The pope and the Turk do not care about this. Why should they? The pope does not regard God as his Father. In consequence, heaven is not open for him. He betakes himself to his cloister, and he has his purgatory; these are the objects of his delight, and to these he is heir. Although he sneers at us and despises us, we shall, in the meantime, happily join in the angelic chorus: "Glory to God in the highest" and in their hallelujahs.
Let this suffice on the first chapter of John.164
On the third day there was a marriage at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; Jesus also was invited to the marriage, with His disciples. When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to Him: They have no wine. And Jesus said to her: O woman, what have you to do with Me? My hour has not yet come. His mother said to the servants: Do whatever He tells you. Now six stone jars were standing there, for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to them: Fill the jars with water. And they filled them up to the brim. He said to them: Now draw some out, and take it to the steward of the feast. So they took it. When the steward of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the steward of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him: Every man serves the good wine first; and when men have drunk freely, then the poor wine; but you have kept the good wine until now. This, the first of His signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested His glory; and His disciples believed in Him.
Apter this He went down to Capernaum, with His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and there they stayed for a few days.
The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple He found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business. And making a whip of cords, He drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple; and He poured out the coins of the moneychangers and overturned their tables. And He told those who sold the pigeons: Take these things away; you shall not make My Father's house a house of trade. His disciples remembered that it was written: Zeal for Thy house will consume Me. The Jews then said to Him: What sign have You to show us for doing this? Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. The Jews then said: It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days? But He spoke of the temple of His body. When, therefore, He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in His name when they saw His signs which He did; but Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for He Himself knew what was in man.
SINCE it is customary to preach on the opening verses of this chapter annually on the Sunday after Epiphany, you recently heard a sermon on them.1 This makes it unnecessary to expound them further; in fact, it would be a waste of time. Therefore I now proceed with the following verse:
12. After this He went down to Capernaum with His mother and His brothers and His disciples; and there they stayed for a few days.
Here the evangelist presents a bit of Christ's biography. He tells us that Christ lived in Nazareth until after His Baptism, when He entered upon His appointed office. Probably Joseph had died in the meantime, for Holy Writ does not mention him after his return from Egypt to Nazareth (Matt. 2:21–23). And now as Christ is to begin His preaching ministry, He moves to Capernaum. Matthew informs us that He established His residence here (Matt. 4:13). This city was to be His parish, where He would preach and perform miracles. Since Christ lived here with His mother, brothers, and disciples, the Gospel calls
Capernaum His city. Undoubtedly His brothers and disciples were honorable and poor folk, who moved away from Nazareth to this city by the sea because of prospects for a better livelihood.
Now the question may occupy us how Christ could have brothers, since He was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him. Some say that Joseph had been married before his marriage to Mary, and that the children of this first wife were later called Christ's brothers. Others say that Joseph had another wife simultaneously with Mary, for it was permissible for the Jews to have two wives.
In the Book of Ruth we hear that a poor daughter was often left on the shelf (Ruth 3:10 ff.). This displeased God; therefore He commanded that such daughters be provided for. Thus it became incumbent upon the nearest relative or friend to marry such a poor orphan girl. Mary, too, was a poor little orphan,
- 98 whom Joseph was obligated to marry. She was so poor that no one else wanted her. Any children born to Joseph by other wives would have been half brothers of Christ. This is the explanation offered by some.
But I am inclined to agree with those who declare that "brothers" really means "cousins" here, for Holy Writ and the Jews always call cousins brothers. Be that as it may, it matters little. It neither adds to nor detracts from faith. It is immaterial whether these men were Christ's cousins or His brothers begotten by Joseph.2 In any event, they moved to Capernaum with Christ, where they took charge of the parish. We may infer from this text that they were a poor little group. After Joseph's death they probably found it impossible to support themselves in Nazareth and for this reason left and moved to Capernaum. But just how and why this happened is a moot question. Christ was born in Bethlehem and reared in Nazareth, and now He is residing as a pastor in Capernaum. This town is His parish. He chose it as the place where He was to reside as bishop and as burgher, just as our pastor dwells here and is our bishop. Christ did not remain in Capernaum permanently. No, He wandered about. He returned to Nazareth and journeyed through all of Galilee, preaching and performing miracles; and then He would return to His abode in Capernaum. The other prophets did the same. Samuel lived in Ramah, and from there he "went on a circuit" to preach in the adjacent countryside (1 Sam. 7:16–17).
Christ, too, had His own residence in Capernaum. But from there He traveled all over the country, as the evangelist Matthew tells us, returning to Capernaum at His journey's end. In the same way our pastor,
Dr. Pomer, resides here. From here he occasionally sets out on a journey; right now he is in Denmark, but he will return here, to the place where he has his house and home.3 Thus Christ did not remain in Capernaum long at a time but went from there to other places. He preached along the sea and in all
Galilee; then He returned to Capernaum. Thus He spent almost two years in Galilee, but He seldom came to Jerusalem. After His Baptism He began to preach. He did not loiter. Capernaum was merely His home, where He was available to those who sought His help. From there He journeyed to the towns that bordered on the sea, as did Capernaum. He preached, performed miracles, and healed the sick in Galilee; then He returned to His mother in Capernaum.
That is the biography of our dear Lord. He preached in Galilee, and He healed the sick and ailing.
Obedient to the Law, He also traveled to Jerusalem three times annually, namely, for the Passover, for Pentecost, and for the Feast of the Tabernacles. He felt bound to do this, especially because He was a firstborn son.4 But He did not preach there until the third year, when He again set out and journeyed directly to Jerusalem. During the two years He served many people with the Gospel, but at the same time He aroused the resentment of the chief priests and the Pharisees. On this journey to Jerusalem He preached and performed many miracles. Now that the last year had come and the time had arrived for Him to die for us poor sinners, He bade Capernaum farewell, never to return there again, and set His face toward Jerusalem.
His mother Mary and many other women accompanied Him on this trip, as the Gospel tells us. The group progressed at a leisurely pace; for Christ devoted much time to preaching and performing miracles along the entire route through Samaria and Galilee to the royal capital, Jerusalem. And as we hear on the First
Sunday in Advent,5 He made an impressive entry into the city as a king and a lord of that realm. But the clergy rewarded Him for His preaching by sacrificing Him on the cross. As the prophets had foretold (Is.
9:1), Christ had to dwell in these places in Galilee before being crucified. The evangelist Matthew also mentions this: "Now when Jesus heard that John had been arrested, He withdrew into Galilee; and leaving
Nazareth, He went and dwelt in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: 'The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, toward the sea, across the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people who sat in darkness have seen a great Light, and for those who sat in the region and shadow of death light has dawned.' " (Matt. 4:12–16.)
And when the Lord journeyed from that countryside to Jerusalem, preaching and working miracles, the chief priests accused and condemned Him, because, among other things, they alleged that He had misled the people all the way from Galilee to Jerusalem.
This is recorded by the evangelists to give us a brief biography of Christ, so that we might be informed with regard to His residence in Capernaum. Here He labored with the Word of God as a pastor: He visited those in need of His help; He served all people night and day, whether they lived by the sea, in the wilderness, or elsewhere; and He performed miracles. This ministry of His is summarized in Acts 10:37–
38. The Lord's biography deals exclusively with His service to mankind. It tells how He enlightened people with the divine Word, how He comforted the mournful, how He preached to Jew and to Gentile, how He exorcised demons, how He fed the hungry, and how He healed those afflicted with diverse
- 99 ailments—all this according to prophecy. The lives of the saints know of no comparable works and deeds.
While John narrates these very briefly, the accounts of the other evangelists give more particulars.
Here John relates how the Lord, upon His arrival in Jerusalem, created a hubbub by throwing the money-changers out of the temple, giving a drastic demonstration that He was the Lord of the temple and their King and Lord as well. It is my opinion that this happened during the first year after Christ's
13. The Passover of the Jews was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
14. In the temple He found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers at their business.
15. And making a whip of cords, He drove them all, with the sheep and oxen, out of the temple.
Recently we heard St. John's description of how Christ miraculously changed water into wine at a marriage at Cana in Galilee, which was the first miracle to reflect His glory; then we also heard of His and His family's removal from Nazareth to Capernaum, where He sojourned and preached for three years.
Now there follows John's account of Christ's visit in Jerusalem for the Passover and of the tumult He caused in the temple. This we treated in our sermon on Wednesday on the basis of the twenty-first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, where this same episode is recorded.7 At that time we heard that Christ entered the temple right after His arrival in Jerusalem and there stirred up this commotion.
But now the question arises: How do we harmonize the accounts of the two evangelists, Matthew and John? For Matthew writes that all this happened on Palm Sunday, when the Lord made His entry into Jerusalem. And here in John we read that it occurred at the time of the Passover that followed Christ's
Baptism, the same Passover season during which the miraculous changing of water into wine also took place, and that then Christ moved to Capernaum. For Christ was baptized in the Epiphany season.8 And it seems possible that He tarried the short time until Passover in Capernaum, preaching there, and then cleansed the temple at the Passover of which John writes here.
These are problems and will remain problems. I shall not venture to settle them. Nor are they essential.
It is only that there are so many sharp and shrewd people who are fond of bringing up all sorts of subtle questions and demanding definite and precise answers. But if we understand Scripture properly and have the genuine articles of our faith—that Jesus Christ, God's Son, suffered and died for us—then our inability to answer all such questions will be of little consequence. The evangelists do not all observe the same chronological order. The one may place an event at an earlier, the other at a later time. Mark, too, chooses the day after Palm Sunday for this story. It may also be that the Lord did this more than once, and that John reports the first, Matthew, the second event. Be that as it may, whether it happened sooner or later, whether it happened once or twice, this will not prejudice our faith.
In our calculations we must assume, as all historians do, that Christ was baptized in His thirtieth year and that He preached for three full years after that event. But He continued to preach after the expiration of the third year, from the festival of the Circumcision of Christ, or Epiphany, until Passover, which might be roughly computed as half a year. This extends His preaching ministry over a period of approximately three and one half years. Now it is possible that the event recorded in our text happened after His Baptism, at the age of thirty, during the first Passover festival of His ministry. But when it took place is immaterial.
If one account in Holy Writ is at variance with another and it is impossible to solve the difficulty, just dismiss it from your mind. The one confronting us here does not contradict the articles of the Christian faith. All the evangelists agree on this, that Christ died for our sins. But in their accounts of Christ's deeds and miracles they do not observe a uniform order and often ignore the proper chronological sequence.
Still it is my opinion that here John skips over the first three years of the Lord's preaching after His Baptism and speaks only of the fourth year. It was at the Passover festival which immediately preceded
His suffering that He drove the buyers and the sellers from the temple. For John tells about many other things that Christ did at the time of the Passover festival. But nowhere else do we read that Christ paid much attention to the temple and its ministry, unless it was at the age of twelve (Luke 2:41–51). Otherwise
He behaved quietly each time He visited Jerusalem for the three high feasts. Thus the accounts of John and of the other evangelists might be made to tally quite well, and I hold that this event occurred only once. But even if it happened three times, that would not be heresy.
In Matthew you heard of the cause for this disorderly conduct in the temple.9 God had specified certain amounts for the support of the priests; besides, they received voluntary gifts from the people. But they were so greedy that this was not enough for them. They taught that the people had to contribute and that,
- 100 as priests, they had the right to put their clutches where they pleased; thus they converted the temple into a market place and a house of trade. It was a gross abuse to offer God and all His gifts for sale—the temple, the sacrifices, and all the divine services—although God had given all His gifts freely and from sheer mercy, ordaining that all these should be dispensed to people gratis and without a single heller being charged for them. Thus Christ tells His disciples in the Gospel: "You received without pay; give without pay" (Matt. 10:8). They should give all without charging for it, since they had received all without paying for it; and they should not treat God's gifts as commercial commodities fit for a shop or a fair.
God commands the hearers of the Word of God to give the priests food and drink, and Moses ordered the children of Israel to provide the Levites with their sustenance (Deut. 18:1–4). In the New Testament
Christ says: "Go and preach, eating what is set before you" (Luke 10:8). It is His will that the parishioners support their preachers. Preachers are not to supply their own food and drink. Therefore it is not wrong for a pastor to receive a salary. This does not imply that Baptism and the Gospel are being sold for a price.
No, these are given gratis. We find warnings against both: I am not to sell the Gospel but to teach it freely; the listeners are not to purchase it but to receive it gratis. I am to preach to you, and you are to support me.
And if you fail to do so, somebody else will. But if, in the name of God, you provide for me in order to maintain the preaching of the Word, and if I teach you that divine Word—then all is well.
But when things come to such a pass, as they are described here, that all the Sacraments in the church are bartered for oxen and sheep because the priests demand "You must sacrifice!" then the church is in a sorry plight. Their interest was in buying and selling; it was crass commercialism. They should have said:
"My dear man, there is no compulsion; it rests entirely with you if you wish to contribute something."
This is what the pope should do too, instead of vending indulgences, the Mass, and other frauds. He ought to say: "Dear friends, I will preach the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to you. Through Him we have forgiveness of sin by grace. I will serve you with my preaching for the sake of God and your salvation that you may believe in Him. I will also administer the Sacrament of Christ's body and blood to you, and in absolution I will absolve you without price of all your sins as often as you desire. I will not sell any of this to you. If I were bent on mercenary gain and profit, I would learn some trade. On the other hand, if I am in need of food and drink, you must help me and supply me with these necessities." But no, every service of the pope must be paid for, and well; otherwise the pope would not think of doing it. This has degenerated into extortion. Special letters of dispensation are issued, brotherhoods and communities are organized, pilgrimages are undertaken, and all sorts of fairs are instituted—all of which nets a great amount of money. And the canons sit in their cathedrals, prattling their seven canonical hours only for the sake of their prebend;10 without it, their service would cease. Thus the priests in Jerusalem also sought only their own gain, neglected all that God had commanded them to do, and pursued whatever served their avarice.
This is transforming the house of God into a house of trade (John 2:16). And this explains why the Lord comes to the defense of the temple; in His wrath He makes a whip or scourge of cords and lashes the money-changers from the temple.
15. And He made a whip of cords.
It must have presented an odd spectacle when He made a whip of cords and drove them pell-mell from the temple. Here the big question arises: "Where did Christ get the cords?" Some teachers assert that Christ fashioned the whip out of the cord with which He was girded after the fashion of the barefooted friars.11 Of course, our dear Lord must have been a barefooted friar! And His mother was probably a nun or an abbess! Thus these vile people add insult to injury and mock our dear Lord.
Undoubtedly He found these ropes in the temple; there must have been ropes aplenty where so many oxen, cows, sheep, lambs, and other livestock were kept. There He hurriedly grasped a few of these and made a whip. Then He rid the temple, inside and out, of the buyers and sellers, with their oxen and calves, wethers and doves. For all the animals—with the possible exception of the doves, which could be kept in the temple—were kept outside. Thus the idle question whether our Lord was a barefooted friar and used
His girdle as a lash also finds its proper answer.
This, however, is a worthwhile question: Why does the Lord use force here, whereas He had previously done everything by word of mouth? Now He resorts to action and physical force. It was foreign to His plan to initiate a regimen of might. And He strictly forbade His apostles ever to have recourse to the sword and the secular government (Matt. 26:52); they were to leave the use of force to princes and rulers.
How, then, does it happen that here He Himself uses His fists and behaves so oddly? It is as if He intended to establish a reign of might and to dominate these rulers of Jerusalem as a worldly sovereign does.
- 101 Actually, He came into the world to establish a far different kind of a kingdom—not a secular kingdom, controlled by force, but a kingdom in which preaching, teaching, consoling, and admonishing would reign supreme. In this kingdom the people would learn about their relationship to God, so that they might believe in the Son, without whom they would be lost. Thus the prophet Isaiah also foretold that the Messiah would bring with Him a cudgel or cane, but this would be "the rod of His mouth" (11:4). And in the papacy we find paintings which portray Christ with a sword issuing from one side of His mouth and a lily twig from the other; the point of the sword is to be directed against man.12
But this is not a true image of Christ. He should have been portrayed with a sword, cudgel, rod, or whip issuing from His mouth, as in the Book of Revelation the evangelist beheld a Man "from whose mouth issued a sharp, two-edged sword, and whose face was like the sun shining in full strength" (Rev.
1:16). Isaiah also describes Him as one who "will smite the earth with the rod of His mouth" (11:4). And in Rev. 19:20–21 we read that those who worshiped the beast "were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone, and the rest were slain by the sword of Him who sits upon the horse, the sword that issues from His mouth." This sword does not enter His mouth but issues from it, signifying that He will reign with the sword of His mouth. Christ's kingdom is not to be administered with physical power, with the sword or the rod. It is the province of the parents to wield the rod, and that of government and executioner to use the sword. No, His are an oral rod and an oral sword.13 Thus St. Paul calls the Word of God "the sword of the Spirit" (Eph. 6:17); with this term St. Paul wants to describe the function of Christ and of all preachers of the divine Word, namely, to teach the people by the sword of the mouth, the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God. The words of reprimand and rebuke are the rod; thus Isaiah says that "He shall smite the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked"
(11:4). He calls the Word of God "the rod of His mouth."
God uses "the rod of His mouth" when He judges and punishes the unbelieving world, saying:
"Whoever does not believe is doomed. Whoever commits adultery, steals, blasphemes God, disobeys parents, lives an ungodly and shameful life, is already dead and judged." I use the sword of the divine
Word when I condemn all the actions of man and place the whole world under sin. Thereby I behead no one, scourge no one with a rod; but with my mouth I whip, punish, flog, and judge. Thus Christ wields an oral sword, not a fisted one.14 The Word of God is the sword with which He punishes the whole world.
But now, in view of the fact that Christ's kingdom is not ruled with a fisted sword but with the sword of the Spirit and the mouth, how do we account for His harsh and hostile treatment of the priests in the temple? Why does He interfere with fist and sword and intervene in a matter that properly belongs into the sphere of the secular government? Isn't He acting as an insurrectionist?
This question has been debated back and forth by the teachers. They have sought an answer to the question: Why does Christ not confine Himself to an oral reprimand? Why does He use His fists? One should view the question from this angle: At that time the Lord occupied a position between the Old and the New Testament, or between the rule established by Moses among the people of Israel and that which He was to establish after His death through the Holy Spirit and the preaching of the Gospel. Occasionally
Christ is Mosaic in His attitude. He observes many phases of the Law: He is circumcised; He sacrifices in the temple; He goes to Jerusalem three times a year for the feast the same as others, in obedience to the Old Testament commandments of God. He also orders the lepers to show themselves to the priests as the Law demanded (Luke 17:14). Thus He does much according to the Law of Moses.
On the other hand, Christ follows the New Testament in many respects. When His disciples plucked ears of grain on the Sabbath, He was chided for this by the Pharisees, who murmured and said: "Lo,
John's disciples observe the Sabbath, but Yours do not!" He came to their defense, thereby violating the Sabbath, and said: "The Sabbath does not concern Me. I am its Lord, and the Sabbath cannot lord it over Me" (Matt. 12:1–8). Thus we see that Christ sometimes keeps the Sabbath and sometimes breaks it (John
5:16). When He restored the sight of the blind on a Sabbath and the Jews threatened to kill Him because of this, He told them: "I am Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt. 12:8). There Christ does not act as a pupil of Moses, but as one who now belonged to the New Testament, where Moses' Law was to be abrogated and a new spiritual order was to be established in the entire world by means of the Gospel message; this realm would not usurp the power of the secular government but would reign through the Word. Christ observes and disregards the Law of Moses at will. Here He assumes as stern a position as Moses himself or as one of Moses' disciples. Sometimes He demonstrates that He is Lord over both realms, the secular and the spiritual. For if Moses, David, Elijah, Elisha, or any other of the pious Jewish kings and prophets had
- 102 entered the temple at that time, they, too, would have used their fists. Yes, they would have done more; they would have stoned these Jews to death as the Law of Moses prescribed for idolaters (Lev. 20:2). And now, since the priests, who were all seducers of the people, failed to do what their office required, the Lord acts as if He were only a disciple of Moses and a subject of his realm.
Here He does not act in His capacity as Christ but as Moses, as one who has subjected Himself to the Law, Thus He indicates that He is Lord of both realms—of teaching and, like Moses, of punitive action as well; and in accord with the Law of Moses He here resorts to force. But no matter what method He employs, it is always good. If He chooses to follow Moses, it is right. If He prefers not to do so, it is not wrong; for He owes the Law nothing, since He is Lord of the Law and the Sabbath. He has the right to follow His own will and pleasure, for He is king and baron.15 At times He used the Law and kept it strictly, as one subject to Moses. Christ was not bound to go up to the temple in Jerusalem three times a year; but when He did, He did it gladly and voluntarily. And again, whenever He refuses to keep the Law, this is also meet and right. Therefore the Lord is doing nothing amiss here and is not acting as an insurrectionist; for He has the Law of Moses on His side, which orders death for idolaters. Nevertheless, if Christ had remained passive and had refrained from scourging the Jews, He would also have been within His rights. For Christ lived during the transition from the Old to the New Testament and was part of each.
Here He keeps the Law of Moses, as He often did. I must do whatever is my duty; but I may refrain from doing whatever I may do of my own choice. And by His occasional disregard of the Law of Moses Christ wanted to intimate His gradual abolition of it.
In Mark 11:16 we hear that the Lord was so angry and displeased that He did not even permit "anyone to carry anything through the temple." Why not? Not that it was such a grave sin to carry a basket or a cask through the temple. This prohibition of Christ sounds rather silly unless we understand His determination to cleanse the temple, and unless we realize His desire to demonstrate that—according to the Law of Moses, which was still operative and, therefore, was to be observed—His action was not wrong. But with the advent of Christ and the termination of Moses' rule, such violent action would be forbidden. Thus Christ here makes use of a Mosaic prerogative and does not act according to the Gospel.
Therefore this act of Christ cannot be cited as an example to be emulated. Here Christ did not act as a servant of the New Testament but of the Old, and as a disciple of Moses. The devil bade the Anabaptists,
Münzer, and the pope have recourse to the sword, although Christ strictly forbade this to His apostles and preachers.16 Nor are we entitled to do this either, for we are not on a level with Christ. He is Lord over Moses; we are not. No one is sovereign over Moses except Christ.
And from now to the end of the world these two realms17 are not to be confused, as was done in the Jewish nation during the period of the Old Testament. Henceforth they are to remain distinct and separate from each other, if the pure Gospel and the true faith are to be preserved. There is a vast difference between the kingdom of Christ and the secular government, the domain of princes and lords. And let the preacher keep his hands off the secular government, lest he create disorder and confusion! It is our duty to direct the church with the Word, the oral sword. The secular government, on the other hand, wields a different sword, a fisted sword, and a rod of wood to inflict physical punishment. The preacher's rod smites only the consciences, which feel the impact of the Word. Therefore these two rods and swords must be kept apart and separate, so that the one does not infringe on the province of the other. But they all reach for the sword—the Anabaptists, Münzer, the pope, and all the bishops. They aspire to rule and to reign, but not in keeping with their vocation. The cursed devil has his hand in this.
And the civil governments—the princes, Icings, the nobility in the country, and also the judges in the villages—take it upon themselves to wield the oral sword and to tell the pastors what and how to preach and how to administer their congregations. But you say to them: "You fool and stupid dunce, attend to your calling. Don't try to preach, but leave that to your pastor!" On the other hand, the schismatic spirits will not content themselves with the oral sword but will reach rebelliously for the secular sword and will insist on reigning in the city hall. All this is due to the devil's maneuvers, who will not desist until he has brought about confusion with respect to these two swords. It is not unusual for the devil to mix things up this way. But remember, it is the emperor's or the secular government's duty to use the sword of iron and the rod of wood, but we preachers hold sway with the rod and sword of the mouth. The rod of the secular government does not concern us preachers of the divine Word; we are to wield the spiritual sword and our oral rod. Let him who disregards this distinction begone; "he who does not believe will be condemned"
(Mark 16:16). If I put a murderer, a whoremonger, an adulterer, or the like under the ban, I am smiting - 103 him, to be sure; but these are only blows with the spiritual sword. If you do not want to feel them and do not believe, or if you do not want more blows—what do I care? I am sure that someday you will be well aware of this.
But I exhort you who are one day to instruct consciences in the Christian Church to take heed that you abide by the distinction between the two realms.18 For if these are confused, neither will prosper. As soon as a prince says: "Give ear to me, pastor, and teach this or that! Do not chide and rebuke in this way!" the two spheres are confused. And again, it is wrong for a pastor to say: "Listen, government or judge, I want you to administer justice as I wish!" But I must say: "You have your own powers, laws, practice, and usage; therefore do not administer justice according to my opinion, will, or books but according to your own laws."
You will discover that the devil will again confuse the two. In the past the pope united the physical sword with the spiritual one, citing our text by way of analogy.19 But this is a distortion. For Christ's position was far different from that of the pope. Here in our text Christ acts as a pupil and disciple of Moses, who was under Moses; He does what David or any other disciple of Moses would have done. But no apostle imitated the example of Christ. The bishops, however, want to hold both swords in their grasp and jumble the two together; and in this they are completely wrong.
It is not likely that the pope will harm us or rob us of the Gospel, for he is too badly beaten. But the young noblemen will—the members of the nobility, the princes, as well as the evil jurists. They go about nowadays with an air of authority and try to dictate to the pastors what they are to preach. They want to foist their will on the people with reference to the Sacraments, arguing that as the secular government they are entitled to obedience.20 And thus they merge the spiritual and the secular realms. The pope did this too.
He intruded the oral sword upon the secular realm. This resulted in the extinction of the Word of God.
Now the tables are being turned, for the fisted office is being transformed into an oral office.21 Secular officials now want to administer the spiritual office, control the pulpit and the church, and prescribe that I preach to the liking of the prince. Under such conditions, let the devil take my place and preach! For they are converting the sword of the Spirit and of the mouth into scourges and whips; they are expelling from the church, not the buyers and sellers but the true teachers and preachers! This practice is rampant today.
Stern edicts and mandates are nailed to all the church doors, ordering the laity to receive Holy Communion only in one kind and commanding the clergy to preach what pleases them. Moreover, the civil authorities can venture to be so insolent with their counsel and command because they reflect the will of kings, princes, and lords.
I scarcely know any longer what to do; for the devil is too violently active in both camps today; he is turning everything topsy-turvy. Either the pope insists on ruling with both swords; or the princes, noblemen, burghers, and peasants want to lord it over their pastors, and also aspire to both swords. But the oral sword must remain with the clergy, and the fisted office with the secular rulers.
Let this serve as a reply to the question why Christ used force for the purpose of driving the moneychangers from the temple. In doing this He is following the example of Moses. He might even have put these people to death, had He wished to. But we dare not adduce Christ's action in defense of similar action by us; for we do not possess both swords, the oral sword and the fisted sword, as Moses did.
Rather, after the abolition of the Law the secular emperors, kings, and princes were entrusted with the sword of iron, and the oral sword was assigned to the apostles and to us preachers. This distinction must remain intact; and let all who can, lend a hand to that end. But if the princes continue to jumble the two, as they are now doing, then may God in His mercy shorten our lives that we may not witness the ensuing disaster.22 For in such circumstances everything in the Christian religion must go to wrack and ruin. This is what happened in the papacy when the bishops became secular princes. And if the secular lords now become popes and bishops and insist on sermons that defer to their wishes, then let the wretched devil preach to them; for he preaches too. But let us pray God that neither the spiritual nor the secular realm abuses its office that way!23
17. His disciples remembered that it was written: Zeal for Thy house will consume Me.
The last time we heard that the disciples were watching and listening when Jesus rebuked the Jews for making the temple a house of trade and expelled them forcibly from the temple. It was an unusual spectacle to see Christ weave a whip from cords and lash away at the Jews. It gave the impression that He intended to establish a kingdom of power and might, although it was written of Him, as we recently said, that He would govern by the sword of the Spirit or of His mouth; for He was to found a kingdom of the - 104 Word and of the Spirit, not a kingdom of the sword. Consequently, this scene amazed the disciples; it all seemed very strange to them. Hitherto they had seen Christ only in a kind and friendly mood. Therefore it offended them to observe Him making use of His fists. But the evangelist John adds that the disciples were reminded of the statement recorded in Psalm 69, a psalm which treats of Christ throughout: "Zeal for Thy house has consumed Me" (v. 9).
This remark gives evidence that the people in that day were well versed in Holy Scripture, and that its study must have been diligently pursued in the synagogs and schools. It was particularly the Psalter which was read, preached, and explained, and with which the people were familiar. It seems apparent that in all the towns and villages there were priests and Levites who had their parishes, churches, and schools there, called synagogs. In these the people convened to hear and learn the Word of God. And here they regularly heard the writings of the prophets and the psalms expounded. Nevertheless, the temple in Jerusalem retained its eminent and dignified position as the chief church, or the cathedral. The Jews went there three times a year to show their loyalty to the God who had promised to reside there, and in order to give proof of their faith and doctrine. The churches of that day were well governed and regulated. Scripture was expounded there daily, so that even the simple folk acquired a fair understanding of the psalms and the prophets, which they also retained in their memory. Thank God, our churches are well ordered today too.
We can still meet there and call upon God, laud and praise Him. The Word of God is having such free course today that even a plain, uneducated person can comprehend Scripture in some measure, as the Jews were able to do in their time. We know, of course, what type of people Christ's disciples were—not learned men, not high priests, Pharisees, and scribes, but poor beggars and fishermen, lowly folk, Peter,
Andrew, and Bartholomew. But still they were able to learn the Psalter; they heard it read, sung, and preached. Simply by listening to Holy Scripture they familiarized themselves with it; and they learned it so well that they remembered the words and pondered them.
Here we can observe the result of faithful and diligent instruction of the people in the Word of God and of their attention to such instruction. An especially fine discipline, diligence, and obedience must have prevailed among these people when they gathered on the Sabbath in their schools or churches to listen attentively to the singing and the reading, the preaching and the praying. It was a scene like that presented in our churches today.
This example of the disciples must stimulate us to hear, believe, and accept God's Word gladly, to receive absolution, and to make use of the Sacrament. In view of the devoutness of the Jews of that day, it is not at all surprising that the dear disciples remembered this verse from the psalms; they had heard it in their schools in Galilee. But the amazing part was their application of the words to Christ, just as though the statement had originally been made with the expulsion of the money-changers from the temple in mind, and nothing else.
The words "Zeal has consumed Me" sound strange. The disciples, however, understood the Hebrew idiom. This was intelligible to them, for they read the prophets assiduously. And now that they find it impossible to condemn this act of Christ, and ask themselves: "Why did He lash the Jews with the whip and create such a hubbub?" they put the best construction on it and excuse Him. Just as if they wanted to say: "We must admit that by kicking up such a rumpus He is carrying things to extremes. But, after all, what alternative did He have? One who loves God and His house can never condone and tolerate such conduct. He must be activated by that passionate zeal of which this saying speaks."
Thus they relate these words—which apply generally to all true preachers and teachers who work with the Word of God, direct the people, and are imbued with zeal—to this one act of Christ, since He behaves here as one who loves God and His church. Such a one cannot do otherwise than display such zeal, no matter if someone may be offended by it. Even though pious hearts may think such action immoderate, nevertheless it is written that all Christians, but especially the Messiah, must have this zeal. This prompts the disciples to quote these words of the psalm. It often happens in Scripture—and I suppose that we can copy this, so long as it does not violate an article of faith—that a passage with general significance is given specific, individual, and personal application.24 Take Moses, for instance, who declares: "A man hanged on a tree is cursed by God" (Deut. 21:23). Although these words were not spoken of Christ, St.
Paul, in Gal. 3:13, refers them to Him specifically. And although Christ did not die as an accursed criminal, the words are nonetheless applicable; for He wanted to bear the curse obediently for our sakes.
And in Is. 53:12 we read: "He was numbered with the transgressors," although the transgression was not pertinent to His innocent person. No, He was holy and righteous, and He made others righteous. His
- 105 hanging, to be sure, was identical with that of the robbers to His right and left. And the crosses were also alike. But the persons were not alike. Therefore we must interpret these words from Moses in the light of what really happened and say that Christ became a curse before God and as such was crucified the same as any malefactor. Moses' words are all-inclusive; he speaks of all who are hanged. For when the Law decrees: "A man hanged on a tree is cursed by God," it can happen that a pious and God-fearing man is wronged. Should such a person be accursed on the basis of these words? Far from it! During the revolt undoubtedly many an innocent person suffered together with the guilty.25 The curse, like death, embraces the innocent as well as the guilty.
The high priests and the devil, of course, intended to make the people believe that Christ was accursed by God. They argued: "Just wait! If we can have Him crucified, then we have carried the day." For the language of this passage is plain and clear, declaring that anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed. But not so fast! A person may be dealt with unjustly. The tree on which one hangs does not convict and curse. For example, you may behead someone; but it does not follow automatically from this that justice was done him. It is generally known that many a person suffers injustice.
I may say of the father who has been bereaved of his only beloved son: "He has sacrificed his Isaac to God." And yet the father is not Abraham; nor is the son Isaac. My words mean that this father had the same experience that dear Abraham had with his son. In this way I generalize and apply to all fathers what, in the Scriptural account, refers only to Abraham. Yes, I may even say of Christ that He was Isaac sacrificed on the cross.
I say that it is common practice—not only in Holy Writ but everywhere else—to apply the specific to the general and, conversely, to proceed from the general to the specific. In doing so one does not violate a single article of the Christian faith. Accordingly, the disciples apply the rule here and commonly refer the verse of the psalm—"Zeal for Thy house has consumed me"—to what Christ did. Their intention is good; they want to excuse Christ's action.
But now what do the words "Zeal for Thy house" mean? The Jews, who were well versed in the prophets and the psalms, understood their meaning. Furthermore, it was an expression current in their language. But it is foreign to our tongue and, therefore, sounds odd. I translated the word ζη̂λος with the German word Eifer. If anyone can improve on this, he is welcome to do so. It is the best term I could find.
The Latin language, too, lacks a word that will faithfully reproduce the meaning of ζη̂λος. Some choose the term aemulatio; whether this is correct or not, I shall leave to the grammarians.26 In German, however, ζη̂λος really designates a friendly and yet vigorous27 envy or anger born of friendship and affection and found among people so loyal to one another that neither wants to see the other suffer grief and misfortune.
I have not been able to find a better word for this than Eifer. Strictly speaking, this pertains to the emotion displayed in the relationship between husband and wife, when the one views the other's too friendly association with a member of the opposite sex with a sense of jealousy. And it is only proper for such jealousy to be alive between them, and for the one not to regard the actions of the other with an air of indifference. They should not carry this to excess, but they should experience a modicum of jealousy. It would betray a disgraceful affection on the part of the wife if, from a motive of love, she connived at her husband's running after another woman. Nor is the love that obtains between harlots and knaves true love; it is a devilish and carnal affection, and not from God.
Common everyday usage in our language makes it permissible to speak of a commendable jealousy and of an evil jealousy.28 Although not only jealousy but also pride or arrogance is a vice of the devil, still it is correct to say in our tongue: "This is laudable pride, and that is evil pride." Or: "This is good chastity, and that is bad chastity." Or: "This is good humility, and that is evil humility." For instance, I may be possessed of a good and divine pride, commanded by God and demanded of me and all others. This says:
"I must not give way to the devil; I will not look at the devil and follow him." Such an attitude stems from spiritual pride. It was demonstrated by the dear martyrs, who told the tyrants: "I shall not look at you and thus deny my God and Lord." This is really praiseworthy pride! And if I were to say in a tone of humility, instead of pride: "Dear pope, dear bishops, I shall gladly do what you require," my humility would be demonic and accursed, if at the same time I claim to be governed by the Word of God. Such humility would be worthless, for you would be showing humility in a situation that calls for pride. But it is a demonstration of a laudable humility when I say with gratitude toward God: "Thy will be done. My dear
Lord Christ, do with me as Thou dost please. I shall gladly bear it."
- 106 Such expressions are dictated by the stress of the times and the circumstances in which we live. If I were to say: "I desire to live with no other woman and to love no other woman than my wife," I would evince an honorable and a divine unchastity. But if a man deserted his wife and attached himself to another woman, he would manifest a demonic unchastity. Thus anger is also of two kinds: good and evil.
If a prince's ire is aroused by a scoundrel, if he seizes him by the throat and strangles him, or has him hanged on the gallows, or if he breaks him on the wheel, has him beheaded, or has him executed in some other way—that is actually good and gracious wrath. If, on the other hand, he subdues his wrath and releases every scoundrel, his leniency would not be a virtue. No, it would betray a double disfavor, tyranny, and wrath. For his action would cause the murder, harm, and unhappiness of many people. This also pertains to a father who does not flog his son, or to a teacher who does not punish his pupils in anger when they have done wrong. No greater disfavor could be shown to son or pupil. In the same way it demonstrates a gracious, good, and godly wrath when murderers are punished and thieves are hanged that other people may live in peace.
Thus zeal is an angry love or a jealous love which makes any other man's unchaste advances toward a wife unbearable to a husband and any unchastity in the husband unbearable to a wife. In such circumstances one may say: "I am not jealous." But indeed you should be jealous! It is intolerable when my wife commits adultery, or when both husband and wife become whoremongers and adulterers. You must become jealous, for this is proper jealousy and zeal. On the other hand, it is a manifestation of evil and contemptible jealousy if I am pained at heart because another person enjoys greater popularity or good fortune than I do or is richer than I am, even though this causes me no trouble and my only reason for hating him is pure demonic malice. In fact, jealousy is one of the spiritual and demonic sins and vices on earth to which the devil himself is addicted. It is nothing else than sheer malevolence that prompts the devil to begrudge us mortals a moment of life and our salvation. He cannot bear to see us happy.
Just as spiteful jealousy is a despicable vice, so proper zeal is a precious and noble virtue. It is demonstrated when one, from true love, deplores that another commits a wrong and goes astray. Then such a person will say: "Oh, I feel so very, very sorry for him. I begrudge him that. It angers me that he fell into this sin and shame. When I see a beloved person doing evil, I am saddened." To begrudge and not to begrudge are two different matters; ordinarily, one is good and the other bad. However, here the order is reversed: not to begrudge a person becomes a vile and shameful vice, and to begrudge a person becomes a virtue which inheres in God alone and in the hearts of those especially moved by God. For this deep grief over a good friend's sin and shame, this begrudging of such sin and shame, still indicates the presence of a divine spark in the human heart.
It may happen—in fact, it often does happen—that husband or wife meets with a sudden mishap. The great love of the other will immediately begin to lament and cry: "Oh, if this had only not befallen you!
How heartily sorry I feel for you!" Or a father may be griefstricken by an ill-bred child. He deplores that the child is as he is; he begrudges him his wickedness. A similar situation may arise between friend and friend. Such begrudging or friendly jealousy or loving anger is a merciful, a loving jealousy, which says:
"Alas, I do not like to hear or see that anyone else lives to his own hurt and shame." I cannot regard that as hatred; for it is good, and is motivated by love. Where there is love, there is no room for hatred. This is what Scripture calls ζη̂λος. I have translated this with the one word Eifer; but my illustrations are intended to convey the word's true meaning and to clarify the expression for you.
That is the type of zeal Christ the Lord, too, displays in our text. His anger does not arise from hatred; it springs from a friendly love toward God, who had founded this temple to His own honor and for the ministration of His Word, that people might be instructed in church in the ways of salvation and in the worship of God. And now when Christ sees the very opposite; when He beholds open violation of God's commands, the use of the sacrifices to seduce the people for whose sake29 He Himself came to earth and became incarnate; when He witnesses the heinous corruption of souls and this abomination and desecration of His Father's house—then He is deeply grieved. He grows indignant and jealous. A saddened zeal comes over Him when He sees His church, His cathedral, desecrated and misused this way.
For He loves God; and He is concerned about the preservation of the divine Word, solicitous about the poor people who are thus being robbed of their salvation. He wants to say: "I begrudge the beautiful and fine temple this disgraceful abuse, and I begrudge the people the damnation into which they are being led."
- 107 But what is the meaning of the word "consume"? This word is more closely related to the German idiom; for we, too, are in the habit of using it of a person who consumes himself with grief, who is devoured, as it were, by sorrow. We say of someone who is greatly troubled that "something is eating him." This eating or consuming, of course, does not imply an eating or consuming as of bread or meat; but it refers to the sad mood which makes one languish, fret one's heart out, be consumed somewhat as a garment is consumed by moths. This was the experience of Christ, the prophets, and all the apostles. And our hearts, too, should be fairly consumed by a strong and holy zeal, a sorrow, jealousy, and indignation over the lamentable idolatries with which the pope has so woefully deceived and seduced the world.
Should it not gnaw at us, consume us, and move us to keep the pure doctrine of Coifs Word from being falsified further?
Thus these words of our text are spoken not only of Christ but of every preacher of the divine Word.
Observe godly parents who have a disobedient child, and you will soon understand the meaning of the words: "Zeal has consumed me." They go through life consumed by grief. They pine away and finally die from great sadness and sorrow. And these children become, not plain murderers but patricides and matricides, torturing their parents for some time before they finally die. They strangle their parents.
Solomon speaks of this in the Book of Proverbs—we find the same thing in Ecclus. 3:3 ff.—when he says:
"A wise son makes a glad father" (Prov. 10:1), but "a foolish son is a grief to his father and bitterness to her who bore him" (Prov. 17:25). In 1 Tim. 1:9 St. Paul, too, refers to murderers of fathers and mothers. If parents are godly, they suffer keenly from the ungodly conduct of their children. It gnaws at their hearts night and day, until they finally bite the dust on account of it. Thus children murder their parents, not by running a knife through their bodies but by their evil and impious life.
Parents can experience no greater cross or grief than the wickedness of their children. This ages the parents prematurely and finally grieves them to death. It wrings the lament from their lips: "Oh, my son!
Oh, my daughter!" And although such a child forces his parents to their grave with his evil and wicked life, they do not develop a demonic hatred for the child; the love for the child in the father's heart survives all and endures. Of David we read in 2 Sam. 18:5 that he commanded Joab and his host not to harm his undutiful son Absalom. This was dictated by the love in his paternal heart, which still beat for his son even though that same son had expelled him from the kingdom. And when Absalom was stabbed to death,
David cried: "O my son Absalom, my son!" (2 Sam. 18:33). I am relating all this to make the words more intelligible to you: "Zeal has consumed me," words spoken at a time when grief consumes or tears the heart.
But Christ suffered far deeper grief when He hung on the cross, when He took to heart30 the malice and the impenitence of the Jews. This He also experienced when He wept with great zeal over the fate of Jerusalem as He looked upon the city (Luke 19:41), and also as He sweat blood in the garden (Luke
22:44). During His entire earthly sojourn He was consumed with a constant sorrow, which prevented Him from ever being happy. And if He had not been crucified, He would have grieved Himself to death over the utter futility of all His efforts with the Jewish people.
Ask a pious ruling prince or a godly housefather what the word "consume" really means in times when evil reigns and grief eats and gnaws at the heart. I wager that you will get an answer! All the apostles and bishops learned the significance of the word, and they still learn it. It is brought home to them when they see that their faithful care, their labor, and their toil are in vain; some devil's head31 will come along and cause commotion, destroying more in one day than can be built up in several years. Any pastor who sees that the people are not reformed by the doctrine of the divine Word but become more savage and wild because of the devil's machinations will also say: "Zeal for Thy house has consumed me." The godlier a pastor or preacher is, the more keenly will he feel this zeal. And he must feel it.
Now love is happy when a friend fares well and has good fortune. This causes love to rejoice. But if love sees a friend encountering misfortune, it must pine and mourn. This was the Lord's experience when
He witnessed the abuse of His temple, not only of the physical budding of stone but also of the spiritual temple, the people of God, who were being corrupted so shamefully by idolatry. That sight aroused His zeal. We should all have such zeal for the Word of God. We should feel distressed and aggrieved by the abomination of the pope, the Turk, and all the schismatic spirits. If we did, we would understand this verse; we would grasp the significance of the word "consume" without explanation.
And if it is true that the anguish and sorrow of love will kill father and mother, how much more plausible it is that kings and princes, in the realm of civil government, have pined away with grief over - 108 their inability to guide and direct their people as they would have liked! In church government this happens even more frequently. When doctrinal discord and dissension occur, and pious Christians and saints are turned away from the truth, then this angry love is so distressed that one's heart could break.
Thus this zeal is a friendly jealousy experienced in the home, at the courts of kings and princes, and also in the Christian Church; for in all those places a godly affection for another prevails. This is not the jealousy of the harlot but a jealousy and an anger that consumes heart and life. Nowhere do we read that Christ experienced much joy during His earthly sojourn. This was due to the fact that His heart unremittingly harbored this consuming zeal for the temple and the people of God. His was no self-seeking, jealous ire. This is evident from the words in the Gospel (Matt. 23:37): "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered your children together!" Those were not the words of a laughing heart. But also this office of concern, of solicitude and zeal was imposed on Him by His Heavenly Father, and this zeal of His ceased only on the cross.32
18. The Jews then said to Him: What sign have You to show us for doing this?
This text helps us to comprehend better the false testimony which the Jews adduced against Christ later, during His Passion, when they declared that He had said He would destroy the temple and then build another in three days. This we find recorded in Matt. 26:61 and in Mark 14:58. John is the only one to record this story. The Jews impressed these words of Christ on their memories and later misinterpreted them, alleging that it was blasphemy punishable with death to declare that He would build the temple in three days—on the supposition, of course, that the construction of the temple in so short a time implied divine power. Thus, they claimed, He arrogated divine honor to Himself and made Himself equal to God, since no one but God could do such a thing.
Those junkers in Jerusalem had a hearty distate for what they considered the Lord's forwardness in disturbing their fair, driving the buyers and sellers from the temple, and overturning their tables. Other private persons had never ventured to do the like before; consequently, this was a novel experience for them. Therefore they come now and try to lecture and reprimand Christ. This they do with much ado before all the people, saying: "No matter how important a person He may be, this cannot be condoned. In such a great city, and in the house of God at that, it was not for Him to usurp such a power and start a commotion." If the men who had been ordained and authorized by God to rule the people and administer the temple, such as Annas and Caiaphas, had inaugurated a change and a reformation, this might have passed. All the people knew that the care of the temple had been entrusted to the Levites. Since they enjoyed the privilege of selling the sacrifices, no one, unless duly authorized, was to interfere with this prerogative; Christ was not authorized to do it. We would not tolerate it either; nor should we, if someone were to take away or break down our pulpit or otherwise meddle in the affairs of our parish. This was also their attitude, since only Aaron and the tribe of Levi had been appointed to attend to the sacrifices and sell the animals. No one else was permitted to do this. And if Christ were to declare: "I have come from God, and I am doing this by virtue of divine authorization," their reply would be: "Then confirm this with a sign. For to date God has upheld and preserved this work, instituted by holy men, yea, by God Himself, for the Levites. And now if You wish to subvert this, show us a sign to let us know that God is revoking
His words and is no longer pleased with the sacrifices."
If an Anabaptist were to appear in our city hall today and pretend that he is our burgomaster, we should not yield to him. Or, if someone were to say: "I am master in this house, I am pastor in this city," we should feel impelled to follow the example of the Jews and say: "If you are burgomaster or master in this house, then prove by a sign that God sent you; for this office was given to me and not to you." That is the proper attitude. Thus the Jews are apparently in the right here when they insist on a sign, for the rule of the temple had been committed to the tribe of Levi. And now they say: "Who are You to interfere here?
You are no Levite, but a poor beggar, the son of the carpenter Joseph and of Mary of Nazareth!" They upbraid Christ as though He were acting wantonly. Therefore they ask for a sign in proof that such power had been delegated to Him. Otherwise they would report Him to Annas, Caiaphas, and Pilate, the authorized rulers. These would take Him by the throat and deal with Him according to His deserts. They take Him severely to task for His arbitrary action in the temple, of which they heartily disapprove.
19. Jesus answered them: Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
This is a foolish and unintelligible reply: "In three days I will raise it up." What does it mean? For a proper comprehension of it, you must call to mind that God had sent John the Baptist to the Jews. The - 109 entire Jewish nation looked up to him as a prophet. He baptized and selflessly directed the people away from himself to Christ, who, in turn, was to baptize with the Holy Spirit and perform miracles. All the Jews were familiar with this message of John, and they all considered him a prophet. This was sign enough. The Lord Himself referred to this at another time, saying (John 5:33–35): "John came and, in answer to your inquiry, directed you to Me. He baptized you for repentance and led you to Me. And now that I am present, you should, in view of all this, be convinced of My identity as the Messiah and look to Me, especially since John was My forerunner. This should be a sign to which you should direct your diligent attention; for John warned you, saying that I would follow on his heels; yes, he pointed to Me with his fingers."
In Matt. 21:23–27 we find a more detailed account of this happening. When the Lord, on the eve of His suffering and after His entry into Jerusalem, created such a sensation that the chief priests and elders came to Him with the query: "By what authority are You doing these things, and who gave You this authority?" Jesus answered them: "I also will ask you a question; and if you tell me the answer, then I will also tell you by what authority I do these things. The Baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men?" And now as they also request a sign from Him, He asks them again, thereby perplexing and confusing them so that they are at a loss for a reply. For "they argued with one another: If we say: From heaven, He will say to us: Why, then, did you not believe him? But if we say: From men, we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet. So they answered Jesus: We do not know. And He said to them: Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things. If you had listened to the word and preaching of John, you would know by what authority and power I do this."
With this question the Lord cornered them and made it impossible for them to escape either to the right or to the left. In fact, He always held His own and coped with them masterfully. Christ's rather pointed answer befits their haughty question. They should have told themselves: "John, who is now imprisoned, definitely proclaimed that a man would follow him directly, that this man would baptize with fire and with the Holy Spirit, and that the people would flock to Him. This surely must be He."
Consequently, their question was uncalled for. It still betrayed their doubt regarding His Messiahship, although John's sermons should have convinced them. The purport of Christ's rather caustic and sharp answer was: "Was John, after all, a liar? Since you decline to accept John and his message, you will also refuse to accept Me." John had pointed out Christ to the people with his fingers; but this had displeased them. They should have accepted Him unhesitatingly, without any questioning.
Christ wishes to say: "You expect a sign from Me. Yes, I shall give you one, but not the kind you expect. You are willful and refuse to believe John; nor will you believe Me. All right! I shall give you a sign which may truly be called a sign. You Will not believe John the Baptist's message, though it came from heaven, and though many people among the Jewish nation believed it and were baptized by him, even publicans and whoremongers. You are so arrogant and obstinate in your malice, and you demand a sign. Therefore I shall give you one! You are unworthy of a better sign." Then He says: "Destroy this temple."
The situation here is similar to the one described in Matt. 12:38–41. After the Jews had heard Christ's sermons, had seen His miracles, and were now convinced that He was a great prophet, they accosted Him, saying: "Teacher, let us see a sign from heaven." Then He answered them: "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah." Here, too, the Lord wishes to say: "Since you ask for a sign, no other sign shall be given to you but this:
'Destroy this temple.' " Even if Christ had performed a miracle in the air, they would not have believed Him but would have blasphemed: "Look, the executioner has dragged in a sorcerer!" They perverted the meaning of everything Christ said and did. Thus they also ascribed His miracles to the power of the devil.
If Christ had given them a sign from heaven here, they would have called Him a sorcerer. For if those great miracles—such as exorcising the demons, raising the dead, and others, which no one but God can do
—did not suffice to convince them that He was different from other men, what might lesser miracles have availed, such as signs in the air or signs from heaven? Even if He had let an unusual, new star shine, or something of the like, their answer would have been: "Alas, the devil is frisking and frolicking in the air."
No matter what one does, the ungodly will not believe. They are heads of thistles, which only prick and scratch; that is, they blaspheme and defame everything. As Solomon says: "If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs," and nothing is accomplished (Prov. 29:9). The pope and his clique are like this. Regardless of what we do, they disapprove. If we are humble and friendly and - 110 a little gentle with them, they say: "Ah, they are afraid! They realize that they have lost out." And if we use vigorous language against them, they exclaim that we are conceited and presumptuous. Then, what are we to do? We will simply have to let them pursue their way until their folly drives them crazy and they split their heads open against us. Christ wishes to say: "Nothing is gained by whatever one may do with you."
In Matt. 11:16–19 Christ declares: "You remind Me of children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, 'We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.' For John the Baptist came neither eating nor drinking, as others do, and you say, 'He has a demon'; and I came eating and drinking with people, and you say, 'Behold, a drunkard.' No matter what I do, it does not suit you. Well, go to the place where you belong, and let us see who wins out!" Such people are more readily silenced by ridicule. It is immaterial whether He gives them a sign or not. If He does, they will say it is the devil's work. I for my part have often expressed my satisfaction that God did not endow me with the gift of working miracles. I rejoice that I am permitted to confine myself to the Word of God and to occupy myself with that. If I possessed such a gift, the people would be quick to say: "The devil is working through him."
Roughly the Lord sends the Jews about their business. And, for God's sake, why should He treat them differently? It is extremely vexing to Christ to find that the Jews consistently disapprove of whatever He may do to please them, and that they put the worst construction on everything, whether He tries this or that with them. If you note the hopelessly malicious and spiteful knaves with whom the Lord is arguing here, you will not wonder that He deals with them so harshly. For they are familiar with John's message; they send a delegation to Him; they are aware of His popularity with the people; they witness His miracles— and despite this evidence they demand a sign from Him. And if He had flattered their vanity with a sign, they would have reacted with a sneer: "Just see what the devil can do!" And if He refuses, they will remark: "This is not God; it is the devil." Therefore the Lord's reply resembles that recorded in Matt.
12:39–40, where He says that no other sign will be given this evil generation "except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." The answer is the same here; only the words and the figure of speech are different. He says: "This shall be your sign: 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.' " That is: "I shall be the Jonah whom you will cast into the ocean and into the jaws of the whale, whom you will crucify and kill; and on the third day I shall rise again." To the godly this is a joyful sign, but to the ungodly it is a stumbling block and a stone of offense. Our experiences with our adversaries, the papists, are like that. Whatever we do is wrong. We are a stumbling block and offense to them. They declare that the devil has begotten this people. They shall not have a sign from us either. They regard us as heretics, and we must let them go their way. Christ is disposed to do this here too. He wants to say to them: "Since you refuse to believe John and all the people, as well as My message and My miracles, I shall lend you a hand and make your folly and madness complete, angry though you already are. Because, without asking your leave, I interfered with your temple and you incurred a loss in your oxen and sheep, you, in turn, interfere with My temple. Now we are square. However, I am going to give you a sign which you cannot deny. I will raise up My temple as soon as you have killed Me. I will rise again from the dead and cause you to be decried throughout the world as murderers and villains who have shed innocent blood. Then your troubles will really begin. I will be a stone and a rock that will grind you to pieces and pulverize you. In your mad folly you will try to Check the course of My message; and I will pursue you and raze this city so that no stone remains on the other; I will disperse you among all the nations to the ends of the earth, and I will destroy your government forever. That is the way I will deal with you." Surely this answer was sharp enough!
What other answer than this can we give our enemies, the papists, with whom all pleading and imploring, all patience and kindness, and all sternness are in vain? This is why I tell them: "Do as you like. If neither pleas nor entreaties avail, just continue on your course. In the end you will come to grief.
Bash in your heads for all I care. You will receive your reward." They know that they are doing us an injustice; still they will not accept our doctrine.33 What do they do? Well, they say: "We will kill you."
And, in fact, they have murdered many saints. "All right, my dear sirs, destroy this temple. You will see whom you have slain. Our temple will surely be restored to make certain that the Gospel abides in the Christian Church. But after you papists have ranted and raved against the Gospel and perished, it will be said: 'This is what you wanted; it serves you right.' "
- 111 Thus the death of Christ, whom the Jews were to crucify, and His resurrection from the dead on the third day were to be the sign for them. Theirs was to be the sign of Jonah; this was to be preached to them.
Christ wants to say to them: "When you see that I have risen from the dead by My own power and realize your wrong in crucifying Me in whose mouth was found no guile (1 Peter 2:22), you will have your real sign." This thought haunts them to the present day. They have destroyed the temple, Christ; and now they must find in Him a rock pile of offense and hear no one but Him whom they have slain. They are confronted by the choice between eternal doom and the acceptance of this destroyed and rebuilt or resurrected temple. The Lord wishes to say: "You are bent on self-destruction. You want to wreck and demolish Me, but I will rebuild Myself and devastate you." This is the way God must chastise when someone refuses to give heed and believe and lets the devil take possession of him.
In the light of the Jews' refusal to believe in Him, Christ's answer is plain and clear. From Holy Scripture they knew or might have known that He was the Messiah. St. John had proclaimed this in advance of His coming; His own sermons and miracles also bore witness to it; and, in addition, they had the profession of all the people. And yet, because Christ had despised them and did not think them worthy of a sign, they wanted Him killed. Our papists act the same way today. They see that they are in error.
They, too, are hostile to the pope. They occupy and despoil the convents and monasteries. They do not care a whir for the pope's threats and his anathema. And yet they want to see us killed; they ridicule our doctrine, even though they know that it is correct and though their conscience convicts them of their wrong toward us. Blinded by sheer malice and hatred, they will not believe, hear, and accept our message.
But we who hear, apply, believe, and accept God's Word submit to excommunication rather than oppose Christ. Let the detractors and persecutors have their way; their punishment will overtake them. They have their sign in Christ's words: "I have purged your temple, and you wish to kill Me. Destroy My temple, and I'll destroy yours again!"
20. The Jews then said: It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?
These mad, blind Jews do not understand the meaning Christ wants to convey with these words. All those who follow their own opinions and ideas, contrary to God's Word, will fare likewise. They are under the curse spoken by Isaiah, that with seeing eyes they do not perceive and with hearing ears they do not understand (6:9–10); for they are so steeped in their own carnal judgment that they are unable to grasp and comprehend what is spiritual. Thus they apply the words of Christ to the physical temple built of stone and interpret them outrageously in their own way and to their own liking. They begin to desecrate and profane Christ's words, even convert them into hell and death; they strip them of the meaning with which Christ had clothed them. This is what our adversaries also do: When they hear a word from us, they pervert it into a word of hell. Their words show their rancor: "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?" God alone, and no mortal, can do that. These words imply the accusation that He is making Himself God; for He said that in three days He would reconstruct this temple, the erection of which had once required at least forty-six years. They wish to say: "If You can do this, You are either God or the devil." Now they think they have Him cornered. Later, when He stood before Pilate, the Jews referred to this as they accused Him, saying that He had blasphemed and had made
Himself God. Or, if He is not God, He must be a sorcerer, to be able to build such a temple in three days.
There was no other possibility: either He was claiming divine power, or He was practicing demonic trickery. Therefore the Jews believe that they have now entangled Christ in His own words. Either He has blasphemed God, or He is in league with the devil. In whichever of these two categories He may fall, sorcerer or blasphemer, He was guilty of death according to the Law of Moses. No matter what Christ's answer would be, they had Him trapped. If He makes Himself God, He has deserved death; and if He is in collusion with the devil, His life is also forfeit. Moses had expressly declared (Deut. 18:10–11) that neither a blasphemer nor an accomplice of the devil, a sorcerer or conjurer, should be tolerated among the people of God, but that these should immediately be destroyed and exterminated.
The Jews maliciously misconstrue Christ's words and apply them to the temple built of stone. If Christ, as they assumed, had been speaking of the temple erected by man, their judgment would have been reasonable. For the construction of the temple had required forty-six years, as they said; and reconstructing it in three days would be a superhuman task. Of course, the construction did not continue steadily for forty-six full, consecutive years; but forty-six years passed from the temples inception to its completion. The Jews were often interrupted during these years in their work by war and by the - 112 neighboring peoples, who gave them no rest and peace. Otherwise, I suppose, they might have built such a temple in six or seven years. The actual construction was not as difficult as the interruptions. Thus the Jews are computing the time from the day when the Emperor Cyrus of Persia permitted them to leave
Babylon and return to Jerusalem for the rebuilding of the city and the temple until the temple's completion. The progress of the work was impeded intermittently for almost forty-six years by their neighbors, who were opposed to the rebuilding of the temple. The Jews were obliged to travel back and forth to the king of Persia, who not only issued edicts and orders regarding the construction of city and temple but also contributed liberally toward the work. But the Jews were also handicapped in their work by officials and other servants at court, who interrupted and hindered their work wherever they could. The court devil does not hold his peace but is always busy. This is borne out by Daniel, who tells us that the "angel"34 of Persia and the "angel" of Greece had withstood him (Dan. 10:13, 20). The reference is to the devils who are particularly busy at court, breeding all sorts of harm through their counsel to princes and kings and hampering all that is good. For the devil has some very wicked scoundrels at court. Whenever a prince decides something, the devil is quickly at hand to oppose it. And I suppose there are also such devils in the cities, also in the homes, whom we might call "house devils." So it was that these evil angels obstructed and restrained the building of the temple to prevent the reinstatement of the true worship of For these reasons the construction of the temple required forty-six years, not because of the magnitude of the work but because of the many obstacles. It usually takes as much effort to overcome obstacles as it does to build; and in this instance the obstacles exceeded the actual work and costs. With all this in mind, it is correct to say that the temple was built in forty-six years; for because of the slow progress the building did extend over that period of time. And now the Jews want to say: "Since the temple called for such great effort, labor, and expense that it could not be completed in forty-six years, how could You build it again in three days? Since You presume to work a divine miracle, it must follow that You are a blasphemer." Consequently, no matter what the Lord does, He cannot satisfy them. Their attacks on Him begin even before His temple or body is destroyed; for they thoroughly hate Him.
This was written for our instruction and for our warning, that we may do what faith and the Holy Spirit teach. If we cannot convert and gain our adversaries, the blasphemers, either with laughter or with tears— for we may try what we will, we will not succeed—we must let them follow their own course, and we must remember that the Lord Christ fares no better. Though He means well, the Jews misconstrue it all and blaspheme Him. Therefore let them go as they will. Let them break the temple and come to ruin.
At the same time the Lord professes here that He is very God and very man, since He is not speaking of Solomon's temple but of His body, in which the deity dwelt bodily and personally (Col. 2:9). For it is a divine work to raise from the dead and restore life. No one but God has the power to do this. The devil, to be sure, can murder; so can man—but man cannot resurrect and quicken. This is the work of no one but God. He raises the dead, gives life to the dead, and calls into existence the things that do not exist (Rom.
4:17). The devil can destroy what has been made, but he cannot rebuild it. He can also consume a house with fire, but he cannot make it rise anew from the ashes. Therefore when Christ says: "In three days I will raise it up," he proclaims that the death of His body lies within His own power, that He can lay down His life and take it again at will (John 10:18). Therefore He cannot be only man but must also be God. The fact that He is to be destroyed and die is proof of His humanity. But that He will rise again, that He will raise Himself from death, bears witness to His divinity and to His divine power to quicken the dead; for this is not the work of a human being.
In this way Christ reveals His true divinity and humanity to the Jews. And we, too, believe that there are two natures, the divine and the human, in the one Person of Christ. This is the sign and the offense that annoys the Jews to the present day: they hear the proclamation that Christ, He whom they crucified, is eternal, true God and man. They are, of course, ready to admit that they have crucified a man, in fact, a man whom they regarded as a malefactor, a criminal. Thus Isaiah says of Him that "He was numbered with the transgressors" (53:12). But they are gravely offended by the claim that He raised Himself from the dead, as He says here: "I will raise it up."
Such, however, is the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, a doctrine which has come to us from heaven and is not found in our reason. In order that we might believe, the Holy Spirit inscribes this in our hearts with His tongue of fire. If this doctrine had stemmed from our reason, the Jews would have believed it too.
Now when you earnestly hear this and believe it with your heart, then the Holy Spirit is your Schoolmaster - 113 and you are His pupil. If you remain faithful to Christ, you are a child of eternal salvation. And just as Christ died and raised Himself from the dead, so He will also raise from the dead all those who believe this.
This has been recorded for our comfort. In Rom. 10:9 we also read: "If you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." But those who disbelieve this and take offense at it will fall and be damned. Therefore this is not the doctrine of reason, but it is the doctrine that descends from heaven and is proclaimed by the Holy Spirit through the oral Word of the Gospel; and the Spirit imparts the power to retain it in the heart, and to live and to die by it. The Turk does not share this faith. The pope, to be sure, mouths these words; but it does not really matter to him. He is far more interested in his Judas purse than in the Gospel. In consequence, they do not understand the Word of God, nor are they worthy of it.
21. But He spoke of the temple of His body.
22. When, therefore, He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had spoken.
The evangelist himself interprets the words of the Lord and adds that Jesus was speaking of His body.
For His body was the true temple where God would henceforth be and reside; all other temples belonged to this temple, that is, to the humanity of Christ, assumed from the Virgin Mary. This same body was
God's temple, His castle and palace, His royal hall. This must be carefully noted. Until now God had restricted His presence to the temple in Jerusalem; that was to terminate now. God had done this, not for His own but for His people's sake, in order that they might have a definite place where they could find
Him. For this reason He was not found elsewhere. Whoever wished to call upon God or come before Him, had to come to the temple in Jerusalem or turn his face toward it, regardless of where he might be at the time; for in Jerusalem was the temple and the abode of God. But today, in the New Testament, God has established another temple for His residence: the precious humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ. There, and nowhere else, God wants to be found. Christ's body is called the temple of God, in which He dwells. Thus all our hearts and eyes should be directed toward Christ, whom alone we adore, who sits at the right hand of God in heaven, as we confess in our Christian Creed. We no longer hasten to the hills or the green valleys, to seek and pray to God there as the idolatrous Jews and pagans did. No, we would not find Him there. But whoever wants to call upon God, regardless of where he may be in the world, must turn His face heavenward to Christ and thus come to God through Christ, the real and true temple. For Christ is the proper mercy seat (Rom. 3:25), with whom sheer mercy, love, and kindness are found. But whoever seeks
God apart from Christ will find the God described by Moses as "a devouring fire" (Deut. 4:24).
Whoever wishes to approach God today, deal with Him, and call upon Him, must know that God is no longer limited to a definite locality, as He was in the Old Testament in the temple in Jerusalem. But wherever, throughout the world, there are people who say with sincere hearts: "Lord Jesus Christ, Thou who art very God and man, who died for us and who now sits at the right hand of God, in Thy name I pray that God, the heavenly Father, may be gracious to me"; or: "Our Father in heaven, I implore Thee in the name of Thy Son"—such people will surely find God. They do not find it necessary to run to Jerusalem,
Rome, or St. James';35 in the person of Christ the Lord they have God with them at home. Therefore whoever desires his sours salvation, whoever wants to have a gracious God and attain his heart's desire from Him, must direct heart and eye heavenward and look at Christ, who sits at the right hand of God.
And whoever wants to serve, find, and surely meet God, must come to Christ, the true spiritual temple, fall down before Him, worship Him, and believe in Him.
Here we could enlarge on the villainy of the popes, the orders, and the congregations—the villainy which lured us to Rome, Compostela,36 and Jerusalem, thinking up one pilgrimage after another. This is where the people were to go and pray, just as though we could not find God at home, in our bedroom or wherever we happened to be. God is no longer confined to one place as He was when He chose to dwell in Jerusalem before the advent of the true temple, Christ the Lord. Thus we read: "The hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4:21–
23). The temple in Jerusalem is no more, and now God must be worshiped wherever one happens to be.
Now one must raise heart and eyes in faith to the person of Christ, God and man, and say: "I believe that He not only ascended into heaven but also is seated at the right hand of His Father and is equal with God."
And if you pray for something in His name, God will grant it; for you are addressing the true temple. In the papacy we neither understood these glorious words nor acted in accord with them. For if Christ is
- 114 sitting at the right hand of His Father, why, then, should we seek Him in Rome, in Compostela, in Aachen, or at the Oak?37 You will not find God there; you will find the devil. For God will not let Himself be found in a place of our own choice and choosing.
I did want to tell you briefly that Christ calls Himself a temple; this means that "in Him the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily," as St. Paul says (Col. 2:9). And if anyone now seeks God apart from Christ, he should know that he will miss God. For if in times past those who sought God outside Jerusalem failed to find Him, today those who look for Him apart from Christ will run astray still more. For in Christ dwells the fullness of Deity, and without Christ there is no God. All those who seek God elsewhere than in Christ, such as Turks and Jews, will find no God and will perish; for there is no help apart from Christ.
Hence it is immeasurably comforting that the Lord calls His body a temple of God, where henceforth God has His constant abode, and nowhere else.38
23. Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover feast, many believed in His name when they saw His signs which He did.
24. But Jesus did not trust Himself to them, because He knew all men and needed no one to bear witness of man; for He Himself knew what was in man.
Now the text refers to the Passover feast, for which all Jews were obliged to come to Jerusalem and which also attracted many Gentiles who worshiped the God of the Jews. The temple was to be a house of prayer, not only for the Jews but also for the Gentiles; for Gentiles were saved also in the days of the Old
Testament. Later, in John 12:21, we read that after Christ's entry into Jerusalem some Greeks approached the apostle Philip with the plea to see Jesus, and that they also believed in God, the God of the Jews, who had promised the world a Savior. These Gentiles were saved without the Law of Moses and without circumcision, solely through their faith in the coming Messiah.
This particular year more people than otherwise congregated in Jerusalem, coming from many parts of the world. The reports of Christ's many signs and miracles had spread over all the world and had also reached their ears. And now they had come to the city to hear Christ's sermons and to witness His miracles. When they saw His signs with their own eyes, the evangelist tells us, many believed in Him.
What does it mean that they believed? Nothing else than that they regarded Him as the Messiah of the world and accepted Him. The text does not say that they believed in God through Him, but that they believed in Him. And it was not a small number that believed in Him, but many of them, almost the majority of the inhabRants of the Jewish country. But theirs was still a "milk faith,"39 a young faith of such as enthusiastically accede, give in, and believe but just as quickly withdraw when they hear something unpleasant or unexpected. Then they relapse into their old vagaries. Therefore this text declares that many believed in Him because of the miracles, but the nature of these signs is not described here. In the last chapter of his Gospel St. John also informs us that Christ performed many miracles and spoke and preached before His disciples and other people much which was not recorded (John 21:25). But whatever was written was done that people might believe in Christ as the Savior of the world and attain eternal life through such faith (John 20:30–31).
But how do we explain the evangelists words that they believed in Him and regarded Him as the Messiah, and that in spite of this the Lord did not trust Himself to them; for He knew very well what was in man? These words have a dual purpose. In the first place, it is the evangelists intention to inform us that our dear Savior Jesus Christ is very God, since He is acquainted with the innermost thoughts of every human being. This transcends my power and yours, and that of any other person. The prophets, to be sure, occasionally were able, by revelation from God, to penetrate the plans and plots of one person against another. The intrigues of kings were not concealed from them. Thus it is written that Elisha revealed to the king of Judah that the king of Syria was marching against him with a mighty host. Therefore he said to the king: "Prepare yourself, and go to this place; for his counselors have resolved to do this and that" (2 Kings
6:8–9). Elisha did not possess this knowledge of himself; it had been revealed to him by God.
Furthermore, he could not know the actions of all men or all the thoughts of any one man; he could not even know all men. But this Man pierces the hearts of all men so deeply that nothing can happen without His knowledge. He knows everybody; He needs to have nothing revealed to Him. He is a Searcher of hearts, as St. Luke says in Acts 15:8. But this is a divine and not a human power; for not everything is revealed to a human being. Only He, Christ the Lord, is a Searcher of hearts. And what did He see in this instance? That these people did indeed believe in Him, but that they would desert Him at the onset of trials and adversities. Thus we read in Matt. 13:21 that the seed which fell upon rocky soil endured for a while;
- 115 but when the sun shone, it withered, because it had no roots. Here Christ foresees that many would believe for a while and would earnestly intend to be good Christians, but that they would fall away in times of trouble. This is what many people in Germany have done in our day. They made a good beginning; but in the face of offense, of tumult, of schismatic spirits and heretics who arose, they again fell away and became worse than they were before—yes, worse than the pope himself.
In the first place, therefore, this statement is intended to prove that Christ is true God and a Searcher of hearts. The world, however, is so stupid—as are also the junker pope and his cardinals—that they believe their plans are hidden from our God. In Holy Writ He is called καρδιογνώστης (Acts 15:8), a Searcher of hearts. Jeremiah is right when he says that the human heart is so deceitful and desperately corrupt that no one can understand it (Jer. 17:9). Yes, this is true with regard to man; for from man one may be able to hide one's evil nature masterfully, to speak words of friendship, and at the same time to harbor thoughts that belie one's words. There simulation and dissimulation, perfidy, wickedness and malice are common.
But God sees to the bottom of everything, even the deepest recesses of the heart. We, too, experience what a wicked thing the human heart really is. I experienced it with the pope and the clerics of Mainz.40 They ingratiated themselves with us through kind and friendly words and reigned such holiness and piety as though they were veritable angels, yea, God Himself; but in reality they were accursed devils. But they may be as artful as they will, they are not astute enough for Him who knows the hearts of all men. Thus here in the Gospel of St. John Christ the Lord penetrates the hearts and foresees that those who believed in Him in Jerusalem would not remain constant and retain the faith they now possessed. And this did come to pass later. When Christ entered upon His suffering, everybody left Him and fell from Him, just as the foliage falls from the trees every autumn.
On the other hand, if a man is pious and God-fearing, his heart likewise cannot be judged and understood; for it is written: "The spiritual man is to be judged by no one" (1 Cor. 2:15). "Who can explore the heart?" Scripture says (1 Cor. 2:11). God replies: "I will do it, and I can do it, and I alone know all. Should a man be able to hide from Me that I do not see him?" He wants to say: "That is impossible" (Jer. 17:10).
Secondly, this text was written as an example and as a warning to us, to keep us from relying on and trusting the faith and the piety of man, just as here, too, the Lord places no confidence in the belief of these people. He sees their hearts and knows that they believe. Still "He does not trust Himself to them, because He knew what was in man and needed no one to bear witness of man," saying to Him: "O Lord, this is a pious man"; for the Lord knows all men in advance.
It is essential to know this. Although we must always expect the best from man, especially from the believers, we remember that they may err and go astray. If this truth had been observed in Christendom, we would have had neither the pope nor all the filth and stench of his anti-Christian doctrine with which the Christian Church was later seduced. In the papacy one concluded: "Oh, he is a holy man and, consequently, all that he says must be true!"
Take, by way of illustration, SS. Ambrose, Gregory, Augustine, and Jerome, and all the others, down to Bernard, Benedict, Dominic, and Francis. In the end all the sayings and doctrines of anyone with a reputation for holiness were collected.
I need to be warned against such a practice. I must say: "I shall gladly believe that the men I have mentioned—such as Gregory, Ambrose, and Augustine—were holy men; but I do not trust myself to them. For their holiness does not make them infallible, and it does not imply that one must rely and depend on all the dicta of the fathers or approve and believe all their teachings. Rather take the touchstone of God's Word into your hands. Let this be your criterion for testing, trying, and judging all that the fathers have preached, written, and said, as well as all the precepts and human ordinances that have been promulgated. Otherwise one will be easily misled and deceived. And since this polishing stone was not applied to the pope in times past, he ran rampant and covered the church with errors. All his sayings and doctrines, yes, even the nocturnal dreams of monks and clerics, were, therefore, accepted and believed as holy and precious. This resulted in the excrescence of all those abominable and harmful errors over which we scuffled and contended and fought interminably with the popes—such as monasticism, indulgences, pilgrimages, the adoration of departed saints, Masses, vigils, requiems for those in purgatory, rosaries, and other tomfoolery.
We must be on our guard against this, for there is no immaculate and sinless saint in this life. Flesh and blood still cling to him; and at his side is the devil, who can induce him to stumble and fall. St. Paul
- 116 bemoans this in Rom. 7:23, 19, saying: "I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members," so that "I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do." Flesh and blood constantly strive against the Spirit, even preventing the saints at times from praying, from praising and thanking God and rejoicing, as they really should. For we should continually be happy, dance, spring, and sing the Te Deum. But we often grow so weary, sad, and troubled that we forget entirely to pray and give thanks. Thus our carnal piety, which lays claim to great spirituality, often makes us err and stray.
Since we see that many who have believed the divine Word fall away, we should not be ready to entrust ourselves to man, no matter who he may be, even though he is a believer. We should not cleave and cling to man as though he were infallible. Thus the pope usurped the title of infallibility; and under this claim he palmed off on the church that beggarly paunch, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, and Bonaventura as holy people who were incapable of error.41 He did the same with the other fathers, exalting them and making them pillars of the Christian Church (Gal. 2:9).
This should have been opposed with the declaration: "Yes, dear pope, they do believe, to be sure, and they are pious people; but I am not to entrust myself to them. I must wait and see whether they remain with Christ or whether they desert Him, as may well happen, since they are only human. Therefore I must note whether their doetrine is in full harmony and unity with Christ's doctrine, or whether it deviates from it. Christ alone must be our standard, to whom we look. We must not depend entirely on the words and doctrines of Gregory and Ambrose."
Therefore I say: I want to see whether any doctrine concurs with Christ. I dare riot forget the clear rule which St. Paul gives us Christians: to pay attention to what conforms to the doctrine of Christ and to the faith. In Rom. 12:7 he says: "Let it be in conformity with the faith"; that is, it must be in harmony and conformity with Christ. And St. Peter declares: "Whoever speaks, let him speak as the Word of God" (1
Peter 4:11). You must not go only to St. Bernard and St. Ambrose, but it is imperative that you take them with you to Christ and see whether they agree with His teaching. If they do not, but have added something to that which Christ has taught, or have evolved something from their own piety and taught this, I shall let them answer for that. But I must not convert it into an article of faith; nor am I to believe it, since they do not entirely agree with Christ. For I am to adhere to Christ alone; He has taught neither too much nor too little. He has taught me to know God the Father, has revealed Himself to me, and has also acquainted me with the Holy Spirit. He has also instructed me how to live and how to die and has told me what to hope for. What more do I want? And if anyone wishes to teach me anything now, let him beware of any innovations. If he tries to present anything new, I must say to him: "I will not believe it, dear pastor, dear preacher, dear St. Ambrose, dear St. Augustine. For anything that goes beyond and above the man who is called Christ is not genuine. It is still flesh and blood, and Christ warned us against relying on that. He
Himself did not trust Himself to man."
But because in the past we disobeyed this instruction of Christ, everything that was spoken by St.
Gregory, Thomas Aquinas, and others was approved. And this produced all the monks and nuns. In fact, all the pilgrimages and the invocation of the saints sprang from this source.
No one will believe how great an ordeal it is and how severe a shock when a person first realizes that he must believe and teach contrary to the fathers, especially when he sees that so many excellent, intelligent, and learned men, yes, the best of them taught thus, and that the majority of the people in the world shared their views; among these were so many holy men, like SS. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine.
I, too, have often experienced this shock. But in spite of all this, that one man, my dear Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, must have greater weight with me than all the holiest people on earth put together. Yea, He must also outweigh all the angels in heaven (Gal. 1:8) if they teach anything at variance with the Gospel, or if they add to or detract from the doctrine of the divine Word. And then when I read the books of St.
Augustine and discover that he, too, did this and that, it thoroughly appalls me. And when, over and above this, the hue and the cry is raised: "The church! The church!" this dismays one most of all. It is truly difficult to subdue one's own heart in these matters, to deviate from people who are so bighly respected and who bear such a holy name—indeed, from the church herself—and no longer to have any confidence and faith in the church's teaching, I mean, of course, that church of which they say: "Lo, the church has decreed that the precepts of SS. Francis and Dominic and the orders of monks and nuns are proper,
Christian, and good." This truly bewilders and dismays a person. But after all is said and done, I must say that I dare not accept whatever any man might say; for he may be a pious and God-fearing man and yet be
- 117 mistaken and err. Therefore I shall not trust myself to them all, as the Lord, according to this text, did not trust Himself to man either. And in another passage, found in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ earnestly warns us to beware of false prophets who will appear and not merely declare that they are Christians, but will also "show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect" (Matt. 24:24).
Therefore we should place no reliance in any of the fathers or in their writings, but we should crawl under the wings of our Brood Hen, the Lord Jesus, and depend solely on Him. For of Him God the heavenly Father Himself said: "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him"
(Matt. 17:5). God insists that we give ear to Christ alone, for He said neither too little nor too much.
Moses, who shines with the greatest luster in Scripture, is authorized to say: "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, but leave it unaltered as I taught it to you" (Deut. 4:2). And if Moses, the servant, lays claim to such honor and authority, how much more is Christ the Lord entitled to it, of whom God the Father bore witness from heaven that we should listen to Him and to no other! For Christ has taught us how to know the Father and Himself, how to live in our several estates, and also how to pass through the sore trials and the agonies of the hour of death, for all of which He gave us His Word and Sacraments. And we dare not add to or subtract from these.
But the pope acts arbitrarily, and he has the audacity to add to and to subtract from them. Thus he deprives the laity of the one kind in Holy Communion, contrary to the words of God, which say: "Listen to Him!" Who authorized him to do this? And if it was forbidden to take away from Moses', the servant's, words, why, then, should one want to curtail or mutilate the words of the Lord, Christ? Therefore, pope or no pope, I may believe that you are pious, but I will not trust you. For you detract from the divine Word, and your message and doctrine are not in conformity with the faith, as St. Paul demands (Rom. 12:7). The pope also adds to the divine Word, as is manifest in his indulgences, his pilgrimages, also in his claim that it is a sin to eat butter and meat on certain days. Who authorized him to add this? My Lord Christ says that I am to be untrammeled, free to eat what God grants me and what is put before me by man, if only I know the Father and believe in Him.
But in the papacy they counter with the cry: "The fathers! The fathers!" You must reply: "I am ready to believe and to concede that they were pious people during their lifetime; however, whenever they talk and teach contrary to Christ, I do not believe them. How are you going to harmonize the pope's decree:
'Whoever eats meat on Friday is of the devil, accursed and damned,' with Christ's teaching to the contrary? St. Paul says that all food should be received and used with thanksgiving to God (1 Tim. 4:4).
Does the pope's prohibition agree with the doctrine of Christ? I do not question that Ambrose and Augustine taught abstinence from meat on certain days; but since this contradicts Holy Scripture, I shall not comply with it or obey you."
Thus the pope also claimed that anyone who makes a pilgrimage to Rome in quest of indulgence will be saved. He forced the monks to observe their rules, to wear wool, walk barefoot, wear wooden shoes, go bareheaded and tonsured like simpletons, and girded with ropes like thieves. And any monk or nun who disobeyed was to be eternally lost. Christ, on the other hand, granted you liberty in such matters, saying:
"If you do not have a gray coat, put on a black one." Christ will not have anyone restrict you with human traditions and bind your conscience. He wants you to believe only in Him, to love your neighbor, to bear patiently any cross that God may send you, and to hope for eternal salvation.
But all such things were taught in the papacy, and many important people were deluded and blinded into laying great stress on them and making them articles of faith. Even today many are misled by their claim that the church does not err. But you answer them thus: "Oh, yes, the church does err and can err and be mistaken. You cannot collect the church into one spot or into one compact group. The Christian
Church is catholic, dispersed over all the world and often found in a place where one would least expect it.
Therefore Christ alone is infallible. But the Christian Church is fallible."
The fallibility of the church has been borne out by the fact that it accepted, and approved of, the pope's proposal to restrict Holy Communion for the laity to one kind. The church did not resist this move or contend against it.42 But Christ nonetheless preserved the church by reason of her daily petition for "the forgiveness of sins" in the Christian Creed, as we still pray in the Lords Prayer: "And forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." Therefore regard the church as holy.
Nevertheless, I do not trust myself to her; for the spectacle of the church in the papacy prevents me from doing so. If they teach Christ properly, I, too, shall believe and trust her; for in Christ I know no sin, no error, no lie. He alone is the Truth and the embodiment of the Father's will. For of Him the Father says:
"This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to Him" (Matt. 17:5). If I were to give ear to anyone else, error would certainly come in.
Therefore this must serve as a warning for me to be on my guard when someone comes along and confronts me with such preachments. But at the same time I remind you how difficult it is to break down the barriers and to realize that holy men such as St. Augustine and others might be mistaken. It distressed me greatly for approximately twenty years; and I debated, struggled, and wrestled with myself before I pressed through to the conviction that not everything the pope says is to be believed, that the church may err, and that I should not follow the fathers blindly. They surely have a fine reputation. They are regarded as the great teachers of the church; and all emperors, kings, and princes cling to them and to their teaching. Finally the great multitude, possessing the kingdoms and the riches of this world, holds with them. What are we by comparison? A small, poor, and insignificant number!
But God the Father warned us in advance; so did the Son. For Christ the Lord prophesies in Matt.
24:24: "For false Christ's and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." Now I admit that the holy fathers Ambrose and Bernard were believers and elect; but Christ Himself declares here that even the saints may err and that the elect may be led astray.
If I say: "St. Benedict was a holy man, St. Gregory was pious and one of the elect!" it does not follow by any means that then everything they said and did was holy and good and must be accepted and taught.
Do not draw such a conclusion. For they, too, were human. This text tells us that many believed in Christ, but that nevertheless He did not trust Himself to them. Why, then, do you insist on trusting yourself to these men and following them? There is more in man than just his faith. There is the old Adam; flesh and blood still cling to us. Furthermore, the devil desires to sift man as wheat is sifted, as Christ says to St.
Peter (Luke 22:31). Therefore man can indeed err and fall.
Now how will you proceed? Will you condemn these men? No, I do not intend to condemn Benedict and others. But I do propose to take their books and carry them to Christ and to His Word as a criterion for comparison, to submit St. Francis' rule to Christ's Gospel for a judgment. If their doctrine agrees with the Gospel, I shall accept it; if not, I shall say: "You may be a holy man, but you will never subject me to your rule; for it is a human bauble. Therefore let the devil adopt it! I do not want it!"
That should have been our policy long ago. But everybody is hesitant about doing this and will not do it even today, since no one is willing to concede that the church is fallible. But take hold of Christ, as John the Baptist also sends his disciples to Him. Subject the saints, too, to the scrutiny of Christ. Rules cannot be formulated on the basis of the actions of prophets and holy men. You must judge everything solely in the light of the words of Christ the Lord; for it is written: "Listen to Him (Matt. 17:5). And if you give ear only to Him, then I want you to know that everything you say and do in faith in the Son will also have My approval. If not, then all your actions and words will be displeasing to Me." We know from experience what will happen if the opinions of men become all-important. When St. Augustine, Jerome, or Ambrose spoke or taught anything, we closed our eyes, accepted and believed it without questioning and argument, on the assumption that the church and the saints must be respected. But man's disposition to sin and to err was left out of consideration. Of course, I can see—as it were, from afar—that man is flesh and blood and that these war against the Spirit, as we have already heard in Rom. 7:18–23 and Gal. 5:17.
Therefore you must say: I admit that St. Jerome—and, for that matter, our pastor—is pious and Godfearing. But I do not trust myself to them because of their piety, nor do I believe that whatever they do and say is true and Christian; for I know that a piece of the old Adam is still in them, just as it is in me.
Occasionally I give way and use a vain word, scold, become angry, slothful, and sluggish in hearing the Word of God or living according to it. Furthermore, I am indifferent to faith and prayer, smug, indolent, and drowsy; I yield too much to my flesh and evil lusts, and give them free play. And who is there among you who does not often stumble and sin?
It takes great care and diligence to learn to differentiate between those sayings and actions of the saints that are acceptable and those that must in all conscience be rejected. If you are told that a person's teaching conforms to what Christ has taught in His Gospel and his life is also in accord with Christ's commandments, you should compare all his preaching, teaching, and living with Christ. If it squares, then believe it and follow such a teacher. Otherwise do not follow him. St. Paul says: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1). Here Paul teaches us to what extent he is to be imitated and regarded as a pattern—to the extent that he is an imitator of Christ. To emulate his example in general would not be
- 119 satisfactory; therefore he modifies his exhortation: "As I am of Christ." He wishes to say: "If I am treading in the footsteps of Christ the Lord, then you can safely follow me. But if a saint should have a failing— such as an irritable temper, unchastity, indolence, sluggishness in faith and love—do not emulate him in this."
It is dangerous to say, as the pope has, that, since St. Benedict was a holy man who abstained from meat on Fridays and Saturdays, it is salutary to copy him in this respect. What if St. Benedict had been motivated by thirst for honor and carnal zeal? Or should you say: "Behold, I want to ape St. Francis because the pope declares that he was a holy man, that he disdained money, wore a gray cowl and wooden shoes"? No, Christ did not command the wearing of a gray cowl, though St. Francis thought it was a good idea. But what if the Holy Spirit did not inspire him to do this, but the old Adam, who always tries to be so clever in spiritual matters? Human devotion and reason prompted St. Francis to do this. Christ the Lord, however, is content to see you dressed in any garment you may choose. Just remain with Christ, and let nothing lead you away from Him. Crawl under His wings, just as little chicks crawl under the brood hen and follow her wherever she may lead them; otherwise a hawk may tear them to pieces and devour them.
We should heed the example of Christ here. From it we must learn to believe that people are holy and godly, also to hold the dear fathers, as well as the church, in honor and esteem, but not to rely on them as though they were infallible. After all, the church, too, must pray daily: "Forgive us our trespasses"; the church, too, believes in "the forgiveness of sins." And here in the text we are told that many believed in Christ, but that He did not trust Himself to them; for He knew that they were human.
But if the church and the fathers follow Christ the Lord, their Bridegroom, Savior, and Shepherd, then all is well; then I, too, stand ready to imitate them. Here the Lord wants to exhort us to be on our guard.
He foresaw that the devil would have his sport in the church and that the pope would bring all under his dominion with the doctrine of the infallibility of the church and the fathers. With this doctrine he has woefully duped and deceived the world. This should serve as a warning to us. Emulating the example of the Lord, we should regard people highly; but we should trust ourselves to no one.43
Recently we heard the Lord warn us through His example not to trust ourselves to men. We read that while He was preaching in Jerusalem, He did not trust Himself to those who believed in Him: "Jesus did not trust Himself to them, for He knew what was in man." From this we learned to be armed and prepared against the cry, not only of the papists but also of our conscience, which prattles incessantly and reproaches us with the words: "Listen! This was done, written, and said by these holy men, Augustine,
Ambrose, and others; hence it must be believed and imitated." Here the Lord is not speaking of unbelieving and evil people but of such as believed in Him. We are told that He did not trust Himself to them because, as the text declares, "He knew what was in man." The evangelist wishes to imply that it was pointless for anyone to come and tell the Lord: "O dear Lord, these are truly pious people and good
Christians. They surely believe, and You may trust Yourself to them. They are in earnest about all they say and do." The Lord could have replied: "My clear man, do not try to teach Me the knowledge of man. I know very well that these people believe; however, I do not trust Myself to them." Why not? It is not inconsistent to say that men believe and yet that, since believers are also men, one should not trust oneself to them. For men can err and sin; they have not yet shed their old hide. To be sure, we believe and are spiritual; but at the same time we are not yet as pure as we should be. The old Adam still cleaves to our necks. Both spirit and flesh still dwell in man, and the flesh is still corrupt. We are not perfect saints, as we hope to be on the Last Day. Even though God begins to purify us through death, so that we become dust and ashes, we must still await the final fire to purge all that has not been removed by the corruption in the grave. Then we shall have neither spot nor blemish; but we shall be like the bright sun, yes, like the angels. But that time has not yet come. However, we hope for it, and we also die in that hope. Until such a time, and while we live in the hope of such a day and of a perfect purging of the old Adam, you need not imagine that you will not stumble and err much. Therefore trust yourself to no man. A deceptive thought may come to me. And what may happen to me may also have happened to St. Augustine, Ambrose, and all the other fathers.
Therefore never say: "This man is a believer, or that man has the Holy Spirit; therefore I approve of all he does." Not so fast, my good fellow! You must learn to rely neither on yourself nor on any other man; for you and all others are flesh. So long as they still live in the flesh, all saints are subject to error until their bodies are purified by fire on the Last Day, purged also of that defilement which the decomposition in the grave did not entirely remove.
- 120 Gideon, whose story we find recorded in Judg. 8:24–27, may serve as an example for you. God Himself had appointed him to rule over His people. Scripture lauds him as a holy and excellent man, which he was. At the command of God he slew more than 100,000 men with an army of 300. It is evident that the power of God was in him, especially since he accomplished this feat without a stroke of the sword. Who would hesitate to regard Gideon as a great saint, since God fought the battle against the Midianites through him? But after his return from battle his zeal gave him the idea of establishing a chapel for worship in his native village as a token of gratitude to God, who had given him this glorious victory.
He took all the earrings of which the people had despoiled the enemy and converted them into a golden idol. This reflected great zeal and was done in good faith. But then Holy Writ says that Gideon provoked
God to wrath. It condemns his act, saying that he fell into sin through this great show of zeal; and because of the great sin his whole family and children, seventy in number (Judg. 8:30), later perished upon a stone
(Judg. 9:5). This was carried out by one of his own sons, born of one of his concubines. (At that time it was customary for a man to take to himself all his nearest friends, even though he already had a wife.)
Thus Gideon was repaid for his fine zeal, although he, for his person, was pious and godly, and, without a doubt, was saved; for the Epistle to the Hebrews praises him and numbers him among the saints (Heb.
11:32). But this great misery, Holy Scripture informs us, befell his house because of his idolatry and his fall, which resulted in the extermination of all his family and natural descendants.
In Holy Scripture we find many such instances recorded of holy and excellent men who stumbled and fell. These examples help us better to understand this text; they teach us not to trust ourselves to any man, be he ever so holy. For example, does it not surprise us to hear that St. Peter is taken to task by St. Paul
(Gal. 2:11)? And in Rom. 7:23–24 Paul himself laments his own inability to cope with the sin in his body and to subdue it; he bemoans the necessity of continually struggling and fighting against it. And if the saints of God, endowed with the Holy Spirit, can slip and fall if they do not battle night and day against sin, flesh, blood, and the devil, it goes without saying that we are not pure either.
It seems incredible to us that the great men and true saints commonly bring about their own fall, as did Gideon. He had killed 120,000 men, but he was defeated by himself. And you are familiar with the story of the terrible downfall of great David, which came about when he committed adultery with Bathsheba.
From this we should learn carefully to question all that stems from our own holiness and wisdom or from good intent and zeal, no matter how good. It must all be in accord with God's Word. Thus St. Paul declares in Rom. 12:7 that all must be "in conformity with the faith." Therefore I should first go to Christ and assure myself that my words or acts are in harmony with His words. In those circumstances Paul also permits prophecy, but he insists that it be "in conformity with the faith."
The lesson inculcated here must be diligently noted; it is for a purpose that we are told that Christ did not trust Himself to man. Everywhere St. Paul, too, warns against reliance on human wisdom. In Gal. 6:4 he says: "Let each one test his own work, and then his reason to boast will be in himself alone and not in his neighbor." I am not to investigate how SS. Jerome, Augustine, Ambrose, Francis, and others lived, but whether they preach Christ and lead us to Him. Insofar as they do, we are to agree with them and follow them in their faith and life. As for the rest, I am not to imitate all they did; for they are still encumbered with flesh and blood. Thus I say: "I believe that SS. Ambrose, Jerome, and Bernard were holy and godly men. But I do not trust myself to them on this account, for none of them suffered and died for me. And even if one of them had died for me, his death would not benefit me and could not contribute one whir toward obtaining a gracious God for me."
Let no one imagine that these people were holier and better than Gideon, Peter, St. Paul, or David.
Only Christ can appropriate to Himself the motto found in 1 Peter 2:22: "He committed no sin; no guile was found on His lips"; and the one in Is. 53:9: "He had done no violence, and there was no deceit in His mouth." No one can imitate Christ in this. He alone has the honor of being holy and sinless. Of course, we must try very hard to emulate Him; but we will fall far short of the goal.
Therefore no matter how long anyone shouts: "The Christian Church and the fathers have ordained and instituted this or that; therefore it must be observed!" tell him: "Yes, yes, dear brother, I will regard her as the holy Christian Church and them as holy fathers; but with the reservation that Christ is supreme and that they must follow Christ. This is reasonable, as they wish to be Christians in name and in fact.
Otherwise, holy people, whether the pope or councils, are likely to stray."
Now if someone tells you: "The church and the bishops have resolved this or that," make this reply:
"Good and well! But I, in turn, want to ask you now: How did they arrive at their decision? Were they - 121 inspired by their own zeal or by the Holy Spirit?" He may answer: "The Holy Spirit, of course, never forsakes the church; hence whatever she decrees is true." Not by any means! This does not follow at all!
But come with me to the proper touchstone; let us apply a reliable yardstick. Let us see whether they are in harmony with the Lord's Prayer and the articles of the Christian Creed, and whether they believe and teach the forgiveness of sins. And if it is apparent that they agree with what Christ has taught, then let us accept them and copy them. Before accepting what they teach we must run quickly to the touchstone and see whether they are in agreement with what Christ says.
Christ commanded us to eat His body and to drink His blood. He said: "This is My body" and "That is My blood." But now the council and the pope come along and say: "You must believe that Holy
Communion is in one kind, or that one part of Holy Communion, the bread, for instance, contains exactly what Holy Communion in two kinds contains, namely, body and blood, since a body cannot be without blood."44 They declare: "Why, naturally the Holy Spirit does not forsake the church; we believe the church and the fathers!" Then you answer them: "I do not care a straw for them. In such and other matters I must follow Christ alone and give ear only to those who have God's Word on their side, regardless of anything that this or that man adduces against it. For I know that the fathers often left Christ out of account and were motivated in much by their own zeal and the desires of their flesh; in this I am not going to follow them everywhere. They were not exclusively Spirit; they were also flesh and blood. Consequently, sometimes their thoughts were carnal rather than spiritual." And then you cite this text, John 2:24–25, against them; it says: "Many indeed believed in Christ; but He did not trust Himself to them." Such examples of Christ must be carefully noted. It should be our earnest concern to follow our Lord's example and not the lives of all the saints, and to believe the dear saints wherever their doctrine and life agree with Christ and lead us to Him. Where they do not, we heed the words which St. Paul addressed to the Galatians: "Even if an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (1:9).
In coarser matters it is rather easy to make the proper distinction. By way of illustration, Jerome writes that he chastened and chastised his flesh with fasting until his skin became wrinkled and as black as coal, yes, as black as the skin of a Moor. Yet when he lay asleep on the ground in his cowl, he dreamed that he had gone to a dance in Rome with a common wench and had made merry with her. During the day, too, similar unchaste thoughts had come to him.45 These are surely vulgar thoughts for a holy man to haye!
Now if this had been codified in a decretal or some other document, reading: "Since Saint Jerome danced with a young woman in his sleep, I, too, must do this"; or if someone were to accost me and say: "Since
St. Jerome had such a thought, consequently, I, too, must entertain these thoughts and carry on a love affair with a beautiful prostitute"; or: "Do that too, and imitate him!"—everyone would surely agree and say that this would be wrong. He was a holy man even though this lewdness and evil lust dwelt in him.
But it is evident that he must not be emulated in his evil thoughts.
St. Augustine also deplores his shameful dreams and inexpressible evil thoughts.46 Who would be so rash as to say that I must emulate him in these? All pious hearts would be quick to say: "No, follow St.
Augustine only when he preaches Christ purely, but not in other respects."
Furthermore, St. Ambrose, bishop of the church in Milan, excommunicated the pious Emperor Theodosius and mistreated him without any justification.47 This was obviously unjust and excessive. Yet the pope dared draw the conclusion: "Since St. Ambrose did it, we have the right to trample the emperor underfoot." And the popes followed this precedent; they became so pious that they trampled emperors and kings underfoot. This is wrong. Such gross examples, which fall into the Second Table of the Decalog, are readily discerned and easily judged.
But when we come to the First Table and hear that under the impulse of their carnal zeal the saints introduce an appealing mode of worshiping God, then wrong is not so easy to detect. Here a very keen perception is required, to keep us from emulating them. For instance, when St. Anthony retired into the desert and became a hermit,48 or when some prince establishes a Mass or builds a church for the observance of vigils or requiems—we find this harder to criticize. Our reason is too weak to manage this.
Then the hue and the cry is raised: "Behold, the holy Christian Church has ordained this! Saint Francis, St.
Dominic, and St. Anthony have commanded that ropes, cowls, and tonsures be worn; and they were holy people! The holy fathers have resolved this and the decretals of the councils have decided this, and thus the church has observed this to the present day! The pope has confirmed it! Whoever condemns this, let him be accursed!"
- 122 This is my reply: I do not question that these were pious and holy men; nevertheless, I do not trust myself to them. I maintain that Anthony, Ambrose, and Augustine were very pious men, who believed in Christ. But I am far from believing that everything they said and did was right. I love St. Bernard as the one who, among all writers, preached Christ most charmingly. I follow him wherever he preached Christ, and I pray to Christ in the faith in which he prayed to Christ. But I will not consent to wearing his cowl, his hair shirt, and his monkish garb; for by doing so I would be condemning all other Christians, as if their stations were not as good, honorable, and dignified as that of the monk Bernard. A father, mother, or child, a hired man or a maid, may believe exactly what St. Bernard believed. They share his Baptism and his faith; they also have the same Christ and the same God he had. This puts them on a level with St.
Bernard. Yes, another Christian may even have a stronger faith than he had! Why should a cowl or a rope make such a vast difference among people? Actually, these things make no difference at all.
Therefore I must differentiate between piety and piety; piety is not always the same. The zeal that Gideon demonstrated when he built the church was his own; and the chastity Jerome displayed in his sleep when he dreamed of a dance was also his own. But neither the one nor the other was in conformity with Christ. I believe that Gideon and Jerome were pious people, but I do not trust myself to them. For if I am to believe that I am cleansed of sin by the blood of Christ—and this is certainly true—how, then, could my sins be remitted by my cowl and tonsure, by Masses and pilgrimages?
If someone tells you: "Such is the life St. Francis lived; and if you adhere to his triple vow, you will be saved," you answer: "Does all this agree with the doctrine of Christ?" You will find that all this beautiful and attractive worship, all the religion and zeal, are nothing but an error and a mistake, blunders and foibles of the old Adam, evolved from the reason of men who made themselves conspicuous before others because they claimed to have the Holy Spirit. But, in fact, they were nothing but carnal, and all this was the product of their blind and poor reason. For to withdraw from association with others and to set yourself apart from others by special food and drink seems to reason like a superior way of life. But you tell them: "You have my permission to wear a cowl, but beware of basing your faith on this!" In the papacy it is said that one should put one's trust in cowls, holy orders, or rules by means of which one may obtain salvation. But this comes from the very devil. Our faith is to rest on Christ, and on nothing else.
I have often preached on this subject in the past, but I shall have to continue doing so. We have brought the papists to the point where they were obliged to concede that we have Holy Writ on our side.49
But now they bid us defiance and say that they side with the holy church. They shout: "Church! Church!"
But that is nonsense. We, too, side with the Christian Church—but with that church which preaches that Christ, our Bridegroom, was born, was crucified, and died for us. If the church did not do this, I would not regard her as the church. For Christ says that the church and the fathers believe in Him; the church relies solely on Christ and teaches reliance on Him.
Even though the zeal of the fathers may have brought forth some very attractive things, I know that the fathers did not die in reliance on them. If they had, they would have been lost. If they desired to be saved, they, too, had to entrust themselves to none but Christ, the only Savior, on their deathbeds. St. Bernard did that. Even though he followed the rules of his order meticulously, still, as he approached death, he praised the dear Lord above all other teachers. In Him he found his great delight, saying: "Christ is my Lord. He has a twofold claim to heaven, and this heaven He gained for me. By His merits I, too, want to be saved."50 Yes, this is what God tells you to say. What does St. Bernard mean by a twofold claim to heaven? "In the first place, Christ can claim heaven for His own person. As the Son of God He is the Heir, who had inherited heaven. Secondly, He can claim heaven by virtue of having earned it through His suffering and death. And now He has given heaven to us; it belongs to me."
Thus they all crept to the cross before their death, fell to their knees, and sought forgiveness of sin there. Undoubtedly when Gideon died, he did not rely on his piety either. We must agree with the papists that the church is holy. They refuse to believe that I share this view.51 But it does not follow from this, as they imagine, that I believe and accept as proper everything they do or have done. They affirm their belief in a holy Christian Church most emphatically. But we say: When the church baptizes and is baptized, when the church administers the Sacraments, absolves and is absolved from sin, hears the Word of God, receives and administers absolution, then all is right. There the true churches are to be found, for these are the true works of faith. As for dress, this person wears one garb, that person wears a different and special one. Thus the Augustinian monks are clothed differently from the Bernardines, and the barefoot friars adopt a different garb and follow different rules from those of the Carthusians. Such differences do not - 123 pertain to Baptism, Holy Communion, the Creed, the Office of the Keys; but they merely represent different modes of devotion. There I, too, can say: "I admit, dear church, that you are holy, also that you, dear Father Francis, are a holy man; but still I do not trust myself to you."
But this does not satisfy the papists. They insist that one accept everything in the church as Christian, including all that was said and done by the fathers and all that happens in the church today as well. But think of Gideon's folly and also of the many sins rampant in the church today. There are some saints, but these still have many shortcomings. I say: I remain wherever the church remains, and I believe what the church believes. That is, with the church I believe the articles of the Christian Creed. I believe in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. With the church I also pray the Lords Prayer; and then I carry out my office, calling, and duty as a man or a woman. All this is laudable. Whatever I do over and above this, I do because God commanded it. But if I am asked to do something that is either beyond or contrary to God's Word and command, as, for example, to wear cowls and tonsures, I do not consent but turn a deaf ear. The cowl was not ordered by God but by St. Francis, St. Augustine, and others. Therefore
I shall not imitate them. And if they say: "Why do you refuse to copy the holy men in this?" you inform them that a holy man consists of two parts: body and soul. Insofar as his soul is holy, I shall follow the saint; but I do not accede to their demands to follow him with regard to his body. For there you still find flesh and blood, reflected, for example, in anger, impatience, unchastity, and heresy—all in violation of the first three Commandments. These sins and vices of the body must not be imitated. And, dear fellow, when someone invents a religion and a worship contrary to God's Word, you have another illustration of the fact that the body may also produce heresy and error.
Therefore the church and the saints must be regarded from two different viewpoints: first, according to the spirit, and then also according to the flesh. Now if the church's devotion, religion, word, and work smell of the flesh, or if the saints have erroneous opinions and speak about carnal matters, then you must say: "No, no, I will neither listen nor follow. For they are speaking according to the flesh; it is St.
Jerome's dream of a dance and St. Ambrose's wrath in the church in Milan." Or when we see an occasional false doctrine slip from their pens—many erroneous and debatable sayings are found in their books—or statements that are devoid of Christian thought or were composed with a different purpose in mind, then surely it is evident to everybody that one dare not bank proudly or rely defiantly on such statements. No, I must hold firmly and inflexibly to the teaching of the divine Word and to nothing else.
But the papists do not want to hear of this distinction. They make a horrible hodgepodge of it and shout: "Church! Church!" They declare that everything the church has ordered and the fathers have said must be obeyed. They make hogwash52 of this, as if flesh and spirit were one and the same thing. They refuse to be led to the Arbiter, who is called Christ, to have Him pass judgment in such questions with His
Gospel. They flatly declare: "The church has spoken! The fathers have spoken! Whoever refuses to believe is, without further ado, a heretic!" But you say to them: "Go ahead. I will never give heed to you or to any other man, nor will I follow him in the church; for St. Paul earnestly forbids that we obey even an angel from heaven were he to preach a different gospel" (Gal. 1:8). And if we are not to believe even an angel, who is much holier than all the monks and priests, how much less dare we believe those who taught us reliance on our good works, who told us that anyone buried in a monk's cowl ascends straight to heaven,53 and who sold their good works and merits, their orders and their pilgrimages to others! Look, is this in agreement with Christ? My dear man, did the cowl die for you? Did it shed any blood for you?
"Well," they say, "Saint Francis said so and held that opinion." Tell them: "That leaves me cold. That opinion is the stench of his flesh and not the good savor of his spirit." The monks often prevailed on princes, counts, and other noblemen to donate a thousand gulden for their monastery, in return for which the monks promised to intercede for the donors day and night. Ask yourself whether those paltry works of the monks died for you, whether they shed their blood for you. Then you will see that all this is not in agreement with Christ.
Therefore we must remember that these holy men may have been saved; but it was Christ who died for us. We must place our trust solely on Him as our only Savior, and on no other, not on ourselves or our own opinions, however good they may be. Do not trust yourself to your own opinions, but take them to Christ and see whether they are in conformity with the faith (Rom. 12:7) and the Word of the holy Gospel.
I, too, occasionally have beautiful and splendid thoughts, and I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired them.
But when I judge them in the light of faith, I realize that they are sheer filth, sinful and impure. Therefore it is essential for the heart of a Christian to be firmly convinced that Christ's innocent life, His holy blood,
- 124 and precious death are our salvation, that we, together with all the saints, must cling to Christ alone, and that no saint in heaven ever relied on himself and his own righteousness.
As the evangelist informs us, the Lord knew what was in man, namely, both flesh and spirit. Thus flesh and blood also still inhered in St. Jerome. And, as St. Paul declares, "flesh and spirit contend against each other within us" (Gal. 5:17). Therefore it is necessary that we observe the distinction between flesh and spirit and discern the path of each. When the doctrine and the life of the saints are in harmony with the Spirit, I follow them; for they lead me directly to Christ. Thus I tread safely, for they teach me Christ and faith. But when I see Jerome girding himself with a rope, going begging, dispossessing himself of all property, insisting on being clothed so and so, I say: "Away with all this! He may be holy, but I shall not imitate him; I will trust myself to Christ." Therefore the evangelist is right when he says: "Jesus needed no one to give witness of man, for He Himself knew what was in man"; that is, He knew that all the great saints still have flesh as well as Spirit. The holier they are, the more of the Spirit and the less of the flesh they possess. But even if they abound in the Spirit and have but little flesh, still, by reason of this flesh, they err, stray, and sin often. But so long as they remain on this foundation, Jesus Christ—than which there is no other, as St. Paul states (1 Cor. 3:11)—even though they build hay, straw, stubbles, and wood upon this foundation, even though they slide and slip and stumble, they are nonetheless saved. For the straw, hay, stubbles, and wood in my heart—that is, cowls, tonsures, canonical hours, or any other human inventions—must all be lighted, burned, and consumed on that Day; none of these can survive and stand the test before the judgment of God. Our faith dare not be built on human wisdom; it must be built on God and on Christ's wisdom and righteousness. Otherwise, the malicious nature of flesh and blood will bestir itself. If St. Jerome could not rid himself of the weakness of the fathers, namely, the unchaste thoughts— with which young men are still plagued today—how, do you suppose, did he fare with the First Table of the Decalog? How many evil, ungodly, and fallacious thoughts and expressions must have slipped into his books in unguarded moments when the devil abetted him in his great piety! The books of St. Francis,
Dominic, of all the monks, and especially of the pope, teem with piety and with splendid and fine thoughts. St. Gregory also scribbled all his dreams and visions into his books, and this fairly filled the church of God with idolatry.54 But God in His mercy forgave the holy fathers these sins, for through faith in Christ they pulled themselves out of the mire. Among these was St. Bernard. Now others wanted to imitate such evil works of the saints. This is wrong, for St. Paul says: "Consider their faith" (Heb. 13:7).
And in the eleventh chapter of the same book he gives a long account of saints and their faith (Heb. 11:4 ff.).
This was not done in the papacy. With their rules the monks did not follow the faith of St. Bernard or Francis; instead, they paid respect to St. Francis' cowl and outward life, to the rope which he wore, to his poverty. They gaped only at such fiddle-laddie, which is not worthy of the title "good works." For if you want to designate the wearing of poor and worn garments as an act of holiness, then the farmers, the cobblers, the wagoners, and the artisans, all of whom wear poor clothes, would also be saints. So would the day laborers and the masons, who, by reason of the nature of their work, cannot go smartly dressed; so would the hired men and the maids, who always perform dirty work, soil themselves, and are obliged to wear poorer clothes than St. Francis ever did. Often they have to stand barefooted in the mud, with manure clinging to them, whereas the legs of the monks, who wear wooden shoes, are white and clean.
We gather from this that the life of the saints and of the great teachers was not viewed aright. We should look at their faith and be guided by it. Instead, we ignore the best in them and aspire to copy their works. People say: "Did the pope not canonize them?" Yes, he did. And may the devil reward him for teaching us to imitate their errors! If the pope had been godly and learned, he would have said: "Think of Gideon, Barak, Samson, David, and others, who through faith conquered kingdoms, enforced justice, received promises" (Heb. 11:32–33). It is not for me to say: "Gideon was holy and erected a church; therefore I wish to follow his example." No, not at all; he sinned in doing that; he did evil and wrong.
Therefore emulating his work would never earn an indulgence for you. But follow his faith! This is proper. David, too, was a holy man; but he fell into the sins of adultery and murder. Imagine if someone were to come along and say: "Behold, David became an adulterer and murderer; now I wish to imitate him and also whore and murder!" No, look at his faith, and emulate those works which he performed in the true faith. If the pope, the councils, and the bishops had done this, fewer factions would have arisen in the Christian Church, less idolatry, and less fanaticism. But they failed to distinguish between flesh and spirit in the saints and brewed and stewed both together, which resulted, as is evident, in this hogwash. They