Author: Robert Smith

March 13, 1522
Dr. Martin Luther
Preacher at Wittenberg

We have heard of the things that are necessary, such as the mass, which is regarded as a sacrifice, and of the unnecessary things, such as the leaving of monasteries by monks, the marriage of priests, and the images. We have seen how we must treat these matters, that no compulsion, or law, must be made of them, and that no one shall be dragged from them by the hair, but that we must let the Word of God alone do the work. Let us now consider how we must observe the Blessed Sacrament.

You have heard how I preached against the foolish law of the pope and opposed his regulation, that no woman shall wash the altar-linen on which the body of Christ has lain, even if it be a pure nun, except it first be washed by a pure priest. Likewise, when any one touches the body of Christ with a hand, the priests come running and scrape his fingers, and much more of the same sort. But when a priest is incontinent, the pope winks at it. If the woman bears a child, he lets that pass, too. The altar-linen and the sacrament, however, dare not be touched.

Against such fools’ laws we have preached, and set forth that no sin is involved in these foolish prescriptions of the pope, that a layman does not commit sin if he touch the cup or the body of Christ with his hands. You should give thanks to God that you have come to such clear knowledge, which many great men have lacked. But now you have become just as foolish as the pope, with your notion that you must handle the sacrament. You would prove that you are good Christians by touching the sacrament with your hands. You have dealt with the sacrament, our highest treasure, in such a way that it is a wonder you were not struck down by thunder and lightning. The other things God would have allowed you to do, but to make this a matter of compulsion; He cannot allow it at all. If you do not back away from this, neither the emperor nor anyone else need drive me from you, I will go without urging. Yes, I dare say, none of my enemies, although they have caused me much sorrow, have wounded me as you have wounded me in this matter. If you would show that you are good Christians by handling the sacrament, and boast of it before everybody, then indeed Herod and Pilate are the chief and best Christians. They handled the body of Christ, I think, when they had him nailed to the cross and put to death.

No, my dear friends, the kingdom of God consists not in outward things, which can be touched or perceived, but in faith. (Luke 17:20, 1 Corinthians 4:20) But you may say: We live and should live in accordance with the Scriptures, and God has instituted the sacrament in such a manner that we should take it with our hands, for He said: “Take and eat, this is my body.” (Matthew 26:36) Answer: Though I am convinced beyond a doubt that the disciples of the Lord took it with their hands, and though I admit that you may do the same without committing sin, nevertheless I can neither make it compulsory nor prove that it is the only way. And my reason therefore is this: when the devil, in his seeking after us, argues, Where have you read in the Scriptures that “take” means “seizing with the hands”? —how shall I prove or defend it? (What does “Take” mean?) No, how will I answer him when he cites, from the Scriptures, the very opposite, and proves that “take” does not mean to receive with the hands only, but also to convey to ourselves in other ways? “See, my good fellow,” so he says, “how the word ‘take’ is used by three Evangelists in describing the taking of gall and vinegar by the Lord. (Matthew 27:34, Mark 15:23) You must admit that the Lord did not touch or handle it with His hands, for His hands were nailed to the cross.” (Luke 23:36) This verse is a strong argument against me. Again, he cites the passage: Et accepit omnes timor , —”And fear took hold on all,” where again we must admit that fear has no hands. (Luke 7:16)

Thus I am driven into a corner and must concede, even against my will, that “take” means not only to receive with the hands, but to convey to myself in any other way in which it can be done. So you see, dear friends, we must be on firm ground, if we are to withstand the devil’s attack. Although I must acknowledge that you committed no sin when you touched the sacrament with your hands, nevertheless I must tell you that it was not a good work, because it caused offense everywhere. For the universal custom is, to receive the Blessed Sacrament directly from the hands of the priest. Why will you not serve in this way also those who are weak in the faith and abstain from your liberty? It does not help you if you do it, nor harm you if you do it not.
Therefore no new practices should be introduced, unless the Gospel has first been thoroughly preached and understood, even as it has been with you. On this account, dear friends, let us deal soberly and wisely in the things that pertain to God, for God will not be mocked. You may mock the saints, but with God it is vastly different. Therefore, I pray you, give up this practice.

Let us now speak of the two kinds. Although I hold that it is necessary that the sacrament should be received in both kinds, according to the institution of the Lord, nevertheless it must not be made compulsory nor a general law. We must occupy ourselves with the Word, practice it and preach it. For the result we should look entirely to the Word, and let everyone have his liberty in this matter. Where that is not done, the sacrament becomes an external observance and a hypocrisy, which is just what the devil, wants. But when the Word is given free course and is not bound to any observance, it takes hold of one today and falls into his heart, tomorrow it touches another, and so on. Thus quietly and soberly it will do its work, and no one will know how it all came about.

I was glad to know when someone wrote me, that some people in this city had begun to receive the sacrament in both kinds. You should have allowed it to remain thus and not have forced it into a law. But now you run ahead and want to force everyone to do it. Dear friends, you will not succeed in that way. And if you desire to be regarded as better Christians than others, because you take the sacrament into your hands and receive it in both kinds, you are really poor Christians indeed! In this way even a sow could be a Christian, for she has a big enough snout to receive the sacrament outwardly. We must deal soberly with such high things.

Dear friends, this dare be no mockery, and if you would heed me, give it up. If you will not heed me, no one need drive me away from you — I will leave you without being asked, and I shall regret that I ever preached as much as one sermon in this place. The other things could be passed by, but this cannot be passed by. You have gone so far that men say: “At Wittenberg there are very good Christians, for they take the sacrament with the hands and handle the cup, and then they go to their brandy and drink until they are drunk.” Thus are the weak and simple-minded men driven away, who would come to us if as much instruction had been given to them as was given to us.

But if there is any one so stupid that he must touch the sacrament with his hands, let him have it brought home to his house and there let him handle it to his heart’s content. But in public let him abstain, since that will not bring him harm and the offense will be avoided which is caused to our brothers, sisters and neighbors, who are now so angry with us that they are ready to kill us. I may say that none of the enemies who have opposed me until now have brought so much grief upon me as you.

This is enough for today. We will continue tomorrow.

Copyright: Public Domain

Translated by A. Steimle. Edited and Language Modernized by Robert E. Smith
From: The Works of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915, 2:387-425.

March 12, 1522
Dr. Martin Luther
Preacher at Wittenberg

Dear Friends: We have heard the things which are necessary, as for instance, that the mass is regarded as a sacrifice. Then we considered the things which are left to our liberty, such as marriage, the monastic life, the abolishing of images. We have treated these four subjects, and have said that in all these matters love is the captain. On the subject of images, in particular, we saw that they ought to be abolished if they are going to be worshipped, otherwise not, although I wish they were abolished everywhere because they are abused — it is useless to deny it. For whoever places an image in a church, imagines he has performed a service to God and a good work, which is downright idolatry. And this, the greatest, foremost and highest reason for abolishing the images, you have neglected, and taken up the very lowest.

For I suppose there is scarcely any man who does not understand that the crucifix over there is not my God, for my God is in heaven, but that this is simply a sign. But the world is full of the other abuse, for who would place an image of silver or of wood in a church, if he did not think that in so doing he was doing God a service? Think about Duke Frederick, the bishop of Halle, and the others. Would they have placed so many silver images in the churches, if they thought it counted nothing before God? No, they would not do it. But this is not sufficient reason to abolish, destroy and burn all the images; and why?

Because we must admit that there are still people who do not have the wrong opinion of them, but to whom they may be useful. Although they are few, yet we cannot and should not condemn anything which is still useful to the devotions of anyone. But you should have taught that images are nothing, God cares nothing for them, and that He is not served, nor pleased when we make an image for Him, but that we would do better to give a poor man a gold coin than to give God a golden image, for God has forbidden the latter, but not the former. If they had heard this teaching that images count for nothing they would have ceased of their own accord, and the images would have fallen without any uproar or tumult, since it was already happening.

We must, therefore, be on our guard, for the devil is after us, through his apostles, with all his craft and cunning. Now, although it is true, and no one can deny that the images are evil because they are abused, nevertheless we must not on that account reject them, nor condemn anything because it is abused. That would result in utter confusion. God has commanded us not to lift up our eyes to the sun, etc., that we may not worship them, for they are created to serve all nations. (Deuteronomy 4:19) But there are many people who worship the sun and the stars. Shall we, therefore, go up to pull the sun and stars from the skies? No, we will not do it.

Again, wine and women bring many a man to misery and make a fool of him. Shall we, therefore, kill all the women and pour out all the wine? Again, gold and silver cause much evil, shall we, therefore, condemn them? No, if we would drive away our one worst enemy, who does us the most harm, we would have to kill ourselves, for we have no greater enemy than our own heart, even as Jeremiah says, “The heart of man is crooked,” or, as I take the meaning, “always twisting to one side or the other.” Jeremiah 17:9) And what good would that do us?

If you want to color the devil black you must have good charcoal, for he, too, wears fine clothes and goes to the fair. But I can catch him by asking him: “Do you not place the images in the churches because you think it a special service of God?” and when he says “Yes,” as he must, you may conclude that what was meant as a service of God he has turned into idolatry by abusing the images. He eagerly sought what God has not commanded and neglected God’s positive command —to help the neighbor. But I have not yet caught him. He escapes me by saying: “I help the poor, too. Why can’t I give to my neighbor and at the same time place images in churches?” That is not true — for who would not rather give his neighbor a gold coin, than God a golden image!

No, he would not trouble himself about placing images in churches if he believed that God was not served by it. Therefore I freely admit, images are neither here nor there, neither evil nor good, we may have them or not, as we please. This trouble has been caused by you. The devil would not have accomplished it with me, for I cannot deny that it is possible to find someone to whom images are useful. And if I were asked about it, I would confess that none of these things give offense to me, and if just one man were found upon earth who used the images rightly, the devil would soon draw the conclusion against me: “Why do you condemn what is still useful in worship?” This challenge I could not answer. He would have successfully defied me. He would not have got nearly so far if I had been here. He played a bold game, and won, although it does no harm to the Word of God. You wanted to paint the devil black, but forgot the charcoal and used chalk. If you would fight the devil, you must be well versed in the Scriptures, and, besides, use them at the right time.

Let us proceed and speak of the eating meats. It is true that we are free to eat any manner of food, meats, fish, eggs or butter. This no one can deny. God has given us this liberty. That is true. Nevertheless we must know how to use our liberty, and treat the weak brother differently from the stubborn. Observe, then, how you must use this liberty.

First of all, if you cannot give up meat without harm to yourself, or if you are sick, you may eat whatever you like, and if any one takes offense, let him be offended. And if the whole world took offense, yet you are not committing a sin, for God can excuse you in view of the liberty He has so graciously bestowed upon you, and of the necessities of your health, which would be endangered by your abstinence.

Secondly, If you should be pressed to eat fish instead of meat on Friday, and to eat fish and abstain from eggs and butter during Lent, etc., as the pope has done with his fools’ laws, then you must not in any way be drawn away from the liberty in which God has placed you, but do just the opposite to spite him, and say: “Because you forbid me to eat meat, and presume to turn my liberty into law, I will eat meat in spite of you.” And thus you must do in all other things which are matters of liberty. To give you an example: If the pope, or anyone else would force me to wear a cowl, just as he prescribes it, I would take off the cowl just to spite him. But since it is left to my own free choice, I wear it or take it off, according to my pleasure.

Thirdly, There are some who are still weak in faith, who ought to be instructed, and who would gladly believe as we do. But their ignorance prevents them, and if this were faithfully preached to them, as it was to us, they would be one with us. Toward such well-meaning people we must assume an entirely different attitude from that which we assume toward the stubborn. We must bear patiently with them and not use our liberty, since it brings no peril or harm to body or soul, no, rather is beneficial, and we are doing our brothers and sisters a great service besides. But if we use our liberty without need, and deliberately cause offense to our neighbor, we drive away the very one who in time would come to our faith.

Thus St. Paul circumcised Timothy because simple-minded Jews had taken offense. He thought, “What harm can it do, since they are offended because of their ignorance?” (Acts 16:3) But when, in Antioch, they would insist that he ought and must circumcise Titus, Paul withstood them all and to spite them would not have Titus circumcised. (Galatians 2:3) And he held his ground. He did the same when St. Peter by the exercise of his liberty caused a wrong conception in the minds of the unlearned. (Galatians 2:11 ff.) It happened this way: When Peter was with the Gentiles, he ate pork and sausage with them, but when the Jews came in, he would not touch this food and no longer ate with them. Then the Gentiles who had become Christians, thought: Oh No! We, too, must be like the Jews, eat no pork and live according to the Law of Moses.

But when Paul found that it would injure the liberty of the Gospel, he reproved Peter publicly and read him an apostolic lecture, saying: “If you, a Jew, live like the Gentiles, why do you make the Gentiles live like the Jews live?” (Galatians 2:14) So we, too, should live our lives and use our liberty at the proper time, so that Christian liberty may suffer no injury, and no offense be given to our weak brothers and sisters who are still without the knowledge of this liberty.

Copyright: Public Domain

Translated by A. Steimle. Edited and Language Modernized by Robert E. Smith
From: The Works of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915, 2:387-425.

March 11, 1522
Dr. Martin Luther
Preacher at Wittenberg

We have heard the things most necessary in Christian life, and what is a necessary result, namely, the doing away with the private mass. For the works which are necessary are those which God has either commanded or forbidden, according to the appointment of the Majesty on high. But no one should be dragged to them by the hair, or kept from them by force, for I can drive no man to heaven with a club. I said this plainly enough and I believe you understood what I said.

We shall now consider the things that are not necessary, but are left to our free choice by God, and which we may do or not do. For instance, whether one should marry or not, or whether monks and nuns should leave the cloisters. These things are matters of choice and must not be forbidden by any one, and if they are forbidden, the forbidding is wrong, since it is contrary to God’s appointment. In the things that we are free to do, such as being married or remaining single, you should act in the following way: If you can restrain yourself without burdening your conscience thereby, do so by all means, but there must be no general law, and every one shall be perfectly free. Any priest, monk or nun who cannot restrain the desires of the flesh, should marry, and thus relieve the burden of conscience. But see to it that you be well-armed and fortified, so that you can stand before God and the world when you are assailed, and especially when the devil attacks you in the hour of death.

It is not enough to say: This man or that man has done the same thing, I followed the example of the crowd, according to the preaching of the provost, or Dr. Carlstadt, or Gabriel, or Michael. Not so, but everyone must stand on his own feet and be prepared to give battle to the devil. You must rest upon a strong and clear text of Scripture if you would stand the test. If you cannot do that, you will never withstand him — the devil will pluck you like a withered leaf.

Therefore the priests who have taken wives, and the nuns who have taken husbands, in order to save their consciences must stand squarely upon a clear text of Scripture, such as this one by St. Paul — although there are many more: “In the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, (I think Paul uses plain language here!) forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created.” (1 Timothy 4:1) This text the devil will not overthrow nor devour. It will rather overthrow and devour him. Therefore any monk or nun who is too weak to keep the vow of chastity, should conscientiously examine himself. If his heart and conscience are strong, so that he can defend himself with a good conscience, let him marry. Would to God all monks and nuns could hear this sermon and properly understand this matter and would all forsake the cloisters and thus all the cloisters in the world cease to exist — this is my earnest desire. But now they have no understanding of the matter (for no one preaches it to them), and hearing that in other places many are leaving the cloisters, who however are well-prepared for such a step, they would follow their example, but have not yet fortified their consciences and do not know that it is a matter of liberty. This is bad, although it is better that the evil should be outside than inside.

Therefore I say, what God has made free shall remain free, and you must not obey if someone forbids it, even as the pope has done, the Antichrist. He who can do so without harm and for love of his neighbor, may wear a cowl or a tonsure, since it will not injure his faith. Wearing a cowl will not kill him.

Thus, dear friends, it is plain enough, and I believe you ought to understand it and not make liberty a law, saying: This priest has taken a wife, therefore all priests must take wives. Not at all! Or this monk or that nun has left the cloister, therefore they must all come out. Not at all! Or this man has broken images and burned them, therefore all images must be burned — not at all, dear brother! And again, this priest has no wife, therefore no priest dare marry. Not at all! They who cannot retain their chastity should take wives, and for others who can be chaste, it is good that they restrain themselves, as those who live in the spirit and not in the flesh. Neither should they be troubled about the vows they have made, such as the monks’ vows of obedience, chastity and poverty (although they are rich enough).

For we cannot vow anything that is contrary to God’s commands. God has made it a matter of liberty to marry or not to marry, and you are a fool to attempt to turn this liberty into a vow against the ordinance of God? Therefore you must leave liberty alone and not make a compulsion out of it. Your vow is contrary to God’s liberty. Suppose I should vow to strike my father on the mouth, or to steal some one’s property, do you believe God would be pleased with such a vow? And as little as I ought to keep a vow to strike my father on the mouth, so little should I abstain from marriage because I am bound by a vow of chastity, for in both cases God has ordered it otherwise. God has ordained that I should be free to eat fish or flesh, and there should be no commandment concerning them. Therefore all the Carthusians and all monks and nuns forsake the ordinance and liberty which God has given when they believe that if they eat meat they are defiled.

Now let us consider images. It is also true that they are unnecessary, and we are free to have them or not, although it would be much better if we did not have them. I am not partial to them. A great controversy arose on the subject of images between the Roman emperor and the pope. The emperor held that he had the authority to banish the images, but the pope insisted that they should remain, and both were wrong. Much blood was shed, but the pope emerged as victor and the emperor lost.

What was it all about? They wished to make a “must” out of that which is free, and that God cannot tolerate. Do you wish to change what the Majesty on high has ordered? Certainly not! You should not do any such thing. You read in the Law, Exodus 20:4, “You will not make any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.” There you take your stand. That is your ground. Now let’s see! When our adversaries say: The first commandment aims at this, that we should worship one God alone and not any image, even as it is said immediately following, “Thou will not bow down to them nor serve them,” and declare that the worship of images is forbidden and not the making of them, they disturb and unsettle our foundation for us. And if you reply: The text says, “Thou will not make any images,” They answer: It also says, “You will not worship them.”

In the face of such uncertainty who would be so bold as to destroy the images? Not I. But let us go farther. They say: Did not Noah, (Romans 8:20) Abraham, (Genesis 22:9) and Jacob (Genesis 35:1) build altars? And who will deny that? We must admit it. Again, did not Moses erect a brazen serpent, as we read in his fourth book? (Numbers 21:9) How can you say Moses forbids the making of images when he himself makes one? It seems to me, such a serpent is an image, too. How shall we answer that? Again, do we not read that two birds were erected on the mercy-seat, the very place where God willed that He should be worshiped? (Exodus 37:7) Here we must admit, that we may make images and have images, but we must not worship them, and when they are worshiped, they should be put away and destroyed, just as King Hezekiah smashed into pieces the serpent erected by Moses. (2 Kings 18:4)

And who will be so bold as to say, when called to respond: They worship the images. They will answer: Do you dare to accuse us of worshiping the images? I do not believe that they will acknowledge it. To be sure it is true, but we cannot make them admit it. Remember how they acted when I condemned works without faith. They said: Do you believe that we have no faith, or that our works are performed without faith? I can do nothing more than put my flute back in its pocket. Give them a hair’s breadth, and they take a hundred miles.

Therefore it should have been preached that images were nothing and that God is not served by building them, and they would have fallen of themselves. That is what I did. That is what Paul did in Athens, when he went into their churches and saw all their idols. He did not strike at any of them, but stood in the marketplace and said, “Men of Athens, you are all idolatrous.” (Acts 17:22) He preached against their idols, but he overthrew none by force.

Yet you would rush in, create an uproar, break down the altars and overthrow the images? Do you really believe you can abolish the images in this way? No, you will only set them up more firmly. Even if you overthrew the images in this place, do you think you have overthrown those in Nuremberg and the rest of the world? Not at all. St. Paul, as we read in the Book of Acts, sat in a ship on whose prow were painted or carved the Twin Brothers. (Acts 28:11) He went on board and did not bother about it at all; neither did he break them off. Why must Luke describe the Twins at this place? Without doubt he wanted to show that outward things could do no harm to faith, if only the heart does not cling to them nor put its trust in them. This is what we must preach and teach, and let the Word alone do the work, as I said before. The Word must first capture the hearts of men and enlighten them — we cannot do it. Therefore the apostles gloried in their service, ministry, and not in its effect, execution.

We will let this be enough for today, and pray God for His grace.

Copyright: Public Domain

Translated by A. Steimle. Edited and Language Modernized by Robert E. Smith
From: The Works of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915, 2:387-425.

March 10, 1522
Dr. Martin Luther
Preacher at Wittenberg

Dear Friends: You heard yesterday the characteristics of a Christian, how his whole life is faith and love. Faith is directed toward God, love toward man and one’s neighbor, and consists in such love and service for him as we have received from God without our work and merit. Thus there are two things. The one, which is the most necessary, and which must be done in one way and no other, the other, which is a matter of choice and not of necessity, which may be kept or not, without endangering faith or incurring hell.

In both, love must deal with our neighbor in the same manner as God has dealt with us. It must walk the straight road, straying neither to the left nor to the right. In the things which are “musts” and are matters of necessity, such as believing in Christ, love nevertheless never uses force or undue constraint. Thus the mass is an evil thing, and God is displeased with it, because it is performed as a sacrifice and work of merit. Therefore it must be abolished. Here there is no room for question, just as little as if you should ask whether you should pray to God. Here we are entirely agreed. The private mass must be abolished, as I have said in my writings. And I heartily wish it would be abolished everywhere and only the evangelical mass for all the people be retained.

Yet Christian love should not employ harshness here nor force the matter. It should be preached and taught with tongue and pen, that to hold mass in such a manner is a sin, but no one should be dragged away from it by force. The matter should be left to God. His word should do the work alone, without our work. Why? Because it is not in my power to fashion the hearts of men as the potter molds the clay, and to do with them as I please. I can get no farther than to men’s ears. Their hearts I cannot reach. And since I cannot pour faith into their hearts, I cannot, nor should I, force any one to have faith. That is God’s work alone, Who causes faith to live in the heart.

Therefore we should give free course to the Word, and not add our works to it. We have the jus verbi, but not the executio. We should preach the Word, but the consequences must be left to God’s own good pleasure.

Now if I should rush in and abolish the mass by force, there are many who would be compelled to consent to it and yet not know their own minds, but say: “I do not know if it is right or wrong, I do not know where I stand, I was compelled by force to submit to the majority.” And this forcing and commanding results in a mere mockery, an external show, a fool’s play, man-made ordinances, sham-saints and hypocrites. For where the heart is not good, I care nothing at all for the work. We must first win the hearts of the people. And that is done when I teach only the Word of God, preach the Gospel and say: “Dear lords or pastors, desist from holding the mass, it is not right, you are sinning when you do it. I cannot refrain from telling you this.” But I would not make it an ordinance for them, nor urge a general law. He who would follow me could do so, and he who refused would remain without. In the latter case the Word would sink into the heart and perform its work. Thus he would become convinced and acknowledge his error, and fall away from the mass.

Tomorrow another would do the same, and thus God would accomplish more with His Word than if you and I would forge into one all power and authority. For if you have won the heart, you have won the whole man — and the mass must finally fall of its own weight and come to an end. And if the hearts and minds of all men are united in the purpose — abolish the mass. But if all are not heart and soul for its abolishment — leave it in God’s hands, I beg you, otherwise the result will not be good. Not, indeed, that I would again set up the mass. I let it lie in God’s name. Faith must not be chained and imprisoned, nor bound by an ordinance to any work. This is the principle by which you must be governed. For I am sure you will not be able to carry out your plans, and if you should carry them out with such general laws, then I will retract all the things that I have written and preached, and I will not support you.

Therefore I ask you plainly: What harm can the mass do to you? You have your faith, pure and strong, toward God, and the mass cannot hurt you.

Love, therefore, demands that you have compassion on the weak, as all the apostles had. Once, when Paul came to Athens, (Acts 17:26) a mighty city, he found in the temple many altars, and he went from one to the other and looked at them all, but did not touch any one of them even with his foot. But he stood in the midst of the marketplace and said they were all idolatrous works, and begged the people to forsake them. Yet he did not destroy one of them by force. When the word took hold of their hearts, they forsook their idols of their own accord, and in consequence idolatry fell of itself. Now, if I had seen that they held mass, I would have preached and admonished them concerning it. Had they heeded my admonition, they would have been won. If not, I would nevertheless not have torn them from it by the hair or employed any force, but simply allowed the Word to act, while I prayed for them. For the Word created heaven and earth and all things. The Word must do this thing, and not we poor sinners.

In conclusion: I will preach it, teach it, write it, but I will constrain no man by force, for faith must come freely without compulsion. Take myself as an example. I have opposed the indulgences and all the papists, but never by force. I simply taught, preached, wrote God’s Word. Otherwise I did nothing. And then while I slept, or drank Wittenberg beer with my Philip and with Amsdorf, the Word so greatly weakened the papacy, that never a prince or emperor inflicted such damage upon it. I did nothing. The Word did it all. Had I desired to cause trouble, I could have brought great bloodshed upon Germany. Yes, I could have started such a little game at Worms that even the emperor would not have been safe. But what would it have been? A fool’s play. I did nothing. I left it to the Word.

What do you suppose is Satan’s thought when an effort is made to do things by violence? He sits back in hell and thinks: How fine a game these fools will play for me! But it brings him distress when we only spread the Word, and let it alone do the work. For it is almighty and takes captive the hearts, and if the hearts are captured the evil work will fall of itself.

Let me cite and instance. In the past there were sects, too, Jewish and Gentile Christians, differed on the Law of Moses in respect to circumcision. The former wanted keep it, the latter did not. Then came Paul and preached that you might be practiced or not, and that it did not matter one way or the other. They shouldn’t make a “must” of it, but leave it to the choice of the individual. Whether to keep it or not, does not matter.

Later came Jerome, who would have made a “must” out of it, and wanted laws and ordinances to prohibit it. Then came St. Augustine, who held to the opinion of St. Paul: it might be kept or not, as one wished. St. Jerome had missed the meaning of St. Paul by a hundred miles. The two doctors bumped heads rather hard over the proposition. But when St. Augustine died, St. Jerome accomplished his purpose. After that came the popes. They would add something of their own, and they, too, made laws. Thus out of the making of one law grew a thousand laws, until they have completely buried us under laws. And so it will be here. One law will soon make two; two will increase to three, and so forth.

Let this be enough at this time concerning the things that are necessary, and let us beware lest we lead astray those of weak conscience.

Copyright: Public Domain

Translated by A. Steimle. Edited and Language Modernized by Robert E. Smith
From: The Works of Martin Luther. Philadelphia: A. J. Holman, 1915, 2:387-425.

On the first Sunday in Lent, March 9, 1522, Luther began a daily sermon series in the pulpit of the Wittenberg city church, known as the Invocavit Sermons after the Latin name for the Sunday. Luther criticized the people of Wittenberg for not allowing love for their neighbor guide how they reformed the church. The weak need to be taught slowly and patiently so they desire the change and are not forced to do so before they were ready.

The reformer discussed the issues in the light of two sets of definitions. When something is necessary to sustain faith, then it must be done. Faith needs to be firm and immovable. When it is not, Christian love must control our actions for the sake of weak brothers and sisters in Christ. Love is flexible and does not insist on its own rights. 

In addition there are things which must be done and other things which we are free to do. For example, God forbids the making of images in some places in Scripture and in other places commands that they be made. So we are free to make them, providing they are done for God-pleasing reasons. What we should worry about is when we make them to worship them or donate them because we think we’re doing it as a good work.

The sermon series greatly moved those who heard it. The town immediately settled down. Luther was now their preacher.

©2022 Robert E. Smith. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com

The two treatises of early 1522 became very popular and were well-read during Luther’s lifetime and afterwards. However, they did little to calm the unrest brewing in Germany, however. To complicate matters, men from the Saxon town of Zwickau came to town, claiming to be profits, whom God spoke to directly. They taught many doctrines that would be eventually adopted by the Anabaptist movement, including that infant baptisms were not baptisms at all. Philip Melanchthon confronted them, but was at a loss as to how to answer them.

In mid-February, the Wittenberg town council begged him to return. And so he did, emerging permanently from his retreat on 6 March 1522, five hundred years aggo today. While he was on the road, he wrote to the Elector to warn him of that development. The Elector was worried he wouldn’t be able to protect Luther. Wittenberg was just fifty miles from the Saxon territory of Duke George, a supporter of the papacy — more or less. He would not hesitate to burn Luther at the stake as a heretic.

When Luther arrived home, he spent the next few days conferring with his allies. He decided for the time being not to resume his professorship, but for the next two years preached regularly in the city church (St. Mary’s) and worked on his Bible translation. He began his time as “Preacher in Wittenberg,” on the first sunday in Lent, known as Invocavit Sunday, March 9, 1522. He continued to preach for seven days, concluding on the second Sunday in Lent.

©2022 Robert E. Smith. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com

Pastor Brent Keller was recently installed as pastor of Trinity Lutheran Church in Guttenberg, Iowa and St. Paul Lutheran Church in McGregor, Iowa. His bio has been updated at: https://whatdoesthismean.blog/meet-rev-brent-keller/

Romans 8 is one of the most comforting chapters in the Holy Scriptures. It follow St. Paul’s description of the frustration he feels with struggling against his old Adam, the dark, sinful self that remains in a Christian. It begins by affirming that Christ can help us with our struggles with the sinful flesh. He fulfilled the requirements of the law for us, setting us free from slavery to our sinful flesh.

The passage before us talks about how we can live according to the Spirit, even while still living in conflict with our sinful desires and all the while suffering in this world. There are several phrases in it that are difficult to render in English. How translators handle them reveal much about their theology.

In Romans 8:15, Paul explains the new status we have as Christians. We do not live fearfully, as a slave fears displeasing his master, but we live the way children and heirs of the paterfamilias — the father of the house, who we can call “daddy.”

The Greek for our relationship is υἱοθεσίας (huiothesias) literally means “to place as a son.” It is the term for adoption, which was very common in Roman and Greek culture. It made the person adopted an heir with all the same rights, privileges and status of the one who adopts. Even slaves could be adopted and thus freeing them and more. It was almost as common to adopt adults as it was to marry. In fact, Julius Caesar adopted his ally Octavius, who then was known as the son of Caesar, and, when Caesar was honored as a god, the son of god.

Following the Vulgate, The English Standard Version translates it as a part of a title for the Holy Spirit (the Spirit of adoption as sons), the old New International Version in a similar, but less accurate way (the Spirit of sonship). The Good News Bible separates it into an event (the Spirit makes you God’s children), losing its connection to the Spirit entirely.

Martin Luther translated the phrase very differently. He wrote “einen kindlichen Geist” — a child-like spirit. If Paul is comparing attitudes, this is likely what he meant. We are not given a slave’s attitude, or the attitude of the follower of a pagan god, which is motivated by the fear of punishment. We are given the attitude of an adopted son. We approach the Father in prayer “confidently with all assurance, as dear children ask their dear father.” (Small Catechism 3.1.2)

Paul then tells us what this adoption means for us. It is not our imagination. The Holy Spirit is our witness, testifying with our spirit that we are God’s children. Since we are God’s children then, we are God’s heirs, heirs with Christ and share everything he has. Since Jesus suffered that he might enter his glory, so we share his sufferings with him.

The Reformed tradition and the Lutheran tradition understand Romans 8:17 differently. For the Reformed, the passage is conditional. If we share in Christ’s suffering, we will be rewarded by sharing in his glory. Lutherans understand it unconditionally. Since we share in his sufferings, we will share in his glory.

The Greek construction can be legitimately understood either way. It is:

εἴπερ συμπάσχομεν ἵνα καὶ συνδοξασθῶμεν.

The Greek particle εἴπερ sets up a relationship between two phrases. It can be conditional or unconditional. What is important is the two are linked. Should the first happen, the second must happen. So, if a translation says, in effect, “since,” we suspect a Lutheran had something to do with it. If it translates, “if,” then a Reformed translator. So, for example, the Evangelical Heritage Version has “since we suffer with him, so that we may also be glorified with him” and the NRSV “if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.”

©2022 Robert E. Smith. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com

Philippians 2:5-11 is often called the Christ Hymn. Verses 6-11 are and ancient hymn which explain the work of Christ in a profound poem. The center of the poem is the phrase “death on the cross.” The first part of the hymn speaks about the way Jesus thinks. He let go of his power and glory as God, became a man, then humbled himself further to die on the cross. The second part is how God lifted him up to his full godhood giving him the name above all names. Everyone in the end will confess that Jesus Christ is Yahweh to the Father’s glory.

A lot of meaning is packed into these few verses. how a translator presents several phrases in this passage reveals much about what he or she believes. In Greek, verse five is: “Τοῦτο φρονεῖτε ἐν ὑμῖν ὃ καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ” (literally: “Think this in you all the also in Christ Jesus”) Here St. Paul urges the Philippians to think like Jesus thinks. Jesus put the interests of others — all of us — before his own. φρονεῖτε comes from the verb φρονέω, which means to have an opinion, to consider carefully, to develop an attitude. It is a command to think a certain way. In American idiom it is to have a mindset. The pronoun, which tells us who is to have the mindset, is plural. It is the congregation Paul wants to follow Jesus’ example.

There is a wide variety of ways translators handle the phrase. The King James Version is “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.” The English Standard version translates: “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” New American Standard has: “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,” the New Jerusalem Bible: “Make your own the mind of Christ Jesus” and the Good News Bible: “think the same way that Christ Jesus thought.”

This variety helps us to see that, no matter how hard you try, translation loses something. All of the translations lose track of the fact that Paul is not addressing individuals. Nor is it an ethical you (as if you read it to mean “one should have the mind of Christ in him”). Paul urges the congregation to be humble and think of others first as a group. In addition, the word “mind” sounds strange to English ears when used this way. Finally, “attitude” often has a negative sense in American English (he has an attitude!) when Paul is intending the opposite.

This is the very reason why Lutheran seminary students are required to learn to read Greek and Hebrew. So, what can a layman, who has a vocation other than pastoral ministry? The best advice is to compare several solid translations. Where you see a range of interpretation like this, you will know the original text is not easily translated. You can check commentaries (The People’s Bible commentaries, like this one: Kuschel, Harlyn J. Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. The People’s Bible. Milwaukee, WI: Northwestern Pub. House, 1986, are good sources for laymen), Ask your pastor, or both.

©2022 Robert E. Smith. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com.

One of the best known Bible verses is John 3:16-17. Beloved by millions, it is called “the gospel in a nutshell.” In the King James Version (KJV), it is:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

If you open multiple versions to the verse, you will notice very quickly is that they are virtually the same. This is very comforting. It shows the “tradition” side of translation. If you do not read Greek, this tells you also that the original is very clear. There is little controversy as to what it means. By comparing them carefully, you will notice several words are handled slightly differently. One is in the version you likely memorized as a child: “only begotten.” The original Greek word is: μονογενῆ (monogene).

To modern English speakers, the word sounds very old. “Beget” means that a man is the biological father of a child. We often say he fathered a child. When the King James Version used this word, it was following, St. Jerome’s Vulgate (unigenitum) and Martin Luther’s German Bible (eingeborenen). They, in turn, were influenced by the Nicene Creed’s, “Begotten not made.” The point of the creed was that Jesus is eternally God’s Son, not the first created being, as the heretic Arius maintained.

So far, so good. So why do so many modern translations say something like: “only son” or “unique son” instead? It turns out that the word μονογενῆ has a much wider meaning in the Greek language. It means “Unique, one-of-a-kind.” It is used to describe Jesus and an only child in the Gospel of John.

What does it tell us when a translation uses “Only Begotten?” Such a translation has a concern for both word-for-word translation and to preserve a connection with doctrinal language. For example, when describing the greeting of the Angel Gabriel to Mary, (Luke 1:28) Martin Luther said he should have translated it “Hi, Mary!” But for doctrinal reasons and tradition, he translated: “Gegrüßet seiest du, Holdselige” (Greetings be to you, blessed one!)

When a translation uses some form of “only, unique, one-of-a-kind,” the emphasis is on what it meant to the original readers. In our next post, we’ll try another passage I use to get to know a translation.

©2022 Robert E. Smith. All rights reserved. Permission granted to copy, share and display freely for non-commercial purposes. Direct all other rights and permissions inquiries to cosmithb@gmail.com