A Human God: Some Remarks on Luther's Christology1

Klaas Zwanepol
An Introduction Among many theologians and in many churches an intensive discussion is taking place about the meaning and position of Jesus Christ in Christian faith. The classic dogma which states that Christ is of the same substance as the Father and that the one person of Christ has two natures, namely, divine and human, is on all sides disputed. Some people wish to completely abandon this doctrine, while others argue for its unamended continuance. Many Christians feel uncomfortable and insecure in these matters. What should we say? Before asking what Luther could add to this discussion, we need to examine what has caused this Christological debate. Three factors should be briefly pointed out: (1) Historical consciousness. We are dealing with a process that has been going on since the beginning of Modernity (from 1600 on). From here the awareness grew that everything is historically determined and that the metaphysical and speculative ideas in the traditional doctrine about Jesus Christ must be left out. That is the drive for the quest about the so-called "historical Jesus," who should build the ground for the "Christ of faith." (2) Postmodernism. It is often said that postmodernism has destroyed the certainties of modern times. Postmodern relativism has also put an end to the strictness of the historical-critical method as the only way of approaching reality. Yet in postmodernism the conditions for understanding the traditional Christology have not been improved. Instead, postmodernism has underlined the impossibility of speaking about Jesus Christ in an absolute way because His relevance is situated in the stories told about Him, which are, however, unsuitable to fix incontestable truth. (3) Multi-cultural and multi-religious society. In earlier times the customary belief of Jesus Christ being the Son of God,
1 This articles is a summary of Dr. Zwanepol book: Een menselijke God. De betekenis van Christus voor Luther. Zoetermeer/Den Haag 2001, which he presented to Concordia Seminary (St. Louis), Yale Divinity School (New Haven) and Lutheran School of Theology (Chicago) in 2003.

Dr. Klass Zwanepol is Professor of Lutheran Theology at the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands. He is editor of the Lutheran Bulletin, and serves as the theological advisor to the Evangelical-Lutheran Churches and the Uniting Protestant Churches in the Netherlands.
40

both divine and human, was largely linked with an undisputed role of Christianity as the leading religion of the West. Now through secularization and agnosticism, and also by the unavoidable encounter with other religions, the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as the center of faith is under fire for many Western people. Our present situation is incomparable with that of Martin Luther. With more than five hundred years between us, a whole world is separating us. So, when we ask for Luther's Christology out of more than an historical interest, don't we make ourselves guilty of anachronism? Certainly, we ought to be warned that we cannot simply let Luther participate in our discussions. Yet, this does not reduce Luther's Christological statements to only a matter of pure historical interest. We need Luther and others in order to become conscious of the limitations of our present-day Christological problems and solutions. That is by the way, an important function of critical reflection on history as such: to liberate ourselves from the one-sidedness of our own approaches. This is not to say, however, that we cannot directly learn from Luther, for questions about Jesus Christ still have universal character. The question of who Jesus Christ is did not originate in Modernity. From the beginning of Christianity, the meaning and position of Jesus Christ has been called into question. We carefully have to see which questions confronted Luther and how he dealt with them. Taking a closer look at what Luther said about Jesus Christ, we must reckon with the situation and by what means Luther spoke about Christ. At least two remarks should be made here in advance. First, one may ask if Luther actually had a Christology. This depends on what is meant by the word "Christology.'' If we understand it as a completely elaborated doctrine of Christ, we will notfindsuch a thing in Luther's work. Aside from some Christological disputations, Luther never wrote a tract on Christology. Statements about the significance of Jesus Christ are spread throughout his work. Furthermore, we must always remember that Luther's statements on Jesus Christ are made in very different types of writings. This makes it very difficult to construct a balance of Luther's opinion on Christ. The second remark is about the development of Luther's thoughts on Jesus Christ. Did he radically change his opinions or did his Christology remain consistent? It is beyond the scope of this contribution to go into detail here, but it can be generally concluded that the changes which took place in Luther's thought are merely varying perspectives rather than alterations with respect to content. Furthermore, it must be taken into account that each writing is unique and that Luther was constantly confronted with new opponents and new situations in which he had to justify his views. When we consider that his statements are differently

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

41

contextualized, it isregarding some notorious developmentsamazing how consistent his view on Jesus Christ actually was.2 In the perspective of both remarks it is perhaps more adequate to speak about "Christology with Luther" rather than about "Christology of Luther."3 Central Position of Jesus Christ in Luther's Thought Reading just a few pages in any part of Luther's work is enough to observe that Jesus Christ was the middle of Luther's theological thought. As he wrote in the foreword to his Large Commentary on Galatians: "In my heart that one article reigns, i.e. the faith in Jesus Christ, from which, by which and to which all my theological ideas are going out and are returning, though I realize not having understood more than fragments of the height, breadth and depth of this wisdom and having reached no more than a weak and defective beginning."4 This focus on Jesus Christ is not, however, typical enough to characterize Luther's view on Christ; many others have placed Jesus Christ in the middle of their reflections as well. What is radically new about Luther's discussion of Jesus Christ is the interplay between Christology and Soteriology, which Luther emphasized to the point that Jesus Christ and salvation seem completely intertwined. All that Luther said about Jesus Christ has soteriological relevance, and salvation is only found in Jesus Christ. Lutherans, who are accustomed to put the doctrine of justification in the middle of faith and confession, should learn here from Luther that there is no competition between Christology and Soteriology. As Luther illustrated in his Smalcald Articles, the "one article with which the church stands or falls" is not the doctrine of justification, but the article on Jesus Christ. He explained, however, this article so as to demonstrate its soteriological relevance.5 This unique and unbreakable combination of Jesus Christ and salvation marks Luther's Christology in every way. Here we find the reason why Luther was not interested in Jesus Christ as a "private person," but only in Him as a "public person," regarding what He has done for our good.6 Also, the well known "pro me" of Luther's Christology, i.e., the con2 In general: Marc Lienhard, o.e., passim; Ian D. Kingston Siggins, Martin Luther's doctrine of Christ, New Haven, 1970 and in details: Dorothea Vorlnder, Deus incarnatus. Die Zweinaturenchristologie Luthers bis 1521, Witten 1974 and Reinhard Schwarz, "Gott ist Mensch, zur Lehre von der Person Christi bei den Occamisten und bei Luther," Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche (63) 1966, 289-351. 3 Ernst Wolf, "Die Christusverk ndigung bei Luther," in id, Peregrinatio. Studien zur reformatorischen Theologie und zum Kirchenproblem, Mnchen 1954, 30. 4 WA 401, 33,7. Luther's Works are quoted according the Weimarer Ausgabe (WA), the Studiensausgabe (StA) or the Bonner Ausgabe (BoA). 5 StA 5, 356,9. 6 WA 401, 448,2ss.

42

centration not so much on what Christ as such has accomplished, but on what He has done for me, is rooted here. From this point of view, Luther could not simply describe from the outside who Christ is and the meaning of what He has done. But he went, so to speak, inward, following a line which leads from Christ into the heart of God's self showing how God is involved in our destiny. Because this involvement is closely connected with the existential human basics, Luther could not raise the notion of Jesus Christ unless the commitment of man is immediately brought up. From this intimate connection between Christology and Soteriology in Luther's thought, some comment has to be made on the still-popular opinion of nineteen century liberal theology about Luther and his relation to the early Christian dogma. Adolf von Harnack represented this view by praising Luther for having radically focused the whole Christian doctrine on man's salvation but, conversely, by disapproving of Luther's maintenance of early Christian dogma. By the latter Luther should have slowed down the Reformation for centuries. 7 1 respectfully disagree with this liberal opinion. Luther did not adhere to early Christian dogma in spite of his stress on justifying faith but, exactly because of justifying faith Luther considered the acceptance of the Christian dogma as absolutely necessary. Jesus Christ Being Simultaneously Man and God Luther strongly valued the human nature of Jesus Christ. Unlike the greater part of medieval theology, Luther took the humanity of Christ, e.g., His human needs, with utmost seriousness. Therefore, he could assume a development in the life of Jesus Christ as a growth of the awareness of his Messianity.8 On the other hand, Luther refused to go along with the late-medieval tendency to enlarge the pains of Christ (a form of the socalled "passion piety). 9 Instead Luther concentrated on the depth of the suffering in the soul of Jesus Christ. Luther emphasized that our salvation is fully dependent on Jesus Christ being flesh. "There is no more effective consolation than that Jesus is completely human," he said.10 At a later stage, when he saw the Christian truth threatened by the so-called Spiritualists, Luther stressed the importance of the flesh of Christ even more than in his early argument against his Roman opponents.
Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte III, Tbingen/Darmstadt 19905, 861ss. Heiko Jrgens, "Christus non est spiritus. Luthers Aussagen ber den Menschen Jesus von Nazareth," in G. Hammer/K.H. zur Mhlen, Lutheriania. Zum 500. Geburtstag Martin Luthers von den Mitarbeitern der Weimarer Ausgabe (=AWA 5), Kln/Wien 1984, 271-281. 9 Erich Vogelsang, Die Anfnge von Luthers Christologie nach der ersten Psalmenvorlesung. Insbesondere in ihrem exegetischen und systematischen Zusammenhnge mit Augustin und der Scholastik dargetstellt, Berlin/Leizig 1929. 10 WA 9, 441,21ss.
8 7

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

43

Luther's heated defense of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Lord's Supper was mainly caused by Luther's suspicion that the Spiritualists used Bible-words like: "the flesh is useless" (John 6:63) to get rid of the shocking presence of the Son of God in trivial human flesh. For Luther, however, salvation was at stake with the true humanity of Christ, as redemption of mankind can only take place by the complete acceptance of human nature. "God without flesh is useless," he said.11 Luther fully agreed with the Patristics, who stated: 'What is not assumed, cannot be saved." Furthermore, the human nature of Jesus Christ, who was tempted as every other man, also had for Luther a personally soteriological relevancy. It was in his own Anfechtungen a great comfort to Luther to know that a deus humanus,12 who has shared our weakness, was close to him.13 As much as the humanity of Christ was connected with Soteriology, so too was His divinity.14 If only God is able to save humans, Christ has to be God. That wasaccording to Lutherthe motive of the stress on homoousios by the ancient church. So, Alius was rightly called a "Narrius" (fool) because he failed to understand that redemption depends on the acting of God's Self in Jesus Christ.15 Luther was, however, not so much interested in terminology, as is apparent from his critique on the term homoousios;16 decisive for him was the matter which it contained.17 This explains why Luther sometimes criticized the Trinitarian dogma but spoke highly of it in other texts as an adequate expression of God's involvement in the redemption of man. It is remarkable that Luther, by emphatically stressing the humanity as well as the divinity of Christ, actually reunited the old Antiochene and Alexandrian traditions. It is, however, more remarkable that Luther, in spite of the tensions this combination brought about, always insisted on the inseparable union of God and man in Jesus Christ. Luther emphasized this union to the utmost even when it seems hardly bearable for "decent" theology. Here one could refer to Luther's allusions to a prexistent union of God with humanity as He was already present in the womb of Mary,18 and even to a crucifixion from eternity.19

WA 25, 106,33. WA 401, 78,6v. 13 E.g., WA 401, 567,26; WA 46, 102,35, WA 52, 127,23 and 735,23. 14 Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach, "Christusgemeinschaft und Rechtfertigung. Luthers Gedanke vom frhlichen Wechsel als Frage an unsere Rechtfertigungsbotschaft,'' Luther (35) 1964, 43s. 15 WA 33, 128,24. 16 StA 2, 506,9-13. 17 Martin Ohst, "Luther und die altkirchlichen Dogmen," in C. Marschies/M.Trowitz eds., Luther - zwischen den Zeiten, Tbingen 1999, 145w. 18 WA 23, 141,llss. 19 E.g, WA 45, 403,29.
12

44

This pivotal union of man and God in Jesus Christ was also linked with Luther's conviction that the Godhead does not conflict with humanity as such, but only with humanity fallen into sin. In his exegesis of Philippians 2:5,20 Luther made it blatantly clear that Jesus Christ emptying Himself is not about His incarnation but about participating in man's sinful existence. Only at this point, under the condition of sin, an opposition between God and man has risen. Therefore Luther interpreted kenosis not as "becoming man," but as "laying aside Christ's divine attributes."21 This reunion of God and man in Jesus Christ reaches, according to Luther, its climax in the reconciliation of God with man. In his interpretation of reconciliation, we observe that he went far beyond classic motifs in the theories of atonement. Luther changed the satisfaction-motif, which is specific to Western thought, by depriving it of its logical character as seen in the atonement-theory of Anselm of Canterbury.22 Luther also corrected the typical victory-motif, which has evolved in Eastern thought and was combined with the idea of the devil as "deceived deceiver." Luther turned the playfulness of this view into a bitter fight between the powers of sin, law, and death against the invincible divine might of Jesus Christ.23 Finally, Luther exceeded the classic sacrifice-motif by turning the offering upside down. The One who is offering Himself is the same as the One to whom the offering is made!24 In this context Luther made very keen utterances, calling Jesus Christ the greatest sinner on whom all the sins of the world are put. He called the atonement a miraculous duel where not just Christ fought against devil and evil, but where God is actually fighting against God.25 This is for Luther the mystery of the cross of Jesus Christ, in front of which man could only flee from "God to God" as Luther worded it.26 From God, who cannot give up His claim on humanity created by Him and who refuses to let down His life-bringing commandments, to God, whose own self jumped into the abyss of man, lost in sin and guilt, conquering His own wrath and man's hostility by His gracious mercy. Luther states that this atonement did cost God!27

E.g., StA 1, 221-229. Hans Joachim Iwand, Nachgelassene Werke Band 5. Luthers Theologie, Mnchen 1974, 129. 22 Burnell. F. Eckhardt Jr., Anselm and Luther on the Atonement. Was It "Necessary"?, San Francisco 1992. 23 Albrecht Peters, "Luthers Christuszeugnis als Zusammenfassung des Christusbotschaft der Kirche," Kerugma und Dogma (13) 1967, 1-26 and 73-98. 24 See Gerhard Ebeling, "Die kniglich-priesterliche Freiheit," in id., Lutherstudien III, Tbingen 1985, 157-180. 25 WA 401, 443ss.; Uwe Rieske Braun, Duelleum mirabile. Studien zum Kampfmotiv in Martin Luthers Theologie, Gttingen 1999. 26 WA 5, 204,27. 27 WA 17II, 438,36ss.
21

20

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

45

The Impact of the Unity of God and Man in Christ We have already observed that Luther, in comparison with tradition, is quite unique in his radical interpretation of Christ uniting God and man. This uniqueness becomes more clear in the way Luther elaborated on the interrelation between the divine and human natures of Christ. Since early Christian theology, the idea of perichoresis has existed, i.e., a mutual permeating of both natures of Christ. Luther radicalized this idea using the concept of the communicatio idiomatum. The latter is often held to be Luther's theory that is used to defend his doctrine on the Lord's Supper, but this is not quite correct. Luther's theology of the Lord's Supper did not so much bring him to the communication of the attributes of both natures, but more the opposite, namely, that his opinion on the communicatio idiomatum led to his strong emphasis on the real presence of the body and the blood of Christ in Holy Communion. The consequences of this communication of attributes of the divine and human nature took Luther in two directions. The first direction is the omnipresence of the body of Christ, which is implied in the opinion that the attributes of the human nature of Christ, like corporality, are participating in the divine attribute of ubiquity. This opinion reinforced Luther's view on the reality of the presence of the body and blood of Christ "with, in, and under" the elements of bread and wine. For Luther, this "real presence" has a deep soteriological impact. It shows God's gracious mercy, wherein God is giving Himself away. In the Lord's Supper, God is distributing Himself in human nature with which the Godhead is connected forever. Moreover, this idea contains a great comfort and support for the tempted faithful who can cling to this fact that a truly human God is at our side. The omnipresence of the body of Christ expresses for Luther that nothing prevents God from being corporally present wherever He wants. 28 The second direction is leading us to the thought of the suffering God. Since the communication of Christ's attributes was for Luther not oneway where only the human attributes are participating in the divine ones, but also meant that the divinity is involved in the humanity, the idea of God undergoing the human destiny and sufferings is actually unavoidable.29 Luther held this opinion over and against the current of a very long and strong tradition which rejected God's capacity to suffer. Though Luther's "theopaschitism" did not go so far as the ideas of the "suffering God," which developed in nineteen and twentieth century theology, this thought was already in principle present in Luther's work. When Luther referred to "a cross from eternity,"30 it is obvious that suffering did not happen to God by accident, but that there has always been a cross in the heart of God.31
WATr 1, 467,32. ^WATr 6,67 - 70,12. 30 Note 19. 31 Dennis Ngien, The Suffering of God according to Martin Luther's "Theologia Crucis," New York 1995.
46
28

Critics of Luther's doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum, like most of his Reformed fellow-believers,32 often failed to see that Luther was guided by notions emanating from the center of his theological view on revela tion. In his theology of the cross Luther stressed the revelation of God, who is hiding under the opposite of what people think and expect of him. 33 We don't know who God is until He has made Himself known to us. In the same sense Luther assessed the position of man; we think that humanity is as we are experiencing it. Luther considered this notion a very limited anthropology, because we do not know what man is until in Jesus Christ it is shown who we may be. 34 In this perspective, man appears to be talented for a union with God which is bringing mankind into a position beyond all our possibilities and expectations. In this context it should be mentioned, but not elaborated upon, Luther's view on theosis, which is intensively researched by Finnish Luther-scholars.35 Jesus Christ As the Inner Core of God's Revelation We have already seen that Luther did not consider Christ as God, but that He really is God. Human salvation depends on this. It is therefore hardly surprising that Jesus Christ was for Luther the peak of God's rev elation, demonstrating who God really wants to be for us. In this section it will first be clarified that, according to Luther, the structure of God's rev elation can be taken from the life of Jesus Christ. Secondly, it will be ex amined in what sense Jesus Christ is considered to be the center of the Holy Scripture which has documented God's revelation. Regarding the structure of revelation, Luther established that the whole life of Jesus Christ can be seen as a simul, namely, a simultaneous pres ence ascension and descensin, of humiliation and exaltation. Here we strike upon the dialectic of revelation, in which Luther had been leaning toward almost from the beginning of his theological career. Revelation itself was for Luther a dialectical process taking place between the two poles of revelation and hiddenness, which are both in action at the same time. God reveals Himself by hiding Himself, whereas man conceals himself by hiding himself.36 The absolute culminating point of this dialectical revelation occurred in Jesus Christ, in whom God has revealed Himself by hiding Himself sub contrario, i.e., under the opposite of what is usually expected of God. God has revealed His might under the powerlessness
Otto Weber, Grundlagen der Dogmatik Band II, Neukirchen 1962, 145w. This is a central motif in Luther's "theologia crucis" as unfolded in his Heidelberg Disputation, StA 1, 186-219. 34 Jrg Baur, "Lutherische Christologie im Streit um die neue Bestimmung von Gott und Mensch," in id., Luther und seine klassischen Erben. Theologische Aufstze und Forschungen, Tbingen, 1993, 145-164. 35 Klaas Zwanepol, "Luther en Theosis," Luther-Bulletin (2) 1993, 48-73. 36 WA 1, 138,13-14 (Homo abscondit sua ut neget, Deus abscondit sua ut revelet).
33 32

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

47

with which Jesus was handed over to be crucified. His glory is hidden under the humility of the suffering Christ. His life-giving power is hidden under the death of the Crucified. Luther saw these dialectics of descensin and ascension, of humiliation and exaltation outlined in different stages in the life of Jesus Christ.37 These dialectics culminate in the junction of Good Friday and Easter, which are not opposite or successive phases. Good Friday was already an ascension, as Christ had conquered here the powers of sin and death, but it was at the same time a deep humiliation when God handed Himself over to be crucified. Luther expressed himself very strongly on this point: "God has suffered, God has died."38 On the other hand, Christ's resurrection did not simply make up for the humiliation of Good Friday. Easter is Christ's elevation, but it also articulates that God wants to be among us as the Crucified, who has given His life for us. With regard to the second point "Christ and Scripture," it must be stated that Luther expressed the central position of Jesus Christ in God's revelation by calling Christ the "King of Scripture."39 Luther always maintained the opinion he wrote in his commentary on the Seven PenitentialPsalms: "As far as I'm concerned, I know this for sure, that every time I found in Scriptures less than Christ, I have never been satisfied and every time I found more than Christ, I have become poorer. That's why, I believe, the Holy Spirit doesn't know and doesn't want to know more than Jesus Christ."40 But what did this Christocentric interpretation of the Bible mean for Luther? It did not mean that the result of the exegesis of every text should be a reference to Jesus Christ or that the application of a text would not be correct unless it was Christologically labeled. Luther's view can be summarized by calling Christ the "scope" of Scripture.41 Here we have to keep in mind the etymology of "scope," the Latin scopus and the Greek skopos, which has the double-denotation of both archer and target. Christ is, according to Luther, the external point to which the whole Scripture is referring. This reference, however, has been laid down in Scripture by Christ Himself. Luther's notorious phrase "was Christum treibet" (what is inculcating Christ) should also be considered in this context.42 It was not Luther's intention to make a selection of texts between those that could be Christologically interpreted and those that could not. "What inculcates Christ" was primarily for Luther a general explanatory rule, which applies
37 In my book (see note 1) I'm showing this simul of humiliation and exaltation in Luther's view on Christ's Incarnation, his Descensin into Hell and his Ascension into Heaven, 73vv. 38 WA 47, 199,36; StA 5, 548,12ss. 39 WA 401, 459,16. 40 WA 1, 219, 24ss. 41 WA 24,16,1. 42 StA 1, 404,5.

48

to all Scriptures, those of the Old Testament as well as those of the New Testament. The German word treiben (inculcate) contains exactly the same double-denotation as the word "scope," i.e., to bring forward and to pull forward, as Jesus Christ is both the aim at and the driving force of this hermeneutic. For Luther, "what inculcates Christ" is notas has often been opineda "canon within the canon," but a point of reference which constitutes the Scripture as a whole. What Luther meant by the cardinal function of Christ in the Scriptures, he made perfectly clear by calling Christ the mathematical point of Scripture.43 A mathematical point does not take up space, unlike its opposite a physical point of which the size can be determined and which possesses certain contents. Applied to the Christological interpretation of the Bible, "mathematical" does not imply that the same dogmatically correct statements about Jesus Christ should be made constantly, but that in different situations and under varying conditions the revelation of Christ in Scripture has to be found. This may sound very vague, but actually it is not. Christ as a mathematical point indicates the fundamental position of Jesus Christ in the great variety of what the Scripture wants to say and can be applied to all the different contexts where Scripture is preached and heard. What will be found about Christ in Scripture is essentially open, as none of our doctrines will be able to seize what Christ is revealing to us. Considering Christ as a physical point, however, would imply that Christ is always at our disposal, because the content of His message would be fixed; an idea which Luther fiercely rejected.44 Living with Christ First, we have to notice that according to Luther faith played a very important role in the relation between Christ and man. As Luther stated in his impressive commentary on Galatians 2:16, Christ Himself is present in faith.45 This means that Christ was not for him merely an object of faith, because faith is the place where Christ is dwelling, which we see through we know not how. That isLuther continuedwhy faith, as it is seen from our side, is no more than darkness where only Christ can bring in light. In the style of Luther it is preferable not to talk about Christ as an object, but rather as the content of faith. Luther deliberately used the twofold meaning of the genitive in fides Christi, i.e., faith in Christ and faith of Christ,46 to underline that this unique faith is not our achievement, but the work of Christ in us. So it goes far beyond the duality of subject and object.
WATr 2, 439,25. "Gerhard Ebeling, Lutherstudien II/3, Tbingen, 1989, 527 and Lutherstudien III, Tbingen 1985, 39v. 45 WA 401, 228,27-229,32; Tuomo Mannermaa, Der im Glauben gegenwrtige Christus. Rechtfertigung und Vergottung. Zum kumenischen Dialog, Hannover 1989, 27ss. 46 WA 18, 768,36ss. CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004 49
43

For Luther, believing Christ is not so much an act of the intellect, or of the will, or an emotion, as it is a way of living governed by the relation with Christ. Faith is a conformity of our whole existence with Christ. Correctly understood, this is not primarily about our conformity with Christ, but about Christ gaining form in us.47 We know of Christ because He has known us first. This order regulated the entire theology of Luther, as it expressed the absolute initiative of God in a process in which believers are just participators.48 This does not, however, mean that from our side nothing is happening. Christians must take the shape of Christ as He has taken their form, but all this occurs under the condition that God is the only one who acts and that man is principally, even in his actions, no more than a receiver. This idea ruled Luther's view on Christian ethics. Luther often described the union of Christ and the believer in a very intimate manner.49 This could be an effect of the mystic tradition which influenced Luther deeply. It was, however, not a classic mysticism to which Luther adhered, but a mysticism permeated by the theology of justification. Therefore Luther considered faith as the result of the re-creative work of Christ in human. The close union between Christ and man for Luther did not wipe out the essential difference between them. This difference is the base of what Luther called "a joyous exchange" {frhliche Wechsel und Tausch', beatum commercium) between Christ and Christian.50 What is happening there? Let us first realize that this exchange is of completely unequal partners. The share of the believer is solely a negative one: sin, guilt, and alienation, whereas the share of Christ is entirely positive: forgiveness, reconciliation, and peace. In his doctrine of atonement, Luther frequently used this exchange-motif God cannot condemn humans if all their sins have been put upon Christ. God, therefore, must justify humans if all justice of Christ is put on them. In his well-known tract on Christian Freedom, Luther used the dated metaphor of a wealthy and high-ranking bridegroom who is taking a poor and adulterous girl as his bride; a very vivid picture of what can easily be imagined as a novel or film.51 We could even write its dialogs, e.g., about the bridegroom being advised to cancel the marriage but who nevertheless will continue with his intentions. So the bride will participate in the fortune and esteem of the groom, whereas the groom will be burdened with the contempt conferred upon his bride. In
BoA, 5, 339,27ss. ^Karl-Heinz zur Mhlen, Nos extra nos, Tbingen 1972, 39ss. 49 Reinhard Schwarz, "Mit Christus zusammengeschweit. Vom Einsein des Christen mit Christus bei Martin Luther," Zeitwende (60) 1970, 101. 50 Walter Allgaier, Der Trhliche Wechsel* bei Martin Luther. Eine Untersuchung zur Christologie und Soteriologie unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Schriften bis 1521, Erlangen 1966 and Theobald Beer, Der frhliche Wechsel und Streit. Grundzge der Theologie Martin Luthers, Einseideln 1980 and Raymund Schwager, Der wunderbare Tausch. Zur Geschichte und Deutung der Erlsungslehre, Mnchen 1986. 51 StA 2, 274,37-276,38. 50
47

this inequality, the absolute priority of God acting with us is again articulated. The keynote of Luther's theological anthropology: simul Justus et peccator, i.e., that the believer, who is completely justified in Christ, is simultaneously remaining completely a sinner, is only understandable from the perspective of this exchange between Christ and Christian. Living with Christ was, according to Luther, not only a "life in Christ," but also a "life out of Christ." The latter is leading us to Christian ethics. We have already seen that in the relation between Christ and man, the initiative is fully at the side of Christ. Christ is actor and man is receiver, because man's acts are always a consequence of what she/he has received. This does not, however, mean that the works of man are irrelevant. This is a misunderstanding that the Reformation was confronted with from the beginning. We can put it this way: Luther's stress on the passivity of humans in their salvation intended to get human's activity really in the picture. By sin man lost his pure and spontaneous acting and now salvation is bringing about the recapture of his genuine, unselfish proceeding. For Luther, the point was not whether or not the Christian should be active. Christians are and must be active. In that respect it should not be forgotten that along with sola fide, fides numquam est sola is in force.52 The cardinal point is from which point of view these actions are taking place. If it is to contribute in any form to man's salvation, then these actions should religiously be condemned, regardless of the high moral quality they perhaps may have. Theologically speaking, the works of man are only valuable insofar as they are meant to benefit fellow-creatures. That is the reason Christ came downfromheaven, either to lift or lower our heads so that we can truly see our neighbors face to face and understand their needs.53 Luther expressed these key rules of Christian ethics in the distinction between Christ as sacrament and as example. The former indicates our dependence on Christ for salvation, and the latter, our action imitating the example of Christ. Luther emphasized again and again that the only correct order is: first sacrament and then example. There is no road from example to sacrament, as Luther told his Roman Catholic opponents, who held that efforts made in the imitation of Christ are paying off as merits, which will give access to Christ as sacrament.54 Only those, Luther said, who have by faith alone received Christ as their sacrament are able to imitate His example in a proper way, i.e., attending to the needs of their neighbor. This basic rule Luther wonderfully summarized in the statement: "Not the imitation is making sons of God, but sonship is making imitators."55
52

WA42, 566, 35. E.g., WA 17, 99,28ss. BoA 5, 348,16ss, M WA 2, 518,16.

53 54

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

51

Evaluation We end with a short evaluation, which is not so much meant as a summary, but as a reflection on what we could learn from Luther's Christology. First, it should be observed that an assessment of Luther's speaking about Christ places great demands on the interpreter. I have already referred to this difficulty, in that Luther never wrote a systematic treatise about Christology. Furthermore, the capability of a contextual reading of Luther is absolutely necessary. That Luther in one writing expressed himself in one way and in another writing in a slightly different way, has not only to do with the variety in kind of writings (sermons, letters, table talks, theses for disputation, Biblical commentaries, etc.), but also with the change of the discussion-forums. One should keep all this seriously in mind while assessing Luther's view on Jesus Christ. When we finally ask, what could we learn from Luther about Christology, three points could be mentioned: 1. The most important lesson which Luther could teach us is his strict orientation on salvation. This focus gave his Christology a consistent theological character. This also explains why Luther gave evidence of a certain "economy" in Christology. Luther wanted to say no more (but also no less) about Christ than what is necessary to refer to the secret of God's revelation.56 Jesus Christ is God's mercy to mankind in person and everything which assists bringing this clearly to the forefront, is welcome and all other things may actually disappear. This "economy" might help us to undo our theology and beliefs of traditional thoughts and experiences and open our mind for a new encounter with the Son of God and man. We should follow Luther's example to find new language and to develop new thinking to give expression to our beliefs in Jesus Christ. Here also, I should comment on how Luther is received within the tradition. We are often inclined to interpret Luther in accordance with the keynotes of the later Lutheran tradition. If we really want to take advantage of Luther's sometimes very experimental way of approaching Christology, we should liberate Luther from his aftermath and search for new aspects and dimensions in his theology, which have been overlooked by later generations. Here a reference could be made to the idea of the suffering God and to man's destination for an anthropology which in union with God is beyond all our ideas and expectations. 2. We also could learn much from the sometimes paradoxical, but close knit way in which Luther keeps in his Christology the divine and the human together. Following this, we can only speak about God if man is fully involved, as we cannot theologically speak about man without bringing up God. God wants to be found in the man Jesus Christ, but we fail to see who this man is (and who we are) if His relation with God is not immediately reflected upon. A circular movement between God and man becomes ap52

parent. From Luther we could learn that the trick of theology is not to step out of this movement, but to stay in it. Luther was not interested in a "correct" Christology, in which everything is nicely balanced and offends no one, but he was rather searching for Christ-talk, which originates from and is leading to the union between God and man. Here we find immediately the soteriological impact of Luther's Christology, which liberates it from the last remnants of orthodox metaphysics as well as from a (post) modern, narrow-minded Christological approach, which refuses to accept what does not appear within the scope of our experience. Regarding all our Christologies "from below," Luther reminds us that if we do not also start here "from above" we will fail in grasping the true meaning of Jesus Christ. 3. It is not difficult to catch Luther in exaggerated statements and contradictory and sometimes indefensible opinions (especially about incarnation, ubiquity, and the magic power of the eucharistie elements). On one hand, we must simply admit that Luther was wrong in some points. We should perhaps blame him for not having understood the legitimate motives of some of his opponents, just like many of his opponents were regrettably unable to sound out Luther's motives. But on the other hand, even these failures, as well as Luther's striking points, challenge us to develop a way of speaking about Christ for our times, which is able to meet Luther's valuable Christological drive, namely, to explain that God will in Jesus Christ always come to us as a truly human God. Herein isfreedomfor everybody guaranteed. Ironically, Luther is probably closest to post-modernism by rejecting the idea of the ability to cope for oneself, by pointing at a salvation, which is giving up the self, because it is found by and in the Other and brings one to solidarity with others.

CONCORDIA JOURNAL/JANUARY/APRIL 2004

53

^ s
Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.