David Kimhi ("Radak") on Isaiah 57:15

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:1

כי כה אמר. מאמר הנביא: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:2

שוכן עד. שוכן לעולם, וטעם שוכן עד כי כמו שיקרא שוכן מי שמתמיד עמידתו במקום כן יקרא האל ית' שוכן עד לפי שמתמיד השגחתו בנבראים: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:3

וקדוש שמו. כמו ששמעתי שהיו קוראים אותו השרפים קדוש ה' צבאות מה יאמר האל מרום וקדוש אשכון: 

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:4

ואת דכא ושפל רוח. ואף על פי שאשכון עם מרומים וקדושים והם הגלגלים והמלאכים כן אשכון עם התחתונים עם מי שהוא בהם דכא ושפל רוח להחיות רוחם ולבם אע"פ שהם בצרה פעמים לא תחשבו שאיני משגיח עליהם, וכן ישראל שעתידין להיות זמן ארוך בגלות והם שפלים ונדכאים אני עתיד להחיותם כי הם כמו מתים בגלות מרוב הצרות: (source)

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:1
“For thus says” — the prophet’s statement:

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:2
“Who abides forever” — who dwells eternally. The meaning of “abides forever” is this: just as one who continually remains in a place is called “one who abides there,” so too the God, blessed be He, is called “one who abides forever,” because His providence over created beings is continuous.

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:3
“And holy is His name” — as I have heard that the seraphim used to call Him, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts.” What does the Most High and Holy One say? “I dwell...”

 

Radak on Isaiah 57:15:4
“And with the contrite and lowly of spirit” — although I dwell with the exalted and holy, namely the spheres and the angels, so too I dwell with those below, with one who is contrite and lowly of spirit, to revive their spirit and their heart, even though they are in distress at times. Do not think that I am not attentive to them. Likewise, Israel, who are destined to be in exile for a long time and are lowly and crushed, I am destined to revive them, for in exile they are like the dead because of the abundance of their troubles.

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 11:19

  

A righteous son. The Masoretic Text reads ken tsedaqah, “thus righteousness,” which does not make much sense and produces a poor parallelism with the second verset in a series of proverbs where the parallelism is usually neat, even pat. This translation adopts a reading shown in some Hebrew manuscripts as well as in the Septuagint and Syriac: ben tsedaqah (literally, “son of righteousness”). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:388)

 

Robert Alter on Proverbs 10:29

  

for the blameless. The translation, following the precedent of several of the ancient versions, revocalizes the Masoretic latom, “for blamelessness,” as latam, “for the blameless.” This small change yields an otherwise missing parallelism: the LORD’s way is a stronghold for the blameless but sheer terror for the wicked. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:386)

 

Strack and Billerbeck on the Normative, Binding Authority of Ecclesiastical Leaders upon Members (cf. Luke 10:16)

  

10:16: Whoever listens to you, listens to me, and whoever despises you despises me; but whoever despises me despises the one who sent me.

 

Exodus Rabbah 32 (93C): “For if you listen to his (the angel’s) voice and do all that I say” (Exod 23:22), here it is not said, “what he says,” but rather “I say.” If you accept him (i.e., listen to him), it is as if you accept me, and if you do so, I will find your enemies (Exod 23:22). ‖ Tanḥuma ויגש 52B: R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 150) said, “God said to the Israelites, ‘Honor the commandments, for they are my messengers. And the messenger of a man is like this man himself. If you honor them, it is as if you honor me, and if you despise them, it is as if you despise my glory.’ ” ‖ Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 110A: Rab Hisda († 309) said, “If someone argues against one’s teachers (of a different opinion), it is as if he were arguing against the Shekinah; see, ‘(Who quarreled against Moses and against Aaron) when they quarreled against Yahweh’ (Num 26:9).” R. Hama b. Hanina (ca. 260) said, “Whoever quarrels with his teacher is like the one who quarrels with the Shekinah; see, ‘This is the hard water where the children of Israel contended with Yahweh’ (Num 20:13).” R. Hanina b. Papa (ca. 300) said, “Whoever murmurs against his teacher is like the one who murmurs against the Shekinah; see, ‘Your grumbling is not against us but against Yahweh’ (Exod 16:8).” R. Abbahu (ca. 300) said, “Whoever thinks (or speaks) severely against his teacher is like the one who thinks severely against Yahweh; see, ‘The people spoke against God and against Moses’ (Num 21:5).” ‖ See also m. ‘Abot 4.12: R. Eleazar b. Shammuah (ca. 150) said, “May the glory of your disciple be as dear to you as your own, and the glory of your companion as the reverence of your teacher, and the reverence of your teacher as the reverence of God.” ‖ A baraita in Num. Rab. 14 (174A): Where then is it said, “If a man has heard a word (of the Torah) from the mouth of the least in Israel, it is to be in his eyes as if he heard it from the mouth of the wisest in Israel?” The Scripture says, “If you will earnestly obey my commandments which I command you this day” (Deut 11:13). (The words of the Torah, which one hears from men, will be to him like words which God commands him.) And not only as if he heard them from the mouth of a wise man, but as if he heard them from the mouth of (all) wise men; and not only as if he heard them from the mouth of wise men, but as if he heard them from the mouth of the Sanhedrin; and not just as if he heard them from the mouth of the Sanhedrin, but as if he heard them from the mouth of Moses; and not just as if he heard them from the mouth of Moses, but as if he heard them from the mouth of God.—On the final sentence clause, “whoever despises me,” see § Matt 10:40 B. (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 2:194-95)

 

The Question of When the Eucharist was Transformed in the Middle Ages and the Theory of Peter of Poitiers (c. 1130-1215)

  

Theories abounded in the late eleventh and twelfth centuries concerning exactly what caused the presence in the sacrament. Some commentaries on the Mass suggested that the sign of the cross made by the celebrant over the bread and wine consecrated; others held that the entire canon worked the change. Still other commentaries suggested that the original prayer of consecration in the early Church was the Lord’s Prayer. The Waldensians, started in the late twelfth century by the wandering preacher, Valdes of Lyons, were held to follow this practice by using the Lord’s Prayer as the consecratory formula in their liturgies. The late twelfth century theologians Peter of Poitiers (c. 1130–1215) and Jacques de Vitry (c. 1160–12140) suggested that Jesus consecrated the bread and wine by means of a separate blessing, only later instructing the apostles to consecrate using the words of institution. (Gary Macy, “Theology of the Eucharist in the High Middle Ages,” in A Companion to the Eucharist in the Middle Ages, Ian Christopher Levy, Gary Macy and Kristen Van Ausdall [Brill’s Companions to the Christian Tradition 26; Leiden: Brill, 2012], 368-69)

 

 

The reference to the work of Peter of Poitiers is given in a footnote (369 n. 12) as Peter of Poitiers, “Sententiarum libri quinque 4.11; PL 211:1245A–B.” Here is a transcription of the work as found in PL 211:1244-46 for a fuller context:

 

Sed et iterum videtur quod ad prolationem istorum verborum non mutetur panis in corpus, imo ad probationem aliorum. Legitur enim in Evangelio hic ordo verborum: Accepit Jesus panem et benedicens fregit et dedit illis, et ait sumite: Hoc est corpus meum (Matth. xxvi). Secundum hunc ordinem verborum prius videtur accepisse panem, postea benedixisse et dedisse illis, demum dixisse: Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Sed istud ulterius dixit, quod videtur ex serie verborum Evangelii, et antequam hoc diceret, facta erat transsubstantiatio, in benedictione scilicet quae jam erat praemissa. Ergo non ad prolationem istorum verborum facta est transsubstantiatio ne sit bis facta; vel si prius in illa benedictione protulit illa verba antequam frangeret vel daret, et post iterum eadem protulit, et ita bis protulit. Non enim alia verba legitur protulisse ad benedicendum. Ergo bis facta est transsubstantiatio. Vel in una illorum prolatione nihil transsubstantiatum est, et ita videtur superflua, vel si bis prolata est forma verborum super eandem hostiam; videtur injuria illata fuisse sacramento, quia iteratum est. Ad hoc dicendum quod bis protulit Christus illa verba. Cum enim benedixit, ea protulit; et ita ad eorum prolationem facta est transsubstantiatio; postea fregit et dedit illis, et iterum ait: Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Sed tunc non protulit causa benedicendi, et ideo non fuit iteratum sacramentum. Dicunt tamen quidam quod in consecratione alia verba protulit quae nescimus, ad quorum prolationem facta est transsubstantiatio, et ita alia verba protulit in benedictione, et alia proferunt modo sacerdotes.

 

Solet quaeri quiddam simile ei quod quaesitum est supra, cum de baptismo ageretur, utrum prolata medietate verborum, quorum vi sit transsubstantiatio, ratum esset sacramentum si forte necessitate ibi sisteret sacerdos, vel obmutesceret, vel morte praeventus, et utrum oporteret super hostiam illam totam benedictionem repetere ab alio proferendam sacerdote, an esset ibi incipiendum ubi terminavit. Sed credimus homini non esse revelatum et ibi non diu immorandum; sed nunquid si prolatis his verbis: Hoc est corpus meum, etc. integre, quiesceret sacerdos, nil aliud perfecturus (cum jam esset facta conversio panis in corpus, et ibi esset sanguis) completum esset sacramentum? Videtur quia ibi est caro et sanguis, et anima, et Deitas. Quod si dicatur nil obest. Dicunt tamen quidam quod non est completum sacramentum, donec omnino prolata sint utraque verba, nec facta est transsubstantiatio panis in corpus donec prolata sint haec verba, Hic est sanguis, etc.

 

Item, corpus Christi nunquam est sine sanguine, nec sanguis sine corpore, ad prolationem istorum verborum completam, Hoc est corpus meum, etc. Facta est transsubstantiatio panis in corpus antequam proferantur haec verba, Hic est sanguis, etc. Tunc est corpus cum sanguine in altari; ergo tunc est ibi sanguis. Ergo est ibi conversio vini in sanguinem, vel non. Si conversio vini in sanguinem, sicut corpus in conversione panis in carnem; ergo ex vi illorum verborum et panis in corpus, et vinum in sanguinem est conversum. Ita ergo ad prolationem eorum quae sequuntur, istorum scilicet, Hic est sanguis, etc., non fit panis vel vini conversio in corpus vel sanguinem; ergo superflue proferuntur illa verba: vel si ad utramque prolationem utraque fit conversio; ergo prorsus eandem vim videntur habere, et ita iteratur sacramentum quemadmodum si repeterentur illa verba semel prolata. Imo potest quaeri quis panis, vel quod vinum convertitur cum dicitur forma, Hic est sanguis, etc. Non enim relinquitur panis et vinum super altare cum prolatio istorum verborum est completa, Hoc est corpus meum, etc., quia jam facta est transsubstantiatio utriusque in utrumque.

 

Ad hoc dicendum quod ex prolatione istorum verborum, Hoc est corpus meum, etc., non convertitur vinum in sanguinem, sed panis in carnem; non est tamen caro sine sanguine. Est enim ibi sanguis, sed non per conversionem, id est non est aliquid ibi conversum in sanguinem donec proferantur haec verba, Hic est sanguis, etc. Ex quibus fit transsubstantiatio vini in sanguinem quod est positum, quod non est transsubstantiatum donec haec verba proferantur: Hic est sanguis, etc. Sicut et anima est in corpore illo, non tamen per animae conversionem.

 

Sed ad hoc obiicitur, panis mutatur in corpus Christi prolatione illorum verborum; ergo in corpus cum sanguine, vel in corpus sine sanguine. Si in corpus cum sanguine; ergo in sanguinem conversus est panis. Si vero in corpus sine sanguine, ergo corpus est sine sanguine. Sed patet esse dandum quod panis convertatur in corpus, non tamen cum sanguine, vel sine sanguine, sicut Christus voluit pati non tamen cum peccato Judaeorum, vel sine peccato eorum.

 

 

Again, it seems that by the utterance of these words the bread is not changed into the body, but rather for the proof of other things. For the order of the words is read in the Gospel as follows: “Jesus took bread, and blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, Take: this is my body” (Matt. 26). According to this order of words, he seems first to have taken the bread, then to have blessed it and given it to them, and only afterward to have said, “This is my body,” etc. But he said this further, as seems clear from the sequence of the Gospel words, and before he said it, the transubstantiation had already taken place, namely in the blessing that had already preceded. Therefore the transubstantiation was not made by the utterance of these words, lest it be made twice; or if first, in that blessing, he spoke those words before he broke or gave [the bread], and then afterward spoke them again, then he spoke them twice. For no other words are read to have been spoken for the blessing. Therefore the transubstantiation was made twice. Or in one of those utterances nothing was transubstantiated, and then the form seems superfluous; or if the form of the words was spoken twice over the same host, an injury seems to have been done to the sacrament, because it was repeated. To this it must be said that Christ spoke those words twice. For when he blessed, he spoke them; and so through their utterance the transubstantiation took place. Afterward he broke it and gave it to them, and again said, “This is my body,” etc. But then he did not speak for the sake of blessing, and therefore the sacrament was not repeated. Yet some say that in the consecration he spoke other words that we do not know, and that through their utterance the transubstantiation took place; and thus he spoke one set of words in the blessing, and priests now say another.

 

A similar question is usually asked to the one discussed above when baptism was being considered: namely, whether, after half the words have been spoken, by whose power transubstantiation takes place, the sacrament would be valid if perhaps the priest were forced to stop there, or were to fall silent, or were overtaken by death, and whether another priest ought to repeat over that host the whole blessing from the point where the first priest ended. But we believe this has not been revealed to man, and there is no need to dwell on it here for long. But suppose that, after these words, “This is my body,” etc. have been fully spoken, the priest were to stop, intending to do nothing further—since the conversion of the bread into the body had already taken place and the blood was already there—would the sacrament then be complete? It seems so, because flesh and blood and soul and divinity are there. If someone says this is no objection, some nevertheless say that the sacrament is not complete until both sets of words have been fully spoken, and that the transubstantiation of the bread into the body does not occur until these words have been spoken: “This is blood,” etc.

 

Likewise, the body of Christ is never without blood, nor blood without body, once the utterance of these words is complete: “This is my body,” etc. The transubstantiation of the bread into the body has already taken place before these words are spoken, “This is blood,” etc. Then the body is on the altar with blood; therefore the blood is there. Therefore there is a conversion of wine into blood, or there is not. If there is a conversion of wine into blood, as the body is in the conversion of bread into flesh, then by the force of those words both the bread into body and the wine into blood have been converted. So then, with the utterance of what follows, namely, “This is blood,” etc., there is no conversion of bread or wine into body or blood; therefore those words are spoken superfluously. Or if both utterances bring about a conversion, then they seem to have exactly the same force, and thus the sacrament is repeated just as if those words were said once again. Indeed, one may ask what bread, or what wine, is converted when the formula “This is blood,” etc. is spoken. For bread and wine are not left on the altar once the utterance of these words is complete, “This is my body,” etc., because the transubstantiation of both into both has already taken place.

 

To this it must be said that by the utterance of these words, “This is my body,” etc., wine is not converted into blood, but bread into flesh; nevertheless the flesh is not without blood. For blood is there, but not by conversion, that is, nothing there has yet been converted into blood until these words are spoken: “This is blood,” etc. By these words the transubstantiation of wine into blood takes place; and what was posited was that it is not transubstantiated until these words are spoken: “This is blood,” etc. Just as the soul is in that body, yet not by a conversion of the soul.

 

But against this it is objected that bread is changed into the body of Christ by the utterance of those words; therefore it is changed into the body with blood, or into the body without blood. If into the body with blood, then the bread has been converted into blood. If, however, into the body without blood, then the body is without blood. But it is clear that one must grant that the bread is converted into the body, yet not with blood or without blood, just as Christ willed to suffer, yet not with the sin of the Jews, nor without their sin.

 

 

Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter on the Use of Amos 9:11-12 (LXX) in Acts 15:16-18

  

James emphasizes that these rules also applied to Gentiles by quoting the “words of the prophets”:

 

. . . as it is written, “Afterward I will turn back and again build David’s decayed hut and rebuild its ruins so that the remnants of the people and all Gentiles over whom my name is called will seek [it], declares the Lord, who does this, which was known from eternity.” (Acts 15:16-18)

 

Most of this quotation comes from Amos 9:11-12 (though the beginning has some similarities to Jeremiah 12:15 and the end to Isaiah 45:21). The quotation is taken from the version of Amos. This is of particular importance, since the second part of the Septuagint version quoted in Acts is quite different from the second part of the Hebrew text of Amos:

 

. . . so that they may take possession of what is left of Edon and all the nations over whom my name was called out. Declaration of YHWH, who does this. (Amos 9:12)

 

Whereas the Hebrew text speaks of the capture of Edom and Israel’s dominion over the Gentiles, in the Septuagint the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent (or shelter) is begun with the intention that all peoples should seek it out, in other words, that they should turn to the God of Israel. Only in this version does the Amos quotation make any sense when uttered by James. Thus, in Acts, Luke has James cite the Septuagint version at the council in order to corroborate this view that the Gentiles should embrace both Christianity and the God of Israel. (Kondrad Schmid and Jens Schröter, The Making of the Bible: From the First Fragments to Sacred Scripture [trans. Peter Lewis; Cambridge, Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2021], 214-15)

 

Excerpts from Johannes Heckel, "Lex Charitatis: A Juristic Disquisition on Law in the Theology of Martin Luther"

 The following is taken from:

 

Johannes Heckel, “Appendix IV: Church and Ecclesiastical Law in the Frame of the Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” in Lex Charitatis: A Juristic Disquisition on Law in the Theology of Martin Luther (2d ed.; trans. Gottfried G. Krodel; Emory University Studies in Law and Religion; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2010)

 

 

XXVI

 

A church ordinance should deal with the following topics: The religious rites of a congregation (orders of worship); the office and estate of the servants of the church, especially the preachers; the congregational diaconate, especially the care for the poor;  the congregational participation in the ordering of the educational system; [303] the administration of ecclesiastical discipline, [304] especially the imposition of <excommunication>, [305] or the denial of a church funeral; [306] the administration of the church's property; [307] the establishment of supervision in the church on the level above the local congregation. [308] All such prescriptions have in common that they are not 'needed' law, and this is contrary to Canon law! Used in the spirit of Christian freedom, man-made ecclesiastical law is to guarantee that congregations are provided with God's Word, that unanimity among congregations is strengthened, and that congregations are protected against disturbances. That same spirit of voluntary [309] and harmonious [310] cooperation is to govern also the relationship of particular churches [311] with each other, and thus create unity in religious rites and legal practice [312] among congregations in a larger geographic area. [313]

 

The very legal authority of the church in the world is limited by the divine positive law and the divine natural law. As developed above, [314] the divine positive law is established by Christ, the divine natural law is authentically interpreted by Christ. Therefore, outside of Christ the church in the world has no ecclesiastical law, neither a divine nor a man-made one.

 

 

XXVII

 

Only a believing Christian can judge whether the legal practice of the church agrees with these principles. In the history of ecclesiastical law, the statement of the Apostle Paul, "The spiritual man judges all things" (1 Corinthians 2:15), has had serious consequences; it constantly exposes man-made ecclesiastical law to the judgment of the members of the spiritual church. [315] Only these members, who know of God's will for law, are capable of judging the legitimacy of the ecclesiastical law. Whether the other members of a particular church listen to these members of the spiritual church is another question. It will happen again and again that the 'healthier' part of the church will become the minority. In this situation there is no institution on earth which could determine infallibly which opinion is to be followed God alone will rescue his church from such pitfalls. With this statement, a church ordinance points beyond itself to Christ, the true guardian of the church (custos ecclesiae). (pp. 202-3)

 

Notes for the above (taken from pp. 498-502):

 

[303.] To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany That They Establish and Maintain Christian Schools, 1524: WA 15:27ff.<LW 45:347ff.>.

 

[304.] Brief by Luther and others on the draft of a church ordinance for the Margraviate of Brandenburg-Ansbach-Kulmbach and the City of Nuremberg: Aug. 1, 1532: WA.B 6:340.36 <LW 50:64f.>: “At present we have instituted no other ban than that those who live in public sins and do not desist are not admitted to the sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. This can be accomplished because no one among us receives the holy sacrament unless he has first been examined by the pastor or deacon. Further, we do not see how at this time another ban could be introduced, for many matters occur for which a preliminary investigation would be necessary. We are unable to see how at this time such a procedure of investigation could be instituted and organized, since secular government does not wish to be bothered with such an investigation. Therefore we are content to withhold the holy sacrament from those who live and remain in public sins, even though the world is now so crude and beastly as to be in no hurry at all for the sacrament and church, so that this exclusion from the Lord’s Supper might not be considered to be a punishment. If someone excommunicates himself in this way, be content; when even secular authority is ready to permit the existence of public vices [what are we to do?] Nevertheless, in their sermons the preachers ought to censure such pagan ways and behavior by reciting the divine threats in all seriousness; at the same time they ought to admonish the authorities to check such pagan ways. If discipline would again be restored by instituting examination prior to communion, as certainly would be very useful and good, then one could more easily come to the point where one could institute a system of ecclesiastical discipline which would hold parents responsible for urging their children and members of their household to go to the sacrament and to church, [and] for preventing the young people from falling into such pagan contempt of the sacraments and of all divine matters. If the public ban is also instituted, then, of course, the secular authority has to enforce an order for ostracizing the person who has been banned, if the public ban is to do any good at all; at the present this might cause many wrongs, especially in the large cities and territories. But our type of ban, by which someone is excluded in private from the sacrament, has no impact on citizenship and business dealing. In spite of this action, a Christian may work and have other civic dealings with the person who is banned, as one would have dealings with a pagan, but in such a way that he makes clear to the one who is banned and to others that he does not approve of, nor is pleased with, the ungodly and censurable teachings and actions [which caused the ban].”

 

See also Luther to Tilemann Schnabel and the other pastors of Hesse assembled at Homberg: June 26, 1533: WA.B 6:497.5: “With great joy I have become acquainted with your zeal for Christ and Christian discipline. But in these turbulent times, which are not yet sufficiently suitable for accepting discipline, I would not dare to advise accepting such a sudden innovation. One has to let the peasants first be a bit on a rampage, and a wagon full of hay should move aside for a drunk. Things will work out by themselves for we will not be able to push them ahead through laws. It is an important matter, not by itself but because of the persons involved who have the power to stir up troubles for us; <at this point,> these troubles cannot be calmed down since we are <only> a root in dry ground <Isa. 53:2> and have not yet grown into branches and leaves. In the meantime I would advise to begin slowly and in small pieces, as we are doing here. First, we keep those who seem to deserve excommunication away from the sacrament of the Eucharist; this is the true excommunication, which is called the small ban. Then we do not permit such people to be god-parents at Baptisms. Under no circumstances may we claim to practice the excommunication which prohibits secular dealings <i.e., the large ban»; first, because it is outside of our law and it <could> deal with those who <may> want to be true Christians; second, because in this age the <large ban> cannot even become a part of our <competency>, and we would look ridiculous were we to try handling what is now beyond our abilities. You seem to hope that the prince himself might implement such a ban, but that is quite uncertain; <and further,> I do not want the political magistrate mixed <into this task>; in all aspects he should be separated from it so that the differentiation between both magistrates is fixed truly and certainly.”

 

[305.] For the connection of excommunication with love, see Luther to Wolfgang Capito: Jan. 17, 1522: WA.B 2:432.59 <LW 48:376>: “There is, however, no grace, no love, no kindness for those who condemn or despise doctrine itself and the ministry of the Word, or persecute it cunningly — or rather, it is the highest kind of love to resist their fury and ungodliness with all strength and in every possible way.”

 

[306.] Luther and Bugenhagen to Cyriakus Gericke: Jan. 14, 1542: WA.B 9:594.4: “This is the custom in our congregation: Once a person who in his life stubbornly despised to commune with us has died, we have no fellowship <literally: ‘commune’> with him; i.e., we let him be buried by whoever will bury him and in whatever way, outside or inside the cemetery. But we <i.e., the pastors> shall not follow <the casket> with <our> pupils, and we shall not sing <at his grave>; those who bury him may cry, according to the statement: ‘Let the dead bury the dead’ <Luke 9:60>.” See also WA.TR 2:No. 1735: let those who do not partake of the Lord’s Supper and learn the Catechism die “like the swine”; they should not be buried in the Kirchhof <i.e., the area around a church, which sometimes is used for burials>; WA.TR 4:No. 5174: when those who do not partake of the Lord’s Supper die, they should be buried “in the knackery.”

 

[307.] Luther to Gregory Brtick, chancellor of Electoral Saxony: Apr. 25, 1524: WA.B 3:274.3.12. — For the use of properties of monasteries and religious institutions which have been dissolved, see Luther’s brief of the beginning of 1531: WA.B 6:6.55; Luther and others to the councilors of the dukes of Pomerania: May 30, 1544: WA.B 10:589.97: “... it is not right that these properties which <were given> for .. . the use by the churches, as, <e.g.,> for the episcopal office, for a visitation, for courts, etc., are confiscated <by secular authorities> so that the needs of the church are ignored. In this matter they sin who act <or> who help with word or action for, as everyone knows, it is unjust to covet the goods of someone else and withhold them from the community or a private person”; Luther to the City Council of Kiel: July 7, 1544: WA.B 10:603.4: “It is true, we theologians have taught until now, and still do, that the properties of dissolved monasteries are to be invested for the use by churches and the poor... for this is right and godly. . .”; to the City Council of Herford: Oct. 24, 1534: WA.B 7:113.10ff.; Against Jack Sausage, 1541: WA 51:525.25: “<The church has been endowed with properties for> maintaining... churches and schools, i.e., God’s holy Word, the office of preaching and other services in the church, theologians, pastors, preachers, and, in addition, also the poor, widows, orphans, and the sick”; ibid., WA 51:526.22: “<The pope’s followers argue unjustly that> the properties of the church belong to them, <and, therefore, they> demand that we restore <these properties to them>”. — For the duty of Christians to maintain preachers, see Against the Roman Papacy, 1545: WA 54:280.19.

 

[308.] Luther to Wenceslas Link: Feb. 7, 1525: WA.B 3:437.18: “... it would be excellent and proper if in a city one <pastor> were the bishop, and the others the pastors . . .”; to George Spalatin: Jan. 12, 1541: WA.B 9:306.7: “... here in Wittenberg one has begun to organize a consistory. Yet once completed, it will not affect the visitors <of the congregations in the territory>. Rather, <it will deal> with marriage matters (with which we here <i.e., the theologians of the university> are no longer able or willing to deal), and it will force the peasants to abide by a certain order of discipline and pay an income to the pastors; perhaps by necessity this will also touch the nobility and magistrates here and there.” — See also Peter Brunner, Vom Amt des Bischofs (Witten, 1955), 55ff., and id., Nikolaus von Amsdorf als Bischof von Naumburg (Giitersloh, 1961), 56ff., 95ff. — Luther and Melanchthon affirmed that a particular church by law should have the office of bishop or superintendent. Sermon of June 5, 1535: WA 41:186.13: “A priest is to be an intercessor, sacrificer, and teacher. It is the highest honor to be a priest, higher than the honor of being a king or prince. To be a bishop is not such a glorious matter as the common people think; he is <only> a watchman or shepherd, as one has called him in prior times. <Then> the large congregations had an overseer. He was to have a superior position among the other priests so that one comes to him and consults with him; this is the case here with our pastor <i.e., John Bugenhagen>, who is a bishop.” <The text does not make clear who the “one” is who comes to the bishop; maybe it is the priest, mentioned at the beginning of the text. But one could also think of people who want to consult with the bishop about their pastor.> — For the tasks of a bishop, see Luther, Melanchthon (the author of the letter), and others to the dukes of Pomerania: May 14, 1544: WA.B 10:568. 33: “... it is true and obvious that, as an overseer, a bishop has to spread the pure Christian doctrine of the gospel and himself teach it, .. . also, he has to visit the churches, ordain qualified persons, supervise the studies, preside over the marriage courts and other ecclesiastical courts, and implement Christian discipline, tasks for which the dioceses have been established <or: ‘endowed?’> in the first place... .”

 

[309.] Luther to Lazarus Spengler: Aug. 15, 1528: WA.B 4:534.8 <LW 49:205f.>: “First of all, it is proper and prudent not to compel anyone to come to or abstain from the <Lord’s Supper>, or to appoint particular times and places for it, thus trapping the consciences. Since St. Paul teaches, however, [in] I Corinthians 14[:40, that] among Christians all things should be done in an orderly fashion, it seems good to me that the Provosts <i.e., the chief pastors of the two city churches in Nuremberg> and ministers should get together and decide on a common and free procedure for this matter. The honorable city council should then see to it that this procedure is used, and thus preserve unity and uniformity.”

 

[310.] A church ordinance should not be imposed upon congregations, either by a council of the evangelical party or a command ofa territorial lord. See Luther to Nicholas Hausmann: Nov. 17, 1524: WA.B 3:373.16 <LW 49:9of.>: “I do not consider it sufficiently safe to call a council of our party for establishing unity in the ceremonies. It would set a bad example, however praiseworthy the zeal with which it might be attempted, as all the councils of the church prove from the beginning. Even the Council of the Apostles <Acts 15:1ff.> dealt almost more with works and traditions than with faith. In the later councils, in fact, there was never any discussion of faith, but only of opinions and questions. As a result, the word ‘council’ is almost as suspect and distasteful to me as the term ‘free will’. If in these external matters one congregation does not voluntarily want to follow another, why should it be compelled to do so by decrees of councils, which are soon converted into laws and snares for souls? Of its own accord a congregation should, therefore, follow another one, or else be allowed to enjoy its own customs; only the unity of the Spirit should be preserved in faith and in the Word, however great may be the diversity and variety in respect to the flesh and the elements of the world.” See also Luther’s Jan. 7, 1527, letter to Landgrave Philip of Hesse (WA.B 4:157, as above, 485 n. 179), in which Luther advised not to publish a church ordinance.

 

[311.] <In the sense of congregations and also of all congregations in a particular territory with those in another territory.> :

 

[312.] Luther had no delusions about the possibility of arriving at a universally accepted evangelical ecclesiastical law; Luther to Gregory Brtick, chancellor of Electoral Saxony: Jan. 6, 1543: WA.B 10:237.27: “I have no hope that we might more and more become one in the use of uniform ceremonies in all churches, as it also was impossible under the papacy. Even if in our territory we do things in a certain way, others will not follow us and do not want us to be their masters, as we clearly see. Even the Apostles experienced this with the ceremonies of Moses; they had to leave it a matter of choice, how people wanted to eat, dress, <or> handle themselves. More about this matter once I have arrived at a decision.”

 

[313.] Luther did not strive for uniformity in the order of worship used in all evangelical congregations, but he hoped that uniformity might be accomplished within a lordship; The German Mass, 1526: WA 19:73.3.6 <LW 53:62>: “... I do not propose that all of Germany should uniformly follow our Wittenberg order. ... But it would be well if the service in every principality would be held in the same manner and if the order observed ina given city would also be followed by the surrounding towns and villages; whether those in other principalities hold the same order or add to it ought to be a matter of free choice and not of constraint.”

 

[314.] <See above, 184; see also above, 85, below, Index of Subjects: Law, s.v. “law, of Christ, is the authentic interpretation of the divine meaning oft he divine natural law.”>

 

[315.] The Right and Power of a Christian Congregation, 1523: WA 11:409.21: “.. .<Christ> gives the right and power to judge doctrine to each individual and all Christians together... .”