in my life among men,
I still live as if I didn't know this. I occupy thrones. I live with David. But I live as if I were not aware of that. I live as if I had no honor. My heart is free of the pleasure in those things, but I cling to the mercy of God." And this heart sees God and knows how God feels about the desires and later the power of an angel, of man, of the devil. Purity of heart brings this about. The others say: "Only if you are circumcised will you have protected your family lines." But this man sees neither sin nor righteousness, neither God nor man. In Isaiah a beautiful garment was wantonly smeared when someone threw a handful of manure into his eyes. Yet it didn't bother him. This is not illumination but blinding and blurring of the eyes.
Second, a good conscience. When a heart in sin has been purified of all the things we have already mentioned, then there is imme¬ diately a conscience which says: "I trust only in God's mercy, which sin does not sting." If sin does sting it, yet it does not lose faith.
It is a conscience which trusts in and clings to the mercy of God.
First, the heart must be pure; then follows a good conscience. To summarize, they run along side by side.
Third, if the heart is pure, the conscience is sincere. But what does faith do? This is a rebuke against the doctrine of wicked men who even boast of their faith. But their faith is partly pretended, partly genuine, because their heart is not pure. If it were genuine, it would make them have a pure heart and a good conscience. Indeed, they do boast of such a heart and conscience, but it does not follow that way. Faith, then, purifies hearts. Next, it is the nature of faith that it establishes a good conscience toward God and all men; for it teaches me that I must trust in Christ alone as Savior, because His suffering has redeemed me. Where this condition exists, purity of heart follows shortly after. That speaks the rule: "My own energy does not save me." In this way all those idols in which I have trusted fall down.
This pure heart is not pure in the sense that it is so in its own thoughts. That I have called an impure heart, as if an artist were composing his own work, or as if a mother were performing her function. But the pure heart must abandon the world, which is a woman, etc. The pure heart is to cut off all these things and look to itself alone. Some people have, with Satan's help, a softness — tears,
[W, XXVI, 11, 12] for instance. But those spiritual consequences, as the monks call them, are very suspect. A man can do his work and his wife can cook, and both can have very pure hearts because they can say: "My Lord
God, this work pleases You. I am performing my task according to Your command." They believe that God is in the midst of their or¬ dinary business. On the other hand, a monk has an impure heart.
Christ was a light amid the spittle and uncleanness of the body. Yet, He had the purest heart. The world is that which comes from the devil, avarice, for example. He has a pure heart who has the Word of God and trusts alone, etc. The false prophets, then, are the most impure when they boast about their purity most. Of course, they feel smug; they act boldly, as did Peter and Paul. They dare with great stubbornness to do their own building. That, to be sure, is a stubborn conscience but not a good conscience. They always take their own works first. This disturbs the conscience, as is written in Ecclesiasticus.11 It listens to no man. It never comes back. It goes along weakly with the pious. This is not the case with the bold. Sincere faith believes in Christ alone. This is God's building, when people are instructed toward a sincere faith, a good conscience, and a pure heart. Once they have these, then follows the end and result of that knowledge — love. God has loved me; therefore I also, etc. Paul can¬ not omit the chief points. This is to build silver, gold, and precious stones; you bring in false teachers; you have taught well.
6. From these. He intends to describe the Gospel of those theo¬ logians. To be sure, they do teach these things,12 but they are in¬ consistent spirits. They have false pretenses. They let this their own meaning of the Law remain and neglect faith, love, and the good conscience. They have something else before their eyes: that they keep asking to whose tribe you belong, that one must find and serve holy
God. That is what swerving from is, swerving away from the scope and aim of the charge. They fabricate for themselves another faith, another intent of the Law. Moses says: "Circumcise your sons. Sep¬ arate those tribes." The Law, therefore, demands those works. Because they do not see that the Law leads to an acknowledgment of sin and to thoughts of our own weakness, they are led away from faith into works. Into vain discussion. We have already heard this in the lec11 The Weimar editor suggests Ecclus. 9:18, but the reference is probably to xPure heart, good conscience, sincere faith.
[W, XXVI, 12] tures on Titus.13 They are not theologians but prattlers.14 They do not want to teach about God. Rather they teach empty talk, gossip. To neglect faith and yet to teach — what could that accomplish except something of this sort: it has the appearance of piety, but it is empty talk? In such talk the heart cannot have confidence. On such talk it cannot stand firm. And with such talk it surely cannot establish for itself the serene calm of conscience. This is what I have not been able to see. The saintlier I have been, the more uncertain. So I say:
"Despair of all things. Throw yourself on Christ. He cannot fail you."
Then I know where I must abide.
7. Desiring. Oh, how beautifully he gives it to them. He does not keep quiet about their attractive appearance. They are empty talkers, but most people don't realize this, for they are very learned teachers of the Law. With that title they strip the apostle of his authority.
You see, when Paul was converted, he was a young fellow. He had not yet become a teacher of the Law but was still a student. "We are teachers of the Law, and this makes a big difference among the com¬ mon people, for they look at our appearance and not at our doctrine."
But Paul gives them the needle. "They desire" — they boast that they are such men, and among the Jews they are respected as such men, but actually they are not, because they do not have the "aim" of the Law. To be sure, they see, as above, but they do not understand — and Paul connects this very neatly — what they state and decree. There are two things which the teachers of the Law do: first, they speak; second, they teach from Scripture. However, they do not understand Scripture on the law of circumcision. The text given by Moses is a good one, but they do not understand it. They assert their own doctrine, but they do not understand it, because they do not see the end of the Law.
Whatever strange language they cook up and use they do not under¬ stand. "Look, Moses says: 'Whoever has kept this work.'" This is their law. There are two things: they err as to the sense of Scripture, and they bring in a new sense. Thus today our Enthusiasts say: "This is the body . . . ." The wording is correct. But then they add their own interpretations. That becomes their law, and yet they remain uncer¬ tain.
13 Luther had lectured on the passage in question, Titus 1:10, the previous Nov. 19. Cf. Luther's Works, 29, p. 35.
14 Luther contrasts theologi with mathaeologi, a word patterned after the Greek (.luruio/.oYia used in this verse and meaning "idle talk." Cf. Luther's Works,
13, p. 81, where Luther applies the word to Zwingli.
Without understanding,15 Paul is speaking from experience about the wicked teachers who discuss Moses' allegorical words of Scripture but certainly do not understand them. It is necessary, then, that they set up something out of their own heads and arrange the words into their "correct" sense according to what they have imagined. After¬ wards they say, "This is God's Word," and "Verily, He says." And they say this because they do not understand what they are setting up.
They are very eager to teach, for they have more than a mad passion solely for the applause and good will of the people if they have these.
The more this passion pursues them, the more daring they become.
But they become daring not at their own risk but at the risk of others.
They begin a doctrine which they have not tested at their own risk.
But once they have begun it, they run away. So it is with Carlstadt, Miintzer, and Zwingli. Thus no good teacher who boasts of the Spirit sneaks away when danger appears. They are daring until they are among their own kind. Miintzer was a man of supreme boldness. But . after he was captured, he became a follower in all things. Our dogma is indeed very precious because of what we read in Matt. 16. Yet we are very timid and cannot become so daring. I used to be afraid of everyone and would yield to everyone when I could, until I saw clearly. Christian truth, therefore, has humble and timid declarers.
Granted that they have a most sure doctrine, yet they are weak in the faith, apprehensive. We carry this treasure, not in iron chests, but in small clay vessels. Today I stand, etc. So it is with trembling that we busy ourselves in the presence of God with our salvation. That is, they declare and assert and are proud and stubborn. To be sure, they teach the words of the Law, but they do not understand them. They assert what they do not understand. The Arians read the text "was the Word" 10 but did not understand it, and they kept finding their own interpretation there. I really hate teachers who are bold at another's risk. I love those the more who begin at their own risk and lose their life as they confess their error.
8. We know that the Law. This is a fine passage about the under¬ standing, or knowledge, of the Law. Paul explains it more fully in Rom. 7. Now the false prophets argue: "Why do you condemn us for our doctrine? We are not following human traditions or human inter¬ pretations. We establish our idea on Scripture and the Word of God."
15 The lecture of Jan. 15 begins at this point.
They believe they have overcome. Let them follow along with us in Scripture and let them grasp Scripture. This is the war against heresy, against heathenism, against human traditions. They make this objec¬ tion to Paul: "When we teach the Sabbath and genealogies, we are teaching the Law itself. Thus we teach, not our words, but the words of Scripture." "The flesh does not profit" (John 6:63) and "He sits at the right hand of God" (Mark 16:19). That they use Scripture as we do gives them a very wicked weapon. The battle, then, is over the correct use of Scripture, not over Scripture itself; as Paul here battles not over the Law but over the use of the Law. So also we now are not fighting over the remission of sins through Christ, for we are in agree¬ ment there. Rather, we are battling over the exercise of forgiveness of sins and justification. They say: "There is no active redemption ex¬ cept on the cross. The flesh? It is abominable that you say that there is forgiveness of sins in the Lord's Supper, since it takes place on the cross alone." They have a foolish spirit. We say: "The remission of sins, considered as the miraculous act, took place on the cross, where
Christ accomplished this. But whom would this forgiveness benefit?
There it is a matter of pure action. He reconciled the Father with His blood, tears, and death. But if this were not preached, as Christ says in the last chapter of Luke (Luke 24:47), who would benefit from the fact that this forgiveness has been obtained and accomplished? It would be of no use to me if it were not applied." They do not see what the remission of sins is and what its function is. When someone says,
"Look, Christ has done this for you," then this is applied to me through the Word. Or he may say: "Eat this bread, that is. His body." Likewise they say that in the Lord's Supper Christ does not die. Therefore He has not been eaten on our behalf but has died on our behalf. Isn't this sheer madness? Remission of sins does not walk around on earth or in heaven. It's something which has already been accomplished. They are not separating the function of forgiveness from the achievement of it. Another example: Christ's birth has taken place. But preaching it brings the incarnation into my heart. Now I use it. Unless the Word be preached, there is no use for it. So also the act of the remission of sins took place on the cross. Who uses it? No one. But in the Lord's
Supper we say, "Eat this body and [drink this] blood shed for the re¬ mission of sins." I say this: We have a battle with heretics about the use of Scripture. We say that they abuse Scripture and that we have the right meaning. Here the Sacramentarians distinguish concerning
[W, XXVI, 14] the Law and the use of the Law. To the Christian the Law is most sacred. Because it is divine wisdom, it is a very fine and sacred thing.
The fact of the matter is this: both the wicked and the pious man have the Law. Both have a very good thing. But they disagree over its use.
The former misuse a very sacred thing. We teach that one must use it correctly. Meat and fish are things, the created works of God. The only battle there is is over their misuse. They were not created for this, so that we might be justified by them, but that we might continue to live because of them. Their use? To receive them with thanksgiving for our enjoyment. So also a good wife or good husband is a very fine creation. The pope does not deny this. He forbids wickedness. In our case, on the other hand, he says it is a sin if a priest marries. He places righteousness in celibacy. We say that God gave us wives and hus¬ bands that we might use these creations of His and give thanks. Gold and silver, too, are fine things, but everyone grabs them up for his own use. The same thing happens with Scripture. The Enthusiasts use the Word. The papists have the very Gospel itself, but they do not use it.
The same is true of the Enthusiasts. "We know." There is no argument here as to whether the Law is good or bad. So they are arguing that we condemn their doctrine, and condemn it, as also the Law, with the judgment: It is not a good thing. But they are not using it well.
If anyone. That's where the trouble is, in its use. We must note this point well. In my first book 17 I treated carefully the matter of the use and the actual achievement, but the Enthusiasts remained un¬ moved. His work was finished, but Christ added His command to preach. As far as I'm concerned, separate the act of His passion from preaching, and its treasure has been stolen, and it becomes useless.
Everything is good if one puts it to good use. So He establishes as means the Word, preaching, Baptism, faith, the sacraments, reading, that He might by every means bring things into use. If this is a matter of the mind, it concludes: "Christ is on the right hand of the Father;
He is not dead." They here confuse the function with the act. This is also what the Jews have done.
What is the "lawful use" that knows that "the Law is not, etc."?
To sum up all of this: Use the Law as you wish. Read it. Only keep this use away from it, that you credit it with the remission of sins and righteousness. Beware of making me righteous by the Law. Rather, use it to restrain. You must not give the Law the power and virtue
17 Luther is referring to Part I of his treatise Against the Heavenly Prophets, published in December 1524. Cf. Luther's Works, 40, pp. 92 ff.
[W, XXVI, 14, 15] to justify. But you are teaching this — that there is a righteousness of works and of the Law. But boasting is excluded (Rom. 3:27). "If . . . by works"; but that's what you believe. However, "the righteous¬ ness of God has been manifested apart from the Law" (Rom. 3:21).
It is a spiritual misuse of the Law if anyone wants to make men righ¬ teous by it, if anyone teaches that men can be justified by the Law and by works. It is a misuse of the Law if one wants to teach what he does not know and assert what he does not understand. It is a very unhealthy misuse to say that the Law is laid down for the justification of one who is not subject to the Law. This does not happen by the Law. Its work and virtue is not to make an ungodly man righteous.
Even less can such a man be ruled by it. Were the Law laid down for the righteous man, this would be to tell him that he is not yet righteous.
We have a similar argument in Gal. 2:17: "If in our endeavor to be jus¬ tified in Christ we ourselves are found to be sinners, is Christ then an agent of sin? Certainly not!" If this is our situation and this is not sin and the righteousness of Christ does not abide and we must be led to the Law, then we have sin from Christ; because if a believer in Christ must be considered a sinner also through the Law, then it follows also that he is not justified through Christ. This would be to destroy and wipe out faith. Among the ungodly this point about the Law and its relation to the just man is not clear. They say: "Well, then we don't have to do good works." If, as [that text] says, we are righ¬ teous in Christ, no sin is found [in us], and we have no need of the Law, for the Law does not justify us, but grace does; and if [the Law does] not [justify us], then it is not given to us and has no effect on us.
When we teach through the Gospel that men are justified by Christ, we are at the same time teaching that this does not happen by the Law.
The Law, then, is very sacred, very fine; but it does not justify. It frightens, it accuses; but it does not justify and does not free one from death. If I were to say it does justify, corporal food would also give nourishment for eternal life. If I credit a given creature only with the things for which 18 it was ordained, I do well. So the Law is abused when I assign to the Law more than it can accomplish. Good works are necessary and the Law must be kept, but the Law does not justify.
They say, however, "Unless you are circumcised" (Acts 15:1) and "It is necessary ... to charge them to keep the Law" (Acts 15:5). What about this? To be justified by circumcision is to misuse the Law al18 We have read quae for quod.
|W, XXVI, 15, 16] ready. The Anabaptists say: "If you are baptized, you will be saved."
In the first place, in Baptism we are baptized with the Word, which is spoken and in which there is great power. But they hold also the Word in contempt. There they declare that only the applying of water justi¬ fies. I am not speaking about an abuse which tells lies against the Law but about the misuse of those who treat the Law and teach others but whose mouths misuse the Law. The new doctrine, however, says: The Law is neither here nor there. If you believe, you will be saved. The Law no longer condemns anyone except unbelievers. The Law does not justify unless you believe. Before, it justified and condemned ex¬ ternally like the civil law.
9. Not for the just, because he has what the Law demands and he has been established without it. The Law frightens and causes trem¬ bling — these are the spiritual effects of the Law. It really has a double function: in an external way to repress violence and spiritually to reveal sins. It restrains the wicked to prevent their living according to their own flesh, and it shows the Pharisees their sins to keep them from pride. Satan, every wicked theologian, and even nature cannot bear to have their works condemned. Those who have the firstfruits of the Spirit have the battle to fight against confidence in our own works.
This disease is an innate thing in us. From it develop all the monas¬ tic orders. "If you keep this, I promise you in the name of the Lord eternal life." Consequently they perform these works, because they hope that God will pay some attention to them. This disease has deep roots in us. All the saints have the job of cleansing themselves of this disease with the help of the Holy Spirit. Thus when the Enthusiasts come to us, they find in us many things which please them. God laid down this law; therefore He wanted you to be circumcised. There the reasoning is compressed and binding. But the Gospel says, "God wants His commandments to be kept, but this does not make one righteous. 'Love is the fulfilling of the Law' " (Rom. 13:10). "I am not aware of anything against myself, etc." (1 Cor. 4:4). I must say with the heretics: "We are unworthy servants," 19 that is, I am not justified.
They do not know that so lofty a justification is required. One does not fulfill the Law except with deeds — not with the heart. The Holy
Spirit says, "He wants such things done by you, but in such a way, etc." You see, it is written (Ps. 143:2): "Enter not into judgment with Thy servant." Who is the servant? "The one who keeps Thy com- [W, XXVI, 16] mandments." Justification, however, is to believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Human reason neither grasps nor finds this Gospel, but this is hidden knowledge. Men say, "I do works; therefore I am pleas¬ ing. I preserve my decency." These are the empty inventions of se¬ ducers who mislead men by works. It is one thing to fulfill the works of the Law; it is another to be justified. We assign righteousness not to the Law and its works but to grace alone, which is offered to us through Jesus Christ. The Law does this: it teaches that one must do works, serve his brother, and recognize his own sin. These are good things, are they not? To be humble in knowing oneself, to do good for one's neighbor — these are wonderful. But you want to add: This is to be just before God. Those who do not use the Law lawfully, that is, as the Law ought to be used, should not exalt the Law beyond that which the Law is or can be. You are using the Law not according to its lawful function but as if it were grace and the Holy Spirit. This use of the Law is one that is "for the just man." You false prophets err when you teach that the Law is laid down for the just man. That, you see, is contrary to the nature of both the Law and righteousness.
The Law is laid down for the lawless. This gives the Law both its civil and spiritual functions: that wicked man is restrained and is led to a knowledge of himself. Those are the two functions. By its civil function it restrains crass sinners who rush in before they reveal all things as free. This must be the Law with its own punishment. Many people are greedy, and yet they live with a beautiful and holy appear¬ ance. Paul in Rom. 1 assails the Gentiles for their crass and manifest sins. In chapter 2 he assails the very decent-appearing Jews who be¬ neath their hypocrisy kept encouraging the worst sins so that these holy sinners are put to shame. Rom. 2. There we have the true use, and you should not assign more to the Law than to restrain and humble the proud saints that they may be led to understanding. When this occurs, there is no further function of the Law. Why, then, do you preach that one is justified thereby? The just man ought not have the Law except as a restraint and to reveal his sin. But it does not take away sin. But in the case of manifest sinners, it restrains; in the case of secret sinners, it reveals. In the case of the just man, it cannot re¬ strain, because there is nothing to restrain; it cannot reveal, because he has done nothing concealed. It is the good use of the Law to re¬ strain and to reveal sin; but it is misuse thereof to say that it takes away sin.
We have treated 20 these two points: the Law is good, and it was not laid down for the just. I have also mentioned that we understood those two points as characteristic for recognizing Christians. The wicked do not understand that the Law is not for the just man. Against this, Rom. 13:10 proclaims that love is the critical point of the Law, and beyond that it says (Rom. 7:16): "The Law is good." The two functions of the Law are to reveal sinners and restrain them. The third function, however, to remove sin and to justify, is limited to this: The Lamb of God, and not the Law, takes away sin. It is Christ who re¬ moves sin and justifies. Consequently, we must distinguish between the function of the Law and that of Christ. It is the Law's function to show good and evil, because it shows what one must do and reveals sin, which one must not commit. The Law therefore is good because it shows not only evil but also the good which one must do. But be¬ yond that it does not go. It does not kill Og and King Sihon.21 It merely reveals good and bad; Joshua [does the rest].
For the just. To what extent just, since the Law is not laid down for justification? These two ideas clash: for the Law to be laid down for the righteous man and for him to be righteous himself, since the Law reveals the sinner or the good man for this very purpose, that it may provide for an inquiry into sin. Augustine says: "It is not that two plus three ought to be five; two plus three is five. So also it is not that the righteous man ought to become righteous; he is righteous."
When we therefore take away this word "ought," we also take away the Law. The righteous man has what the Law demands, and so the Law is not laid down for him. "The Law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully"
(v. 8), that is, if he knows that it has not been laid down for him.
And this is to know Christ, "the Lamb who takes away" (John 1:29).
Whoever therefore understands Christ in this way understands also this: every man is justified through Christ; therefore he cannot be sub¬ ject to the Law, because he has righteousness before God and men.
From this reasoning and way of speaking, we must understand the following. Paul is speaking against the false prophets who wanted to justify men by works and the Law. He says, "You ought not impose the Law on them. That's why Peter asked, Why do you tempt God?' 22
You want to burden them with the Law for this purpose — as if they 20 The lecture of Jan. 20 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 17, 18] were justified thereby, although they already are justified." If one doesn't know Christ, he cannot understand this idea. For this reason the papists are of course stuck in works; they always have the idea that the Law is necessary. Had anyone of us written this passage of Timothy, he would be a heretic a hundred times. For us, the law of love has been laid down, and the ceremonial laws have been given be¬ cause of love. In fact, the Christian is the servant of all men. He is sub¬ ject to every law. What about the Law, then? We are subject to every law, but we submit voluntarily in brotherly love to all laws of all men, but we do not, like them, lay them down for justification. We distin¬ guish the Christian life in faith and love. Faith is queen over every law. The Christian wants to be justified by grace alone. In this way he is free from all laws. But the false prophets want to impose the Law on the conscience: "If you do this, you will be holy." But that is where faith should rule. That is what Paul speaks against. On the other hand, the Christian is subject to every law. He bears the Law and the bur¬ dens of the Law according to the old man. He seeks as his slavery the good of his neighbor. This is where Rom. 13 and John 3 come in.
This idea clashes with the seducers of the Sentences, who want to put works into the place of grace. It is impossible for them to know what they are talking about. When you take that understanding away, they know nothing except the works of the Law. Therefore they neces¬ sarily do not understand "the things about which they make assertions" or as far as that principal part is concerned which involves the Spirit and faith.
It is laid down for the unjust. Here you see Paul carefully treating the function of the Law. It does not go into the kingdom of Christ but into that place where Christ is not — the kingdom of the devil. There there is need for the function of the Law, because the ungodly do not understand, or do not wish to understand, the Law. It performs its function to that end, that it restrains and reveals sins so that a person seeks justification, which comes through faith. The idea of Paul is very clear when used correctly: that, if anyone uses the Law in this way, he is restrained in his civic life, he is righteous before the world and is convinced that he is a sinner and understands what good he lacks. Thus the Law does have its function. That is how Moses struck down the two kings.23 Paul does not intend to list the whole gamut of sins, but rather several, as one says, "If any."
For the unjust. I do not know how to distinguish correctly here.
He uses six general expressions. Then he follows with undistinguished forms to describe types of sin which are against God as well as against men. In the first place there is "the lawless one." In 2 Thess. 2:3, 8 Paul speaks thus about Antichrist as one who acts as if he were outside of Law and obeys no law. The disobedient is not subject to the Law, obeying neither God nor man. Another may explain it in another way: whoever lives a willful life, obeys no one willingly, whether they be public magistrates or others whom he owes obedience. Those are the general ideas. The Greeks call such a person "lawless," one who does absolutely anything he pleases contrary to God's law. The ungodly operate against both God and man. These are the two who do not believe; they hold in contempt faith, the Word, and everything else.
As he who neglects and despises his neighbor sins against God in faith, so he also sins against his neighbor in a cruel manner and without faith.
These are the unholy and also the profane, as was Esau. As there are those who disobey God and men and, like the ungodly, neglect the glory and respect of God and men, so also these are in themselves an unspiritual people who have no decency in their lives. This happens in the papist sphere when priests live in fornication, lust, greed, and uncleanness; they do not live holy and chaste lives. When they are simply profane in themselves with respect to their food, they live out¬ wardly in a coy boldness. These include flirty girls and disobedient boys who are irreverent and profane. This relates properly to one's own person, that is, to a person who is wicked or irreverent toward himself or against himself. That's the way the peasants and the lay¬ men are now. They do not distinguish among preachers. "Let him work as I do." They make no distinction between the sacred and the profane. They live in their own lust and filth. These are the general sins. The following are the particular ones — those which are better known.
10. Kidnappers. There are many kinds of thievery. There are rus¬ tlers, who steal cattle; embezzlers; sneak-thieving magistrates; the sac¬ rilegious, who steal something sacred; the kidnapper, who steals people, as when one takes a slave or servant girl, a son or daughter, and forces him into work or slavery. If unchastity is involved, it is called rape.
This is a rarity among us. The nobility does this when a father hangs 24 his son. Among the Gentiles this was common, because the condition
24 The Wolfenbiittel manuscript has aufffangen for auffhangen and so would be translated "kidnaps."
[W, XXVI, 19] of slaves was leibeigen,25 Perjurers. Among the Gentiles theirs was also a general and common sin, as was also lying. There is also that very shameful sin of males among the Gentiles, both slave and free.
Here Paul is designating the manifest and obvious kinds and types of sins against which the Law is laid down. Let each person see whether or not the Law is laid down for him, whether or not he is a just man.
Sound. It is a peculiarity of Paul to call the Gospel "sound." "What¬ ever else 26 you cultivate I consider types similar to this." What is
"sound" militates against those sins. There they fight against them¬ selves; the Law is not for him who is established. The Gospel is op¬ posed to them as if the Gospel were the Law. It is the Gospel that brings the "Lamb who takes away." Therefore when they take away the Gospel, they are all named as foes of the Gospel, because they are bringing in sins. If the Gospel takes away sin, it is opposed to sin.
11. He overflows with the happy, spiritual words of the blessed God and of His glory. "Of glory," because there is preached there pure confusion and the glory of God alone. Every man is a vain liar accord¬ ing to Rom. 3:4. "The Holy Spirit will convince, etc." (John 16:8).
Therefore He confounds all men. So it is that a man of confusion and of the glory of God shows mercy, goodness, and all things through Christ, as Rom. 8:3 tells us, in His own Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh." Is it not glory to have poured forth all the bowels of His mercy and limitless love by doing good? So Paul glorifies, praises, and ap¬ plauds that blessed God. He is blessed who alone has immortality and blessedness, as if Paul were saying: "We are all simply wretched and condemned to eternal death. But God was not just the one and only
God 27 but a God who pitied us in our wretchedness and poured out His blessedness upon us."
"Who is believed because he is believed" is exactly the same as with which I have been entrusted and "to me has been entrusted this responsibility." 28 Paul here glories in a certain righteousness and holi¬ ness of his, that God, as he says later, considered him a faithful man to whom He gave this responsibility. This is not a boast over the cer¬ tainty of Paul's word. It strikes us as a chilling phrase: "Paul, an apos¬ tle" (v. 1) and "the Word has been entrusted to me" (cf. v. 11). I have
25 Leibeigen describes a slave as being "owned in body and life."
26 We have read reliquum for reliqui.
28 Cf. 1 Cor. 9:17; Gal. 2:7; Titus 1:3.
[W, XXVI, 19, 20] said that we have no rest or peace unless we know 29 for sure that we have the actual Word of God. It's a great thing to know that one has the very sure and infallible Word of God. This is a gift we cannot explain. Before we were in the Gospel, we were carried about by every wind. Even those who have the Gospel are not certain but wander here and there as the sects do. They have doubts about this
Word. They cannot put forward such a boast. I would not rejoice as Paul did over the "glorious Gospel of the Great One," entrusted to me. I know that I have it; that is, I know that I stand upon the Rock, and that I hold all the gates of hell in contempt, even though Satan assails me quite enough. But when the heart has doubts, Satan has won. Thus these boasts of his are certainly spiritual. The Word is a treasure, but not like the treasure of men. He recommends carefully that we must not take up the Word as if it were man's. It is easy to receive the Word, but to receive it as the Word of God, who lives and is blessed forever, that is a truly great thing.
12. I thank Him. The Greek here gives the idea that Paul has been strengthened for Christ or for obedience to Christ. Neither idea is foolish — that Paul be brave in his ministry in the Gospel of faith. The second sense is that I be brave in Christ. If grammar demands rather the first sense, the emphasis should remain on the word "strength¬ ened."30 Earlier, we also had to declare this in Titus.31 This "strength¬ ening" is required to make something sure. He is saying: "The Word has been entrusted to me, but others are teaching it. But they do it coldly, as men who have doubts, men who have not been strengthened.
This Word which we teach, however, wants to be so persuasive that no one doubts it. So I thank Him because He has not only given it to me but has also strengthened it in me lest I run in vain or in uncer¬ tainty, Gal. 2:2; 1 Cor. 9:26, like those who teach it and do not know if it is true." Thus in our time many have kept that Word only because of novelty and because heretics have arisen. They have not received it as the Word of God. These are vainhearted people who are bound by an enthusiasm for new things. This Word wants us to adhere strongly to it. God gives it that we may be strong in it. One is strengthened by his practice in teaching, testing, battling. Earlier, in 29 We have read scimus for simus.
30 The Vulgate text has confortavit me, but Luther has the Greek evbvvmesavTi ]xe in mind and therefore uses rohoravit me here.
31 In the lecture on Titus 3:8, held Jan. 20, 1528. Cf. Luther's Works, 29, p. 86.