1. interpretation Who the prophet Micah
from Luther's lectures compiled by M. Veit Dietrich. *)
These lectures are finished April 7, 1525; printed 1542.
Newly translated from the Latin.
[Veit Dietrich's] preface.
Veit Dietrich, preacher of the church at Nuremberg, wishes salvation to the reverend, highly learned and godly Mr. Nicolaus Amsdorf, bishop of the church at Naumburg in Thuringia.
As often as I think of the government of the Church, I have in mind the exceedingly lovely picture with which the Son of God depicts His ministry and His servants, telling the story of the Samaritan who himself cares for the man wounded and half-dead by the murderers, and brings him to the inn and commands that he be cared for [Luc. 10:30 ff].
For human nature has fallen among the most horrible murderers, by whom it is cruelly wounded and robbed. And the priest and the Levite passed by the one who was on the way, that is, the nature that was overcome by terrible misfortune, that is, the teachers of the Mosaic law and human wisdom brought no help to the human race.
But Christ the stranger comes: he raises the half-dead, washes the wounds with wine and pours in the most healing oil. And after he has laid the heavy burden of our guilt on his body, he brings the sick to him.
*) This interpretation can also be traced back to the lectures Luther gave on the Minor Prophets in the years 1524 to 1526. Materially, it is much closer to the Altenburg manuscript than was the case with Dietrich's treatments of the prophets Joel, Amos and Obadiah, but formally it deviates much further from it, for this Commentary is almost three times stronger than the aforementioned manuscript; "but it becomes so only in that the editor adds long discussions (on the opern eleetiein of the monsedi, polemics against the Pabstthum) similar to 1536, but even more frequent. Luther's explanations are embellished with classical citations and a wealth of biblical examples. For the real textual explanation of Micah, nothing new is added beyond the material offered by the Altenburg manuscript" (Weim. Ausg., vol. XIII, p. XXVI). The time when Luther finished the lectures, namely April 7, 1525, is given at the end of the Altenburg manuscript. Before Dietrich submitted his edition to the printer, he presented it to Luther for inspection, who also declared himself satisfied with it. Dietrich's preface, in the form of a letter to Nicolaus Amsdorf, Bishop of Naumburg, was written by Melanchthon for him, as we can see from a letter from Melanchthon to Veit Dietrich (6orp. Rek. IV, 908), dated December 4, 1542. The first edition, which appeared in Wittenberg, has the title: Eornrnentarius in AUeimrn propkstaln, eollsetus sx praslsetionidus ksvsrsn. katris I). Älsr. Imtü. nune prirnum in luaem eckitus per M. Vituln Düeoäoruln, Eonelonatorern XorlnderKen. 1542. WittederZue. At the end: imprint Wittern derZae spit Vitum Ereut^er. ^nno, N.V.XHI. Under a similar title, another edition was published in 1543 in Basel by Bartholomäus Westh, and a third edition in 1546 in Frankfurt. In the collections: in the Latin Wittenberg (1552), tom. IV, col. 563d (after the original edition); in the Jena one (1570), tom. IV, col. 5291" (after the Basel edition); and in the Erlanger, exe^. opp., torn. XXVI, p. 237. This writing was translated into German by N. Stephan Reich, and appeared in Königsberg in 1555 in quarto. This translation is included in the Wittenberg edition (1556), vol. VIII, p. 445d; then transferred to the Altenburg, vol. VIII, p. 67; to the Leipzig, vol. VIII, p. 348 and Walch, vol. VI, 2700. Dietrich's preface is found only in the Latin Wittenberg edition. It was translated into German only for the Leipzig edition by Ä. I. I. Greifs for the Leipzig edition and then included by Walch. We present a new translation of this preface according to the Wittenberg edition, and of the text itself according to the Erlangen edition, which reproduces the original print, comparing the Wittenberg and Jena editions.
into the inn, that is, into the church, and commands the household, that is, the teachers of the Gospel, to take care of the healing. What can be thought more lovely than to contemplate the benevolence of the Son of God towards the human race, expressed in this image?
But again, when I turn my eyes to the inn and see that everything is full of terrible diseases, and the cure is difficult and dangerous, the doctors quite unequal: then I truly tremble in my whole body. Of such a nature have we, who are now teaching the churches, delivered Germany to be healed, which truly suffers from the most dreadful diseases.
For, to say nothing of the vices of individual people, how great are the obstacles to healing: the tyranny of those who are hostile to the Gospel; the epicuric contempt of the true religion among the people; the false accusations of godless teachers, as of Eck, Pyghius and similar people, who scare the hearts of the inexperienced away from the pure doctrine; the courageous will of good heads in the clergy, who do not cease to cloud the clear springs of the Gospel, which resounds in our churches. Meanwhile, we are in truth, as Christ says, a small flock; what can we do in healing, that is, with exhortation and teaching? If we consult human reasoning, we few, despised and weak people cannot resist the rage of so many.
But I am strengthened in our ministry by the Son of God, who has almost always ruled this His shelter in the same way through the weak. "God chose," as St. Paul [1 Cor. 1, 27.] says, "what is weak in the sight of the world, that He might put to shame what is strong." Therefore, we are not to leave our post. For the Son of God Himself also promises that He will stand by us. He says [Matth. 28, 20.]: "I am with you until the end of the world."
But still, some times are happier and calmer than others. At times the world has had godly princes who helped to spread the right doctrine, as Constantinus and Theodosius. Now not only the barbarian Turk is waging war against the name of Christ, but also many kings, pretending to be Christians, are raging against Christ's members, seeking to suppress and extinguish the pure light of the Gospel.
In ancient times, the bishops were the leaders of the rest of the preachers, who by their erudition and prestige ensured the unity of the people.
of those who taught rightly. Now the bishops, who are satellites of the Roman pope, not only do not help to take care of the godly in the inn of Christ, but they themselves practice robbery, defend the most shameful and obviously blasphemous errors, the idolatries that are practiced in the invocation of the saints and in the desecration of the Holy Communion, excessive debauchery and many obviously nonsensical things, and kill the godly who teach better.
This is not concealed and cannot be excused in any way by honorable people, unless the unreasonable reason is given that it is not proper for wise and worldly-wise people to start quarrels with their fellow citizens and to deviate from what the powerful generally agree on. This worldly wisdom may have its place elsewhere, but it cannot strengthen blasphemous errors. For we have another rule in the church which commands this [Gal. 1:8]: "If an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel, let him be accursed. Let him be forsaken and accursed, and let him flee away, as the scum that defends idolatries, and makes war against the first commandment, "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt."
Therefore, we should not only abandon such bishops, the enemies of Christ, but also curse them as evil-doers, tainted with idolatry and murder of the godly. But if there are some in this crowd who want to be healed, we exhort them to separate themselves from the opinions and advice of others and to begin to give glory to Christ and to care for their salvation and that of the churches. Would God that godly princes would also purify the monasteries and appoint capable bishops over them. For this service they undoubtedly owe to God, as it is written [Ps. 24, 7. Vulg.]: "You princes, open your gates wide and the doors of the world high, so that the King of honor may enter."
Since I had heard that you, venerable bishop, had been commanded to hold this office of government, which you now administer, I could not but approve of this example. I know that you are far from ambition, and that both out of a natural disposition for restraint and because you are already tired through old age and hard work, you love peace and quiet, and because of your own you are more likely to give way to others than to quarrel with anyone.
This too, that you have taken upon yourself a burdensome burden and spitefulness. But I praise your heart that you have decided for the sake of the church to undergo these difficulties rather than to concede this position to another who is an enemy of the pure teaching of the gospel. If the other princes want to advise their churches in truth, they will eventually have to follow this example.
For in what your adversaries bring forward of the canonical election, they do deceitfulness with words. For so many centuries there has been no canonical election, but these benefices have passed from hand to hand either by the candidacy of princes or by the collaboration of powerful people, or have been bought at Rome, with contemptuous setting aside of the old and new canons. But no consideration at all was given to Christian doctrine and to the government, which actually belongs to the church. What I am telling you here is so obvious that no one, no matter how incomprehensible and impudent he may be, can deny it. Would that God would restore to the churches the canonical right to vote, which belongs not only to one class, but to the learned, honorable and godly people of all classes.
Now the churches are oppressed by the foundations through tyranny. Even though there are some good men in them, they are surpassed in number and audacity by the wicked. Therefore, the other estates should assist the good, so that the glory of Christ might be promoted and the salvation of men advised. But wisdom is set aside, and violence is used, especially in this trade.
The adversaries evidently see that in what concerns election they obey neither old nor new laws, but are determined to retain by force the possession of power and good life, seeing that they would be thrust out of the same if they were bound by the old laws of election.
I am often displeased that we are accused of disregarding the canons, since we follow the prescriptions of the ancient and useful canons more than the adversaries. They set divine and human laws according to their arbitrariness and abolish them again. Yes, as it is said of Solon's tables of laws in the Athenian Comedy, öñýãõõóé χάγχρυς ταΐς χυρβησι they roast flour with the tables of laws lighted. Thus our adversaries before this time have most brazenly destroyed the monuments of right ecclesiastical antiquity. Where are the ancient writers who were
has entrusted to the monasteries for preservation? What can be more dissimilar than the old monasteries, which consisted of learned and godly people, and the present cooperatives of knights, who now hold wild revelries in the most prestigious monasteries.
That you are now commanded to govern there, I believe that you have acted godly and rightly in it, and I ask God to give your advice success in all the improvements you intend to make. Visitations will have to be made in the neighboring churches, godly and learned pastors will have to be procured, courts will have to be established, discipline will have to be introduced, scientific studies will have to be promoted, and poor students will have to be supported. I know that you lack neither good counsel nor the will to carry this out. Therefore, I ask that God promote your very laudable efforts.
But it is useful for the churches that we, who teach the gospel, bear witness to the people of our agreement; therefore I have now gladly written to you to declare that I am united with your church in mind, heart and will.
Then, because I have always loved you for your righteousness and for your skill in judgment, I have wanted to indicate my constant devotion to you through this preface, and to publish the lectures (dictata) on the prophet Micah by the highly famous and excellent man D. Martin Luther, our teacher, whom I rightly honor as a father, under the prefix of your name. However, I have sent them to him beforehand for his perusal. For I believe that these interpretations will also be useful for the church's descendants, because he has such skill in interpreting the prophets that we cannot prefer anyone else to him in this respect.
I believe that this praise will also be granted to him by the more reasonable opponents. But however the adversaries or disfavored people may judge him, I thank God that He has called me to the knowledge of the Gospel and has given me the opportunity not only to hear Luther's living voice, but also to gain an insight into his inner life through the contact with him in his domestic life, which is full of godliness and the most glorious examples of an honorable way of life. And in truth and from the bottom of my heart, I would like to wish all his enemies that they would gain as thorough an insight into Luther's life as is known to me.
Basil wishes himself luck to the instruction of his nourisher, who had heard Gregory of NeoCaesarea. He also says somewhere that the voice of Athanasius is still ringing in his ears. So I have no doubt that you and many others also rejoice that they have heard Luther and acknowledge that they have progressed through his teaching. I know that Erasmus, although he seemed to be very estranged from him, sometimes angrily said to someone who rebuked Luther: one should not 'blame this man, who in his interpretations on. He said that one should not blame this man, who in his interpretations on one side brought more thorough scholarship and more light into the teachings of the prophets and apostles than the interpretations of anyone else at any time.
For this reason, I am very annoyed that we are sometimes reproached by ill-wishers that we were not moved by sound judgment and right causes to accept the teaching of
We do not want to accept the truth that our churches profess, but rather, in a kind of flattery, we ascribe too much to Luther. This is a great presumption, if they think that we all have not heard Luther other than as it is said in the fable of the donkey:
ïíù ôéò ìà^ïí åëåãå, ïäå ôÜ, þôá Ý÷ßíåé someone told a fable to the donkey; but he shook his ears].
But these slanders will be refuted by time itself. I do not doubt that the doctrine which our churches profess is the true voice of the Gospel, and in truth the opinion of the whole (catholicae) holy Church of Christ, which is necessary for the right invocation of God and the blessedness of men. Therefore, I insist on this opinion, and I wish to encourage others to the same, as much as I can, for the sake of the glory of God and the blessedness of men. Be well.
Nuremberg, in 1542.