MELANCHTHON AND LUTHER ON ROMANS 13: A COMPARISON OF COMMENTARIES

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