Discovering the Story’s Climax:

Martin Luther’s Mariology in Light of His Sacramental Thought

“So little did she lay claim to anything, but left all of God’s gifts freely in His hands, being herself no more than a cheerful guest chamber and willing hostess to so great a Guest.”--Martin Luther

I

In this essay I will argue that Luther’s interpretation of Mary is best understood in light of his sacramental thought. The sacraments, for Luther, are re-enactments of the story of Christ; they are the gospel in tangible form. Taking this rather Catholic thesis, I will demonstrate how the gospel narrative behind the sacraments provides Luther with an interpretive lens from which to understand the role of Mary within the church. I will examine three of the Marian themes running throughout Luther’s corpus and then demonstrate their connection to Luther’s view of the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist.¹

The first aspect of Mary I will examine is the perpetual virginity of Mary. By the time of Luther’s writing, Church tradition had long held (in some quarters for almost a millennia) that Mary not only was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus, but that she retained that virginity for the rest of her life (and on into eternity). As Luigi Gambero demonstrates in his work, Mary and the Fathers of the Church, this doctrine was not merely supported by some of the “lesser” saints or more obscure figures in Church history, either. Many of the “doctors” of the Church had spoken in support of Mary’s perpetual virginity.

Gambero notes that Origen, one of the fathers to support such an argument, finds “that this is a truth already recognized as an integral part of the deposit of faith.”² In other words, Origen finds the very nature of Mary to be bound up with her virginity. Origen writes, “There is no child of Mary except Jesus, according to the opinion of those who think correctly about her.”³ Individuals mentioned throughout Scripture as the “brothers” of Jesus should be understood as children of Joseph from a previous marrige, Origen believes.⁴ But Origen insists that Mary must remain a virgin, because, just as “Jesus was first among men, Mary was first among women.”⁵ Origen does note it to be odd that Mary would be given in marriage to Joseph and then not consummate her marriage, but he suggests that the marriage of Mary is a marriage used by God in a twofold manner. First, Mary’s marriage prevents any disgrace from her being seen with a swollen belly; second, Mary’s marriage allows her virginity to be “hidden from the prince of this world.”⁶ Origen finds the virginity of Mary to be not only doctrinally sound, but dogmatically necessary for a truthful understanding of Mary’s character.

In a similar manner, Gambero demonstrates how John Chrysostom finds Mary’s virginity to be necessary, as well. Answering those concerned about Mary and Joseph’s conjugal activity after the birth of Jesus, Chrysostom answers that the Scriptures explicitly state that Mary and Joseph did not have intercourse before the birth of Christ (Matt. 1.25), and that the Scriptures in no way imply that intercourse happened afterward. In fact, Chrysostom argues, if Mary did have other children, why did Jesus charge the apostle John to take care of his mother?⁷ Chrysostom argues that Scripture gives no clear basis to change Mary’s perpetual virginity, but he avoids providing hypothetical reasons for such truths as Origen does. In spite of this difference, there is little doubt of the importance of Mary’s perpetual virginity in the eyes of Chrysostom, along with other Church fathers. Gambero notes the importance of the perpetual state of virginity to the likes of Ambrose, Athanasius, Augustine, Basil, Clement, Cyril, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianus, Ignatius, Jerome, Tertullian, and others. And while disagreement arises over particular passages of Scripture, the fathers broadly agree upon Mary’s necessary virginity. Luther’s theological context is grounded quite firmly within this virgin tradition.

At the Diet of Nurmeberg in 1522, Emperor Charles’ brother, Ferdinand, and Luther had an exchange revolving around the virgin birth of Jesus. Ferdinand accused Luther of teaching that Jesus was born from the “seed of Abraham” instead of from the Holy Spirit—“a remark Luther took as a joke when it was first conveyed to him.”⁸ Soon, however, Luther realized that “he had to defend himself against the widely circulated charge that he had attacked one of the most cherished of Christian beliefs, the perpetual virginity of Mary.”⁹ Luther combated this accusation through an essay entitled, “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew,” but he also addresses the topic in other writings, and, in every case, he upholds the orthodox doctrine that Mary remained a virgin throughout her marriage to Joseph.¹⁰

In typical Lutheran fashion, the essay begins boldly. He writes, “I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God [Luther uses the traditional theotokos—more on this theme later], was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that.”¹¹ Luther sets about his argument by demonstrating how, through the Scriptures, Mary’s virginity is implicitly stated time and again. He discusses various passages from Isaiah, Matthew, and Luke to demonstrate Mary’s pre-birth virginity. In order to demonstrate his support for post-birth virginity, Luther writes:

Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin.¹²

Luther begins by arguing that the Scriptures give no contrary evidence to the perpetual virginity of Mary, so Christians must simply accept her virginity as fact. But Luther notes that some have attempted to read Matthew 1.25 as a confirmation that Joseph and Mary did indeed consummate their marriage. Similar to Chrysostom, Luther disagrees, but Luther takes a different path of reasoning. He says, “As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this might wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lays with her.”¹³ Luther hopes to demonstrate that Matthew is concerned with the virgin birth, not the post-birth sexual habits of Mary and Joseph. Luther goes on to note that after the birth of Jesus, Scripture does not concern itself with Mary any longer. Christ is now the focus of the narrative. “Therefore, one cannot . . . conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed.”¹⁴ Expositing Matthew, Exodus, Psalms, and Exodus, Luther continues to support the perpetual virginity of Mary, concluding “this is enough for the present to have sufficiently proved that Mary was pure maiden.”¹⁵

Luther asserts the perpetual virginity throughout his writings, though none are as forceful as the argument found above. In Luther’s “Table Talk,” for example, a student asks Luther about the perpetual virginity. Luther responds, “The church leaves this and has not decided. Nevertheless, what happened afterward shows quite strongly that Mary remained a virgin. For after she had perceived that she was the mother of the Son of God, . . . she adhered to this vow.”¹⁶ In addition, Luther mentions the perpetual virginity of Mary in, “The Magnificat,” explaining that the purity of Mary’s womb provides the perfect occasion for God’s grace to make itself manifest.¹⁷ Luther seems to be extremely consistent on this topic: Mary’s virginity was perpetual.

II

Mary’s perpetual virginity became part of a three-fold understanding of her character within the Church. Mary was (1) perpetually a virgin, (2) of low estate, and (3) voluntarily poor. Luther does not quibble with the particulars of this trilogy of Mariology, but he does not emphasize Mary’s voluntary poverty through his writings much. Instead, Luther focuses on Mary’s lowly estate; Mary’s femaleness and premarital pregnancy become foci for Luther’s thought. Luther finds the lowly nature of Mary to be at the center of God’s work within Mary, and his writings consistently reflect his concern with her lowliness.¹⁸ Mary, it seems, is Luther’s idea of a creature fully embracing its creaturliness.

The “lowly estate” of Mary is a curious thing with which to be concerned, but Luther thought it extremely important. In multiple discussions of Mary, Luther took care to refer to the low position of Mary. For example, in, “The Magnificat,” Luther writes of Mary’s social status:

[God] regarded her despite her low estate and nothingness, we must believe that she came of poor, despised, and lowly parents. Let us make it very plain for the sake of the simple. Doubtless there were in Jerusalem daughters of the chief priests and counselors who were rich, comely, youthful, cultured, and held in high renown by all the people; even as it is today with the daughters of kings, princes, and men of wealth. The same was also true of many another city. Even in her own town of Nazareth she was not the daughter of one of the chief rulers, but a poor and plain citizen’s daughter, whom none looked up to or esteemed. To her neighbors and their daughters she was but a simple maiden, tending the cattle and doing the housework, and doubtless esteemed no more than any poor maidservant today, who does as she is told around the house.¹⁹

Luther likens Mary to a withered and dead tree, a branch that had, by the grace of God, sprouted forth from the lineage of David and Jesse. The status of Mary is so unnoticeable, so inconsequential, that no one could ever imagine God using or choosing such a lowly person, in Luther’s opinion. As Luther says, “But when all seemed most unlikely—comes Christ, and is born of the despised stump, of the poor and lowly maiden!”²⁰ And why is Mary’s usefulness unlikely? Luther minces no words about Mary: she is a girl; she is a virgin; she is no one of consequence. In short, before God chose Mary, no one had heard of her. And if she had not been chosen, no one ever would have heard of her. To Luther, Mary is the prime example of an essentially insignificant creature being made significant by her Creator. And that is Mary’s significance. Luther writes, “So little did she lay claim to anything, but left all of God’s gifts freely in His hands, being herself no more than a cheerful guest chamber and willing hostess to so great a Guest.”²¹ Mary’s lowly estate is at the heart of her importance, because she understands her uniqueness is found in God’s grace, and God’s grace alone.

Luther finds Mary’s humility to be central to her “lowly estate.” Her lowliness, in other words, is not necessarily tied to any evil or unfortunate circumstances. Instead, Mary has embraced her lot in life with humility, trusting that God will provide for her needs. Indeed, Luther notes, “In it [her lowly station] she was content to spend the remainder of her days, never seeking to be honored or exalted or ever becoming aware of her own humility.”²² It is this quality of humility Luther loves. Contrasting Mary against others who aspire to have greatness, Luther notes that their lack of humility makes it impossible for God to use them. He says:

The other sort are more dangerous still. They err on the opposite side. They magnify themselves by reason of the good gifts of God and do not ascribe to them to His goodness alone. They themselves desire to be a part in them; they want to be honored and set above other men on account of them. When they behold the good things that God has done for them, they fall upon them and appropriate them as their own; they regard themselves as better than others who have no such things. This is really a smooth and slippery position. The good gifts of God will naturally produce proud and self-complacent hearts.²³

Readers familiar with Luther’s thought will notice a connection between Luther’s understanding of humility and creaturliness and his understanding of justification. Much has been written about Luther’s doctrine of justification by grace, and this essay is not the place to add to that voluminous writing. However, the connection between God’s bestowing of justification and usefulness seem to walk hand in hand throughout Luther’s thought. The theme of grace by faith, which also ran strong in the writings of other hopeful Church reformers (Huss and Calvin, to name two), recurred continually throughout Luther’s thought, so much so, that Luther found God’s goodness and grace to be the fount for any and all goodness within creation. Humans who rely upon their own talents, abilities, knowledge, and prowess, are misinterpreting the gifts that God has bestowed upon them. In addition, Luther notes that God’s good gifts tends to breed laziness and self-adoration within the heart of humanity, for humans begin to think more highly of themselves than they ought.

Luther, then, holds Mary as a foil against such thought patterns. While less humble persons might take God’s gracious gifts for granted, Mary, on the other hand, recognizes God’s gifts as what they are: gifts. Such proper recognition allows Mary to embrace her role within creations as a chosen vessel of God. Luther emphasizes Mary’s proper use of God’s gifts, for he finds Mary’s humility and lowly estate to be closely tied to Mary’s proper use of the divine gifts. Luther notes, “She does not say, ‘My soul magnifies itself,’ or ‘exalts me.’ She does not desire herself to be esteemed; she magnifies God alone and gives all glory to Him.”²⁴ Mary exemplifies the proper humility in a “gifted” situation. “She leaves herself out and ascribes everything to God alone, from whom she received it.”²⁵ Mary’s position of humility accentuates her low estate and demonstrates how humanity should receive the good gifts of God. ²⁶

But in addition to Mary’s demonstrating how humanity might better receive the gifts of God, Mary’s low estate also serves to remind humanity that lowliness is not necessarily negative. Luther argues, “Thus the word ‘low estate’ shows us plainly that the Virgin was a poor, despised, lowly maiden who served God in her low estate.”²⁷ Therefore, Luther reasons, if Mary, in her low estate became one of God’s most chosen vessels of blessing and purpose, low estate is not necessarily to be looked down upon. In fact, Luther says, being despised may be at the heart of blessing. As he says in his explanation, “This should comfort us and teach us that though we should willingly be humbled and despised, we ought not to despair as though God were angry at us. Rather we should set our hope on his grace…”²⁸ Luther notes that Mary’s low estate allowed her to be made available for use. Other Christians, Luther reasons, should be so open to this low estate so that God might use them as well. Just as Mary notes in the Magnificat that God has taken note of her, Luther argues that Christians should hope, in the same way, that God would take note of them.

Luther’s concern with Mary’s lowly estate, it seems, is not that Mary was despised per se, but is rather that the lowly estate of Mary emphasizes the grace of God in the choosing of Mary to be the mother of Jesus. Such a move within Luther’s thought is not surprising; Luther emphasizes the grace and initiation of God at most every turn in his thought, keeping in line with his Augustinian heritage. While Christians may choose to embrace the “lowly estate” lived by Mary in order to emulate her supposed poverty, Luther prefers a lowly estate and humility so that God’s work might be done through God’s people without pride and arrogance taking root. In short, Mary’s lowly estate is an important part of Luther’s Mariology because it emphasizes the radical grace of God and the beauty of gift.

III

Luther’s Mariology to this point is quite orthodox. He maintains the perpetual virginity of Mary, and he also argues for the low estate of Mary, albeit to emphasize the grace of God rather than venerate Mary herself. And it is at this intersection of veneration that Luther’s Mariology becomes a bit less orthodox than it has been up to this point. Where Catholic contemporaries of Luther emphasized Mary’s role within the salvific process, Luther refuses to do so. But, simultaneously, Luther insists that the celebration of the Annunciation is vital; Luther himself prays to Mary. What, then, is Luther’s understanding of Mary with respect to veneration?

Medieval thought added much to the Church’s understanding of Mary, and thinkers like Bernard of Clairvaux and Thomas Aquinas had continued to write much that developed the doctrine of Mary.²⁹ But even their thought and debate had left much of the controversy surrounding the doctrine of Mary in flux, especially regarding veneration. But, as Jaroslav Pelikan notes, there are plenty of samplings from patristic and medieval writings to suggest that Mary’s stature within the Church was growing. Pelikan writes:

As even a sampling will suggest, the traditional themes of patristic and medieval Mariology continued to figure prominently in this period: the ancient parallelism of Eve and Mary; the conciliar definition of Mary as Theotokos; and the identification of Mary as the “woman clothed with the sun” in Revelation 12:1. Among her many titles—such as the “venerable mother of Jesus, Queen of heaven, Ruler of the world”—“Queen of mercies” seemed to hold a special place because of its emphasis on her care for mankind.³⁰

Luther, it seems, took exception with this particular care for humanity within the name “Queen of mercies,” because, in his opinion, it raised the Virgin to a place never intended by God. And so Luther’s argument focused on proper veneration of Mary. Luther is not opposed to all respect and honor given Mary, but he hopes that Mary will not be placed on a plane equal to that of Christ. Indeed, a reader surveying the work of Luther will immediately discover that Luther reserves a special place for Mary. Luther tells his students as part of his Table Talk, Luther reminds them that the Annunciation of Mary should be a part of the liturgical year. In fact, Luther says, the Annunciation must be preached. But, Luther argues, the Annunciation is not an occasion to exalt Mary more highly than she ought to be.³¹ Instead, Luther says, “When preaching on this day one should stick to the story, so that we may celebrate the incarnation of Christ, rejoice that we were made his brethren, and be glad that he who fills heaven and earth is in the womb of the maiden.”³² This response typifies Luther’s position regarding Mary: she is to be respected, but she is not to be worshiped. The point of the story, Luther reminds his students, is the coming of Jesus.

In fact, Luther makes it quite clear he holds those who place Mary in too high of esteem to border upon heresy. In the same Table Talk discussion, he says, “Therefore I hate Erasmus from the bottom of my heart, because he calls into question what ought to be our joy. Bernard filled a whole sermon with praise of the Virgin Mary, and in so doing forgot to mention what happened; so highly did he and Anselm esteem Mary.”³³ Luther is tired of the veneration of Mary superceding the work and the story of Christ. Rather than Mary be praised for her work, Luther hopes that the focus of Mary’s story will be upon her creaturliness and upon the God made flesh in the person of Jesus. Luther writes, “Mary can’t be sufficiently praised as a creature, but that the Creator himself comes to us and becomes our ransom—this is our key for rejoicing.”³⁴ From Luther’s comments, Pelikan’s assertion seems correct: the place of Mary increased in import throughout the medieval period. Luther hopes to correct that place, or so it seems.

Luther regularly argues that Mary has become the mediator for the Church rather than Christ. In fact, Luther sees the practice of asking the Virgin to intercede between believers and the Son a more and more common occurrence. In his “Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled at Augsburg,” Luther writes against the teachings found in monasteries (presumably Augustinian, he makes no specific clarifications),

Even when [the monks] did their best therein, it was still only about the invocation of the saints, not forgetting their own orders, to be sure, until they at last depicted to all the world that holy and noble woman, the Virgin Mary, as a mediator for poor sinners, even for her Son, Christ himself. For we all know, and I was as deep in it as the rest, that we were plainly taught to hold Mary in Christ’s place and office. We held Christ to be our angry judge and Mary to be our throne of grace, where all our comfort and refuge lay, if we did not wish to despair.³⁵

Luther writes that clergy are trained to replace the mediating office of Christ with that of Mary. The love and grace that Luther finds inseparably tied to the Incarnation is instead placed upon the office of Mary. And what is Luther’s judgment of such a theological shift? “Was this not a horrible innovation? Where were the bishops who rebuked such new blasphemers and betrayers of Christ who took away Christ’s office and gave it to Mary, who taught us to flee from Christ and fear him as whipmaster, and directed elsewhere our confidence which we owe him as the true divine service?”³⁶ In short, Luther judges the shift of Mary to the place of mediator to simply be heresy and idolatry in its plainest form. Later in the “Exhortation,” Luther notes that Mary has been made a “common idol with countless services, celebrations, fasts, hymns, and antiphons.”³⁷ In short, Luther finds the emphasis placed upon the veneration of Mary to have moved Mary from a special creature to that of god.

Luther writes of the idolatry elsewhere, too. In his “Warning to his Dear German People,” Luther writes to convince German laity that the Catholic clergy have been supporting heretical idolatrous notions for some time. “Furthermore, how will you endure their terrible idolatries? It was not enough that they venerated the saints and praised God in them, but they actually made them into gods. They put the noble child, the mother Mary, right into the place of Christ.”³⁸ And how did was this done? “They fashioned Christ into a judge and thus devised a tyrant for anguished consciences, so that all comfort and confidence was transferred from Christ to Mary, and then everyone turned from Christ to his particular saint.”³⁹ Luther notes that the importance of veneration has reached such ridiculous proportions that a popular myth exists among the laity in which a thief, who had done nothing good in his entire life, is admitted into heaven upon death because he offered a penny and a candle once by chance unto Mary.⁴⁰ Certainly, says Luther, we have moved past the place of propriety.

In fact, in his Christmas Day sermon of 1530, Luther addresses quite plainly the distortion of Mary prevalent in his contemporaries:

This is our theology, which we preach in order that we may understand what the angel wants. Mary bore the child, took it to her breast and nursed it, and the Father in heaven has his Son, lying in the manger and the mother’s lap. Why did God do all this? Why does Mary guard the child, as a mother should? And reason answers: in order that we may make an idol of her, that honor may be paid to the mother. Mary becomes all this without her knowledge and consent, and all the songs and glory and honor are addressed to the mother. And yet the text does not sound forth the honor of the mother, for the angel says, “I bring to you good news of a great joy; for to you is born this day the Savior.” I am to accept the child and his birth and forget the mother, as far as this is possible, although her part cannot be forgotten, for where there is a birth there must also be a mother. Nevertheless, we dare not put our faith in the mother but only in the fact that the child was born [emphasis mine].⁴¹

One might ask why Luther would use a Christmas Day sermon to address the abuses of Mary within the Church?⁴² While multiple reasons could be suggested, at least one reasonable thought comes to mind: perhaps Luther saw the Church regularly placing higher emphasis upon Mary during the Christmas season than Jesus. At the very least, Luther so much as said this Mary adoration was the case in the sermon and in his “Exhortation to Clergy.” As Luther adds later in his Christmas Day sermon, “For [Jesus] was not born merely in order that I should honor the mother, that she should be praised because he was born of the virgin mother.”⁴³ Luther’s polemic seems to indicate (despite whatever use of exaggeration and hyperbole might be present within his writings) that the veneration of Mary had indeed reached proportions worthy of comment.

One last passage within Luther’s corpus seems worth mentioning. Up to this point within this section I have argued that Luther worked and wrote against the veneration of Mary within the Church’s worship, but I have also occasionally noted throughout the paper that Luther did not wish to dismiss the veneration of Mary altogether. Luther, it seems, followed the logic of his experience with Christ and his insistence that Christ was the center of his faith. In short, Luther saw Christ as the center of Christianity and the Church’s use of Mary as a threat to that center. Because Scripture plays such a vital role within Luther’s thought, one might deduce that Luther realized the lack of scriptural evidence suggesting Mary’s role as “mediatrix” and therefore decided to attack the doctrine. But, despite this, Luther himself admits to having prayed to Mary from time to time and insisting that the Annuciation be preached, the perpetual virginity of Mary be upheld, and that the lowly estate of Mary be emphasized. Luther stressed the honor of Mary, but not to the fault of neglecting or misplacing Christ.⁴⁴

With this thought of balancing the role of Mary and the place of Christ within Luther’s thought, it seems noteworthy that Luther continues to use the term theotokos—“God-bearer” or “Mother of God”—to describe Mary from time to time within his writings. In his commentary on the Magnificat, Luther says, “The ‘great things’ are nothing less than that she became the Mother of God, in which so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding.”⁴⁵ And again: “Hence men have . . . call[ed] her the Mother of God. No one can say anything greater of her or to her, although he had as many tongues as there are leaves on the trees, or grass in the fields, or stars in the sky, or sand by the sea.”⁴⁶ Luther uses the term throughout the commentary, and in other locations as well.⁴⁷ As Pelikan has noted, the term theotokos was one of the highest terms of honor bestowed upon the Virgin,⁴⁸ so Luther’s use of the term signifies a tension in his thought. Luther wants to pay the proper respect that is due to Mary, but he also wants to abstain from worshipping her as an idol. I will now turn my attention to how I believe Luther resolves that tension.

IV

Luther, then, supports the orthodox notions of Mary’s perpetual virginity and her lowly estate, and he supports using the term theotokos to describe her. But at the same time, he attacks those (Erasmus, et al.) who have exalted Mary too highly. Clearly, Luther is using some sort of criteria to measure which actions are appropriate to Mary and which are not. My assertion is that Luther’s sacramental understanding is at play here. The thought behind Luther’s distribution of the sacraments influences the manner in which Luther reads, venerates, and withholds with regard to Mary.

Luther’s sacramental undertanding is tied inseparably to the Scripture, specifically speaking, and the gospel. For Luther, the story of Christ is central to the sacraments, and therefore, to the Church. In his essay, “The Freedom of a Christian,” Luther explains the relationship between Scripture and the gospel.⁴⁹ Interestingly, Luther gives life to this phrase, “Word of God,” by a qualifying description. The Word of God is not Scripture or even the living Christ alone. Instead, the Word of God is the gospel of Christ. In other words, Christ and the gospel cannot be separated. Luther’s understanding of justification of the soul is dependent upon the Word of God that is the good news of Jesus Christ. A soul that has been justified by the good news of Jesus Christ is a soul that will be characterized by that same gospel. (This understanding is imperative when Luther exegetes his notion of good works.) As Luther goes on to say, “The Word is the gospel of God concerning his Son, who was made flesh, suffered, rose from the dead, and was glorified through the Spirit who sanctifies. To preach Christ means to feed the soul, make it righteous, set it free, and save it.”⁵⁰ Justified souls embrace the whole story of Jesus, from incarnation to resurrection.

But embracing the entire story of Jesus means fully comprehending the miracle of the incarnation. In other words, humans must realize the miracle of God entering flesh and living a sinless life. Thus, the gospel of God to Luther specifically means the story of Jesus. The story of Jesus is the story of the church, and that story must be accentuated at every opportunity. As a result, the story of Jesus becomes the story of the believer. And in the same way, the story of the believer becomes the story of Jesus. This unifying of stories is what makes salvation a reality. Luther writes, “As a matter of fact, [Christ] makes them his own and acts as if they were his own and as if he himself had sinned; he suffered, died, and descended into hell that he might overcome them all.”⁵¹ The one who is justified by faith embraces the full story of God, and in turn, God identifies his story, too. The believer who has identified his story with Christ awakens to a new reality.

In order to be able to identify with the story of Christ, the sacraments have been given by God, according to Luther. When the Church celebrates the sacraments, they are, in essence, enacting the story of Jesus, and, therefore, partaking of grace. In order to understand Luther’s thought regarding the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, one should examine Luther’s essay entitled, “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the Brotherhoods⁵²” Luther’s thought concerning the sacrament is on display again in this essay, much akin in many respects to his argument presented in “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” In this essay, Luther writes about the very nature of the sacraments, most specifically, communion. In dealing with this sacrament, Luther discusses three essential themes that he deems indispensable in the nature of any sacrament: sign, significance, and faith. Luther interprets—beautifully, at particular junctures—the meaning of communion.

Luther discusses the place of sign first in the sacrament. A sacrament must have a sign, he suggests, because a sign is necessary to remind the church of the promise of grace that has been given, and is still being given, to the church. But such a sign loses its effectiveness, Luther suggests, if the entire sign is not witnessed. As Luther says, “But it would be fitting and fine that the form, or sign, of the sacrament be given not in part only, but in its entirety, just as I said of baptism: it would be more fitting to immerse in the water than to pour with it, for the sake of the completeness and perfection of the sign.”⁵³ An interesting aspect of Luther’s thought moves to the forefront with this suggestion: Luther’s theology is, in a manner of speaking, mystical enough to fear a desecration of the sacrament. And while Luther will agree that the laity must not be forced to take the wine, he does believe that withholding the wine is a mistake. When the sacrament is performed in an incomplete manner, the clergy intentionally disrupt the sign and therefore obfuscate the promise of God. Luther argues for a complete sacrament, because the sign of the sacrament is closely tied to the gracious presence of God within the sacrament.

Luther then moves to the significance of the sacrament: the fact that the sacrament is performed as a part of the communio sanctorum. As Luther explains, “To receive this sacrament in bread and wine, then, is nothing else than to receive a sure sign of this fellowship and incorporation with Christ and all saints.”⁵⁴ In other words, the sacrament is not simply an individual undertaking. Instead, it is a corporate act done with corporate consequences. When an individual partakes of a sacrament, that individual states affirmatively their membership in the community of faith. Likewise, partaking in the sacrament reminds and encourages one of one’s membership. Luther says, “It is as if a citizen were given a sign, a document, or some other token to assure him that he is a citizen of the city, a member of a particular community.”⁵⁵ As each member of the community called the Church takes part in the sacrament, all of the spiritual possessions of Christ and the saints are shared in that moment. So the sacrament is more than a contemporary sharing, but it is a sharing that transcends time, according to Luther. The communicant participates in the past, present, and future of the church—in a sense, they participate in eternity. This sharing brings with it both positive and negative aspects. One receives the grace, love, and mercy of Christ upon taking the sacrament, but one also receives the responsibility and the expense of following Christ. Luther states that, “man is given through the priest a sure sign from God himself that he is thus united with Christ and his saints and has all things in common [with them], that Christ’s sufferings and life are his own, together with the lives and sufferings of all the saints.”⁵⁶ The significance of the sacrament is complete when one realizes that the sacrament is completed in conjunction with the church and the life of Christ.

Another aspect of the sacrament’s significance is the power of remembrance that the sacrament brings. But Luther does not specifically mention remembrance of the sacrifice of Christ. No, instead, Luther argues that the sacrament reminds the individual that God’s help is present in the struggle against sin. He writes,

“God gives us this sacrament, as much as to say, ‘Look, many kinds of sin are assailing you; take this sign by which I give you my pledge that this sin is assailing not only you but also my Son, Christ, and all his saints in heaven and on earth. Therefore take heart and be bold. You are not fighting alone. Great help and support are all around you.”⁵⁷

Luther’s belief that the actual body and blood of Christ are present during the sacrament of communion motivated him to argue this point. He argues that ingesting the body and blood of Jesus strengthens the individual.

But the individual cannot fully realize the sacrament simply with the sign and the significance. In addition, the individual must exercise faith as the sacrament is enacted. When one receives the Eucharist, they must come to the sacrament fully expecting and wanting to receive the grace of God. If one is to receive the efficacy that God pours forth from the sacrament, one must receive the sacrament in faith—believing that God will work. In a sense, the individual comes hungry and expectant for the bread of communion, because the individual is hungry and expectant for the grace that God will bestow. Luther argues that faith is necessary in order for grace to be bestowed because the sacrament of communion is not a complete and full act in and of itself. The priest who bestows the sacrament may say the mass in an unworthy manner or serve the Eucharist with an unworthy heart. The individual receiving the Eucharist must come full of faith, because their faith allows God to bestow grace in spite of any possible unworthiness present in the priest. Because the sacrament requires us to approach God in faith, Luther argues that the sacraments are, in a sense, our passing between the temporal and the eternal. He says, “Thus the sacrament is for us a ford, a bridge, a door, a ship, and a stretcher, by which and in which we pass from this world into eternal life.”⁵⁸ As a result, Luther argues that God and humanity come face to face in a sacrament of sign and significance received in faith.

Luther’s essay, “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” was controversial because Luther sought to purge the church of ‘false sacraments,’ so to speak.⁵⁹ Henry VIII and Pope Leo X reacted violently against “Babylonian Captivity,” because it criticized the grace-giving stature of the Church itself. Luther argued that the only necessary sacraments to the church are the sacraments of communion and baptism…and possibly confession. Those sacraments, Luther argued, are the most clear representations of the story of Jesus. The Eucharist is the story of Christ’s death. Baptism is the story of Christ’s conquering of the grave. And confession is the story of Christ’s forgiveness. Any other sacraments that the Church purports to offer are merely unnecessary rituals, according to Luther, because they are not primarily concerned with the gospel of Christ.

For Luther, then, the gospel is the story of Christ made manifest in the sacraments. And the sacraments are the key component to the Mass. Therefore, the Mass is central to the thought and praxis of Luther. In his “Smalcald Articles,” Luther notes the place of the Mass in relation to grace. He declares that the Mass is not necessary for grace, for grace comes from Christ alone, but he also notes that the Mass is the most likely place for an individual to hear the story, the gospel, of Christ. The Mass, then, is reserved for the One who gives grace—Christ. The gospel is reserved for the One who gives grace—Christ. Worship is reserved for the One who gives grace—Christ. The sacraments are signs given by God to remind of the story of Christ, and that story must remain central to the Church’s teaching, or the Church drifts from what God intends.

V

Although it is anachronistic to say so, Luther, in his sacramental thought, resembles a “narrative theologian.” That is to say, he is concerned with the story of the gospel first and foremost. Granted, Luther uses propositional logic in order to craft his theological systems from time (i.e., his “Disputation Against Scholastic Theology”), but his later thought reflects specifically upon the story of God’s work in the person of Jesus Christ. The sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are so vital to Luther, because they are the re-enactments of the story of Christ within the Church each and every time that the church assembles. The sacraments of the Supper and baptism are central to recalling the story of Jesus. Other sacraments—marriage, monastic vows, etc.—are not, in Luther’s opinion.

How, then, does Luther’s sacramental theory tie into his understanding of Mary? To begin, Luther’s sacramental thought clings closely to the miraculous. Luther affirms the Real Presence of Christ within the bread and wine during communion; Luther believes in the dispensation of grace through sacraments; Luther believes that the divine and the human intersect within the re-enactment of sacraments. In short, Luther finds the miraculous to be much more common than one might suspect. Outside of Luther’s sacramental thought, one can discover Luther’s regular discussions of healings, the devil, demons, and other supernatural happenings. The miraculous is part of the Christian life for Luther.

As a result, Luther tends to cling to the miraculous in his understanding of Mary. Was Mary actually a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus? Yes, says Luther. Did Mary remain a virgin perpetually? While Luther admits that there is no definitive evidence given in Scripture, Luther takes the more miracle-prone possibility and answers in the affirmative. Should Mary be given the title theotokos? Luther believes the answer is yes, and he demonstrates his belief by using the title “Mother of God” upon more than one occasion. In fact, the miraculous side of Mary is not only not denounced by Luther, but Luther turns out to be one of Mary’s more ardent supporters. One might argue that this is because Luther attempted to remain as orthodox as possible, but once one grasps Luther’s understanding of the sacraments and the manner in which the sacraments ground Luther’s thought, one begins to understand the role of the miraculous for Luther. God is the sole proprietor of miracles, and therefore, if a miracle conjoins with the story of Christ, then such a miracle can be said to be true.

Luther took such a line of reasoning when approaching Mary, it seems. The perpetual virginity, the virgin birth, and the title of theotokos meet three criteria for Luther. First, they exalt God and make God’s work even more incredible. Second, they do not contradict the gospel of Jesus. Third, and perhaps most important, they do not move Christ from the center of the gospel narrative, where Luther wants Jesus desperately to remain.

The lowly estate of Mary falls in line with these criteria as well. Why is Luther so concerned with the lowliness of Mary? Because Mary’s lowliness provides greater opportunity to accentuate the grace and goodness of God. Mary’s lowliness provides yet another opportunity for the God of Israel to perform another miracle. Luther notes regularly that Mary was despised and suspect among her peers. Luther also notes that Mary was chosen because she recognized her role as a creature and embraced that role fully. In other words, Mary understood her place within the story of the gospel, and she embraced it fully. Mary did not seek to exalt herself once she was chosen. Instead, she recognized her place as a servant of God, and she faithfully carried the child that God gave to her. Once Jesus was born, Mary’s role decreased significantly. But Mary did not attempt to exalt herself. For this reason, Luther appreciates the lowly state of Mary. She was humble and lowly in the beginning, and immediately after her purpose of mothering had been fulfilled, she reclaimed that lower estate with humility. Again, Luther appreciates the lowliness and humility of Mary because it does not attempt to unseat Christ as the center of the gospel.

But Luther argues strongly against the veneration and the worship of Mary, not because Luther does not honor Mary—he does call her theotokos, but because the worship and veneration of Mary has distorted what is most important to Luther—the gospel of Christ. When Mary becomes the loving mediator and Christ becomes the cruel judge, the story of Jesus is changed. As a result, the sacraments are changed, also. How can the sacrifice of Christ be remembered in the Eucharist if Christ is not loving but is instead cruel? How can baptism be about Christ’s resurrection if Christ is the harbinger of death rather than its conqueror? Luther loves the sacraments because they re-tell the story of Christ time and again. And because Luther loves the sacraments and the Mass, he cannot stand to see Mary worshiped in the manner reserved for Christ alone. And so Luther argues that the worship of Mary must stop immediately. Why? Because such worship and veneration attempts to re-center the gospel upon a new center—Mary—instead of Jesus. But Luther believes that Jesus must be the center; his sacramental thought demonstrates that point clearly enough.

In the end, Luther’s Mariology is orthodox, because it insists upon placing emphasis where it should be placed: Jesus of Nazareth. Students of the Reformations of European Christianity would do well to remember the work of Luther, especially his insistence upon the story of Jesus. His story is, after all, the story of grace. But they would also do well to remember Jesus’ mother. For her story allows us to better understand what our role ought to be today.⁶⁰

Works Cited

Bethke-Elshtain, Jean. “Luther Sic—Luther Non.” Theology Today 43:2 (July 1986):

155-168.

Brooks, Peter Newman. “A Lily Ungilded? Martin Luther, The Virgin Mary, and the

Saints.” Journal of Religious History (December 1984): 136-149.

Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill.

Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.

Chapman, Mark E. “Sancta Maria, Sancta Ecclesia: A Lutheran Possibility for a Marian

Ecclesiology.” One in Christ 31:2 (1995): 146-157.

Gambero, Luigi. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in

Patristic Thought. Translated by Thomas Buffer. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1991.

Huss, John. De Ecclesia. Translated by David Schaff. Westport: Greenwood, 1917.

Luther, Martin. “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church.” In Martin Luther’s Basic

Theological Writings. Edited by Timothy L. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

-------. “The Blessed Sacrament of the Holy and True Body of Christ, and the

Brotherhoods.” In Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings. Edited by

Timothy L. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

-------. “Dr. Martin Luther’s Warning to His Dear German People.” In Luther’s Works,

Volume 47, The Christian in Society. Edited by Franklin Sherman. Translated by

Helmut T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

-------. “Exhortation to All Clergy Assembled at Augsburg.” In Luther’s Works, Volume

34, Career of the Reformer IV. Edited by Lewis W. Spitz. Translated by Helmut

T. Lehmann. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960.

-------. “The Freedom of a Christian.” In Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings.

Edited by Timothy L. Lull. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989.

-------. “The Magnificat.” In Luther’s Works, Volume 21, The Sermon on the Mount and

The Magnificat. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia, 1956.

-------. “Recorded by Dietrich.” In Luther’s Works, Volume 54, Table Talk. Edited

and translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

-------. “Recorded by Lauterbach.” In Luther’s Works, Volume 54, Table Talk. Edited

and translated by Theodore G. Tappert. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967.

-------. “Sermon on the Afternoon of Christmas Day, 1530.” In Luther’s Works, Volume

51, Sermons I. Edited and translated by John W. Doberstein. Philadelphia:

Muhlenberg, 1959.

-------. “That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew.” In Luther’s Works, Volume 45, The

Christian in Society II. Edited by Walther I. Brandt. Philadelphia: Muhlenberg,

1962.

Marius, Richard. Martin Luther: The Christian Between God and Death. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press, 1999.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. Reformation of Church and Dogman (1300-1700), The Church

Tradition, A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4. Chicago:

Univeristy of Chicago, 1984.

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. Mary for Today. San Francisco: Ignatius, 1987.