Collected Works of Martin Luther

by Martin Luther

  So, as the traitor Judas says in Matthew 26: “Ut quid perditio haec?” and in Mark 14: “Ut quid perditio iste unguenti facta est?” Subsequently, for these literalist asses I would have to translate it: “Why has this loss of salve occurred?” But what kind of German is this? What German says “loss of salve occurred”? And if he does understand it at all, he would think that the salve is lost and must be looked for and found again; even though that is still obscure and uncertain. Now if that is good German why do they not come out and make us a fine, new German testament and let Luther’s testament be? I think that would really bring out their talents. But a German would say “Ut quid, etc..” as “Why this waste?” or “Why this extravagance?” Even “it is a shame about the ointment” — these are good German, in which one can understand that Magdalene had wasted the salve she poured out and had done wrong. That was what Judas meant as he thought he could have used it 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, this has simply been translated from the simple Latin, but tell me is that 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: “You gracious one”. This way a German can at last think about what the angel meant by his greeting. Yet the papists rant about me corrupting the angelic greeting — and I still have not used the most satisfactory German translation. What if I had used the most satisfactory German and translated the salutation: “God says hello, Mary dear” (for that is what the angel was intending to say and what he would have said had he even been German!). If I had, I believe that they would have hanged themselves out of their great devotion to dear Mary and because I have destroyed the greeting.

  Yet why should I be concerned about their ranting and raving? I will not stop them from translating as they want. But I too shall translate as I want and not to please them, and whoever does not like it can just ignore it and keep his criticism to himself, for I will neither look at nor listen to it. They do not have to answer 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 an expressive word “dear”(liebe) is: dear Mary, dear God, the dear emperor, the dear prince, the dear man, the dear child. I do not know if one can say this word “liebe” in Latin or in other languages with so much depth of emotion that it pierces the heart and echoes throughout as it does in our tongue.

  I think that St. Luke, as a master of the Hebrew and Greek tongues, wanted to clarify and articulate the Greek word “kecharitomene” that the angel used. And I think that the angel Gabriel spoke with Mary just as he spoke with Daniel, when he called him “Chamudoth” and “Ish chamudoth, vir desiriorum”, that is “Dear Daniel.” That is the way Gabriel speaks, as we can see in Daniel. Now if I were to literally translate the words of the angel, and use the skills of these asses, I would have to translate it as “Daniel, you man of desires” or “Daniel, you man of lust”. Oh, that would be beautiful German! A German would, of course, recognize “Man”, “Lueste” and “begirunge” as being German words, although not altogether pure as “lust” and “begir” would be better. But when those words are put together you get “you man of desires” and no German is going to understand that. He might even think that Daniel is full of lustful desires. Now wouldn’t that be a fine translation! So I have to let the literal words go and try to discover how the German says what the Hebrew “ish chamudoth” expresses. I discover that the German says this, “You dear Daniel”, “you dear Mary”, or “you gracious maiden”, “you lovely maiden”, “you gentle girl” and so on. A translator must have a large vocabulary so he can have more words for when a particular one just does not fit in the context.

  Why should I talk about translating so much? I would need an entire year were I to point out the reasons and concerns behind my words. I have learned what an art and job translating is by experience, so I will not tolerate some papal ass or mule as my critic, or judge. They have not tried the task. If anyone does not like my translations, they can ignore it; and may the devil repay the one who dislikes or criticizes my translations without my knowledge or permission. Should it be criticized, I will do it myself. If I do not do it, then they can leave my translations in peace. They can each do a translation that suits them — what do I care?

  To this I can, with good conscience, give witness — that I gave my utmost effort and care and I had no ulterior motives. I have not taken or wanted even a small coin in return. Neither have I made any by it. God knows that I have not even sought honor by it, but I have done it as a service to the blessed Christians and to the honor of the One who sits above who blesses me every hour of my life that had I translated a thousand times more diligently, I should not have deserved to live or have a sound eye for even a single hour. All I am and have to offer is from his mercy and grace — indeed of his precious blood and bitter sweat. Therefore, God willing, all of it will also serve to his honor, joyfully and sincerely. I may be insulted by the scribblers and papists but true Christians, along with Christ, their Lord, bless me. Further, I am more than amply rewarded if just one Christian acknowledge me as a workman with integrity. I do not care about the papists, as they are not good enough to acknowledge my work and, if they were to bless me, it would break my heart. I may be insulted by their highest praise and honor, but I will still be a doctor, even a distinguished one. I am certain that they shall never take from me until the final day.

  Yet I have not just gone ahead, ignoring the exact wording in the original. Instead, with great care, I have, along with my helpers, gone ahead and have kept literally to the original, without the slightest deviation, wherever it appeared that a passage was crucial. For instance, in John 6 Christ says: “Him has God the Father set his seal upon (versiegelt).” It would be more clear in German to say “Him has God the Father signified (gezeiehent)” or even “God the Father means him.” But rather than doing violence to the original, I have done violence to the German tongue. Ah, translating is not every one’s skill as some mad saints think. A right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing Christian, trained, educated, and experienced heart is required. So I hold that no false Christian or divisive spirit can be a good translator. That is obvious given the translation of the Prophets at Worms which although carefully done and approximating my own German quite closely, does not show much reverence for Christ due to the Jews who shared in the translation. Aside from that it shows plenty of skill and craftsmanship there.

  So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word “solum” (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul’s meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage — namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God’s law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Instead, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: “If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but not before God.” However, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have to say “Faith alone justifies and not works.” The matter itself and the nature of language necessitates it.

  “Yet”, they say, “it has such an offensive tone that people infer from it that they need not do any good works.” Dear, what are we to say? IS it not more offensive for St. Paul himself to not use the term “
faith alone” but spell it even more clearly, putting the finishing touches on it by saying “Without the works of the Law?” Gal. 1 says that “not by works of the law” (as well as in many other places) for the phrase “without the works of the law” is so ever offensive, and scandalous that no amount of revision can help it. How much more might people learn from “that they need not do any good works”, when all they hear is preaching about the works themselves, stated in such a clear strong way: “No works”, “without works”, “not by works”! If it is not offensive 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 just ordinary works, but works of the law! It follows that one could take offense at that all the more and say that the law is condemned and cursed before God and one ought only do what is contrary to the law as it is said in Rom. 3: “Why not do evil so that there might be more good?” which is what that one divisive spirit of our time was doing. Should one reject St. Paul’s word because of such ‘offense’ or refrain from speaking freely about faith? Gracious, St. Paul and I want to offend like this for we preach so strongly against works, insisting on faith alone for no other reason than to offend people that they might stumble and fall and learn that they are not saved by good works but only by Christ’s death and resurrection. Knowing that they cannot be saved by their good works of the law, how much more will they realize that they shall not be saved by bad works, or without the law! Therefore, it does not follow that because good works do not help, bad works will; just as it does not follow that because the sun cannot help a blind person see, the night and darkness must help him see.

  It astounds me that one can be offended by something as obvious as this! 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 the work of the law. Now it is Christ’s death and resurrection alone which saves and frees us from sin, as Paul writes in Rom. 4: “He died for our sin and arose for our righteousness.” Tell me more! What is the work by which we take hold of Christ’s death and resurrection? It must not be an external work but only the eternal faith in the heart that alone, indeed all alone, which takes hold of this death and resurrection when it is preached through the gospel. Then why all this ranting and raving, this making of heretics and burning of them, when it is clear at its very core, proving that faith alone takes hold of Christ’s death and resurrection, without any works, and that his death and resurrection are our life and righteousness? As this fact is so obvious, that faith alone gives, brings, and takes a hold of this life and righteousness — why should we not say so? It is not heretical that faith alone holds on to Christ and gives life; and yet it seems to be heresy if someone mentions it. Are they not insane, foolish and ridiculous? They will say that one thing is right but brand the telling of this right thing as wrong — even though something cannot be simultaneously right and wrong.

  Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me. And if one is to read and understand St. Paul, the same thing must be said and not anything else. 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 taught that one can be saved by works as well as by faith. That would be like saying that it is not Christ’s death alone that takes away our sin but that our works have something to do with it. Now that would be a fine way of honoring Christ’s death, saying that it is helped by our works, and that whatever it does our works can also do — that we are his equal in goodness and power. This is the devil itself for he cannot ever stop abusing the blood of Christ.

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

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

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

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

  As it is not proper in the matter of divine worship for us to do anything that is not commanded by God (and that whoever does is putting God to the test), it is therefore also not advisable or tolerable for one to call upon the saints for intercession or to teach others to do so. In fact, it is to be condemned and people taught to avoid it. Therefore, I also will not advise it and burden my conscience with the iniquities of others. It was difficult for me to stop from worshipping the saints as I was so steeped in it to have nearly drowned. But the light of the gospel is now shining so brightly that from now on no one has an excuse for remaining in the darkness. We all very well know what we are to do.

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

  We can finally be certain that God is not angry with us, and that even if we do
not call on the saints for intercession, we are secure for God has never commanded it. God says that God is a jealous God granting their iniquities on those who do not keep his commandments [Ex.20]; but there is no commandment here and, therefore, no anger to be feared. Since, then, there is on this side security and on the other side great risk and offense against the Word of God, why should we go from security into danger where we do not have the Word of God to sustain, comfort and save us in the times of trial? For it is written, “Whoever loves danger will perish by it” [Ecclus. 3], and God’s commandment says, “You shall not put the Lord your God to the test” [Matt. 4].

  “But,” they say, “this way you condemn all of Christendom which has always maintained this — until now.” I answer: I know very well that the priests and monks seek this cloak for their blasphemies. They want to give to Christendom the damage caused by their own negligence. Then, when we say, “Christendom does not err,” we shall also be saying that they do not err, since Christendom believes it to be so. So no pilgrimage can be wrong, no matter how obviously the Devil is a participant in it. No indulgence can be wrong, regardless of how horrible the lies involved. In other words, there is nothing there but holiness! Therefore to this you reply, “It is not a question of who is and who is not condemned.” They inject this irrelevant idea in order to divert us from the topic at hand. We are now discussing the Word of God. What Christendom is or does belongs somewhere else. The question here is: “What is or is not the Word of God? What is not the Word of God does not make Christendom.”