03A.02. Matthew 5 contd

Matthew 5:22. But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment,’ and whosoever shall say to his brothel; Raca, shall be in danger of the council,, but whosoever shall say: Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.

Behold, this is the true light, that shows the true meaning of this commandment, and that puts to shame their foul gloss, as a dark lantern in contrast with the bright sun, and it now shines with such a different appearance, that they are presently amazed and say, That is teaching with authority, and not as their scribes. Although this explanation is clear enough, and elsewhere often treated of, we must yet here for the sake of the text expand the words a little. In the first place he says: He who is angry with his brother is in danger of the judgment; that is, he has merited the same punishment that is inflicted upon a murderer, namely, that he should be condemned to death. For he repeats the very words that stand in the text, Leviticus 24:17 (which he now himself has quoted): He that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. Because now he who is angry with his brother comes under the same sentence, he is also properly called a murderer. In the second and third statement: Whosoever saith to his brother, Rata, or, Thou fool, is in danger of the council and of hell fire, he means the same thing as to be in danger of the judgment, namely, that he is in danger of being put to death. But he mentions three particulars, to show how the punishment becomes greater and more severe the more the sin continues and reveals itself. For he speaks as in a process before the court, when a criminal is to be punished. As namely, when one has committed murder, he is in danger of the judgment, that is, he is brought before the court, indicted, and a charge is brought against him, as one who has caused death. That is the first grade or step towards death; yet the sentence has not yet been passed, so that he still may have room to vindicate himself and be acquitted. Secondly, when however the sentence has been passed that he is to die, then he is in danger of the council, so that a consultation is held concerning him, what kind of punishment is to be meted out to him; then he is again nearer to death, so that he cannot escape. Thirdly, when the sentence of death has now been passed, and all has been determined upon, he is handed over to the executioner, that he may take him away and perform his official duty. So he indicates by these steps, how one sinks deeper and deeper into punishment; just as he who is to be executed draws steadily nearer and nearer to death. Therefore, it is as if it were said: He who is angry in heart is already deserving of death before God; but he who goes further and says: Raca, or, Thou fool, has already had sentence pronounced upon him, etc. In short, he is already damned to hell fire who is angry with his brother. But he who says Raca, deserves to go still deeper into hell; still deeper, however, he who kills also with words and fist. So the punishment and condemnation is entirely one and the same, and yet the same is heavier and more severe as the sin progresses and breaks out more fiercely. As to the meaning of Raca, we are told that it signifies all sorts of indications that show our anger against our neighbor: as when one neither speaks to or looks at him; or when one is pleased and secretly rejoices when it goes ill with him; or where one in any way shows that he would be really glad if his neighbor would be utterly ruined; as there are now many of these poisonous, wretched creatures, that array themselves most bitterly against us, both publicly and by secret and treacherous practices, as those who would most gladly hear that we were all exterminated, and yet they pose as holy Christian people. The other phrase: Thou fool, means not only the various indications [above mentioned] but all the words that come from a bad, poisonous heart, that is hostile to its neighbor. Otherwise, if they come from a kind, motherly heart, there is no sin. For one may indeed rebuke and scold with words, as St. Paul calls his Galatians fools, and Christ says to his disciples: O fools, and slow of heart to believe; yes, not only this, but we must also be angry and wear a stern and forbidding exterior. For this is all a godly anger and vexation at the wrong, not at the person, but for the benefit of our neighbor. In short, it is a necessary anger, that cannot be dispensed with in any house, in any city and government, yes, in any pulpit. For should father, mother, judge and preacher haul in mouth and fist, and neither rebuke nor restrain the evil, government and Christianity and everything would go to destruction through the wickedness of the world. So that the meaning here is: hate the cause, yet love the person; as the jurists very well say, if they only would make the right use of it.

Matthew 5:23-24. Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath aught against thee, leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

He makes a long sermon over this command, which looks indeed like an easy text, but the vice [here rebuked] is very wide-spread and common, especially among high, mighty, wise people, as at the courts of kings, lords and princes, and those who are anything, or can accomplish anything upon earth, they are most deeply involved in it, and yet must not be blamed with it. For it wears a very specious appearance, and nothing can dress itself up so handsomely and adorn itself with the appearance of sanctity, wherewith many people deceive themselves and others; and they do not see how they are at heart hostile to their neighbor, or cherish a secret spite against him, and nevertheless want to be pious, serve God, ands as he here says, go to the altar and bring a sacrifice, supposing that it is all right with them. This is the way of it; they put on a handsome appearance and stand under the cover of what is called zelus justitiae [a zeal for justice,] a virtue that loves justice and is indignant at evil and cannot tolerate it; just as the sword and ruling authority are appointed to administer righteousness and punish wickedness; as also father and mother, master and mistress, must become angry and punish. Here comes now the pious villain, puts on his little robe and says he does it out of love for righteousness, and has good and reasonable cause for what he does: as now princes and others are brim-full of poison, hatred and envy against our people, live on in this spirit, make no conscience of it, and the whole thing is nothing but “indulgencies” and “relics.” For they cover themselves with the beautiful excuse, that they say they are hostile to heresy, and they make a great virtue out of its a holy zeal and a love for the truth; and there is at bottom nothing but a shameful, poisonous hatred and spite, that cannot otherwise show and gratify itself. For I know, and may well say, that all our opponents (except our dear lord the Emperor, personally, who has not been correctly informed about us,) neither have nor know any reason why they should hate and be hostile to us, except mere envy and mischief. For they make no charge against us of any wrong-doing, that we are scamps or scoundrels, or have injured them in any way; they know too, and have had to confess it, that our doctrine is the exact truth; yet they are so full of poison that they would bear with the world full of nothing but desperate villains rather than with us and ours. So there are many excellent, honorable, learned and otherwise upright people, who are so filled with anger, envy and hatred, and are so embittered by it, that they are unconscious of it, and are fully satisfied that they are doing it by virtue of their office or for the sake of righteousness. For their excuse is too plausible, and so delusive that no one dare accuse them of being anything else than upright, pious people. So their hearts at last become hardened, they strengthen and harden themselves in the poisonous vice, and sin against the Holy Ghost. For it is a two-fold wickedness; first that the heart is full of anger, hatred and envy; secondly, that it is not acknowledged to be sin or evil, but is to be called virtue, which is equivalent to smiting God on the mouth and making him out a liar.

Notice, for this reason Christ warns so diligently that every one be specially careful at this point lest he be deceived by this hypocrisy and false appearance. For no one believes how such a simple statement can be so far-reaching and affect such great people. For by these words, as he says: “If thou bring thy gift to the altar” he shows clearly that he is speaking of those who serve God, and claim to be the true children of God, and are reputed to be the best of all. What is wrong with them, then? Nothing, except that their heart is sticking full of hatred and envy. Dear friend, of what account is it that you are incessantly fasting and praying, giving all your money for God’s sake, and castigating yourself to death, and doing ever so many good works, more than all the Carthusians, whilst at the same time you ignore the command of God that he wishes to be obeyed? That you make no conscience of reviling and calumniating others, and yet wish to present a great sacrifice? Just as if one had caused war and murder, and had shed much blood, and afterward paid a thousand ducats for having masses said for those who were killed; or if some one had stolen a great sum of money, and then would give alms for God’s sake. Thus they deceive God (yes, themselves) with the pretty pretense, that he must now regard them as genuine living saints.

Therefore he says now: Do you wish to serve God and present an offering, and have you injured any one, or do you cherish anger against your neighbor? then know at once that God will not accept your offering, but lay it right down, and drop everything and go first of all and be reconciled with your brother. By this he means now all works that one can do to serve or praise God (for in those days there was no better work than to offer sacrifice); and he rejects it entirely, and commands that it be dropped at once, unless your heart first assures you that you are reconciled with your neighbor and do not know of cherishing any ill-will. If this be done, then come (says he), and offer thy gift. This he adds, so that no one should think that he wishes to reject or despise such a gift. For it was not an evil act, but one ordered and commanded by God; but that is evil, and utterly spoils it all, that they disregard the higher commands of God and despise them. That is making an abuse of sacrifices against your neighbor.

There is also an abuse in regard to this matter that is of more consequence — that one seeks thereby to be saved, to atone for sin, and to rely upon it and have confidence before God; of this we treat elsewhere. In itself it is a good work; just as all other works of public worship, as praying and fasting, are not to be despised or neglected, where their intention and use are proper, namely, that one does not do them thereby to merit heaven, and when the heart is all right towards our neighbor, and thus both faith and love are pure and right. But if thou prayest and fastest, and yet along with this speakest evil of thy neighbor, defamest and slanderest people, thy mouth indeed speaks holy words and eats nothing; but it meanwhile pollutes and defiles itself with thy neighbor, against the command of God.

Therefore he rebukes and forbids such fasting in Isaiah 58:3, wherewith they mortified their bodies and made pretense of great devotion, and he says: Behold in the day of your fast ye find pleasure, and exact all your labors. Ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness: ye shall not fast as ye do this day, to make your voice to be heard on high, etc. And he further teaches how we are to fast properly: Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens and to let the oppressed go free, etc. Break thy bread to the hungry, and when thou seest the naked, cover him, etc. Here you see how he is chiefly concerned about our love for our neighbor.

Matthew 5:25-26. Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily,/say unto thee, Thou shall by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing. In the previous text he preached to him who had injured his neighbor or was angry at him: but here he tells how he is to act who is injured; and he carries out the figure that he had introduced, namely the usual course taken before a court, when two parties are opposed to one another, one accusing, the other being accused, and the judge pronouncing sentence and punishing the guilty party; and he means only to say that he who injures another should peaceably become reconciled with him; that the other, however, should consent to be reconciled and cheerfully forgive. This is now also a fine point, and here many can very nicely cover over and adorn their scoundrelism, by saying that they will gladly forgive, but not forget. For there is ever the pretense at hand, of which I have spoken, that anger against the wrong is reasonable, and they think they are acting with good reason, and all is right and proper.

Therefore he warns here again, and shows that in this commandment not only is wrath forbidden, but it is also commanded that we are cheerfully to forgive and forget the harm that has been done to us: as God has done with us, and still does, when he forgives sin, that he blots it out of the record altogether and remembers it no more; yet not so that one must or can in such measure forget it, that one dared never think of it again; but in such a way that you can have just as friendly a heart towards your neighbor as before he injured you. But if the stump remains in your heart, so that you are not as friendly and kind towards him as before, then it cannot be said that you have forgotten, not even that you have heartily forgiven, and you are still the knave who comes before the altar with his gift and means to serve God, whilst his heart is yet sticking full of anger, envy and hatred. But very few people pay regard to this; they all wear the beautiful mask, they do not see how their heart stands in relation to this command, which in short tolerates no wrath or ill-will against one’s neighbor.

It is true, as above said, that anger there must and shall be; but take care that it be properly applied, and remember that thou art commanded not to be angry on thine own account; but for the sake of thine office and of God, and that thou must not confound the two, thy person and office. For thine own person thou must not cherish anger against any one, however badly thou art injured; but where thine office requires it, there must thou be angry, even though no harm has been done to thy person. Thus a pious judge is angry at a criminal to whom he wishes no harm for his own person’s sake, and whom he would rather leave unpunished, and his wrath proceeds from a heart in which there is nothing but love towards his neighbor, and it is only the evil deed that is to be punished that must bear the wrath. But if thy brother has done something against thee and angered thee, and asks thy forgiveness, and ceases to do evil; then the anger also must subside. Whence comes then the secret spite that thou nevertheless art still cherishing in thy heart, when the cause and occasion of the anger is gone, and instead thereof other acts appear showing that the man is converted and has become a totally different man, and has become a new tree, with new fruits, who now loves and honors thee supremely, so that he blames and rebukes himself on thy account? Thou must before God and all the world be a desperate man, if thou dost not again show thyself thus towards him and heartily forgive him, so that the sentence is properly pronounced against thee that is threatened here.

Matthew 5:27-30. Ye have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee.’ for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. This is a bit of salt against the teaching of the Pharisees; he treats in it of two things — first of adultery, then of cutting off. Concerning adultery, they had given the literal meaning to the fifth commandment, and taught thus: There is nothing more forbidden than the real act of adultery; and they did not regard it as a sin if they were at heart inflamed with lust and evil desire towards another, and also outwardly revealed this with ugly words and immodest gestures, and this did no harm to their sanctity if they only did otherwise good works, diligently sacrificed and prayed, etc. That was not teaching the commands of God, but perverting them; it was not making the people pious, but only worse; it was giving room and permission for all sorts of sin and unchastity. But here you hear a different master, who shows their sanctity to be sin and shame, and throws true light upon this commandment, and decides that adultery is committed also with eyes, ears, mouth, yes most of all with the heart; as when one looks at a woman, or sports with her, yes thinks of her lustfully.

Now see how matters must have stood among this people, and what kind of people Christ had to deal with, since not only the great, common crowd, but those who stood above other people and ought to teach and control them, not only permit such things, but do them themselves, and increase the occasion for adultery, and yet wish to be counted pious if they only do not actually commit adultery; although it is easy to calculate how pious and chaste people can be for works’ sake, if so much allowance be made, and they can carry it so far as to have their heart full of eager lust, that also reveals itself by all sorts of signs, words and gestures towards each other.

What else can then follow but the act itself, if opportunity offers? Or, how is he therefore so much the more pious, although he cannot perform the deed that he would like to accomplish and is unceasingly lusting after it in his heart? Just as a wretch can wish to see his master dead, although he is lying in prison, and would like to kill him himself, if he could only get at him: are we therefore not to call him a murderer, or even to count him pious? But do you say: If that be true, that also with a look adultery can be committed, what are we then to do? Men and women must live together and have daily intercourse. Or are we to run out of the world, or punch out ears and eyes, and have our heart torn out? Answer: Christ does not here forbid that we are to live together, eat, drink, yes, even laugh and be merry; that is all still free of harm, if only the one feature be wanting, that means, to lust after her. It is true, the Jews try to help themselves out in this way, by saying there is no sin, if one loves another with thoughts and signs; just as they do not regard it as sin to be angry with a neighbor and be hostile to him at heart; so that one must not condemn the whole nation and so many holy people, as if they were all murderers and adulterers. Therefore they must apologize for these commandments, that one is not to interpret them so strictly; but, as our learned men have said: These may be good counsels for the perfect, but nobody is bound by them; and they have gone so far in this matter that there has been great disputing and doubting, whether bad conduct with a whore, outside of marriage, is even a sin; and it is in fact now in Italy among respectable people counted an honor, so that one almost regards those as holy who go no farther than this. Again, however, there are those who have narrowed it down altogether too much, and want to be so very holy, that they forbid even looking at any one, and have taught that all association of male and female persons is to be avoided.

Hence come the excellent saints that have run away from the world into the wilderness and into monasteries, so that they may shut themselves off from all seeing and hearing, from all dealing and fellowship with the world. But Christ states the opposite of both these extremes; he will not let the command of God be so twisted; and such counsel be given in the matter as to give a loose rein to unchastity and villainy. For he says in plain and clear words that he who looks at a woman with evil desire is an adulterer, and sentences him besides to hell-fire, when he says it is better that one should put out his eye than that the whole body should be cast into hell. And he also does not want such saints as run away from mankind. For if that were to be the rule, the ten commandments would nowhere be needed. For if I am in the wilderness, separated from everybody else, no one can thank me for not committing adultery, murdering and stealing; and I still may think meanwhile that I am holy and have violated none of the ten commandments, which however have been given by God for the very reason that he may teach us how we are to live aright in the world with reference to our neighbor. For we are not so made that we are to run away from one another, but are to live together and share both good and evil. For as we are men, we must also help to bear all sorts of human misfortunes and the curse that has fallen upon us, and so prepare ourselves that we can live among bad people, so that every one may there prove his holiness and not let himself be made impatient, so that he flees away. For we must live upon earth among thorns and thistles, in a state of affairs that abounds in temptation, opposition and trouble. And you have not helped yourself in the least though you have run away from the multitude, and yet carry along with you the same bad companion, that is the lust and evil passion that adheres to flesh and blood. For you surely cannot deny your father and mother, though you are alone and locked up, nor can you throw away your flesh and blood from you and let it lie. The command is not to lift your foot and run away; but abide in your lot, bravely to stand and contend against all manner of temptation, and patiently to force your way through and conquer.

Therefore Christ is a true Master, who teaches you not to run away from people, nor to change your place; but to lay hands upon yourself, and cast from you the eye or the hand that offends you, that is, to remove the occasion of sinning, which is the evil lust and desire that sticks in yourself and comes out of your heart. If this be out of the way, you can easily without sin be among the people and have intercourse with everybody.

Therefore he says plainly (as above said): If thou lookest upon a woman to lust after her, thou hast committed adultery with her in thy heart. He does not forbid your looking at her; for he is speaking to those who must live in the world among the people, as the whole previous teaching of this chapter and also that which follows abundantly shows. But he means that we are to separate from each other the looking and the lusting.

You may look, indeed, at any woman or man; but only be careful that there be no lusting. For to this end God has ordained that every one should have his own wife or her own husband, so that every one may properly gratify both lust and desire. If you do not go beyond this you have his sanction, and he adds his blessing to it, and is satisfied with it, as his ordinance and creature. But if you go beyond this, and are not satisfied with what God has given you, but go lusting and gaping after others, then you have already gone too far, and have confounded the two, so that the looking is spoiled by the lusting. This is also the chief cause of adultery, that is always apt to happen when one does not regard God’s word in reference to his wife, as that which God gives him and blesses, but at the same time he fixes his gaze upon another woman; then soon the heart goes after the eyes, so that lust also and desire are added, which I ought to have for my wife alone. Aside from this, flesh and blood is overcurious, so that it is soon discontented with and tired of that which it has, is gaping after something else, and the devil adds his promptings, so that one sees nothing in his wife but what is faulty and fails to see what is good and praiseworthy. Hence it comes to pass that every other woman is more beautiful and better in my eyes than my own wife; yes, many a one who has a really beautiful, pious wife, allows himself to be so blinded, that he dislikes her, and attaches himself to an ugly, shameful piece.

Therefore this would be the true art and strongest safeguard against this sin (as I have elsewhere more fully explained, of marriage and wedded life), if every one would learn rightly to regard his spouse according to the word of God, which is the most precious treasure and beautiful ornament that one can find in a man or woman, and would mirror himself in it; then he would love and esteem his spouse as a divine gift and treasure, and would think thus if he sees another (even if she were prettier than his own): Is she pretty? well, she is not so very pretty, and if she were the prettiest on earth, I have at home a more beautiful ornament in my wife that God has given me, and has adorned with his word above all others, even though she be not beautiful in body, or be otherwise defective. For if I look at all the women in the world, I find no one of whom I can boast as I can of mine with a good conscience: This one God has bestowed upon me and placed within my arms, and I know that he and all angels are heartily pleased if I cling to her with love and fidelity. Why should I then despise this precious divine gift, and devote myself to another, in whom I find no such treasure and ornament?

See, I could easily look at all women, and talk with them, laugh and be merry in such a way that still there should be no lust and desire on my part, and I would not let any one seem to be so beautiful or desirable to me, that I would act contrary to God’s word and command; and though I was tempted by flesh and blood, yet I did not need to consent, nor allow myself to be overcome, but I had to contend bravely against it and conquer through the word of God, and to live in the world in such a way that no one’s wickedness could make me wicked, and no enticement could make me an adulterer. But because one does not see or regard this word of God, it has easily happened, that one becomes tired of his spouse and averse to her, and prefers another and cannot resist the lust and desire. For he does not know the art, that he can rightly regard his spouse according to the beauty and ornament with which God has clothed her for him; he sees no further than according to the eyes, as his wife appears to him ill-shaped or faulty, and another prettier and better. So you understand when looking at a woman is sin, or is not sin, namely, that one is not to look at another as every one is to look at his wife.

Yet we are not here to span the bow too tightly, as if one were to be damned because, when tempted, he feels that this lust and desire towards another begins to arise. For I have often said that it is profitable to live in flesh and blood without sinful, evil inclination, not only in this matter, but also against every commandment. Therefore moralists have made this distinction, with which I concur: that an evil thought, without assent, is not a mortal sin. It is not possible, if some one has offended you, that your heart should not feel, or be moved, and begin to heave to take vengeance. But that is not yet criminal, if it only does not determine and proceed to do harm, but resists this inclination. So also in this case; it is not possible to prevent the devil from shooting into the heart evil thoughts and lust. But then take care that thou dost not allow such arrows to stick there and grow fast, but tear them out and throw them away, and do as long ago was taught by one of the ancients, who said: “I cannot prevent a bird from flying over my head; but I can easily prevent it from making a nest in my hair, or biting off my nose.” Thus it is not in our power to prevent this or some other temptation, so that thoughts do not occur to us: if we only stop with their occurring to us, so that we do not admit them, although they knock for admittance, and prevent their taking root, lest they might lead to consent and a purpose to sin. But nevertheless it is still sin, but it is included in the common forgiveness, because we cannot live in the flesh without committing many sins, and every one must have his devil; as also St. Paul complains about the sin (Romans 7:17) that dwells in him, and says, that he finds in his flesh no good thing, etc.

That, however, some have here raised the question, and pointedly asked whether it is sinful for a man to desire to marry a woman or for a woman to desire to marry a man, is silly, and both questions are contrary to Scripture and to nature. For when should people marry, if they would not have desire and love for one another? Yes, that is the reason why God has given this eager desire to bride and bridegroom, otherwise every one would flee from and avoid marriage. Thus he has also commanded in the Scriptures, that both, man and woman, should love each other, and he shows that he is greatly pleased when husband and wife are well adapted to each other. Therefore this desire and love must surely not be lacking, and it is very fortunate and agreeable if it only lasts a long while. For without this, trouble comes, both from the flesh that one soon becomes tired of this state, and is unwilling to bear the discomfort that comes with it; and also from the devil, who cannot bear to see two married people treating each other with true affection, and does not rest until he gives occasion to impatience, strife, hatred and bitterness between them; so that it is an art not alone necessary, but also difficult, and peculiar to Christians, to love one’s wife or husband properly, so that one may bear the faults of the other and all sorts of carnal misfortune. At first it all goes very well, so that for love (as it is said) they are ready to eat each other up; but when the novelty is over, then comes the devil with satiety, and tries to rob you too much of desire in this direction, and excite it too much in another.

Let this suffice for the topic of lust and desire. But what are we to say about the way Christ spans the bow when he says that we are to pluck out the eye and cut off the hand if it offends us? Are we then to cripple ourselves, make ourselves lame and blind? Then we would have to take our own life, and every one become a self murderer. For if we must throw away everything that offends us, we would have first of all to tear out our heart. But what else would that be than to destroy all nature and the creatures of God. Answer: here you see clearly that Christ in this chapter is speaking not at all of mere worldly affairs, and that all such expressions that occur here and there in the Gospel (such as to deny one’s self, hate one’s soul, forsake everything, etc.,) do not belong at all to the sphere of secular affairs or the civil government, nor are to be understood according to the statutes of the old Saxons, as the jurists call them, to pluck out eyes, to cut off the hand, and such like; or how could this life and civil government endure? But he is speaking here of spiritual life and spiritual affairs, in which one does not externally, corporeally, and in the sight of the world, throw away his eye or his hand, deny himself and forsake all things, but in his heart and in God’s sight. For he is not teaching how to use the fist or the sword, or to control life and property, but only the heart and conscience before God; therefore we are not at all to apply his words in the sense of the legal terms or those of secular government. In this way he speaks also in Matthew 19:12, about castrating, where he alludes to three kinds of castrated ones or eunuchs. The first and second are such as are eunuchs naturally or are made such by the hands of men; these the world and the jurists call castrated. But the third kind are such as have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; these are called castrated, not externally, in their body, but in heart or spiritually; not in a worldly sense or manner, but (as he says) for heaven’s sake. For with worldly matters he has nothing to do. Thus also here, we are spiritually to tear out eyes, hand, heart, and let everything go, that it may not offend us; and yet live in this world, where we cannot do without any of these things. This is now what is here meant: If thou feelest that thou art looking at a woman with an evil desire, then tear out that same eye or sight (as being forbidden by God) not of the body, but of the heart, from which lustful desire comes; then thou hast rightly plucked it out. For if the evil desire is out of the heart, then the eye will not sin, nor offend thee, and thou lookest now upon that woman with the same bodily eyes, but without desire; thou wilt be just as if thou hadst not seen her. For the eye of which Christ speaks, which was there before, and is called the eye of lust or desire, is no longer there, although the bodily eye remains uninjured. Thus he speaks also about the castrated. If the heart has resolved to live chastely without marriage (if it has grace) then it has made itself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, and does not need to injure any member of the body. In short, it is such a castrating and plucking out that neither a fist nor a hangman can do, but the word of God in the heart.

Therefore those are fools who transfer these and similar sayings from the spiritual to the secular sphere, as if Christ had taught what was contrary to secular rule, yes, contrary to the natural order of things. Therefore some have made such fools of themselves that, through impatience and despair of being able to fight against flesh and blood, they have gone so far as to help [i.e. castrate?] themselves, so that the bishops in the councils had to forbid the practice. That all comes of a misunderstanding, that they do not distinguish between the ruling and doctrine of Christ and of the world; they abide by the gross conception of castration, so that they think no further than how the world designates and understands it in its sphere: whilst Christ himself excludes this understanding of it, and takes it away, and distinguishes those who are castrated by nature or by human hands (whether by their own or those of others,) and contrasts them with those who are castrated neither by men’s hands nor by nature; whereby he clearly shows that he is speaking alone of spiritual castration, since the body with all its members is entire and uninjured, and yet has not sexual desire as others have, which cannot be cut out of flesh and blood, even though one were to rob himself of his natural members: as they say themselves, that such eunuchs or castrated persons have more desire for or love to women than any others; therefore also great kings (or queens) have preferred such persons as chamberlains, on account of the great fidelity and love they have for women. But it appears also, that Christ often on other occasions used this expression: “If thine eye, or hand, or foot, offend thee.” For they are applied elsewhere in the gospel, also to other matters, in such a way that he used it as a common saying, and applied it as a common comparison to all kinds of sin, that one should not yield to the occasion and inclination to sin; here, however, it is significantly applied to a particular case, namely, to adultery, so that the command is to pluck out the eye that is about to offend us by evil desire: for adultery is commonly occasioned by looking, and comes into the heart through the eyes, if one does not resist the temptation. Thus he employs the same words with reference to another mode of giving offense, ( Matthew 18:8 sq.) so that he calls it an offending eye or hand, if a preacher and teacher, or a lord and tyrant, seeks to mislead thee from the truth and true doctrine; and he bids thee to tear it out and cast it from thee, so that one may say: Thou art it is true my eye or hand, my master or ruler; but if thou wishest to turn me from the truth to false faith, or to compel me to do evil, I will not follow thee, etc.

Matthew 5:31-32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Here we see clearly how they wrested this commandment, giving room and liberty enough to violate it, and yet not counting their conduct sinful, if they only did not make too glaring an exhibition of it by open adultery; for they were permitted, if one disliked his wife and wanted to be rid of her, and had become fond of another woman, that he might leave her and court another that better pleased him; and, although the latter had another husband, they could easily induce him to dismiss his wife, so that he had to put her away, and yet she should not be said to be taken by violence. Thus it was also a small matter among them, whether one had had sexual intercourse with another woman, so that he thereby took her to wife; as they at any rate wanted to have more than one wife; and they had indeed brought things to such a pass that every one without qualms of conscience acted in the matter of marriage and divorce just as he pleased. Therefore, Jesus takes up also this matter of divorce, rebukes and condemns their knavery and abuse of the permitted divorce, to instruct their consciences how one is properly to proceed in this matter, so that one does not go too far and act contrary to the commandment. He touches upon it here, however, only in a few words; for afterwards, in the nineteenth chapter, he discusses it more at large.

How are we now, however, to proceed in matters pertaining to marriage and divorce? I have said that we are to leave this in the hands of the jurists, and committed to the secular government, because marriage is quite a secular, external thing, as wife, child, house and home, and other things that belong to the authority of the government, as this is altogether subject to the reason, Genesis I. Therefore, what the civil authority and wise people determine and ordain in reference to this matter according to right and reason, with that we should be content. For also Christ does not here appoint or ordain anything as a jurist or ruler, in external matters; but only as a preacher he instructs the consciences so that we rightly use the law concerning divorce, not for knavery and personal wantonness, contrary to the command of God. Therefore we will not here go any further than to see how the matter stood among them, and how those should conduct themselves who wish to be Christians; for with those who are not Christians we have nothing to do (as those who must be governed not with the Gospel but with compulsion and punishment), so that we may keep our office pure, and not grasp after more than is committed to us. In Deuteronomy 24:1; Deuteronomy 24:4 we read: “When a man hath taken a wife and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favor in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand,” etc.; but a prohibition is at once appended to this, that the same man (if he afterwards would like to have her again) “may not take her again to be his wife,” etc. Now, this law they soon learned, and bravely abused, so that every one easily discarded and dismissed his wife, when he was tired of her, and longed for another (though Moses allowed such dismissal only when he found “some uncleanness in her” on account of which they could not well remain together); and they took such liberties in this matter that they themselves saw that their custom was blameworthy and quite too wanton, and they therefore asked Christ, Matthew 19:3 : “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” He gives them an answer, too, and reads them a sharp text besides, which they had never heard before, and concludes just as here, that both he who gives the bill of divorcement (except for fornication), and marries another, commits adultery, and decides that she also commits adultery who marries another. (For otherwise she could not commit adultery, if she remained unmarried.)

Thereby he not only rebukes them for acting wantonly in the matter of divorcement, but teaches that they should not practice divorcement at all, or, if they do, both parties should remain unmarried, and concludes that divorcing is always a cause of adultery. To their question, “Why did Moses then allow such divorcement?” he answers: “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses suffered you to put away your wives.” Not that it was commendable or well done; but that you are such vile and rude people, that it is better to allow this than that you do worse, cause misery or murder, or live together in perpetual hatred, discord and enmity: as it yet might even be advisable (if the temporal authorities should so order it), on account of some queer, self-willed, stubborn people, who are never satisfied with anything, and are not at all adapted for mar-tied life, that they should be allowed to separate from one another. For government cannot otherwise be carried on; on account of the badness of the people one must often yield something, though it be not well done, lest something worse may happen.

Thus it is now settled, that those who want to be Christians are not to be divorced, but each to retain his or her spouse, and bear and experience good and evil with the same, although he or she may be strange, peculiar and faulty; or, if there be a divorce, that the parties remain unmarried; and that it will not do to make a free thing out of marriage, as if it were in our power to do with it, changing and exchanging, as we please; but it is just as Jesus says: “What God has joined together let not man put asunder.” For trouble here is owing solely to the fact that men do not regard marriage according to God’s word as his work and ordinance, do not pay regard to his will, that he has given to every one his spouse, to keep her, and to endure for his sake the discomforts that married life brings with it; they regard it as nothing else than a mere human, secular affair, with which God has nothing to do. Therefore one soon becomes tired of it, and if it does not go as we wish, we soon begin to separate and change. Then God nevertheless so orders it, that we thereby make it no better; as it then generally happens, if one wants to change and improve matters, and no one wants to carry his cross, but have everything perfectly convenient and without discomfort, that he gets an exchange in which he finds twice or ten times more discomfort, not alone in this matter but in all others. For it cannot be otherwise upon earth; there must daily much inconvenience and discomfort occur in every house, city and country; and there is no condition upon earth in which one must not have much to endure that is painful, both from those that belong to him, as wife, child, servants, subjects, and externally from neighbors and all kinds of accidental mishaps. When now one sees and feels this, he is soon tired of his condition and discontented with it, or breaks out with impatience, scolding and cursing; and if he cannot avoid or get rid of this annoyance, he will change his condition, thinks every one’s condition and state better than his own, and when he has been long changing about he finds he has been going farther and faring worse. For to change is soon and easily done; but to improve is doubtful and rare. This was the case, too, with the Jews in their marriage changings and divorces.

Therefore in this matter we ought to do as we have always taught and exhorted: If one wants to undertake anything that he wishes to be blessed and successful, also in temporal affairs, as in marrying, remaining at home, accepting a position, etc., that he appeal to God and seek counsel from him who is to give it, and whose it is. For it is not a trifling gift of God, if one gets a pious, tolerably good wife: why should you not then pray to him that he may cause it to turn out well? For the first eager and curious desire will not accomplish this, or give permanence, if he does not add his blessing and give success, and help to bear the occasional discomfort. Therefore, those who do not do this, but rush into things of their own accord, as if they needed no help from God, and do not learn to adapt themselves to circumstances, they deservedly realize in them a real purgatory and hellish torment, without the devil’s help; and because they bear no trouble with patience, but have selected just what suited them best, and want to set aside and ignore the article that is called forgiveness of sin; they have as a reward a restless, impatient heart, and so must suffer double misfortune and get no thanks for it. But we have said enough of this elsewhere. But you ask: Is there then no reason for which there may be separation and divorce between man and wife? Answer: Christ states here and in Matthew 19:9, only this one, which is called adultery, and he quotes it from the law of Moses, which punishes adultery with death. Since now death alone dissolves marriages and releases from the obligation, an adulterer is already divorced not by man but by God himself, and not only cut loose from his spouse, but from this life. For by adultery he has divorced himself from his wife, and has dissolved the marriage, which he has no right to do; and he has thereby made himself worthy of death, in such a way that he is already dead before God, although the judge does not take his life. Because now God here divorces, the other party is fully released, so that he or she is not bound to keep the spouse that has proved unfaithful, however much he or she may desire it. For we do not order or forbid this divorcing, but we ask the government to act in this matter, and we submit to what the secular authorities ordain in regard to it. Yet, our advice would be to such as claim to be Christians, that it would be much better to exhort and urge both parties to remain together, and that the innocent party should become reconciled to the guilty (if humbled and reformed) and exercise forgiveness in Christian love; unless no improvement could be hoped for, or the guilty person who had been pardoned and restored to favor persisted in abusing this kindness, and still continued in leading a public, loose life, and took it for granted that one must continue to spare and forgive him. In such ease I would not advise or order that mercy should be shown, but would rather help to have such a person scourged or imprisoned. For to make a misstep once is still to be forgiven, but to sin presuming upon mercy and forgiveness is not to be endured. For, as before said, we know already that it is not right to compel one to take back again a public whore or adulterer, if he is unwilling to do it, or out of disgust cannot do it. For we read of Joseph, Matthew 1:18 sq., that although he was a pious man, yet he was not willing “to take unto him Mary his espoused wife” (when he saw that she was pregnant); and was praised because “he was minded to put her away privily,” and not lodge complaint against her and have her executed, as he might well have done. In addition to this cause of divorce there is still another: if one of a married couple forsakes the other, as when one through sheer petulance deserts the other. So, if a heathen woman were married to a Christian, or, as now sometimes happens, that one of the parties is evangelical and the other not (concerning which Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 7:13), whether in such a case divorce would be right? There Paul concludes: If the one party is willing to remain, the other should not break the engagement; although they are not of one faith, the faith should not dissolve the marriage tie. But if it happens that the other party absolutely will not remain, then let him or her depart; and thou art not under any obligation to follow. But if a fellow deserts his wife without her knowledge or consent, forsakes house, home, wife and child, stays away two or three years, or as long as he pleases (as now often happens), and when he has run his riotous course and squandered his substance and wants to come home again and take his old place, that the other party must be under obligation to wait for him as long as he chooses, and then take up with him again: such a fellow ought not only to be forbidden house and home, but should be banished from the country, and the other party, if the renegade has been summoned and long enough waited for, should be heartily pronounced free. For such a one is much worse than a heathen and unbeliever, and is less to be endured than a miserable adulterer, who, though he once fell, can still reform again and be faithful as before to his wife; but this one treats marriage just as he pleases, does not feel himself under any obligation to abide as husband and father with wife and children and perform his duty toward them, but holds himself sure of a safe reception if the notion takes him to return. But this is the state of the case: He who wishes to have wife and child must stay with them, share with them good and evil, as long as he lives; or if he will not, that we teach him that he must do it or be entirely separated from wife, house and home. But where these causes do not exist, their other defects and faults are not to be counted a hindrance or lead to a divorce, such as quarrels or other mishaps. But if parties are divorced (says St. Paul), then let them on both sides remain unmarried.

Let this suffice for what is said on this subject in the text, for I have elsewhere written enough about it. The chief safeguard against such divorce and other domestic trouble is (as I have said) that every one learn to bear with patience common faults and mishaps in his condition and surroundings, and to overlook them in his wife, and be assured that we cannot have everything just right as we would have it. Why you cannot have it otherwise or better in your own body, and must put up with all sorts of filth and disagreeableness that it daily causes you; so that if you were to throw away everything that is unclean about it, you would have to begin with the belly that nourishes you and has to keep you alive.

If now you can endure this in your body, so that it makes a stench for you before you are aware of it, or begins to suppurate and ulcerate, so that there is no purity in your skin, and you make due allowance for all this; yes, you show all the more care and love for it by waiting upon it, washing it, enduring and helping where anything is wanting; why should you not do it here in the case of your own spouse whom God has given you, in whom you have a still greater treasure and whom you have more cause to lover For there ought to be such love among Christians as that of each member of the body towards every other (as St. Paul often remarks), when one kindly regards the faults of another, himself sympathizes with them, endures and removes them, and does all he can to help his neighbor.

Therefore, our principal duty is nothing else than simple forgiveness of sin, both in ourselves and toward others; so that, as Christ in his kingdom without intermission is bearing with and forgiving all manner of faults, so also we among ourselves bear and forgive in all conditions and in all things. May God allot to him who will not do this, that he may never have rest, and make his single misfortune or plague ten times worse.

Matthew 5:33-37. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old lime, Thou shall not forswear thyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths: Bug I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne: nor by the earth, for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city oaf the great King. Neither shall thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair black or while. But let your communication be Yea, yea; Nay, nay; for whatever is more than these cometh of evil. This text has been spun out with many glosses, and many a queer notion and error has been drawn from it, so that many great doctors have been worried about it, and could not become reconciled to the blunt prohibition here that we are to “Swear not at all,” but “let your communication be Yea, yea, and Nay, nay.” So that some have stretched their conscience so tightly, that one doubts whether one ought to take a solemn oath not to avenge himself when he is set free from prison, or whether we are by an oath to make peace and a treaty with the Turks or unbelievers, etc. Now we cannot deny that Christ himself and St. Paul often took an oath; besides, it is said, in the Scriptures, that those are praised who swear by his name; so that also here we must make a distinction, so that we rightly understand the text. But we have been told sufficiently, that Christ does not wish here to interfere with the secular authority and ordinance, nor to detract at all from the powers that be; but he is preaching here only for the individual Christians, how they are to conduct themselves in their ordinary life.

Therefore we are to regard the swearing as forbidden in exactly the same sense as above the killing and the looking upon or desiring a woman.

Killing is right, and yet it is also wrong; to desire a man or a woman is sin, and it is not sin; but in this way, that we rightly distinguish both, namely, that it is said to you and to me: if you kill, you do wrong; if you look at a woman to desire her, you do wrong. But to a judge he says: If you do not punish and kill, you shall yourself be punished; likewise to a married man or woman: If you do not cleave to your spouse, you do wrong. So both are right, that one is to kill and not to kill, to be and not to be with a woman; namely, that you do not be wrathful or kill, or look lovingly upon a woman, unless you are specially authorized by God’s word or command to do so. If you are wrathful, however, when God commands you, or if you have a wife according to the word of God, then each is right; for what God says and commands is a very different thing from when you do it of your own accord. As you have understood that, so understand this also; that the prohibition here is, “Swear not at all,” just as he has entirely forbidden killing, so that there may be no wrath in the heart; in like manner, that we shall keep so aloof from man and woman as not to be looking at them, or thinking upon them to desire them. And it would be a dangerous sermon if we were to apply it to the exercise of governmental authority or to married life, and were to say to the judge, Thou shalt not become indignant, or give practical proof of wrath; or to a wedded pair, Thou shalt not look upon or love thy wife or husband: but we must turn about here and teach the opposite, saying: Thou judge shalt be angry and punish; and every one shall have and love his spouse. How then does Christ say one must desire no woman, and have no wrath in his heart? Answer, as said above, he is speaking of the woman that God has not given you, and of the wrath that is not demanded of you, that you are not to have. But if it is demanded of you, then it is no longer yours, but it is God’s wrath, and no longer your desire, but that which is given and ordained by God; for you have God’s word for it that you shall love your spouse and not desire any other. Thus also in regard to swearing; we must see to it, if we have God’s word for it or not. That he here insists so much upon the prohibition, that he does also in opposition to their false teachers, who preached in this way, that taking an oath and swearing, although done needlessly and without the word of God, was not sin; yes, they had made a distinction (as Christ here shows) how one might swear freely, and what oaths should be valid or not; as, that one might readily swear by heaven, or by Jerusalem, or by his head; that those were little oaths, and did not have much validity, if only the name of God were not invoked; they had indeed at last carried it so far that a mere yea or nay was of no account, and they held that it mattered nothing if they did not do anything which they had not sworn to do; just as they had taught in regard to killing, that one should not consider a secret anger and spite as sin; the same also, if one were hostile to his wife, had no desire for her or love for her, but had desire for another and proved this by looking at her and sporting with her, and by other signs.

Against such impure saints he began to preach, and says: If you do not become different and more pious you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. The matter of swearing must not be treated as you are doing, who make it right and valid where and when you choose; but the command is, You are not to swear at all, neither by the temple, nor by Jerusalem, nor by your head, as little as by God himself; but let your dealings with each other be yea and nay, and abide by that. For that is an abuse of the name of God, if one to the yea or nay adds oaths and swearing, as if a mere yea and nay were not valid or binding unless the name of God were added. There is also a further abuse, that people swear so thoughtlessly, as is now so commonly done, when they use the name of God with almost every word. That must all be strictly forbidden; as also cursing that is done in God’s name, if it must not be done. For cursing is just like swearing, both being good and bad. For we read in Scripture that often holy people have cursed; thus, Noah curses his one son, Ham, and the patriarch Jacob pronounced an evil blessing and a curse upon his three sons, Reuben, Levi and Simeon, also Moses against Korah; yes, Christ himself bitterly curses in the psalter his Judas, and in the Gospel the false teachers; and Paul, Galatians 1:9, curses all teachers who preach otherwise (even if it were an angel from heaven), that they shall be anathema, that is, condemned and cursed by God; as if we should say: Let God oppose them and totally destroy them, and give them no mercy or good fortune. So the time may come when one must curse, or do wrong.

Thus, that we should now ask God’s blessing upon pope, bishops and princes and wish them success, whilst they with malicious schemes and wicked plottings are seeking to shed the blood of pious people and to throw Germany into confusion; that Christians should not do, but should and must say in regard to it: Dear Lord, curse, and hurl all their scheming to the bottom of hell. Hence, no one can rightly pray the Lord’s prayer without implying a curse. For, when he prays: Hallowed be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, etc., he must gather up in a mass everything that is antagonistic, and say: Cursed, execrated, disgraced be all other names, and rent asunder and destroyed be all kingdoms that are opposed to thee, gone to ruin be all hostile schemes, wisdom and purposes, etc.

This, however, is the distinction: Of himself no one is to curse or swear, unless he has God’s word for it, that he must curse or swear. For, as above said, where it is done in accordance with the word of God, then it is all right to swear, to be angry, to desire one’s wife, etc. But it is in accordance with the word of God, if he orders me to do it by virtue of my office and on his account, or demands it through those who are in office. Thus, that we may understand it by an illustration, if it should happen that thou art imprisoned, and in the hands of the authorities, and they would demand of thee an oath not to seek for vengeance against them; or, if a prince demands an oath of allegiance; or a judge demands an oath from a witness; then it is your duty to take the oath. For there stands the word, that thou shalt obey the powers that be. For God has so ordained and established government, that one must be under obligations to another, so that all questionable matters may be adjusted, decided and settled by the use of the oath, as the epistle to the Hebrews teaches. But do you say: Yes, but here stands a different word, that Christ says:

Thou shalt not swear. Answer, as above said concerning killing and being angry: Thou, thou shalt not do it, as for thyself. Here, however, it is not thou that swearest, but the judge who orders thee to do it, and it amounts to the same thing as if he did it himself, and thou art now the mouth of the judge. Now Christ here neither commands nor forbids anything to the government, but lets it take its own course as it is bound to do; but he forbids you to swear of your own account, arbitrarily or from habit; just as he forbids to draw the sword, yet does not thereby prevent your being obedient to the government, if your prince had need of your services, or would summon you to go to war; for then you are bound to enter heartily into the work of the war, and it is no longer your hand or sword, but that of the government; and you are not doing it yourself, but your prince, to whom God has committed it. Thus we speak also in similar cases. As, if it should come to pass, that we would make a treaty and concord with our enemies or the Turks, then the emperor and princes could both give and take an oath, although the Turk swears by the devil or his Mahomet, whom he regards and worships as his God, but we worship our Lord Christ and swear by him. Thus you have now a cause, for which it is right to swear, namely, the necessity of taking an oath from obedience to the government, to confirm the truth or to endure things for the sake of peace and harmony. The other reason is love, though it be not demanded by the powers that be, but is done out of kindness to a neighbor, etc., just as also love is wrathful and rebukes, when it sees a neighbor sin or go astray; as Christ teaches in Matthew 18:15. For it cannot laugh at this or praise what is evil. Thus I may very well show love to the wife of another man, if she be in need or distress, that I may help her out of it; that is not a carnal, forbidden love, but one that is Christian, brotherly, that springs not from my own lust or indiscretion, but because of my neighbor’s need; and it has the sanction of God’s word, which says: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Accordingly, if I see any one in spiritual need and danger, weak in faith, or conscientiously fearful, or seriously doubting, and so forth, then I am not alone to comfort, but to asseverate besides, to strengthen his conscience by saying: As sure as God lives and Christ died, so surely this is the truth and the word of God. There an oath is so needful that we cannot do without it. For by that the true doctrine is established, the erring and timid conscience is instructed and comforted, and delivered from the devil. Therefore in such a case you may swear just as hard as you can. Thus Christ and Paul swore, and called God to witness. Thus an oath is suited to every threatening or promise that a Christian preacher preaches, both in alarming hardened sinners and comforting the timid. In the same way, if one is to vindicate his neighbor or rescue his honor in opposition to bad, malicious tongues, one may also say: Before the dear God you are wrongly accusing him, etc. For this is to use God’s name aright, to the honor of God and the truth, and for our neighbor’s benefit and salvation. For in such a case you have the word and command hovering over you, that orders you to love your neighbor, to rebuke the disorderly, to comfort the sad, etc.; and because it is commanded it cannot be wrong, yes, it even urges you to swear, and you do wrong if you neglect to do it. In short, if you have the word of God [on your side], then may God give you grace right away to swear, to rebuke, to be angry, and to do all that you can. But whatever is aside from this, not commanded, nor for your neighbor’s need or advantage, in that case you should do none of these things. For God wants nothing at all that you do of your own ,notion, without his sanction, be it what it may, even if one could raise the dead.

Much less will he tolerate it, that one should abuse his name, appealing to it when there is no need or occasion for it, or that one daily at home and every where else use it improperly, as is now done, when men swear with all they say, especially in beer-houses, so that it were well if this were strictly forbidden and punished. Thus you have a proper, clear understanding of this matter, so that one need not vex himself in vain in regard to this text and make a purgatory out of it when there is none.

Now Christ says: I say to you, Swear not at all, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by Jerusalem. Here we see, the city was held in high esteem and honor, so that they swore by it; and he confirms this, and calls it a city of God, and it is elsewhere also called the holy city. It was holy, however, for this reason, that God’s word was there, and through that God himself dwelt there; and it was a good custom, and no doubt inaugurated by good people, that the city was so highly esteemed, (as the prophet Isaiah also gloriously praises it), not for its own sake, but on account of the word.

Accordingly we may well call every city holy that has the word of God, and boast that God is really there. But that he says: Thou shalt not swear by thy head, for thou canst not make one hair white or black, that he says concerning his creature, not concerning the use we make of it: For he does not mean to say that we cannot powder our hair that it may become black or some other color; but that it is not in our power to bring out a hair that is white or black, nor can we prevent it from becoming thus or otherwise. But when it has grown, then we can cut it off altogether or burn it; just as we can to some extent change one created thing by means of another, but we cannot take any part in having it created so or otherwise. Thus he makes our own head a sanctuary, as that which is not of our work or power, but the gift and creature of God. That he now concludes: “Let your speech be Yea, yea; Nay, nay,” etc., that he plainly addresses to such as have no command or occasion to swear. For (as was said) of his own accord no one should swear at all. But when these two features are added, command or necessity, then you are not asked to swear for yourself; for you do it not of your own accord, but on his account who demands it of you, namely, your governmental authority, or the need of your neighbor, or God’s command.

Matthew 5:38-42. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coal, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee logo a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. This text also has been the occasion of much inquiry and error to nearly all the teachers who have not known how to distinguish rightly between secular and spiritual matters, between the kingdom of Christ and of the world. For when these two are confounded and not clearly and accurately separated, these matters can never be correctly understood in Christendom, as I have often said and shown. Now we have thus far heard nothing else than that Christ directed his teaching against the Pharisees, who were misleading the people, both by their teaching and their way of living, and were misinterpreting and perverting God’s command in such a way that the outcome was only sham saints, as it is to this day. For we find always among the preachers some (if not the majority) such Jewish saints, who teach nothing more than about sin and piety in external works. As now in previous passages he rebuked and rejected their teaching and false interpretation, he here also takes up the passage, that stands recorded in the law of Moses, for those to whom was committed governmental authority, and who were to punish with the sword, that they should and had to take eye for eye and tooth for tooth; in such a way, that they sinned just as heavily if they failed to use the commanded sword and punishment, as did the others who seized the sword and took revenge themselves, without command: as in former passages, he who did not dwell and abide with his wife, to whom he had been married, sinned just as much as he who dwelt unmarried with another woman. That they now had perverted and confounded, so that they applied to themselves this text, that was meant only for the authorities, and they interpreted it in such a way, that also every one might take vengeance upon his own responsibility, take eye for eye, etc., just as they had confounded matters in other passages, and applied to themselves the being angry, which belongs to and was enjoined upon the authorities; also they had torn away from its connection with married life the carnal desire; in the same way, too, they had perverted swearing, aside from its proper use in time of need and for purposes of love, to their own trivial habit and other abuses.

Now comes Christ and overturns this perverted, false notion and theory, gives the authorities their due, but teaches his Christians, so distinctly as individuals, aside from official position and authority, how they are to live, personally, that they desire no revenge, and that they be so disposed, if one smites them on one cheek, that they may be ready, if necessary, to turn to him the other also, and not only refrain from taking revenge with the fist, but also in heart, with their thoughts and all their faculties. In short, he calls for a heart that is not impatient, revengeful or disposed to break the peace. This is now a righteousness very different from what they taught and held, and yet they wanted to deck themselves out with texts from Moses, that one might readily avenge himself and offer resistance, if he were violently attacked, because it stands in the text: An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, etc.

Now many people have stumbled at this saying, and not only the Jews, but even Christians, have stumbled at it. For it seemed to them too strict and hard, that one must not resist evil at all, since we must have law and punishment among us; and some have quoted in opposition the example of Christ, John 18:23, when he was smitten on the one cheek, before the priest Annas, and yet did not offer the other, but asserted his innocence and rebuked the servant of the priest, which seems in violation of this text.

Therefore they said that it was not necessary to turn the other cheek to the smiter, and they came to the relief of the text in this way, that it is enough that one is ready at heart to offer also the other; which may not be untruthfully said, but was not rightly understood. For they suppose that to offer the other cheek to the smiter means that one must say to him: See, thou hast this cheek too, and smite me again; or that we are to throw the cloak to him who wants to take the coat. If that were the meaning, then we would have to give up at last house and home, wife and child. Therefore we say that here no more is intended than that every Christian is taught that he must be willing and patient to suffer whatever is necessary, and not seek revenge or strike back. But still the question and dispute here remain, whether one is to suffer all sorts of things from everybody, and in no case make any resistance; also if we are not to contend or complain before the court, or to claim or demand one’s own. For if this were absolutely forbidden, there would be a strange state of affairs, so that one would have to submit to everybody’s caprice and insolence, and no one could be safe from another, or keep anything, and at last there would thus be no government at all. To answer this, thou must always observe this main point, that Christ is preaching for his Christians alone, and means to teach them what kind of people they are to be, in contrast with the carnal notions and thoughts which then were still cleaving to the apostles, who supposed that he would establish a new government and empire, and give them places in it, so that they might rule as lords, and bring into subjection to them their enemies and the evil world; as indeed flesh and blood always wishes and seeks in the gospel that it may have its rule, honor and advantage, and have nothing to suffer; after this, too, the pope has hankered, and has come to rule in such a way that his establishment has become a mere secular government, and one so dreaded that the whole world has to be subject to him. So we now see, too, that all the world is seeking its own in the gospel [is selfishly using the gospel], and thus so many sects and parties arise, that aim at nothing else than how they can push themselves forward and make masters of themselves, and crush out others; as Munzer began with his peasants, and as others have shown who imitated his example. And even real Christians are tempted in the same way, when they see things going so badly in the world, even in their own sphere, so that they feel like laying hold and managing things. But it ought not to be so, and no one should think that God wants to let us govern and rule with secular law and punishment; but the deportment of Christians should be totally different from this, so that they have nothing to do with such things or even to care about them, but should let those to whom such things are committed care for the division of property, trading, punishing, protecting, etc., and be content with their disposal of them; as Christ teaches: Give to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. For we are transferred to a different, higher sphere, which is a divine, eternal kingdom, where we need none of the things that belong to the world, but every one is in Christ a lord for himself, both over devil and world, as has been told elsewhere.

Those now who are part of this same secular administration, must necessarily have control of right and punishment, and observe the distinction of rank, of persons, dispose of and divide property, so that all things are well-ordered, and every one may know what he is to do and have; and no one should interfere in the office of another, nor impose upon another, or take what belongs to him. For these things we have lawyers, who are to teach this and manage such matters. But the gospel has nothing to do with such things, but teaches how the heart is to stand related to God; and in all such matters it should be so disposed that it remains pure, and does not stumble upon a false righteousness. This distinction mark and observe carefully, as being the very foundation principle in accordance with which we can easily answer such questions, so that you may see what Christ is speaking about, and who are the people to whom he is preaching, namely, concerning spiritual matters and life, and for his Christians, how they are to live before God and in the world, and conduct themselves so that their heart may cleave to God, and have no concern about worldly government, authority, power, punishment, anger, revenge, etc.

If now one asks whether a Christian’s to go to law, or defend himself, etc., then answer simply: No. For a Christian is such a person who has nothing to do with such worldly affairs and law, and belongs to such a kingdom or government in which the only current rule is, as we pray: Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors. Here there should be nothing but mutual love and service, even towards those who do not love us, but are hostile to us, and do us harm and injury, etc. Therefore he says to such that they shall not resist evil, and even not seek revenge, but that they should turn the other cheek to him who strikes them, etc. And then there is another question, whether a Christian may be a man in a secular position and conduct the office and work of a ruler or judge, in such a way that the two persons or two kinds of office are joined in one man, and he thus be a Christian and a prince, judge, lord, servant, maid, which are merely worldly persons, for they belong to the sphere of the world. To this we answer: Yes. For God has Himself ordained and appointed this worldly sphere and these distinctions, and has besides confirmed and praised them by his word. For otherwise this life could not endure, and we are included in them, yes, born in them, before we became Christians. Therefore we must remain in them, too, as long as we are here upon earth; but only so far as our outward, worldly life and condition are concerned.

Therefore it is not indeed possible to ignore these secular relations, for a Christian must be some kind of a worldly person, because he, at least as to body and property, is under the emperor; but as to his own person, according to his spiritual life, he is only under Christ, and not under the authority of the emperor or of any man. And yet externally he is subject to and under obligations to him, in so far as he is in a civil position or office, has house and home, wife and child; for all such things are of the emperor.

Therefore he must necessarily do what he commands him, and what is required by such an external life, and does wrong, if he should have house, wife, child, servants, and would not nourish or protect them, if necessary; and it would not suffice for him to say that he was a Christian, and had to forsake everything or let it be taken from him, etc.; but he must be told:

You are now under the control of the emperor, where you do not count as a Christian, but as a father, lord, prince, etc. A Christian you are, as to your own person, but as to your servant you are another person, and are bound to protect him.

See, we are now speaking of a Christian in relation, not of him as a Christian, but as bound in this life to another person, whom he has under or over him, or also alongside of him, as lord, lady, wife, child, neighbor, etc., when one is bound to defend, shield and protect another, if he can.

Therefore it would not be right to teach here to turn the other cheek and to throw away the cloak after the coat. For that would be just playing the fool, as was said of a cranky saint, who allowed the lice to nibble at him, and would not kill any of them on account of this text, asserting that one must suffer and not resist evil. Are you a prince, judge, lord, lady, etc., and do you have people under you, and want to know what is becoming in you? Then you do not need to inquire of Christ, but consult the law of the emperor or of your state, which will soon tell you how you are to conduct yourself towards your inferiors and protect them. What kind of a foolish mother would she be, who would not defend her child against a wolf or a dog and deliver it, and then say: A Christian must not defend himself? Ought we not to teach her by a good flogging, and say: Are you a mother? then do a mother’s duty, that is committed to you, and which Christ has not abrogated, but much rather confirmed.

Thus we read of many holy martyrs, who under infidel emperors and lords have gone forth to war, when summoned, and in all good conscience have struck right and left and killed, just as others, so that in this respect there was no difference between Christians and heathen; and yet they did nothing contrary to this text. For they did it not as Christians, for their own person, but as obedient members and subjects, under obligation to secular person and authority. But if you are free and not obligated to such secular authority, then you have here a different rule, as a different person.

Therefore only learn the difference between the two persons that a Christian must carry at the same time upon earth, because he lives among other people and must use the goods of the world and of the emperor, just as well as the heathen. For he has the same blood and flesh that he must maintain, not through the spiritual authority but through the land and soil that belongs to the emperor, etc., until he is bodily removed altogether out of this life into another. If now this is properly distinguished, just how far the personality of the Christian and that of the man of the world extends, you can nicely explain all these sayings and apply them properly where they belong, so that one may not mix and confound them together as the pope has clone with his teaching and ruling. This is now what we have to say of the person who is obligated toward other persons under secular rule, which is called that of father, mother, lord and lady, etc. But how is it, if only your own person is concerned, so that injury or injustice is done to yourself, whether it is proper then to oppose this with violence and defend one’s self?

Answer: No. For here even the principles of the world and of the emperor themselves teach: Striking back provokes quarrels, and he who strikes back invokes injury. For by so doing he becomes obnoxious to judicial authority and loses his right; just as in other cases, as when some one robs or steals from you, you have no right to steal or rob from him and forcibly to take anything from him. But we are generally disposed to avenge ourselves quickly, before one has time to look about himself. But this ought not so to be. But if you are not willing or able to endure it, then you may go before the judge with him and there maintain your cause. For he allows it to happen that you in the ordinary way demand and take your rights, but so that you are careful not to have a revengeful heart. So a judge may properly punish and put to death, and yet he is forbidden thereby to have hatred or a spirit of vengeance in his heart; as it often happens, that one abuses his office to gratify his own caprice. If now, however, this does not occur, and you simply seek to protect and maintain yourself properly against violence and abuse, not to avenge yourself or injure your neighbor, then you do no wrong; for when the heart is pure then all is right and well done. But there is danger here, for the reason that the world, along with flesh and blood, is evil, and it always seeks its own, and nevertheless wears a plausible appearance and conceals the scoundrel. So it is not forbidden to go to law and lodge complaint against injustice, violence, etc., if only the heart be not faulty, but equally patient as before, and one is doing it only to maintain what is right and not give place to what is wrong, and from sincere love for righteousness; as I gave an illustration above from the case of Joseph, the holy, who complained of his brothers to their father, when they had done something wrong and an evil report had gone abroad about them; and he is praised for this, for he did it not out of an evil heart, that he wanted to betray them, or wanted to create strife, as they regarded it, and in consequence became hostile to him; but he did it out of a friendly, brotherly heart, for their good. For he did not like to see that they should be the objects of an evil report, so that it could not be said that he sought revenge or meant harm, but did it for their good, and suffered in consequence of their blaming him with mischief. This we read, too, in the Gospel, Matthew 18, in the parable of the servant to whom his lord forgave all his debt, and he was not willing to forgive his fellow-servant a small debt, that the other servants were very sorry, and told this to their master, not because they were revengeful or glad of his misfortune, but kept fist, heart and mouth quiet, so that they did not swear, or carry slanderous reports to others, but brought the matter before their master, whose business it was to punish, and they sought what was right, but with a truly Christian heart, as those who were under obligation to their master to be true to him; for so it should necessarily be, whether in a house or in a city: if a pious, faithful servant or subject sees another do wrong or injury to his master, that he report it to him and shield him from harm; in like manner, a pious citizen, if he see violence and harm done to his neighbor, that he help and defend him. These are all secular transactions which Christ has not forbidden, but rather sanctioned.