A Human God- Some Remarks on Luther's Chris to Logy

8/2/2019 A Human God- Some Remarks on Luther's Chris to Logy

1/15

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 inChristian faith. The classic dogma which states that Christ is of the samesubstance 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 tocompletely abandon this doctrine, while others argue for its unamendedcontinuance. Many Christians feel uncomfortable and insecure in thesematters. What should we say?

Before asking what Luther could add to this discussion, we need toexamine what has caused this Christological debate. Three factors shouldbe briefly pointed out: (1) Historical consciousness. We are dealing with aprocess that has been going on since the beginning of Modernity (from 1600 on). From here the awareness grew that everything is historicallydetermined and that the metaphysical and speculative ideas in the traditional doctrine about Jesus Christ must be left out. That is the drive forthe quest about the so-called "historical Jesus," who should build the groundfor the "Christ of faith." (2) Postmodernism. It is often said thatpostmodernism has destroyed the certainties of modern times. Postmodernrelativism has also put an end to the strictness of the historical-criticalmethod as the only way of approaching reality. Yet in postmodernism theconditions for understanding the traditional Christology have not been

improved. Instead, postmodernism has underlined the impossibility ofspeaking about Jesus Christ in an absolute way because His relevance issituated in the stories told about Him, which are, however, unsuitable tofix incontestable truth. (3) Multi-cultural and multi-religious society. Inearlier times the customary belief of Jesus Christ being the Son of God,

1This articles is a summary ofDr. Zwanepol book: Een menselijke God. De betekenisvan Christus voor Luther. Zoetermeer/Den Haag 2001, which he presented to ConcordiaSeminary (St. Louis), Yale Divinity School (New Haven) and Lutheran School of Theology (Chicago) in 2003.


2/15

both divine and human, was largely linked with an undisputed role of Christianity as the leading religion of the West. Now through secularization andagnosticism, 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. Withmore 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 historicalinterest, don't we make ourselves guilty of anachronism?

Certainly, we ought to be warned that we cannot simply let Lutherparticipate in our discussions. Yet, this does not reduce Luther'sChristological statements to only a matter ofpure historical interest. Weneed 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 liberateourselves from the one-sidedness ofour 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 beencalled 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 mustreckon 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 dependson 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'swork. Aside from some Christological disputations, Luther never wrote atract on Christology. Statements about the significance of Jesus Christ are

spread throughout his work. Furthermore, we must always rememberthat Luther's statements on Jesus Christ are made in very different typesof writings. This makes it very difficult to construct a balance of Luther'sopinion on Christ.

The second remark is about the development of Luther's thoughts onJesus Christ. Did he radically change his opinions or did his Christologyremain consistent? It is beyond the scope of this contribution to go intodetail here, but it can be generally concluded that the changes which tookplace in Luther's thought are merely varying perspectives rather thanalterations with respect to content. Furthermore, it must be taken intoaccount that each writing is unique and that Luther was constantly con


3/15

contextualized, it isregarding some notorious developmentsamazinghow consistent his view on Jesus Christ actually was.

2

In the perspective of both remarks it is perhaps more adequate tospeak 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 toobserve that Jesus Christ was the middle of Luther's theological thought.As he wrote in the foreword to his Large Commentary on Galatians: "Inmy 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 re

turning, though I realize not having understood more than fragments ofthe height, breadth and depth of this wisdom and having reached no morethan a weak and defective beginning."

4This focus on Jesus Christ is not,

however, typical enough to characterize Luther's view on Christ; manyothers 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 tothe point that Jesus Christ and salvation seem completely intertwined. Allthat 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 inthe middle of faith and confession, should learn here from Luther thatthere is no competition between Christology and Soteriology. As Lutherillustrated in his Smalcald Articles, the "one article with which the churchstands or falls" is not the doctrine of justification, but the article on JesusChrist. He explained, however, this article so as to demonstrate itssoteriological relevance.5

This unique and unbreakable combination of Jesus Christ and salvation marks Luther's Christology in every way. Here we find the reasonwhy Luther was not interested in Jesus Christ as a "private person," butonly in Him as a "public person," regarding what He has done for ourgood.6 Also, the well known "pro me" of Luther's Christology, i.e., the con-

2In general: Marc Lienhard, o.e., passim; Ian D. Kingston Siggins, Martin Luther'sdoctrine 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.

3E t W lf "Di Ch i t k di b i L th " i id P i ti St di


4/15

centration not so much on what Christ as such has accomplished, but onwhat He has done for me, is rooted here. From this point of view, Luthercould not simply describe from the outside who Christ is and the meaningof what He has done. But he went, so to speak, inward, following a linewhich leads from Christ into the heart of God's self showing how God isinvolved in our destiny. Because this involvement is closely connected withthe existential human basics, Luther could not raise the notion of JesusChrist unless the commitment of man is immediately brought up.

From this intimate connection between Christology and Soteriologyin Luther's thought, some comment has to be made on the still-popularopinion of nineteen century liberal theology about Luther and his relationto the early Christian dogma. Adolf von Harnack represented this view bypraising 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 sloweddown the Reformation for centuries.

71 respectfully disagree with this lib

eral opinion. Luther did not adhere to early Christian dogma in spite of hisstress on justifying faith but, exactly because of justifying faith Lutherconsidered 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 thegreater 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 withthe late-medieval tendency to enlarge the pains of Christ (a form of the so-called "passion piety).9 Instead Luther concentrated on the depth of thesuffering in the soul of Jesus Christ.

Luther emphasized that our salvation is fully dependent on Jesus Christbeing flesh. "There is no more effective consolation than that Jesus iscompletely human," he said.

10At 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 againsthis Roman opponents.

7Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte III, Tbingen/Darmstadt 19905, 861ss.

8Heiko Jrgens, "Christus non est spiritus. Luthers Aussagen ber den MenschenJesus von Nazareth," in G. Hammer/K.H. zur Mhlen, Lutheriania. Zum 500. GeburtstagMartin Luthers von den Mitarbeitern der Weimarer Ausgabe (=AWA 5) Kln/Wien 1984


5/15

Luther's heated defense of the real presence of the body and blood ofChrist in the Lord's Supper was mainly caused by Luther's suspicion thatthe Spiritualists used Bible-words like: "the flesh is useless" (John 6:63) toget rid of the shocking presence of the Son ofGod in trivial human flesh.For Luther, however, salvation was at stake with the true humanity ofChrist, as redemption of mankind can only take place by the completeacceptance 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, whowas tempted as every other man, also had for Luther a personallysoteriological relevancy. It was in his ownAnfechtungen a great comfort toLuther 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, sotoo was His divinity.14 If only God is able to save humans, Christ has to beGod. 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 ofGod'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 Thisexplains why Luther sometimes criticized the Trinitarian dogma but spoke

highly of it in other texts as an adequate expression of God's involvementin the redemption of man.

It is remarkable that Luther, by emphatically stressing the humanityas well as the divinity of Christ, actually reunited the old Antiochene andAlexandrian traditions. It is, however, more remarkable that Luther, inspite of the tensions this combination brought about, always insisted onthe inseparable union ofGod and man in Jesus Christ. Luther emphasizedthis union to the utmost even when it seems hardly bearable for "decent"

theology. Here one could refer to Luther's allusions to a prexistent unionofGodwith humanity as He was already present in the womb of Mary,18

and even to a crucifixion from eternity.19

nWA 25, 106,33.12WA 401, 78,6v.13E.g., WA 401, 567,26; WA 46, 102,35, WA 52, 127,23 and 735,23.14Friedrich Wilhelm Kantzenbach, "Christusgemeinschaft und Rechtfertigung.

Luthers Gedanke vom frhlichen Wechsel als Frage an unsere Rechtfertigungsbotschaft,''Luther (35) 1964, 43s.

15WA 33, 128,24.16


6/15

This pivotal union of man and God in Jesus Christ was also linked withLuther's conviction that the Godhead does not conflict with humanity assuch, but only with humanity fallen into sin. In his exegesis of Philippians2:5,

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 betweenGod 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 toLuther, its climax in the reconciliation of God with man. In his interpretation of reconciliation, we observe that he went far beyond classic motifs inthe theories of atonement. Luther changed the satisfaction-motif, which isspecific to Western thought, by depriving it of its logical character as seen

in the atonement-theory of Anselm of Canterbury.22 Luther also correctedthe typical victory-motif, which has evolved in Eastern thought and wascombined with the idea of the devil as "deceived deceiver." Luther turnedthe 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 offeringupside down. The One who is offering Himselfis the same as the One towhom the offering is made!

24In this context Luther made very keen utter

ances, calling Jesus Christ the greatest sinner on whom all the sins of theworld are put. He called the atonement a miraculous duel where not justChrist fought against devil and evil, but where God is actually fightingagainst 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 wordedit.26 From God, who cannot give up His claim on humanity created by Himand 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

20E.g., StA 1, 221-229.21Hans Joachim Iwand, Nachgelassene Werke Band 5. Luthers Theologie, Mnchen

1974, 129.22Burnell. F. Eckhardt Jr., Anselm and Luther on the Atonement. Was It "Neces

sary"?, San Francisco 1992.23Albrecht Peters, "Luthers Christuszeugnis als Zusammenfassung des

Christusbotschaft der Kirche," Kerugma und Dogma (13) 1967, 1-26 and 73-98.24S G h d Eb li "Di k i li h i t li h F ih it " i id L th t di


7/15

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 theinterrelation between the divine and human natures of Christ. Since earlyChristian theology, the idea ofperichoresis has existed, i.e., a mutual permeating of both natures of Christ. Luther radicalized this idea using theconcept of the communicatio idiomatum. The latter is often held to beLuther'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 notso 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 andthe blood of Christ in Holy Communion.

The consequences of this communication of attributes of the divineand human nature took Luther in two directions. The first direction is theomnipresence of the body of Christ, which is implied in the opinion thatthe attributes of the human nature of Christ, like corporality, are participating in the divine attribute of ubiquity. This opinion reinforced Luther'sview 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 thetempted faithful who can cling to this fact that a truly human God is at ourside. The omnipresence of the body of Christ expresses for Luther thatnothing 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 ofGod undergoing the human destiny and sufferings is actually unavoidable.29

Luther held this opinion over and against the current of a very long andstrong tradition which rejected God's capacity to suffer. Though Luther's"theopaschitism" did not go so far as the ideas of the "suffering God,"whichdeveloped in nineteen and twentieth century theology, this thought wasalready in principle present in Luther's work. When Luther referred to "across from eternity,"30 it is obvious that suffering did not happen to God byaccident but that there has always been a cross in the heart of God 31


8/15


9/15

with which Jesus was handed over to be crucified. His glory is hiddenunder the humility of the suffering Christ. His life-giving power is hiddenunder the death of the Crucified.

Luther saw these dialectics of descensin and ascension, of humilia

tion and exaltation outlined in different stages in the life of Jesus Christ.

37

These dialectics culminate in the junction of Good Friday and Easter, whichare not opposite or successive phases. Good Friday was already an ascension, as Christ had conquered here the powers of sin and death, but it wasat the same time a deep humiliation when God handed Himself over to becrucified. Luther expressed himself very strongly on this point: "God hassuffered, God has died."38 On the other hand, Christ's resurrection did notsimply 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 Cru

cified, 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'srevelation by calling Christ the "King of Scripture."

39Luther always main

tained the opinion he wrote in his commentary on the Seven Penitential-Psalms: "As far as I'm concerned, I know this for sure, that every time Ifound in Scriptures less than Christ, I have never been satisfied and everytime 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 thanJesus Christ."40

But what did this Christocentric interpretation of the Bible mean forLuther? It did not mean that the result of the exegesis of every text shouldbe a reference to Jesus Christ or that the application of a text would not becorrect unless it was Christologically labeled. Luther's view can be summarized by calling Christ the "scope" of Scripture.41 Here we have to keepin mind the etymology of "scope," the Latin scopus and the Greek skopos,which has the double-denotation of both archer and target. Christ is, ac

cording to Luther, the external point to which the whole Scripture is referring. This reference, however, has been laid down in Scripture by ChristHimself.

Luther's notorious phrase "was Christum treibet" (what is inculcatingChrist) should also be considered in this context.

42It was not Luther's

intention to make a selection of texts between those that could beChristologically interpreted and those that could not. "What inculcatesChrist" was primarily for Luther a general explanatory rule, which applies

37In my book (see note 1) I'm showing this simul of humiliation and exaltation inLuther's view on Christ's Incarnation, his Descensin into Hell and his Ascension intoH 73


10/15

to all Scriptures, those of the Old Testament as well as those of the NewTestament. The German word treiben (inculcate) contains exactly the samedouble-denotation as the word "scope," i.e., to bring forward and to pullforward, as Jesus Christ is both the aim at and the driving force of this

hermeneutic. For Luther, "what inculcates Christ" is notas has oftenbeen opineda "canon within the canon," but a point of reference whichconstitutes 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 ofScripture.

43A mathematical point does not take up space, unlike its oppo

site a physical point of which the size can be determined and which possesses certain contents. Applied to the Christological interpretation of theBible, "mathematical" does not imply that the same dogmatically correct

statements about Jesus Christ should be made constantly, but that in dif-ferent situations and under varying conditions the revelation of Christ inScripture has to be found. This may sound very vague, but actually it isnot. Christ as a mathematical point indicates the fundamental position ofJesus Christ in the great variety of what the Scripture wants to say andcan be applied to all the different contexts where Scripture is preached andheard. What will be found about Christ in Scripture is essentially open, asnone 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 isalways 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 veryimportant role in the relation between Christ and man. As Luther statedin 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 throughwe know not how. That isLuther continuedwhy faith, as it is seenfrom our side, is no more than darkness where only Christ can bring inlight. In the style of Luther it is preferable not to talk about Christ as anobject, but rather as the content of faith. Luther deliberately used thetwofold meaning of the genitive in fides Christi, i.e., faith in Christ andfaith 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 ofsubject and object.


11/15

For Luther, believing Christ is not so much an act of the intellect, or ofthe will, or an emotion, as it is a way of living governed by the relationwith 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 hasknown us first. This order regulated the entire theology of Luther, as itexpressed the absolute initiative ofGod 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 asHehas takentheir form, but all this occurs under the condition that God is the only onewho acts and that man is principally, even in his actions, no more than areceiver. 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 whichinfluenced Luther deeply. It was, however, not a classic mysticism towhichLuther adhered, but a mysticism permeated by the theology of justification. Therefore Luther considered faith as the result of the re-creativework of Christ in human.

The close union between Christ and man for Luther did not wipe outthe essential difference between them. This difference is the base of whatLuther called "a joyous exchange" {frhliche Wechselund 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, andalienation, whereas the share of Christ is entirely positive: forgiveness,reconciliation, and peace. In his doctrine of atonement, Luther frequentlyused this exchange-motif God cannot condemn humans if all their sinshave 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 andhigh-ranking bride

groom who is taking a poor and adulterous girl as his bride; a very vividpicture of what can easily be imagined as a novel or film.51 We could evenwrite its dialogs, e.g., about the bridegroom being advised to cancel themarriage but who nevertheless will continue with his intentions. So thebride will participate in the fortune and esteem of the groom, whereas thegroom will be burdened with the contempt conferred upon his bride. In

47BoA, 5, 339,27ss.^Karl-Heinz zur Mhlen, Nos extra nos, Tbingen 1972, 39ss.49Reinhard Schwarz, "Mit Christus zusammengeschweit. Vom Einsein des Christen

mit Christus bei Martin Luther," Zeitwende (60) 1970, 101.50Walter Allgaier Der Trhliche Wechsel* bei Martin Luther Eine Untersuchung zur


12/15

this inequality, the absolute priority of God acting with us is again articulated.

The keynote of Luther's theological anthropology: simul Justus etpeccator, i.e., that the believer, who is completely justified in Christ, is

simultaneously remaining completely a sinner, is only understandable fromthe perspective of this exchange between Christ and Christian. Living withChrist 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 hasreceived. 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 thepassivity of humans in their salvation intended to get human's activityreally in the picture. By sin man lost his pure and spontaneous acting andnow salvation is bringing about the recapture of his genuine, unselfishproceeding.

For Luther, the point was not whether or not the Christian should beactive. Christians are and must be active. In that respect it should not beforgotten 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 takingplace. If it is to contribute in any form to man's salvation, then theseactions should religiously be condemned, regardless of the high moral quality they perhaps may have. Theologically speaking, the works of man areonly valuable insofar as they are meant to benefit fellow-creatures. That isthe reason Christ came downfromheaven, either to lift or lower our headsso that we can truly see our neighbors face to face and understand theirneeds.53

Luther expressed these key rules of Christian ethics in the distinction

between Christ as sacrament and as example. The former indicates ourdependence on Christ for salvation, and the latter, our action imitating theexample of Christ. Luther emphasized again and again that the only correct order is: first sacrament and then example. There is no road fromexample to sacrament, as Luther told his Roman Catholic opponents, whoheld 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 theirneighbor. This basic rule Luther wonderfully summarized in the statement: "Not the imitation is making sons of God but sonship is making


13/15

Evaluation

We end with a short evaluation, which is not so much meant as asummary, but as a reflection on what we could learn from Luther's

Christology.First, it should be observed that an assessment of Luther's speakingabout Christ places great demands on the interpreter. I have already referred to this difficulty, in that Luther never wrote a systematic treatiseabout Christology. Furthermore, the capability of a contextual reading ofLuther is absolutely necessary. That Luther in one writing expressed himself in one way and in another writing in a slightly different way, has notonly to do with the variety in kind of writings (sermons, letters, tabletalks, theses for disputation, Biblical commentaries, etc.), but also with

the change of the discussion-forums. One should keep all this seriously inmind while assessing Luther's view on Jesus Christ.

When we finally ask, what could we learn from Luther aboutChristology, three points could be mentioned:

1. The most important lesson which Luther could teach us is his strictorientation 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 ofGod's revelation.56 Jesus Christ is God's mercy to mankind in person and everythingwhich assists bringing this clearly to the forefront, is welcome and allother things may actually disappear. This "economy" might help us to undoour theology and beliefs of traditional thoughts and experiences and openour mind for a new encounter with the Son of God and man. We shouldfollow Luther's example to find new language and to develop new thinkingto 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 thekeynotes of the later Lutheran tradition. If we really want to take advantage of Luther's sometimes very experimental way of approachingChristology, we should liberate Luther from his aftermath and search fornew aspects and dimensions in his theology, which have been overlookedby later generations. Here a reference could be made to the idea of thesuffering God and to man's destination for an anthropology which in unionwith God is beyond all our ideas and expectations.

2. We also could learn much from the sometimes paradoxical, but closeknit 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


14/15

parent. From Luther we could learn that the trick of theology is not tostep out of this movement, but to stay in it. Luther was not interested in a"correct" Christology, in which everything is nicely balanced and offendsno one, but he was rather searching for Christ-talk, which originates fromand is leading to the union between God and man. Here we find immediately the soteriological impact of Luther's Christology, which liberates itfrom the last remnants of orthodox metaphysics as well as from a (post)modern, narrow-minded Christological approach, which refuses to acceptwhat does not appear within the scope ofour experience.

Regarding all our Christologies "from below," Luther reminds us thatif we do not also start here "from above" we will fail in grasping the truemeaning 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 onehand, we must simply admit that Luther was wrong in some points. Weshould 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 todevelop away of speaking about Christ for our times, which is able to meetLuther's valuable Christological drive, namely, to explain that Godwill inJesus 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 copefor oneself, by pointing at a salvation, which is giving up the self, becauseit is found by and in the Other and brings one to solidarity with others.


15/15

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom 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 specificwork 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 ATLAScollection 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 AmericanTheological Library Association.

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jules-martinez
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

A Human God- Some Remarks on Luther's Chris to Logy

Documents