Christians Can Be Soldiers

8/14/2019 Christians Can Be Soldiers

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/christians-can-be-soldiers 1/128



Dedicated to my ellow soldiersat the

10th Combat Aviation BrigadeFt. Drum, NY Fly to Glory



Christians Can Be soldiers

FROM MARIN LUHER’SWHEHER SOLDIERS OO CAN BE

IN A HOLY ESAE

ranslated by Holger Sonntag

Edited and Arranged by Paul Strawn



Funding or this project provided by: Te Conessional Lutheran Education Foundation (Te CLEF)PO Box 43844Minneapolis, MN 55443-0844

[email protected] & www.TeCLEF.org

All International translation rights are the property o Te CLEF.

Lutheran Press, Minneapolis 55432© 2010 by Lutheran Press

All rights reserved.Printed in the United States o America.

1st Edition

ISBN 978-0-9748529-8-0

Library o Congress Control Number: 2010920748

Swan logo is a LieAR image © 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. All rights reserved.

Book design by Scott Krieger.



taBle of Contents

F oreword

1 I ntroductIon

2 w hat does w ar P revent ?

3 aren ’ t P resent -d ay w ars dIFFerent ?

4 h ow c an the sword be admInIstered J ustly ?

5 I s rebellIon e ver J ustIFIed?

6 t he sIn oF authorItIes Is n ot c orrected by sIn

7 c hangIng authorItIes dIFFers From I mProvIng t hem

8 subJects should n ot rebel agaInst authorItIes

9 c an e quals w ar agaInst e ach other?

10 a w ar Is more than sImPly w ords

11 J ust c ause does n ot guarantee v Ictory

12 m ay an authorIty w age w ar agaInst t hose u nder I t ?

13 m ay a soldIer J ustly e arn a s alary and beneFIts?

14 w hat about a soldIer’ s h onor In an u nJust w ar?

15 h ow does a c hrIstIan soldIer P rePare For b attle ?

aFterword

7

11

17

23

29

35

43

49

57

63

71

75

81

8589

93

99



foreword

F oreword

As the text that ollows was being prepared or pub-lication in the Winter o 2009, the armed orces o the

United States were still engaged in conict in both Iraqand Aghanistan, but also, or the rst time in years, weremeeting all recruitment goals. Families o those service-men and women—and in many cases the companies andcorporations or which they worked—were actively partici-pating in all sorts o activities in support o their service.

With the beginning o a new presidential administration,however, what the uture holds or these conicts, thoseserving within them, and their amilies at home, is anyone’sguess.

Added to the mix o this reality are three movies rom2008 dealing with crucial aspects o military action remain-ing in wide release. Te rst, Valkyrie , a retelling o the plot

by German ocers to assassinate Hitler, raises the questionas to whether or not a tyrant is to be tolerated, and i not,

whose responsibility it is to depose him. Te second, Te Reader, a ctional account o the lie o a ormer concen-tration camp guard in post-World War II Germany, raisesthe question o the responsibility o individual soldiers or

actions taken while in military service. A third movie, De-ance , relates the true story o Jewish resistance ghters inNazi-occupied Belarussian orests, and raises the questions



c hrIstIans c an be soldIers

that come with armed resistance to an established author-ity. While all three movies deal specically with German

actions during World War II, they address questions o universal signicance which in one way or another haveconronted all Christians who have taken up arms or onereason or another.

Without a doubt the chie question posed is the morality o a given action by an individual in the midst o armedconict. Specically: How can a Christian know that whatis being done is right or good in the eyes o God? I thatChristian is serving in the military, does moral obligationcease to be an issue? I military service results in a chroni-cally trouble conscience, can it ever be quieted?

Tis book oers answers to these questions. It describeschiey how a Christian can indeed serve in the military,

and serve in the military in the most dangerous and deadly o positions, with a clear conscience. It also addresses therole o armed conict in general in Christian lie. It ishoped that by oering this classic work in a new and reshtranslation, it will provide comort not only to Christianmen and women serving in the military, but also to the

Christian-on-the-street who himsel is troubled by thesequestions.

O course, the original work translated here (c. Dr.Martin Luther’s Sämmtliche Schriten, ed. by J. G. Walch(St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House: 1885) Vol. 10 C.,Cols. 488-531) did not have chapters or study questions.

Tese have been added to ease reading, study and reerence. Te greater historical and current theological context istreated in the extensive Aterword. Special thanks are due



to Te Conessional Lutheran Education Foundation ortheir unding o this project. Responsibility or any shortall

and weakness within the text is mine alone.

Paul Strawn

F oreword



11

1

I ntroductIon

introduCtion

Tere are Christians who are troubled by the military and what it does. Some go so ar as to doubt whether it should

even exist. Other Christians serve in the military but doso only by ignoring the questions it raises about God, thehuman conscience, and the soul.

Why would a Christian ignore such critical questions? Te logic is simple: I a Christian serving in the military actually thought about God, listened to his conscience, and

eared or his soul, he would not serve.But can anyone be a soldier without thinking about such

things? Shouldn’t God and the soul be just the things that



12 c hrIstIans c an be soldIers

are thought o at the most critical moments o lie?In reality, a soldier can only ght to the best o his abili-

ties i he ghts with a good, well-trained conscience. Wherethere is a good conscience there is courage. Where there iscourage, the body is more powerul, the mind is more alert,and circumstances and events work together or victory (which nonetheless is granted by God!).

I, however, the conscience is untrained and uncertain,courage cannot exist. It is impossible or a person with a badconscience to be anything but rightened and cowardly.

Moses put it to the children o Israel in Deuteronomy 28:25 this way: “I you are disobedient, the Lord will give

you a earul heart, so that when you go out against yourenemies one way, you will ee seven ways.”

What happens when an attack is disorganized? Soldiers

move hesitantly and timidly, and victory is not achieved.As or those consciences in a company o soldiers that are

wild and evil, who are known to be oolish and reckless, suc-cess or ailure or them is purely a matter o chance. Whathappens to them is the same thing that would happen toan animal that might nd itsel in the middle o a battle.

Victory is not achieved because o such soldiers. Tey are ound in many companies, but are certainly never theircore.

What ollows is a bit o adviceor those who want to be goodsoldiers, but not good soldiers

alone. Tis advice is or Christians who want to be good soldiers in

such a way that they do not lose God’s grace and eternal

This advice is or

Christians who want

to be good soldiers.



13

lie. oward this end it must be noted rom the outset that

the job a person does and who a person is are two dierentthings. A specic job itsel may be good and right. Tat job,however, can become evil and wrong i the person doing itis not good or right or does not do the job correctly.

Te work a judge does, or example, is highly valuable andgodly—even i the work o the executioner is consideredto be part o it. But i someone does the work o the judge

who does not have the authority to do so, or i a judge iscorrupt, then his work is no longer right nor good.

Marriage is also highly valuable and godly. Tat still doesnot prevent many married people rom behaving terribly and horribly.

Te same holds true or soldiers. Te work o a soldier

is in and o itsel right and godly. Care needs to be taken,however, that the person serving as a soldier is also righ-teous.

By the term righteous I do not mean the righteousness which makes a person right beoreGod. Such righteousness occurs

only by aith in Jesus Christ, givenreely without any work or meriton our part. It is only by God’sgrace.

Rather, the term righteous here reers to an external righ-teousness that has to do with jobs and work. Te question

this book addresses is whether or not the righteousnessbeore God that is a Christian’s by aith remains with asoldier who does what a soldier is to do: Go to war, kill,

The work o a soldier

is in and o itsel right and godly.

I ntroductIon




damage and destroy. Ater all, is not the work o a soldiersin and injustice? Doesn’t it burden the conscience beore

God? Shouldn’t a Christian avoid military service? Doonly good? Love? Injure and kill no one? (Remember: By work what is meant is something which, although goodand right in and o itsel, can nonetheless become evil and

wrong when a person is evil and unrighteous.)Here I will not deal in detail with the purpose and work

o war. War is in itsel right and godly. What the Word o God calls “the sword” (Romans 13:1 . and 1 Peter 3:14.) was instituted by God to punish the wicked, protectthe innocent, and maintain peace. Tese passages alone arepowerul enough proo to demonstrate that waging war,killing, and whatever the course o war might take, havebeen established by God.

What is war other than the punishing o injustice andevil? Why is war waged unless peace and obedience aredesired?

Even i killing and destroying do not seem like works o love, they are in reality nothing else. Uninstructed Chris-tians think otherwise. Tey think that Christians should

never do such things.But consider the work

o an excellent surgeon. When inection is severe,he must remove or renderuseless a hand, oot, eye or

ear to save the entire body.I the destroyed body part

alone is considered, the surgeon certainly seems cruel and

Even i killing and

destroying do not seem like

works o love, they are in

reality nothing else.



1w hat does w ar P revent ?

2what does war Prevent?

I the sword did not support and maintain peace every-thing in the world would be destroyed by conict. Tis is

why war is nothing other than a short period o conictpreventing endless conict. War is a smaller misortunepreventing a bigger misortune.

Te requently made assertion that “war is a massiveplague” is certainly true. What is also true, however, ishow much more massive the plague is that is prevented

by war. o be sure, i people were pious and gladly kept the peace,

war would be the greatest plague on earth. Yet what can




be done about the act that the world is evil? Tat peopledo not want to keep the peace? Tat people plunder, steal,

kill, rape women and children, and destroy honor and pos-sessions?Such tremendous strie, common throughout the entire

world, which no one can endure, must be counteracted by the little strie called war or the sword. Tis is why Godhonors the sword so highly that he calls it his own order.God does not want us to say or think that humans inventedor established it.

Because o this, the hand that uses this sword and killsis no longer man’s hand,but God’s hand. In sucha case, it is not man,but God, who hangs,

tortures, beheads, slays,and wars. All these are his works and judgments.

In summary, when it comes to war, one must not look athow it kills, burns, destroys and seizes. Tis is what narrow,simple children’s eyes see. When it comes to a surgeon, sucheyes look no urther than the amputated hand or leg. Such

eyes do not see that the point o the surgeon’s actions is tosave the entire body.

Te work o war or the sword must be seen with the eyeso an adult. Such eyes must perceive the reason why it slaysand acts so gruesomely.

When this is done, it will turn out that war is a work

that is in itsel godly. War is as necessary and useul or this world as eating and drinking or any other work.

Tat is not to say that war is never abused. War is clearly

In such a case, it is not man,

but God who hangs, tortures,

beheads, slays, and wars.



1

abused whenever killing and injuring take place out o mal-ice and not out o need. But this is the ault o the person

waging the war, not war itsel. Ten again, when has there ever been a job or work oranything so good that it has not been abused by maliciousand evil people? Such people are like the deranged surgeons

who amputate a person’s healthy hand out o malice, notbecause there is a need to do so.

Such people belong to all those who cause strie ingeneral. Such strie must be resisted and peace enorcedby legitimate war and sword.

It has always been the case, and still remains true, that whoever starts a war unnecessarily is deeated. Such a per-son cannot escape God’s judgment, that is, God’s sword.In the end God nds and destroys him.

o conrm that this is true we need only to turn to thegreatest preacher and teacher next to Christ, namely, Johnthe Baptist. In Luke 3:14, soldiers came to John and askedhim what they should do. He did not condemn their work.He also did not tell them to stop being soldiers.

Instead, John the Baptist approved o their work saying

“Be content with your wages and do not do violence andinjustice to anyone.” By doing so, John praised the work o

war. At the same time, however, he prohibited and orbidits abuse.

Te abuse o work and work itsel are two dierent things. So

Christ, standing beore Pilate,conessed similarly that waging

war is not unjust. What did he

w hat does w ar P revent ?

The abuse o work and

work itsel are twodierent things.




say? “I I were the king o this world, my servants wouldght that I might not be handed over to the Jews” (John

18:36). Here also belong all the ancient war accounts inthe Old estament, such as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, the Judges, Samuel, David, and all the kings o the people o Israel.

Yet i waging war or the work o war is in itsel unjustor displeasing to God, then we would need to condemnAbraham, Moses, Joshua, David, and all the other holy athers, kings, and princes who served God in this way as

well and who on account o this work are praised highly in Scripture. Tis is well known even to all who have readonly a little o the Bible.

1. What would happen i the sword did not protect and

maintain the peace?

2. What is the cause o war?

3. Whose hand is it that acts in war?

4. Must the work o war be seen with the eyes o a child oran adult?

5. Is war ever abused?

6. Is the abuse o war the ault o war, or the person wag-

ing war?

. Did John the Baptist rebuke the Roman soldiers or be-ing soldiers?

. What happens to the person who starts a war?



21

. Who would need to be condemned i war is in itsel

unjust?

w hat does w ar P revent ?



23

3aren’t Present-day wars different?

aren ’ t P resent -d ay w ars dIFFerent ?

Now some might suggest that present-day wars aredierent than those ound in the Old estament. At that

time, the children o Israel had been chosen by God andset apart rom other nations by his word.

God himsel commanded the children o Israel to ght. Te children o Israel thereore ought out o godly obedi-ence to his command.

For a New estament Christian this is hard to under-

stand. We do not have the command o God to ght. In-stead, we are commanded to suer and lose everything.

Peter and Paul wrote clearly about this subject. Both




command the New estament Christian to obey humanorder and the commands o worldly authority.

John the Baptist, as noted above, taught soldiers trueChristian doctrine, and still allowed them to remain sol-diers. John’s only demand: Solders should not abuse theirposition. Tey should do no one injustice or violence. Tey should be content with their wages.

Clearly then the waging o war is conrmed by God’s word and command in the New estament as well. Tose who use war rightly and ght obediently are obedient tohis word and serve God by doing so.

I war is inherently unjust, however, then any such useo physical harm wouldalso be inherently un-

just. I the use o physical

harm in war is unjust, it would also be unjust as apunishment or evil andor preserving peace. In

other words, all physical harm would be unjust. But whatis waging war rightly other than punishing wrongdoers

and preserving the peace? Te punishment o a thie, murderer or adulterer is a pun-

ishment or an individual doer o evil. Te rightly-waged war, however, punishes collectively multiple wrongdoers, who have done as much damage as their number allows.

I one use o the sword is good and right, than all such

uses are good and right. According to Romans 13:4, whatis being used is not a eather duster, but a sword, which isnone other than the wrath o God.

I war is inherently unjust,

however, then any such useo physical harm would also

be inherently unjust.



25

Elsewhere I have responded extensively to the argumentthat Christians have no command to ght, but instead,

have Christ’s teaching that they should not resist evil butsuer everything. Christians, o course, have no authority to ght on the basis o their Christianity.

Christians as Christians have no worldly authority. Teir government is by naturespiritual. As ar as their spiritsare concerned, Christians aresubject to no one but Christ.

Yet the bodies and goods o Christians are indeed subject to worldly authority and oweit obedience. When Christians are called into the military by worldly authority, they should and must ght out o obedience. Not as Christians, mind you, but as those within

the world, citizens, obedient people as ar as their body andtemporal goods are concerned.

When Christians serve as soldiers in war, they do not doso or themselves. Tey do not do so or their own sakes, butto serve and obey the authorities under whom they are.

Paul puts it to itus this way (3:1): “Tey are to be obedi-

ent to the authorities.” More about this topic can be oundin my booklet on worldly authority.1

In short we can simply state: Te work o the sword is initsel a right, godly and useul work. God does not want itto be despised, but eared, and honored and obeyed. I not,punishment will ollow, as Paul says in Romans 13:5.

1 C. emporal Authority: o What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), inLuther’s Works, American Edition, Vol. 45 (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press,1962), p. 81 .


Christians as

Christians have no

worldly authority.




God has, ater all, established two kinds o governmenton earth. One is spiritual. It acts through the word without

the sword. By means o this kingdom men are made piousand righteous with a righteousness by which eternal lie isattained. Such righteousness God administers through the

word which he has commanded preachers to proclaim.Te other type o government within the world is that

o the sword. Tose who have no desire to become piousand righteous unto eternal lie are orced by this govern-ment at a minimum to be pious and righteous beore the

world. Such a righteousness God administers through thesword.

Although God does not reward such righteousness with eternal lie, he nonetheless wants it to be established. Why? So peace among men can be preserved.

God rewards this peace with wealth. Tis is why Godgives authorities so much wealth, honor, and power. Own-ing them rightly above others, authorities thereby serveGod in the administration o worldly righteousness.

God himsel is the Author, Lord, Master, Promoter,and Beneactor o both kinds o righteousness, o the spiri-

tual and o the bodily. It is not a matter o human order orpower. It is all an entirely divine matter.

1. Who commanded the children o Israel to wage war in

the Old Testament?

2. Do New Testament Christians have that same com-

mand?



2

3. Are Christians to obey worldly authority?

4. I the use o physical harm in war would be unjust, what

else would be unjust?

5. Do Christians wage war on the basis o their Christian-

ity?

6. How many kinds o government are there on earth?

. What are they?

. With what does God reward peace?




2

4

h ow c an the sword be admInIstered J ustly ?

how Can the sword Be

administered Justly ?

O utmost importance is to understand who and how one should administer the sword. Te common tendency

is to establish all sorts o rules, and regulations. So many exceptions arise, however, that it is impossible to compre-hend everything precisely and without bias.

Tis is also the case in the practice o law. Laws cannever be established so certainly and airly that there arenot cases demanding exceptions. When such exceptions

are not granted, and laws are ollowed to the letter, thegreatest injustice results.

Te pagan erence noted that “Te strictest application




o the law is the greatest injustice.” Solomon, in Ecclesiastes(7:16) teaches that one should not be overly just, and at

times, not wish to be wise.A good example o this occurred during last year’s insur-rection o the peasants. Several o the rebels, especially those

who themselves were wealthy, participated only grudgingly.

Since the rebellion wasaimed at the rich andpowerul, it was assumedthat no wealthy person

would take part. Nonetheless, several were orced againsttheir will to participate.

Several others got involved by thinking they could some-

how control the mad rabble. Good advice, it was thought, would hinder evil intentions and do less damage both tothe authorities and to the ones oering the advice. Stillothers participated only ater receiving permission romtheir superiors.

Tere were certainly many more such exceptions. No one

can imagine them all or comprehend them by law.But what does the law say? All rebels are guilty o death.

Tese three groups ound themselves caught up in therebellion. What should happen to them?

Should there be no exception? Should the law be strictly applied as it reads concerning the external act o rebellion?

Even though they had an innocent heart and good willtoward the authorities? I so, they must die along withthose who, along with participating in the external act, did

Laws can never be

established so certainly and

airly that there are not casesdemanding exceptions.




mercy. Tey are just like pious Hushai the Archite (2 Samuel

15:32 . and 16:16 .). Hushai submitted to the rebelAbsalom, pretending to be obedient. But David had com-manded him to do so, in order that David might be helpedin thwarting Absalom.

Viewed externally, Hushai was rebellious along withAbsalom against David (2 Sam. 17:7-13). Yet in reality,Hushai deserved great praise and honor eternally beoreGod and all the world. Now, i David had judged Hushaias a rebel, that judgment would have been as praiseworthy as the one that is now being done by our authorities toequally innocent, deserving people.

Te wisdom which should govern the law on a case by case basis, judging the same good or evil deed by its intent,

is called in Greek epieíkeia, in Latin aequitas. I call it equity.Since the law must be written clearly in plain and simple

words, it is not able to comprehend all circumstances andexceptions.

Tis is why in this case judges must be prudent and pi-ous and apply equity in a reasonable manner, upholding or

disregarding the law as is t. A master o a house, ater all,establishes rules or his servants. Tere is the law. Whoeverdoes not do it, ought to suer punishment.

Yet one might become sick or be hindered through noault o his own. Tere the law ceases. It would be a badmaster o the house who wanted to punish his servants on

account o such ailure. All laws addressing external actsmust be subject to equity or the sake o the maniold,countless, uncertain accidents that may happen and that



33

no one can imagine or comprehend beorehand.

1. What is the common tendency in administering the

sword?

2. What is the cause o “the greatest injustice”?

3. How many groups were caught up in the rebellion?

4. How was a great injustice done?

5. When should the law give way to equity?

6. Who would the law have preerred: Peter or Judas?

Why?

. On what basis should a deed be judged?

. What is another name or “the wisdom which should

govern the law on a case by case basis”?

h ow c an the sword be admInIstered J ustly ?



35

5is reBellion ever Justified?

I s rebellIon e ver J ustIFIed?

In general there seems to be three types o war: 1) Anequal warring against an equal; 2) An authority warring

against those under it; 3) Tose under an authority warringagainst it. We begin with the third type o war.

Concerning the third type o war, the law dictates thatno one ought to ght or war against an authority. Toseunder an authority owe obedience, honor, and ear to thatauthority (Rom. 13:1). As the saying goes, “whoever chops

above his head gets chips in his eyes.” Solomon says (Prov.26:27), “Te stones a man throws up in the air will allback on his head.”



3

Roman emperors were killed by enemies. Very ew wereallowed to die o natural causes. Te nations o Judah and

Israel murdered many o their kings as well. Yet these examples are really not that helpul. We are notasking what the Gentiles or Jews did. We are asking whatis right and equitable to do beore God in the spirit, andin the divine external order o worldly government.

Tere is nothing to stop citizens rom rising up today or tomorrow and deposing their government. Authoritiesmust expect this to be inicted upon them by God.

But that does not mean it is done equitably or justly. Inact, I have never heard o a case when it was equitable norcan I think o one.

Te peasants who rebelled recently alleged that theauthorities did not allow the gospel to be preached. Tey

also exploited the poor. Tis is why they had to overthrow them.

My response? Te act that the authorities acted unjustly did not make it equitable or just or the peasants to act inthe same way. Tey had no right to be disobedient anddestroy the order which is not ours but God’s.

Enduring injustice, the peasants should simply havemoved to another location where the gospel was preached.Christ himsel says (Matthew 10:23): “I they persecute

you in one city, ee to another.”Now it is certainly equitable to depose and imprison an

authority who has gone insane. Since he no longer possesses

reason, he cannot even be considered a human being.“Tat’s right!” you say, “A tyrant is also insane! He should

be considered even worse than an insane person or he does





much more damage!”Here an answer is dicult. It is a powerul argument

which seeks to establish equity by orce. Yet I must maintain that a madman and a tyrant are notthe same. A madman does or experiences nothing that isreasonable. In that he is void o all reason, there is also nohope that his situation will change.

A tyrant, however, is still well aware o the evil thingsthat he does. He knows when he commits injustice. He

still possesses a conscienceand reason.

Tere also is hope that thetyrant might improve. Hemight be open to counsel.He might learn and ollow.

In that a madman is like a piece o wood or a stone, he cando none o these things.

Tere also is the issue o the consequence o deposinga tyrant. Whenever the killing or driving away o tyrantsbegins, it soon spreads and becomes a general malicious-ness. Other authorities are then called tyrants who clearly

are not. Tey are killed as the mob decides.Roman history teaches this very clearly. Te Roman

people killed many a ne emperor simply because they did not like him.

At other times, emperors were deposed because they would not allow the people themselves to be the emperor,

or did not wish to be merely the people’s servant or simply a gurehead. Tis happened to Caesar Augustus, Pertinax,Gordianus, Alexander, and several others.

There also is the issue

o the consequence o

deposing a tyrant.



3

I a mob is allowed too much leeway, it will go mad. Itis better to drive a mob back ten yards, then to allow it

to move orward a oot, or even an inch. It is better or atyrant to do a mob injustice a hundred times rather thana mob the tyrant injustice once.

In that a person is to endure injustice (c. 1 Corinthians6:7), it is better to suer at the hands o authorities, than theauthorities suer at thehands o their subjects.A mob knows no limit.Each member o a mobindividually is more thanive tyrants. It is betterto suer injustice at thehands o one tyrant, that is, authority, than at the hands o

countless tyrants, that is, a mob.It is said that long ago the Swiss killed their authorities

and set themselves ree. Just recently the Danes deposedtheir king. Both justied their actions on the basis o theunbearable tyranny they had to suer.

As I wrote above, however, my topic here is not what

Gentiles do or did. I am instead concerned about what aChristian should and might do with a good conscience inorder to be certain that a particular action is not unjustbeore God.

Having read many histories, it is certain that Jewish,Greek and Roman subjects oten killed or drove out their

authorities. God allowed them to do this, even permittingthem to grow and prosper.

In the end, however, it was all or nothing. Te Jews were


It is better to suer injusticeat the hands o one tyrant

... than at the hands o

countless tyrants.




crushed and subjugated by the Assyrians. Te Greeks by King Philip. Te Romans by the Goths and Lombards.

Te Swiss have paid and continue to pay dearly or theirindependence with blood. Teir end is easily seen. TeDanes also are not ree and clear.

As ar as I am concerned, I do not see a more stablegovernment than that in which authority is held in honor.

Tis is done among the Persians, artars, and the like. Tey not only remained independent o the Romans and allother powers, they also conquered the Romans and many other countries.

My reasoning or all this is based on that which God says,Rom. 12:13: “Vengeance is mine. I will repay.” Likewise,Matt. 7:1: “Judge not.”

Additionally, in the Old estament it is strictly and

requently orbidden even to curse or speak evil o theauthorities, Ex. 22:28: “You shall not curse the prince o

your people.”And Paul, 1 im. 2:2, Acts 23:5, teaches the Christians

to pray or those in authority. Solomon also in Ecclesiastesand Proverbs teaches everywhere to obey the king and be

subject to him, Prov. 24:21. When subjects set

themselves against au-thorities they are theirown avengers and makethemselves into judges

(Eccl. 10:20). his isnot only against the

order and commandment o God—who wants to retain

When subjects set themselves

against authorities they are

their own avengers and make

themselves into judges.



41

judgment and revenge or himsel—but is also against allnatural laws and equity.

As it is said: Let no one be his own judge. And again: Whoever strikes back is in the wrong.

1. How many types o war are there?

2. Should anyone ght against an authority?

3. Can equity ever permit the breaking o the law?

4. Did the Gentiles recognize worldly authority as God’s

order?

5. How did the Gentiles view the killing o tyrants?

6. Is there anything to stop citizens rom rising up anddeposing their government?

. Does the unjust action o an authority give subjects the

right to overthrow it?

. Is a tyrant the same thing as a madman? What is the di-

erence?

. What are some o the consequences or deposing a

tyrant?

10. What happens eventually to those that rebel against an

authority?




43

6the sin of authorities

is not CorreCted By sin

t he sIn oF authorItIes Is not c orrected by sIn

Te question you will ask now is this: “Why should wesuer under tyrants? You are too easy on them! Based on

your teaching their evil will only increase! Is everyone’s lie,spouse, children and assets to remain in such danger? Who

will want to do anything worthwhile in such a situation?”I reply: I cannot teach anyone who wants to do only

what seems to them to be right and good. Such people willsimply go ahead with their plots and plans and kill all their

authorities. We’ll see how that works out eventually.I can only teach those who truly want to do what is

right. o such people I say that those in authority are not




to be kept in check with sacrilege and rebellion, as did theGreeks, Romans, Swiss, and Danes. Tere are other ways

to accomplish this.First o all, when it is seen that authorities completely disregard their own souls’ sal-

vation by being unjust, whatis it to you that they destroy

your property, body, spouseand child? Tey cannot harm

your soul.In act, by doing such things authorities harm themselves

more than you. How? Tey condemn their own souls. Adestruction o their own lives and possessions ollows. Isnot their injustice then suciently avenged?

In the second place, what would happen i these same

authorities waged war? Would not then your own lie,property, spouse and children be in danger o annihilation?

Would not you be put in danger o being captured, torturedand killed or your authority’s sake? Would you kill yourauthorities in that case?

During the time o Emperor Maximilian, many good

people lost their lives in the wars he waged. Yet no one didanything to him.

I all o those good people had died at the hand o atyrannical Maximilian, however, it would have been consid-ered the most gruesome thing ever done. Yet, Maximilian,by means o the wars he waged, did indeed cause them to

die. Ater all, they were killed or his sake.In short, a raging tyrant is nothing else than a horrible

war that destroys many ne, decent, innocent people. It

I can only teach those

who truly want to do

what is right.



45

could even be asserted that an evil tyrant is better than anevil war, as your own reason and experience proves.

Everyone wants to see peace and good days. But what i God keeps such things rom you by wars and tyrants? Insuch a case, which one would you rather have?

In actuality we deserve and are liable beore God orboth. We want, however, to keep sinning and avoid pun-ishment or it.

We also want to resist God’s punishment and justiy oursin. As surely as a dog bites the stick with which he is poked,this we will most certainly do.

Tirdly, even i authorities areevil, God is present. God has at hisdisposal re, water, steel, stone andall sorts o other ways to destroy.

How quickly God has slain tyrants! In act, God wantsto slay tyrants, but our sins do not allow it. So Job 34:30:“He lets a knave1 rule because o the sins o the people.”

We are quick to acknowledge that we are governed by aknave. No one, however, wants to acknowledge that a knavedoes not rule on account o his knavery, but on account o

the sin o the people. Te people do not recognize their own sin and think that

the tyrant rules because o his knavery. Tis is how blind,perverted, and mad the world is.

Tis is also why it went as it did with the peasants inthe rebellion who wished to punish the sin o the authori-

ties—as i they themselves were altogether pure and in-nocent! Tis is why God had to show them the log in their

1 A knave is an untrustworthy, dishonest person with no principles.


Even i authorities

are evil, God is

present.




own eye so that they might orget the speck in the other.In the ourth place, tyrants, by the imposition o God,

always run the risk that their subjects will rebel and deposeor even kill them. Additionally there remains the great masso heathen, godless, and unchristian people, who, i Godimposes it, resist their authorities unjustly and wreak havoc,as the Jews and Greeks and Romans oten did.

Tis is why you cannot contend that on the basis o my writings tyrants and authorities eel sae to do evil. Tey are by no means sae!

I teach that authorities, whether they do good or evil by God’s will, should remain sae. Yet I mysel cannot urnishthem with such saety.

Where God does not grant his grace, I cannot orce themob to ollow my teaching. I teach as I please. Te world

does as it pleases.God must help and I must teach those who would like

to do what is right and good. Perhaps they can help stopthe mob.

Te authorities remain as secure with my teaching as without it. In that most people do not listen to me, your

complaint is not necessary. It is in God’s power alone touphold those in authority. He is the only one who hasestablished them.

Do not be conused by the act that the authorities areevil. heir punishment andruin are closer than you think.

It was the tyrant Dionysius who conessed that his lie wasone lived with a sword hanging

Do not be conused

by the act that theauthorities are evil.



4

over his head by a silken thread and a great re burningbelow him.

In the th place, you need not avenge yoursel, or Godhas yet another way o punishing those in authority. Hecan raise up an alien authority, such as the Goths againstthe Romans and the Assyrians against Israel.

In other words, there is certainly enough avenging,punishment, and danger to keep tyrants and authorities incheck. God does not let them be evil in joy and peace. Heis right behind them. Indeed, he surrounds them. Like arider on his horse, God has tyrants between his spurs andkeeps a tight rein on them. Tis agrees also with the naturallaw which Christ teaches in Matt. 7:12: “Do unto others

what you would have them do to you.”O course, no head o a household wants to be driven

out o his house or killed by his amily. He does not wantto lose everything on account o his evil actions.

I his amily were to do such a thing, it would besacrilegious. Tey themselves would become judges andavengers without any prior complaint beore another higherauthority.

Likewise, it should be unjust or every subject to actagainst his tyrant.

1. Are authorities to be kept in check by rebellion?

2. Which is more valuable: Your amily and possessions or

your soul?

3. What ollows the sel-condemnation o the soul?





4. How are a raging tyrant and a horrible war the same?

5. How is an evil tyrant better than an evil war?

6. We wish to continue sinning, but what do we want to

avoid?

. How does our sin prevent the destruction o tyrants?

. Should authorities remain sae?

. Who alone establishes authorities?

10. How does God punish those who abuse their God-giv-

en authority?




ten cows. When he took two o them rom me, I prayedagainst him, hoping that he would die and that your ather

would become lord.”“When that actually happened, however, your athertook three cows away rom me. I then prayed against himhoping that he would die and you become lord.”

“Now that you are lord, you have taken our cows away rom me! So in ear that whoever comes ater you will takemy last cow and everything else I have, I pray or you.”

A second example is that o a beggar who was covered with sores that were lled with ies that bit him and suckedhis blood. Now it just so happened that a merciul man,

wanting to help the beggar, chased all the ies away. Te beggar’s response? He screamed at the man and said:

“What are you doing? Tose ies were almost ull and satis-

ed and so no longer bothered me so much. But now thehungry ies will come and will plague me even more!”1

Do you understand theseparables? Changing authori-ties and improving authoritiesare two dierent things. Tey

are as ar rom each other asheaven is rom earth.

Change can be easy. Improvement is dicult and ullo risk.

Why? It is not a matter o our will or ability. It lies inGod’s hands and is only according to his will.

Te rampaging mob, however, does not ask how to im-prove things. As long as things change they are satised. I

1 See Aesop’s able, “Te Fox and the Hedgehog.”

Change can be easy.

Improvement is dicult

and ull o risk.



51

things then get worse, the mob again only wants change. Tis is how mobs exchange bees or ies and wasps

or bees. It is just like the rogs in the able that did not want the block o wood to be their ruler. Te stork they established in its place hit their heads with his beak andate them.2

It is simply horrible that no one can rule a mad mobbetter than a tyrant. Tey are the stick tied to the neck o the dog.

I a mob could be ruled in a better way, God would haveestablished some other order above them than the swordand tyrants. Te sword itsel indicates what type o peoplelive under it, namely, those who i given the chance todo as they would like to do would be nothing other thandesperate knaves.

My advice? Whoever wishes to have a good conscienceand do the right thing should be content with worldly authority. Considering that worldly authority cannotharm the soul as can alse spiritual teachers, it should notbe attacked.

Use David as an example. He suered as much violence

rom king Saul as you could ever endure. Yet David didnot lay his hand on Saul.

Certainly David was given every opportunity. But helet the matter to God, and allowed it to go on as long asGod wanted it to continue. David endured until matterscame to an end.

I there should arise a war or strie against the authority above you, allow those who wish to war and strive to go

2 See Aesop’s able, “Te Frogs and the Stork.”

c hangIng authorItIes dIFFers From I mProvIng t hem




ahead. For, as was said, i God does not hold the mob back, we cannot hold it back.

You, however, who want to do well and keep your con-science sae, leave armor and shield alone and do not striveagainst your authority or tyrant. Instead, endure everythingthat can happen to you. Te mob will nd its judge.

Now here is a good question: What i an authority o some sort swears an oath to govern his subjects accordingto certain articles, but then does not obey them. Is he notthen obligated to resign?

Te king o France, or example, must govern in ac-cordance with the parliaments in his realm. Te king o Denmark has also sworn to abide by certain articles.

My answer? It is all well and good that authorities donot govern according to whim but according to laws and

actually obey them. It must be remembered, however, thata king promises not only to keep the laws o his kingdom,but promises to be pious, as God himsel has commandedthe king to be.

Does that mean then that i a king disregards both thelaws o God and the laws o men that you should attack

him, judge him, and have your vengeance? Who has given you the authority to do so?

Shouldn’t another authority be called upon to comebetween the two o you, hear the case o both you andthe king, and then condemn the guilty party? I not, you

yoursel will not escape the judgment o God who says in

Deut. 32:35 and Rom. 12:9: “Vengeance is mine;” likewise:“Judge not,” Matt. 7:1.

Since this question applies specically to the citizens



53

o Lübeck, other member cities o the Hanseatic League,and the Danes themselves, who recently rebelled against

the king o Denmark, I will give an even more completeanswer. Tere may be some who have a misinormed conscience

in this matter. Maybe some will even rethink and reevalu-ate their actions.

It is certainly the case that the king o Denmark wasunjust both beore God and the world. rue also is the actthat the law was entirely on the side o the Danes and thepeople o Lübeck. Tis is the one side o the coin.

Te other side o the coin, however, is this that the Danesand the people o Lübeck acted as i they themselves werethe judges and authorities over the king and punished andavenged his injustices themselves. Tey thereore usurped

judgment and vengeance.Here now the question and the matter o conscience

begins. When this matter comes beore God, he is notgoing to ask whether the king is unjust or the people are

just, or that is already clear. Will not God rather ask: “People o Denmark and Lü-

beck, who has commanded you to carry out such vengeanceand punishment? I I have commanded you, or the emperor,or another in authority, then present proper documentationto prove it.”

I the people o Denmark and Lübeck can do this, then

everything is ne. But i they cannot, God will judge them inthis way: “You rebellious thieves


Who has commanded

you to carry out

such vengeance and punishment?




o God interere with my work! It is a sacrilege that youusurped divine vengeance! You have sinned against the

divine majesty! You must die!” Why is this so horrible? Tere is a great distinction be-tween being unjust and punishing injustice, between thelaw and the ullling o the law, between justice and theadministration o justice.

Every human being has a share in justice and injustice.But the authority to dene and administer what is right and

wrong belongs alone to God, the Lord o right and wrong.God alone delegates such authority to earthly authoritiesand their representatives. No one is to usurp this powerunless it is certain that he has received such authority by the command o God, or rom his servants, the earthly authorities.

What would become o the world i everyone in theright would themselves punish those in the wrong? I that

would the case, male servants would strike their master,emale servants their mistress, children their parents andstudents their teacher.

Tat would really be good order! What need would there

be or judges and worldly authority established by God? Te Danes and the people o Lübeck can gure this out

or themselves. Would it truly be equitable i their ownservants, townspeople, and subjects would rebel againstthem whenever they suer injustice?

Why do they then not do to others what they themselves

want to be done? Why do they not treat others as they themselves want to be treated, as Christ, Matt. 7:12, andthe natural law teach?



55

o be sure, the people o Lübeck and the other citiesassert in their deense that they were not the subjects o the

king, but acted as an enemy acts toward an enemy and anequal acts toward an equal. Yet the poor Danes, as subjects,acted against their authorities without God’s command.

he people o Lübeck thereore aided and abettedthem. By doing so they burdened themselves with thesame sin as that o the Danes. Tis is how the people o Lübeck became entangled and embroiled in the rebelliousdisobedience o the Danes against both divine and royalmajesty. Tey thereore also then despised the commando the emperor.

I have used this recent incident as an example o how asubject is not to rebel against an authority. It is a remark-able story that ended with an exiled king. It well serves the

purpose o warning all others to beware o the example.Let it also serve to stir the consciences o those respon-

sible so that some might change or the better and give upthis vice beore God himsel comes and wreaks his ven-geance upon those who robbed him and are his enemies.

Not all will repent. Why? As was said above, the great

crowd does not care about God’s word. It is a lost crowd thatis only being prepared or God’s wrath and punishment.

Rather, I am content that some will take what I havesaid to heart and no longer associate with the deed o theDanes and the people o Lübeck. I they were indeed as-sociated with it, they should disassociate themselves rom

it and no longer be ound guilty o someone else’s sin. For we all indeed have more than enough sin o our own.





1. Why did the widow pray or her tyrant?

2. Why did the beggar become angry with the man who

chased the fies away?

3. Which is easier: Change or improvement? Why?

4. Is a mob interested in improvement?

5. What does the sword itsel say about those who liveunder it?

6. Can worldly authority harm the soul?

. What i an authority breaks the laws it has sworn to

uphold?

. To whom does the authority belong to dene what is

right and wrong?

. What would happen i every person who has been

wronged punished those who wronged them?

10. What was the sin o the Danes?



5

8suBJeCts should not reBel

against authorities

subJects should not rebel agaInst authorItIes

Here again I will have to suer abuse and hear my own judges scream: “Tis is exactly what it means to kiss up to

the authorities! Do you Luther now submit to them andseek mercy rom them? Are you now araid o them?”

I will let these bees buzz around my head and y on. Whoever can write something better than what I am writ-ing here go ahead and do so.

My goal here is not to preach to the authorities. In any

case this apparent attery o mine will not earn me muchmercy rom them. Te authorities will certainly not rejoicein it because I endanger their positions.




Countless times I have asserted and it is only all tootrue, unortunately, that most o our authorities are godless

tyrants. Tey are enemies o God who persecute the gospeland certainly are not avorably disposed toward me.I also do not really care. Rather I

teach simply this: Each person is toknow how to act in this matter, tosupport his authority, and to do whatGod has commanded him.

Let authorities end or themselves. God will notoverlook tyrants and authorities. God is quite capable o dealing with them and has done so rom the beginning o the world.

Moreover, this booklet o mine is not to be applied sim-ply to peasants, as i they alone are subjects, and not also

to the authorities. Not so. But what I say about subjectsapplies to everyone whatever their position in society.

For everyone, whatever their position, is subject to some-one else. And just as one disciplines a rebellious subject, soone also ought to discipline a rebellious authority. Te oneshould be treated just like the other. Ten no one suers

injustice.Emperor Maximilian was well acquainted with disobedi-

ent and rebellious authorities under him. Tey would haveloved to band together and make war against him.

And how oten might have one group o these authoritiesunder him, complaining and moaning, banded together,

and waged war against another such alliance o lesserauthorities? How much did the Franconian authoritiesscream because they respected neither their bishops nor

Each person is to

know how to act

in this matter.




how you sing such a loty little song to the end. o others, to those who would like to protect their

conscience, I say this: God has thrown us into the worldunder the devil’s dominion insuch a way that we do not havea paradise here. We should beprepared at all times to acemisortune o body, wie, child,goods, and honors.

And when in one hour you are not aficted by ten mis-ortunes, in act, when you get to live one hour, you shouldsay: “Oh, what great goodness does my God show me thatI have not been aficted by all misortune this hour! How can this be? Living under the dominion o the devil, I amnot supposed to have such a blessed hour.”

Tis is how I teach those who want to listen. You,however, eel ree to do it dierently. Build a paradise or

yoursel where the devil may not enter and you will nothave to suer such raging rom any tyrant. I will watch

you. Just keep thinking: “Oh, we are all well and in highspirits. We do not know God’s goodness. We also do not

believe that God protects us and that the devil is that bad. We want to be utterly evil knaves and still receive utterly good things rom God.”

Tis is enough concerning the rst question as to whetherany warring or striving against an authority can be right.Suce it to say that even though it has oten happened, and

people are daily tempted to do so, when God has imposedrebellion and has not hindered it, it has not ended well. Itdoes not remain without vengeance—even though people

We should be prepared

at all times to ace

misortune.



61

may enjoy luck or a time.

1. When it comes to rebellion, what is each person to do?

2. Is there anyone who is not subject to someone else?

3. Can an authority justly rebel against its authority?

4. How did God punish the rebellious authorities under

Maximilian?

5. Under whose dominion do we live in the world?

6. What should we at all times be prepared to endure?

subJects should not rebel agaInst authorItIes



63

9Can equals war against eaCh other?

c an e quals w ar agaInst e ach other?

We now return to the question o the rst type o war:Is it right or an equal to war against an equal? Te ques-

tion is properly ramed this way: It certainly is not rightto begin a war solely on the basis o the musings o every mad ruler. From the outset it should simply be said that

whoever begins war is in the wrong. What is right is that whoever draws the sword rst is

deeated or at a minimum, punished in the end. It is a com-

mon act o history that those who begin a war lose that war. Conversely, those who are orced to deend themselvesare rarely beaten.




Worldly authority is, ater all, not instituted by God todestroy peace and begin war. It is, instead, instituted to

maintain peace and hinder war. his is what Paul, Romans13:4, asserts, when he notes thatthe work o the sword is that o protecting and punishing. Te

sword protects the pious with peace and punishes the evilby war.

God, who does not endure injustice, also arranges mat-ters in such a way that those who would make war mustbe resisted. So the proverb: “No one is ever so evil that hedoes not run into someone more evil than he is.” Tis isalso what God allows to be said about himsel, Ps. 68:30:“Te Lord scatters the nations that delight in war.”

Beware! God does not lie! Listen to this advice: Dig adeep, deep ditch between what you want and what you need,

what pleases you and what truly is necessary, the desire tomake war and the will to ght.

Even i you nd yoursel to be the urkish emperor, donot be tempted! Wait until the time o absolute neces-

sity arrives and you must go to war without any desire or willingness.

Even then you will have enough to do and experience somuch o war that you will say in your heart: “How much Ilong or peace! I only my neighbors would!”

Tis is how you can deend yoursel with a good con-

science. Tere stands God’s word: “He scatters those whodelight in war.”

Consider the true soldiers who have been there. Tey

Whoever begins war

is in the wrong.



65

do not quickly engage in battle. Tey do not act spiteully. Tey do not wish to ght.

But when you orce them to ght, then beware! Tey will not complain. Teir sworddoes not come out easily. But

when orced to draw it, they willnot return it to its sheath withoutblood.

On the other hand, the crazy ools who rst make war inthoughts and begin to devour the whole world with their

words are truly the rst to draw the sword. But they alsoare the rst to drop the sword and ee.

Te mighty empire o the Romans conquered muchbecause they were orced to go to war. Everyone wanted topick a ght with them and prove themselves by engaging

them in battle. In deending themselves, the Romans didso in a thorough manner.

Hannibal o Carthage harmed the Romans to the extentthat he almost deeated them. But what shall I say? Hestarted. He also had to be stopped. God-given courageremained with the Romans, even when they were losing.

Where courage remains, deeds ollow.Ultimately it is God who acts. God wants peace and is

an enemy o those who begin war and destroy peace. Te elector Duke Frederick o Saxony must also here

be mentioned. It is a shame that the sayings o such a wiseprince died with his body. Frederick had to endure much

evil both in general and rom his neighbors. He thereorehad so many good reasons to go to war that another, madprince, who desired to go to war, would have started ten


This is how you can

deend yoursel with

a good conscience.




wars.Frederick, however, let his sword in its sheath. He always

used words wisely, and pretended to be very rightenedand to run away. He let others yell and scream while heremained seated beore them.

When asked why he let himsel be verbally abused inthis way, he replied: “I do not want to begin. But i I must

go to war, you will see that I will bring it to an end.”

Tis is how he, even thoughmany dogs snarled at him, re-mained unbitten. He saw thatthey were all ools. But he didnot hold it against them.

I the king o France had not started a war against Em-

peror Charles, he would not have endured the shame o being beaten and captured. And even now, as the Venetiansand Italians make war against the emperor—although my enemy as well, such injustice is no delight—and begin toght, may God grant that they too must be the rst to stop.

Tus the saying will remain true, Ps. 68:30: “God scatters

those who delight in war.”All this God conrms with good examples in Scripture.

Tis is why he let his people rst oer peace to the king-doms o the Amorites and Canaanites. He did not wanthis people to begin the ght. He wanted this teaching tobe conrmed.

When those kingdoms began, however, and orced God’speople to deend themselves, they all had to go to pieces.Indeed, to deend onesel is an honest reason to ght.

This is how he, even

though many dogs

snarled at him,

remained unbitten.



6

Tis is why all the laws arm that sel-deense remainsunpunished. Te person who kills someone in sel-deense

is guiltless beore everyone.Again, when the children o Israel wanted to strike theCanaanites without necessity, they themselves were de-eated, Num. 14:35. When Joseph and Asariah wanted todo battle and make a name or themselves, they also weredeeated, 1 Macc. 5:56.

Amaziah, king o Judah, wanted to wage a war o delightagainst the king o Israel. o see how things turned out,read 2 Kings 14:8.

Likewise, King Ahab began a war against the Syrians atRamoth, but lost the war and his lie, 1 Kings 22:2. TeEphraimites wanted to devour Jephthah and lost 42,000men, Jdg. 12:6.

But this is how it goes. Almost everyone who starts a war loses that war.

Te blessed king Josiah had to be killed because hebegan to ght against the king o Egypt, 2 Kings 23:29.God had to let the saying stand: “Te Lord scatters those

who delight in war.”

Tis is why my countrymen, the inhabitants o the Harz Mountains, have a saying: “I have truly heard that he whostrikes will be struck in return. Why is this so? BecauseGod rules the world with great might and does not allow injustice to go unpunished.”

He who does injustice, unless he repents and satises

his neighbor, will receive his punishment as surely as helives. I think Müntzer and his peasants should also haveto coness this.





Suce it to say, that waging war is not right, even be-tween equals, unless it is a situation in which the conscience

can say: “My neighbor orces and pushes me to war. I wouldrather not do it.”In this case, war is not only called war, but also duti-

ul protection and sel-deense. When it comes to war, adistinction must be made. Unnecessary wars are started by

whim or desire simply with an order to attack. Other warsbecome a necessity ater an attack has been made.

Te rst may be called a war o delight, the other a waro necessity. Te rst is thedevil’s war and may Godgrant it no success. Te sec-ond is a human calamity andmay God be here o help.

Authorities be warned: Be wary o war unless it is todeend and protect or the responsibilities o your oce[i.e. alliances and treaties] necessitate war. I you must goto war, have at it and hit hard. Be courageous and prove

your mettle.

1. According to history, who usually loses a war?

2. What is worldly authority instituted by God to do?

3. What is the work o the sword?

4. What does God do to those who delight in war?

5. Is sel-deense an honest reason to ght?

The frst may be called a

war o delight, the other

a war o necessity.



6

6. How are unnecessary wars started?

. I wars must be waged, how should they be conducted?




1

10a war is more than simPly words

a w ar Is more than sImPly w ords

War is war and cannot be o words alone. I such werethe case, a given situation would become so convoluted that

the angry, spiteul, and arrogant hotheads who are as toughas nails would become so weak that they would not be ableto cut through butter when war nally began.

Ater all, every ruler is duty-bound to protect those underhis authority and maintain peace. Tat is his work. For thispurpose a ruler bears the sword, Rom. 13:4.

Tis is also to be his conscience on which he relies. Aterall, he should be certain that such work is right beore Godand commanded by him.




With these comments I am not teaching Christians what to do. We Christians have nothing to do with your

government. Instead, we serve you and tell you what youare to do beore God in your own government.A Christian is his own person. He believes or himsel

and or no one else. Yet a ruler is not a person or himsel,but or others. He is to serve them, that is, to protect anddeend them.

Yes it would be good i a ruler were also a Christian andbelieved in God. Ten he would be truly happy. Yet to be aChristian is not a requirement o government. Tis is why it must be that so ew rulers are Christians, as the sayinggoes: A ruler is a rare thing in heaven.

Now, even i they are not Christians, rulers nonethelessought to act justly according to God’s outward order. God

requires this o them.However, whenever a ruler does not ulll the duties o

his oce, and thinks that he is an authority not or the sakeo those under him, but becauseo his good looks (as i God hadmade him a ruler so that he might

rejoice in his power, wealth, andhonor, and having his delight andcondence in them, grow to rely onthem), this man belongs among the

heathen. In act, he is a ool.Such a ruler would start a war on account o a discarded

candy wrapper. He would think about nothing except hisown desires.

God opposes such a ruler with other rulers who also

Even i they are not

Christians, rulers

nonetheless ought

to act justly



3

have weapons and other peoples outside o the borders o the country o that ruler. Tis is how one sword keeps the

other in check.A reasonable ruler, however, does not use his positionor his own desires. It is enough or such a ruler that hissubjects are obedient.

When his enemies or neighborsring or knock, taunting with many evil words, he remembers that thereare always more oolish men than wise. Many words doindeed t in a sack. Silence is oten the best reply.

A good ruler does not care much about words until hesees that his subjects are attacked, or about to be attacked.At that point he deends as many as he can, should, andmust.

On the other hand, the ruler who is such a weaklingthat he eels he must reply to every word spoken is simply looking or a reason to go to war. Tat ruler truly tries tocatch the wind with his coat. Yet as or the peace and pros-perity such a ruler gains rom this course o action, let hehimsel describe. Ten you will truly learn whether such a

war is benecial.

1. For what purpose does a ruler bear the sword?

2. How does a Christian relate to the government o the

world?

3. Does a Christian believe or anyone besides himsel?

4. Must a member o the government be a Christian?

a w ar Is more than sImPly w ords

Silence is oten

the best reply




5. Can non-Christian rulers act unjustly?

6. Should a ruler use his position or his own desires?

. When does a good ruler begin to care about words?



5

11 Just Cause does not guarantee viCtory

J ust c ause does n ot guarantee v Ictory

Another point must also be remembered. When you arecertain and sure that you yoursel are not beginning a war,

but are being orced to wage war, you must nonethelessear God and keep him beore your eyes.

Do not think this way: “I have been orced into it. I havea good reason to go to war.” I you would think this way, you

would rely on such reasoning alone and recklessly plungeinto war. Tis is not how it should be.

It is true: You have a just cause or war and a good reasonto deend yoursel. But this does not mean that you have acertied letter rom God guaranteeing your victory.




In act, even though your cause or war is just, your spite-ul condence alone should bring about your deeat. Ater

all, God cannot endure any pride or spite that is withouthumility and ear o him.God is pleased when

we do not ear man andthe devil, when we arebold and deiant, when

we are courageous andunyielding against them, when they begin and are in the

wrong. Yet it simply is not true that our possession o such won-

derul attributes guarantees victory. Rather, God wants tobe eared and wants to hear a song like this sung withinour heart:

“Dear Lord, my God, you see that I must wage war,although I’d rather not. Yet I do not base my con-dence on my just cause, but on your grace and mercy.For I know that i I deantly relied on a just cause youshould justly let me all as one who would justly all,because I rely on my right, and not on your mere grace

and goodness.” What did the Gentiles, that is, the Greeks and Romans,

who did not know anything about the ear o God, think about this? Tey believed that they alone were the ones

who waged war and won the victory.However, by experience—when a great, well-armed army

was deeated by a handul o barely armed men—they learned, and conessed reely, that there is nothing moredangerous in war than being overly condent. Tis is why

God cannot endure any

pride or spite that is without

humility and ear o him.



they concluded that one should never underestimate theenemy, regardless o how ew he may be.

A soldier should also not overlook any detail o guardduty, watchulness, and being alert: Regardless o how insignicant it may be. All such things can prove to be as

valuable as gold.Foolish, arrogant and careless people do not contribute

anything to war except deeat. Te heathen considered thephrase, non putassem, “I did not mean to do it,” to be themost shameul expression o a soldier. It indicated a cocky,deant, careless person who, in a single moment, destroyedmore with one step or one word than could be undone by an entire company o soldiers. Aterwards, o course, he

would say: “I did not mean to do it.”Hannibal routed the Romans as long as they remained

deant and arrogant. Other historical accounts demonstratethe same principle. It can still be observed today.

Well, the heathen experienced this and learned rom it. Tey were, however, unable to discover any cause or reasonor it except assigning it all to the god Fortune, who they then eared.

However, as I said, the real reason and cause is that God wants to have attested in and through all such historicalevents that he is to be eared. In such matters God cannotand will not endure any deance, contempt, presumption,and arrogance, until we learn to receive everything we

want and ought to have by pure grace and mercy rom his

hands alone. Tis is why it is a remarkable thing: A soldier who has

just cause ought to be both courageous and disheartened at





the same time. How can a soldier ght being so disheart-ened? Well, the problem is that i he ghts undauntedly,

he is also in grave danger. his is what a soldier should do. Beore God, heshould be disheartened,earul, and humble. Tesoldier should commendthe matter to God, sothat God might work itout, not according to ourright, but according to his

goodness and grace. In this way, God is won beorehandby a humble, earul heart.

Against the enemy, however, a soldier ought to be bold,ree, and deant. Te enemy is, ater all, in the wrong.

Tis is how a soldier is to deeat the enemy with a deant,condent heart.

For why should we not treat our God like the Romans,the greatest warriors that ever lived, treated their idol, For-tune, which they eared? When the Romans did not do so,they ought at great risk or were beaten very badly.

Let’s conclude simply with this: Waging war against anequal should: 1) Be something which is orced; and 2) Oc-cur with the ear o God. ‘Something which is orced’ meansthat a war begins because an enemy or neighbor attacks,and even though you are ready to go to court, negotiate,orge an agreement, and are willing to endure slander and

malice, he still wishes to have at it.O course this advice is only or those who want to do

the right thing beore God. I really can do nothing or those

A soldier who has just cause

ought to be both courageous

and disheartened at the

same time.



who do not want to do, and accept, what is right.‘Fear o God’ means that a person does not rely on the

justness o his cause. Tat does not mean, however, that weshould cease to be careul, diligent and cautious in even themost unimportant matters.

It must also be remembered: God’s hand is not somehow bound. It could just be that he might command us to wage

war against those who have not given us cause—as he com-manded the children o Israel war against the Canaanites.God’s command was necessity enough to wage war.

Even this kind o war, however, should not be waged without ear and caution. As God shows in Josh. 7:1 .,the children o Israel overcondently attacked the city o Ai and were soundly deeated.

Te same kind o necessity exists when citizens ght

because they are told to do so by the authorities. God, aterall, commands us to obey the authorities. His command-ment is a necessity.

Only everything is to be done in ear and humility. We will treat this below more extensively.

1. Should a soldier rely solely on just cause to guarantee

victory?

2. On what should a soldier’s condence be based?

3. What is the most dangerous aspect o war?

4. What do oolish, arrogant and careless people contrib-

ute to war?





5. How can a soldier be both courageous and disheart-

ened at the same time?

6. What are the two essentials o waging war against anequal?




Again, such an action must be undertaken with the earo God and without reliance upon the justness o the cause.

Otherwise, it could just be that God punishes the authori-ties by means o their subjects, even though the rebelliono the subjects is unjust. As was noted above, this happensrequently.

Being right and doingright do not always gohand in hand. Actually,they never go hand in handunless God grants it.

So even though it is right that a citizen sits still, suerseverything and does not rebel, it is not in man’s powers tomake him do so. God has, ater all, established the citizenas an individual person and has taken the sword away rom

him as such an individual and locked it up. Yet i a citizenbands together with other citizens, riots, breaks loose andtakes the sword, he is liable o judgment and death beoreGod.

A ruler is also an individual person. A ruler, however,does not receive the obedience o those under him and the

sword or himsel alone. When a ruler, or example, appeals to the authority over

him as his superior, then he is no longer an authority him-sel, but an individual person, obeying his higher authority like every other individual under him. Yet when that sameruler addresses those under him as his subjects, then that

ruler is just as many individual persons, as many heads, ashe has beneath him and are obedient to him.

In the same way, when a ruler who has no other gov-

Being right and doing

right do not always go

hand in hand.



3

ernmental authority over him on earth turns to God, thatperson is not a ruler but an individual person, as everybody

else is beore God. Yet when that ruler turns to his subjects, then he is a ruler or as many times as he has subjectsbeneath him.

All other authorities must be understood in the same way. When they appeal to authorities above them, they them-selves have no authority and are divested o all authority.

When they address those below them, however, they areadorned with all authority.

In such a way, all authority ends with God, whose aloneit is. It is God who is president, senator, general, ocer,soldier, policeman, judge, and everything. He distributesthese oces o authority as he wills to be exercised in rela-tion to those governed. At the same time he cancels them

in relation to himsel.No individual person ought to oppose the community

or gather the community to himsel. I he would do sucha thing, he would indeed be “chopping at wood above him”and surely “get chips in his eyes”!

And rom this you see how people “resist God’s order who

strive against the authority,” as St. Paul teaches, Rom. 13:2.And accordingly he says, 1Cor. 15:24, “that God willcancel all authority,” whenhe will rule himsel and turneverything to him.

Tat’s enough about the three parts o the question as to which wars should be waged, and which should not.

m ay an authorIty w age w ar agaInst t hose u nder I t ?

You see how people resist

God’s order who strive

against the authority.




1. Is “being right” and “doing right” the same thing?

2. When do “being right” and “doing right” go hand in

hand?

3. What does it mean that “the sword had been taken

away rom an individual citizen?”

4. When is a ruler an individual person? When is he not?

5. With whom does all authority end?

6. What does it mean to “chop at wood above”?



5

13may a soldier Justly earn

a salary and Benefits?

m ay a soldIer J ustly e arn a s alary and beneFIts?

No authority or ruler can wage war by himsel. He musthave an army to serve him or this purpose.

He also cannot administer justice and the law by himsel.He must have councilors, judges, lawyers, jailers, execution-ers, and whatever else pertains to the courts o law.

So the question is raised: Is it right to be hired by agovernmental authority to serve it when the times requireas is now customary? o provide an answer we make a

distinction between various servants o war.First o all, there are those who are required to assist

the government with body and possessions and to obey its




commands—in particular members o the armed orces.Now, St. John the Baptist, Luke 3:13, conrmed that

these servants o war rightly earn their salaries and benetsand do right in helping the government to wage war andserve as they should. When the soldiers asked John whatthey should do, he replied: “Be content with your wages.”

I their wages were unjust or their employment as sol-diers contrary to the will o God, John the Baptist wouldneither have permitted nor conrmed it. Rather, as a godly,Christian teacher John would have chastised the soldiersand prevented them rom continuing in their service.

Tis is my reply to those who rom an uninormedconscience allege that it is dangerous to work or a sal-ary at a job which consists in nothing else than sheddingblood, killing, and inicting all kinds o suering on one’s

neighbor, as war demands. Such people are to instruct theirconsciences in the ollowing manner: Soldiers do not ullltheir duties out o brashness, delight, or aversion.

What soldiers do is God’s work. Tey owe it to theirgovernment and to God to carry it out. In that it is a good

work, ordered by God, a soldier ought to receive his due in

salary and benets, as Christ says, Matt. 10:10: “A workeris worth his wages.”

Still it is true: I one serves in the military with a heartand mind that seeks and thinks o nothing but acquiring

wealth; i wealth is the soldier’s only motivation to the pointthat he does not gladly welcome peacetime; i a soldier

is sad because there is no war—this man certainly goesbeyond what is good and is the devil’s; even i he waged

war out o obedience to the call o his government. Why?



Tat soldier makes an evil work out o a good work. He does

not care as much about servingin obedience and out o duty asenriching himsel.

Tis is why such a soldier does not have a good con-science. Tis soldier could not say: “I would gladly stay home, but because my government demands and requiresme to go, I go in God’s name and know that I serve God by doing so and will accept the wages given me in return.”

A soldier should have a conscience that is certain thathe serves God as a soldier. Such a soldier should be ableto say: “I mysel am not shooting, stabbing and killing, butGod and my government, whose servants now my handsand body are, are doing so.”

his is what the cry in battle means: “Here is theEmperor,” “Here is France,” “Here is Lüneburg,” “Hereis Brunswick.” Tis is also how the Jews cried againstthe Midianites, Jdg. 7:20: “Here is God’s and Gideon’ssword.”

Te greed o a person spoils all other good works, as or

example, when a person preaches the gospel or the sake o wealth. He also is lost, although Christ says, Matt. 10:10,Luke 10:7, 1 Cor. 9:14: “a preacher is to get his living romthe gospel.”

o do something or wealth is not evil. Wages, pay andinterest, ater all, are also wealth. I it were not so, no one

would do anything. Ultimately all such things are done orthe sake o wealth.

But to be greedy or wealth and to make a Mammon out

m ay a soldIer J ustly e arn a s alary and beneFIts?

That soldier makes

an evil work out o a

good work.




o it is in all oces and work unjust. Let go o greed andother evil ideas. Ten serving as a soldier will not be sinul.

For your work accept your wages and whatever benets aregiven you. Tis is why I said at the beginning o this book that the work o a soldier in itsel is right and godly. But

when a soldier is unjust or does not serve rightly, then his work as a soldier also becomes unjust.

1. Can an authority wage war by itsel?

2. How did John the Baptist treat the soldiers who came to

him?

3. Do soldiers do God’s work?

4. How does a soldier make an evil work out o a goodone?

5. O what should the soldier’s conscience be certain?

6. What should such a soldier be able to say?

. What makes the work o a soldier just or unjust?



14what aBout a soldier’s honor

in an unJust war?

w hat about a soldIer’ s h onor In an u nJust w ar?

Another question is this: “What i my government wages war wrongly?” Answer: I you know or certain that your

government is in the wrong, then you should ear and obey God more than men, Acts 5:29. You should not go to warand serve, or there you cannot have a good consciencebeore God.

You say: “Ok, but my government orces me to serve.It will take my reedom rom me and send me to prison.

What is more, I would be despised and humiliated beorethe world. I would also be considered a coward, and anungrateul citizen who abandons his country in its time



1

greedy or wealth are both orms o greed, the one beingas unjust as the other. Whoever goes into battle with such

a mindset, battles himsel into hell.Honor is to be let and given to God alone. We should becontent with wages and ood. Tis is why it is unchristianto exhort soldiers beore battle in this way: “Fellow soldiers,be alert and condent! oday, God willing, we will becomerich and amous!”

Rather, in this way one ought to admonish them:“Fellow soldiers. We are here because it is our duty toserve and obey our government. We owe such serviceaccording to God’s will and order to aid our country

with our strengths and abilities. Even though we aresinners beore God like our enemies!”“But because we know (or at least do not know other-

wise) that our government is in the right in this case, which makes us certain and sure that we serve God insuch service and obedience, let each o you be earlessand alert! Do not think anything else than that yourhand is God’s hand, your weapon is God’s weapon,and cry with heart and mouth: ‘Here is God and our

country!’”“Should God give us victory, then let God be honoredand praised, and not us. God, ater all, triumphs by means o us poor sinners. Wages and benets, however,

we will accept as something given us unworthy menrom his divine goodness and grace as a git and thank

him or it wholeheartedly. Now may God grant it, ando with rejoicing!”

Without a doubt where one seeks God’s honor and leaves

w hat about a soldIer’ s h onor In an u nJust w ar?




the matter to him, as it is only right to do in war, there willbe more honor than one could ever seek. God has promised,

1 Sam. 2:30: “Whoever honors me I will honor in return;but whoever dishonors me I will dishonor in return…”According to such promises God cannot help it. He must

honor those who honor him.One o the worst sins is to

seek one’s own honor. o doso is to do nothing other thanto steal divine majesty.

Let others boast and seek honor. You remain obedientand silent. Your honor will not be orgotten.

Many a war was lost that could have been won, had vainglory permitted it. Honor-greedy soldiers do not believethat God is present in war and gives victory.

Tis is why they also do not ear God, are not joyul,but rather impudent and mad. In the end they go downto deeat.

1. Who should be eared more: God or man?

2. What must the Christian risk or God’s sake?

3. Can a government be orsaken or God’s sake?

4. What i a soldier cannot determine whether or not a war

is just?

5. Is greed or ame the same as greed or wealth?

6. To whom is honor to be let and given?

One o the worst sins is to

seek one’s own honor.



3

15how does a Christian soldier

PrePare for Battle?

Equally as troubling are soldiers who distract themselves,and let themselves be distracted beore battle by thinking

about their lovers. Such soldiers let themselves be told:“Tink about your lovers!”.

Had I not heard rom two veterans that this actually takes place, I would have never believed it. How can man’sheart be so orgetul and ippant in such a serious business,

when the danger o death is beore him?

o be sure, no civilian does this when struggling withdeath! But here, among ellow soldiers one distracts theother in such away, so that no one considers what is at stake

h ow does a c hrIstIan soldIer P rePare For b attle ?




or everyone involved. Yet it is terrible to think that a Christian heart in the

hour when it prepares or God’s judgment and the dangero death, gladdens and comorts itsel rst and oremost with carnal love. Tose who are killed or die in this statesend their souls directly and immediately to hell.

“Well,” such soldiers respond, “i I had to think o hell I would never go to war!” Tat one should maliciously eraseGod and his judgment rom his mind, not wanting to know,think, or hear anything o it, is even more terrible!

Tis is why most soldiers belong to the devil. Many areso lled with demons that they do not know how to show their joy in any other way than to speak disrespectully o God and his judgment. It’s as i swearing, torturing, curs-ing, and deying God in heaven makes them tough as nails!

Such soldiers are a lost bunch and cha, just as there ismuch cha and little grain in all other lines o work.

Consequently, it may not be well beore God with themercenaries who run blindly through the world seeking

wars. Tey could be at work and make a living until they are called to duty. Instead they simply waste time out o

laziness or their rude, wild nature.Such mercenaries cannot give any good reason or good

excuse beore God or their way o lie. All that they haveis a rash desire or brashness or war or or leading a reeand wild lie. Living in such a way some o them will inthe end simply become criminals.

Yet i they took up work or a crat and earned their bread,as God has commanded and imposed on all people, untiltheir government called them up or service or permitted



5

and allowed them to serve someone else, then they couldawaken with a good conscience. Tey then would know

that in what they did they served at the pleasure o theirgovernment. Such a good conscience they could not haveotherwise.

Tat God the Almighty does a great avor or us by es-tablishing authorities as external markers and signs o his

will should be a comort and joy to the entire world. Tisalone is a powerul reason to love and honor authorities.

We are certain that we please God’s divine will and dothe right thing whenever we do what the authorities wantand wish. For God has attached and tied his word and his

will to them, when he says, Matt. 22:21: “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s,” and Rom. 13:1: “Let each be subject tothe authority.”

Finally, soldiers entertain many superstitions in battle.One commends himsel to St. George, the other to St.Christopher, one to this, the other to that saint.

Some are able to enchant iron and int. Others blesshorse and rider. Others carry with them a copy o the Gos-pel o St. John or something else on which they rely.

All such soldiers are in a dangerous situation. Tey donot believe in God, but rather sin against God with unbelie and alse belie. I they died, they should also be lost.

Tis is what soldiers are to do instead. When a battlebegins and the admonition mentioned about above hasbeen given, one simply ought to commend onesel to

God’s grace and behave in this matter now as a Christian.For the previous admonition oers merely the manner in

which one should carry out the external work o war in





good conscience.However, because no good work saves, ater such ad-

monition each soldier himsel ought to speak in this way,either to himsel, or out loud: “Heavenly Father,I am here according to your divine will in this external

work and service to my government. I owe it rst to youand then to the government or your sake. I thank youor your grace and mercy that you have placed me in such

work where I am certain that it is not sin, but right, and inpleasing obedience to your will.”

“Yet because I know and have learned rom your grace-lled word that not one o our good works may help us, andno one can be saved as a soldier, but only as a Christian, I do

not at all want to rely on my obedience and work. Rather,I want to work and obey reely to serve your will.”

And I believe wholeheartedly that I am redeemed andsaved only by the innocent blood o your dear Son, our Lord

Jesus Christ, which he obediently shed or me accordingto your gracious will.

On this I stand. On this I live and die. On this I ghtand do everything.

Dear Father, keep and strengthen me in this aith by your Spirit. Amen.”

I you wish, you may then say the Apostles’ Creed and

the Lord’s Prayer. Ten it is enough.In such a way commend your body and soul into God’s

hands. Ten take up your weapon and ght hard in God’s



name.I there were many such soldiers in an army, who do you

think could do anything to them? Tey might well devourthe entire world without ring their weapons once.I think i nine or ten o such soldiers in a single unit

could say this with a true heart, it would be better than allguns, knives, vehicles, and armor.

So bring on the enemy with all his might. Christianaith is no shameul or petty matter. As Christ says in thegospel, Mark 9:23, it can do all things.

Yet where are those who believe this way and are able todo this? Still, even i most do not do it, we must teach itand know it or the sake o those, however ew they mightbe, who will do it.

God’s word does not proceed in vain, says Isaiah, chapter

55:11. It still brings some to God. Te others who despise the wholesome doctrine unto

their salvation have their Judge to whom they must answer. We are absolved and have done our duty.

1. Why should a Christian love and honor authorities?

2. Do we please God when we obey the authorities?

3. What should a soldier do when battle begins?

4. Is a soldier saved by being a soldier, or by being a Chris-

tian?5. Should a Christian ght as a soldier to his utmost?




afterword

aFterword

Luther’s Book and Its Current Relevance

Martin Luther wrote this book–explicitly dedicated to es-

tablishing what is morally right and wrong, according to God’s word, in this world–as a pastor and ather-conessor, that is, asone charged with caring or souls and counseling consciences.In this capacity, not as a person who in his leisure writes in agenerally pleasing way about various topics, Luther had beenapproached by a group o proessional soldiers in 1525 whenthe new prince-elector o Saxony (John the Steadast (1468-1532), who had succeeded his brother, Frederick the Wise(1463-1525)), visited Wittenberg or the rst time. Beingplagued by pangs o conscience due to their proession, thesemen asked Luther to address the question as to whether, and

when, a Christian could, in good conscience, take up the sword.Luther, in the opening paragraphs o this treatise reers readers

back to his 1523 booklet on government, emporal Authority:o What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (AE 45:81 .),1 in which hehad shown that the exercise o political authority is a good work commanded by God. Tereore legitimate wars, as one orm o the exercise o political authority, are good works o love selessly serving the neighbor, despite their cruel outward circumstances

with which Luther and his contemporaries were extremely a-

miliar. Tereore, Christians may, in good conscience, hold the1 AE = Luther’s Works, American Edition, ed. by Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut . Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, and Philadelphia: FortressPress, 1955 .).




vocations o rulers and soldiers. Tis position would be armedas biblical in Article XVI o the Augsburg Conession (1530) andits Apology (1531).2

In this work rom 1526, the Reormer turns more attentionto the question o which wars are good or just wars, and which

wars are not—in other words: Which wars are in agreement with God’s law? Te question o resisting legitimate politicalauthority is obviously eatured prominently due to the specichistorical situation that will be addressed below. Luther alsoocuses, corresponding to his opening praise o equity, on thequestion o how, with what kind o heart, a Christian may saely engage in a legitimate war—in other words: How is God’slaw truly kept? Luther arrives at this answer: First, only warsbetween equals (sovereigns) are just wars—and this only whenthey are waged to deend the physical lives and possessions o one’s subjects and when they are entered into with great reluc-tance, that is, ater enduring much provocation and even anactual attack.3 Second, only those whose heart believes, neitherin the justness o their cause nor in supposedly protective reli-

2 Interestingly, the author o these two Lutheran statements o aith, Philip Mel-anchthon (1497-1560), seems to have held at rst that Christians should not beengaged in these particular vocations. See Luther’s 1521 letter critical o his associate’sposition in this matter (AE 48:258-262).

3 Luther, thus, was by no means a “hawk.” He would express an analogous thought aew years later when stating what keeps a political community together on the inside:In his 1530 Sermon on Keeping Children in School , the Reormer states that the seculargovernment–“a glorious ordinance and splendid git o God, who has instituted andestablished it and will have it maintained as something men cannot do without” (or without it, we would become “wild beasts” ater the all)–established by God to protecthis created gits to man, is maintained primarily, albeit not exclusively, by wisdomin the orm o laws, not by orce o arms: “the laws are indeed the true armor and weapons which maintain and protect land and people, yes, the empire and worldly

government itsel, … and pious jurists are the true knights who deend the emperorand the princes” (AE 46:237., 245). Tis is the context or Luther’s remarks in hisLarge Catechism on the Fourth Petition o the Lord’s Prayer (LC III, 73-75), whichhe penned in the previous year, 1529. Luther would agree: “Te pen is mightier thanthe sword” (E. Bulwer-Lyton, Richelieu or Te Conspiracy, 1839).



101

gious paraphernalia or practices, but in Christ’s righteousnessalone, are engaged in battle in a manner that is spiritually sae.

While they are humble, even desperate, towards God, they are,

in keeping with their vocation in this world, bold and ercetoward their enemies. Christians are thus not generally timid“door mats;” in relation to their ellow men, they behave in ac-cordance with their vocation.

In other words, the vocation o soldier is no dierent thanother godly vocations: On the one hand, no work is good thatis not in agreement with God’s moral law. On the other hand,good works do not make a person good, but a person who is goodby aith in Christ does truly good works. Not just the bloody

work o war, but any work done without aith in the gospel, is amortal sin (Rom. 14:23), even i it externally agrees with God’slaw. Tis is the “program” o Luther’s On Christian Liberty (inthis Lutheran-Press series: How to Live a Christian Lie ) now applied to the concrete vocation o soldier.

Because o the broad scope o Luther’s text, we have decidedto alter the title o the book that, e.g., in the American Edition o Luther’s works is called Whether Soldiers, too, Can Be Saved (AE 46:93.). Te new title, Christians Can Be Soldiers, seeks toreect this scope, as the book is not just or soldiers but or allChristians and, as Luther points out requently, or Christians

only: It is intended only or those who wish to heed God’s Word and not blindly ollow amous historical precedent attheir conscience’s and soul’s peril.

We today live about 500 years ater Luther. History teachesus about many a revolution and rebellion in the years since Lu-ther, including the American Revolution o 1776, the FrenchRevolution o 1789, the Russian Revolution o 1917, the Cuban

Revolution o the 1950s, and various “liberation struggles” incountries on the Arican and Asian continents in the wake o 20th-century decolonization. History and present-day experi-ence also teach us about wars that, while not necessarily more

aFterword




cruel than the mostly up-close killing that took place in the16th century, have become more ecient and distanced at thesame time, even with global nuclear annihilation being out o

the picture or the time being. Te push o a button thousandso miles away wipes out human lives by means o the missile o an unmanned aerial vehicle, the “kill” being documented in realtime by the drone’s camera. And history also teaches us aboutlying, tyrannical, warmongering governments that, in their ma-nipulative ways, lead their subjects to become mass-executionerso the politically, economically, or racially stigmatized innocent:

Tink o 20th-century events in urkey, the Soviet Union, Ger-many, China, Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Sudan.

Many are thereore the churches and Christians who, today,side with certain voices emerging at Luther’s time—otenreerred to as “historic peace churches” (i.e., the Hutterites,Mennonites, and Quakers)—and cannot imagine that war

waged by a legitimate government could ever be a good work o love.4 “Revolutionary” wars, on the other hand, are at timeszealously deended. Warm admiration is oten extended to Ger-man Lutheran theologian Dietrich Bonhoeer (1906-1945) andhis participation in a conspiracy to kill the tyrant Adol Hitlerand replace his government to prove the point that Lutherans,

4 Most recently, the leader o the Protestant Church in Germany (EKD) and bishopo the largest Lutheran territorial church there, Margot Käßmann, spoke out againsta German participation in the war in Aghanistan and, in act, against all war. In a January 03, 2010 interview with the newspaper Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung , shestated: “For me, war is not justiable. And everything that has been said about ittheologically – e.g., that civilians are not to be involved – reinorces that a justicationis impossible. War always brings violence, destruction, rape in its wake. Te churcheshave said ater 1948: War must not exist or God’s sake. Tere can only be just peace.”

She here reers to a resolution o a committee o the World Council o Churches atits rst meeting in Amsterdam in 1948 that has since become the mantra o modernChristian pacism. In Luther’s judgment, she, xated on the cruelty o the thing,looks at war with the eyes o one who is spiritually immature and raises grave doubtsin the consciences o the soldiers under her care.



103

contrary to Calvinistic calumnies, are not “quietists.”5 Onealso has a hard time understanding that the properly recruited

warrior, engaged in a legitimate war, is not only the extension

o his government on the battleeld, but also a tool in God’shand as He governs His world among believers and unbeliev-ers alike and, seeking His glory rst and last, merciully grants

victory to whom He wills. Likewise, Luther’s high praise orall legitimate government as a good institution and git o theCreator, even as a marker and indicator o God’s will or us,many will want to lay aside as an overly uncritical relic o apast, unenlightened authoritarian era o human development,

5 U. Siemon Netto, in his deense o Bonhoeer, points to Luther’s amous saying “sinboldly,” indicating that Bonhoeer, despite his attempts at theological rationalization,still considered the murder even o a tyrant a sin (c. Te Fabricated Luther: Reuting

Nazi Connections and Other Modern Myths, 2nd ed. (St. Louis: CPH, 2007), 88.).Luther’s words, contained in the conclusion o a 1521 letter to Melanchthon romhis exile at Wartburg Castle (AE 48:277-282), historically have oered ammunition

to Catholic polemicists that seek to paint the Reormer as morally lax, even thoughLuther here, as elsewhere, merely spoke, as W. H. . Dau points out, against “morbidsel-incrimination,” not or unapologetic sinning (Luther Examined and Re-Examined:

A Review o Catholic Criticism and a Plea or Revaluation (1917, republished: ed-dington, Middlesex: Echo Library, 2007), 93-95). Tis was also Bonhoeer’s view in his 1937 Te Cost o Discipleship, tr. R. H. Fuller (New York: ouchstone, 1995,51-53): “Sin boldly” must not be taken as an ethical premise or principle but as agracious “conclusion.” However, in his resistance years, Bonhoeer seems to haveembraced the notion that, in exceptional cases, the breaking o the law (“sinning

boldly”) has to be consciously and deliberately done to restore law and order (c. his1943 “Ater en Years,” Dietrich Bonhoeer,Letter and Papers rom Prison (New York: ouchstone, 1997), 10.). In his ragmentary Ethics, written between 1940 and 1943,he advocates a “willingness to take on guilt” in loving service o the neighbor (c. C. J. Green, “Editor’s Introduction,” Dietrich Bonhoeer Works (Minneapolis: AugsburgFortress, 2005), 6:13.). However, is this still the teaching o Luther (see also Rom.3:8)? o be sure, Luther was amiliar with the proverb: “Necessity knows no law,”meaning that laws may be broken in emergency situations, but, as ar as I can see,he never applied it to justiy “armed resistance” to tyrants or to bring about some

better state o aairs in general. In act, the concrete laws that should be broken innecessity, according to Luther, do not have the same standing as the law o naturebut were o an ecclesiastical or evangelical character (see AE 31:114; 36:255, 260;40:18). And while Luther did characterize war as an “evil,” this evil was clearly notan absolute, moral evil.

aFterword




especially since the Vietnam War and its extensive and continu-ing political allout.

It seems we today not only have seen it all, we have also seen

it all go to pieces. Luther’s stance seems naïve at best, cynicaland dangerous at worst. We are disappointed by the “powersthat be.” As Christians, we might still speak piously o “holy”matrimony in keeping with modern religion’s private nature, but“holy” government? Well, no, that’s a bit too much even or themost conservative among us, especially or those who think that“the government is the problem.” And “holy” war? Please!

Why should we give Luther a hearing despite all this? First,considered on a purely military level, soldiers can relate toLuther’s surprising knowledge o and warm appreciation or themilitary proession. Tis includes its necessities o attention todetail and careul preparation, the absence o which, combined

with overcondence, can easily let victory slip through one’sngers. Yet this also includes taking seriously the soldier’s ear o dying or getting seriously wounded in battle. Luther here oersa potent antidote that is centered on the Christian’s justicationby grace through aith in Christ alone and that is, thereore,spiritually ar superior to the warrior’s sel-made protectionsand distractions.

Second, the view o just war as a continuation o law en-

orcement and punishment o evil doers, held by Luther andothers, has gained a new acceptance in the last couple o de-cades as one o the lessons learned rom the Vietnam War thatare now being put into practice, e.g., in the wars in Iraq andAghanistan. Te point o war is not to kill as many people aspossible—without the distinction between combatants and non-



105

combatants required by the classic doctrine o just war6—which was the philosophy that still drove the carpet bombing raidsin Indochina that proved ruitul only in swelling the ranks o

those ghting against the South Vietnamese government andits US allies. Rather, the point o intelligent warare, o moderncounterinsurgency strategies, is to identiy careully, and theneliminate, the ew bad apples that can incite a whole popula-tion to resistance while “winning the hearts and minds” o theremainder o the populace, including even enemies ghters, withsocial, economic, and political support programs.7

Tird, turning now to the theological level, parting ways withLuther at this junction leaves the world and its history (anduture) strangely devoid o concrete instances o the presenceo God the Creator, as i he had, like in Epicurean philosophy,retired to some otherworldly realm o perpetual bliss. Seek-ing reuge in some utopian,8 inherently unspecic attempt toestablish God’s kingdom o perpetual peace and perect justiceon earth is no real consolation prize or this loss since it ailedalready during Luther’s lietime, namely, at Tomas Müntzer’sdeeat at Frankenhausen in May 1525.

6 Te demand that just wars had to be waged, not only by a legitimate politicalauthority and or just reasons, but also in a just manner led, e.g., John Gerhard toreject the use o bombards, not only because they caused the end o true military

virtue, but, chiey, because they work mass destruction o men and buildings (c. loc. XIV, para. 423). What appears quaint, at best, when the objective o warare is massdestruction and collective punishment, seems rather prudent and timely when theobjective is basically judicious law enorcement.7 See, e.g., H. J. Poole, equila Junction: 4th-Generation Counterinsurgency (EmeraldIsland, NC: Posterity Press, 2008). C. also H. J. Poole, actics o the Crescent Moon:

Militant Muslim Combat Methods (Emerald Island, NC: Posterity Press, 2004),228: “Noncombatants made little strategic dierence in the conventional wars o

the 20th Century, but they make a tremendous dierence in the unconventional or4th-generation wars o the 21st.”8 In 1516, Tomas More (1478-1535) published a amous book in Latin by the title,On the Best State o a Republic and on the New Island o Utopia, in which he describedhis social and political ideals.

aFterword



10

displayed in the writing at hand? One can again only point toLuther’s trust in God and his unchanging promises in his Word(First Commandment): He will punish the wicked and deend

his people, that is, those who sincerely believe Christ’s gospel;he will continue to give good physical things to the good andthe evil, including good government and just war; he will do thisevery day anew, not rom some ar-away Epicurean heaven butas the ever-present almighty Creator o the world. And he isconcretely present and specically at work in this world behindand through the masks o allible human beings placed in the

various vocations and “holy orders” instituted and preserved by him, including the government and its military.

It is as i the Christian’s daily return to baptism makes himnew in repentance and aith, also in that it lets him againsee God’s creaturely gits, not in light o man’s constant andunsurprising abuse and ailure, but in light o God’s gracious

Word and ever-surprising promise and preservation. Properly relating to all o these gits o God—without alling prey tochronic despair, mistrust, cynicism, or blind enthusiasm—thusstarts again with baptism, every day anew. Tis is true or one’sspouse in holy matrimony as well as or one’s superiors in holy government, holy economy, and holy church. In other words, asstated above, only keeping the First Commandment rom the

heart truly leads to keeping the Fourth Commandment.In summary, Luther oers to the Christian a conscientiouscompass along a “third way” when it comes to war. Luther dis-tinguishes clearly between which kind o war is and which kindis not in agreement with God’s Word. He sees its legitimateorm as a necessary and God-given “evil” to prevent a greaterphysical evil. Te Reormer does not shun it completely like

aFterword




pacists old and new. He also does not gloriy it like FriedrichNietzsche (1844-1900) in Tus Spoke Zarathustra10 who saw in

war the necessary, desirable means to end mankind’s current

state o weakness and bring about the Übermensch, the super-man, who unapologetically cares about himsel and no one else.11 Both Nietzsche and the pacists agree in disconnecting rom

war the God who became man in Jesus o Nazareth. Tis ataldisconnection we do not see in Luther. Tis might just makeLuther a teacher that is worth our study and consideration ata time such as this.

Luther on Armed Resistance to the Government

Ten and Now

Some remarks on the concrete historical situation o thetreatise at hand are in order. Tese not only explain why Luther’streatment o rebellion takes up a major part o his 1526 work.

Tey will also shed light on modern attempts to contemporizeLuther’s position.

Martin Luther wrote this booklet in 1526, the year ater theend o the German Peasants’ War that had come to a head inMay 1525 in the Battle o Frankenhausen, Turingia. Tere the

10

Copies o Nietzsche’s book were handed out to German soldiers in WW I, along with the New estament and J. W. von Goethe’s Faust : Christ, and Antichrist in onepackage, so to speak. C. S. Aschheim, Te Nietzsche Legacy in Germany, 1890-1990(Berkeley, CA: Univ. o Cali. Press, 1994), 135.11 Tis, and his disdain or the state expressed in the same work, makes him into oneo the oreathers o modern Libertarianism, as, e.g., H. L. Menken was an admirero Nietzsche’s “thought and values” and Ayn Rand was inuenced by the “heroicideals” expressed in his thinking, c. R. Hamowy (ed.),Te Encyclopedia o Libertarian-ism (Tousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2008), 324, 355., 413. – Hitler, on the other hand,

did not have much (positive) to say about Nietzsche. Leading Nazi philosopher, A.Bäumler, to be sure, praised Nietzsche’s “heroic” will to power, but he appropriatedhim only with “enormous distortions o Nietzsche’s ideological substance,” e.g., hisindividualism, his contempt or anti-Semitism, his condemnation o Christianity ingeneral and Luther in particular (c. Steigmann-Gall, Te Holy Reich, 105., 111.).



10

peasants were deeated and Tomas Müntzer (ca. 1488 – 27May 1525), one o their leaders, was captured and soon killed.

Tis rebellion, centered in Southwest Germany, Switzerland,

and Austria, was one o several such movements at the end o the middle ages and the beginning o the early modern age. It

was preceded, in roughly the same area, by the Bundschuh-move-ment, active between 1493 and 1517, which used the customary ootwear o the peasant, the tied shoe, as the symbol o theiruprising. Although the Peasants’ War, like many o its predeces-sors, was triggered by excessive taxation, it was not the poorestarmers that were at its oreront. Rather, it was the local villageleaders, such as mayors and judges, who led the way, incitingtheir poorer neighbors to join them. An era o economic andsocial change, the same period witnessed the rise o the monetary economy and the growing importance o cities. Tese develop-ments undermined traditional eudalism, e.g., by giving rise tomercenary armies. Consequently they occurred at the expenseo the petty nobility who, in reaction, resorted to the practice o euding and looting (and also leveling excessive taxes), makingthem the original robber barons.

Luther had been drawn into the German Peasants’ Warbecause—as his detractors were quick to point out—its leadersseemed to be in agreement with his work o reorm, in particular

with one o its early catchwords o “liberty” (esp. Luther’s 1520treatise On Christian Liberty). Te rst o the 1525 welve Ar-ticles o the Swabian peasants,12 or example, declared it a righto a congregation to elect its own pastor to preach the gospel, aright championed also by Luther himsel (AE 39:305.). Ad-ditionally, Luther’s early supporter and ormer ellow proessorat Wittenberg, Andrew Karlstadt (ca. 1480-1541), had himsel

been active in violent activities as early as 1521/22, when heled the Wittenberg iconoclasm that orced Luther to return to

12 An English translation o these articles is ound in AE 46:8-16.

aFterword




that city rom his hiding place at the Wartburg Castle. Lutherresponded to Karlstadt’s actions in 1522 with his A Sincere

Admonition by Martin Luther to all Christians to Guard against

Insurrection and Rebellion (AE 45:57.), his Eight Sermons at Wittenberg (AE 51:70.), and, in 1523, his treatise on empo-ral Authority: o what Extent It Should Be Obeyed , mentionedabove. Te events leading up to the Peasants’ War o 1525 alsoprompted Luther to reply directly to the welve Articles with his

Admonition to Peace: A Reply to the welve Articles o the Peasantsin Swabia (AE 46:17.) rom 1525 and was ollowed by urtherpertinent treatises by Luther.

Given that the times were characterized by unrest and strieseemingly provoked by Luther’s reormation writings, it is notsurprising that answering the question o whether a Christianhas the right to rebel against unjust superiors takes up a majorportion o the work which has been translated in this volume.

Te act that Luther had already answered this question in thenegative in earlier works had exposed him to serious criticismrom supposed allies as a spineless lackey o the princes. Lutherresponded by noting that, on the one hand, “subject” is meantto include not just peasants and townsolk, but also dissatisednobility and princes in their relation to the emperor. On theother hand, Luther—ater having taken the nobility to task

already in his 1525 writing in reply to the welve Articles o the peasants, aulting them and their luxurious lie or drivingtheir peasants to rebel (see AE 46:19.)—sharply criticizesthe princes and other members o the nobility who, in theirgreedy and sel-righteous victors’ justice, ailed to exercise the

virtue o equity, or airness, as they indiscriminately prosecutedparticipants in the peasants’ insurrection.

Here, as elsewhere, Luther, ollowing Aristotle and otherancient political philosophers, speaks highly o equity as themistress o the law. It is equity that considers the heart o theaccused instead o blindly applying the law in all its indiscrimi-



111

nate harshness merely to his actions. It appears then that, in thisgracious virtue o wise judges and rulers known as ‘equity,’ Lutherhad ound the closest political correspondence to God’s grace

that, against the just accusation o the law, justies the heartthat believes in Christ as its sole Savior rom the law.

Luther’s characterization as a blind supporter o the power-ul—in modern times he has been credited with paving the way in Germany or Hitler and National Socialism13—also ails tobe accurate or another reason, namely, his scriptural belie inGod as the nal Lord o all human lords (1 im. 6:15) and nalavenger o all injustice (Rom. 12:19).

While Luther in this context emphasizes, rst o all, thatthose who wish to be Christians should not rebel against theirunjust superiors, rom the outset he acknowledges that thereare indeed unjust superiors in matters o war and peace who, onaccount o their impenitent temporal injustice, will oreit theirsoul’s eternal salvation. Obviously then, according to Luther,might is not automatically right. I man’s orders conict withGod’s Word, Christians are called to obey God rather than man

13 For leading National Socialists—be they Protestant, Catholic, or Neo-Pa-gan—Luther was important as a “nationalist and antisemitic hero,” according to R.Steigmann-Gall’s study Te Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions o Christianity, 1919-1945(Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005), 84. Especially powerul, chiey on theside o Lutheran theologians and party leaders, proved the notion o “created orders”

that, in the orm promoted at the time, originated in the 19th century (38.). Teproblem here is not the assertion o such “created orders”—including marriage andthe state—as such, but the assertion o an absolute autonomy o these orders (“Ei-gengesetzlichkeit”). Tis notion denies the act that, due to man’s loss o the imageo God in the all, even our ability to know God’s moral will rom creation has beendamaged along with creation and its order themselves. Simply put, the way things areis not the way they ought to be. See the brie discussion in A. Pawlas, Die lutherische Berus- und Wirtschatsethik: Eine Einührung (Neuenkirchen: Neuenkirchener Verlag,2000), 67-72. o remedy this in part, God had to reveal the natural law again in the

orm o the en Commandments given to Moses on Mt. Sinai (c. Solus Decalogus Est Aeternus: Martin Luther’s Complete Antinomian Teses and Disputations (Minneapolis:Lutheran Press, 2008), 186-189, 216., 320.; John Gerhard, Loci theologici , loc. XII,para. 26). Luther’s treatise at hand clearly shows that he did not endorse such absolutemoral autonomy or sel-evidence o creation’s orders.

aFterword




(Acts 5:29, see Luke 14:26), even i this, as a concrete instanceo ollowing Christ, means condemnation and cross-bearing inthis lie, in addition to “breaking” the Fourth Commandment.

Yet this is how the First able o the en Commandments(nos. 1-3), mandating love o God, “governs” the Second able(nos. 4-10) that is about love o the neighbor (see AE 6:29.;45:277).

Moreover, Luther provides examples rom history dem-onstrating that God has many tools at his disposal to bringa tyrant’s lie to a quick end. Christian subjects thereore cancondently leave all such things to God’s direction, not becausethey do not care about injustice committed by their superiors,but because they believe in Him who is the living Author andeternal Guardian o all law and justice. Without consideringthis transcendent, metaphysical anchor and reerence o thelegal order—which, it needs to be emphasized, in Luther is by no means a dead, static philosophical abstraction but the livingGod himsel who is actively present in his creation—Lutherindeed must be misunderstood as a naïve political amateur and

willing puppet in the hands o the mighty.It is here, then, that the First Commandment intersects

with the Fourth. Without the heart’s ear, love, and trust inGod, ulllment o the Fourth Commandment—as well as

any other o the en Commandments—is impossible, as Lu-ther demonstrates so masterully in the exposition o the enCommandments in the Small Catechism by introducing eachby “We should ear and love God, so that we …” Not only willthe keeping o this law be mere heartless moralism—the com-mandment is thus already broken by an impenitent heart rom

within. It will also not even be ullled outwardly: ime and

again, the unbeliever will take recourse to his own rebelliousactions to thwart a seemingly out-o-control government, asthe possibility o God’s relieving action in history is not evengiven a thought.



113

Some today, in an attempt to improve on the Reormer’sdeense against the accusation o being one-sidedly or themighty and powerul, detect a change in his attitude to resisting

the unjust use o authority, that is, tyranny. Te claim is madethat Luther later endorsed “active, armed resistance to the em-peror;”14 that he later “explicitly sanctions armed resistance tothe monarch.”15 Much is made o Luther’s Warning to his Dear German People (AE 47:11.) which rst appeared in 1531. Isthe scope o this writing the endorsing o “armed resistance” as aspecic orm o “political activism” and “sel-deense,” as already Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560) held ater Luther’s death?16

o arrive at an answer, one need not resort to reading betweenthe lines. Luther says quite openly what he at that time taughtin these matters (AE 47:13):

… we wrote and taught so emphatically not to resort to rebellion,

but to suer the madness even o tyrants, and not to deend onesel.Tis is what I teach, but I cannot create the doers o this teaching,since they esteem so little all the other articles o our teaching. I now the masses should reject our teaching against rebellion, espe-cially i they were provoked by such a godless outrage and wantonwar, then the devil would make real ools o them and expose themvery nicely and neatly.

Tis is certainly a more or less veiled threat against those

14 Tis view is held, e.g., by M. Bertram in his 1971 “Introduction” to his translationo the Warning , AE 47:6. According to Bertram, Luther articulates his new positionin a rather veiled way.15 U. Siemon Netto, Te Fabricated Luther , 90. In his work, this thesis not only serves to deend Luther against modern critics who nd “political activism” only in

Calvin and his ollowers (91.) but also seeks to deend Dietrich Bonhoeer and hisparticipation in a plot to kill Hitler as aithul to Luther’s own views (89, 96.). As anaside that is interesting and perhaps not coincidental, the secondary works reerencedby Siemon Netto in this part o his book were all published around 1970.16 See St. Louis ed., 10:534.

aFterword




who play with the re o waging war against the Lutherans. Yet this kind o threat against tyrants who wage an unjust waro aggression was not new to Luther. It can already be ound in

the work at hand written ve years earlier. According to Luther,he could teach the masses, but he could not control them. Suchobedience lies in God’s hands. At times, God grants obedienceto his Word but at times uses a rebellious mob to punish tyrants,as could be seen in the peasants’ rebellion o the early 1520s.

In other words, Luther’s main point is this: While the book with a similar title rom 1522 warned all Christians to guardagainst participating in insurrection in general, the Warning o 1531 called on all Germans not to ollow a possible sum-mons by the emperor to rise up and rebel against the princesand lands who had adopted Lutheranism, especially since theImperial Diet meeting in the city o Augsburg had agreed thattheir doctrine was biblically sound (AE 47:30):

Tis is my sincere advice: I the emperor should issue a call to armsagainst us on behal o the pope or because o our teaching, as the

papists at present horribly gloat and boast—though I do not yet expect this o the emperor—no one should lend himsel to it or obey the emperor in this event. All may rest assured that God hasstrictly orbidden compliance with such a command o the emperor.

Whoever does obey him can be certain that he is disobedient toGod and will lose both body and soul eternally in the war. For inthis case the emperor would not only act in contravention o God and divine law but also in violation o his own imperial law,vow, duty, seal, and edicts.

Again, the main point o the work rom 1531 is to dissuade

potential soldiers rom joining the emperor in an unjust war. Tis was no new idea, having already been asserted in the work at hand in 1526. Acts 5:29 is quoted in both instances (c. AE47:54).



115

In light o pertinent writings by Luther rom the 1530s,two other items stand out in this brie quote in relation to thequestion o resistance to the government: First, the emperor is

here described as an agent o the pope. Second, i the emperor were to go orward with this war, he would be in violation o hisrealm’s own positive law 17 and his own vows, presumably thosemade when he became emperor.

As to the rst item, the emperor unctions as a mere pawn inthe army o the pope and his, as Luther called them in his 1531Warning , “bloodhounds.” Te theses or a 1539 disputation onMatth. 19:21 assert: I the legitimate secular authority, out o its own volition, would persecute one or the sake o the gospel,one would have to leave earthly possessions and lie undeended.

Yet i the pope, who is no legitimate authority at all—“neither abishop nor a heretic; neither a prince nor a tyrant(!)”—would doso, then it would be necessary to band together to resist him andhis secular allies by all means.18 Accordingly, these were Luther’slast words on the matter in the Warning o 1531 (AE 47:55):

I testiy here again that I do not wish to incite or spur anyone towar or rebellion or even sel-deense, but solely to peace. But i the

papists—our devil—reuse to keep the peace and, impenitentlyraging against the Holy Spirit with their persistent abominations,

insist on war, and thereby get their heads bloodied or even perish, I want to witness publicly here that this was not my doing, nor

17 “Positive law” is a technical term that, in distinction rom the law o nature or o God, denotes a law given by man.18 St. Louis ed., 10:580-583, theses 36-70 (Weimar Edition o Luther’s Works(WA), vol. 39/I:41-43). Even in the case o the pope Luther, thus, does not advocate“tyrannicide,” the killing o tyrants: Being a dual-natured werewol, the soul-destroy-

ing antichrist, killing him would be killing the devil incarnate (WA 39/I:60.). Tisechoes what Luther wrote nine years earlier, just beore the Augsburg Diet o 1530in a letter to Elector John (AE 49:278): I the emperor himsel were to attack theLutheran princes and their subjects due to their conession o aith, the princes shouldnot resist him. Ten each should deend his aith or himsel.

aFterword




did I give any cause or it. It is they who want to have it that way. May their blood be on their heads! I am exonerated; I have done my duty aithully. Henceorth I shall let Him judge who

will, must, and also is able to do so. He will not tarry, nor will he ail.

Tis puts into proper context what Luther wrote in the sametract on sel-deense: He does not wish to oer a general justi-cation o the practice, but a justication or the case when anillegitimate authority, such as the pope and his “bloodhounds,”is to be resisted along with its associates (AE 47:19):

I will direct them in this matter to the law and to the jurists.For in such an instance, when the murderers and bloodhoundswish to wage war and to murder, it is in truth no insurrectionto rise against them and deend onesel. Not that I wish to incite

or spur anyone on to such sel-deense, or to justiy it, or that isnot my ofce; much less does it devolve on me to pass judgment or sentence on him. A Christian knows very well what he is todo—namely, to render to God the things that are God’s and toCaesar the things that are Caesar’s [Matt. 22:21], but not torender to the bloodhounds the things that are not theirs. I want tomake a distinction between sedition and other acts and to deprive

the bloodhounds o the pretext o boasting that they are warring against rebellious people and that they were justied according toboth human and divine law.

On the second issue, that o positive law, it needs to be pointedout that while Luther lived in the age o eudalism, and notdemocracy, he did agree, in his 1526 booklet at hand, that rulers

should govern according to the law o both man and God. Com-menting on a constitutional arrangement in France, accordingto which the king would oreit his right to rule i he broke theagreement, Luther again does not endorse the mob’s sel-justice.



11

However, i another ruler would be the (neutral) judge, thenan impeachment o a sitting sovereign could be initiated. Temodern constitutional theory o a separation, limitation and

oversight o powers in dierent coequal branches o a singlegovernment, it appears, would be a urther development o

what Luther, based on the positive law o his time, envisioned,by involving another sovereign state’s head who alone had theGod-given (i.e. the natural law’s) authority to judge a ellow sovereign. In this way, the old legal maxim that no one ought to

judge his own case was preserved by the Reormer.19 In act, inlater statements on the issue, Luther recognizes that based onthe constitution o the Holy Roman Empire the seven electors

were the equals o the emperor. Tey were, thereore, somethinglike a second branch o the government.20

Luther’s antipathy against mob-rule was not his alone butshared by many ancient and contemporary political philoso-phers, e.g., Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527). It was also sharedby ramers o the American constitution, e.g., the Federalists,

who were well aware that democracy can easily degenerate intomob-rule. Tis is why they, most notably James Madison (1751-1836) in Federalist No. 10 , advocated a more stable representative,not a more volatile direct orm o democracy. Tis representativedemocracy they called a republican orm o government. Lu-

ther’s observations remain timely or those advocating “regimechange,” also by means o war: Merely changing a governmentis easy. Actually improving it is an entirely dierent matter.

In later writings Luther urther developed the notion thatpositive law might allow or “resistance” where natural and divinelaws do not.21 In a letter to Lazarus Spengler rom 1531 Luther

19 C. P. J. Malysz, “ Nemo iudex in causa sua as the Basis o Law, Justice, and Justica-tion in Luther’s Tought,” Harvard Teological Review 100 (2007), esp. 374-377.20 See note 26 below.21 o be sure, the so-called Fourth Opinion o the Wittenberg Teologians on Resistance

aFterword




draws on what jurists had recently pointed out, namely, that ac-cording to the positive law o the empire resistance against theemperor is legitimate and mandated when he acts in an openly

unjust manner. I this is indeed what the positive law calls or,Luther states, then one has to respect this and act accordingly,based on Matth. 22:21: “Render to Caesar the things that areCaesar’s.”22 Ater all, as is conessed in the Apology o the Augsburg Conession (XVI, 3), the gospel does not establish new positivelaws but calls or obedience to the existing ones.23 By way o extension, one could then also say this about voting, term limitso presidents, etc. according to modern constitutions: Voting isnot orbidden resistance but a legitimate rendering o Caesar’sthings to him.

(see note 27), not unlike the Tird Opinion (St. Louis ed., 562-567), asserts thatnatural law itsel abrogates duties between subject and superior in the case o thelatter’s openly unjust, extra-ocial violence. Does this represent a change in Luther’sattitude? For Luther, the en Commandments are the best expression o the law o nature (c. AE 40:98; LC II, 67), the Fourth Commandment obviously urgingobedience, not resistance. On the other hand, Melanchthon believed and taught thatsel-deense against unjust rulers is part o nature’s law (see his preace rom the late1540s to a 1530 writing on the issue by Luther, St. Louis ed., 10:532-534, where healso reerences Luther’s 1531 Warning , seemingly to support his own view). It thusseems that, while Luther is the cosigner o these opinions, Melanchthon seems tohave been their (lead-) author (see K. Aland, Hilsbuch zum Lutherstudium, 4th ed.(Bieleeld: Luther Verlag, 1996), 79, no. 238: “Author Melanchthon.”) O course,in Siemon Netto’s argument in deense o Bonhoeer, natural law should play an

important role because the positive law o the Tird Reich—unlike that o the Holy Roman Empire—very likely did not allow or armed resistance by lower, relatively independent magistrates against the Führer i he ailed to deend the poor (e.g.,the Jews) or the true religion (i.e., Lutheranism). However, Siemon Netto does notdevelop this point.22 C. AE 50:10. (St. Louis ed., 10:570-573), see also AE 49:276. In this letter, just like in the abovementioned Warning rom the same year, Luther again pointsout that his duty as a theologian is simply to point to what is biblically sure: Te

emperor is to be obeyed. What the positive laws allow or do not allow alls withinthe domain o the lawyers and jurists which the gospel conrms.23 In his 1530 letter to Elector John he had still maintained that, even i the positivelaw o a state would allow or resistance to an unjust emperor, Christian leaders andsubjects may not take advantage o this concession (AE 49:274.).



11

Tus, to sum up the ndings so ar, one can say that, or Lu-ther, resistance to one’s superior is possible and even necessary i that superior acts on behal o an actual illegitimate authority,

e.g., the pope, or i he is ound in open, persistent violation o the positively recognized duties and bounds o his oce. Whois to be the agent o this resistance? Just about anyone who eelspassionately about a certain issue? A quote rom Luther’s 1531Warning answers this question (AE 47:34.):

I do not wish to advise or incite anyone to engage in war. Myardent wish and plea is that peace be preserved and that neither side start a war or give cause or it. For I do not want my conscience burdened, nor do I want to be known beore God or the world as having counseled or desired anyone to wage war or to oer resistance except those who are enjoined and authorized to do so(Romans 13). But wherever the devil has so completely possessed

the papists that they cannot and will not keep or tolerate peace,or where they absolutely want to wage war or provoke it, that will rest upon their conscience. Tere is nothing I can do about it,since my remonstrances are ignored and utile.

wo points can be learned rom this excerpt: First o all, asseen already in other quotes rom this writing, Luther’s oce as

preacher and teacher o God’s Word does not allow him to beengaged in inciting a general rebellion against those placed inauthority. Tis is consistent with his earlier claims that naturaland divine laws, both o which he is charged to teach, do notallow or this kind o resistance, while the law o the realm, thedomain o lawyers, does. Secondly, the reerence to “those whoare enjoined and authorized to do so” sheds interesting light

on the whole treatise: While Luther’s main purpose is to urgepeace and to warn individual Christians in Germany not to jointhe unjust war eort o the emperor “possessed” by the pope by giving him their bodies and physical possessions or this purpose,

aFterword




he regards the political authorities below the emperor—and notrandom groups o well-intentioned “Christians”—as those whohave the duty and authority to resist.

o be sure, this is not totally new in comparison to the book-let o 1526 that authorized war between two sovereign rulersor the purpose o deending one’s subjects ater much verbalabuse had been endured and an attack had indeed already takenplace.24 And this was indeed the situation o the Lutherans, asLuther saw it by 1531: Tey held their peace above and beyond

what could be expected o them. I they were now attacked,they would have every right, and even the duty, to deend whatGod gave them to deend. What is dierent rom the writingo 1526,25 however, is that in the tract o 1531 princes are au-thorized deensively to resist the emperor, who, in a sense, wastheir superior, i and when he, as was eared at the time, wouldstart a war against the Lutherans, while in the earlier tract suchresistance was not seen as legitimate because it was not betweentwo equals.26

Tere is, thereore, some change to be observed in Lutherthat is largely due to a greater knowledge and appreciation o the importance o the empire’s pertinent positive laws, as dem-onstrated above. Tis, thus, should not be misunderstood as anearly example o “situational ethics.” Ater all, the “situation” or

those to whom Rom. 13 did not apply as political authoritiesremained unchanged: Do not resist. What had changed was

24 And an attack, according to the Fourth Opinion (see notes 21, 27), has already taken place as soon as an imperial ban, as a “declaration o war,” has been issued.25 And the 1530 letter to Elector John the Steadast, reerenced above (see note23).26 Based on the concrete positive law o the German Empire, Luther in 1539

describes the seven electors as the equals and parts o the emperor (WA 39/I:77.;St. Louis ed., 19:1961). I they, thereore, resisted him in a legitimate cause, then it would be a war against their equal. According to this assessment o the legal reali-ties o the German Empire, there is no undamental change in Luther’s argumentbetween 1526 and 1539 at all.



121

how those who could rightly claim to be political authoritiesconstituted and described in Rom. 13, and protected by theFourth Commandment, were correlated by Luther, and the

duties that resulted rom this new correlation. Tis position is also reected the so-called Fourth Opinion o

the Wittenberg Teologians on Resistance rom the late 1530s:27 Lawul authorities have not only the right but also the duty todeend their subjects against unjust violence—even when per-petrated by superior authorities—that is, violence that is againstthe God-given duty o those superiors to deend the poor andthe one true religion. For in that case, those superiors would beacting outside o their oce, that is, as private individuals.28

o summarize the ndings, there is a change in Luther’sposition on active, armed resistance to the government roman absolute No to a modied No. Tis means that, in keeping

with the Fourth Commandment, obedience, not resistance, isand remains the overarching moral rule in this area. Te modi-cation o the No is due to Luther’s evaluation o the papacy as a physically and spiritually destructive agent without any legitimate authority and due to his growing appreciation o theimportance o the concrete secular positive legal order.29

27 St. Louis ed., 10:566-569. Te Wittenberg theologians signing it were Luther, Justus Jonas, Martin Bucer, and Melanchthon, the latter being its author (see note

21).28 Tis is also the position set orth and deended by early 17th-century Lutherandogmatician John Gerhard in his Teological Commonplaces (loc. XIV, para. 484-488):He denies that subjects have the right to depose an evil magistrate but arms theright o lower magistrates to resist a tyrant by orce o arms because he sees themas being not simply subjects but also authorities in the sense o Rom. 13. He baseshis armation on, among other things, general natural and concrete positive laws.As an aside, Gerhard seems to have believed Luther to be the (main) author o the

Opinion cited above.29 Te position o the Roman Catholic Church on armed resistance is, based mostrecently on the 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio by Paul VI, summarized by theCatechism o the Catholic Church (para. 2243) as ollows: “Armed resistance to op-pression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the ollowing conditions

aFterword




Tese actors are to be taken into consideration when lookingor Luther’s “blessing” or armed resistance to the government.Especially, one may not disregard the concrete political order

to postulate a general right o resistance. For this is where thepaths between genuine Lutherans and Calvinists seem to part:

While the ormer, including the Magdeburg theologians dur-ing the Augsburg Interim (1547), argued based on the specicpolitical constitution o the German Empire with the dualpower centers o emperor and relatively independent nobility,the latter (notably, Teodore Beza (1519-1605)) disregardedpositive law and postulated an inherent right to resistance, e.g.,in France, where a dierent constitution, one tending more to-

ward absolute monarchy was in place, thus developing a generaltheory o resistance.30

Te ranslator

are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation o undamental rights; 2)all other means o redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provokedisorder; 4) there is well-ounded hope o success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to oresee any better solution.” In other words, the doctrine o just war is applied tointernal conicts (c. para. 2309), signicantly under the duties o citizens, withoutany regard or the diverse political orders under which these citizens as memberso a global church body might live. Here lies an important dierence between theLutheran and the Catholic teaching on this matter.30 C. “Lic. Ströbel’s Darstellung der lutherischen Lehre von der Obrigkeit der

calvinischen gegenüber,” Lehre und Wehre 10 (1864): 263-274, esp. 268-272. By constructing the genealogy o armed resistance rom Luther via Magdeburg toBeza the “Calvinist” way, Siemon Netto, Te Fabricated Luther , 93-96, omits thisimportant distinction. While Beza did reer to the “inerior magistrates” in quot-ing rom Magdeburg theologians (see D. M. Whitord, yranny and Resistance: Te

Magdeburg Conession and the Lutheran radition (St. Louis: CPH, 2001), 99), wasthat reerence based on the actual positive law applicable to him and his intendedaudience? It appears that Beza’s general theory o resistance did not need the posi-tive law o his country. It relied on his theory o the government as a “covenant”

between the governed and the governing in a theocratic context (c. Whitord,yranny, 100.). Could it, thereore, be that Bonhoeer, while seemingly reerringback to Magdeburg’s genuine Lutheranism (c. Whitord, yranny, 103, pointingto Siemon Netto’s work), was, under Karl Barth’s inuence, in act merely reachingGeneva’s spin on Magdeburg?



notes



is a non-prot corporation established topublish and promote the theology o MartinLuther. Although many o Luther’s worksare already available to the general public,

their publication as part o collected workseditions has prevented them rom being widely disseminated. O special interestto Lutheran Press are the smaller topical

works o Luther that continue to address the

Christian Church today, but nonetheless,remain efectively unknown. Te missiono Lutheran Press is to make such worksavailable on the internet ree o charge andby mail at a minimal cost, with proceeds

used to publish additional works.

o learn more about Lutheran Press or toorder any o our books please contact us at:

w w w . l u t h e r a n p r e s s . c o m

Lutheran Press

Lutheran Press, Inc.7835 Monroe Street NEMinneapolis, MN 55432




Place your order now by mail or online at

ConviCtedB y

the Spirit

Martin Luther’s treatment o Jesus’ last wordsto his disciples beore his crucixion ( John 16)gives a precise overview o the all-encompassing work o the Holy Spirit in the Christian lie.Formatted into 16 simple chapters along

with study questions, this 112 page book isperect or personal devotion or Bible study.

Adapted romMartin Luther’sPostil 235

John 16:8-13



howto LiveA

ChriStiAnLife

Luther’s short work as you have never readit beore! Newly rephrased into bite-sizedsentences, and recast into 16 short chapters with study questions, this revised and expanded2nd edition is perect or personal devotion

and Bible study use. A great introduction toLutheran theology and practice.

Adapted romMartin Luther’sOn Christian Freedom






DIDM Y

B APTISM

COUNT?

Te great reormer Martin Luther addressesinant baptism and rebaptism in this short work —reshly translated rom German intomodern English—and in the process outlinesthe basics o baptism. It is a must read or any-

one contemplating their own rebaptism or thebaptism o an inant. Formatted into 14 simplechapters along with study questions, this 88page book is perect or personal devotion orBible study.

Adapted romMartin Luther’sLetter to wo PastorsConcerning Rebaptism




Heavenly Father,

I am here according to your divine will in this external work and service to my government. I owe it rst to you and then to the government or your sake. I thank

you or your grace and mercy that you have placed mein such work where I am certain that it is not sin, butright, and in pleasing obedience to your will.

Yet because I know and have learned rom your grace-lled word that not one o our good works may help

us, and no one can be saved as a soldier, but only as aChristian, I do not at all want to rely on my obedienceand work. Rather, I want to work and obey reely toserve your will.

luther’s soldier’s Prayer

Christians Can Be Soldiers

Documents

Transcript of Christians Can Be Soldiers