Martin Luther (1483-1546)

Not a Superhero, But a Fallen Man Used by God

I did a quick search expecting reams of articles on Martin Luther making it easy to find quick reference on his life and works. Not so. What I found (thanks, Google) were revisionist articles on how “woke” Luther was, how feminist he was, and articles so close in wording as to have been garnered from the same single source. None of them had basic information that I had assumed was common knowledge, pertinent to his later direction.

Yes, it’s true that Luther benefitted from his father’s blatant capitalism and from the Black Plague's depopulation of Europe, but neither are particularly relevant. Benefitting from the depopulation of the plague is true of everyone then and since. Was the depopulation of Europe a good thing? No, it was tragic. Were there benefits? Yes. It allowed for less pressure on farmers to produce the basics because their fields could provide for more than what was absolutely necessary for survival. It lessened the strangle-hold landlords had on the serfs, and allowed wages to be somewhat competitive, based on what the landlords were willing to pay for work. The gap between the haves and the have-nots lessened, due to the above. Does that make the Black Plague man’s friend?

Again, no, but the reason I have to emphasize this is because of those who are calling for a reduction in population as being a good thing even today. Yes, it can “game” the system to benefit those who remain, but it is neither necessary nor good, and to reduce the population on purpose would be as evil as what the Nazi’s did in attempting to exterminate the Jews. Eugenics is evil in any form.

So, to suggest Martin Luther “benefitted” and gained privilege from a tragedy borrows from the ridiculous notion that he benefitted from being alive in the aftermath of tragedy. To accuse him from benefitting from his father’s capitalism is to accuse his father of benefitting from hard work and wise investment. There is nothing in the Bible that would hint that is wrong, even though Marx, Rousseau, and Plato would find fault. I could not provide for my own daughters to go to college, yet for me to cast a covetous eye and disparage those who can would be sin.

Sorry, what I found truly irritated me. However, one can no longer trust Google to provide unbiased lists of articles and I was disappointed to find Christianity Today providing exactly same nonsense as everyone else.

Let’s start at the beginning. Martin Luther was born nine years before Columbus sailed the ocean blue (for the math-challenged that's 1492 - 9 = 1483) to Hans and Margaret Luther. Luther’s parents were originally peasants, but Hans Luther worked hard to help his family. He started as a miner and later owned several small mines, earning enough to send young Martin Luther to Latin school and then to law school. Hans favored law school to clerical pursuits and found great satisfaction when Martin achieved his Baccaleureat, then Masters degree, and then entered law school at the University of Erfurt at age 18. The University of Erfurt was one of the most prestigious in all of Germany at the time.

Luther’s Life Changes in a Flash

Martin’s life changed when he was traveling back to law school from visiting his parents on July 2, 1505, and he was frightened by lightning striking close by. In terror he cried out, “Help me, St. Anne, I will become a monk!” (St. Anne was the patron saint of miners). Some say the monastery was something he might have considered prior to this incident, but that's probably speculation. Johannes Braun is said to have admonished young Martin to beware gaining temporal wisdom at the expense of the eternal, and James Wylie, in his 19th Century History of Protestantism, tells us Martin discovered Jerome’s Latin Vulgate in the Erfurt university library and studied it along with law there (Wylie, Vol. I, Bk V, Chapter 2).

It took Martin only two weeks before he joined the Order of Augustinian Hermits in Erfurt. Most internet sources refer to Martin as an Augustinian “monk,” but he is more properly called an Augustinian friar. The difference is that monks tend to be more contemplative and removed from the world for solitude, and friars are active in the work of preaching, teaching, soliciting alms, and moving about in the world to serve others. That Martin was an Augustinian friar is important, because it explains why he remained rather enamored with Augustine throughout his life.

Many scholars suggest that it was during this time that Martin was introduced to Aristotle and Nominalism, which they attribute to influencing some of his approach to his worldview. Nominalism was a decided step away from the metaphysics of Plato as well as the Pseudo-Dionysius, and Ockham’s “razor” remained with him in his approach to Scripture.

Martin's Conversion

Wylie attributes Martin’s movement in the direction of understanding salvation by faith through grace to John Staupitz, who was the Vicar-General of the Augustinian Hermits in Germany. He cites Bishop King as saying that Staupitz called Luther to focus not on his own sinfulness but on the fact that Christ didn’t come to save good men, but rather sinners. He called him to have faith in the mercies of God rather than His wrath at sin, and to believe that God could not only forgive the sin of David and of Peter, but also his own sin. It was the gospel in a nutshell, and Luther for the first time began to see that it was Jesus’ work on the cross that could save him, not his own meritorious works.

Then when reading Romans 1:17, Martin Luther had a breakthrough. In the preface to a 1545 collection of his writings, Martin wrote,

“At last, by the mercy of God ... I began to understand the righteousness of God is that by which the righteous lives by a gift of God, namely faith. ... Here I felt that I was altogether born again and had entered paradise itself through open gates. There a totally other face of the entire Scripture showed itself to me.”

There is some disagreement whether this experience was in 1518 or even earlier, as indicated by a meditation on Romans 4:7 written in midsummer 1515. As you will note, Luther’s “95 Theses” were posted on October 31, 1517, which would suggest it was his newly enlightened spiritual eyes that found indulgences to be apart from Scripture’s assertion salvation comes by faith through grace.

Luther and Ockham's Razor

William of Ockham (also William of Occam, c.1287-1347) was an English Franciscan friar considered to be one of the most prominent theologians of the late Middle Ages, along with Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus. He is best known for his methodological concept called, “Ockham’s Razor.” This concept is sometimes expressed as “Don’t multiply entities beyond necessity,” or more plainly, “The simplest solution is the best solution.” William employed this principle on everything, including the interpretation of Scriptural doctrines. He applied it with zeal to the often abstruse writings of Thomas Aquinas, and the concept has become a favorite of many Protestant scholars even today.

Martin Luther would have been acquainted with Ockham’s Razor, and it is one of the connections to Nominalism he carried with him. For Luther, all the intrusion by Plato, Aristotle, and the Pseudo-Dionysius was just smoke and mirrors that clouded the clear teaching of Scripture. Ockham’s Razor needed to be applied. This is a possible forerunner of the idea of Sola Scriptura—that Scripture alone was the answer and all the ideas of men would only obscure what God was saying.

Martin and Michael the Deacon
There has been much made of late concerning Martin Luther’s interest in Michael the Deacon of Ethiopia. In today’s “woke” environment, there seems to be a constant search for ways to include brethren of color in the historical dialogue. As it happens, in a letter of 1534 Luther expressed approval of what he had heard about the Ethiopian Church, and according to this same letter Michael the Deacon thought his articles of the Christian faith to be “good creed, that is, faith” (see Martin Luther, Table-Talk, November 17, 1538 [WA, TR 4:152-153, no. 4126]). David Daniels of the University of Chicago suggests Luther felt the Ethiopian Church had more fidelity to Christianity than the European Church, lending credibility to his own interpretation of Scripture as having both a Biblical and historical basis.

I think Luther’s desire was to include all followers of Christ in the universal church and to show commonality where he could. His disapproval of the theology and practice of the Roman Catholic Church caused him to look elsewhere and in doing so, he was heartened by what he found in the Ethiopian Church of that day. I would, however, suggest that those who go so far as to say that the Ethiopian Church was the “inspiration” for Luther’s reforms might want to slow down a little. At present, all that has been found are mentions of the Ethiopian Eunuch in Luther's writings and a fondness for mentioning its example as a non-Western church and proof that the teachings of Christ go quite beyond the perimeters of Europe. His mention of Michael the Deacon being in agreement with his articles of faith is used as proof of the universality of the Gospel.

To go so far as to suggest he was “inspired” by the Ethiopian Church to become a Reformer as some propose is going a bit far (sorry, CT ). There really is no evidence of it, not even in the article by Daniels they sourced. Daniels' list of the mentions of Ethiopia in Luther's other writings are no more than what has been mentioned by many scholars and preachers in the almost 2000 years since Phillip explained Isaiah 53 to the Ethiopian Eunuch. It definitely shows God's interest in people groups other than the Jews, and the Ethiopian Eunuch was the first non-Jew to receive the Gospel (Acts 8), even before Peter's Macedonian call (Acts 16). The Daniels article doesn't say there is any evidence at all that the Ethiopian Church influenced Luther—he only asks the question, "could Ethiopian Christianity, as understood by Luther, be considered a 'forerunner' of the Reformation? ... If scholars answer these questions in the affirmative, then the standard narrative of the Reformation as a solely European event will need to be revised." Note as a scholar he is very careful to say "if" scholars come to the conclusion Luther was influenced by them, then it changes how we see the Reformation. He did not say there was any evidence other than Luther discussing Acts 8.

I do find—as did Luther—inspiration in how the believers won by Phillip’s Ethiopian convert of Acts 8:26-40 had only the Old Testament and eventually the writings of the New Testament, yet were guided by God and the Holy Spirit as their teacher to grow in following the Truth. Being outside Europe they avoided many of the problems resulting from pagan Greek influences, a hierarchical political system in the church topped by a pope, indulgences, purgatory, and a host of other of the traditions of men. But in looking at a chronological list of Luther’s writings (see Luther Anthology), by 1534 he had written the lion’s share of his works, and the main of his theology was already formed. Please rejoice in Luther’s fellowship with and encouragement in the Ethiopian Church, but don’t see it as his being “woke.”

Martin Luther's "Anti-Semitism"
There are a lot of sites on the internet that accuse Martin Luther of "anti-semitism," and there is evidence he made some disparaging remarks concerning the Jews, though many of those remarks are merely repeating what God Himself said about His people—hard of heart (Psalm 95:8-11; Zechariah 7:12; Jeremiah 5:23, 13:10, 18:12; Matthew 13:15; Acts 28:25-27; Hebrews 3:8), stiff-necked (Nehemiah 9:16-17, 29; Jeremiah 7:25-26; Acts 7:51-52), rebellious (Deuteronomy 31:27; Ezekiel 2:3-4; Isaiah 30:9), blinded to the truth (Ezekiel 12:2; Isaiah 6:9-10; John 9:40-441, 12:40). Yet Paul told the Corinthian church that "these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did" (1 Corinthians 6:10), so it was appropriate that Luther preach on these things. Jesus quoted the Old Testament about these things and applied them to the Jews of His day, as did Paul in his epistles, so it would not have been unusual for Luther to make the connection that the Jews still did not believe in Jesus in his day. All these things were to be a warning for anyone who would turn away from the Messiah, Jesus—they aren't isolated to the Jews. As for the charge that Luther blamed the Jews for crucifying Jesus, it is no more than what Peter accused the Jews of his day in his sermon of Pentecost in Acts 2:36. Peter was of course addressing the Jews this way in order to urge them to repentance (it worked for many hearing it), and we today are always quick to follow Paul in that since all have sinned and Jesus was crucified for our sin, we ALL are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus (Romans 3:21-26, 5:12-21, 6:5-10; Galatians 2:20), not just the Jews, and this is something Luther mentioned, as well (LW 45:229).

Unfortunately, Luther's more sympathetic attitude toward the Jews seems to have taken a left turn into the wall in his 1543 "Jews and Their Lies." Reading through the "Lies" it certainly caused me to blush, with statements like,

Christopher Probts, in his thoughtful article "Martin Luther and 'The Jews': A Reappraisal," recounts much of the history behind the "Lies" in his review of Luther's "Jews and Their Lies," and points to the highly charged atmosphere of the day. The Jews were being accused of everything from of killing German children as human sacrifice to plotting to steal everyone's money through trade and usury. In the "Lies," the last straw for Luther seems to have been triggered by a rise of Sabbatarianism. Sabbatarianism is said to have been the practice of meeting on the Sabbath, or Saturday, rather than Sunday because of the Old Testament admonition in Exodus 20:8-11. They were the 7th Day Adventists of that time. As you will recall, the New Testament Church started meeting on the first day of the week, or Sunday, in honor of Jesus being raised on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7; 1 Corinthians 16:2). Paul blamed the "Judaizers" in the letter to the Galatians for nudging the believers back to a bondage of the law and Luther blamed the Jews for reviving the quarrel over worship on the Sabbath vs. Sunday. His "righteous indignation," however, led to a very carnal wrath, and his "Lies" includes much that he should never have said.

When the children of God sin, the children of the evil one rejoice, and during the time of Hitler his propagandists used the very popular figure of Luther to shore up their evil intentions toward the Jews. Probst points out that it was unlikely Luther's "Lies" was widely known until the Nazis reprinted it, but the association of Luther with the Nazi-driven holocaust has been forever cemented. You can find a copy of Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies" as a poster-child for anti-semitism on the Virtual Jewish Library website. It's an example of why we should never blindly follow any man's writings, and should follow only Scripture.

Conclusion
To give a complete reckoning of Martin Luther would take as many pages as most of his biographies. Luther was indeed a fallen man, who had struggles, doubts, errors in judgement,Since this is not meant to be a complete telling of his life, I will end with Martin’s final words before the Diet (Assembly) of Worms in 1521: “Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason (I do not accept the authority of popes and councils because they have contradicted each other), my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. [Here I stand, I can do no other.] So help me God. Amen.” Martin made his stand with Christ and His Word, the Bible. I, too, wish to make that stand.

LINKS

BLOGS