Abbreviations
Used:
AE
= American edition of Luther’s Works
AP
= Sermons of Martin Luther. (American Postil)
StL
= Martin Luthers sämmtliche Schriften
WA
= D. Martin Luthers Werke
Luther’s rejection of works, merits,
and the idea of righteousness arising from obedience to the law is due to his conviction
that only Christ’s works, merits and righteousness avail before God.
What a fine, constructive, and
inoffensive doctrine that would be, if people were taught that they could be
saved by works, as well as faith! That would be as much as to say that it is
not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sins, but that our works too have
something to do with it (AE 35, 197; WA 30/II, 642:30-34).
This conviction leads Luther in his
1535 Galatians commentary to say, “Our sins are not removed by any other means than
by the Son of God given into death,” and this is because of the very fact that “He
was given for them” (emphasis Luther’s). On the basis of this revealed
truth Luther can say that “we cannot remove [our sins] by works of our own.” Following
this assertion comes another, sounding very much like Anselm’s nondum
considerasti, quanti ponderis sit peccatum:
From this it follows that our sins are
so great, so infinite and invincible, that the whole world could not make
satisfaction for even one of them. Certainly the greatness of the ransom—namely,
the blood of the Son of God—makes it sufficiently clear that we can neither make
satisfaction or our own sin nor prevail over it. (AE 26:32f: WA 40, 83).
Luther’s references to the gross insufficiency
of our merits, together with his stress upon the greatness of Christ’s merit
and ransom, which for him is a clear demonstration of our inability to make our
own satisfaction, certainly find him speaking in terms agreeable to Anselm’s
insistence that the requirements of divine justice must be met. (Burnell F.
Eckardt, Jr., Anselm and Luther on the Atonement: Was it “Necessary?” [San
Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992], 28-29)
Luther bears an implicit agreement with
Anselm’s insistence that atonement be sufficient according to justice, as is
perhaps best seen in his frequent references to the righteousness of faith. By
this he means the righteousness which Christ has earned. Faith per se is
not really sufficient alone; its sufficiency is derived entirely from the sufficiency
of Christ in whom it trusts . . . In his 1518 sermon on “Two Kinds of
Righteousness,” Luther declares that the “alien righteousness” of Christ is
bestowed upon the sinner “from without,” and this is “the righteousness of
Christ by which he justifies through faith.” It is not the believing which in
itself constitutes righteousness before God, but rather the Christ in whom one
believes, for faith is nothing other than receiving and trusting him.
Through faith in Christ, therefore,
Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours;
rather, he himself becomes ours. . . . This is an infinite righteousness, and one
that swallows up all sins in a moment [Augenblick], for it is impossible
that sin should exist in Christ” (AE 31, 298; StL 10, 1265f)
Luther’s placement of so much stress
on the fact that this righteousness of Christ is that by which sin is cancelled
points to a tacit agreement in principle with Anselm’s refusal to skirt the
justice of God. To say that Christ’s righteousness swallows up sin, and that
this righteousness becomes ours through faith is to imply that sin cannot be
dealt with except by means of this righteousness. (Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., Anselm
and Luther on the Atonement: Was it “Necessary?” [San Francisco: Mellen
Research University Press, 1992], 30-31)
If the exchange happens both ways,
then it cannot be called an infused exchange of sin for righteousness, for the
notion that sin is infused mystically into Christ is clearly absurd. Rather, it
is imputed forensically to him; and thus the reverse exchange must also be seen
as one of imputation. For Luther, then, the fröhliche Wechsel [“happy
exchange”] occurs only by imputation; it may in fact be termed Luther’s version
of the vicarious satisfaction.
Indications of this can be found in great
abundance throughout Luther. His 1535 Galatians commentary is rife with such
references. There he declares that sin is not imputed to the Christian, because
“His righteousness is yours; your sins is His” (AE 26, 233; WA 40/I, 369:25).
Christ is wrapped up in your sins (WA 40/I, 434:26-28; AE 26, 278), sin was
imposed upon him (WA 40/I, 569:15-16; E 26, 279), indeed he clothed himself in
our person—induere personam nostrum—and laid our sin upon his shoulders—imponere
in humeros suos peccata—and said, I have committed the sin which all men
have committed—et dicere: Ego commisi peccata quae omnes homines commiserunt
(WA 40/I, 442:31-443:14; AE 26, 283f). Thus Christ became guilty of all
laws, curses, sin, etc., because he “stepped in between—venit medius”
(AE 26, 290; WA 40/I, 452:14). (Burnell F. Eckardt, Jr., Anselm and Luther
on the Atonement: Was it “Necessary?” [San Francisco: Mellen Research
University Press, 1992], 45-46)
Luther’s use of extra-Biblical sermon
illustrations, moreover, is generally limited to short phrases, employing similes
or metaphors, and these are generally not used to illustrate a major point.
Luther certainly would have had no use for a preaching manual filed with ideas
for sermon illustrations; he generally found his illustrations amply provided by
the Sacred Scriptures. Here too, as in the case of his choice of order, Luther
prefers to employ the text. This is particularly so, of course, when treating
the Gospels. For instance, the Gospel for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, on
the wedding at Cana, becomes for Luther fertile ground for illustrating the
confidence of faith, using the requests of Jesus’ mother as an example. First,
she feels the need for wine at the wedding, and comes to him “in a humble and
polite request,” not demanding that he answer in her way, but merely expressing
the need.
Thus she merely touches his kindness,
of which she is fully assured. As though she would say: He is so good and
gracious, there is no need of my asking, I will only tell him what is lacking,
an he will of his own accord do more than one could ask. (AP 2, 61f; StL 11,
469f).
Then Jesus responds in what appears a
most unkindly manner, which Luther sees as an opportunity of faith’s testing. “Now
observe the nature of faith. What has it to rely on? Absolutely nothing, all is
darkness.” Thus Luther turns the story to the hearers and declares that this
was not only so on this occasion at the wedding of Cana (John 2.1-11), but in
the case of every Christian: “Thus is where faith stands in the heat of battle.”
So he continues, employing the response of Jesus’ mother as an example, who
here becomes our teacher. However
harsh his words sound, however unkind he appears, she does not in her heart interpret
this as anger, or as the opposite of kindness but adheres firmly to the conviction
that he is kind, refusing to give up this opinion because of the thrust she
received, and unwilling to dishonor him in her heart by thinking him to be
otherwise than kind and gracious. (AP 2, 62; StL 11, 470)
Luther’s sermon on the Gospel for the
Second Sunday in Lent, on the Canaanite woman (Matthew 15.21-28) similarly takes
the response of the woman to Jesus’ rough treatment of her as an example for
Christian faith, and the woman herself becomes an illustration. After her pleas
are repeatedly spurned by Jesus, she, rather than despairing, becomes more
earnest.
Now, what does the poor woman do? She
turns her eyes from all this unfriendly treatment of Christ; all this does not
lead her astray, neither does she take it to heart, but she continues
immediately and firmly to cling in her confidence to the good news she had
heard and embraced concerning him, and never gives up. We must also do the same
and learn firmly to cling to the Word, even though God with all his creatures
appears different than his Word teaches. But, oh, how painful it is to nature
and reason, that this woman should strip herself of self and forsake all that
she experienced, and cling alone to God’s bare Word, until she experienced the
contrary. May God help us in time of need and of death to possess like courage
and faith! (AP 2, 150; StL 11, 547)
Thus Luther employs the example of the
woman’s faith to exhort his hearers to a like faith.
Luther’s sermon on the Gospel for the
Sixteenth Sunday after Trinity, on the widow of Nain (Luke 7.11-17), similarly makes
the text into his illustration of faith. The widow loses her son and is left with
nothing; then Jesus comes and raises him, returning to her more than she ever
had. This, then, becomes the point of departure for faith.
As now this wife was fully convinced
that there was no hope for her son, that it was impossible for he to receive
him back alive again . . . Behold, there comes God before she looks around, and
does what she never dared to ask of him, as it is impossible, and he restores
her son alive to her again.
But why does God do this? Her permits
man to fall so deeply into danger and anxiety, until no help or advice is
within reach, and still he desires that we should not doubt, but trust in him
who out of an impossible thing can make something possible, and make something out
of nothing.
So it is that Luther’s illustrations
for his sermonic message are taken from the text, and the story thus becomes a
sermon.
The samples of sermonic material I
have employed all treat Gospels in which is the story of a woman and the
response of her faith. But it is also no coincidence that Luther’s use of the
women of the texts is generally to illustrate their faith. Luther’s exposition
of the “spiritual” or allegorical meanings of the texts on which he preaches is
internally very consistent. One example of this internal consistency is his
allegorical interpretation of men and women in his texts. Allegorically, the
men are often preachers, or representative of God, and the women are often the
faithful, or representative of the church. May is the Christian church, Joseph,
the servants of the Church (StL 11, 152; AP 1, 169); Simeon is one speaking
with “all the prophets (StL 11, 250; AP 1, 274), but Anna is “the holy Synagogue,
the people of Israel, whose life and history are recorded in the Bible” (StL
11, 259; AP 1, 283); Herod is a false Christ (StL 11, 341; AP 1, 368); at the
feeding of the five thousand (John 6), Philip’s and Andrew’s doubtings signify,
respectively, the teachers with confused consciences or who confuse God’s grace
and his laws (StL 11, 565f; AP 2, 171); the soldiers who crucified Christ are bishops
and teachers who suppress the Gospel (StL 11, 134; AP 1, 150). (Burnell F.
Eckardt, Jr., Anselm and Luther on the Atonement: Was it “Necessary?” [San
Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1992], 152-55)