What to Make of Luther's Theological Diversity

Everybody, it seems, has his or her own version of Luther. Will the real Martin Luther please stand up! The rich diversity of Luther's theology has been a blessing and a bane for Luther scholarship, ecumenists, and for theologians inspired by him. Typically, the diversity in the Reformer's thought is explained away by attributing its apparent contradictions to theological development. Another, and perhaps the dominant, model, facilitated sometimes by the stress on his development, has been to interpret him systematically. In that case, a certain period in the Reformer's thought is said to be the “real Luther.” Other approaches systematize him by speaking of systematic paradoxes in his thought. ¹ The rough edges in his thought are suppressed in favor of the themes dearest to the interpreter's constructive thinking. Yet when Luther is interpreted in this modern, systematic mode, we are led to misinterpret what the Reformation was all about. It is hard to make a systematic theologian out of him, since he never wrote a complete systematic treatise summarizing all his teachings. The closest thing to such a treatise, his Smalcald Articles, do not include a developed hermeneutic and discussion of biblical authority.

My proposal will be to identify the full diversity in Luther's thought and also seek to identify the contexts for which the Reformer deployed a given conception. We will be able to identify a consistent pattern in his thought in handling his diversity. The article will illustrate these points by analyzing the Reformer's diverse treatments of justification, sanctification, predestination and free will, as well as his harsh engagement with the peasants and Jews while still acting on concern for the poor.

Luther Explains His Method

Other scholars like Paul Althaus, Gerhard Ebeling, and Jaroslav Pelikan have noted that Luther's alternative to the systematic model was to operate in a pastoral, contextually conditioned manner. ² In a 1530–1531 entry in Table Talk, Luther confirmed this: “True theology is practical and its foundation is Christ, Whose death is appropriated through faith.” ³ No matter how much of Luther's corpus we consider, Luther himself acknowledged his reliance on the contextual approach we have identified in his thought. Of course, he still held out for the overall consistency of his thought. In 1522, while acknowledging the context conditionedness of his thought, he wrote,

My doctrine does not in any part contradict itself; nor can it do so, since it is the doctrine of Christ, and the whole world already knows that on faith, on love, on works, and on those matters which the Spirit of Christ teaches us in Holy Writ I have ever been of the same mind, have always taught and written the same thing even though I have daily progressed more and more by practice and study and have presented the same matters at time from this angle, at another from that and have treated them more clearly and fully at one time than at another, as Scripture itself does. ⁴

Elsewhere in a later 1540 reference in Table Talk he clearly endorses this sort of contextuality. He is recorded as asserting, “This [the preaching of law and gospel] shouldn’t and can’t be comprehended in a fixed rule. Christ Himself preached [the law and the gospel] according to circumstances.” ⁵

In another remark over table he adds,

A preacher is like a carpenter. His tool is the Word of God. Because the materials on which he works vary, he ought not always pursue the same course when he preaches. For the sake of variety of his auditors he should sometimes console, sometimes frighten, sometimes scold, sometimes soothe, etc. ⁶

Luther also advises that preachers vary their style, sometimes scolding, sometimes soothing, suiting preaching to the place and circumstances. ⁷ He likewise observed elsewhere that there is a limit, a time, and an age for every doctrine. ⁸ In addition, the Reformer argued that biblical themes emphasized should be related to the context one was addressing. In a 1525 treatise he wrote,

The Word in Scripture is of two kinds: the first does not pertain or apply to me, the other kind does. And upon that Word which does pertain to me I can boldly trust and rely, as upon a strong rock. But if it does not pertain to them, then I should stand still. The false prophets pitch in and say, “Dear people. This is the Word of God.” That is true; we cannot deny it. But we are not the people. God has not given us the directive. ⁹

Luther applied these insights to reading Scripture and trying to sort out tensions in it. ¹⁰ Thus he once claimed that Paul and James seem to disagree because they are each defending different aspects of the gospel. Indeed, he claims, much that is in Scripture is depicted according to the context to which it is addressed. ¹¹ Likewise the Reformer insisted that the topics of preaching should be geared to its context and also that pastoral style should differ depending on the circumstances and persons addressed. ¹² Similar points are even made in The Small Catechism regarding the contextual sensitivity one must have in formulating the themes the preacher stresses. ¹³ He even claimed in one context that different doctrines are most appropriately considered in different points in the Christian life. Thus, he urged that Christ and the gospel be considered prior to sin, in order that its depth might be fully recognized, and that only later predestination receive consideration. ¹⁴

A similar point was expressed by Luther in his 1535 Lectures on Galatians. He maintained that good works and love must be taught in their proper place, but not when the issue was justification:

We concede that good works and love must also be taught; but this must be in its proper time and place, that is, when the question has to do with works apart from this chief doctrine … So since we are now dealing with the topic of justification, we reject and condemn works; for this topic will not allow of any discussion of good works. ¹⁵

There are rich scholarly, ecumenical, and theological implications in the pastoral-­contextual paradigm that I propose for interpreting Luther. Essentially, as we shall observe, the Reformer's praxis-oriented theological method entails that we should stress dialectical elements of faith more in contexts in which Pelagianism is on the horizon. Mere exposition of the faith, to be sure, still embodies some dialectical patterns (e.g., the distinction of law and gospel, the distinction between God's work and human works, the distinction of the two kingdoms). But when the concern addressed is apologetics, exhorting the living of the faith (sanctification), or when comforting despair, then the dialectical elements of Christian faith are almost entirely unified.

This analysis provides some handles on the diversity of Luther's thought, on the diversity within the Lutheran heritage and in the Christian tradition in general. These trends also make good parish sense. Those who have pastored will resonate with this wisdom. The time to confound with dialectical thinking is when encountering legalistic attitudes, when encountering those who are absolutely certain that their views are the view of God. But when ministering to those with doubts, with those in despair, then an unambiguous affirmation of the love of God, of the compatibility of faith and reason, is in order. Likewise, the compatibility of law and gospel, of faith and works, is in order when confronting sloth in the Christian life.

Diversity in the Reformer on Justification and Sanctification

The debates over the Finnish interpretation of Luther (the contention that he teaches something like deification) and whether the Reformer taught a Third Use of the Law are well known in Luther scholarship. ¹⁶ I contend that both sides are correct in these debates—correct about Luther when he was addressing certain contexts.

Of course Luther since the Tower Experience energetically affirmed Justification by Grace Alone (but not all the time). ¹⁷ It is well known, though, that early in his career he continued to teach that salvation happened through the cooperation of grace and our works, even at times in the Nominalist mode of affirming the meritum de congruo. We see this in affirmations of our need to prepare ourselves for grace in the Lectures on Romans and the First Lectures on Psalms while addressing Christian life. ¹⁸ In the post-1517 Heidelberg Disputation he returns again to this Scholastic concept of “preparation for grace,” as he urges humility, much like he did in an earlier 1516 sermon: “It is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching.” ¹⁹

A sermon in 1522 or 1523 exhorting Christian life suggested that we must do something to get grace, as Luther claimed that “The Holy Spirit is given to none except to those who are in sorrow and fear.” ²⁰ In a comment made at table in the 1530s while the temptations of Christian life were discussed, Luther claimed, “Ah how large a part of righteousness is it to want to be righteous!” He even expressly refers to the need for preparation for grace in a context in 1529 lectures. ²¹

It is hard to claim, then, that Luther abandoned these Scholastic themes with maturity. Likewise, his characteristic teaching of Justification by Grace Alone, even his claim that the righteousness of God is external and passive, were taught by the budding Reformer as early as 1515 when addressing legalism. ²² The pattern throughout his career is that the “grace alone” theme appears in this context and also when he is not exhorting Christian life but exhorting faith or explaining the logic of faith. ²³

What Happens When You Are Justified? The Diversity in the Reformer's Thought

In the historic debate among students of Luther on this question, the answer is that everybody is correct! Contrary to some critics, the traditional interpretation of Lutheran orthodox theology is correct. The Reformer did teach a forensic view of justification—justification as an external declaration by God of a new situation for believers, not an inward transformation. Against legalism in his earliest period of the Reformation breakthrough he spoke of being reckoned righteous in an alien way, as passive and external. ²⁴ Sometimes, he spoke of God counting, imputing, or reckoning righteousness. ²⁵

Even later in his career we can find the first Reformer espousing such a forensic construal when engaged in polemics (addressing works righteousness) or seeking to comfort from legalism or when exhorting the practice of Christian living in the face of sloth. As late as 1536 and 1535 when addressing works righteousness in a debate, Luther taught that God “considers” us righteous, even though we are not internally righteous. ²⁶ Other times (in polemical circumstances) we are said to be “reckoned” righteous. ²⁷ The forensic view, construing justification as a divine judgment of innocence, is expressly affirmed on several other occasions when comforting despair in the 1530s as the Reformer employed the image of a law court pronouncement of innocence by God. ²⁸

Sometimes in the face of legalism or even when dealing with Christian life, he speaks of sin not being imputed. ²⁹ Another image used by Luther when polemicizing with Catholic legalism or exhorting the Christian life is that of the doctor who declares the sick man well, but he is really healthy while still sick. ³⁰ He also spoke of God no longer remembering our sin, “expunging it from the record.” ³¹ In contexts exhorting Christian living (with polemics in view), he claimed that God no more sees our sin, but adorns the faithful with righteousness. ³²

The righteousness given through such a pronouncement is said to be not a consequence of our own righteous efforts, but is God's (an alien or formal) righteousness. ³³ It is external, he claims, when addressing tendencies to teaching salvation by works. ³⁴ Luther even goes so far as to contend that this righteousness is not only outside of us, but also passive. ³⁵ In all these cases the Reformer was either addressing Pelagian abuses or false pride about the Christian life.

By contrast, Finnish interpreters have argued that Luther actually teaches something like the Eastern view of theosis. They are correct. In one of his pre-Reformation 1514 sermons and in 1535, while comforting those in despair or dealing with the need for good works, the Reformer espoused the language of the concept of theosis. ³⁶ This sort of affirmation is not just a function of a pre-Reformation insight disowned by the mature Luther. In a 1525 sermon while offering comfort and asserting that Christ may be found everywhere, he contended that the faithful become full of God, so that we become wholly divine. ³⁷ Very late in another sermon on Pentecost, but another time in the last decade of his life, Luther referred to the faithful becoming participants in the divine nature:

This is certainly a sublime, beautiful promise, and as St. Peter (2 Peter 1,4) says, one of the precious and exceedingly great promises given to us, poor, miserable sinners, that we are to become partakers of the divine nature, and should be exalted so highly honored as not only to be loved by God through Christ, and to enjoy His favor and grace—as the highest and most precious and sacred thing—but should even have the Lord Himself … ³⁸

In another sermon Luther says that Christ has made of men gods. ³⁹ In all of these cases, the Reformer seems concerned to offer comfort in despair.

Although the resemblance to the concept of theosis in these quotations is obvious, to identify them unequivocally with this Eastern concept overlooks Luther's dependency on mystics who as Augustine-inspired taught grace alone while proponents of theosis are inclined not to prioritize grace, positing the simultaneity of grace and works. ⁴⁰

In view of the debate in academic circles over whether the Reformer actually taught deification, it is important to note that how along with these apparent affirmations of the concept he seemed expressly to distance himself from deification when merely articulating the faith. Thus in such contexts he claimed that “We shall be like Him but not identical with Him,” or that we merely come to divine qualities like eternal truth, righteousness, and everlasting life. ⁴¹ He also uses the language of being “planted together with Christ, united with Him,” “attached to Him.” ⁴²

There are plenty of other instances when Luther uses mystical language of intimacy between the faithful and Christ. This concept entails that through the work of the Holy Spirit we are conformed to Christ's will, much like what happens among lovers. Luther perhaps most clearly talks this way in his famed explication of the logic of faith, The Freedom of a Christian. He writes,

The third incomparable benefit of faith is that it unites the soul with Christ as a bride is united with her bridegroom. By this mystery, as the Apostle teaches, Christ and the soul become one flesh [Eph. 5:31–32]. And if they are one flesh and there is between them a true marriage—indeed the most perfect of all marriages, since human marriages are but poor examples of this one true marriage—it follows that everything they have they hold in common, the good as well as the evil. ⁴³

Elsewhere Luther's mysticism is apparent when he speaks of kissing and embracing Christ, not being torn from Him. ⁴⁴ The comfort that comes with this mystical union surfaces in one of Luther's sermons as he offers consolation (exhortation to comfort). He proclaims,

The sum of the matter is this: Depressed or exalted, circumscribed in whatsoever way, dragged hither or thither, I still find Christ. For He holds in His hands everything … Therefore, so long as He dwells in my heart, I have courage where I go, I cannot be lost. I dwell where Christ my Lord dwells. ⁴⁵

On numerous other occasions, not just when explaining the faith as I have noted but also sometimes when offering comfort, the Reformer described the doctrine of justification in this way, in terms of a transforming relationship of intimacy between the believer and Christ. ⁴⁶ Similarly Luther often speaks of Christ dwelling in us or that righteousness is not given unless Christ is present. ⁴⁷ In language perhaps suggestive of theosis, but not identical with the concept, Luther claimed when exhorting Christian faith that when the soul is united with the Word of God it becomes like the Word—like man becomes red like the fire in which it is heated. ⁴⁸ Continuing this set of images suggesting that the intimacy the faithful has with Christ, the Reformer claimed in 1531 that faith cements us to Christ so that he and you are as one person, more intimately than a husband is coupled to his wife. ⁴⁹

Especially significant in suggesting Luther's endorsement of an alternative to the Eastern concept of theosis is the way he described Christ's presence in the believer in a 1517 sermon. Because Christ is active, he claimed, the faithful will no longer drudge and sweat. ⁵⁰ In a later sermon Luther speaks of our becoming new or true human beings. ⁵¹ These remarks are not only suggestive of a transformation in which the faithful do not lose their identity. In contrast to the Eastern concept of theosis, they also imply an affirmation that the entire transformation transpiring in justification as well as that the practice of the Christian life is all by grace. There is no question but that Luther regularly and characteristically portrayed justification in terms of an intimate relation with Jesus (conformity to Christ), when concerned to describe the faith or to preach. In fact, this notion of justification as conformity to Christ is the dominant model in Luther's corpus. This is the case not just in terms of quantity of references, but also its centrality is a function of Luther's reasons for using this image—not to address problems but just for good old-fashioned explication of faith.

As in the case of most doctrines, Luther's treatment of justification is very much related to the context and pastoral concerns he addressed. The more the target is works-righteousness, exhorting Christian living, or despair, the more likely he will stress the alien character of God's righteousness. But in everyday proclamation or when merely teaching the faith, the more likely he is to draw on mystical notions of unity with Christ.

Third Use of the Law

Once again, both sides are correct on this perennial controversy. Luther clearly speaks of our freedom from the law and stressed freedom. ⁵² He claims when explicating faith that there are only Two Uses of the Law. ⁵³ In such contexts he asserts that good works are spontaneous, without need of instruction by the law:

It further follows from this that a Christian man living in this faith has no need of teacher of good works, but he does whatever the occasion calls for, and all is well done …

We may see this in an everyday example. When a husband and wife really love one another, have pleasure in each other, and thoroughly believe in their love, who teaches them how they are to behave to one another, what they are to do or not to do, say or not to say, what they are to think? ⁵⁴

Therefore one should not say to a believing Christian: “Do this or that work!” For he does good works automatically and unbidden. ⁵⁵

But when addressing Christian life, we find many occasions where the law functions in a pedagogical sense for Christians, where it exhorts the faithful to works. When dealing with Antinomians, those not taking seriously our Christian responsibility, he is recorded as teaching much like Catholics, the Eastern church, and virtually all Protestant denominations, a Third Use of the Law (the Commandments functioning as a guide to and exhorter for Christian living). ⁵⁶ Granted, the authenticity of this text has been disputed. There are other texts that imply a Third Use. One is to be found in a 1522 New Year's sermon concerned with the law. He speaks there of preaching even to those who observe the law (i.e., Christians). ⁵⁷

We see something like a Third Use of the Law when the Reformer addressed matters related to sanctification or comfort. ⁵⁸ Even in the Catechisms the positive use of the Commandments appears in texts concerned to address changes in Christian behavior. ⁵⁹

Luther also claims that the law is a disciplinarian that makes us do good, rather like a custodian prepared the child for adulthood. ⁶⁰ Late in his career when addressing issues related to living the Christian life, the Reformer even spoke of Christ as an example. ⁶¹

He also spoke of the law of love in these contexts (equating it sometimes with the natural law). ⁶² Luther even goes so far as to indicate the proper contexts for a Third Use of the Law. As late as 1535, he claims that the law should be made a god and be dealt with reverently apart from the matter of justification. ⁶³ He also claims that the final cause of obedience to the law is the good example it can portray for evangelism and our gratitude towards God reflected in our actions. ⁶⁴ Elsewhere the Reformer insists that good works must also be urged on account of the weakness of the flesh. ⁶⁵ In that sense, the Third Use functions in comforting despair occasioned by this weakness. ⁶⁶ On at least one occasion, when dealing with issues related to Christian life, but a strong concern for Christian freedom, Luther distinguished “sincere exhortation” (trewe vernamung) from “command” (Gepott), entailing the mandated behavior is not commanded, but merely exhorted. ⁶⁷

On numerous occasions when exhorting Christian life, the Reformer offers various behavioral directives for Christians. ⁶⁸ He speaks of Christ as an example when exhorting Christian life and when offering comfort. ⁶⁹ That the Third Use of the Law appears in these contexts is not surprising in view of his tendency to construe Scripture this way (as providing examples) in such contexts. ⁷⁰

For exhorting Christian living, dealing with sloth, a Third Use of the Law is appropriate. Luther even speaks of good works as a measure of faith in these instances. ⁷¹ But none of these references appears in polemics or when Luther merely exhorts faith. As we have already noted, Luther was very self-conscious about when good works are to be taught. ⁷²

Free Will, Bondage, and Predestination

This sort of contextual approach is evident in most of the classical doctrines. Even on predestination and the bondage of the will, the Reformer endorses distinct construals. He does not teach predestination all the time, but affirms free will on a number of occasions. Even in the famed treatise in which he insists on the bondage of the will, Luther claimed that the divine will is under no compulsion. He contends that “God does not work in us without us,” so that we might cooperate with Him. ⁷³ This reminds us of other contexts in which the Reformer related freedom to God's grace (like his famed treatise on Christian freedom) or when he posited that we have freedom in ordinary daily tasks or in the political realm. ⁷⁴ In these cases, he is either offering apologetics, comforting despair, describing the Christian life, or merely exhorting or explaining the faith.

With regard to predestination itself, the same contextual pattern is evidenced. Invoking Paul he claimed that predestination is not to be touched upon “except in repudiation of the righteousness of the Law.” ⁷⁵ Contrary to some interpretations by Lutherans, the Reformer does teach double predestination, when engaged in polemics with legalism, as when he claims “the divine will of the divine majesty purposely abandons and reprobates some to perish.” ⁷⁶ But when exhorting faith he is either inclined to be silent about predestination or only refer to election to faith (single predestination). ⁷⁷ When offering comfort he remains open to the salvation of all (a position he rejects in other contexts). ⁷⁸ The contextual pattern of the Reformer's diversity is again evidenced. It even reflected in his politics.

Luther's Politics

Luther's troubling positions on the Peasants and the Jewish community are well known. He advocated striking and slaying the Peasants. At other times, he advocated for a political passivity. In these instances, he seems to be addressing concerns about purity of doctrine. ⁷⁹ Likewise, his infamous condemnation of German Jews emerged when seeking to defend faith from evangelistic efforts of Judaizers. ⁸⁰

Of course, this is by no means the whole story. Apart from these agendas, the Reformer assumes a progressive and activist political and economic agenda, even to the point of calling for Jewish rights and caring for the poor when he explained or exhorted the logic of Christian faith or addressed injustices in his context. Thus, in such a context in his Large Catechism the Reformer explained the role of government. He wrote, “To restrain open lawlessness is the responsibility of princes and magistrates. They should be alert and resolute to establish and maintain order in all areas of trade and commerce in order that the poor may not be burdened and oppressed.” ⁸¹ Clearly, Luther envisaged a role for government in regulating the economy. His work in establishing government safety nets for the poor and his condemnation of the use of bankruptcy as a financial tool by the rich certainly demonstrate his bias for the poor, which was not shown against the Peasants when their revolt seemed to challenge core teachings about sin and our inability to bring in God's kingdom. ⁸² It is likewise interesting to note that when Luther did not perceive them as threats to the faith (like he did in his infamous polemical writing against them), Luther even defended Judaism and called for equal rights for Jews. ⁸³

Since these patterns of ethical conservatism and progressive social ethical positions are scattered throughout his career, it is difficult to make the case that this diversity is merely a matter of theological development. We have observed in this article a definite contextual pattern to the Reformer's thought. His most pronounced moments of dialectical or polar thinking (in this case us vs. them or everyone for himself, and on other doctrines divine work vs. human work) emerge in polemical contexts. In other contexts, the passions ease and care for the other emerges. In those instances, he is more likely to integrate reason and the Word, relate free will and election, and so on when preaching or explaining the logic of faith. When exhorting Christian living or dealing with sloth, the dialectical poles are virtually merged or his focus is more on the human side than the divine side of the dialectic.

Summary

Was Luther correct in contending for the consistency of his thought? We have seen that he also claimed that theology is practical. The contextual pattern identified in this article bears out the latter perception. If we concede that a practical theology need not be strictly logical and still not contradict, then we can concede Luther his point. I have other ways of accounting for how diversity in one's thought need not be contradictory, for both narrative logic and fresh scientific insights about the Theory of Everything and Complementarity allow for diversity without conforming to strict formal logic. However, were I to elaborate on these themes at this point I would be abandoning the field of Luther scholarship in favor of systematic theology. ⁸⁴ I simply close with the suggestion that when we appreciate Luther's theological diversity and its contextual character, the guild of Luther scholars can now stop trying to synthesize him, stop seeking the “essential” Luther or attribute his diversity merely to development. We are all (at least somewhat) correct in our own “Luthers.” The guild just needs to become a bit more open to the likelihood that other interpreters with whom we disagree have him right too. For he really wrote or said most of the things we collectively attribute to him.