[W, XXVI, 72, 73] is true, Paul concedes that God created them. Therefore they are both useful and lawful. God did not produce them that they should be saved up. They are there for the taking, not for a prohibition. Quite to the contrary, the pope has forbidden it: "Thou shalt not eat." Here there is a substitution of God to this effect, that this should not be saved up but be in complete use. It is His ordinance that man should use those things. Why then does the pope rage against the Creator who, he confesses, has created them? Yet he rages against them and prohibits them and militates against this text and against taking those foods. "Don't take them." He forbids their use. He does not forbid them because they are wicked. After all, he knows that God created them and that they are good. In hypocrisy he does this, however; that is its effect. This accomplishes nothing for the righteousness and sal¬ vation of the body, because milk and eggs and the finest foods do this.
Therefore he sought salvation. Next, he was unable to seek righteous¬ ness, because righteousness is not found in foods. Rather, he sought hypocrisy. Those holy men do not eat meat or eggs, but only fish. That hypocrisy misleads them, and they believe that it is holiness. He should prohibit fish and wine. Fish are aphrodisiacs, and wine is a thing of luxury. Paul makes those situations which lead to luxury very bad; therefore the pope sought hypocrisy. Had he sought righteous¬ ness, he would have taught faith and love. Therefore he sought hypoc¬ risy; and thus his is the doctrine of demons. To be received. Not just to lie there, but one is to use it. Therefore should they carouse day and night? But the text has "to be received with thanksgiving." Paul preserves freedom but condemns abuse. He does not say "for abuse and excess" but "for use," that we may know that it is by divine author¬ ity that one may and should eat it. If the pope prohibits this, I say:
"I can and should eat by divine authority. Were I to abstain, I would both sin in hypocrisy and tempt God, because He has given us these things to receive. If He were to give us a bridge over the Elbe, etc."
This abstinence does not please God. Rather, He wants us to do this soberly. We ought to receive food with thanksgiving, that is, we should acknowledge that this is God's gift. This does not stop with words, yet it is a good thing; and it is given so that you may know that you have something to eat by divine goodness, not only good food but good food with the will of God, so that you may do the right thing by it. Paul brings in the abuse and the undisciplined stomach. Next he encourages thanksgiving. Whoever eats this way, etc., while he
[W, XXVI, 73, 74] eats, he gives thanks to God, Rom. 14:6. You see, he realizes that God has given him this gift to use, so he uses it with a clear conscience.
By those who believe. He adds that text, and again he omits what he ought to have added, as in Titus (1:15): "To the impure . . . nothing is pure." In Titus he has both parts, but here only the one. This is what he wants us to understand about the other part: "What do I have to do with the faithless, for whom He has not established this? After all, they do not receive with thanksgiving." Paul stays with the other part. For those who believe, God created food that they might realize that the faithful alone may use it. On the other hand, the unbeliever here creates a bad conscience if he takes a wife and eats food, the saints and other rules being their measuring sticks. Such people have on their side the authority of holy men. "Ambrose and Augustine abstained, therefore we must abstain. He did it, therefore we must do it too." But God has taught it. That's why we must do it. We must do what the Word teaches, not imitate what has been done. If Christ did anything, we must follow it according to His Word. We ought to imi¬ tate a saint if the saint has done something according to the Word of God. Then I imitate to obey the Word, not the doer. It is a doctrine of demons when a person makes a rule out of a deed. Ambrose ab¬ stained from marriage. That is an act, but he did not teach this. We have to do nothing to imitate the saints. Rather, we must watch whether their example has the support of the Word. We need not watch to what extent we must follow the example. We would do noth¬ ing just because Christ did it. And as He has given me no command, may this person not move, no matter how great and how lofty the ex¬ amples of the holy fathers might be. I do not care what they did; but I shall listen to what they taught. And know the truth. Wisdom per¬ tains to faith; it teaches us to believe in Christ. Knowledge is a matter of external affairs. It is a mark of godliness that it cannot be bound; all external matters are free. Whatever Moses commanded and bound
I know is free through Christ. According to 1 Cor. 8:9, they did not care about weak consciences and kept binding their own. Therefore this is properly a matter of liberty. But "knowledge puffs up" (1 Cor.
8:1). We must use it so as not to offend a brother. Because I believe in Christ, that matter is not unjust. Therefore I use it in keeping with my freedom. Yet I keep an eye out, lest I offend a brother.
4. For everything created by God is good. He confirms his own statement with divine authority and uses Gen. 1 as proof: "And God
[W, XXVI, 741 saw that it was good." If these things are good, they are neither bad nor forbidden. He created the beasts, the sun, the man, and said: "It is good." What God has said is good, you should not say is evil.11 The Greek word is xodov, not merely "good," but "outstandingly good."
These things are very precious. They have been created for many advantages, that is, they do not serve a single advantage only but vari¬ ous advantages. Why, then, the human temerity to want to make good things bad? But He did forbid them to the Jews, and in setting down the law we forbid many allowable things, not because of the things themselves, but because of inflexible persons. Christian liberty is good and necessary, but [not] for the wicked. He ordered the Jews not to eat rabbits. He did this because of careless people. Why do magis¬ trates forbid good things? Because of evil men, who use good things very badly. A sword is a good thing, but if you give it to a wild man, it becomes very harmful. To the question as to why God forbade the Jews, etc., say, "The Law is not for the righteous man." So also the sword, Rom. 13. If the pope wants to give laws, let him give them to the wicked. Why does he upset free and righteous consciences? He should make a distinction and set laws for the wicked, the hardhearted, and the unrestrained. But to set down laws in such a way that people will die eternally unless they obey them is a doctrine of demons. There are no such laws. In fact, we cannot establish enough laws against this. Thus consciences cannot be free enough from laws, because they burden themselves with laws and scruples. On the other hand, this is how the wicked act: "Crush the foolish with law upon law. On the other hand, free them from every law." Because the papists are hardhearted and do not wish to listen to the Gospel, let them listen to the devil with his laws. And nothing is to be rejected. This is the negative confirmation of that affirmative statement, "which God cre¬ ated to be received." Now we have the negative, "Nothing is to be rejected," for this would be to tempt God and fight against Him. We simply recognize that this is a gift of God. We do not eat like pigs.
Both positive and negative have been confirmed by the authority of Moses — both what we should receive and what we should not seize.
Even if there is something unclean here, yet we have the Word and we say a blessing with which we acknowledge this gift of God, yet so that this is firm in our heart: Even if there is something of the poison of Satan, yet this creation has been blessed by the Word and prayer.
This should be written in red: Even if the pope prohibits it and I have a scrupulous conscience to tell me, "It is a prohibited food," I would say, "Let us speak a Word of God over it." If there is something spoiled here, it is not that there is a real pollution, because the thing created is good, and "nothing, etc." God created it also to be used.
Paul, however, is speaking about those people who still consider foods unclean. We read in Romans (cf. 14:14): "There is nothing unclean in man, etc." He says this because of those people as if to say, "I have taught that every creature and every food is good and blessed; but you will find some who think differently. Against these scrupulous con¬ sciences, read the Lord's Prayer and the Word, and you will feel secure.
If there is anything unclean here because of your conscience, come, my brother, and let us say an Our Father over it." Now his wonderful and outstanding commendation of this doctrine will follow.
6. If you put these instructions before the brethren.12 Here is a golden testimony eminently capable of comforting us. It is also a rec¬ ommendation of pious doctrine, such that it relates preaching not only to the immediate locality but to all places where it establishes deacons and all men. You see, it ties together everything that Paul teaches in this epistle. First, he teaches the fundamentals of redemption. Next come the orders and ranks of the church, as those of bishops and dea¬ cons. Then he speaks of husbands and wives in general. He also teaches us to beware of erring spirits and doctrine, etc. Now he ties them all together: "If you put these instructions, etc., you will be a good minister of Christ," not only a good one but also one who pleases
God and has the favor of men. Of this testimony we can also boast with a good conscience, because we teach nothing about the gifts of God other than what Paul prescribes in this epistle. After all, we teach first the fundamentals of redemption; then, that bishops, etc. We do not teach tonsuring, different garb and ceremonies — pompous things
— but solid and genuine matters. Next we resist those spirits which bring in new ceremonies, scrupulous saintliness, those unclean celibate and impure ceremonial laws. We resist rules which demand abstinence from certain meats but allow double helpings of fish; which demand abstinence from milk but allow one to swamp himself with wine. Such
"fasts" are not pure. We, too, then, take part in the proud boast that by the grace of God we are Christ's ministers pleasing to God. We all rejoice in the Lord over this testimony, which can confirm our con12 The lecture of Feb. 27 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 75, 76] sciences, however weak our lives may be. To be a good minister of Christ is certainly a beautiful title. A deacon is a minister of the church. Nourished on the words of the faith. See Paul's statement earlier (ch. 3:6): "He must not be a recent convert," a new transplant.
I have mentioned that this especially relates to newness of vocation rather than of youth. Now he commands Timothy with that doctrine to say that he is trained and practiced in that doctrine. They are not such recent converts. They are not quickly blown by any wind at all, nor are they open to the tricks of every spirit. Novices are easily misled into any error. They are not yet experienced in how capable of wicked¬ ness human wisdom is. Why "nourished on the words of the faith"?
This is a Hebraism. That is, nourished on the doctrines which Paul teaches. That faith they have. In Christ, who is propitious, they are free of evil. There is also a measure of faith, that is, faith brings along a measure or division of gifts. Where there is not faith, there are no sound words. The "words of the faith" are those analagous to faith or in harmony with faith, so that they do not militate against religion or the basic concept of redemption. Other words are words of faithless¬ ness about a hood. I would teach love. "Nourished" by faith is this:
"You have taught a sound doctrine, which is proper to a faithful man, or to faith. You will not preach the wisdom of the flesh or the pride of spirits. You will stay on the royal road, which is the way of faith.
Whatever the faithful person says and does, that you will do, too."
The Lord gives men like this. He also speaks the word of faith. This testimony is so precious because all that has been preached — sound doctrine — is very good and precious in the sight of God, etc. It makes a minister pleasing in the church and in the world. However poor and comtemptible a minister may be, the message he proclaims must be enough. What you see here you see from what he has said earlier.
I would not accept the riches of the world in exchange for this testi¬ mony of good or sound doctrine. Which you have followed. "Which you have adopted. You have heard and seen me. You have read Scrip¬ ture for a long time. You have trained yourself to find this doctrine coming together from all parts to form a unit." From the gathering and discussion of learned men understanding and reverence freely arise, so that afterwards one becomes sure that this has the Word of God and nothing else does. Novices take up a single passage of Scrip¬ ture, not collections of passages, which make a person sure. In the latter case one becomes certain because against such a passage no objection can be raised.
7. Godless. This means profane. Things contrary to this doctrine he calls empty, silly, womanish myths. Why this? Old women are in the habit of gossiping, being more garrulous and talkative than young women because they have seen and experienced more. They were the very instigators of the Trojan War, according to Ovid in his Heroides.
They want to pour out everything at the same time. Stories are special delights for this sort. It is natural for them to tell stories and relate their own histories. They do not rest until they have had their say.
They cannot have peace until they pour out what is in their heart, etc.
Paul compares wicked doctrines about celibacy and prohibited foods to those useless, womanish tales. There is no greater profit in them than vain bother. In this way that doctrine brings nothing but vanity and bother. Indeed, it works a severe hardship in vain. Train yourself in godliness. This passage also has been exposed to corruption. "I have taught you this sound doctrine. Now see to it that you practice it in your work. 'Train yourself.' Godliness is the worship of God. Train yourself to worship God." First, the level of exercising godliness is without doubt the teaching of others. "Avoid myths. Rather, train yourself by teaching." The largest part of euoejleia ("godliness") is devoted to teaching. Whoever teaches the Word of God correctly should train himself for godliness. He does not lay the Word down in his napkin, as a lazy slave does (cf. Luke 19:20). He keeps it in use so that it may not rust or rot away. Rather, let him declare it every day. We read in John 15:2: "He will prune." For the man to whom
God entrusts this work God stirs up enemies — his own flesh and the devil. God gives him many people that that gift of the Spirit may not lie idle but that the man may walk in the training of the Spirit. "You have the gift. You have been nourished" (v. 6). Elsewhere he says:
Re urgent in season, etc." (2 Tim. 4:2). Keep at it. Don't become weary or lazy.
8. For while bodily training is of some value. He does not con¬ demn this, but bodily training is far inferior to training in godliness.
Isn't it godly to exercise one's body with farming and the work of his hands? Also, in all the other duties of magistrates there is physical exercise. Why does he make a distinction here with this training? He is speaking about physical exercise, first, so that he speaks about bodily training — fasting. The self-righteous believe that it is the greatest sort of piety that they wear distinctive clothes. Fasting and the like — this bodily training leads to the breaking and controlling of the body. This is good, but two points of moderation are involved: first, that there be
[W, XXVI, 77] no hostility here; and second, that one place no trust in this kind of life. Therefore Paul says that it is "of too little value." This pertains to the latter idea. He neither condemns nor encourages the manner in which each trains his own body. If you relate this to the work of hands, there have to be those who know their craft. This is good train¬ ing, but it is "of some value," because it provides food and drink. It has, however, no comparison with the exercise of godliness, because such training involves inviting to and increasing the kingdom of Christ. You see, teaching, comforting, exhorting, praying, and writing are the exer¬ cising of godliness whose fruits stream over to other people. "In such practices train yourself that you may enrich many souls, etc." This is true godliness. Of course, the other exercise is worth something too, but it profits only you. There is some fruit, but it is little in comparison with this. If a person reads or preaches, he accomplishes more than if he were to fast. If there is some fruit, it belongs to me, because
I am chastising my own body, and I profit no one else. To work in the faith is a good work, God-pleasing, but it is nothing in comparison with this, because it bears no fruit for the other person. But to teach others, to instruct them, visit them that they may know Christ and grow in Him and avoid sin, to preserve discipline in the church and at home — this all produces fruit for many people. See to it that you do not fall into that wisdom in which the monks are involved, for they serve only themselves. Paul13 and Antony 14 had an excellent reputa¬ tion; they lived in the desert, but they lived for themselves. Paul, An¬ tony, you were saints. But the Bishop Himself has cut you off. "The weightier matters of the Law . . . These you ought to have done with¬ out neglecting the others," says Christ (Matt. 23:23). If a monk fives in a monastery, to whom is he useful? Whom does he serve? No one.
He neither prays for the church nor is concerned about it. Others, too, are serving themselves. What if they pray and fast so often, if in the meantime no one is providing any service? The anchorites, therefore, are quite a troublesome crowd. But you who mingle with people and are involved with the common crowd, if you were to restrain yourself there, you can refrain from adultery and gain others for Christ, that they may five soberly, etc. Gerson 15 wrote about this. He comforts
13 Paul of Thebes, a legendary hermit of Upper Egypt, d. 341. He is known from Jerome's Vita S. Pauli primi eremitae (374).
14 St. Antony, who died c. 356, was considered the founder of Christian monasticism. is Cf. Luther's Works, 17, p. 65, n. 6.
|W, XXVI, 77, 78] those sects with this statement. Prayer is quite an outstanding instru¬ ment, but the ministry of the Word is greater. There is no work more sublime than teaching. One must water and plant and lead the way.
Afterwards the increase comes which prayer gives. Hidden saints are in no wise to be compared with the public saints. St. Jerome confesses his weakness and insignificance, because he had crawled into a corner, because he was not teaching publicly, etc. To train oneself in godliness does not consist of fleeing to a corner, into the desert, and preparing heaven for oneself alone. We ought to take Benjamin, the youngest brother, along so that each one may boast, "I have not lived for myself, but I have brought someone along or have made myself bring some¬ one." Paul sees that he is unable to teach apostolic doctrine thoroughly enough because of this corrupted guise of saintliness, etc. Who is not moved by the saintliness of Augustine, Jerome, Bernard? But they practiced Scripture for you, although they did it coldly. Who can say anything against these examples and this good appearance? Godliness.
This they interpret as generosity. You are acquainted with this in the common books, in the Glossa ordinaria.16 Even if one should suffer a weakness of the flesh to the end of his life, yet his generosity will set him free. Hence the testaments were established. That is, give your gifts of charity, and everything is all right. But godliness goes toward the advancement of the Word and the Christian religion. If there is still some godliness left over, then tire your body or work with your hands. In every way. We cannot take this to refer simply to utility. Understand it in relation to your neighbor. Godliness makes you honorable and sets an example for others, if there is great benefit.
But through this there follows no teaching of the weaker members.
On the other hand, the practice of godliness teaches comfort. It is of value to all in body and soul. A pious bishop is of value to bodies and souls. Next, among other things, it accomplishes this, that it has a promise, that it will bring a sufficient blessing both now and here¬ after. "I have not seen the righteous man forsaken" (Ps. 37:25). Also,
Matt. 6:33: "Seek first, etc." Elsewhere we read in Hebrews 13:5:
"Be content with what you have, for He has said, etc." There I shall know; He has promised that godly men most surely will be given food and clothing. In time of famine, and even when others die of hunger, he has the promise. He is sure that God feeds him. You see why he precedes this statement with "bodily training," because he wants us
10 Cf. Luther's Works, 25, p. xi.
[W, XXVI, 78, 79] to understand this as the work of our hands. See to it that you work with your hands in such a way that you do not place it before godli¬ ness, because godliness can accomplish what the hands cannot. He will give you food and clothing not only in this life but in that which is to come. Therefore do not hinder the practice of godliness. Here he wants to moderate other passages where he speaks of work, as "Those who do not work," in Thessalonians (2Thess. 3:10). You see, the lay people quickly corrupt these passages, and later they blame us.
Here he seems to temper labor, which he everywhere encourages.
Peter says in Acts 6:4 that whoever does not have the ministry of the Word should work with his hands. It is not proper that a teacher of the Word should, etc. The work of his hands he should omit where his office requires it, because godliness is above everything else. But when shall I eat? Let God worry about that. After all, godliness has the promise, etc., that God will supply food. See also Matthew 6. This evidently happens: the man who works faithfully has enough, even if he does not have it in abundance. When a man is hungry, it is a sign that he does not care about godliness. You see, you cannot change this passage. That is, let the minister of the Word be more intent on godliness than on the work of his hands. The lay people should not think that it is a simple matter to teach the Word. The man who meditates always has something to learn. I learn the Our
Father every day. Therefore, it is not our function to boast of our own wisdom.
9. The saying is sure and worthy of full acceptance. I feel that this passage refers to what goes before rather than to what follows. How¬ ever, I do not fight over it. Whether it relates to the preceding or to the following, its sum is that Paul is speaking out of his own certainty whatever matters are necessary to all of us. So he adds this, "The say¬ ing is sure," because we are confident before God. If we teach what up to now, etc. When you can be called faithful, a person should cer¬ tainly be confident and proud if there is such a promise. He knows that he is pleasing to God, that he is doing a favor to people, and that he is gaining many. I have enough in this life, but when I die, I shall have an eternal sufficiency. O foolish teachers of demons who have uncertain myths and nothing certain of this sort. So they do not say with certainty: "This saying is sure." They are concerned about their stomach.
I have said 17 that this passage seemed to me to pertain to what 17 The lecture of March 2 begins at this point.
|W, XXVI, 79] he had said before — that Christians ought to have the certain persua¬ sion that Paul has a promise of life. This promise is our confidence, security, and comfort in all our hardships and afflictions. I have often said that the sum of our religion is this: that a man be certain and secure in his own conscience.
10. To this end. With his Hebraisms Paul causes what he writes to appear obscure, etc. It sounds as if hope in God, etc., is the reason why we are disturbed in difficulties, as if he presses and blames the foes who afflict us. But these are words of compassion in this wise, that we have a promise for the present. This firm hope which we have makes us quick to work and to bear reproach. This statement is sure because we have this Man who will yet come. So we work, exercise godliness, do our tasks, observe all things, that the glory of God may grow and the kingdom of God may be spread. As to our hardships: then we not only work but also suffer. In both areas we practice the Word, actively and passively. Why this? Because our hope rests on a living God. We do not place our hope in the world. We do not work or suffer reproach so that we experience the favor, wealth, and high positions of the world. We do not hope in an imaginary god. Such are the gods of hypocrites, who make up gods for themselves with their false religion. They work and suffer in vain, because their hopes lie in an imaginary god. Our hope truly is in a real God. Whoever hopes in God knows for certain that his works and suffering please God.
He most certainly experiences mercy and grace from God. The man, then, who has this confidence acts the more freely and endures every¬ thing, because he always has this confidence that he pleases God.
"Whether we are at home or away, we make it our business to please Him" (2 Cor. 5:9). If we are at home, that is, if we are working in the world and train ourselves in godliness; or if we are away, that is, in faith; nonetheless, whatever a person has done in work or suffering, it pleases Him. Those men are Christian teachers who make this clear:
"You are doing this because you are fastened with a clear conscience to the certainty that we please God. We toil. We do all things in the Word. Who is the Savior. I treated this point earlier: "Who desires all men to be saved" (eh. 2:4). That is the same statement as we have here. It is necessary, then, that this "to be saved" be taken as corporal and spiritual salvation. "Man and beast Thou savest" (Ps. 36:6). "Your kindness is very great, because You save not only men but also beasts."
He preserves all things from death — even beasts. Were God not pres- [W, XXVI, 79, 80] ent with His goodness, Satan would not allow a man to pick a single nut. He often brings a plague on animals. He punishes each according to his sin. Otherwise, he is the Savior of all beasts. He takes care of everything. These passages we must mark against those idolaters who say that He is called in Scripture the God of all beasts. We assign to each saint his animals, and everyone has his god for his cows. But we must ask for and receive these animals from God the Preserver, who has created and preserves all things. You see, Satan hates those things which God has created for our general preservation. If an emperor rules well, if a prince or magistrate manages his city well, if the father of a family is safe, this is also a gift of God. After all, He is the Savior of all men. He gives food to everyone, and everyone receives it from that Savior. Therefore we must not call even upon the greatest of the faithful, because they are looking most of all for those things not only in the general welfare but also their own.
Those, then, who practice godliness have enough now and for the future. He also saves those who do not believe. How much the more, then, does He save the faithful. This is real beauty.
11. Command and teach these things. He uses two verbs: "Declare these things and teach them." These things. "Make these things known to men. Then also teach them." To announce and to teach are two things. To announce is to make known. That is, one should simply be involved and zealous in declaring these matters, lest he keep silent and pass unknown among the people. Then he must treat these matters in such a way that he not only declares them but that he is careful that the people learn them, that those who hear can grasp what he tells them. He is speaking against those, then, who read and teach in such a way that they appear to be learned men who grasp at wonderful and special passages, like the fickle factious spirits, who hold ordinary matters in contempt and are caught up above themselves in miraculous matters from which common people learn nothing. This is not teach¬ ing but showing off the ingenuity which they themselves can display.
There the good pastor will be concerned that he declare those things which are connected with doctrine, which have to do with teaching.
This he should relate to the serious listener so that he watches more the progress of his listeners than his own image. Whenever such men are to seek souls, they seek a good thing — gain.
12. Let no one despise. This passage simply explains "not a recent convert." Paul did not want a novice to be established. I have men- [W, XXVI, 80, 81] tioned that this refers to newness to doctrine or vocation. Although by itself that age is unsuitable, yet here it is a matter of finding a young man who is better suited to teaching. Therefore we must not consider age as much as newness to doctrine. You see, such novices cannot keep from self-inflation, self-love — an evil plague; for even the best of them suffer from xevobo^ia ("vanity"). He offers a simile in the lives of the fathers: A vain people; others say about it: "an onion with a tunic on." 18 In this way, that very bad fault develops: once one has fallen down in riches, popularity, public office, he grows in knowledge.
If so, he grows because of the gifts given him; and if so, then it is from that blow. That fault, then, is like a terrible pestilence that oc¬ curs in the bishop as in every other station of life. You see, the admira¬ tion and esteem of the common people, his reputation, fame, and glory follow him. He is caught up, then, as if by some attack, by vainglory.
Your youth. In this age one can be tormented to be so. The youthful teacher, however, has an aura of popularity. Fame agrees with him.
One gets the idea from this passage that Timothy was a young preacher. Thus Paul is not simply forbidding a person to be a young man but is encouraging him to be the sort of young man Timothy was.
Your. Good words! How can I prevent it? Tell others not to despise me. Paul wants to say: "See to it that you conduct yourself so that no one despises you because of your own fault." It is not our job to forbid them to despise us. It is our job not to give others an opportunity to de¬ spise. It is as if he were saying: "You are a young man. You are in greater danger of being despised than an older man. You have been installed in this sublime ministry in your youth. See to it that people admire your youth. Convince the detractor not only with your office but also with your youth. See to it that you accomplish more in your youth than another preacher, because his lust and glory are suspect, etc." A heathen is reared for the spirit and accomplishment of glory.
This person, on the other hand, is reared to despise the glory of the world. "See to it that you preach and work with double care, harder than the rest, so that you survive the false charges of others, so that people may say, 'If he were sixty, he still would be a good administra¬ tor, etc.' " But set the believers an example. Show others the example of Titus. They should look at you as into a mirror. In speech. That is, in the ministry of the Word. This should be an example not only insofar as the kind of ministry is concerned, but also in respect to con18 Persius, Satires, 4, 30.
[W, XXVI, 81] cern for doctrine, that the rest may learn from you the measure of the doctrine of the Word. You should be the wellspring, the oracle which abounds with the Word, so that others wonder at you, and as you handle it — teach love, faith, the cross, and keep away from myths, etc., so should they. Let them follow you to the extent that they are like you in purity, then in zeal. When they see that you do not neglect the Word, they will be quick to follow. A bishop should be the sort of man who has the best knowledge of the Word. And conduct. Here he includes behavior and clothing, association with the people, that he can show that he is modest among people, a man of respect, so that he does not walk about in a tunic as a prophet under wraps. Rather he should wear decent clothes, hat, and shoes. In respect to his food, he should have a reputation not for a splendid table. Rather he should have moderate and clean foods. He should not have wandering eyes nor a slippery tongue. In love. They should hold him as an example.
"Let the others learn from you. Therefore practice love. Show love to your brothers, to the weak, to sinners, to the foolish." You see, you must practice love especially toward the suffering and wretched, where you have no hope of being paid back. Christian love has as its object the hateful, while the world has the lovable as its object, be¬ cause it loves the rich, the renowned, the beautiful. The Christian loves the mean, the hateful. In the Spirit.19 Are we to hear what he wanted to say in Corinthians (1 Cor. 2:12)? Against the flesh he sets down this: "Do not despise people. Don't conduct some office accord¬ ing to the judgment and affection of the flesh. Don't allow pride to develop. Pray that vainglory does not allure you." In faith. "Re an example of faith for them. They must not see in you the affections or vengeance of the flesh. Rather let them see you as a man filled with faith and diligently hearing about faith." In chastity, in purity. "You ought to walk in purity." This is directly opposed to lust; he should be chaste in word, deed, gestures, eyes, and feet, lest he have what we have in 2 Peter.20 He should not have a slippery tongue in his con¬ versation with the other sex.
13. Till I come. This is a beautiful text worth noting. Attend to the public reading of Scripture. He considers not just private but also public reading, as we read. If someone takes this to mean private
19 Some Greek manuscripts add the words ev jtvEW|xon;u 20 The Weimar editor suggests that the reference is to 2 Peter 1:5, but per¬ haps it is meant to be more general, including especially chapter 2.
[W, XXVI, 81, 82] reading, that is good too. What follows, however, concerns public matters, because preaching, etc., are public. The factious spirits greatly despise the Word. We must make this passage well known. You see,
Paul is commanding his finest disciple in the Spirit to read the Scrip¬ ture. To the Corinthians he writes, "Don't speak in tongues" (cf. 1 Cor.
14:1 ff.). There is to be reading. To read is nothing else than to pro¬ claim from books. We should recommend and preserve this reading so that we stand firm in our use and understanding of Holy Scripture.
Paul does not consider such Scripture useless, even if it is read, and not translated, so that he does not forbid reading it in foreign lan¬ guages. But greater is he who prophesies. Thus bishops and deacons have been doing this; they have read a chapter from the Gospel, what has so been done the bishop explained with examples, so that our peo¬ ple, etc. But afterwards also the rest. The custom endured. But read¬ ing should not be done without translation. Better that one word be understood than not understood. If they understand one line in the Bible, this edifies the church more than a hundred secular lines. Lectio
("reading") and lingua ("language") are understood from legere ("to read"). First, attend to the public reading. Do not omit it. It seems to me that there is a miraculous spirit in those fanatics. Thomas
[Miintzer] began it. So they hold the Word in contempt. "The testi¬ mony in my inner being is enough for me." 21
I have here external testimony that I teach others. They say, "That is useless. Why do you want to teach others?" If they have the Spirit without the Scripture, why do they teach? Why don't they say, "You must ask for the Spirit as we do"? They say that they must not teach
Scripture; yet they teach others. That spirit is widespread. There are signs. Therefore it has a place. In the church Paul simply wants read¬ ing and language to continue, which still is not understood by the church. He even commands the bishop himself to do this, even though he has the least need of this. Yet he ought to attend to reading. You should not think that this is said about the hearers, that is, "attend to reading; see to it that you keep on reading." Therefore the oral reading of Scripture is useful in the church. The Enthusiasts, then, abuse this.
Paul establishes reading in the church. It is useful then in this respect, that the Holy Spirit and salvation can come thereby. Otherwise he would not have established it. From this passage, then, we prove the 21 Carlstadt had written in his Dialogus: Ich will meyn zeugniiss vom gey at in meyner inwencligkeyt haben, das Christus verheyssen hat. Cf. W, XVIII,
[W, XXVI, 82, 83] institution of public reading, so it is salutary and necessary. So also:
Attend to preaching. There are two kinds of preaching. Reading ought not to be so cold and obscure. Rather, teaching ought to be added to it when I explain a reading and draw in a passage because
I am teaching faith and Christ. Teaching, that is, something you don't know. See to the reading. Therefore reading is useful and necessary.
Whatever you teach, present it, impress it, foster it, follow it up, lest it grow cold. Use proof texts and examples with which you admonish the conscience of your hearers. Then this conscience has learned and understood.
14. Do not neglect. Earlier he said this about prophecies, and then about yourself. So also here. The gift. This is a free gift. What kind of gift this was he does not say, but I think it is a power in doctrine and exhortation. We say that it is a singular gift to interpret Scripture soundly. What another person cannot interpret in Scripture he must do. "The Lord has bestowed on you an outstanding gift which another person cannot have. See to it that you attend to, etc., that you do not let this gift lie idle. After all, it was not given you to waste but to train and enrich the brethren. Which teas given you by prophetic utterance.
Here he is treating some ritual which I have already discussed earlier.
He has this gift because of the laying on of hands. At that time the Holy Spirit used to be given also visibly when they would lay on hands, as in the primitive church, according to Acts. That laying on of hands was nothing else but the receiving and assigning of those things for which some duty was being committed, as in Acts 13. The same thing was applied to Timothy. What this prophetic utterance is, that they prayed something over them, I mentioned earlier; also that they spoke some prayers from Holy Scripture. This does not lead astray. "Every¬ one to whom much is given, of him will much be required'' (Luke
16. Take heed to yourself. "Keep on; take care of yourself; have regard for yourself. Don't do this because it is most ennobling for your body, but see what sort of office you have and what sort of man you are. You have the gift. As a bishop, you are a public figure. Every¬ body will depend on you. See to it that you conduct yourself as you have been established, lest you be a source of scandal. Rather be a cause for salvation, that you may edify, lead all men, harm no one."
This is noble for him, etc. You see, if there is anyone in office and he works only for his own advantage, as I said earlier, he is not fit for the [W, XXVI, 83] office. Public offices change one's habits, but rarely for the better. Be¬ fore a young lady is married, she ought to have habits different from those when she is married and at the side of her husband, 1 Cor. 7:34.22
"When you were still a private citizen, you had other habits. Now watch yourself. Do the things which befit your calling and station.
Also carefully consider which is your chief responsibility. Teach the things that befit doctrine, so that you may not be misled. Satan will keep his eye on you."
15. Devote yourself to them, to those duties which I have already mentioned. Be concerned for these things. Show concern. These are exclusively teachings, purely exhortations from the text. Teach these things (v. 11). Devote yourself to them. "Don't let other things bother you: tomorrow, the things of the world, food, farming, etc. Let it be that if you carry out your duties, you will then see that you are mak¬ ing progress. All will be forced to say in consequence: 'He will always become more learned.' "
16. Hold to that. Stay with it. By so doing, accomplish this: You will be a useful minister, not a nonproductive one. Rather, may you receive a crown of glory in addition.
22 The Weimar text has "1 Cor. 13."
1. Do not rebuke on older man.
Up to now 1 Paul has established for Timothy how he ought to con¬ duct himself in his associations and in his person. Now he ex¬ plains how Timothy ought to behave toward various persons, stating for the sake of example, etc. Before this he was to have a sharp tongue, and he was to reprove. Now Paul wants Timothy to have particular re¬ gard for his elder. There is no agreement as to whether with this word he means an older man or one who holds an office. I lean more toward the idea that he is speaking in general terms about older men. He spoke in this general way earlier concerning old women, although I did not exclude other possibilities. I presume that the sense will be this, that all old men ought to have our respect. "You shall rise up before the hoary head," we read in Exodus.2 Moses demands reverence toward old men. We must respect their age and, as the text says, their gray hair. That discipline is necessary not only in the church but in every political unit. It is a disgraceful situation when the young lack such respect. In the papacy younger brothers raise their hats before the elders and monks. This is necessary for discipline; otherwise those who have no manners will increase in number. Civil manners one must learn, even if these have not been established as law. Civil injustice is better than barbaric and mutilated injustice, because it at the same time binds together, etc. Beasts do remain beasts; yet they are more pleasant when they become tame. Civil manners are necessary and quite proper, all the more in the church. Therefore a teacher of the church ought to respect older men, etc. "You should not snap at old people the way you do at younger people and those similar to you in age." You see that Paul established the congregation with very gentle conversation. The monks ask questions. A young prior dealt with an old father in such a way as to make him grieve in his heart, etc. "He must respect you." This is contrary to Christian polity and not correct.
We should note this passage. When our preachers felt that they had the gift of speech and of eloquence, they assailed the older men and 1 The lecture of March 3 begins at this point.
2 The reference is obviously to Lev. 19:32.
[W, XXVI, 84, 85] the magistrates and bit at them and stung them in public. Paul speaks against this. "You should not attack the older men, as the ingrate gen¬ erally does. If you must rebuke someone, do it in such a way that is proper for your office and his age." Why? Exhort him, admonish him.
You should exhort a pious man if you have seen that he is not doing what he ought. You should direct the exhortation to those who know they should be doing the things of faith, love, and Christ. Don't be sar¬ castic. Don't assail them publicly. Rather, admonish them. Yet one ought not grow old in his responsibility. He should go forward, spar¬ ing no one. Look at Christ. His disciples often slipped. He bore it.
He corrected them both gently and sweetly. Don't you know His spirit? It was sweet in rebuke, etc., even when you struck Him.
Exhort him. Here Paul makes a grammatical distinction. It sounds as if we must connect everything with the word for reproving. Paul here is using his Hebrew grammar. We understand this as follows — that the sense is absolute. "Exhort him by considering him as your father, and exhort others according to their own station." You see, you must not rebuke your father nor get sarcastic with him. If you hold a person on the level of your father, you will not snap at him but will exhort him with sweet language. Nature teaches this — that you not rebuke. All the less is this bearable in the church. Treat younger men like brothers. The point of this is that you rebuke.
They will be like brothers to you. A brother can correct a brother, exhort him, reproach him.
2. Older women like mothers. "You will consider older women as your mothers." It is a beautiful thing for a young man to call an older person "father" or "mother." This encourages affection, nour¬ ishes peace, harmony, and love. This should set a good example for a disciple. Even if some are scoundrels, as we call them, yet that out¬ ward training is useful. In civilian life, it is all the more useful. Also, one must not rebuke those older women, but one should say: "Dear mother, you really ought to do thus and so," and not scold them.
We should not say: "You old hag, witch." This is to bite at them.
Younger ivomen like sisters. Obviously this means that you should see to it that you just rebuke and exhort them. Because they are the other sex, there is the danger of lust. This should be done with all chastity.
That sex is the dangerous one. It is dangerous for young women to be with the other sex. These women to whom he refers have husbands.
What does he say about widows?
3. Honor widows who are real widows. This is to be done not only with the respect with which you greet them or with bare head, but this denotes concern, food, provisions. The interpretation is clear from the Gospel of Christ (cf. Matt. 15:4 If.). "You do not permit his parents to have their due" is to provide for them in a limited way.
Later (1 Tim. 5:17) Paul says, "Let the elders ... be considered worthy of double honor, etc." Therefore he is here saying: "See to it that you take care of widows, because they have been commended in general." The "old women" are different from these. They have husbands. These are others; they are widows. They lack wealth and honor. To provide for them means to see that they are fed and taken care of, yet in such a way that they are truly widows. You see that the same thing happened to Paul as happens to us. There is a splendid arrangement to provide for widows, but many have abused this ar¬ rangement. Just as today there is the good arrangement that we have the freedom to eat meat, yet abuse has developed. Who is against this? You will find in accordance with that practice that there are some widows who want to be taken care of although they are not in need. They follow their own flesh, they seek leisure. "I wanted you to take care of widows, but genuine widows." There are three kinds of widows in Paul (1) true widows; (2) not true widows — who have homes to take care of; (3) the worst kind, young widows. Paul speaks first of those who have homes.
4. If a widow has children, as some have grandchildren or parents.
Even if they should not have grandchildren or children, they still do have parents. These ought not be counted in the number of widows, etc. Don't count those which have sons, daughters, or parents. After all, we should not preach evangelical doctrine against divine com¬ mands. They should not desert their parents or children. I don't want them to become pious like the monks — St. Jerome, for instance.
With trampling feet and pompous words he has, etc. If your father and mother wanted to compel you to deny Christ, you could run away. But you should not despise them. That's when young people become angry and say, "Father, I will not listen to you." "I have come to separate, etc." (cf. Matt. 10:35). We must take this to mean the spiritual separation which happens through the Word. This is not a physical separation but a separation of affection. We are in the same place, but we have different hearts. Paul simply does not want us to include widows who serve God day and night, even if they are like
Hannah (cf. 1 Sam. 2). Let the prayer go. Rather let her take care of that for which she was ordained. She has children and grand¬ children. Let them first learn. That widow, along with her children and grandchildren, ought to take care first that hers be a religious home. This is better than hiding in a corner. Even if she were to have no children and yet should have dependents from her sister or brother and should know how to manage them, she should do this and let the worship go. She ought to be concerned that she educate their souls in piety and feed their bodies. This is better service to God.
This passage says much against the pope and the monks ever since the time of Jerome, who boasted about their life in the desert and belittled the authority of parents and the religious training of chil¬ dren. Paul is saying that it is a good thing to make a home religious.
If a widow does not have children, she might have a parent and say:
"I ought to serve my mother, aunt, or uncle." This is a very strong passage against the monastic life and its plan. He adds the strong precaution: "If you want to do something good and pleasing to God,
He has put into your hand an abundance of works and of an appre¬ ciation for being saved — an abundance given only to His own." This is the first type of widow.
5. She who is a real widow and is left all alone. This is the sec¬ ond type. He is distinguishing this one from the widow who is not alone because she has parents and children. This widow has no kin for whom she can care. She is simply by herself. She is also the sort who has set her hope on God and continues, etc. She has placed her hope in God. This is a great statement. She must take a risk, because she has no one for whom to care. Such women have been so aban¬ doned that they have nothing left except to hope in God. They should be called into this company and nurtured there. Such a widow asks for nothing. She is left alone. Therefore nothing remains for her except to trust in God and pray to Him. In supplications and prayers.
What may this be? She cannot pray day and night in such a way that she never stops. Christ says that the repetitions of the fool and his many words accomplish nothing.3 Rather, she should look up with brief prayers day and night. In private we pray many prayers frequently, but not long ones. If she offers some particle of prayer as 3 This is a reference to Matt. 6:7. Luther quotes PaxxokoYia from the Greek and gives its Vulgate equivalent, multiloquium. {iaxxo'/Myia is sometimes derived from the name of Battus, who is described either as a stammerer or as the writer of tedious, repetitious verse, but the word is probably onomatopoetic.
[W, XXVI, 86. 87] she goes out, comes in, eats, goes to sleep, wakes up — that's what it means to pray day and night.
6. She who is self-indulgent. This is the third type — the young widows. Here you will see another kind of widow — the worst. The other kinds are good: the first, because she cares for her own family; the second, because others care for her. This third kind cares for nothing but looks for the idle life. She lives in her self-indulgences, seeks her own pleasures. This is the worst kind. She is even "dead" — dead not in this life but in the sight of God.
7. Command this. "Command this especially to those two kinds of widows that they conduct themselves without offending and that they offer their adversaries no cause for slander. These are the three kinds of widows. Now he will rebuke two kinds: the first and the third. The first he rebukes as follows:
8. If anyone does not provide for his relatives. This stands in general and in common. "If anyone," or "whoever," therefore it can be applied from the particular to the general. About the first kind of widow he says: "If, under the pretext of religious scruples, she wants to become an eremite nun, she not only is not serving Christ, but she is denying her faith. She is worse than an unbeliever. This is a ter¬ rible statement. He is speaking about faith in Christ, because he says worse than an unbeliever. You see, we have found tribes who care for their children and feed their parents, and they are not Christians, etc. Therefore such a person has denied her faith. This statement also condemns the cloisters of those who, under the pretext of reli¬ gious scruples, wish to serve God and save their souls. Therefore they abandon their brothers, etc. Such a one has his own reward. Christ will say at the Last Day, "You have renounced your faith. You are worse than an unbeliever. You have neglected your own people whom
I entrusted to your care that they might learn to know Me and might learn to live righteously. You have made My command an empty one and have made a new one." All these texts, however, have been abused. No one has thought that it was such an important thing to take care of parents or children. This is the rebuke for the first type of widow. Now, draw out and do the special teaching here in general.
Just as widows sin by neglecting their children and parents — for to take care of them is God-pleasing — so every Christian who does not care for his own people as far as body and soul are concerned is an unbeliever. It is a good and acceptable work before God to train
[W, XXVI, 87] one's own family. But anyone whom this text does not move, he is worse than an unbeliever. Concerning the second type, Paul gives advice as to what sort of widow ought to be chosen. He describes the person to be chosen. Paul burned his fingers. He first took in young widows. He learned by experience certain things which the Holy Spirit did not teach him. Now, having become wise through experience, Paul draws a limit on age. It is a great age — the kind we do not cultivate because it excepts young widows and those who are under sixty. Yet she has a husband, so that she can support herself, do her own work, tend the cradle, take care of children, supervise in the kitchen. She performs many functions. An old woman of fifty years can feed herself by her own effort. If she is sixty, we should take her in. The church ought to take in and feed poor women. This is a special text against monks.
You have heard 4 that passage in which Paul puts the works of one's own calling ahead of all other works, however great the latter may be. Thus, then, upon a widow who has either parents or children he imposes those domestic tasks, even though they are not as glamor¬ ous as those spiritual and religious duties. He nevertheless says:
"Whoever holds in contempt those lowly domestic duties under the pretext of doing those greater works has done nothing and has re¬ nounced [the faith.]" This is a serious statement, well worth noting.
Nothing that we invent pleases God. Rather, "to obey is better than sacrifice" (1 Sam. 15:22). That is what God wants, without giving any assessment of works, whether they be great or costly. In fact, it happens more frequently that God commands nothing except the most despised and disgraceful activities in the eyes of the flesh — cir¬ cumcision, for instance. God does this to teach simple obedience — simply that we should obey His voice and have respect for His Word.
Here we do not have the command, "Widow, pray day and night, etc." but "Let no one be enrolled as a widow" (v. 9). That Paul is speaking about the widow whom the church must feed appears clearly from what follows (v. 16): "If any believing woman has relatives who are widows ... let the church not be burdened." It is obvious, then, that the church had provided for widows. This is the reason for the goods of bishops, the colleges, and the monks. They first began to give their goods to feed the poor. They were set up as providers for such people. We find a very old illustration in Exodus: "For the hope of 4 The lecture of March 5 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 87, 88] women, etc."5 There is another in Kings (1 Sam. 2:22) about the sons of Eli. Finally, there still remains the example of Hannah (1 Sam.
1:9). It was a very old custom for widows to be fed and clothed within the temple, as happens now in the case of nuns and Fran¬ ciscans. So Paul found this example, and thus he left it. But because certain widows were abusing those benefits of the church, because they were self-indulgent and concerned with their own pleasure, Paul tempers that freedom and checks the abuse. He calls them back to the original use and prescribes that no one should be enrolled as a widow except only one kind. Because she is alone, however, there can be a use for this woman. If she is capable, she ought not live off the public gift of the church but from the results of her own work, to cut off the opportunity for young widows, lest they become wanton and deny their faith. The second qualification is having been the wife of one husband. This is an ambiguous statement, just as he spoke earlier (ch. 3:2) about the bishop as being "the husband of one wife."
Chrysostom says that he should not have several wives at one and the same time or that he should have only one wife. The Eastern
Church preserves the idea that, if his wife dies, he should not take another, but with this proviso, that, if he absolutely wants to marry, he should resign his office. He should marry one virgin and then be content. If he wants another, etc. The Picards G totally deny marriage to their priests. Should one of them want to marry, he must resign from his duties and from the ministry of the Word. The pope says that he has an indelible character with his priests, and that they can5 The 1545 version of Luther's German translation of Ex. 38:8 has the phrase gegen den Weibern, to which Luther added the marginal explanation:
"These women were the devout widows and women who served God with fasting and praying at the entrance to the tabernacle, as 1 Sam. 2 shows and as Paul describes in 1 Tim. 5. So Luke, too, describes the holy prophetess Anna in Luke 2." In his translation of 1523 Luther had auff dem platz der Heere for this phrase, and his marginal note adds: "The armies (Heere) were the devout widows and women. . . . But here the Jews and many others speak of women's mirrors that were supposed to have been attached to the laver. We let them have their way. But spiritually this refers to the stories of the Old Testament which are being preached in the Gospel, for these struggle valiantly to demonstrate faith in Christ over against those who rely on works, etc." Cf. W, Deutsche Bibel,
0 Picards is a variation of the more common name Beghards. They were a semimonastic community of the high Middle Ages characterized especially by their care of the sick and needy. The community demanded celibacy so long as one remained in it, but adherents were free to leave and to marry. See also
Luther's Works, 25, p. 287, n. 2.
[W, XXVI, 88, 89] not approach marriage, etc. That is the Antichrist. I believe that all three are in error. The pope does not allow monogamy and makes his men be priests forever. The tradition of the Greek Church is toler¬ able. A priest should resign, become a layman, and earn his living in a different kind of life. I believe that the Waldensian statement is also wrong, that he have one wife, etc. But all three err. If in the Greek Church there were a good minister of the Word, if he took a wife and she die, and then if he married another to live chastely, then he is frustrated in his vow, because he has sought a remedy in marriage. Paul speaks against this very thing: "It is better to marry, etc." (1 Cor. 7:9). If he were to retire because he took another wife, does he not thereby destroy those very good gifts which he has given to the use of the church because of his own personal marriage rela¬ tionship? This is contrary to the Holy Spirit. When a man has the gifts to be a bishop, why should two marriages hinder him? We must not take this passage to relate to the laity, but to widows and widowers in general, if they do not marry. The widower says that he has the right, so he marries a second time. This pleases neither the Greeks nor the Waldensians. This is scandalous because they say, "It seems better to Paul that one marry." Having been the wife of one husband.
For a time, contrary to their usual practice, where they were forced into plural marriages, a divorced wife was still a wife. Thereby scandal in the church of the Gentiles could be avoided. They had the freedom, the decree of divorce, etc.7 This was a source of offense among the heathen. Paul established that a bishop be the husband of one wife, etc. Otherwise he would be speaking contrary to what he says in 1 Cor. 7. This passage about widows who were married only once they want to connect with the prior statement which speaks about bishops. A widow cannot be the wife of many men; therefore we should make the same application to men. I do not place a limit on the passage. I do, however, state my own sense: Paul wanted this decency to reign in the church, that it should be understood regarding a widow that she is not a divorced woman or one married to another brother upon being divorced who had gone off to marry some other man. She cannot return. She has two living husbands — the one who divorced her and the one whom she has taken. This text can so be understood. But that passage from Corinthians (1 Cor. 7:9) is stronger than this one and takes priority: "It is better to marry than to burn."
Individual statements in Scripture ought not militate against the gen¬ eral sense of Seripure. The statement in Corinthians is a general one, as is also that of Christ: "He who is able to receive this, let him re¬ ceive it" (Matt. 19:12). Therefore, we must reduce Paul's statement here to the rank of the particular, not of the general. We can draw no conclusion from that ambiguous passage. We cannot bind con¬ sciences, etc. He finds a few others, etc.
10. She must be ivell attested for her good deeds. She should not have been a prostitute or notorious for other criminal acts. What are these "good deeds"? That she earn praise, that she have cared for her sons, daughters, and household, that she be concerned with her children's growth of both body and soul. If she has been an abom¬ inable wretch and has raised her children for her own pride — that is to destroy them. One who has shown hospitality. This means she should have a spirit of service in return in that she has been a guest herself, etc. This is especially true in the practice of having as guests visiting brethren, washing their feet, serving them food. She should not be a greedy woman who profits no one but accumulates for her¬ self. Washed the feet of the saints. This is a ceremonial act. What if she hadn't done this? Those ceremonies have disappeared among us. I despair of bringing them back. It would be a splendid custom to welcome their brothers with a hug and a kiss as did Christ and Paul. The monks have preserved the washing. These customs, never¬ theless, are signs of a good heart. If a Judas and Pilate hide beneath them, we must condemn the abuse, not the custom. Those men were trained for excellence in politeness. I don't know whether I would want to live with crude barbarians. In any kind of people I find
Satan and the seven deadly sins.s Demosthenes and Cicero were men of exceptional talents. Yet, if they were jealous, etc. Among the country bumpkins one can also see pride, etc., except that they exer¬ cise such faults crassly. They are venomous, vain, and conceited.
Yet, we must behave in such a way as to preserve a well-mannered training rather than a boorish one. I would more easily bear it if I were to choose, etc. To be sure, the people were most civil but very prone to violence. The people have had a very fine training for ceremonial rituals, for encouraging friendship and hospitality. The monks have kept the washing of feet, but not the feet of men of their own order. Christ did it for him who betrayed him. I apply this not 8 Pride, covetousness, lust, anger, gluttony, envy, sloth. Cf. Luther's Works,
[W, XXVI, 89, 90] only to washing the feet but to whatever is a ritual of kindness, when people have been cordial and show friendly speech, answer, and mien.
Thus in a particular ceremony they show a universal gesture, even kissing, kneeling, shaking hands, and all gestures of kindness. Re¬ lieved the afflicted. Paul is speaking about the food or substance of this world. Wherever the sick, the needy, the naked, the poor, and the hungry are, Matthew 25, there are the afflicted, those who suffer anguish. That is where one must extend and distribute his own bounty to those in need. That's what it means to relieve the afflicted.
"If such a one has been found." We might find a few today as also then who have been married once and are sixty. I, too, would cherish such women. Paul wanted to avoid scandal in the church. Young widows who did not behave well and were not well attested for their good deeds — in such we have little confidence, and Paul has no confidence in them.
11. Refuse to enroll younger widows. This is another passage we should note well. Augustine pushes this text strongly. So does Jerome.
If this had been someone else, I would say that he is the worst heretic who had ever come into the world and that he had no wisdom or judgment. We explain this passage as follows. Nuns who have taken their vows may not marry. To want to marry is damnable. Augustine believes this, too. First, they ought not take up younger widows into charitable support of the church, although one can limit this by reason of times or individuals. For example, earlier (ch. 2:9) he taught that women should not wear pearls. We must not understand this to mean never, as the Enthusiasts say. Rather we understand that a Christian woman ought not be eager for such jewelry. She ought to behave every day as a bride, as a noble lady. She should not concern herself with the entire household but restrict herself to the kitchen and living quarters. Thus he condemns ostentation in daily life, but he does not condemn it for weddings, provided it is customary. Another example: we must enforce and regulate the ceremonial laws in Scripture ac¬ cording to faith and charity. We read in Acts (Acts 15:29): "Abstain from what has been strangled." These things are matters of love.
When there was an opportunity for such ceremonial law, Paul pre¬ serves it. Otherwise he doesn't. Did he circumcise Titus, etc.? 9 Such regulations always ought to provide for an exception. Why should we not enroll such widows? In the first place, because they grow
[W, XXVI, 90, 91] wanton. Here the text is ambiguous. Jerome lashes out: "Because they committed fornication to the hurt of their former husband." 10 Chris¬ tians say that he is not speaking here about fornication. The Greeks have an expression: to rage because of food, as when we say "rank,"
"too well fed," "their food pricks them." First, she grows wild. She breaks the restraints and becomes wanton. But even more, Paul points to her intractability. They grow wanton against Christ. That is, those young widows are free. They have no worries about their next meal.
They are not subject to a husband; they have no anxieties to bother them. They have free time and freedom to move around. To feed a young widow, then, is to nourish a serpent in your bosom. They begin to grow wanton and to seek out men with their wanton ways.
Paul explains himself. They are trifling, nosy gossips, because their bellies are full. They are rebellious, disobedient, intractable. They have no care for faith. They become wanton; that is, they are un¬ governable, wild and dissolute. Then follows wantonness. Earlier
(5:8) he said: "She has disowned the faith." So also here. She has broken her restraints and is carried about by her own wilfullness. She disowns faith and becomes exactly like the heathen. The text is am¬ biguous here: When they grow wanton against Christ, they leant to marry. There are two parts to this: they want to marry, and they grow wanton. Then there follows:
12. And so they incur condemnation. One ambiguity lies in whether this has to lead to the latter part. If we connect it to the prior state¬ ment, "they grow wanton against Christ, etc." and they disown faith because of this wantonness, they are not keeping discipline in the church. They become coarse and wild and thus they have violated their first pledge and have become like heathen, etc. The other am¬ biguity lies in they grow wanton . . . and want to marry. Almost all theologians have followed this sense, that this forbids second mar¬ riages. The church has accepted and often used this latter sense.
I am inclined toward the first meaning. My first reason is that Paul does not want them to remain husbandless, because he says (eh. 5:14),
"I want them to marry." This agrees with "It is better to marry than to burn" (1 Cor. 7:9). Paul therefore does not forbid second mar¬ riages to young widows and to those who burn. My second reason is the text itself: "they grow wanton against Christ." He does not say, "They want to marry against Christ." The sense, then, is this:
10 Jerome, Letter No. 123, To Ageruchia.
[W, XXVI, 91] first they throw off the yoke of Christ and consider faith in Christ a myth. They run around. Then they want to have some honorable pretext that they are very friendly little women to get a husband.
They are not looking for marriage, but for a pretext. They are look¬ ing only for their mischief. He reproaches this fault because they want to cover up an undisciplined life under the pretext of marriage.
The third reason is that they are nosy triflers (v. 13). Here he indi¬ cates clearly how they act against Christ in word and deed and have no concern for faith. Let it be that both senses are true. If the fathers say that it is damnable to marry, etc., as above, the text (5:14) is clearly contrary: "I would have younger widows marry." Paul there¬ fore concedes, etc. This means, then, using marriage as a pretext.
Our priests prefer prostitutes to marriage, because they are wicked.
In this way those younger widows operate with the pretext "I want to have a husband some time." The fourth reason is:
15. Some have already strayed after Satan. This does not mean simply to marry but to deny Christ. Whatever it may be, the text does not make a demand, because Paul later established that they not be enrolled unless they were 60, and he allowed them to marry.
In addition, this text says nothing about monks but speaks about a widow. This has nothing to do with monastic life. Therefore it means nothing that Augustine and Jerome used this text; it is against monks, etc. The difference between those widows and this text and their rules is the difference between heaven and earth. Here they have not only abused eleemosynary activity; they also want to earn righteous¬ ness and heaven. The first abuses, nevertheless, involved the payment of the stipend. So the first meaning seems to approximate closely
Paul's sense: they have preferred pursuit of their appetite to pursuit of faith. They want to use marriage as a pretext. Next, even if the sense of Augustine and Jerome were true, we have not established that sort of widow today. For there they seek not only their belly but also righteousness and holiness. This is obviously against Christ.
We had left unresolved 11 that anxiety over the expression "their first pledge" (5:12). Had he simply said, "They violated the faith," it would be a very clear statement without any difficulty, as he earlier said, "She has disowned the faith." Here, however, he adds "first," which raises a question. I take it to mean that those widows grow wanton against Christ and, using marriage as a pretext, want to later
11 The lecture of March 9 begins at this point.
[W, XXVI, 91, 92] bedeck themselves. Understand "their first pledge" as faith in Christ.
This is the meaning I get. The whole Roman Church takes the "first pledge" to mean a vow of preserving widowhood. Augustine says that it is damnable to want to marry. I have already spoken to the point as to whether a vow can be called a "first pledge." I myself have said that I have no example in all of Scripture, therefore I cannot follow, etc. Even if their idea were to stand up, that "pledge" be taken for a vow of widowhood and chastity, yet today this vow does not stand, because he "would have younger widows marry." This passage would stand especially in our favor if we accept "first pledge" as a vow.
After all, he does say that we should not allow younger widows to take that vow but to marry and become mistresses of their households.
So, no matter how they may have twisted this passage, it will be opposed to them and in our favor. But the first meaning pleases me, because a vow of widowhood is not a "first pledge," since the bap¬ tismal faith precedes it. The first pledge is made before the church.
Our first pledge is the one we promised in Baptism, that we want to receive and accept the grace of Christ. Those things which they ear¬ lier took up and now reject as they take up a new faith certainly apply to Judaism and heathenism. He is speaking, then, about heretical widows who have abandoned their first pledge, which they promised in Baptism, etc., for Judaism. They are nourished and rage not against the church but against Christ. You see, because of their lack of re¬ straint they become unstable and grasp at new doctrines. They desert their first pledge to Christ and are snatched up into a diEerent pledge, from which they become heretics because of the wantonness of their own flesh. Then they become "idlers" (5:13). There is another ar¬ gument. This is a fault of the false prophet which Paul generally con¬ demns in no uncertain terms: They misled entire households. Also
Timothy is among people who gad about and take others captive, etc.
That gadding about from house to house means that they accept new doctrines and useless teachers. It is the gadding about of the heretical mind, just as false prophets also hurry and run. Not only idlers but gossips and busybodies. He says that they not only listen to and fol¬ low a new faith but are also quick to teach this new faith. There are two sins involved here: picking up new doctrines and teaching and planting that poison. That bad lesson which they learn from false prophets they spread among others — a very bad thing. Therefore we must take this passage to refer to heresy in doctrine and not to widow-