[W, XXVI, 38] and the passage (John 6:63) "The flesh is of no avail, etc." The figure dWtoicoGig 14 is a matter of case for case, number for number. The city which I establish they have upset when the word for one nature is used for the other and also in the case of "Son" in Rom. 8:3, where the words "the Son of God" are taken for "man." Rather, one ought to say: whenever the word for one nature appears, whatever is said about the one nature must be understood as referring to the entire
Person. Here, for instance, "man" is the word for one nature; yet the whole Person is referred to. This must be kept in force, etc., when¬ ever the word for the part is attributed to the whole. "The Ethiopian is white," because he has white teeth. "He struck the son of the king," but this fellow says: "No, because he was struck in the leg."
In all matters we must note the manner of speaking. Grammar ought to set the norm of speaking. The sophist says: "No. He struck the leg of the king's son." But this limb along with the son is one person.
They cannot be torn apart in nature. It is the true Son of God and Son of Man who is crucified. It is said in truth: the Son of God is crucified, not as concerns the divine nature but according to the I had begun 15 to treat the point concerning the communication of attributes, for that error creeps in with the others, and according to that device Christ, the Salvation of the whole world, will be lost.
He will follow us who have been redeemed through His humanity alone. That error wants this word used as confirmation through dXAoiooGn;, that is, through an exchange. Consequently it has been taken up into an article of our faith and has been set forth in sacred literature that Christ is God in true substance and nature.10 If that article stands, it follows inevitably that whoever harms one limb of this Person harms the whole Person. He divides that Person, as it were, into two persons.17 He says that His humanity suffered, but not the divinity. This has outward appeal: "The divinity cannot be
14 For the definition of this figure of speech, cf. Luther's Works, 37, p. 206, n. 63. Luther wrote a parallel discussion of this figure of speech in his Confession
Concerning Christ's Supper (also February 1528). See Luther's Works, 37, pp.
15 The lecture of Feb. 5 begins at this point.
10 Perhaps Luther has in mind the "He is God, ... of the substance of the Father, . . . perfect God . . . equal to the Father with respect to His Godhead"
(Athanasian Creed, pars. 29—31).
17 Cf. the Athanasian Creed, par. 32: "Although He is God and Man, He is not two Christs but one Christ."
[W, XXVI, 38, 39] killed." It does not follow, however, that therefore the Son of God was not crucified. Whoever bows down to worship Christ worships the Son of God, because he touches and worships that Person who is
God. When I strike the king and touch his arm, I have not struck his skin. "You have struck the tunic with which he was clothed and covered. They did not crucify God but someone clothed as God."
Man. When we hear a term such as this, nature will be such that when people have the term on their side, they let it stand as it is; but if it is against them, they take pride in their full sacks. Then the term signifies a part of that Person, because it is the word for the human nature. But because that Man is in substance a divine Person,
"man" here has to mean man in a sense other than elsewhere because of the union of persons.
Mediator. Unless you know this, you will lose Christ. Peter said:
"I struck him." The Enthusiasts say: "How could you? You know that a man is composed of body and soul. How can you touch the soul? Therefore you have injured only the flesh." The flesh and soul are one person. These are statements from nature. When someone hits a dog in the leg with a stone, because of the injured limb we say that the whole dog is injured. This is synecdoche. In passing,
I wanted to warn about this: in what sense Christ is Man in regard to His Person and yet is the Mediator, even if you were to separate
Christ's divinity from His humanity. Christ entered into glory. Here Christ is taken for His human nature according to dkXoi'cooig. But "Christ" signifies the entire Person, who is the Son of Man and Son of God. Yet this was before He was glorified. Yet it is truly said that the entire Christ is glorified, although in the other Person. "I live by faith" (Gal. 2:20) even in that Man, because He is one Person. I will attach myself to Christ as to the Person who in work and practice can¬ not be separated. They can separate Him in their speculations. If I prostrate myself before Christ, I do so before the Son of God as well as before the Son of Man in one Person. Without apology the ex¬ pression issues from Christ and is directed to the blind man. John
9:36-37: "Who is the Son of God?" "And you have heard Him, etc." 18
There Christ says that the blind man is hearing and seeing the Son of God. I see the very Person, who is truly God. I look at a man; nevertheless, his intellect is his better part. Yet I hear him. I hear that person which is a real spirit, even if I may not see his reason
18 The conversation between Jesus and the blind man is abbreviated.
[W, XXVI, 39, 40] and intellect. I see that part — the part of the flesh — joined with reason. We must listen to grammar, to the usus loquendi about mat¬ ters, and to sophist keenness. This deceived Wycliffe, too.19 They look at the reason for speaking but not at the manner of divine opera¬ tion. Therefore it deceives them. Christ is established as one Person consisting of God and Man. No suffering, no work can apply to Him without our saying that it touches His entire Person.
6. The testimony to which. Our translator20 has added certain things which are not in the Greek.21 Although the Greek does not have "to which," yet it does not seem to have been a bad addition.
This is an unfinished statement: "the testimony at the proper time."
Both a verb and a genitive construction are lacking. So he added the pronoun "to which" and "was borne." There is a similar passage in Titus, but in different words. "He manifested" (chapter 1, at the beginning). This is a similar statement in different words; that is,
God promised that salvation "ages ago." There appears to be some¬ thing lacking in this text, too, perhaps "As God had promised from eternity," or something like that, as in Titus (Titus 1:2). "The testi¬ mony at the proper time," obviously, He has revealed, He has made manifest, because Christ is the testimony at the proper time. This is not in tune. He did not give Himself as a testimony at the proper time, but He revealed Himself. I explain this from Titus 1. Christ is
"the Mediator between God and men," as this was foreordained from the beginning. About Him testimony has been manifested and re¬ vealed at the proper time. Furthermore, a testimony of this sort
(you will read it well this way) has been revealed at the proper time.
Rom. 16:26 and Eph. 3:5 both speak this way. This is an excellent passage. Christ has two functions: mediation, or redemption, and a testimony about the forgiveness of sins and mediation. This, too, our Enthusiasts do not understand. The one is an act; the other, the use of the act. I have written against the Enthusiast Carlstadt in a book to answer his charge: "You new papists, you make new mis¬ takes. You teach that there is remission of sins in Baptism, in the 19 In his Confession Concerning Christ's Supper Luther wrote at some length about the deception logic was able to achieve in Wycliffe and the sophists when they neglected to heed the force of grammar. Cf. Luther's Works, 37, pp. 294 to 303, especially p. 301.
21 For testimonium temporibus suis the older Latin Bible had cuius testi¬ monium temporibus suis confrmatum est.
Gospel. But Scripture says something else. The only thing we know about the forgiveness of sins is that it occurs on the cross, not in Baptism."22 That is where he misleads the naive. Note well this passage and others like it. They distinguish between redemption as an actual act and redemption as it is preached. Had Christ been crucified a hundred thousand times and had nothing been said about it, what profit would the act of His being brought to the cross have brought? But when I come to this, I must draw this act into history and publish it for all the world. Also, if anyone had seen this, he would not have thought that the work of redemption was taking place there. The work is fulfilled on the cross, but no one knows of the redemption except the Father and the Son. Therefore to the act also the use of the act must be added, that it may be declared through the Word and that one may hold it by faith and, thus believing, may be saved. Paul's intent, then, is this: to the work of redemption belongs the Word of preaching, which does nothing else but impress the work of redemption. "You have urged this passage beyond mea¬ sure. No one, etc. Answer me. You credit the remission of sins to the Gospel, to Baptism, and to Scripture. But the forgiveness of sins lies in the shedding of the blood." Who has placed those words in your mouth so that you know that this is the redemption from sins?
You did not see it on the cross. You heard it, but through the Word.
They say: "Christ completed the redemption with a single work."
Yes, but He distributes it, applies it, and tells it by testimony. There is a testimony in Baptism. We are baptized into Christ. His Word is present. I am baptized into Christ the Crucified. In Baptism, there¬ fore, there is a use of redemption — an application of its use. In this way the Gospel is the spoken Word, but it gives and brings this that Christ is, etc. Thus the Word of God brings out the remission of sins.
Therefore there is remission of sins in the Gospel. This one fact — that Christ once, etc. — is divulged and spread in the Word. Thus there is remission of sin in the Sacrament. No one says that Christ is crucified in the Supper and in Baptism, but we say that in the Eucharist His body crucified for us is given to us, as the words say:
"And He said: 'Take this.'" This word "Take"— this word offers me Christ crucified. Satan makes the following ridiculous remark: "They don't want the remission in Word and sacrament. They establish it
22 Cf. Luther's Against the Heavenly Prophets (1525), Luther's Works, 40, especially p. 146.
[W, XXVI, 40, 411 in their speculations." They say that neither water nor bread saves us, but Christ crucified. But it profits nothing unless we receive in the Word that which in Baptism, in the Sacrament of the Altar, and in the Gospel brings this Christ to me. And wherever the Word of the Gospel is, there is the remission of sins. Therefore, Christ redeemed us once with a single work, but He did not pass out redemption with a single means. He gave it out through the medium of washing in Baptism, through the medium of eating in the Sacrament of the Altar, through the media of comforting the brethren, of reading in the Book, that the fruit of His passion might be spread everywhere.
I would be happy to know those who comfort one who has been afflicted. They must do this through the Word of consolation. Who will say, then, that remission of sins is not in the Word? So Paul preaches and boasts wonderfully that he is justified by the Word, in which the treasure of our redemption has been enclosed and through which it is offered to us. When Paul made this commenda¬ tion of Christ, he says that one thing is necessary: that a testimony must be revealed in which that redemption is brought near and dis¬ tributed. Without that vehicle and channel, redemption would not come to us. No one thinks of it in this way. "A testimony that has been revealed." Actually, redemption has been foreordained and fulfilled in its own time. Thus the testimony has been fulfilled in its own time, but without the Word it would remain in darkness. Human reason cannot say that a man who dies is God, is the Redeemer of the world from its sins and who gives eternal life. To be sure God sees this, but not we. Therefore we must have the testimony of the Word to announce this to us. It is then that I get another thought. Wherever the Word of God is, then, there is the forgiveness of sins. After all, the Word is nothing else than the declaration of the forgiveness of sins. This is the conclusion which the Enthusiasts have to draw against us: "They have Baptism, the Eucharist, and confession; they comfort — but all this is without the Word." But we say: "The Word is our Baptism, etc. The Word has announced the whole thing to me."
7. For this, this testimony, I teas appointed a preacher. To preach is to convey with great glory and boasting. Paul is happy to boast of his ministry, because it is his grace as a teacher to know for certain that he preaches the Word of God. I preach this Word in which is conveyed the treasure of redemption. The Enthusiasts who have read and listened to our material do not wish to see this. Human reason neither hears nor grasps it. On the contrary, whoever does
[W, XXVI, 41, 42] hear and grasp this gets this from God. Also, Paul has been ap¬ pointed for testimony. To be sure, they say that Christ was crucified, but that He was not crucified in confession or Baptism. Therefore in these there is no remission of sins.
A teacher. See how he boasts with a full supply of spiritual boast¬ ing! Why? "I cannot boast enough concerning my apostleship; always more boasting would be necessary, for I have more people who want to be teachers." Today, too, we must have such boasting in the face of such great errors. Still I know that I have the Word, that it is true, that you are wrong, and that my Word will stand against all the gates, etc. (Matt. 16:18). "What great pride and boasting are in these men! That's the way they want to change us, but etc." This is a lofty title, that is, "I teach the faith and truth, I teach the faith and the Gentiles. Others teach myths, genealogies, foolish thoughts and grand notions. I teach faith and the truth, that is, this is the use of that redemption. Through my testimony comes faith that man is justified through faith, that is, through the knowledge of all things." In Titus
(1:15) we read: "To the pure all things are pure," and here in chap¬ ter 4: "Everything created by God is good" for those who believe and understand the truth. Whoever believes in Jesus knows that salvation rests on Christ. And after that everything else is free. Works never do anything toward justification. Others are "always learning but never arriving at a knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim. 3:7), because they have been deprived of the truth. Concerning dress, eating, and service to the brethren one should know that one must not hope for salvation from them. That's the kind of teacher I am.
8. I desire then that . . . the men should pray.23 Paul has said this often, and he feels free to insert that passage about the redemption of Christ. In this is God's chosen tool which the passage on redemp¬ tion especially urges. If indeed God has established Paul, He has also established him to teach outward practices and ceremonies. He knew that in the future people would go after legalism and would neglect the principal theme of redemption. He wanted people to pray for all men. Because of this, he here takes the opportunity to digress. If one must pray for all men, then he is concerned for all men. After interjecting the digression, he returns to the topic of the beginning of the chapter. / desire, he says. We are not certain whether he is speaking here about public or private prayer. One can
23 The lecture of Feb. 10 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 42, 43] take it to mean both. Yet he appears to be speaking especially about public prayer, when someone comes to hear the Word, at the same time to kneel there, lift up his hands, and pray to the Lord, whose face remains before us as we pray the Our Father after the singing.
So I take this to refer to public prayer. I desire, then, that the men should pray, especially in public; and that they pray thus also in every place but especially where the Gospel is taught. In one city there were many churches — in fact, as many as there were houses.
Paul writes in Titus (1:11) that people were "upsetting whole fam¬ ilies," and in Philemon (2) he writes to the church which is in the house of Archippus. It is his intent, then, to say that those churches ought to be in harmony, single-minded, praying in one spirit. People thus separated by households should not separate themselves as far as their souls are concerned. In any home or church the men should begin to pray. They should be the first to pray. This is what happens in the church; when the priest reads that public prayer, the congre¬ gation responds, "Amen."
In every place. That is, the congregations should pray at the same time and should help each other with prayers for each other, so that there should be no place which prays against another place.
If you wish to take this to refer to private prayer, that's fine. But in private prayer women are not excluded. Neither sex is, as Christ in¬ dicates in His prayer in Matt. 6. But because Paul here separates men from women, he seems to refer to public prayer. Also today
Jewish men are separated from women. We, too, preserve this cus¬ tom. The student and priest read the Psalms softly and simply. That is called public prayer. Women did not participate. Now they read and sing but do not pray. Lifting pure and holy hands. We live not with Judaic purity which water washes. Rather we live with purity of life or work. Whoever wishes to be involved in sacred matters ought to approach them with pure heart, mouth, and hands, that is, such as are pure of blood, murder, rapine, theft, all burnings and injury by which one injures a neighbor. This describes a ceremony that we ought by no means neglect: that in prayer we lift up our hands, according to the Psalm: "I lifted up."24 That gesture which 24 Ps. 25:1; 86:4; 143:8 use the expression levavi animam meam, but levavi manus is apparently not found in the Psalms. In Gen. 14:22 Abram says to the king of Sodom: Levo manum meam ad Dominum, but this is in the sense of "I have sworn to the Lord." But regarding the psalm passages listed above, one should remember Luther's statement a few lines later: "When the soul is lifted up, the hands are lifted up."
[W, XXVI, 43] the lifting up of hands signifies is recommended in sacred literature.
People have let this fall into disuse among us fools and hypocrites.
We do not do it as the prayers are being sung. Where there is serious prayer, it is an excellent ceremony of prayer to lift up the hands. In the Greek church, they say, this custom still endures. When the soul is lifted up, the hands are lifted up. Also, Christ says (Mark 11:25):
"Whenever you stand, praying," or, when you prostrate yourself, as did David; that is, pray with a good conscience. He is referring to a hindrance to a prayer that accomplishes nothing. As Peter says (1 Peter
3:7): "Bestowing honor ... in order that your prayers may not be hindered," yield to the woman, tolerate her idiosyncracies. You see, if you don't do this, there will remain a disharmony between you.
While that continues, you cannot pray. Whoever cannot pray for the forgiveness of sins cannot pray for anything. As we read in Matt.
5:24: "Leave your gift." Whoever feels that he has offended his brother either by word or deed, in act or body, cannot lift up, etc.
He has hands filled with blood (cf. Is. 1:15). Wash them! First clean your fists! That is, first be reconciled with one another, in order that your prayers may become more harmonious, that is, harmless; or, if harmful, then that they may be reconciled. What is said in Ecclus.
28:3 —"A man retains another man's sin and yet asks God for par¬ don" — will not occur. Without anger or quarreling. This is his ex¬ planation of the meaning of purity of hands. What is it? There should be peace and love between brothers. If there is anger and quar¬ reling, then prayer is hindered and the hands are impure. Therefore take care that everywhere there be peace, love, purity. "You pray, but not well. Therefore you receive not because you are impure"
(cf. James 4:3). Whoever offends by anger with which I am irritated and offended ought to bring about our reconciliation, and he who is offended ought to be reconciled. This I still keep in my heart, my own thinking, about which Rom. 1:21 says: "In their thinking they become futile." This is the sharp memory, as when one philosopher tries to nullify the argument of another. When two people engage in dialog in such a way that one struggles to overcome the other, to strive with his cunning to establish his own points and refute those of the other, it is dog-eat-dog, that is, quarreling occurs. Paul turns a neat phrase here. He wants to speak about very bitter quarreling.
When a man who has been wronged turns this over in his heart, he suffers a bite. He is wounded as he thinks how to bite back or prick
[W, XXVI, 43, 44] back most sharply. For example, this occurs where two people are arguing and both want to be right. On both sides one can see the sting, as when two roosters attack with very sharp strikes. When these thoughts are in a man's heart and keep him busy, when he dwells on them and they fight back, then no good prayer takes place. You see,
I am thinking, "I shall have revenge for his answers." Such a person entertains a false idea. He is considering how to avenge an act or person. Thus he is disturbed by such thoughts, and he cannot pray, because he does not forgive his brother his sin. Because you do not forgive, you are not forgiven. From anger follow those wranglings.
"I will bite back that it may be seen." Where the Catholic teaches correctly: "My foe does nothing but make a false charge." This is well said. Provoked by anger and wrath, he does this to jeer with his insults. He again loses patience: "I charge you. I charge you," and it's dog-eat-dog. Therefore one ought to stand firm in peace and forgiveness of sins toward his neighbor. See Matt. 18 regarding the servant.
9. Let the women be sensible. Here Paul seems still to be speak¬ ing about public prayer. I have no objection if anyone takes it to refer to private prayer, but it is better to take it as public prayer. The women should be properly arranged, correct in their apparel. It is a Hebraism to speak of "adorning oneself in clean garb with modesty and propriety." Here the passage is the same. There are some who treat this passage in the following way: they allow no cleanness to mere women. Rather, women ought to walk in squalor. This they say against those who want them adorned. As we see below (1 Tim.
3:2), a bishop must be a man who is xoopiog ("dignified").25 The word xoopiog is applied not to property but to one's way of life. The bishop's deportment, ought to be pure. This refers to his way of life, not to his property. He denies any adornment of property. This is not a matter of silver. He is adorned, then, in regard to his behavior, lest it offend or harm someone. As Scripture has spoken about the purity of hands,20 so women ought to walk that they may not offend someone with their adornment. Rather, as we say in the proverb:
Zucht der Weiber ist der schonste Schmuck.27 Simple garb and adorn¬ ment is more fitting for a woman than a wagonload of pearls. I do
25 The Vulgate translates this Greek word with ornatus ("well-ordered, adorned").
2fi Cf. Ps. 18:20, 24.
27 "Decency is women's most beautiful adornment." Cf. Prov. 11:22.
[W, XXVI, 44, 45] not want to interpret this too scrupulously — that rich clothing is for¬ bidden to women. Here we must make exceptions for weddings.
I have seen a marriage which intended to be Christian. Here Paul is speaking about a woman's everyday life. He condemns those women who parade in luxury, who wish to be dressed in the most beautiful clothing to allure lovers day after day, who go about everyday as if it were Easter. As for the fact that a woman adorns herself in honor of her groom but goes about in common fashion otherwise, etc., Scrip¬ ture commends the adornment for a spouse, etc. He is saying that it is superstition to wear rags at a wedding; it is contrary to the ritual of the area and to the custom of the people with whom we live; pro¬ vided, of course, that no excess occurs, if this has been the mode of dressing for weddings or festivals. Rather, Paul forbids the surrender¬ ing of self to elegance, the pompous pursuit of adornment. He does not demand the rigor of superstition. After all, a queen must bedeck herself, as did Esther. If she clothes herself with care and good taste, she is not decorating herself but acting in accord with the custom of and allegiance to the people with whom she lives. If it were the cus¬ tom, then it would be a matter of choice for her so to adorn herself or not. In allegiance to her groom, in honor of her wedding and husband, she should dress otherwise than one dresses in church, where one ought to wear proper clothing. There is one way of dressing for a dance; another way for church. Paul is speaking out against pomp and excess, a passion for fashion with which so many are so affected that they cannot fill their eyes. If they see adornment today that they did not see yesterday, etc. — this is to desire dress because of pleasure or passion. Such are the little ladies who are not acquisitive, etc., but they do have a passion in dress. If that were to come to the Sacra¬ ment today, I would not permit it, so am I against the pleasure of and passion for dressing. Whatever there is in clothing, food, drink, homes we can keep with good conscience. "In the church." How?
Not for passion or pleasure but for "apparel," that is, edifying apparel, which offends, entraps, or scandalizes the eyes of no one. He does not want them to wear filthy clothes. Filthiness is not religious scru¬ pulousness, as St. Francis says. A Christian can have clean and pure clothing, as the Jews do. He explains the term modestly, that is, that there be modest and temperate dress. Sensibly does not speak about filth when one reads what he ought to read. Formerly women walked about with neck bared all the way to the middle of the back. This
|W, XXVI, 45] was immodest dress. Elsewhere half the breast is seen. They have high-heeled shoes, etc., so that they can show off their bodies. Rather, they ought to have clothes to conceal themselves, to cover the neck.
Our women walk about with their faces nearly veiled and everything covered very neatly, with their furs, so that almost nothing of their limbs or skin is seen. All this ought to be hidden in church in order that they may walk modestly. Monastic garb comes in here. In this everything is concealed. This is very modest dress. Thus I praise long coats and furs highly. Also young unmarried women ought not wear their locks braided but have a veil when they participate in the Sacrament. I find no fault in our women. I could bear that young women come with their hair veiled, but this is contrary to custom.
There should be modesty in dress. Otherwise, in public, modesty is the rule. Clothing should not be too expensive, with too much gold or pearls; a woman should be clothed and adorned with proper mod¬ esty and chastity. Let her walk thus at home. He explains not in tresses,-s "braids." Paul wants women to veil their braids. Here 29 there is no need to prohibit this practice. In France they wear their hair unbound and with open braids so that no one knows who is married or unmarried. Perhaps this is how Greek women wore their hair. Among our people married women veil their hair and braids.
When they do this, they veil their locks chastely and modestly, so that it may not become material for watchers to think shameful thoughts.
With gold. A woman ought not display gold in her clothing or coat. Here it becomes very clear what custom Greek women had.
They were haughtily resplendent in all of these adornments. I don't want them to wear these things in church. Weddings are something else, that is, where it is a matter of some expense, as when a lady wants to wear a velvet gown. This indicates not a Christian woman but a brash one as she goes to the Word, Sacrament, and prayer.
She does not want to submit.
10. But in that which befits. Here he explains what he means by clean and decorous clothing. They dress in such a way to be the sort of women who have a zeal for piety and who practice good works. If they overdress, it means they are self-seekers, they feed their own eyes, they irritate others. This is to be eager for the vanity of this world and to desire a badge for praise. Our women ought to dress so that one can
-8 Luther quotes the older text non in tricis for the later non in tortis crinibus.
-,J I. c., in Germany.
[W, XXVI, 45, 46] recognize that not one of them is seeking clothing. She goes about, cov¬ ered everywhere. She does not dress expensively. Whatever is left she spends on the poor. So it appears that they are concerned about God and their neighbor and do not seek their own praise. This is one rule about controlling women in public. We need not fear that they overdress when they go into the kitchen but when they go out in public, when they gather for prayer, and when the Word is about to be taught. Against the superstitious, the pompous, the brash, Paul condemns overdressing both in public and in private. I am not against dressing up in honor of one's bridegroom, but not in church, which is another matter. In the former case it is a custom of the person or of the people with whom we live, and it is done in honor of the bride¬ groom. But in church they should be covered. Good people have held to the middle ground. Brash and superstitious women must not be admitted. Now follows another rule — about teaching in the church.
11. Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.30 I be¬ lieve that Paul is still speaking about public matters. I also want it to refer to the public ministry, which occurs in the public assembly of the church. There a woman must be completely quiet, because she should remain a hearer and not become a teacher. She is not to be the spokesman among the people. She should refrain from teaching, from praying in public. She has the command to speak at home. This pas¬ sage makes a woman subject. It takes from her all public office and authority. On the other side is the passage in Acts (8:27) about Queen
Candace. We read many such examples in sacred literature — that women have been very good at management: Huldah, Deborah, Jael, the wife of the Kenite, who killed Sisera 31 Why, then, does Paul say here that he deprives them of the administration of the Word as well as of work? You should solve that argument in this way. Here we properly take "woman" to mean wife, as he reveals from his correlative phrase (v. 12) "to have authority over man," that is, over her husband.
As he calls the husband "man," so he calls the wife "woman." Where men and women have been joined together, there the men, not the women, ought to have authority. An exceptional example is the case where they are without husbands, like Huldah and Deborah who had no authority over husbands. Another lived in Abela.32 The evangelist
30 The lecture of Feb. 11 begins at this point.
31 Cf. 2 Kings 22:14; Judges 4:14, 17.
32 The wise woman of Abel of Beth-maacah (2 Sam. 20:14-21).
Philip had four unmarried daughters, etc. (cf. Acts 21:9). He forbids teaching contrary to a man or to the authority of a man. Where there is a man, there no woman should teach or have authority. Where there is no man, Paul has allowed that they can do this, because it happens by a man's command. He wants to save the order preserved by the world — that a man be the head of the woman, as 1 Cor. 11:3 tells us.33
Where there are men, she should neither teach nor rule. She rules in the home and says: "Be quiet," but she is not the master. This maxim was spoken against Greek women, who have been and now are more ingenious and clever than those in other countries. The Jews and Arabs do not honor their women in this way. The Turk considers women as beasts. Not so with the Greeks and us. Miriam seemed wise to herself; she rose up against her brother and her "man" (cf. Num. 12). They should be with all submissiveness. Then comes the teaching, and Paul does not entrust the ministry of the Word to her. He considers this the greatest thing that goes on in the church. You must always understand this with the condition that men are present. Paul says this that there may be peace and harmony in the churches when the Word is taught and people pray. There would be a disturbance if some woman wished to argue against the doctrine that is being taught by a man. The method of 1 Cor. 14 has now perished. I could wish it were still in effect, but it causes great strife. Where a man teaches, there is a wellrounded argument against a man. If she wishes to be wise, let her argue with her husband at home.
12. To have authority. That is, she ought not take over for herself the heritage which belongs to a man so that a man says to her: "My lord." She wants her own wisdom to have priority, that whatever she has said should prevail and whatever the man says should not. We say:
Paul is saying with power what is to be said. He is not speaking about real physical domination, but about the authority of the word, that she should be right and have the last word, that in the church her word ought to appear wiser and more learned and thus of greater authority than that of her husband. So also in the home.
13. For Adam. Paul skillfully arranges this example of his that he may not appear to be speaking off the top of his head. This is the way
God has ordained it. The principal role belongs to the man. Adam was first, etc. Therefore the greater authority lies in the man rather than in the woman. Then Eve, that she should be, etc. Secondly, this
33 The Weimar text reads "Cor. X."
|W, XXVI, 47] situation stands not only because of what God intended but also from the history of Adam and Eve.
14. And Adam teas not deceived, that is, was not involved in the lie. Here Paul appears to gather arguments with considerable concern on behalf of man's dominance. Yet they are true: (1) God Himself has so ordained that man be created first — first in time and first in authority. His first place is preserved in the Law. Whatever occurs first is called the most preferable. Because of God's work, Adam is approved as superior to Eve, because he had the right of primogeni¬ ture. In human affairs it can happen that a later work can be better.
It also happens that whoever does not do evil does good. In Scripture, however, this is not so. (2) Experience. Not only has God's wisdom ordained this, but there was more wisdom and courage in Adam. And by this one sees who is wiser and rightly preferred. But Adam was wiser than Eve. Experience has been witness to this. Therefore Adam is approved according to God's creation and man's experience. These are the two arguments. Paul thus has proved that by divine and human right Adam is the master of the woman. That is, it was not Adam who went astray. Therefore there was greater wisdom in Adam than in the woman. Where this occurs, there is the greater authority. One point here indicates that Adam was not deceived. We do not know that Adam would have sinned had he listened to the serpent. Adam sinned knowingly, but he wanted to agree with his wife and please her. He thought that it was not so important a matter, etc., although Paul may seem to point to the fact that he wants to explain that Adam had not been addressed by the serpent, since Adam had received the command from God written in his heart. This, too, is an argument: God gave him the command directly, but to the woman through the man. He presses this idea, that Satan did not attack Adam. Therefore Adam was not deceived by the serpent. Yet this is a very simple statement. The ser¬ pent did not deceive Adam, because it did not tempt him by speaking with him. Therefore Paul is correct in saying that Adam was deceived not by the serpent but by the woman. He believed that this sin was an insignificant matter, not realizing that, if he fell, he was falling away from the command, from God, even from life. This he was not consid¬ ering. He did not have that knowledge of good and evil. That is, he persevered in his dominion over the serpent, which did not attack him but rather attacked the weaker vessel. Therefore, etc. He has written quite carefully how cleverly Satan treated the fearless person and at- [W, XXVI, 47, 48] tacked the weak one, just as he does today. But the woman was de¬ ceived and became a transgressor, that is, she became the cause of transgression. There are three arguments here: (1) that Adam was formed [first]; (2) that he was not deceived; (3) it was not he but the woman who brought on transgression. Paul uses the argument which we have in Genesis (3:16): "Because you have done this, you will be under the man. In punishment for your sin and transgression, you must be subject to the man and suffer the pains of childbirth." Thus that ordinance of God continues to stand as a memorial of that trans¬ gression which by her fault entered into the world.
15. She will be saved. That subjection of women and domination of men have not been taken away, have they? No. The penalty re¬ mains. The blame passed over. The pain and tribulation of childbear¬ ing continue. Those penalties will continue until judgment. So also the dominion of men and the subjection of women continue. You must endure them. You will also be saved if you have also subjected your¬ selves and bear your children with pain. Through bearing children.
It is a very great comfort that a woman can be saved by bearing chil¬ dren, etc. That is, she has an honorable and salutary status in life if she keeps busy having children. We ought to recommend this passage to them, etc. She is described as "saved" not for freedom, for license, but for bearing and rearing children. Is she not saved by faith? He goes on and explains himself: bearing children is a wholesome respon¬ sibility, but for believers. To bear children is acceptable to God. He does not merely say that bearing children saves; he adds: if the bearing takes place in faith and love, it is a Christian work, for "to the pure all things are pure (Titus 1:15)." Also: "All things work together," Rom.
8:28. This is the comfort for married people in trouble: hardship and all things are salutary, for through them they are moved forward toward salvation and against adultery. If they continue. This means whatever a married woman or a mother and her children do. In faith.
Paul had to add this, lest women think that they are good in the fact that they bear children. Simple childbearing does nothing, since the heathen also do this. But for Christian women their whole responsibil¬ ity is salutary. So much the more salutary, then, is bearing children.
I add this, therefore, that they may not feel secure when they have no faith. Rather, they should continue — along with their children — in faith, etc. But how they can take care of this as children, etc., see chapter 5, if you have done your job and instructed your children and [W, XXVI, 48, 49] have done what you can. Let Isaac be wicked against the training of his father, let the defeat be not in Abraham but in his son. See to it that your children do not persevere in faithlessness because of your negligence. See to it that they are not corrupted or that you do not allow them to be corrupted, if it is your fault that they have not con¬ tinued "in faith." See to it that they do not hold in contempt the Word, faith toward God, love toward neighbor, holiness toward themselves.
That is, a woman ought to live in holiness, according to 1 Thess. 4:5, "not in the passion of lust." That is, she should not befoul herself with another's husband or unclean morals. A man should be content with his own wife, for she is his own body, and in relation to her there should be reverence and holiness. With modesty, with moderation, good common sense; sensible, well-mannered. People see modesty or a composed mind when there is modesty of body, a person who can deal with matters sensibly. I interpret it with "sensibly" (verniinftig), to be temperate in doing all other things — in speaking, in managing; that a person may sensibly and skillfully manage affairs. Thus you see how he wants Christian women to behave in public life, in the home, etc. If the Lord were to raise up a woman for us to listen to, we would allow her to rule like Huldah. This first part has spoken to husbands and wives. What follows is the description of other estates — of bishops and of deacons.
1. The saying is sure.
Pmjl now goes on 1 in his instruction for preachers, estates, or orders in the church. As he has here spoken about the husband, etc., in a general directive, so now among all the ranks of the church he has preached the ministry of the Word. Therefore he establishes what sort of a man a bishop must be. The passage is known from the Epistle to Titus, since it is one and the same word. Pha in Hebrew, or the apostolic par No one ought to be in doubt about this, but one should stand with firm conscience, that is, on it one can rely and die. What is this? If anyone. This is a passage for dealing with the call. You see,
Scripture everywhere warns us away from rashness in entering the ministry, Heb. 5:4; John 10:1; Jer. 23:21. It does this because every¬ where one requires some call. Paul comforts. Here Paul saw that there were many fickle, big-talking false teachers who kept rushing about in all directions, saying that they were driven by the Spirit, by wisdom, and by their talent. This temptation used to bother the Carthusians:
"Look, you have a talent from the Lord, and you are not investing it for profit." In this way they would cause them unrest. Those who are in the ministry think about the austerity of their life. Paul himself bursts into the middle of these confusions and shakes them up: "This is true. Would that you had such men to pursue the office of a bishop, the ministry." So also we can say today, "Would that we had!" Thus this is a passage which both confirms and concedes. But you have his words before you in a splendid expression, because this is a "noble task." If this text did not stand firm, the Enthusiasts would have won the battle. Paul does not say "a noble thing," but a "noble task, under¬ taking." The office of bishop in the church, then, is a noble work, a very good function, which has many good works in it. Where are these men? He is one who is eager and exerts himself to do well. See whether the Enthusiasts are the kind of people who delight in doing good. See whether they have an affection for gentleness, hospitality, generosity; whether they show this willingly, with enthusiasm, or 1 The lecture of Feb. 13 begins at this point.
2 The manuscript leaves space after both italicized syllables, possibly for completion later of words imperfectly understood.
[W, XXVI, 49, 50] whether they take this kind of life by choice. I always see many of the sort who seize the office of teaching in contempt of all good works.
They are looking for glory. Paul does not speak in this tone. Rather, he says: whoever aspires to the office of a bishop must be from his heart a righteous man, sincere, good to the core, a model of piety.
Thus it is a duty, although a difficult work, for it is exposed to all styles of life, the most contrary of all, even to detractors, and the in¬ cumbent is exposed to every peril of life. It is easy to fall into error while teaching and comforting. If God Himself were not driving such a person, he would prefer to withdraw into the desert. Thus Moses refused the ministry six times to which God called him (cf. Ex. 3 and 4), until God became angry and said (cf. Ex. 4:14): "Look, Aaron will come out to meet you." God had to thrust it upon him in anger. Be¬ cause the ministry is so important — a situation where one is exhibited as "a spectacle to the angels," according to 1 Cor. 4:9 — he must abso¬ lutely be strong, firm, and good who says: "I see that the erring breth¬ ren do not understand the sound Word. They are my brothers. I shall run into that fire. I shall oppose those errors and iniquities of Satan."
For people with aspirations like that the sights are set mighty high.
Our Enthusiasts run without being called; but to be of service to a brother as a matter of indulgence is a serious matter. "You have been unfaithful in a little thing" (cf. Matt. 25:21). If someone does not hazard his bread and substance for a brother, how will he risk his life and salvation? Meanwhile they say, "I mean it from the bottom of my heart." They are not seeking to look to their conscience. Rather, they are seeking their own glory. Paul says (Phil. 2:21): "They all look after their own interests." The heretical false teachers do not go where no one has taught that way but where Paul has set the foundation.
They build with stubble and hay and violate the temple of God. That is how our Enthusiasts act. Paul, then, wants to say: "I should judge this man to be the kind who preaches the Word with a pure and confi¬ dent heart. He does not sin; he is not spendthrifty." On the other hand, if he is a greedy accumulator, he sins and boasts of his doctrine. "Doc¬ tor, heal yourself" (Luke 4:23). This is a concession: truly, whoever aspires to the bishop's office must make one take heart, because he is not looking for his own glory that he might perform a miracle in the world, as our Enthusiasts do. But here there is error. "Even if no one else wishes to, I want to serve the wretched people with that which the Lord has given," he says if he looks about with guileless eye. For [W, XXVI, 50, 51] bishop means "watchman," "visitor," that is, one who goes to visit, who visits to see people. He looks around to see what is being taught and how people live. He watches with open eyes that no false doctrine breaks in or that there be no person who does not listen, who holds his teaching in contempt, etc. A papist who tends to his job of overseeing is properly something of a bishop, not one who merely wears the badge of office and sits in his palace but one who goes out and visits the sick, the grieving, the lonely, the sinners to help them. He is ex¬ posed to the weaknesses of all men, because he himself is weak and in need of comfort. That is, a person who has a desire, who has an inter¬ est, to see which people might believe, etc., that is, the man who has aspirations to serve the weak, surely desires a good work. A father has aspirations for obedience, for a magistracy. He has aspirations for a very fine thing. There is a difference between those who aspire and those who simply have a desire. That is, the latter do not look to see who is being taught but who is pouring out his own wisdom. Their stomachs are ready to burst. Carlstadt never asked his hearers to be¬ come more learned. Thus he is another "Twin,"3 but that he might appear to be an opener of the sacred groves. Such people write and teach to gain exposure for their own doctrine. In the public ministry one should see to it that others learn. If people would only say: "Thank you. That was a good lecture, because it produces fruit in the hearers and not merely admiration." They only flaunt their own wisdom; "they look after their own interests" (Phil. 2:21), not the fruitful instruction of the brethren, and so a good work is not a good work. May one aspire to a call, and do they not lack a preacher? One certainly may have such aspirations. But see to it that they themselves desire this work. Then you can volunteer, and then you will be called. After all,
Paul speaks this way: "If you hear that there is need of a preacher somewhere, you can tell the people in charge, 'If there is no one else available, I would, etc.' If you offer yourself as one who is ready and if you have the recommendation of your brothers, so that the people in charge may accept you, etc., we should not make an exception of the office of the episcopate." A word about aspiring to be a bishop.
The pious aspire to that office with trepidation. They do not come freely and teach, but they are forced into it, even as I. If God and the people consider that I am useful to the people, I neither aspire to the office nor ask for it. I do not offer myself to do this if He could send
[W, XXVI, 51] someone else in my place. Those are the best who aspire to the office and see its errors and needs. In me the aspiration is secondary. If this is what people want, they chase one away here, another there; there¬ fore, etc.
2. He must be above reproach. This is the first quality he must have. The man who wants to investigate, correct, and teach others should be above reproach. To be beyond comparison is shameful for a teacher; that is, that he is beyond accusation and can neither rightly nor justly be accused. After all, there is no one who is above reproach before God. Paul writes: "I am conscious of no evil" (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4).
Let the Our Father stand: "Forgive us." Before God no one is above reproach, but before men the bishop is to be so, that he may not be a fornicator, an adulterer, a greedy man, a foul-mouthed person, a drunkard, a gambler, a slanderer. If he is falsely accused, no harm; he is still above reproach; no law can accuse him before men. Samuel and Moses are good examples. Samuel said, "If I have defrauded any¬ one, etc." (cf. 1 Sam. 12:3). There he showed how innocent he was, as far as men were concerned. Moses spoke this way before Korah
(cf. Num. 16:15). To live this way, that you do not harm your neigh¬ bor by theft or adultery, means that no man can accuse you of anything or say: "You have stolen from me; you have raped my wife." St. Jerome says: "A bishop must be the sort of man whom no sin has contaminated since his baptism." 4 Therefore he himself was never a bishop. Nor has anyone else been! It is monkish superstition to grieve over sins, a bishop tortured by weakness. The husband. We have said enough about this in the Epistle to Titus.3 Here the papists say he must be the bishop of one church. Others say that bishops must have a wife, that a person cannot be a bishop unless he is married, and that today it is necessary that everyone of them be so, etc. Temperate. These are the priestly robes, the royal adornment, the gems and precious stones of our Aarons. Sensible, wide-awake and sober, so that he is not drunk with sleep, a snorer given to sleep, xoopiog, "proper." As I mentioned above regarding women,6 they should have dignified dress, that is, a bishop ought not to go about like a vagabond or a mercenary soldier but ought to appear with dignity as befits him. He should not be seen with torn shoes, mountainous mane, ragged shirts, and torn sleeves,
4 Cf. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, Book I, eh. 35, Patrologia, Series Latina, 5 Cf. Luther's Works, 29, pp. 18—21.
[W, XXVI, 51, 52] but he should wear respectable clothes. That is what xoapiog means.
As I said above about women: covered in every member.7 Let this be his covering, that he walks with proper garb, ouxpocov, verniinftig, he should be, to handle the situation nicely. He should listen and answer gently. He should advise prudently, he should not insist on his own way. He should use good common sense so that it will be a pleasure to behold it. He is not noisy. He is not rash. Everything is done with good common sense. cpiAo^Evog, hospitable. He is a cheerful host to brothers who come from everywhere — from churches in other places.
He gives them food and drink; he washes their feet. Indeed, the bish¬ op's home should be open to foreign brethren, but not to just any vagrant. At the time of the Roman Empire this was not so, and the political community of the Jews in a very fine way wrote letters of rec¬ ommendation for their brethren. We read about this in John's last epistle (cf. 3 John 10). From this passage it is clear that the bishop had control of a common treasury. I would not want us to have one.
Even Augustine did not have this, because he said that we should look after our own things. The bishops converted that money which be¬ longed to the poor into horses and attendants. It is better, then, in a corrupt time not to have money. Thus a person remains without fault and loss of reputation. We do not apply the requirement of hospitality to parish priests. They are forbidden to be hospitable. After all, they scarcely support themselves, so meanly and poorly are the ministers of the Word fed. Whoever has the means should be hospitable. Were we to have the means, we would be hospitable. An apt teacher. Does this mean he should be trained at the university? He should be eager to teach and qualified to teach. Better yet, he should teach carefully.
He should not be the sort of man who lectures once a year at the uni¬ versity. It is not the bishop's job to teach in the pulpit. Rather, he should teach so that he trains a student when he inculcates things, so that his voice shows earnest care, so that his listeners improve, not so that he himself is in the limelight. This expression does not appear in Titus. The title "teacher" is great if it is not perverted. A teacher and a speaker differ. The former teaches so that a thing may be under¬ stood. The latter speaks, but there is no understanding. In the church people should teach and educate. Erasmus does not teach. Even if he teaches, he muddles about. Thus the Enthusiasts are not teachers, because they don't strengthen consciences. But a man teaches when
[W, XXVI, 52, 53| his hearers understand what he is saying. Paul wrote to Titus (1:9) "so that he may be able to give instruction." He teaches what they must learn. At the same time he instructs them in doctrine. Then he
"refutes those who contradict" (Titus 1:9). There the opposing party is false. I would prefer that the translation "an apt teacher" stand, but it has fallen into abuse, because the apt teachers have been put off in the universities. The Enthusiasts are filled with empty talk, but they do not teach, because nothing is definite with them. That is, he is an apt teacher who hands down what people must know.
We have heard 8 that a bishop ought to have this gift, that he teach well and cheerfully. This is the chief responsibility and duty of the bishop: the ministry of the Word, even though our people regard reli¬ gion most cheaply.
3. jtctQoivog, drunkard, one who is always eager for wine or drink.
It is not that he should dislike wine, but that he should not be a drunk¬ ard. Paul is writing to Greeks, where there is no beer. He seems to make a distinction between the drunkard and the alcoholic. Those who must drink constantly are alcoholics. And yet it is not good that a bishop be drunk even once. This can lead to a fall, as in Lot's case
(cf. Gen. 19:33). But Paul condemns constant drinking. Violent.
This he ought not be — a snappish person who lashes out with his tongue. He is not speaking about physical violence. After all, you know that in a meeting one must observe this rule, that faults should be attacked in a general way, so that no one is named personally.
There are seditious preachers, and there are two methods of attack, one in general. One must not preach against the government so as to spare the people. On the contrary, we must censure orders of every kind. Through sedition the contrary is usually done. The public offi¬ cial listens freely, so that he may punish the people. This is the way to encourage sedition. If both are attacked, some preachers today win the minds of the common crowd over in this way, but they overlook how much malice men have. The Enthusiasts used to think that they would restore the republic with the common crowd. The second method is in the presence of the congregation. This occurs with formal testimony and judgment. Paul witnessed before all (cf. 1 Cor. 5:3).
If they do not listen, they must be excommunicated. He selects certain persons whom he brings into public light. Yet Christ says (Matt. 18:1518): "Tell him his fault between you and him . . . tell it to the church."
8 The lecture of Feb. 17 begins at this point.
The faults are not corrected when someone is brought to confusion in, that is, before, the whole congregation. Rather, people get worse, and minds become irritated. He is a snappish preacher who strikes a per¬ son in private. One must strike against public faults, but not private ones, for that is to sow the seeds of sedition, discord, anger, and jeal¬ ousy.
"Greedy of filthy gain." What sort of gain is filthy? That which comes from filthy profiteering like gambling and usury, which demean the bishop. He ought to have the necessities of life and keep his ac¬ counts honestly and without blame. Paul writes this way to Titus
(Titus 1:7). Gentle. This means fair, or, better yet, accommodating.
This is a bishop's outstanding, most honorable, most universal, and greatest virtue. With it he wins the minds of men. With it he accom¬ modates himself to the ways and interests of all people. He is burden¬ some to no one, approachable to all. He can skillfully adapt himself to the people. He can explain all things, endure all things. He does not proceed strictly according to law. The young regents want to rule according to laws — an impossible thing. They should rule according to emeixeux, "fairness," according to the just proportion of laws, so that the magistrate may keep the laws under his will. You see, people are different, but the law is impersonal. A situation can occur in com¬ mon, and he can preserve justice, etc., where the law is against both parties. The one loses because he is hindered by some misfortune; the other, because of his wickedness. One must be punished; the other not. This is to deal with people not according to severity. Let them manage their affairs so that a person does not waste a dollar for the sake of a penny, that he does not throw the baby out with the bath¬ water. A bishop should be very fair, very obliging, so that he can easily tolerate people and accommodate himself to their ways, for they are not all of one kind. He must impose obedience upon all men and yet be a burden to no one. "Let all men know your forbearance," Phil. 4:5. dpaxog, not quarrelsome. Our people today are still plotting wars.
I do not think that Paul is simply prohibiting battles and warfare.
A bishop should also not be a contentious man who likes to quarrel with people over a penny or a nickel. Such people should not go to court with their fellow citizens and brothers, but if they inflict a loss through a lawsuit, he should be long-suffering. How our divines follow this rule we can see. Lover of money. "Greedy" is a good translation.
Avarice is a shameful fault in a bishop. Paul censures it severely and [W, XXVI, 54 | calls it idolatry (cf. Col. 3:5). A bishop ought to be a gentle person, available to all for encouragement. Therefore he cannot be greedy or, as they say in Greek, eager for money.9 He should not be thinking how to gather a great treasury. "If we have food and clothing" (cf.
1 Tim. 6:8)! The princes learn this quickly, this fault, etc.10
4. He must manage his own household well. That is, he manages well who rules well his own household. Yet Paul is speaking not only about piety but about courtesy as well, that his house is well managed in this way, that he has a serious and disciplined home. Paul explains this in this way, that the children, servants, and maids are well man¬ nered in customs, clothing and behavior, that it be a virtuous house¬ hold. There one does not enter for illicit love and to carouse as in a tavern. He means that the family should abstain from foul language or singing. That household should follow the road of disciplined de¬ cency. That is, he can keep them in discipline. If he does not control his own household and if he cannot discipline his own children and family, how will he discipline others outside the family? His own household should be settled in its behavior — disciplined. Keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way, in an honorable fash¬ ion, that is, when man and wife do not go about frivolously, like harlots and scoundrels, but nicely appointed in clothing and also in words and deeds. Villainous behavior in the streets does not become them. They ought to behave as befits their own person. If their children and house¬ hold ought to be honorable in manner and appearance their behavior ought to be respectful too. That is, everywhere with polish and seri¬ ousness everything should take on an honorable appearance. The bishop cannot endure it in his family that they curse, use frivolous lan¬ guage, disparage others, and swear. So, if you were to see a servant having fun and running after his wife — well, that's not impossible.
After all, that is a physical and civil matter. Those, however, who are unwilling to be obedient he may cast out. Levi sinned. The reason was that he did not control his own household. This is an argument a breviori: if one cannot control the smallest part — the persons and things that are around him at all hours every day, then [what can he
9 Luther is referring to the dcpikdQYCQOv of the Greek text, which is trans¬ lated with the Vulgate's non cupidum.
10 Luther means to say that the princes soon discover that covetousness is a fault of the preachers, and so they provide a salary so small that the preachers hardly have bread enough. This is confirmed by the added comment above the line et deinde dant ut vix hubeant panem.
[W, XXVI, 54, 55] control]? Paul is speaking not about power but about diligence.
Should one see a bishop's household singing dirty songs or hear the maids swearing, this is a sign that he is not taking care of his family, that he has no concern for vices and virtues. As a consequence, he will not qualify for controlling the church. Greater concern is required there in the church than in the home, because there there are no par¬ ents. Our bishops have explained this to mean: to build the house well and to increase the inheritance of Christ. The world does this if it leaves its children wealthy and constructs its houses well. As we com¬ monly say, possessions waste away. On the other hand, to bring up children who are well educated and settled — that is the better part of economy. Gathering treasure is not. That is, how will he be diligent to correct faults in the church? Paul is speaking about care in control, not care in gathering property, because he talks about diligence in car¬ ing for the household, that it be pious, live a God-fearing life, be up¬ right and honorable.
6. He must not be a recent convert. This means he should not be newly converted, a novice, recently trained. Without conceit. He has this not only from the Holy Spirit but also from experience. He has sent some preachers and disciples, who did not do well, who were so smart and holy. Their ministry is too learned, too holy, or too un¬ learned. If we have an uneducated bishop, it will not do at all. If he is too learned, it is of greater benefit to have an uneducated and unwise man. His life then does less harm, because he does perform baptisms, he does read the Gospel. Even if he does not help much, at least he does not hinder. Those new saints and newly taught people stir up sects and make a show of their own teaching. These are like young colts that don't know their own strength. So they do not know the measure or limit of their own wisdom. They preach the most diffi¬ cult passages of Scripture; according to whim and will they transmit them to others. These are dangerous teachings, and they are not use¬ ful, because they do not accommodate themselves to their hearers.
They do not keep them in mind but have regard only for what they are teaching. I have seen many such men. Some of them I have seen sin in their wisdom, others in their eloquence. This is merely to make a show of eloquence. It does not profit. But to the uneducated masses a bishop must speak with a very plain and direct eloquence, the way one speaks to his children at home. A new teacher cannot achieve this.
Paul therefore says that novices are dangerous preachers. When I first [W, XXVI, 55, 56] became a monk, I was ready to take heaven by storm. These are ves¬ sels that foam and run over. Therefore one must select those who have lost the yellow about the beak.11 Such a person will bring himself down and teach what he has thought salutary for people and to the extent that this can be grasped. Paul and Christ speak this way — with the simplest eloquence. I shall obey gladly — but Erasmus does not — so that the common people may understand. Where people are learned and know Hebrew and Greek, show your knowledge. They can judge more things than you can know. We must take note of that expression
["a recent convert"]. I would not have believed that there was so much power in this expression. Timothy and Titus were young men, but they followed Paul very closely. He is speaking not only about one who is a young man in age but also about him who is young in under¬ standing and the knowledge of Scripture; he speaks especially about the age in understanding and in saintliness, when a person is a new¬ comer in the Scriptures. I shall give an illustration. I had this fault when I first got into the Scriptures. Speculations seemed to me to be the very best ideas, and no one understood them except me. That's the way it is for those who are fresh newcomers in Scripture. They don't have the patience to teach the little things. They must grasp the text of 1 Peter 4 and the anathema of Rom. 9. Those are dangerous theolo¬ gians who are carried away by a fervor and ardor for new doctrine and want to have something special. Those Satan can drive where he will, as we see. The novice is he who is new to Christian doctrine, whether it be a newness of age or of practice, he who is new either in age or in knowledge or understanding. Holy Scripture does not want to be understood by knowledge alone but also and certainly wants to be inculcated through experience. Let a man make the test to see what he has presented in his trial without practice, faith, love. As far as the cross and the remaining virtues are concerned, let him test whether he was present with his theology. Novices are those who read and carry on their reading when we are reading the Gospel and the Epistle.
They know more than I. They are all my teachers, so that I know nothing more. They simply grab up a doctrine and burst into a lec¬ ture. The exegesis of Zwingli is nothing here. Zwingli reads the adages and history of Erasmus. He shows off his knowledge and reading abil¬ ity. How does this profit people? They are not saved because of his
11 The yellow color about the beak is characteristic of extremely young birds. Luther is fond of this figure for immaturity. See also Luther's Works, 15, pp. 27, 64.
[W, XXVI, 56] doctrine, are they? Such men are carried along by a fervor for doc¬ trine, but they are not caught up by an enthusiasm to serve the breth¬ ren. The people must learn that they are smart and holy. I am happy and willing to have uneducated bishops, until they are tested and the whole Bible is too limited for them. We read in The Lives of the Fathers: "If you see a young man who is striving to get into heaven and already has one foot in heaven, draw back." He who wants to be too learned and holy makes a mockery of the whole thing. Thus with a fervor for new doctrine he seeks grace. He has not yet been mortified. Such people show off only themselves, and they teach no one. These certainly are fitting words: "That he not be swollen up and puffed up with pride." Condemnation of the devil. This is an ambigu¬ ous text. Does it mean here the condemnation of the accuser or of Satan? If it is the condemnation of Satan, let him not fall with the same fall by which Satan fell; that is, that fall which the devil suffered when he fell from heaven with Lucifer (cf. Luke 10:18). Paul gener¬ ally calls the devil "Satan." These are his words: "Satan hindered"
(1 Thess. 2:18). Peter calls him "devil"; so does Mark. In Paul there is a more frequent use of "Satan"; "devil" is the Greek word and the common word, "the slanderer" (calumniator). In German we say
Lasterer. We have preserved that word in its common sense. We force no one into our interpretation. This is a savage and serious statement.
"Satan" — that is, let him fall as Satan fell, and that can stand, although I would gladly not hold to this interpretation because of its fierce bru¬ tality. The Enthusiast rarely if ever returns. He pleases himself with his own inventions, and the applause comes. Then he falls irrevocably.
Like Lucifer's fall from heaven, this is not a human fall but a devilish one. He is blinded with vainglory, so that afterwards he never recog¬ nizes himself. Because he has sought the zeal of God and the salvation of his neighbor, he looks for little works and makes himself aprons.12
I have prayed since the beginning of my preaching that God would free me of this fault. Our Enthusiasts are blind and lazy to the point of staying with what they have once thought. That fall of Satan is common in the church, and not in the church of the commonest people but in that of the finest. Lucifer was one of the noblest angels. Thus in this fall not the common people but the very learned, the most en¬ lightened, are involved, and they fall just as Satan did. In this way that statement can stand, but I am not fond of it because of its sav12 Like Adam and Eve, Gen. 3:7.