Luther’s 95 Theses

 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

How the Reformation was Begun

With Commentary on Luther’s 95 Theses

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Dr. Martin Luther

Rev. Timothy Smith

 

Citations of the Bible are from the EHV, HCSB,NIV, NASB and RSV as noted.

© 2017

Timothy Smith

 

 

For the congregation of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church,

New Ulm, Minnesota

 

 

HOW THE REFORMATION

WAS BEGUN

 

By Dr. Martin Luther

 

 

The following history of the Reformation was published in the days of the old Synodical Conference in the “Theological Quarterly” (Volume IX, No. 1). Now in the public domain, the English translation reproduced here was first published in January 1905.[1]

 

Dr. LUTHER TELLS HOW THE

REFORMATION WAS BEGUN.

     In the year 1541 Dr. Luther was provoked by an insipid libel of Henry of Braunschweig to charge once more upon the long-defeated host of Rome, and in his reply to his assailant (Wider Hans Wurst) he recounts the origin of the Reformation. The following is a translation of the section in question : —

“However, since he pretends not to know who caused this Lutheran hubbub (as he terms it) , I will here publicly state it, not, however, for his minions’, nor for his own benefit, for he knows the cause much better than I do.  It was when we were dating our letters A. D. 1517, when a preaching friar by the name of John Tetzel, a great braggart, made his appearance, whom Duke Frederick had rescued from being drowned in a sack in the Inn at Innsbruck by order Of Maximilian (you may know it was done on account of his virtuous conduct ). Duke Frederick caused him to be reminded of this incident when he began to inveigh against us Wittembergians; neither did he deny it.

“This same Tetzel was canvassing indulgences, and sold grace for money, as dearly, or as cheaply, as he possibly could. At that time I was preacher at our local cloister, and was a young doctor, recently issued from the forge, and zealous and eager in the Holy Scriptures.

“Now, many of our Wittenberg people running to Juter-bok and Zerbst after indulgences, and I being ignorant —as surely as my Lord Christ has redeemed me! —of what the indulgences were, just as everybody else was ignorant of it, I began to discreetly preach about how people might engage in something better, which was more certain than indulgences. In like manner I had preached about indulgences before here at the castle, and had gained Duke Frederick’s ill favor thereby, (amongst other reasons) because he loved his memorial church dearly. Now, to come to the real cause of this Lutheran hubbub: I let it pass. Presently I was being made aware of Tetzel’s preaching horrible, fearful doctrines, a few of which I shall here enumerate. E.g., he claimed that he was in possession of such grace and power from the Pope that, if a person even had committed rape upon the holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, he could forgive this sin upon deposit in his chest of a satisfactory sum. Again, that the red cross of indulgences with the papal escutcheon reared in a church, was as efficacious as the cross of Christ. Again, that St. Peter, if he were present, should not possess more grace or power than he. Again, that he would not divide spoils with St. Peter in heaven, for he had saved more souls by his indulgences than St. Peter by his preaching. Again, that, on deposit in his chest of money for a soul in purgatory, such soul would soar heavenward, as soon as the money would chink on the bottom of the chest.[2] Again, that the grace of indulgences was the very grace by which men were reconciled with God. Again, that there was no need of contrition, sorrow, or repentance for sin, if a person purchase (buy, I should say l) letters of indulgence; and he even sold indulgences for sins yet to be committed. Such things he perpetrated in appalling numbers, and his whole object was money.

“I was ignorant at the time for whom this money was intended, when a booklet made its appearance with the coat of arms of the Bishop of Magdeburg imprinted on it,  in which the questors were ordered to preach some of the above articles. Then it became manifest that Bishop Albrecht had hired this Tetzel, because of his being such a great braggart; for Albrecht had been elected bishop at Mainz,[3] on condition that he should, at his own expense,  purchase (buy, I should say!) the pallium at Rome. For  at Mainz three bishops, Berthold, Jacobus, and Vriel, had died in quick succession, and it may have been too great a burden on the diocese to purchase the pallium so often and at such short intervals, it being sold, as some say, at 26,000 guilders, while others claim 30,000; at such a steep price the holy Father at Rome can sell flaxthreads, which ordinarily are not worth sixpence.

“Accordingly, the Bishop had invented this scheme and proposed to pay the Fuggers,[4] Who had advanced the money for the pallium, out of the poor man’s pocket; and so he sends his great pickpocket abroad, —who, indeed, went to work with a will!—so that the money soon came dropping, chinking, and jingling into the chest in heaps. Meanwhile, however, he did not forget his dear self. But also the Pope had his finger in the pie, claiming half of the proceeds for his St. Peter’s Church at Rome. Thus, these fellows proceeded gleefully and with high hopes to strike at people’s purses, and to fleece them. Of these things, I say, I was ignorant at the time.

“I wrote a letter containing the above propositions (of Tetzel) to the Bishop of Magdeburg, urging and requesting him to check Tetzel and to stop the preaching of such unbecoming things, inasmuch as trouble might arise from it. To do this, I wrote, would behoove him as Archbishop. I can still produce the letter. But I received no answer. In like manner I wrote to the Bishop of Brandenburg, my ordinary,[5] in whom I had a very kind bishop. He replied: I was assailing the authority of the church, and would involve myself in trouble; he would advise me to desist. However, I imagine they both thought the Pope would far too powerful for such a miserable beggar as myself.

“Accordingly, my theses against Tetzel were issued, which can be seen in print. In fourteen days[6] they spread over nearly whole Germany; for everybody was complaining about the indulgences, particularly about Tetzel’s articles. And while all bishops and doctors held their peace, and no one was willing to bell the cat—for the hunters of the preaching fraternity had intimidated all the world by the promise of the stake, and Tetzel himself had had some priests jailed, who had taken exception to his impudent preaching, —then it was that Luther began to be

extolled as a doctor, there having at last arisen one who would call a halt. This praise did not please me; for, as before stated, I did not know myself what the indulgences were, and the song (which I had undertaken to sing) seemed too high for my voice.[7]

“This is the first, real, and thorough beginning of the Lutheran hubbub, and it was not Duke Frederick who began it, but the Bishop of Mainz through his pickpocket and cutpurse Tetzel, yea, rather through the latter person’s scandalous preaching to the end of stealing and robbing people’s money, therewith, as stated, to purchase his magnificent pallium; and because he would not interfere with Tetzel, although I had warned him, but rather continued stealing more money under the guise of indulgences, and purposed to keep on stealing, with an utter disregard of the truth and the salvation of souls. And this impudent priest, Who knows these things Very well, would put the blame on our estimable and lamented prince by dropping such brazen-faced lies among his minions. Now, if an unpleasant hubbub has thus arisen to these blasphemous minions, to the rakes of Mainz, to their womanish cowards, their crestfallen rogues, and to their whole accursed rabble, they may thank the Bishop of Mainz for it; for he has begun it by his damnable thieving and greed, and through his blasphemer Tetzel, whom he has sent forth and defended. And though Luther should not have attacked the blasphemous preaching of Tetzel, matters had at that time reached such a high tension, that stones and beams would have had to cry out against it, which would not have caused such a discreet Lutheran hubbub, but a horrible, devilish one; for if they would confess the truth, they should have to acknowledge that they have hitherto been safe under our shield and protection, i.e., under the Word of God; our rioters should have taught them manners in a different way.

“The other cause of this hubbub is the most holy Father, pope Leo, and his unseasonable bull of excommunication, Dr. Pig and all papists,[8] also some great dunces abetting them, since everybody who could stir a pen wished to achieve knighthood by writing and clamoring against me. But I was in hopes the pope would protect me, because I had so secured and fortified my disputation by Scripture and by the papal decretals, that I was certain the pope would condemn Tetzel and bless me; I even dedicated my resolutions to him in a humble letter, and many cardinals and bishops were greatly pleased with my book. For at that time I was a better papist than Mr. Mainz or Mr. Hal ever had been, or will be; and the papal decretals plainly stated that the questors could not by indulgences release souls from purgatory. However, while waiting for the blessing from Rome, thunder and lightning came upon me; I had to be the sheep which had muddied the water for the wolf; Tetzel went scot-free, and I had to suffer being eaten.

“Moreover, they dealt with me according to such refined popish methods that I had been sentenced at Rome sixteen days before I received the citation. However, when Cardinal Cajetan had come to the Diet of Augsburg, Dr. Staupitz prevailed on our good prince, Duke Frederick, to visit the Cardinal, and he obtained the Cardinal’s promise to hear me. Thus I came to Augsburg to the Cardinal, who feigned friendliness to me; but after much negotiating I expressed a willingness henceforth to remain silent, provided also my opponents should be bound to silence. Not being able to obtain this, I appealed from the Pope to the Council and departed. Thus the matter was later brought into the diets, and was frequently discussed; but this is not the place to write about that, for it is too long a story. Meanwhile our polemical writings had reached their most violent stage, until matters have now come to such a pass that they are not ashamed to shun the light and at present to teach many things which they formerly have condemned, and which they could not teach without the aid of our books.

“Now, if a hubbub has arisen from this which hurts them, they must thank themselves for it. Why did they treat matters in such an unreasonable and unbecoming manner, in defiance of all right, truth, Scripture and their own decretals? They may not blame anybody but themselves for it. We propose to have our quiet mirth at their wails, and to twit[9] them with their loss, comforting ourselves with the thought that their hour has come. For even to this day they have not ceased, being such blinded, obdurate, and unreasonable dolts, to treat matters in such a manner as if they would willfully perish. The wrath of God is come upon them, as they deserve.

For it has now come to light (thank God!) that indulgences are a diabolical lie, and still they will not repent nor think of amending their ways, nor of reforming, but by the empty, meaningless cry, ‘The Church!’ they purpose to defend all their abominations. And if they had committed no other evil, alone the indulgences would be a sufficient reason Why God should condemn to eternal fire and cast them out from among men. Do but consider, dear Christian, firstly, how the Pope, the cardinals, bishops, and all ecclesiastics have filled and deceived the world With their lying indulgences. Secondly, how they have blasphemously called them the grace of God, while, in reality, they are nothing, nor can be anything, but a release from the duty of making satisfaction for wrongs here in time, in other words, nothing. For we now know that this satisfaction amounts to nothing. In the third place, how they have sold them for God’s grace by shameful simony and Iscariot practice, while the grace of God must be offered freely. In the fourth place, how they have stolen and robbed money and goods from the whole world, and have done so in the name of God. In the fifth place, which is the most atrocious feature, how they have employed these blasphemous lies to foster a horrible kind of idolatry; for many thousands of souls relying on these indulgences as on God’s grace, and dying in such confidence, have perished by the hands of these murderers of souls. For a person trusting in, and building upon, lies is the devil’s servant.

“These souls are denouncing woe upon popery, and popery owes them their restoration to God. In like manner they are bound to restore all the money and goods which they have thus stolen; also to restore to God His honor, of which they have shamefully deprived Him by their indulgences. When will they do so? Yea, when are they ever concerned about it? Still, if they will not do so, with what right do they claim the appellation of a Christian Church, and the right to hold and to improve the estates of the Church? Do you call that a church which is teeming with indulgences, that is, with diabolical lies, idolatry, simony, Iscariotism, thieving, and murdering of souls, as was shown above? Well, if they will not do so freely, they must be compelled. There is One strong enough to exact it from them, even with everlasting fire in hell. Meanwhile we shall not call them a church, but a school of the devil, though all the minions of Hal and Mainz should lose their wits and turn mad on account of it.” (Wider Hans Wurst. Leipzig ed., vol. 21, pp. 393—395.)

 

The 1905 editor adds these appropriate words:

 

These are strong words, full of burning indignation, spoken in a time that required such words and by a man whom God had fashioned for speaking such words. Thus the prophets would speak of old, fearlessly attacking the frivolities of the day, and their indignation would rise to an appalling grandeur that must have cowed their wicked hearers into timid submission. Thus the loving and meek Savior would hurl His woes against the spoilers of His sanctuary. There is a sublime righteousness in just anger which serves as its best defense against the over-sensitive criticism of a weaker age which, being removed from the scene of danger and unable to fully understand the extent of that danger, has, in a great measure, lost the sense of appreciation for the rugged weapons which the Almighty bad forged for our deliverance from that danger. One almost feels ashamed to have had to say this much in defense, as it were, Of the work of a man who asks not to be excused for what he has done, but has an abiding claim upon our grateful remembrance and admiration. Were the work of the Reformation to take place today, it should still require the unrelenting vigor of Lather’s pen. His was a new wine; if it bursts old bottles, so much the worse for the bottles (Matt. 9:17).

 

Though devils the world should fill,

  All eager to devour us,

We tremble not, we fear no ill,

  They shall not overpower us.

This world’s prince may still

Scowl fierce as he will,

He can harm us none,

He’s judged, the deed is done;

One little word can fell him.

 

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Luther’s 95 Theses

With Commentary

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

 

INTRODUCTION

Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, or “sentences for debate,” were really a discussion of the word “repent” as Jesus uses it in the Bible. Although Luther’s debate was to have taken place in the autumn of 1517, nearly all of the points he makes are equally valid today. They apply in any discussion, not only of repentance, but also in the way Christians understand the saving love of Christ and the whole life of sanctification (responding with our lives to our Savior).

Luther meant the debate to take place among members of the Roman Catholic Church; he was still a Catholic monk, priest and professor. Lutherans today may and must ask the same questions in any discussions with Roman Catholics and Reformed denominations alike. Many of the errors that plagued Catholicism in the sixteenth century are now troubling nearly every Christian denomination in the twenty-first; unfortunately these denominations are rarely aware of their errors. Even some branches—both large and small—of the Lutheran church fall prey to these errors. It is tragic when someone questions the doctrine of justification. “It is a fact,” wrote F. Pieper nearly 70 years ago, “that modern Protestant theology, which by the denial of Inspiration has surrendered the Scripture principle and develops doctrine from ‘experience’ and other subjective sources, has discarded the Christian doctrine of justification.” (Pieper, Francis, Christian Dogmatics. Concordia Publishing House, 1951. Volume II, p. 555).

For these reasons, during our study of the 95 Theses, we will also explore what it means to be a Lutheran, and even a Wisconsin Synod Lutheran, in our century.

 

PART I. Theses 1-3

The Definition of Repentance

 

Luther’s title for the Theses:

 

Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther

On the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences

 

Out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and Lecturer in Ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us, may do so by letter.

In the Name our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.

1. Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said “Repent,” willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.

The first thing we must notice and embrace is that Luther defines “repent” by what Jesus said in Scripture. He does not call any other Christian source to bear, not a council, not a church father, not a pope, not human reason, and, we might add, not even a Lutheran confession; he calls simply on the Word of God alone. This first simple lesson will carry us through Luther’s entire debate, and it is something we dare not forget when we talk to other people about what we believe and as we share our Christian faith. The basis of our faith goes beyond the reason or understanding of anyone alive or dead. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

2. This word [repent] cannot be understood to mean sacramental penance, i.e., confession and satisfaction, which is administered by the priests.

The Roman Catholic sacrament of penance involves confessing one’s sins to a priest and then receiving a task to perform (such as a prayer or series of prayers). The completion of the task is to satisfy a “temporal debt” (a debt owed on earth before God). Luther’s point is that since the Bible says our entire lives are to be lives of repentance, then Jesus could not possibly have meant any “sacrament of penance” (the Catholic rite). We are sinful all the time: “every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart (is) only evil all the time” (Genesis 6:5). So to do penance in the Medieval (Catholic) sense, we would have to be constantly speaking to a priest. We could do nothing else except confess our sins every waking moment. We would even have to include the sins we committed while sleeping and dreaming, while we were in the act of confessing, while we were leaving the confessional booth, and so on and on.

One of the reasons why this debate occurred at all was the Roman Catholic practice of treating the Latin translation of the Bible (the Vulgate) as the only inspired word of God. Roman Catholics treat the Vulgate in this fashion even today. The Vulgate’s translation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 4:17 records Jesus’ words as, “Do penance.”[10] But the Bible was not written in Latin. The Greek of Matthew 4:17 is better translated, “repent,” or “turn the mind.”[11] Repentance occurs inside, not just in outward actions.

Luther’s point is that the Catholic “sacramental penance” is only outward. It assumes that real inward repentance (turning the mind to God) has taken place. However, without inward repentance, outward “penance” is pointless and a sham. So Jesus can’t have been talking only about outward repentance as in the “sacrament of penance,” He was instead referring to inner repentance. We know from Scripture that God looks at the heart.

 

3. Yet it [repent] does not mean inward repentance only; no, there is no inward repentance which does not outwardly work diverse mortifications of the flesh.

 

In the second thesis, Luther said that “repent” as the Bible uses it must be not only on the outside, but also on the inside, too. Now Luther points out that repentance nevertheless will be shown on the outside in some way. Luther calls this “mortification of the flesh.” Anyone who has read about the Reformer’s life will recall the terrible scenes of the young Luther whipping himself into unconsciousness to try to purge away sinful thoughts.

What Luther thought he should do when he was a naïve young monk is not what the Bible tells us we should do. In this thesis Luther follows Romans 12:1: “We ought to present our bodies before God as living sacrifices.” When we tell God we are sorry for our sins, we ought also to behave in a way that keeps in step with this sorrow for sin. For example, we ought to avoid committing that sin again.

We have to say again that it cannot be outward repentance alone that Christ means when he says “Repent.” Luther explained this when he said, “If the penance taught by Christ signifies sacramental penance, and if the pope can change this and then actually does change it according to his (the pope’s) own will, then either the pope has divine law under his authority [which is blasphemy] or he is a most wicked adversary of his God, causing the command of God to be of no effect.”[12]

The question is plain: Do we follow God, or do we follow the opinion or whim of a sinful human being? If we have ever failed to follow God, then we have obeyed the whim of a sinful human being, or the devil. It does not matter who that human being is—we may even see ourselves as we look into in a mirror. That is exactly why we repent, turning away from our sins and laying them before Jesus who died to wash them away.

 

 

PART 2. Thesis 4

The Penalty of Sin

 

4. The penalty [of sin], therefore, continues so long as hatred of self continues; for this is the true inward repentance, and continues until our entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

 

The specter of hell should bring fear to everyone. The possibility of damnation is terrifying. How can we possibly avoid the penalty of sin? The only way is through Christ. While we live under the grace of God, we have forgiveness, and we live in that forgiveness while we continue to trust in Jesus, right up until the moment of death.

In Romans 6:7, Paul says, “Anyone who has died has been freed from sin.” When we examine those words carefully, we see that Paul is agreeing exactly with Solomon, who says in 1 Kings 8:46, “There is no one who does not sin.” We continue to need God’s forgiveness from the moment of conception when life begins (Psalm 51:5) until the moment we close our eyes in death.

The point Luther makes in this thesis is connected with the next one.

 

PART 3. Theses 5-9

Luther trusts that the Pope will see the error

 

5. The pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit, any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the Canons.

 

I know that I will be sinful throughout my entire life, but without the command of God, no one can forgive or remit those sins. Luther says that if a man sins against the pope, then the pope may forgive that sin. If the church delegates its authority to a pope, and a man sins against the church, then the pope, acting for the church, may still forgive that sin. But in fact, I don’t sin against the pope or the pope’s church, unless I were to attack the person of the pope or commit some crime against the pope’s church. But few people come into contact with the pope, and today not everyone is a member of the pope’s church.

You and I sin against God every day. Only God has authority to forgive those sins. Now, it is true that God commands you and me to forgive each other, and he commands pastors to forgive sins in their own congregations. These are applications of John 20, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” However, Luther’s point in this thesis is that the penalty of sin—death and hell—is God’s to forgive. The penalty is not the pope’s to reduce, as was the case with indulgences.

Jesus gave us a warning about forgiveness in Matthew 18, in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant:

“The kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents [that is, millions of dollars] was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had to be sold to repay the debt.

“At this the servant fell on his knees before him. ‘Be patient with me,’ he begged, ‘and I will pay back everything.’ The servant’s master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.

“But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii [that is, a few dollars]. He grabbed him and began to choke him. ‘Pay back what you owe me!’ he demanded.

“His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

“But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were outraged and went and told their master everything that had happened.

“Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

“This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart.

When you forgive someone who has wronged you, or who is struggling with a sin, remember to forgive and also to forget. Let that sin drop into the past. That’s how God forgives us, and we are grateful. That’s how we should forgive each other.

 

6. The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring that it has been remitted by God and by assenting to God’s remission; though, to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven.

 

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

 

The basis for these statements about who may forgive or remit sins is taken by Luther from Isaiah 43:25, where God says, “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more,” and also from Christ’s statement in Matthew 16:19, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Luther’s point is that it is not man who approves of what God does, but rather God who is responsible for forgiving or not forgiving sins. Yet at the same time, Jesus gave this authority also to his church when he told Peter, “I give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Later Jesus said the same thing, but to all his apostles (Matthew 18:18), and then to all believers (Matthew 28:18-20). It is not sinful human beings who give permission to God to forgive, but God in his mercy gives us—even you and me—the authority and responsibility to announce God’s forgiveness. We do it formally as a church when the pastor announces this forgiveness in worship, but we do it also as individual believers when we say to each other, “It’s all right, I forgive you.”

God’s forgiveness is free, full, and forever. Spread the news; don’t hoard it. The amount of his forgiveness is infinite.

 

8. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and, according to them, nothing should be imposed on the dying.

 

9. Therefore the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us, because in his decrees he always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity.

 

Luther included these points because there were those (and there still are those today) who would withhold forgiveness from a dying person or a weak person even when they repent of their sins. This should never happen. Forgiveness is free and given by Christ.

Luther is honest when he says “the Holy Spirit in the pope is kind to us.” Up until Luther’s day, the popes had officially stated that the dying should be forgiven. At many deathbeds, priests have been heard saying, “Forget Mary, forget the Saints, forget everything except Jesus.” They are right, and their words should set fire to the whole cult of the Saints. Jesus is the only thing that matters.

These two theses set the stage for what follows—the doctrine of purgatory. This is something to be talked about and examined carefully according to Scripture alone. Whether we are talking about purgatory or not, the only thing that matters is Christ. “Forget everything except Jesus.”

 

 

PART 4. Theses 10-13

It is wicked to needlessly withhold forgiveness from the dying.

 

10. Ignorant and wicked are the doings of those priests who, in the case of the dying, reserve canonical penances for purgatory.

 

11. This changing of the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory is quite evidently one of the tares that were sown while the bishops slept.

 

12. In former times the canonical penalties were imposed not after, but before absolution, as tests of true contrition.

 

13. The dying are freed by death from all penalties; they are already dead as far as canon laws are concerned, and have a right to be released from them.

 

The reference to “tares” in Thesis 11 is an application of the parable we call “The Parable of the Weeds” (Matthew 13:24-30). A “tare” is a kind of weed.

The canons, or rules of the councils of the Catholic Church, are placed by Catholic theologians as being a higher authority than Scripture, since they explain Scripture. This would be the same as our saying the Apostles’ Creed is more important than the Gospels since the Creed explains the Gospels. Summing up his point, Luther says that if a dying person is freed from all obligations on earth—his job, the things he does as a volunteer at his church, things he does quietly and in secret out of devotion to God (Luther mentions fasting here), contributions to the work of the church, and so forth—and that if a dying person is even released from the command to love his neighbor, how can a person then be confronted with these other commands of purgatory which are never even mentioned in Scripture?

For those unfamiliar with purgatory, it is a Roman Catholic teaching about the destination of the dead. Scripture teaches that when a person dies, his or her soul is judged before God and goes either to heaven or hell (Ecclesiastes 12:7, Luke 16:19-26). However, at some point prior to the Middle Ages, a new teaching surfaced in Catholicism to comfort the parents of children who had died without baptism. This involved a “Limbo of the Infants”—neither heaven nor hell—into which God placed little babies.[13] Purgatory seems to have grown as a teaching connected to this, and possibly out of it. It is a place where adults and children who knew Christ but who sinned, could pay for their sins by time spent in this “Purging Place” (purgatory). Another “Limbo,” the “Limbo of the Patriarchs” was also dreamed up to explain how Jews who lived before Jesus could be saved. This last “Limbo” was probably a misapplication of I Peter 3:19-20.

Whatever their motivation for teaching about such places which are never mentioned or clearly taught about in Scripture, we must remember that through Jesus, every one of our sins is paid for. As I often tell my confirmation classes, Jesus’ forgiveness includes the sin many people are the most afraid of, the very last one they commit before they die. I can assure them that sin, too, is paid for; paid in full. We are not saved by little things we do, even by confessing our sins. We are saved because Jesus washed away the guilt of all our sins. We hold on to that fact, and when we do stumble and sin, of course we will confess it to God; we are sure he loves us as a father loves his children.

“If anyone is in Christ, that person is a new creation; the old has gone, the new is here! All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them.” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19).

 

 

PART 5. Theses 14-17

Heaven, hell, and purgatory

 

14. The imperfect health [of soul], that is to say, the imperfect love, of the dying brings with it, of necessity, great fear; and the smaller the love, the greater is the fear.

 

15. This fear and horror is sufficient of itself alone (to say nothing of other things) to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair.

 

16. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ as do despair, almost-despair, and the assurance of safety.

 

The younger Dr. Luther (he was 33 when he wrote the 95 Theses) still did not always fall to Scripture alone when arguing theology. This is understandable: In the Middle Ages, human reason and the art of debate were prized more highly than Scripture. So we should not be so hard on Luther; at this time he was emerging out of this centuries-old system. Luther’s shaking off of the old way of interpreting the Bible is what the Reformation was all about, and this document we are studying was the touchstone of the Lutheran Reformation.

Luther’s reasoning goes this way: Since the dying person does not have a perfect love or a perfect soul, that person has great reason to be terrified of death. This terror is the result of the Law of God working in our hearts. God demands perfection (Leviticus 19:2), and we don’t have it. The idea of purgatory doesn’t help. It doesn’t reassure us of anything other than that God certainly does demand the perfection we don’t have. The more we think about purgatory, the more terrified we are of God’s judgment. If we aren’t good enough to get into heaven, who is to say we’re good enough to get into purgatory? Since the doctrine of purgatory isn’t founded on Scripture, we can never be certain about its requirements. The teaching about purgatory has changed greatly throughout the few centuries since it appeared. No two Catholic laymen can tell you the same thing about it.

Because the Gospel is the complete victory over hell itself, it annihilates the need for purgatory. Where hell has been defeated, what need have we for any purgatory? The walls of the prison are destroyed—what difference does it make if the gate is open or shut?

That’s the sweetness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It destroys the power of the devil and the sting of death, and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. The Gospel teaches us that Christ paid for every one of our sins. We have our Savior Jesus. He has prepared a place for each of us in heaven.

 

17. With souls in purgatory it seems necessary that horror should grow less and love increase.

 

While he wrote the 95 Theses, Luther did not entirely dismiss the Catholic theory of purgatory, but much of what he said sheds light on why any purgatory is unnecessary. Here Luther points out three types of dying souls:

 

1. Those with no faith in Jesus at all (atheists and pagans) who must face death with terrible dread (or foolish apathy). As the psalm says, “Evil will slay the wicked” (Psalm 34:21).

 

1. The second kind of dying soul is the person who has complete, saving faith. This person may face death with complete confidence and joy: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints” (Psalm 116:15).

 

• Thirdly, there are those with imperfect faith. Jesus assures us that any amount of faith saves, so those with so-called imperfect faith need to be comforted as they die.

 

Of course, it is this last group that the idea of purgatory was meant to console. You can well imagine the scene at a deathbed:

“Pastor, I just don’t think I have enough faith to get rid of all my sins.” “My child, don’t fear; Jesus washed away all your sins.”

“But Pastor, I haven’t confessed everything.”

“Don’t fear—they are all washed away in Jesus.”

“But I just (cough—he is slipping away now) don’t know….”

“Very well—cheer up! There will be a place where your sins will be purged. Cling to Jesus, no matter what. Jesus, Jesus, only Jesus.”

“Jesus, Jesus…”

The man was sent to heaven with a pious deception, but he was sent to heaven. We rely on what Scripture tells us. We must never make up anything new, even to comfort a soul. The gospel is comfort enough. Luther says that as the horror goes away, love should increase.

 

 

PART 6. Theses 18-24

The error of the forgiveness offered by indulgences

 

18. It seems unproved, either by reason or Scripture, that they are outside the state of merit, that is to say, of increasing love.

 

19. Again, it seems unproved that they, or at least that all of them, are certain or assured of their own blessedness, though we may be quite certain of it.

 

20. Therefore by “full remission of all penalties” the pope means not actually “of all,” but only of those imposed by himself.

 

Luther’s point with these statements is that Jesus’ forgiveness covers us all. If anyone says, “You are not forgiven” where Jesus says, “You are,” then that man (the pope) must be talking about some penalty he imposed himself. Luther goes so far as to quote the pope himself, who said: “Penitential satisfaction is weakened by indiscreet and unnecessary indulgences.” The pope’s own claim was that indulgences, with very few exceptions, detract from the forgiveness spoken by the pastor or priest and given by Christ himself.

The forgiveness we enjoy should not be marred, tainted or stained by us. When we add anything at all to the forgiveness Christ has given us freely through his death on the cross, we have thrown gates, fences, walls and the devil himself into the path of people we love.

Forgiveness is free. Let it flow freely.

 

21. Therefore those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the pope’s indulgences a man is freed from every penalty, and saved;

 

Luther outlined at least six different types of punishment which do not lie in the jurisdiction of the pope, so these can’t be forgiven by the pope through indulgences: (1) eternal punishment, (2) purgatory, (3) evangelical (voluntary), (4) God’s correction and scourging, (5) canonical (belonging to the church, not the pope), and (6) divine justice (different from item 4 above, since item 4 applies only to believers).

How can any person say, “You are free from this or that penalty” when the penalty does not belong to that person to forgive? On the other hand, a pastor serving a specific congregation has the authority to forgive sins, just as any Christian has this authority. But I cannot tell you, “The scourging God is giving you is to turn your heart closer to him; I now pronounce that scourge to be finished.” The right to alter that penalty is God’s alone.

It would be like a driver who stops where there is no stop sign to signal to some children who want to cross. That driver thinks other drivers will respect his good intentions, and the children will trust him. But another driver may come along who doesn’t notice this driver or his good intentions or these children who trust him.

 

22. Whereas he remits to souls in purgatory no penalty which, according to the canons, they would have had to pay in this life.

 

Put another way: no one, including a pope, can say to a person, “You will have to pay such-and-such a penalty in purgatory for what you have done.” Why can’t the pope say that? Because laws made in this world cannot and do not apply to any other life or existence. Papal canons do not touch souls in heaven, in hell, or, if it existed, in purgatory, any more than Italian maritime law applies on the moon.

 

23. If it is at all possible to grant to anyone the remis-sion of all penalties whatsoever, it is certain that this remission can be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to the very fewest.

 

What Luther seems to mean here is that everyone is still subject to death, and that punishment for sin is inflicted upon us all. By “the very fewest,” perhaps Luther had in mind the two men who were translated into heaven apart from death. But in this life, both were still subject to pain, grief, disease, and sin. Their translations were not rewards for service, but miracles pointing us closer, ever closer, to Christ. More probably what he means by “fewest” is “no one at all.”

 

24. So it must be that most of the people are deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty.

 

The only release we can count on is the one God has given us through Jesus. Does the forgiveness of sins mean we will not have pain in this life? No, we will still have pain. Does deliverance from death mean we will not die? No, it means we will be delivered from death, not spared from death. So should we look to a place like purgatory to fully wipe away the punishment for our sins? What punishment? Our sins are paid for! All of them are atoned for—through Jesus our Savior.

 

 

 

 

PART 7. Theses 25-28

Tetzel’s slogan

 

25. The power which the pope has, in a general way, over purgatory, is just like the power which any bishop or curate has, in a special way, within his own diocese or parish.

 

26. The pope does well when he grants remission to souls [in purgatory], not by the power of the keys (which he does not possess), but by way of intercession.

 

The twenty-fifth thesis was the one that had caused indulgence sellers (whom Luther called “hucksters”) to say that Luther was worthy of a thousand deaths. But Luther is completely in accord with Scripture here, except that by even admitting that there could be a purgatory, he goes too far. But the souls of individual Christians belong to each individual, as a gift from God, and are cared for by the shepherd (pastor or priest) whom the individuals have called to serve them. Or as Shakespeare put it about eighty years later, “Every subject’s duty is the king’s, but every subject’s soul is his own.”[14]

The power to forgive sins, which Luther calls the power or ministry of the keys, belongs to the entire church. Jesus did not tell this to Peter alone (as if he became the first pope, which itself is debatable), but to all the disciples, since he said “whatever you set loose on earth will be set loose in heaven” (Matthew 18:18). There the “you” is not singular, but plural: “[whatever] all of you shall set loose”).

We don’t know how many people Jesus was talking to—it was probably more than the twelve apostles, since Matthew clearly points out that these were disciples (18:1), not just the apostles. When Matthias was chosen, the main criterion that set Matthias and Justis Barsabbas out as candidates was that they had been present for all of Jesus’ instruction from the beginning. Therefore there is no reason to argue that these men and perhaps many other men and women were not present when the disciples are said to be present as opposed to the apostles.

The bottom line of this problem is that Roman Catholic priests and theologians don’t accept the Bible as the only authority for doctrine. When a pope, a council or tradition contradicts Scripture, Scripture most often loses. Jesus’ words to the Pharisees come leaping clearly and entirely in context into the twenty-first century: “You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men” (Mark 7:8) and “You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition” (Matthew 15:6). To this, we could add the words of Isaiah: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men” (Isaiah 29:13; see also Matthew 15:9 and Mark 7:6-7; as well as Malachi 2:2 and Colossians 2:20-22).

We hold to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, not to any peddling huckster here on earth, whatever his title or hat. If we accept anything other than Scripture as a divine message, we have kissed the devil on the lips and shut the door on our heavenly Bridegroom. Yet for all the times we have turned on God to follow teachings of mere men, we know that Jesus died for these sins, too. All our faith, all our hope, all our forgiveness rests on the cross. Forgive us, Jesus. Remember us. Teach us to serve you only.

“My soul finds rest in God alone, my salvation comes from him.”  (Psalm 62:1, NIV 1984)

 

27. They preach man[15] who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money-box, the soul flies out [of purgatory].

 

28. It is certain that when the penny jingles into the money-box, gain and avarice can be increased, but the result of the intercession of the Church is in the power of God alone.

 

The man who was selling indulgences in Luther’s area was John Tetzel. He had a catchy tune that people were humming and whistling around town. It went something like this:

 

As soon as the gold in the casket rings 
The rescued soul to heaven springs

 

This was the act and the song and the bad theology that caused Luther to write his 95 theses. About this, Luther said, “It is not the intercession but the favorable hearing of the intercession and the acceptance of it that frees, since souls are not set free by the prayers of the church but by the work of God.”

Even if purgatory were to exist, the Catholic doctrine and understanding of it contradicts the Bible. That’s because our prayers are not what frees a soul, but God who hears our prayer. So you can’t say, “Throw a penny in my little box and free your grandma from torment,” but rather, “Teach your children about Jesus who paid for our sins.”

 

 

PART 8. Thesis 29

Saints Severinus and Paschal

 

29. Who knows whether all the souls in purgatory wish to be bought out of it, as in the legend of Saints Severinus and Paschal.

 

This is a curious statement. Severinus was a hermit from Africa who traveled and preached in what is now Austria. He died in 482 AD. Paschal was a bishop (pope) of Rome who died in 824 AD. Luther seems to be aware of legends concerning these men, “I have heard it said that they could have been freed by their own merits if they had wished…,” and he said, “Paul and Moses could have desired to be damned so that others might be saved—see Romans 9:3 and Exodus 32:32). If they were prompted to do such things in this life, it does not appear that we can deny that the same could also be done by the dead.”

Luther’s point is this: We do not say that purgatory exists (the Bible doesn’t teach it). But even if it does, we don’t know what it would be like. Surely someone in it would become less and less wicked as his or her sins are purged. Who is to say whether a person on the fringe of such a purgatory would want to be freed? They are still subject to sin (being in purgatory and not heaven) and might not want to leave. Even with a penny in a box on earth, it might still avail nothing.

But myth about purgatory or no, the truth is that we cannot work out our own punishment for sin, because Jesus has already done it for us. We have no sin to be purged in God’s eyes. When he sees us, he sees Jesus’ perfect life and atoning death. That’s God’s message. That’s the Gospel. That’s God’s word for you.

 

 

PART 9. Theses 30-34

The Truly Penitent

 

30. No one is sure that his own contrition is sincere; much less that he has attained full remission.

 

Luther has been talking about forgiving sins and the way God simply forgives: once done, there is nothing left to pay for. Now he starts to zero in on that assurance we have that every sin is paid for by talking about “full remission.”

Luther says “full remission” (“completely paid for”) in the way that his Catholic colleagues understood those words—which meant that the sins weren’t really paid for. Modern Catholics don’t think about this any differently.

But through his study of God’s Word, Luther had realized that “full remission” of sins is a courtroom act from God, saying “your sins are completely forgiven—there is no more penalty in heaven or earth (or anywhere else) for your sins.” When God says this and bangs the gavel, it’s done. That’s the judgment and the verdict.

Understanding this, Luther later said: “I deny that this thesis is true when I speak in my own sense of the term(s): ‘sincere; full remission,’ etc. I have (said this) in order that those who oppose me might see the absurdity of their boastfulness.”[16]

Luther was simply falling back on the inspired words of Paul, who shouts for joy: “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8) and “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death” (Romans 8:1-2).

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them” (2 Corinthians 5:18-19).

 

31. As rare as is the man that is truly penitent, so rare is also the man who truly buys indulgences, i.e., such men are most rare.

 

As Luther watched indulgences being sold, he heard John Tetzel and perhaps others preaching that, on the one hand, very few people walk Christ’s narrow way; as a result they cannot achieve heaven. Yet, on the other hand, how simple it is to buy an indulgence and so cheaply release a loved one—or even your own soul—from purgatory. Did Christ pay for our sins so cheaply?

And if souls can be bought with gold or silver, why did Christ pay with blood—and just what did Christ pay for, if not our sins?

Indulgences were said to set people free from punishments recorded only in the canons or Catholic church law. But rather than buy the indulgences, the whole church could be set free from the punishment of these canons simply by abolishing the canons and following Christ.

Christ is our Savior from sin, from death, from hell and from the devil. We don’t buy his mercy with money. We don’t buy his mercy with our obedience. And you know what? We don’t even buy his mercy with our faith. He gave us mercy because he loves us; there is nothing for us to buy. That’s why we put our faith and trust in him.

 

32. Those who believe that they are sure of their salvation since they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned, together with their teachers.

 

Thesis 32 is one of Luther’s most important statements about indulgences. We aren’t saved by buying a scrap of paper. We are saved by the blood of Jesus. It isn’t paper that connects us to Jesus; it’s faith. If you think you need a piece of paper, write down Jesus’ words from John 19:30 and carry them around with you: “It is finished.” That’s all the receipt you need for eternal life. It’s free, but it wasn’t cheap.

Maybe you and I have a hard time understanding why Luther even had to write down statements like this. But folks were being told by people they trusted that they could be sure of heaven with a little donation; just a slight contribution. But salvation isn’t like public radio or PBS. God doesn’t do pledge breaks. God doesn’t need your money to save you, or, in the words of singer Bono: “The God I worship isn’t short of cash.” When we give offerings to God, we do so out of thanks and joy, not to buy anything. What we need the most is already bought with the blood of Jesus.

 

33. Men must be on their guard against those who say that the pope’s pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him;

 

34. For these “graces of pardon” concern only the penalties of sacramental satisfaction, and these are appointed by man.

 

Sacramental satisfaction means the kind of extra works imposed by a priest when someone confesses their sins. They are meant, one supposes, to force the true Christian to remember that the sin which was confessed and forgiven is indeed a sin. The “extra duty” of the sacramental satisfaction was intended to give the penitent Christian an opportunity to reflect on the sinfulness of the act (whether it was a sin of commission, doing something forbidden, or a sin of omission, failing to obey a command). In this way, such satisfaction may have been intended to help the conscience to recover some of the damage done. Paul warned that false teaching is done by hypocrites “whose consciences have been seared (cauterized) as with a hot iron” (1 Timothy 4:2). This can happen to a Christian who keeps committing the same sin over and over again. The conscience stops thinking of the act as a sin, and becomes cauterized. In this way, the “sacramental satisfaction” of penance was intended as a good thing for the penitent Christian. However, it lost its intended purpose, and became the focal point which misguided Christians and priests alike looked to for forgiveness itself. This put a human act in the place of Christ’s atoning death, and that’s always, always, an abomination and a sin.

 

 

 

PART 10. Theses 35-38

Only Christ is Necessary for Salvation

 

35. They preach no Christian doctrine who teach that contrition is not necessary in those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessionalia.

 

36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon.

 

“Confessionalia” is whatever extra things are imposed on the repentant sinner by his confessor, whether priest or fellow Christian. Luther was including indulgences along with anything else by this term.

When Luther began to preach against indulgences, he hoped to call the whole Western Church to repentance. Within the church there had been a growing concern, probably genuine care for dying souls, but that concern was misdirected. With a rising number of cults steering people away from Jesus, the church sought desperate measures to keep people focused on the Gospel. Perhaps they felt that if people had invested money in the church (through indulgences), they were more likely to stay where their money was.

It’s easy to understand their motives. In Minnesota today there is a growing cult called Eckankar; every single one of its members will be sent to hell with gentle and sweet words and peaceful actions. Wouldn’t it be a good idea for me simply to forbid my congregation from looking into this group?

Keeping people in the church, in a membership, in a congregation—either through a coin in a wooden box or a good word timely spoken—is not as valuable as keeping them in the Gospel itself. It is repentance, not member-ship, that keeps us at the foot of the cross. We look to the cross of Christ, not the spires of a city nor the buckle of a boot.[17]

 

Hide your face from my sins, and blot out all my iniquity. Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

(Psalm 51:9-10)

 

37. Every true Christian, whether living or dead, has part in all the blessings of Christ and the Church; and this is granted him by God, even without letters of pardon.

 

38. Nevertheless, the remission and participation [in the blessings of the Church] which are granted by the pope are in no way to be despised, for they are, as I have said, the declaration of divine remission.

 

What would have become of Germany had Hitler (who was, after all, an elected leader) introduced the reforms he made, passed out bread to starving thousands (as he actually did in the early days), and then gone on without the aggression, violence, hatred and paranoia that destroyed him and his nation? Would he have served his people? In the same way, isn’t even the papacy—despite its deviation from God’s Word; despite its corruption, greed and heresy—still capable of some good? Luther points out in these theses that, apart from all his personal flaws and the terrible crimes of his office, the pope is still a pastor of souls. When he grants forgiveness of sins, that forgiveness is to be believed.

But that is not what the pope in Luther’s day wanted. He wanted people to put their trust in being the member of a church, rather than putting their trust in Christ himself. This hasn’t changed with any of that pope’s successors.

Our confidence doesn’t come from belonging to a particular denomination, but from Christ himself. He died to wipe away the guilt of our sins—all our sins. Every Christian, whether they are Lutheran, Eastern, Egyptian, Reformed, Catholic or Protestant—all have a part in the blessings of Christ’s death and resurrection. True, we also need to examine our differences and exercise fellowship according to God’s Word, but when it comes to our forgiveness, our souls find rest in God alone (Psalm 62:1, 2, 5 and 6).

 

 

PART 11. Theses 39-41

True Contrition

 

39. It is most difficult, even for the very keenest theologians, at one and the same time to commend to the people the abundance of pardons and [the need of] true contrition.

 

40. True contrition seeks and loves penalties, but liberal pardons only relax penalties and cause them to be hated, or at least, furnish an occasion [for hating them].

 

41. Apostolic pardons are to be preached with caution, lest the people may falsely think them preferable to other good works of love.

 

Why does a person come to church the first time? Is it to praise God with other Christians, to hear God’s forgiveness, and to hear the Word of God proclaimed in its truth and purity?  Seldom is that first-time visit for the right reason. The first time I went to church was in the summer of 1963, forty weeks before I was born. I was in my mother’s womb, and I probably had no great desire or wish of any kind. But there I was with my family in God’s house, and they probably didn’t even know I was there, yet. Perhaps you came for a different reason:  to see an event in a loved one’s life, to experience your own baptism, to seek the answer to a question. Whatever your reason, you went.

Why does a Christian want to hear about God’s forgiveness? At times, it may not be for the right reason. We need to hear that God forgives us, but if we harbor a sin, however small, in our hearts, and do not confess it to God, if we hang on to a sinful desire, a wrathful grudge, or some other smidgen of sin, what are we saying to God? I want your forgiveness, but I’ll just hang onto this sin for a while…. That’s a step toward walking in that sin. That’s a movement toward being an unrepentant sinner: a person who does not want God’s forgiveness, a person who does not trust God’s forgiveness, a person who rejects God’s forgiveness.

Why would a person want to buy an indulgence letter? Could it ever be for a right reason? When God tells us that we are forgiven, he means we are forgiven. There is no hidden meaning there. There is no talk of “these sins, but not those sins,” or “forgiven of these punishments, but not those punishments.” All sin and all punishment for sin is wiped away in Jesus. In these theses, Luther reminds us that even the oldest pastor struggles with the knowledge that we are at the same time saint and sinner. We are completely forgiven, yet we keep on sinning. Our sins are paid for, yet we keep committing them. Luther knew, as I hope you know, that the Christian still needs to keep on hearing about God’s forgiveness and his flowing love as long as we live—from the tiniest newly conceived baby to the most learned and mature elder. The more we hear that message of forgiveness (for the sins we still commit, today and tomorrow and tomorrow), the more we love the message, and the more we need to hear it.

We don’t buy it—these theses warn that seldom and, in fact, never can they be purchased for the right reason—forgiveness is already ours, freely given by Jesus. You have sinned. But you are forgiven. Now go and live a life that says thank you to God.

 

PART 12. Theses 42-53

What Should Christians Really Be Taught About

Indulgences?

 

42. Christians are to be taught that the pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy.

 

43. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor or lends to the needy does a better work than buying pardons;

 

44. Because love grows by works of love, and man becomes better; but by pardons man does not grow better, only more free from penalty.

 

Perhaps we sometimes forget that a pope, besides being a pope, is also a pastor. As a pastor, a pope knows (or should know) that telling someone they are forgiven or showing any other form of mercy is good of itself and can exist without a piece of paper. But an indulgence (here Luther calls them “pardons”) is simply paper and may be quite far away from the mercy that is intended. What does the paper buy that the voice of forgiveness or the heart of mercy cannot give for free? Nothing. So indulgences have no value except as a fund-raising tool.

Indulgences were really introduced in Luther’s time to pay for the building of a church in Rome. But could there have been some kind of fundraising effort without the indulgences? Of course. So, again we realize that the indulgences have no value of their own.

Finally, in the last thesis above (44), Luther points out that the indulgences had no other function than to, if trusted, free a person from some punishment. This is the root problem with indulgences. It was claimed that indulgences freed a person from punishment. But lack of punishment does not equate with gaining heaven or a release from hell (or purgatory, if it existed). Why? Because God does not tell us to simply be without sin or without the consequences of sin. He tells us to be holy (Leviticus 19:2) and to perfectly keep his law. A person whose sins are paid for with money (if that were possible) has not kept the law perfectly. He has simply paid for his sins. But God commanded that we be sinless in the first place.

Jesus’ life was lived on our behalf. Now, if Jesus makes us righteous with his life (2 Corinthians 5:21), then he has also freed us from our sins in his death. And since he has indeed done these things, then we are free from sin and without any need for indulgences.

 

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”

(2 Corinthians 5:21)

 

45. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a man in need, and passes him by, and gives [his money] for pardons, purchases not the indulgences of the pope, but the indignation of God.

 

46. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they are bound to keep back what is necessary for their own families, and by no means to squander it on pardons.

 

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

 

Luther is drawing his point directly from the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). A person who thinks that indulgences themselves released someone from sins would be shocked at these statements. But Luther has been careful to point out that the indulgence letters themselves had no value except to raise money to build St. Peter’s in Rome. If someone wanted to buy one in order to contribute to that project, he was welcome to. But to buy indulgences rather than take care of your own family?

Imagine someone today who squanders all their money on lottery tickets. Even if a person buys hundreds, their chances of winning are still worse than their chances of being struck by lightning.

Perhaps it is possible to purchase a lottery ticket with a good heart and a clear conscience. But the point is that if it becomes a regular pattern, a habit, then money is being wasted, and the person is no longer being a good steward with the money that God has provided for them. In the same way, the purchase of an indulgence letter does nothing to clear a person of sins or of time in hell (or purgatory, although we have not yet discussed whether such a place even exists).

Our redemption—our purchase back from the punishment for our sins –was won for us by Jesus, once, and for all. That means he has forgiven all people, it means he has made all the payment, and it means that Jesus’ forgiveness is for all time. Jesus did it. Be sure of it. Your sins are paid for in full.

 

48. Christians are to be taught that, in granting pardons, the pope needs (and therefore desires) their devout prayer for him more than the money they bring.

 

49. Christians are to be taught that the pope’s pardons are useful, if they do not put their trust in them; but altogether harmful, if through them they lose their fear of God.

 

50. Christians are to be taught that if the pope knew the exactions of the pardon-preachers, he would rather that St. Peter’s church should go to ashes, than that it should be built up with the skin, flesh and bones of his sheep.

 

The reason Luther wrote the 95 Theses (or sentences) was to prompt a scholarly debate with those who sold indulgences. Indulgences were small documents (they looked like a small diploma) which, when paid for and signed, said that the bearer—or  even a person already dead whose name was placed on the page—was freed from x-number of years (often a hundred, or a few hundred) of suffering in purgatory before being released into heaven.

Luther does not dispute the existence of purgatory in the Theses. Very soon after, he would come to realize that purgatory is nowhere preached in the Bible. Nevertheless, he addresses the issue from a careful, critical view. He assumes that the pope was granting indulgences so that people would be comforted. We are comforted through the sacraments, and Luther supposed a person could conceivably be comforted somewhat by buying an indulgence.

But the real purpose of indulgences was to be a fund-raiser to bring in cash from Germany to pay for St. Peter’s Basilica (Church) in Rome; the construction was already underway.

We trust in Jesus, and in Jesus alone. When we put our trust in anything else—a piece of paper, power, wealth, another person, anything—we thrust Jesus aside, and we are in danger of abandoning the victory he won for us on the cross.

“Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save. Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the LORD their God.” (Psalm 146:3, 5)

 

51. Christians are to be taught that it would be the pope’s wish, as it is his duty, to give of his own money to very many of those from whom certain hawkers of pardons cajole money, even though the church of St. Peter might have to be sold.

 

52. The assurance of salvation by letters of pardon is vain, even though the commissary, nay, even though the pope himself, were to stake his soul upon it.

 

53. They are enemies of Christ and of the pope, who bid the Word of God be altogether silent in some Churches, in order that pardons may be preached in others.

 

We are saved by faith in God alone. It was true in the Old Testament: “My soul finds rest in God alone” (Psalm 62:1, NIV 1984); “the righteous person will live by his faith” (Habakkuk 2:4). It was true in the New Testament: “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12); “This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe” (Romans 3:22).

Luther was enraged that this message about being saved through Jesus was being silenced in the churches to take time to sell indulgences. It wasn’t that another teaching, such as sanctification, was being taught—certainly we must proclaim both how we are saved and how we respond in love to being saved. But indulgences were another matter. Indulgences, which should have been more on the level of a questionable hobby, became an enormous industry, but they drew people away from faith in Christ. People were encouraged to put their faith in a little scrap of paper even though it was subject to fire, cancellation, and even the whim of a later pope or council, who could revoke it. Not to mention that the value of the indulgence could be disproved through Scripture itself.

Luther was standing on absolutely solid ground against an entire church that rested on its opinion. He was putting his life in danger, but he wanted to remove an error. What he didn’t realize at the time was the impact these 95 statements would have on the church and on the world.

 

^“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

(Romans 3:21-24)

 

 

PART 13. Theses 54-62

The True Treasure of the Church is the Gospel

 

54. Injury is done the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or a longer time is spent on indulgences than on this Word.

 

55. It must be the intention of the pope that if indulgences, which are a very small thing, are celebrated with one bell, with single processions and ceremonies, then the Gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, a hundred ceremonies.

 

When Luther wrote these points, he was focused on the prominence of the gospel. In worship we sing, but the gospel has predominance. We pray, we meditate, and we greet one another, but the gospel predominates. When talking about these theses, Luther even cited the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:17, in which he says that he was not sent to baptize but to preach the gospel. Luther would not fail to see that the sacraments are themselves purely gospel.

The gospel, the message of Christ crucified for us, is central to our faith.  Without it, nothing else we do in worship has any value. Nothing must stand in the way of the gospel.[18]

“Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low; the rough ground shall become level, the rugged places a plain. And the glory of the LORD will be revealed. (Isaiah 40:4-5)

 

56. The “treasures of the Church,” out of which the pope grants indulgences, are not sufficiently named or known among the people of Christ.

 

57. That they are not temporal treasures is certainly evident, for many of the vendors do not pour out such treasures so easily, but only gather them.

 

58. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the Saints, for even without the pope, these always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outward man.

 

59. St. Lawrence said that the treasures of the Church were the Church’s poor, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time.

 

60. Without rashness we say that the keys of the Church, given by Christ’s merit, are that treasure;

 

61. For it is clear that for the remission of penalties and of reserved cases, the power of the pope is of itself sufficient.

 

Luther walks us through several different ideas about exactly what the “treasures of the church” might be. Is it that which has caused the people to begin to grumble, as they see their gold being swindled away to Rome? Or is it, as the ancient monk said, the church’s poor people? Are these treasures of the church the magnificent possessions of the Christian church—land, buildings, art, gold, certificates, and so forth? No, the sellers of indulgences say they are the opposite.

Are these treasures the great store of good works built up by the saints? No, because these good works don’t forgive our sins. And truly, neither do the indulgences that these theses are speaking against. Luther touched on the true problem with indulgences when he commented on 2 Peter 2:3 (“in their greed these false teachers will exploit you”) and said:

 

“‘They will exploit you with false words,’ says Peter. For they have chosen words with a view to defrauding the people of their money, as when they say: ‘If you give so many hundred guldens to Our Dear Lady or to this or that saint, you are doing a great and excellent good work, are earning so much indulgence and forgiveness of sin, and are redeeming so many souls from purgatory, etc.’ These and similar statements are nothing but false words chosen for the sole purpose of wheedling money from us. For here there surely is no merit and no grace or wiping out of sin. Yet they use all these noble words for the purpose of getting money in a fraudulent manner. Thus even the holy Sacrament, which is rich in grace, has become nothing else than a business, for they use it for no other purpose than to butter up the people and relieve them of their money.”[19]

 

No, the true treasures of the church are the great keys, the ability to proclaim law and gospel and to forgive sins. This treasure, which gives true comfort and the free grace of Jesus Christ, is worth more than all the rest of the treasure in the world. This treasure is the holy, innocent, bitter sufferings and death of our beloved Lord, for us. He died, that we might live.

 

62. The true treasure of the Church is the most holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God.

 

The gospel—what an amazing thing! The gospel is the message of forgiveness. Like a pardon from the governor to a prisoner about to be executed, the gospel is the message that sets us free. Imagine living in a world where the church itself no longer knew about the gospel. When we read the 95 Theses today, we sometimes make the mistake of comparing Luther’s words to the Roman Catholic Church of today, and we forget what the Catholic Church was like then. It was a church without a rival. There was no other church, at least not in Western Europe. There were still some other churches in Turkey, Russia, North Africa, and northeastern Africa—in Egypt and the Sudan. There were still some even in India. They were Christians apart from the Roman church. But for those in central, western and northwestern Europe, there was no other church. Thus, in these areas there was no gospel. There was only terror.

It was a terror from knowing only that God hates sin, and, since I am a sinner, God must hate me, too. There wasn’t any other message. “Try to buy your way out of God’s wrath! Try to buy your way out of some of your punishment!” Indulgences seemed to offer some relief from the terror, but how could one ever spend enough to buy enough forgiveness?

The treasure of the gospel tells us that there is no buying to be done. “Not with gold or silver,” Luther says over and over in the catechisms. We don’t buy our way into heaven. Jesus paid our way with his own blood.

(Romans 3:21-24)

 

 

PART 14. Theses 63-70

The Treasure of Indulgences vs. The Treasure of the Gospel

 

63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last.

 

64. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first.

 

The gospel message tells the wretched sinner that he is forgiven, but it tells the pious, pompous, thieving false shepherd that he will not, cannot, may not enter into eternal life. This, the first treasure, is hated by false teachers because it makes all of their teachings foolishness. This is as true of the vast majority of Protestant churches today as it was of Rome in Luther’s day. Those who want to rely on their own piety instead of Christ have condemned themselves to doubting whether they could ever be righteous enough. And the answer is: Never. We can never be righteous enough without Christ. But with Christ! With Christ, we are righteous apart from ourselves. With Christ we have everything necessary for salvation, and none of it comes from within. It all comes from the outside.

Indulgences also set aside the merits of Christ. Indulgences replace Christ with money, as if salvation could be bought with silver or gold. But Peter said, “I was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down from your forefathers, but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:18-19).

 

65. Therefore the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth.

 

66. The treasures of the indulgences are nets with which they now fish for the wealth of men.

 

Luther calls to mind passages like 2 Corinthians 12:14, “What I want is not your possessions but you.” And of course Matthew 4:19, “I will make you fishers of men” (King James Version) Luther’s opinion of Rome had been shattered by a visit he made there in 1510-1511, when he heard the vilest blasphemies muttered, spoken, shouted and even preached in Rome. About the pope of the day, Luther wrote in disgust the little poem:

 

I steer the Church as my ship,

all the lands of the earth are my sea,

the Scripture is my net,

and man is the fish.

 

67. The indulgences which the preachers cry as the “greatest graces” are known to be truly such, in so far as they promote gain.

 

68. Yet they are in truth the very smallest graces compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross.

 

The “grace” or value of a letter of indulgence, which had to be paid for, was next to nothing and utterly worthless compared to forgiveness itself, which is to be offered for free.

This sort of thing is not unknown today. How often do we see young couples bringing their babies to us at our Lutheran church to be baptized because the Catholic cathedral up the street charges too much money for the baptism? “Pastor, it’s so many hundred dollars… we just can’t afford it.” And how shocked they are to learn that we will baptize for free!

The gospel is to be free, freely offered, freely taken—not by decision nor act of the will. A gift is a gift, and we love our giving, forgiving God. Praise him, and thank him for his gift!

 

69. Bishops and curates, in duty bound, must receive the commissaries of the papal indulgences with all reverence.

 

70. But they are under a much greater obligation to watch closely and attend carefully lest these men preach their own fancies instead of what the pope commissioned.

 

The 95 Theses began to be printed all over Germany, stirring up confusion, anger, dissent, and rebellion against the church. One of the problems in the exchange that happened between Rome and Germany at this time was the suggestion that Luther write a letter of apology to the pope.

Something to remember about the pope at this time is that he was Leo X. He wasn’t a theologian or even a priest, but rather a member of the great Renaissance family known as Medici. Leo was more interested in political stability and things like economic and cultural change than in a reform of the church—even though he was the supreme head of that church. He had to take Luther on personally, but Luther was in a conundrum. How do you talk about theology and theological problems with your superior when your superior is not a theologian at all? Luther, in the theses above, acknowledges the authority of the pope. However, Luther also wrote that “we must bear burdens, not because they were imposed fairly and must be accepted, but as a scourge that has been inflicted by God and must be borne humbly.”[20] (Romans 3:21-24)

 

 

PART 15. Theses 71-74

Blessings and Curses for the Greatest and Least of the Treasures

 

71. Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.

 

72. On the other hand, let him be blessed who is on his guard against the wantonness and license of the pardon-merchant’s words.

 

Rather than attack indulgences themselves, Luther continually puts them on a little shelf, as it were, as “the least of the treasures.” The real treasure of the church is the forgiveness that is free through faith in Christ. But, he maintains, there could be some legitimate use to the little pieces of paper. But the men who sell the indulgences—there is the problem.

The men who sold indulgences spoke out against the gospel, and that was Luther’s main point. Go ahead, sell the scraps and give the money to pay for St. Peter’s—but don’t belittle the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

73. In the same way, the pope rightly excommunicates those who make any plans to the detriment of the trade in indulgences.

 

74. It is much more in keeping with his views to excommunicate those who use the pretext of indulgences to plot anything to the detriment of holy love and truth.

 

It may be easier to cast these two theses is a different light. Let’s use a different word than “indulgence,” and apply these same ideas to any other useful work in the church. Let’s say it’s teaching Sunday school, a vital ministry activity which happens in virtually every congregation, no matter what the denomination. If a person attempts to stop Sunday school teaching, claiming it’s against God’s word, that person would be wrong. If they persisted, they could conceivably be excommunicate-ed. On the other hand, it would be more likely to see someone abuse the privilege of teaching Sunday school. Perhaps that person collected the money the children wanted to give to Jesus’ work and pocketed it for their own use.

This is the type of abuse Luther would charge against the indulgence sellers in Germany. This was the terrible condition of the church. This is why we have said there was nothing but terror for the people.

Thank God, sincerely and with your whole heart, that he sent Martin Luther into the world just when he did, and that he used this man to point the church back toward the gospel of the forgiveness of sins. Jesus Christ has set us free—free to serve him, free to show him our love, and free to tell the world about our beautiful Savior, Jesus.

Before Luther could bring his theses, or sentences for debate, to a close, he had to mention something about the content of actual sermons being preached about the indulgences. The quotes Luther reports sound so outrageous to our ears that we would hardly believe they had ever been spoken, or that they even had been spoken in error. But these were things that had been reported and often documented. They were defended even after Luther’s theses were published all over Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

PART 16. Theses 75-88

The Value and Valuelessness of indulgences

 

75. To think the papal pardons so great that they could absolve a man even if he had committed an impossible sin and violated the Mother of God—this is madness.

 

76. We say, on the contrary, that the papal pardons are not able to remove the very least of venial sins, so far as its guilt is concerned.

 

For this statement, Luther admitted, “We should beg pardon from the Holy Virgin because we are compelled to say and think such things.” Luther treated this incredible statement only as a rumor.

The duty of a Christian is not to get people to pay for their own sins, but to urge sinners to repent, to turn away from their sins and to ask God for forgiveness. Anything else, Luther rightly says, is madness.

 

77. It is said that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not bestow greater graces; this is blasphemy against St. Peter and against the pope.

 

78. We say, on the contrary, that even the present pope, and any pope at all, has greater graces at his disposal; to wit, the Gospel, powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written in 1 Corinthians 12.

 

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

 

80. The bishops, curates and theologians who allow such talk to be spread among the people, will have an account to render.

 

81. This unbridled preaching of pardons makes it no easy matter, even for learned men, to rescue the reverence due to the pope from slander, or even from the shrewd questionings of the laity.

 

1 Corinthians 12:28 reminds us that, “God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.” Luther’s point is that as the head of the Church, the pope has far greater gifts at his disposal than petty indulgences.

Luther was beginning to question the hand that gave the indulgences and sanctioned them. He also said, “Perhaps he (the pope) has no power to do these things… ‘She who was queen among the provinces has now become a slave’ (Lamentations 1:1).” The “queen” Luther meant was a place and a power: Rome. In Luther’s heart, and in the hearts of Christians everywhere, that place and power must become the slave and servant of the only true power in the universe: the gospel of Jesus.

Sometimes lay people ask the greatest questions. Luther was saddened that he wanted to give a good answer to such questions, but couldn’t. He couldn’t be loyal to the pope and answer questions like these. So he asked for help from someone, anyone, who was a better theologian than he was. Luther probably suspected that the reason these questions were not answerable was that the pope and the whole Catholic church were actually wrong at several points:

 

82. To wit: — “Why does not the pope empty purgatory, for the sake of holy love and of the dire need of the souls that are there, if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reasons would be most just; the latter is most trivial.

 

83. Again: — “Why are mortuary and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded on their behalf, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed?”

 

84. Again: — “What is this new piety of God and the pope, that for money they allow a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of that pious and beloved soul’s own need, free it for pure love’s sake?”

 

85. Again: — “Why are the penitential canons long since in actual fact and through disuse abrogated and dead, now satisfied by the granting of indulgences, as though they were still alive and in force?”

 

86. Again: — “Why does not the pope, whose wealth is to-day greater than the riches of the richest, build just this one church of St. Peter with his own money, rather than with the money of poor believers?”

 

87. Again: — “What is it that the pope remits, and what participation does he grant to those who, by perfect contrition, have a right to full remission and participation?”

 

88. Again: — “What greater blessing could come to the Church than if the pope were to do a hundred times a day what he now does once, and bestow on every believer these remissions and participations?”

 

Again, these questions bear a sad witness to the heart of the man who was pope in Luther’s time. But we must not think that Luther’s theses only teach us a history lesson. We can still apply them today, both to popes and to ourselves. To apply them to a pope is simple. But can we apply them to ourselves?

What greater blessing to the church than if you and I did over and over again what we so often do only now and then: to share the gospel with people who need to hear it. It’s not so fun when Luther’s finger points at us, is it? But we have a job to do. We carry the gospel into the world. The world begins where you are, right now. The forgive-ness of sins is the message each one of us has to share.

(Romans 3:21-24)

 

 

PART 17. Thesis 89

Why Not Suspend Indulgences?

 

89. “Since the pope, by his pardons, seeks the salvation of souls rather than money, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons granted heretofore, since these have equal efficacy?”

 

Martin Luther said that this point bothered him most of all as he composed these 95 Theses. Why had the pope effectively canceled earlier indulgences, forcing people to buy again what they had bought once before? The answer was damning for the pope. In Luther’s words, “The power of the keys (forgiving sins) is abused and enslaved to greed and ambition,” and “our iniquities testify against us” (Jeremiah 14:7).”

It was as if the pope had turned the words of John the Baptist on their heads, demanding that the man with no tunics should give more to the one who already has two (Luke 3:11), and that the pope’s tax collectors should always collect more than they were required to (Luke 3:13), and that the pope’s soldiers should always extort money, always accuse people, and never be content with what they paid (Luke 3:14).

Here was a man with the power within the church to proclaim the forgiveness of sins to a church—not merely a congregation, but the entire Western Church—and instead of releasing souls from hell, he chose to put them through a kind of earthly hell. He sent out his dogs and Tetzels to sow guilt, shame, and doubt. He was preaching a gospel other than the one proclaimed by Jesus and his Apostles. God has already proclaimed his judgment of such men through the pen of the Apostle Paul:

 

Even if we or an angel from heaven would preach any gospel other than the one we preached to you—a curse on him!

Galatians 1:8, EHV

 

 

PART 18. Thesis 90

To Repress These Arguments is Shameful

 

90. To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians unhappy.

 

This is the same argument Moses had used with God himself when the Lord wanted to wipe out the Israelites during the exodus: it would seem like a triumph to God’s enemies (Exodus 32:12). Luther calls for patience and explanation on the part of the church’s leadership.

Any other course would simply maintain the errors already spread by the sale of indulgences, driving people to fear the church rather than to fear the wrath of God, all the while masquerading the greed of the church as the will of God. The true fear of hell is healed by the knowledge of the Gospel and of the salvation offered by God in the blood of Christ. No other fear is soothed in this way. The false law of the church of indulgences has no corresponding gospel, because it will always come beating the bushes for more money, more money, and still more money. It will do nothing but make the Muslims and the Mormons and all the others point their fingers and say, “You see? Even the pope and his priests don’t believe their own Bible and its gospel. Why should any Christians follow them?”

 

“As we have said before, so I now say again: If anyone preaches to you any gospel other than the one you received—a curse on him!”

Galatians 1:9, EHV

 

 

PART 19. Theses 91-93

Away with those who say, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace.

 

91. If, therefore, pardons were preached according to the spirit and mind of the pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved; nay, they would not exist.

 

92. Away, then, with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Peace, peace,” and there is no peace!

 

93. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, “Cross, cross,” and there is no cross!

 

Luther is paraphrasing the Major Prophets here. Jeremiah said: “Prophets and priests alike, all practice deceit….”

“‘Peace, peace’ they say, when there is no peace. Are they ashamed of their detestable conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when they are punished, says the LORD” (Jeremiah 8:11-12).

Both Isaiah (59:8-15) and Ezekiel (13:10-11) have similar passages. It would be better to preach the cross, even if there were no cross at all (Luther is speaking flippantly) than to tell the people there is “peace” when there is no peace. There is peace only through the cross. Apart from the cross of Jesus Christ, there is no forgiveness, no hope, and no peace. That’s the message that needs to be proclaimed.

 

 

PART 20. Theses 94-95

Be Confident of Entering Into Heaven!

 

94. Christians are to be exhorted that they be diligent in following Christ, their Head, through penalties, deaths, and hell;

 

95. And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many tribulations, than through the assurance of peace.

 

These final sentences of the 95 are a testimony by Luther that he fully expected opposition to what he had written. But the 95 Theses were not originally intended for just anyone. They were meant to be the outline of a professional debate between monks, doctors of the church, and perhaps even the pope himself. The debate never really took place, at least not over these points. What happened instead was that another set of “theses” was forged by some of Luther’s enemies, which infuriated Rome and the Emperor as well. It was the emperor, Maximilian, who called for action to be taken against Martin Luther. This led eventually to the Leipzig debate, at which Luther was able to debate some of the basic teachings of the church with Johann Eck in 1519.

Many, many tribulations later, Martin Luther succeeded in bringing reforms to at least a part of the Church, the part that today bears his name: Lutheran. This was the German or Lutheran Reformation. The “Protestant Reformation” which followed was primarily responsible for today’s vast number of different Christian denominations, as various people in many countries applied Luther’s success to other agendas.

Today, we apply ourselves to being diligent in following Christ, our head, and to entering into heaven through the many trials, temptations and tests that we undergo—all to the glory of God. Our guide is God’s Word alone. Our Lord is Jesus Christ. We are certain that there is no other way to heaven except through him, and we have been reminded again and again of this saving truth through Dr. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses.

 

[1] Theological Quarterly, Published by the Lutheran Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States. Volume IX, No.1 (January 1905) p. 57-64.

[2] Tetzel  seems to have made this statement into an effective rhyming slogan; Luther doesn’t bother to dress it up as if it were a sow wearing a bonnet.

[3] The Lutheran Quarterly consistently spelled this city as “Mayence” (the French spelling) in its publications. This was usual in all English publications until the Twentieth Century. It is here corrected to the current spelling of Mainz. This was the capital city of the Electorate of Mainz. Today it is the capital and largest city of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in Germany.

[4] A famous banking-house in those days.

[5] That is, an officer of the church with the authority to execute laws.

[6] That is, from October 31-November 14, 1517.

[7] When Luther talks about a song he planned to sing, he is thinking ahead to the day he was sure was coming when the Church would try to force him to recant. He plays on the word “cant” (chant)  and talks about singing a song. If he was forced to “recant” (that is, sing once again) he would simply sing the same song in a higher key, but he would not change a single word. That is the only recanting he was willing to do.

[8] In the Papal Bull denouncing Luther, Leo X had said “There is a wild boar in the vineyard.”

[9] “To twit” is an old way of saying to taunt or tease in a good-humored way.

[10] Latin, paenetentiam agite.

[11] Greek, μετανοεῖτε.

[12] Luther’s Works, Am. Ed., Volume 31 p. 88.

[13] In recent years, the Catholic Church has reversed its position about the limbo of the patriarchs and the limbo of the infants as unscriptural.

[14] Henry V, Act IV scene 1, lines 181-182.

[15] “They preach man,” as opposed to preaching Christ.

[16] Luther’s Works Vol. 31 p. 179

[17] A nickname for Rome, since Italy is often compared with a book because of its outline.

[18] The centrality of the forgiveness of sins was sometimes taken to extremes in the ancient church. In some places, catechumens (those who had not been, in our terms, confirmed as members) were dismissed from the service following the reading of the gospel. This practice divided the ancient service into two parts, the missa catechumenorum or “Service of the Catechumens” and the missa fidelium or “Service of the Faithful.” Today the division is still reflected in some of our services. In certain Communion liturgies notice that after the sermon, the pastor restarts the service before the Lord’s Supper is served by saying, “The Lord be with you,” and the people respond with, “And also with you.” This is a remnant of that ancient division of the service into two parts.

[19] Luther’s Works Volume 30, p. 174.

[20] Luther’s Works 31 p. 235.