The Project Gutenberg eBook of An Open Letter on Translating, by Martin Luther

An Open Letter on best toy xylophones for 2 year olds under 25 dollarsTranslating

By Dr. Martin Luther, 1483-1546

  Translated from:
  "Sendbrief von Dolmetschen"
  in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke,
  (Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909),
  Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646

by Gary Mann, Ph.D.

  Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology
  Augustana College
  Rock Island, Illinois

Preface

Wenceslas Link to all believers in Christ:

The wise Solomon says in Proverbs 11: "The people who withholdgrain curse him. But there is a blessing on those who sell it."This verse speaks truly concerning all that can serve the commongood or the well-being of Christendom. This is the reason themaster in the gospel reprimands the unfaithful servant like a lazyscoundrel for having hidden and buried his money in the ground.So that this curse of the Lord and the entire Church might beavoided, I must publish this letter which came into my possessionthrough a good friend. I could not withhold it, as there has beenmuch discussion about the translating of the Old and NewTestaments. It has been charged by the despisers of truth thatthe text has been modified and even falsified in many places,which has shocked and startled many simple Christians, even amongthe educated who do not know any Hebrew or Greek. It is devoutlyhoped that with this publication the slander of the godless willbe stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least inpart. It may even give rise to more writing on such matters andquestions such as these. So I ask all friends of the Truth toseriously take this work to heart and faithfully pray to God for aproper understanding of the divine Scriptures towards theimprovement and increase of our common Christendom. Amen.

Nuremberg Sept. 15, 1530.

To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.

Grace and peace in Christ, honorable, worthy and dear Lord andfriend. I received your writing with the two questions or queriesrequesting my response. In the first place, you ask why I, in the3rd chapter of Romans, translated the words of St. Paul:"Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus" as "Wehold that the human will be justified without the works of the lawbut only by faith." You also tell me that the Papists are causinga great fuss because St. Paul's text does not contain the wordsola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not tobe tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercedefor us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papiststhis answer from me—if you so desire.

On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all thePapists together were capable of translating even one passage ofScripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enoughhumility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating theNew Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself thetrouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one ofthem knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious,however, that they are learning to speak and write German from mytranslations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me—alanguage they had little knowledge of before this. However, theydo not thank me for this but instead use it against me. Yet Ireadily grant them this as it tickles me to know that I havetaught my ungrateful students, even my enemies, to speak.

Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated theNew Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that Ihave not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,only doing the translation as a service to those who could not doit as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone doesnot wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone toread it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and mytranslation—and it shall remain mine. If I have made errorswithin it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainlybe unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter) I willnot allow the papists to judge for their ears continue to be toolong and their hee-haws too weak for them to be critical of mytranslating. I know quite well how much skill, hard work,understanding and intelligence is needed for a good translation.They know it less than even the miller's donkey for they havenever tried it.

It is said, "The one who builds along the pathway has manymasters." It is like this with me. Those who have not ever beenable to speak correctly (to say nothing of translating) have allat once become my masters and I their pupil. If I were to haveasked them how to translate the first two words of Matthew "LiberGenerationis" into German, not one of them would have been able tosay "Quack!" And they judge all my works! Fine fellows! It wasalso like this for St. Jerome when he translated the Bible.Everyone was his master. He alone was entirely incompetent aspeople, who were not good enough to clean his boots, judged hisworks. This is why it takes a great deal of patience to do goodthings in public for the world believes itself to be the Master ofKnowledge, always putting the bit under the horse's tail, and notjudging itself for that is the world's nature. It can do nothingelse.

I would gladly see a papist come forward and translate into Germanan epistle of St. Paul's or one of the prophets and, in doing so,not make use of Luther's German or translation. Then one mightsee a fine, beautiful and noteworthy translation into German.

We have seen that bungler from Dresden play master to my NewTestament. (I will not mention his name in my books as he has hisjudge and is already well-known). He does admit that my Germanis good and sweet and that he could not improve it. Yet, anxiousto dishonor it, he took my New Testament word for word as it waswritten, and removed my prefaces and glosses, replacing them withhis own. Then he published my New Testament under his name! DearChildren, how it pained me when his prince in a detestable prefacecondemned my work and forbid all from reading Luther's NewTestament, while at the same time commending the Bungler's NewTestament to be read—even though it was the very same one Lutherhad written!

So no one thinks I am lying, put Luther's and the Bungler's NewTestaments side by side and compare them. You will see who didthe translation for both. He has patched it in places andreordered it (and although it does not all please me) I can stillleave it be for it does me no particular harm as far as thedocument is concerned. That is why I never intended to write inopposition to it. But I did have a laugh at the great wisdom thatso terribly slandered, condemned and forbade my New Testament,when it was published under my name, but required its reading whenpublished under an other's name! What type of virtue is this thatslanders and heaps shame on someone else's work, and then stealsit, and publishes it under one's own name, thereby seeking gloryand esteem through the slandered work of someone else! I leavethat for his judge to say. I am glad and satisfied that my work(as St. Paul also boasts ) is furthered by my enemies, and thatLuther's work, without Luther's name but that of his enemy, is tobe read. What better vengeance?!

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make agreat fuss about the word "alone" (sola), say this to him: "Dr.Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an assare the same thing." Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro rationevoluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) Forwe are not going to become students and followers of the papists.Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are goingto be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paulbrags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over theseasses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? Iam as well. They are philosophers? And I. They aredialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. Theywrite books? So do I.

I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalmsand the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and theycannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do theirdialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together.Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, infact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapterof Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for Ihave been educated in and have practiced their science since mychildhood. I recognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, knowthat everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like astranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I hadjust arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what theyknow and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around withtheir science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago!To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing:"I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron."

So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do notgive these asses any other answer to their useless braying aboutthat word "sola" than simply "Luther will have it so, and he saysthat he is a doctor above all the papal doctors." Let it remainat that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and havealready held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind ofpeople that they are—asses, I should say. And there are brazenidiots among them who have never learned their own art ofsophistry—like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them.They set themselves against me in this matter, which not onlytranscends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom andunderstanding in the world as well. An ass truly does not have tosing much as he is already known for his ears.

For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word"sola"—even though in Romans 3 it wasn't "sola" I used but"solum" or "tantum". That is how closely those asses have lookedat my text! However, I have used "sola fides" in other places,and I want to use both "solum" and "sola". I have continuallytried translating in a pure and accurate German. It has happenedthat I have sometimes searched and inquired about a single wordfor three or four weeks. Sometimes I have not found it even then.I have worked Meister Philip and Aurogallus so hard in translatingJob, sometimes barely translating 3 lines after four days. Nowthat it has been translated into German and completed, all canread and criticize it. One can now read three or four pageswithout stumbling one time—without realizing just what rocks andhindrances had once been where now one travels as as if over asmoothly-cut plank. We had to sweat and toil there before weremoved those rocks and hindrances, so one could go along nicely.The plowing goes nicely in a clear field. But nobody wants thetask of digging out the rocks and hindrances. There is no suchthing as earning the world's thanks. Even God cannot earn thanks,not with the sun, nor with heaven and earth, or even the death ofhis Son. It just is and remains as it is, in the devil's name, asit will not be anything else.

I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present ineither Greek or Latin text—the papists did not have to teach methat—it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And theseknotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the sametime they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text—ifthe translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken intranslation—not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of ourlanguage that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word"not" (nicht) or "no" (kein). For example, we say "the farmerbrings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have nomoney, but only (allein) grain"; "I have only eaten and not yetdrunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?" There are avast number of such everyday cases.

In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it isnot the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the Germantongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may beclearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say "The farmerbrings grain and no (kein) money", but the words "kein money" donot sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmerbrings allein grain and kein money." Here the word "allein" helpsthe word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and completeGerman expression.

We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are tospeak German—as these asses do. Rather we must ask the motherin the home, the children on the street, the common person in themarket about this. We must be guided by their tongue, the mannerof their speech, and do our translating accordingly. Then theywill understand it and recognize that we are speaking German tothem.

For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If Iam to follow these asses, they will lay the original before meliterally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heartthe mouth speaks." Is that speaking with a German tongue? WhatGerman could understand something like that? What is this"abundance of the heart?" No German can say that; unless, ofcourse, he was trying to say that someone was altogether toomagnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet becorrect, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any morethan "abundance of the house", "abundance of the stove" or"abundance of the bench" is German. But the mother in the homeand the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows themouth." That is speaking with the proper German tongue of thekind I have tried for, although unfortunately not alwayssuccessfully. The literal Latin is a great barrier to speakingproper German.

So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: "Ut quid perditiohaec?" and in Mark 14: "Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?"Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translateit: "Why has this loss of salve occurred?" But what kind ofGerman is this? What German says "loss of salve occurred"? Andif he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve islost and must be looked for and found again; even though that isstill obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why dothey not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and letLuther's testament be? I think that would really bring out theirtalents. But a German would say "Ut quid, etc.." as "Why thiswaste?" or "Why this extravagance?" Even "it is a shame about theointment"—these are good German, in which one can understandthat Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had donewrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have usedit better.

Now when the angel greets Mary, he says: "Greetings to you, Mary,full of grace, the Lord is with you." Well up to this point, thishas simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me isthat good German? Since when does a German speak like that—being"full of grace"? One would have to think about a keg "full of"beer or a purse "full of" money. So I translated it: "Yougracious one". This way a German can at last think about what theangel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about mecorrupting the angelic greeting—and I still have not used themost satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the mostsatisfactory German and translated the salutation: "God sayshello, Mary dear" (for that is what the angel was intending to sayand what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had,I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of theirgreat devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed thegreeting.

Yet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? Iwill not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shalltranslate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does notlike it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, forI will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have toanswer for or bear responsibility for my translation. Listen up,I shall say "gracious Mary" and "dear Mary", and they can say"Mary full of grace". Anyone who knows German also knows what anexpressive word "dear"(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dearemperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do notknow if one can say this word "liebe" in Latin or in otherlanguages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heartand echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.

I think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greektongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word"kecharitomene" that the angel used. And I think that the angelGabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when hecalled him "Chamudoth" and "Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum", thatis "Dear Daniel." That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can seein Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of theangel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have totranslate it as "Daniel, you man of desires" or "Daniel, you manof lust". Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, ofcourse, recognize "Man", "Lueste" and "begirunge" as being Germanwords, although not altogether pure as "lust" and "begir" would bebetter. But when those words are put together you get "you man ofdesires" and no German is going to understand that. He might eventhink that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn't thatbe a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go andtry to discover how the German says what the Hebrew "ishchamudoth" expresses. I discover that the German says this, "Youdear Daniel", "you dear Mary", or "you gracious maiden", "youlovely maiden", "you gentle girl" and so on. A translator musthave a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when aparticular one just does not fit in the context.

Why should I talk about translating so much? I would need anentire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind mywords. I have learned what an art and job translating is byexperience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as mycritic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone doesnot like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devilrepay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations withoutmy knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do itmyself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations inpeace. They can each do a translation that suits them—what do Icare?

To this I can, with good conscience, give witness—that I gave myutmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have nottaken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I madeany by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, butI have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to thehonor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of mylife that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, Ishould not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even asingle hour. All I am and have to offer is from his mercy andgrace—indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore,God willing, all of it will also serve to his honor, joyfully andsincerely. I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists buttrue Christians, along with Christ, their Lord, bless me.Further, I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christianacknowledge me as a workman with integrity. I do not care aboutthe papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my workand, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. I may beinsulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be adoctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shallnever take from me until the final day.

Yet I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in theoriginal. Instead, with great care, I have, along with myhelpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original,without the slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that apassage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says: "Himhas God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt)." It would bemore clear in German to say "Him has God the Father signified(gezeiehent)" or even "God the Father means him." But rather thandoing violence to the original, I have done violence to the Germantongue. Ah, translating is not every one's skill as some madsaints think. A right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearingChristian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is required.So I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a goodtranslator. That is obvious given the translation of the Prophetsat Worms which although carefully done and approximating my ownGerman quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ dueto the Jews who shared in the translation. Aside from that itshows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.

So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I wasnot depending upon or following the nature of language when Iinserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself,and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. Heis dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in thispassage—namely that we are justified by faith in Christ withoutany works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completelyas to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law andword, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as anexample, he argues that Abraham was so justified without worksthat even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, overand above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him injustification. Instead, Abraham was justified withoutcircumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says inChapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, butnot before God." However, when all works are so completelyrejected—which must mean faith alone justifies—whoever wouldspeak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would haveto say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itselfand the nature of language necessitates it.

"Yet", they say, "it has such an offensive tone that people inferfrom it that they need not do any good works." Dear, what are we tosay? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use theterm "faith alone" but spell it even more clearly, putting thefinishing touches on it by saying "Without the works of the Law?"Gal. 1 [2.16] says that "not by works of the law" (as well as inmany other places) for the phrase "without the works of the law"is so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revisioncan help it. How much more might people learn from "that theyneed not do any good works", when all they hear is preachingabout the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way:"No works", "without works", "not by works"! If it is notoffensive to preach "without works", "not by works", "no works",why is it offensive to preach "by faith alone"?

Still more offensive is that St. Paul does not reject justordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one couldtake offense at that all the more and say that the law iscondemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what iscontrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: "Why not do evil sothat there might be more good?" which is what that one divisivespirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul's wordbecause of such 'offense' or refrain from speaking freely aboutfaith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for wepreach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for noother reason than to offend people that they might stumble andfall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only byChrist's death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot besaved by their good works of the law, how much more will theyrealize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without thelaw! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do nothelp, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because thesun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness musthelp him see.

It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious asthis! Just tell me, is Christ's death and resurrection our work,what we do, or not? It is obviously not our work, nor is it thework of the law. Now it is Christ's death and resurrection alonewhich saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: "Hedied for our sin and arose for our righteousness." Tell me more!What is the work by which we take hold of Christ's death andresurrection? It must not be an external work but only theeternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, whichtakes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preachedthrough the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, thismaking of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at itsvery core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ's deathand resurrection, without any works, and that his death andresurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is soobvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of thislife and righteousness—why should we not say so? It is notheretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; andyet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they notinsane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing isright but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong—eventhough something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.

Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say thatfaith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine andmany others who said it before me. And if one is to read andunderstand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anythingelse. His words, as well, are blunt—"no works"—none at all!If it is not works, it must be faith alone. Oh what a marvelous,constructive and inoffensive teaching that would be, to be taughtthat one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would belike saying that it is not Christ's death alone that takes awayour sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now thatwould be a fine way of honoring Christ's death, saying that it ishelped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can alsodo—that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is thedevil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.

Therefore the matter itself, at its very core, necessitates that onesay: "Faith alone makes one righteous." The nature of the Germantongue teaches us to say it in the same way. In addition, I havethe examples of the holy fathers. The dangers confronting thepeople also compel it so they do not continue to hang onto worksand wander away from faith, losing Christ, especially at this timewhen they have been so accustomed to works they have to be pulledaway from them by force. It is for these reasons that it is notonly right but also necessary to say it as plainly and forcefullyas possible: "Faith alone saves without works!" I am only sorry Idid not add "alle" and "aller", and said "without any (alle) worksor any (aller) laws." That would have stated it most effectively.Therefore, it will remain in the New Testament, and though all thepapal asses rant and rave at me, they shall not take it away fromme. Let this be enough for now. I will have to speak more aboutthis in the treatise "On Justification" (if God grants me grace).

On the other question as to whether the departed saints intercedefor us. For the present I am only going to give a brief answer asI am considering publishing a sermon on the beloved angels inwhich I will respond more fully on this matter (God willing).

First, you know that under the papacy it is not only taught thatthe saints in heaven intercede for us—even though we cannot knowthis as the Scripture does not tell us such—but the saints havebeen made into gods, and that they are to be our patrons to whomwe should call. Some of them have never existed! To each of thesesaints a particular power and might has been given—one overfire, another over water, another over pestilence, fever and allsorts of plagues. Indeed, God must have been altogether idle tohave let the saints work in his place. Of this atrocity thepapists themselves are aware, as they quietly take up their pipesand preen and primp themselves over this doctrine of theintercession of the saints. I will leave this subject for now—butyou can count on my not forgetting it and allowing thisprimping and preening to continue without cost.

And again, you know that there is not a single passage from Goddemanding us to call upon either saints or angels to intercede forus, and that there is no example of such in the Scriptures. Onefinds that the beloved angels spoke with the fathers and theprophets, but that none of them had ever been asked to intercedefor them. Why even Jacob the patriarch did not ask the angel withwhom he wrestled for any intercession. Instead, he only took fromhim a blessing. In fact, one finds the very opposite in revelationas the angel will not allow itself to be worshipped by John. [Rev.22] So the worship of saints shows itself as nothing but humannonsense, our own invention separated from the word of God and theScriptures.

As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to doanything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does isputting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable ortolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or toteach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and peopletaught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it andburden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It wasdifficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was sosteeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospelis now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excusefor remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we areto do.

This is itself a very risky and blasphemous way to worship forpeople are easily accustomed to turning away from Christ. Theylearn quickly to trust more in the saints than in Christ himself.When our nature is already all too prone to run from God andChrist, and trust in humanity, it is indeed difficult to learn totrust in God and Christ, even though we have vowed to do so andare therefore obligated to do so. Therefore, this offense is notto be tolerated whereby those who are weak and of the fleshparticipate in idolatry, against the first commandment and ourbaptism. Even if one tries nothing other than to switch theirtrust from the saints to Christ, through teaching and practice, itwill be difficult to accomplish, that one should come to him andrightly take hold of him. One need not paint the Devil on thedoor—he will already be present.

We can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and thateven if we do not call on the saints for intercession, we aresecure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is ajealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep hiscommandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and,therefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on thisside security and on the other side great risk and offense againstthe Word of God, why should we go from security into danger wherewe do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us inthe times of trial? For it is written, "Whoever loves danger willperish by it" [Ecclus. 3], and God's commandment says, "You shallnot put the Lord your God to the test" [Matt. 4].

"But," they say, "this way you condemn all of Christendom whichhas always maintained this—until now." I answer: I know verywell that the priests and monks seek this cloak for theirblasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage causedby their own negligence. Then, when we say, "Christendom does noterr," we shall also be saying that they do not err, sinceChristendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong,no matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. Noindulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the liesinvolved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness!Therefore to this you reply, "It is not a question of who is andwho is not condemned." They inject this irrelevant idea in orderto divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing theWord of God. What Christendom is or does belongs somewhereelse. The question here is: "What is or is not the Word of God?What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom."

We read that in the days of Elijah the prophet there wasapparently no word from God and no worship of God in Israel. ForElijah says, "Lord, they have killed your prophets and destroyedyour altars, and I am left totally alone" [I Kings 19]. Here KingAhab and others could have said, "Elijah, with talk like that youare condemning all the people of God." However God had at thesame time kept seven thousand [I Kings 19]. How? Do you not alsothink that God could now, under the papacy, have preserved hisown, even though the priests and monks of Christendom have beenteachers of the devil and gone to hell? Many children and youngpeople have died in Christ. For even under the anti-Christ,Christ has strongly sustained baptism, the bare text of the gospelin the pulpit, the Lord's Prayer, and the Creed. By this means hesustained many of his Christians, and therefore also hisChristendom, and said nothing about it to these devil's teachers.

Now even though Christians have done some parts of the papalblasphemy, the papal asses have not yet proved that they did itgladly. Still less does it prove that they even did the rightthing. All Christians can err and sin, but God has taught them topray in the Lord's Prayer for the forgiveness of sins. God couldvery well forgive the sins they had to unwillingly, unknowingly,and under the coercion of the Antichrist commit, without sayinganything about it to the priests and monks! It can, however, beeasily proven that there has always been a great deal of secretmurmuring and complaining against the clergy throughout the world,and that they are not treating Christendom properly. And thepapal asses have courageously withstood such complaining with fireand sword, even to the present day. This murmuring proves howhappy Christians have been over these blasphemies, and how rightthey have been in doing them!

So out with it, you papal asses! Say that this is the teaching ofChristendom: these stinking lies which you villains and traitorshave forced upon Christendom and for the sake of which youmurderers have killed many Christians. Why each letter of everypapal law gives testimony to the fact that nothing has ever beentaught by the counsel and the consent of Christendom. There isnothing there but "districte precipiendo mandamus" ["we teach andstrictly command"]. That has been your Holy Spirit. Christendomhas had to suffer this tyranny. This tyranny has robbed it of thesacrament and, not by its own fault, has been held in captivity.And still the asses would pawn off on us this intolerable tyrannyof their own wickedness as a willing act and example ofChristendom—and thereby acquit themselves!

But this is getting too long. Let this be enough of an answer toyour questions for now. More another time. Excuse this longletter. Christ our Lord be with us all. Amen.

Martin Luther,
  Your good friend.
    The Wilderness, September 8, 1530

* * * *

This text was translated for Project Wittenberg by Dr. Gary Mannin 1995 and was placed by him in the public domain. You mayfreely distribute, copy or print this text, providing theinformation in this statement remains attached. Please direct anycomments or suggestions to: Rev. Robert E. Smith of the WaltherLibrary at Concordia Theological Seminary.

  E-mail: [email protected]
  Surface Mail: 6600 N. Clinton St., Ft. Wayne, IN 46825 USA
  Phone: (219) 481-2123
  Fax: (219) 481-2126

End of Project Gutenberg's An Open Letter on Translating, by Gary Mann