Post on 09-Apr-2023
Donald V. EngebretsonReading Romans (BE 220)
February 1, 2011
The interpretation of certain passages of scripture affects
history more than others. Luther’s exegesis of Romans 13:1-7, in
particular, impacted not only the political and ecclesiastical
circumstances of his own time, but ours as well.1 For the Lutheran
Church it gave rise to the foundational “Doctrine of the Two
Kingdoms,” a teaching that recognizes God’s rule both in the realm
of the church as well as the realm of the government.2 While
Luther’s commentary on this passage is fairly well known (as is
evidenced in part by Mark Reasoner’s treatment of it), the
commentary of his close colleague and fellow exegete Philip
Melanchthon is not necessarily as widely known3. While a full study
of Luther’s treatment of Romans 13:1-7 would rightly encompass more
1 Mark Reasoner, Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation (Louisville: WestminsterJohn Knox Press, 2005), 136.
2 Ibid, 134.
3 Except perhaps for scholars of the rhetorical school of interpretation such as Ben Witherington. He makes specific note of “Melanchthon’s rhetorical analysis” in his commentary Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 2004), 21.
1
than just his formal commentary4, this paper will limit itself to a
comparison between the Reformer’s 1516 commentary (with his later
1522 Preface) and Philip Melanchthon’s commentary of 15405. This
comparative study will undoubtedly need eventual expansion by
incorporating the other writings of Luther. They represent the
history between the two commentaries and would be helpful in having
a more complete understanding of the Reformer’s thought on this
passage6. For now, though, we will begin with a comparison of the
commentaries.
Luther wrote his commentary, which was the summary of his
lecture notes, at an early period in his career7. As he began his
lectures on Romans in 1515 “he still retained [the] basic
4 Such as: A Sincere Admonition by Martin Luther to All Christians to Guard Against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), Temporal Authority: To What Extent It Should Be Obeyed (1523), and an Admonition to Peace Concerning the Twelve Articles of the Peasants of Swabia (1525). Some helpful background is offered by Mark Reasoner in Romans in Full Circle, although not without the author’s own bias.
5 Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560)
6 “Unfortunately, Luther never repeated his lectures on Romans. Had he done so, he no doubt would have revised much that he had written at so early a timein his teaching career.” J.T.Mueller, “Forward,” Commentary on Romans: Luther (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1954), vii.7 His commentary represents a period in his early learning, even as a professor, before he had command of the Greek language. Oberman notes that “only in early 1519 did Melanchthon teach him to read and draw Greek letters.”Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (New York: Doubleday, 1982), 123. He also notes that “the Vulgate, the Latin version of the Bible, remained his exegetical basis throughout his life” 162.
2
organizing principle of scholastic theology,” but he was already
then beginning to depart from it as well in significant ways.8 The
issue with Tetzel and the indulgences that gave rise to the 95 Theses
was still to come in 1517, and An Address to the Christian Nobility of the
Christian Nations is yet five years in the future (1520) where “Luther
takes pains to demolish the Roman Catholic claim…that the church is
above secular authority.”9
Melanchthon’s commentary of 1540, on the other hand, was a
“revised and expanded” version of previous work dating as far back
as his initial lectures in 1519.10 This year (1540) marks a much
more mature period in the Reformation coming a mere six years
before Luther’s own death, and decades after key events that shaped
Luther’s views of government and its power, including his
appearance before Charles V in 1521 who called him to recant, and
the peasant uprising in 1525 that brought such terrible chaos and
8 James M. Kittleson, Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career (Minneapolis:Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 91.
9 Reasoner, 135.
10 Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, tr. Fred Kramer (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010), 8. Melanchthon lectured on Romans right after Luther, and was known to have lectured on this book a total of five times. It is conjectured that he may have even used Luther’s notes for his own works. Hilton C. Oswald, “Introduction to Volume 25, Luther's Works AmericanEdition, vol. 25, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, 1999).
3
bloodshed. A comparison with Luther’s exegesis, therefore, should
be an interesting investigation into similarities and differences
between the two major leaders of the Lutheran Reformation, as well
as possible developments in thought on this passage over the two
decades separating their respective treatments of the text,
including potential indications of the developing doctrine of the
“Two Kingdoms.”
Any discussion of Romans 13:1-7 must initially contend with
where this text fits contextually with regard to the chapter
preceding and the verses following. Modern commentators have
greatly debated this point, some going so far as to suggest it to
be an interpolation, although most are content to see it connected
with the chapter preceding11. Some see it as a self-contained
block12. Luther, like Melanchthon, recognized its relationship with
the previous chapter, but in a way different than most commentators
now. He writes that,
In the preceding chapter he [Paul] has taught that they shouldnot upset the church order; and now in this chapter he is
11 For example see Grant R. Osborne in Romans (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsityPress, 2004), 341-342.
12 Such as Leader E. Keck, Romans (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 311, or Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), 352.
4
teaching them that the secular order also ought to be preserved. For both orders are of God; the one to give guidance and peace for the inner man and his concerns, the other for the guidance of the outer man and his concerns. For in this life the inner man cannot exist without the outer man.13
As Reasoner observed, “Order is a good thing for Luther…”14 It is
interesting that the Reformer would concentrate on this theme well
before many of the more politically turbulent events to come when
order was at such great risk. On the other hand, Luther might
simply be demonstrating continuity with his Medieval past.15 At any
rate, Luther sees the relationship of this section with the chapter
preceding by the common point of order. Chapter 12 is about
“church order” and this section is about “secular order.” In some
ways one can recognize a hint of the “Two Kingdoms” doctrine which
will be developed more in the years to come, for he is quite clear
that “both orders ought to be preserved.” He sees a distinct yet
not competing function for each: the “secular order” is for the
13 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans” (1515-16), Luther's Works American Edition, vol. 25, ed. J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald & H. T. Lehmann, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, 1999), 109.
14 Reasoner, 135. “The passage emphasizes order, authority, civil obedience….”Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 663.
15 Reasoner, 134.5
“guidance of the outer man,” and the church is for “the guidance
and peace of the inner man.”16 Each is equally necessary.
Melanchthon also sees a thematic relationship between the two
sections of Romans 12 and 13, but labels them differently than
Luther. For him chapter 12 regards “precepts about private
morals,” and 13:1-7 in turn regards “precepts about life in the
state.”17 He also emphasizes “reason”18 as that which governs this
section in distinction to the “Gospel19 [which] teaches the godly
properly about spiritual and eternal life…”20 Again, at the risk of
reading too much into his words, hints of the “Two Kingdoms” seems
evident as in Luther. Melanchthon recognizes that the two realms
are governed differently, yet both serve the higher purposes of
God. Church and government are distinct, but not entirely
16 Martin Luther, “Lecture on Romans,” 109.
17 Melanchthon, 216. “Although this passage is often spoken of as that in which Paul discusses the relation of Christians to the ‘state,’ there is no mention of the ‘state.’” Fitzmyer, 662. However, he also says that “Such a view of this passage reflects a modern problem that especially came to the fore in the period of Hitler and Mussolini and after the Second World War.”
18 Fitzmyer: “…the mention of ‘conscience’ (13:5) reveals that Paul’s discussion of this topic is more rational and philosophical than theological…its rational and philosophical thrust…” - Fitzmyer, 663.
19 Narrow sense (Gospel vs. Law), as opposed to his more general use of “Gospel” in this same section as meaning the scriptures themselves.
20 Melanchthon, 216.
6
separate, God is involved and served in both.21 In summary,
Melanchthon notes that the principles of Romans 13 were “handed
down” by God for the following three purposes:
First, that this society may be preserved for the purpose of teaching. Second, that these offices of society themselves may be exercises of confession. Third, that in these works wemay exercise fear of God, faith, prayer, love, etc. Thereforelet us realize that it is wicked to despise or harm these divine things.22
First Section: Verse 1-423
As Luther begins his exegesis of Romans 13, does he at this
early stage go out of his way to legitimize the local, secular
magistrate, and is he already ‘baptizing’ the “quest for
independence from the church,” as noted by Reasoner?24 From both
the glosses and scolia of his notes a few things are apparent.
First, Luther is not as specific about the nature of the 21 “The two kinds of rule are ways by which God himself runs his world. Hence, as Anders Nygren says, it is God with whom we deal in matters spiritualand temporal – God himself rules both realms.” – Kenneth Hagen, “Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms,” God and Caesar Revisited – Luther Academy Conference PapersNo. 1 (Spring 1995), 23.
22 Melanchthon, 217.
23 This division follows Melanchthon, although Luther does not divide the text. Osborne also follows Melanchthon, writing that “verses 1-4 are on submission to government, and verses 5-7 are a clarification and example of the basic command.” Osborne, 342. Keck, on the other hand, notes that “verses1-5 explains why submission is warranted; verses 6-7 make this injunction concrete.” (312) Not all scholars choose to divide the text, but treat it as a whole.
24 Reasoner, 134.
7
evxousi,aij u`perecou,saij (governing authorities) as one might
expect. He describes them variously as “superiors,” “higher powers
of whatever kind,” “powers of differing ranks,” “powers that are
without,” and “secular order.”25 Although he quotes 1 Peter 2:18ff
which speaks of being “subject to every human institution, whether
it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him,”26
he does not directly refer to the “governing authorities” as
distinctive political entities. This may be, in part, because
Luther saw the evxousi,aij u`perecou,saij ,or Kingdom of God’s
Left Hand, as Luther may have referred to it, as encompassing God’s
rule “through father, mother, Kaiser, king, judge, and even
hangman.”27 Compared to modern scholars, many of which see these
“governing authorities” as “Roman authorities,”28 Luther employs a
far broader, and even more politically neutral description.
Melanchthon, on the other hand, is far more specific in his
interpretation of evxousi,aij u`perecou,saij . “[Paul] teaches
what government is and whence it comes,” he writes.29 He also uses 25 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans,” 109.
26 Luther’s translation.
27 Hagen, 23.
28 Keck, 313.
29 Melanchthon, 217.8
the term “form of the state,” which has an admittedly ‘modern’ ring
to it, although Melanchthon lived before the rise of what we would
recognize as the ‘modern state.’ Thus, we should be cautious about
reading too much into his words.30 He is, however, like Luther,
careful not to see the apostle’s words as an endorsement of any
particular government. To make his point he notes the words “which
are over you” as having been added to “exclude foreign
governments.” It would seem that he is referring to the present
participle u`perecou,saij ,which can mean “have power over”
(usually translated as “governing”).31 Thus he states: “It is not
necessary for a citizen of Cologne to obey the government of Paris.
But this is what Paul teaches: we should obey that government which
is over us, or that everyone should obey his own government.”32
Even though neither Luther nor Melanchthon can be accused of
using Romans 13 to endorse a particular form of government, one
concern raised by Reasoner, in reference especially to his later
30 “To begin with, the literary context itself shows that Paul is not outlininghis view of ‘the state’…,” Keck, 311.
31 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,2nd ed., tr. W. Arndt and F. Gingrich, ev. and augmented from Bauer’s 5th ed., 1958, by F. Gingrich and F. Danker (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979), 841. [Hereafter BAGD]
32 Melanchthon, 217.
9
writings, was that while Luther used Romans 13 to “empower secular
authorities,” he also failed to “highlight the moral responsibility
of the secular authorities.”33 It is true that both Luther and
Melanchthon are very clear in their commentary that the existing
powers are established and instituted by God. Luther underscores
additionally that “in contrast to the Jewish idea” one should “be
obedient even to evil and unbelieving rulers.”34 Thus, “even though
the powers are evil or unbelieving, yet their order and power are
good and of God.”35 His obvious concern in this brief commentary is
obedience and order, but not necessarily accountability.
Melanchthon, however, does address the accountability of
government, especially in reference to the phrase “for your good”
in vs. 4 (soi. eivj to. avgaqo,n) to which Reasoner appeals36. Here
Melanchthon sees Paul distinguishing “the tyrant from the true
ruler.”37 “For a magistrate should think that he had been divinely
placed in this office so that he should plan what is useful for
33 Reasoner, 136.
34Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans,” 109.
35 Ibid.
36 Reasoner, 136.
37 Melanchthon, 219.
10
others, as Aristotle reminds Alexander that he should think that
the kingdom had come to him in order that he might do good to the
entire human race, not that he might be unscrupulous and scornful
toward others.”38 The godly magistrate, Melanchthon thus observes,
should not reason that his authority and wealth are his for the
purpose of misusing them for his own selfish desires. Rather, it
has come to him for the purpose “of offering counsel for the common
good, and that right actions may be protected, such as the true
worship of God, discipline, the courts, and peace.”39 Is it
possible that after the turbulence following Luther’s and
Melanchthon’s early years he became more aware of the need to
remind government of its duty to serve as well as the citizens to
obey?
For Luther, “for your good” is taken in a very different way,
although it still retains a positive sense. He interprets it to
mean “in order that he may remove you from evil even if it brings
him evil.”40 This gloss is referenced with an additional scolia
which reads: “For even if evil men do not serve Him, God yet causes
38Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans,” 109.
11
it to happen that the good which they have and which they misuse
serves Him.”41 In some ways one can see an echo of Augustine in
Luther’s words: “When Paul says: He is God’s servant for your good, though
it be for his own evil, this should be understood the same way as
above.”42 Undoubtedly Luther’s thinking is influenced by his study
of the Church Fathers at this point and others. Oberman observes
that “Careful analysis reveals how extensively Luther used the
scholarly aids at his disposal and studied the biblical exegesis of
the Church Fathers and medieval authors.”43
In summary, we see that while Luther approaches the powers of
Romans 13 in a rather general way, his emphasis remains on their
firm establishment by God. Coupled with this Luther also stresses
the law aspect of these verses, noting the necessity of obedience
for the sake of order. In addressing the idea of judgment for
disobedience against the authorities, Luther seems most concerned
by those who would try to work around the appointed authorities and
find excuses for their disobedience. In one of the scolia he even
41 Ibid.
42 Gerald Bray, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VI – Romans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 327.
43 Oberman, 162.
12
makes mention of those who try to diminish their disobedience by
downgrading their sin to one of venial status.44
For Melanchthon the thrust of this section is to be found in
how God serves his people through the governing authorities and how
this can be preserved. He stresses in particular how the divinely
appointed public office affords the opportunity for teaching and
acts of confession, resulting ultimately in the protection of the
very worship and faith of the church. Thus, more than in Luther,
we see the vestiges of the “Two Kingdoms” doctrine where God rules
in both realms and each serve the other.
Second Section: Verses 5-7
Luther is rather brief in his commentary of this second
section. He begins by looking back to the preceding verse of the
first section (vs. 4) and ties vs. 5 to it as a result of the
former. In other words: since the authorities are “God’s servant”
for the purpose of executing wrath in punishment (vs. 4), we are
required to be subject to them not only to avoid this wrath, but
also for the sake of our conscience, which is the “primary reason”
for being subject to them (vs. 5). At this point Luther repeats, 44 Martin Luther, “Lectures on Romans,” 109.
13
it would seem for emphasis, that “he is God’s servant” and then
adds “God has willed it,” with a quotation then from 1 Peter 2:15.45
For Luther unquestioned obedience seems to predominate at this
point. He is not interested here or elsewhere in explaining a
rationale or possibility for disobedience. In fact, back in verse
4 he writes that the thrust of Paul’s words were: “Do not think
that because of your Christianity you are above punishment.”46 His
concern centers more on those who might make excuses to disobey,
using the pretense of their faith as a cover. Given the time of
his writing this may again reflect his inclination more toward a
Medieval mindset: The ruler reigns supreme, and we are simply
obligated to obey.
Melanchthon, like Luther, also sees verse 5 as an explanation
of the material preceding it. Both are obviously taking note of
the conjunctive that begins this section (dio. ), and maybe also
noticing the repeat of the verb which Paul uses to introduce the
chapter ( ujpotavssw, first in the imperative, and then in the
infinitive). As Luther did, he also stresses the necessity for
obedience. At this point he makes note of something also referenced
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.14
earlier by Luther, namely, whether disobedience is in any way a
mortal or venial sin, classifications very much in use in the
Catholic Church then and now. Melanchthon makes it quite clear that
disobedience here carries serious consequences, contrary to those
who want to downplay the apostle’s warnings. He notes an opinion
in his day used to justify such thinking where it was urged “that
since government is not able to understand eternal punishment, the
laws of the government do not seem to obligate under eternal
punishment.”47 Obviously even then readers observed the notable
absence of any reference to Christ or the faith, and may have
deduced from this that government was outside of God’s specific
purposes.48 However, if Paul’s words are predominately “law” and
concern matters of our “bodily life” (as opposed to the spiritual),
we are still not free from them. God has made us subject to them,
and thus, disobedience is disobedience against God’s very will.
Consequentially, those breaking these laws will suffer the “curse
and wrath of God” in both a temporal and an eternal fashion, the
latter because disobedience “makes the conscience guilty” and risks
the result that it might “drive out faith.” Furthermore,
47 Melanchthon, 220.
48 Fitzmyer, 633.
15
Melanchthon makes it clear that for believers the “works of
political and economic life” are never mere secular indifferences,
but on the contrary are works that ultimately serve God. For them
the stakes are even higher, since through the government God “may
become known” and our obedience is seen as virtually an act of
worship. Once more we see elements of the teaching of the “Two
Kingdoms,” where God rules and serves the needs of his people in
both realms, even if his means are vastly different in each.49
At this point Melanchthon returns to a point made in the first
section and omitted by Luther: accountability of government as well
as subjects. Each stands equally culpable for their sin and
equally susceptible to judgment. Although the immediate context
does not automatically implicate the authorities, Melanchthon uses
a parallel passage in 1 Peter 2:13-17 to broaden its application.
Reasoner would be pleased.
Now Melanchthon, in true rhetorical fashion, structures his
next remarks by responding to an unnamed interlocutor: “But here
the question is asked….Someone may object:…” His concern shifts to
an additional area Luther does not address: exceptions to
obedience, especially where the demands and traditions of one realm49 Melanchthon, 220-221.
16
may conflict with the other. Melanchthon reacts to the unique
challenges of his time where the church ruled with a power
seemingly on par with that of the state. He differentiates between
“ecclesiastical laws” and “civil laws,” recognizing that where the
former represent mere adiophora but are imposed with the force of
God’s will, one is free to not obey, their act of disobedience now
an example of confession. That said, Melanchthon however does not
want to make it seem as if respect toward the realm of God’s rule
in the church is somehow of lesser value. Quite the opposite. He
states that “the greatest reverence is owed to ministers of the
Gospel.”50 This should be understood, of course, as obedience first
and foremost to God’s Word, not new traditions. Thus, in response
once more to those concerned about “mortal sins,” he clarifies that
such a sin occurs when one violates the authorities God appoints
and the laws he himself establishes, not when we, in Christian
freedom, choose to ignore matters indifferent.51
All of the above actually stems from his commentary on verse 5
alone. In every era “for the sake of conscience” impacts us
differently. In Luther and Melanchthon’s day the challenge of
50Melanchthon, 222.
51 Ibid.
17
conscience involved the historic changes to the very structure and
purpose of authority, church and political. The world, as they
knew it, was in transition, and the old forms were passing away
even as seemingly new rules were being written for the new forms.
Melanchthon may appear as if he provides an over abundance of
commentary at this point, but he is exegeting the text in true
pastoral fashion.
In verse 6 Melanchthon notes a shift in Paul’s words from the
“general” to “duties in particular,” namely the paying of
“tributes.” Under this classification he “includes all things
which are owed to the authorities for the defense of discipline and
peace, namely works, military service, wages.”52 In reference to
the paying of taxes Luther is mainly concerned about those who look
upon such a duty as somehow prohibited by God, such as the Jews.
However, Luther reminds the reader, God would not require something
if it was already prohibited. He makes no further comment, but then
the issue is not as acute for Luther at this point as it would be
later.53 The Greek word fovro~ can mean either tax or tribute.54
52 Ibid.
53 Martin Luther, “Lectures to the Romans,” 191.
54 BAGD, 885.
18
Fitzmyer writes that the word “denotes the direct tribute payment,
such as property tax or poll tax.”55 Luther appears to stay with
the narrower meaning of the word, while Melanchthon broadens it out
in his attempt to apply it to current circumstances.
Melanchthon now goes on to note how Paul once again calls the
authorities “servants of God” and “testifies that the function of
the government is a good work.”56 By contrast he observes how the
works of the devil are actions bent on “the destruction of the
ordinances of God.”57 Since God is active even in the secular realm
the actions of the government are works done by the will of God.
Anything that attempts to destroy and tear down the works of the
authorities is therefore sinful and actually serving evil.
In verse 6, to which Luther does not offer comment,
Melanchthon also makes special note of the “diligence” which is
“required of magistrates.” He uses “diligence,” or the
corresponding Latin word assiduitas ( meaning “constant attendance,
constant repetition, perseverance”58) , to translate proskarterevw ,55 Fitzmyer, 669.
56 Melanchthon, 222-223.
57 Ibid.
58 Langenscheidt’s Universal Dictionary: Latin-English, English-Latin, ed. C.D.N. Costa and MaryHerberg (Berlin: Langenscheidt Hodder and Stoughton, 1966), 31.
19
which means “adhere to, persist in,” or as BADG specifically
renders it in this passage, “busy oneself with, be busily engaged
in.”59 Melanchthon writes how this is an “important word” from
Paul, and all the more so because, as he sees it, the governing
authorities are busy especially with the “propagation of true
worship…the defense of discipline and peace, which are divine
benefits.”60 Melanchthon admits that this diligence is a “burden to
which no human wisdom can be equal.”61 Thus, the work of
government, although directed largely by reason (rather than by the
revealed Word), still requires God’s blessing to succeed. For the
reformers Paul’s words were confirmation of the divinity of God’s
work in this realm which required humble respect and willful
obedience.
Melanchthon concludes this second section by observing Paul’s
return from specifics to a “general precept about all civil
offices.”62 Here he broadens the apostle’s imperatives in a way
keeping with Luther’s original interpretation of the “authorities.”
59 BAGD, 715.
60 Melanchthon, 223.
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
20
Thus, Paul here “embraces all duties that are necessary in
society,” which includes “duties we owe to the family, citizens,
parents, spouse, children, and servants.”63 In true catechetical
fashion he then appeals to the “Decalog” which he indicates “shows
what the duties are which are owed to each individual which he
repeats here [vs. 9] in order that we may have a sure teaching
about which works are necessary.”64
In summary we note in this section how Melanchthon, more than
Luther, offers extensive commentary, which seems very directed to
current ‘pastoral’ concerns of his time. We should also note that
Melanchthon again addresses issues of accountability, omitted by
Luther, as well as questions related to exceptions to obedience.
Furthermore, indicating a working paradigm of the “Two Kingdoms”
doctrine, he offers additional commentary addressing concerns of
ecclesiastical authority, especially that of Word and Sacrament
ministry at the parish level.
Luther’s Preface to Romans
During his time at the Wartburg Castle Luther translated the
New Testament into German. In 1522 the New Testament was
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
21
published, and with the translation he included prefaces to the
various books. His preface to Romans is the best known and most
extensive, and since it was written after his commentary, if only
by a few years (six or so), it is included here for brief
comparison. It is interesting that as opposed to his earlier
commentary Luther now refers to the authorities as “worldly
government,” to which he still stresses the need for “honor and
obedience.”65 He stresses this while acknowledging that it be done
despite the fact that “it does not make its people righteous before
God,” a point reminiscent of Melanchthon’s earlier comments as well
as Luther’s in his original commentary, where both reformers react
to those who find excuse to disobey the authorities since they are
not of a spiritual nature.
Luther next addresses the purpose for which God instituted the
governing authorities. They were “instituted in order that the good
may have outward peace and protection, and that the wicked may not
be free to do evil, without fear, in peace and quietness.”66 The
peasant rebellion was still a few years off, yet Luther did return
65 Martin Luther, “Preface,” Commentary on Romans, tr. J. Theodore Mueller (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1954), xxiv.
66 Ibid, xxiv-xxv.
22
to Wittenburg in 1522 to restore order after trouble ensued in his
absence. Might thoughts of current and pending disorder be in his
mind already?
In conclusion Luther makes a point missing from his previous
commentary and also from Melanchthon’s own work. It seems as if he
could be viewing chapter 13 in the broader context of the end of
chapter 12 and the verses following in 13 regarding the debt of
love (although we must be careful here not to read current concerns
of exegesis into his.) He also betrays his strong commitment to
see Christ present everywhere in scriptures, even though all will
admit that mention of Christ is curiously missing from this text.
“In the end,” he writes, “he comprises it all in love, and includes
it in the example of Christ, who has done for us what we are also
to do, following in His footsteps.”67
Concluding Remarks
Neither Luther nor Melanchthon show concern for the historical
background to this text expressed by later modern commentators.
Whether Paul was addressing the Roman’s reaction to current issues
with the emperor and taxation does not interest them. They also do
not spend any time examining the organic relationship of this text
67 Ibid, xxv.23
to the surrounding context, which no doubt may reflect, in part,
how this section seems in some ways already self-contained. They
simply see it as addressing a related but distinct topic in the
life of the church. Their exegesis is therefore decidedly pastoral
with a view to its immediate application in the church, especially
evident in Melanchthon’s longer commentary. To what degree
contemporaneous historical events impacted the exegesis of these
reformers continues to be an open, yet intriguing question.
Finally, these commentaries appear to give one window into the
growing thinking in the Lutheran church regarding the “Two
Kingdoms” doctrine that will have much impact not only on this
period of history, but on generations to follow.
Bibliography
24
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Liturature. 2nd ed. Translated by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich. Revised and Augmented from Walter Brauer’s5th ed., 1958. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,
1979.
Bray, Gerald, ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament VI – Romans. Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Costa, C.N.D. and Herberg, Mary, eds. Langenscheidt’s Universal Dictionary: Latin-English. Berlin: Langenscheidt Hodderand Stoughton, 1966.
Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Hagen, Kenneth. “Luther’s Doctrine of the Two Kingdoms.” God and Caesar Revisited - Luther Academy Conference Papers No. 1 (Spring 1995)
Käsemann, Ernst. Commentary on Romans. Edited and translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980.
Kittleson, James M. Luther the Reformer: The Story of the Man and His Career. Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing Company, 1986.
Keck, Leander E. Romans. Nashville: Abingdon Pres, 2005.
Luther, Martin. Commentary on Romans. Translated by J. Theodore Mueller. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1954.
_____________. “Lectures on Romans” (1515-16). Luther’s Works. American Edition. Volume 25. Edited by Hilton C. Oswald. Translated by Walter G. Tillmanns and Jacob A.O. Preus. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972, 1999.
25
Melanchthon, Philip. Commentary on Romans. Translated by Fred Kramer. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2010
Oberman, Heiko A. Luther: Man Between God and the Devil. New York: Doubleday, 1982.
Osborne, Grant R. Romans. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Reasoner, Mark. Romans in Full Circle: A History of Interpretation. Louisville:Westminster John Knox Press, 2005.
Witherington III, Ben. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2004.
26