Martin Luther’s View of Cross-Bearing

By John C. Clark

[John C. Clark is a Ph.D. Candidate in Historical Theology, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.]

At Heidelberg on April 25, 1518, Martin Luther was called on to defend his controversial theology at the triennial gathering of his fellow Augustinian monks. He used the opportunity to articulate a set of developing insights that exposed what he considered the most prominent shortcomings of the late medieval theological enterprise, and in the process, provided impetus to the emerging evangelical reform then taking place in sixteenth-century Europe.[1] Prominent among Luther’s insights was his insistence that the Cross must constitute both the substance and the ultimate evaluative criterion for all Christian theological reflection.[2] The Reformer’s mature theology remained profoundly influenced by this insight, commonly called his theologia crucis (“theology of the Cross”).

It would be difficult to overstate the historical importance and enduring significance of Luther’s “theology of the Cross,” which Alister McGrath described as “one of the most powerful and radical understandings of the nature of Christian theology which the church has ever known.”[3] As such, this motif in Luther’s thought has commanded much interest.[4] Yet there remains a correlative aspect of the “theology of the Cross” that attracts somewhat less attention in the secondary literature of Luther scholarship, namely, the Reformer’s understanding of cross-bearing.

Luther was convinced that just as the Cross provides the substance of Christian thought, so too does it provide the shape of the Christian life. And because he understood the goal of the Christian life as conformity to the Crucified One, Luther maintained that the way in which that life is lived must necessarily be “cruciform.” “The holy Christian people,” Luther wrote, “are externally recognized by the holy possession of the sacred cross. They must endure every misfortune and persecution, all kinds of trials and evil from the devil, the world, and the flesh. .. by inward sadness, timidity, fear, outward poverty, contempt, illness, and weakness, in order to become like their head, Christ.”[5]

Luther did not mean by this that Christians help Christ bear His cross or that Christ’s atonement provides the basis for their self-atonement. Both of these ideas, he said, deny the person of Christ as unique Savior and would mean the work of Christ is inadequate or even extraneous. Rather, the Reformer meant that to be united with Christ, the Crucified One, entails suffering, for just as Christians cannot bear Christ’s cross, so He will not bear theirs. In other words Luther thought that to view Jesus Christ correctly is to view Him as both bearer and bestower of the Cross. Twenty-first-century Christians fail to benefit from the fullness of Luther’s theological richness, pastoral wisdom, and enduring significance when this element of his thought is overlooked. The objective of this article, therefore, is to explore how Luther understood the inevitability of cross-bearing, the manner in which cross-bearing should be undertaken, and the purpose God achieves through it.

The Inevitability of Cross-Bearing

In his 1519 treatise A Meditation on Christ’s Passion Luther posited that those seeking protection in Christ’s passion “against water and sword, fire, and all sorts of perils” appropriate the Cross incorrectly.[6] In Luther’s view these people fail to grasp the actual benefits of Christ’s death because “Christ’s suffering is thus used to effect in them a lack of suffering contrary to his being and nature.”[7] The Reformer considered any instance in which Christians attempt to invoke Christ’s suffering to ensure their own exemption from suffering as an occasion wherein both the Cross and the Christian life are denatured. “For God has appointed that we should not only believe in the crucified Christ,” argued Luther, “but also be crucified with him, as he clearly shows in many places in the Gospels: ‘He who does not take his cross and follow me,’ he says, ‘is not worthy of me’ [Matt. 10:38]. And again: ‘If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household’ [Matt. 10:25].”[8]

For Luther, then, cross-bearing is intrinsic to the Christian life. Therefore instead of endeavoring to exclude themselves from suffering, Christians must prepare for the occasions of suffering with which they will inevitably be confronted. Luther understood his task as a theologian to include instructing Christians in this preparation—an aspect of which was helping them discern true cross-bearing from false cross-bearing. First, Luther maintained that the seriousness of the suffering involved in cross-bearing must not be cheapened by equating it with trivial discomfort. In his judgment, “it should be. .. and must be the kind of suffering that is worthy of the name and honestly grips and hurts, such as some great danger of property, honor, body, and life. Such suffering as we really feel, which weighs us down; otherwise, if it did not hurt us badly, it would not be suffering.”[9]

Second, cross-bearing must never be self-chosen. It should entail the kind of suffering from which, if possible, Christians would gladly be freed.[10] His point was that Christians may never assume lordship over their cross-bearing, but must always and ever remain subjects to it. In other words cross-bearing must be neither sought out nor self-imposed. It is God’s prerogative to determine the seasons and circumstances wherein each Christian is called on to suffer. The Christian’s call therefore is (a) to recognize that life in Christ is cruciform in nature, (b) to trust God’s paternal wisdom in all situations, and (c) to endure the cross faithfully when and as it is given.

Third, cross-bearing must not be equated with the suffering of the world as such. Luther’s pastoral sensitivities rendered him keenly aware of the fact that the lot of fallen humans in a fallen world is to live with relational discord, to experience fatigue, opposition, and life’s ostensible futility, to be subject to manifold treacheries at the hands of fellow humans, to be ever vulnerable to the devastation of natural disasters and the dread of sickness, disease, and plague, and to shudder before the indefatigable encroachment of death itself. Luther knew human suffering to be ubiquitous in scope and often breathtaking in intensity. Moreover, he considered the divine imperative of love for one’s neighbor to mean that the appropriate response to human suffering is that it be relieved, never demeaned. Jesus Christ “subjected himself to all evils. .. as if all the evils which were ours were actually his own.”[11] The implication he drew from this is as clear as it is scandalous: a Christian is not only to aid those whose suffering is brought about by issues outside their control but also to bear with those whose suffering is self-imposed, endeavoring to “conduct himself as if his neighbor’s weakness, sin, and foolishness were his very own.”[12] Yet Luther maintained that suffering as such is not cross-bearing, for in his judgment one consideration effectively distinguished human suffering in general from the suffering of cross-bearing in particular: the latter is always precipitated by identification with Jesus Christ. “We suffer,” argued Luther, “because we hold to the Word of God, preach it, hear it, learn it, and practice it. And since this is the cause of our suffering, so let it always be; we have the same promise and the same cause for suffering which the saints have always had.”[13]

The cross can only be divinely bestowed, as it belongs to none but Christ to give. Yet for Luther, it is visited on Christians primarily through the agencies of the devil and the world. In the absence of the gospel, Luther considered the adversary to be what he called the “white devil,” because his opposition to God consists of deceiving the world under the guise of apparent goodness—usually with a religious orientation. For this reason Luther deemed the world to be at its worst precisely when it thinks it’s at its best.[14] The gospel exposes this condition, and consequently, what Luther considers the primary work of the devil as well. Thus, as the devil opposes Christ and His gospel, the occasions for cross-bearing arise.

Consequently Christians also come into conflict with the world. This is because the theology of the world is what Luther called the theologia gloriae (“theology of glory”). He used this term primarily to criticize what he considered the philosophical rationalism of late medieval Scholasticism, as well as the moralizing tendencies of Erasmian humanism. Yet the term has application far beyond its original sixteenth-century context, because Luther ultimately considered any effort to arrive at the knowledge of God apart from the Cross as an expression of the “theology of glory.” This is a temptation Christians must resist. It is a disposition of heart and mind, however, that all unregenerate thinking about God cannot avoid. To the humanly generated conventional wisdom and self-styled moralism of an unbelieving world the Cross appears not only grotesque and shameful, but also evil.[15] For the Cross exposes and condemns the world’s lust for self-exaltation.[16] Thus the world’s opposition to the Crucified One results in various levels of persecution brought on His people.[17] Luther captured this inevitability as follows.

God mercifully permits me to see that his Word does not go forth in vain.. .. He also informs me that all the world opposes this, as he says in Matthew 24 [:9], “You must be hateful to all nations for my name’s sake.” It is the nature of the divine word to be heartily received by few, but to be persecuted ruthlessly by many. Wolves and bears and lions do not persecute it, but men do, all men do, Christ says. Is it any wonder, then, that the world is full of people, that is, full of persecutors of Christ? What is the world other than people?. .. Thus it ever remains true that men persecute God’s word and God’s children.. .. Wherever Christ is, Judas, Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas, and Annas will inevitably be also, so also his cross. If not, he is not the true Christ.[18]

Though cross-bearing is inevitable, it is not compulsory. No one is “forced or compelled to it.”[19] The only alternative Luther found to cross-bearing, however, was reconciliation with the world. The world clearly has a kind of peace to offer, but that peace is found apart from God, in particular, in the world’s posture of defiance, that is, in self-lordship. According to Luther there are but two options: to bear the Cross or to repudiate the Cross. “The way is at hand,” he said, “but you must know that if you refuse to suffer you will also not become Christ’s courtier. So you may do either one of these two, either suffer or deny Christ.”[20]

The Manner of Cross-Bearing

Luther treated with seriousness the attacks on body, family, property, livelihood, and other creaturely goods to which Christians are subjected. He was far more concerned with attacks waged on mind and soul, however, since he considered them undoubtedly more perilous. Luther knew that the loss of creaturely goods, and more still, of loved ones is devastating. “Nevertheless it is possible to overcome whatever misery may befall man on earth with respect to worldly and temporal possessions. For even if he is dispossessed of all earthly things, this does not mean that God and Christ have been taken away from him.”[21]

These words provide a clue to what Luther considered the most insidious objective of the hostility leveled against Christians by both the world and the devil: the attempt to discredit Jesus Christ and thereby make Christian faith and discipleship something shameful and ridiculous. According to Luther this is often carried out along the following lines. First, attention is drawn to the hidden nature of the Christian life—that the Christian’s claim to possess Jesus Christ through faith appears compromised and contradicted by the manifold presence of sin and suffering. Second, attention is drawn to the inscrutable nature of God’s governance of the world, which speaks more articulately of His absence, impotence, and hatred, than it does of His providential presence, power, and love.[22] In effect, said Luther, the world chides, “Now look what you have done! How well off you are with your Christ, of whom you boast that He is the Savior and the Son of God! How well you deserve this!”[23] The tack of the devil, according to Luther, is much the same, aiming at “tearing Christ out of their [Christians’] hearts” by discrediting Him as unable or unwilling to aid them.[24]

Attacks from without may cause tumult within. Luther called the latter Anfechtung, described (although apparently never defined) by the Reformer as the deluge of confusion, fear, distress, and desolation that wells up within those who are undergoing trials, tempting them to despair of themselves as forsaken by God. Luther maintained that Christians facing such temptation cannot dispel it by “sadness and lamentation and anxiety.”[25] Furthermore those in this crucible cannot fully comprehend God’s purposes in it, which Luther considered beyond the ability of human introspection to discern. “It would be neither good nor useful for man to know what great blessings lie hidden under such trials,” he warned. “Some have wanted to fathom this and have thereby done themselves much harm. Therefore, we should willingly endure the hand of God in this and in all suffering. Do not be worried; indeed, such a trial is the very best sign of God’s grace and love for man.”[26]

It is noteworthy that both responses to Anfechtung that Luther warned against involve self-preoccupation, which he thought only intensified confusion and doubt. What Christians must know in order to respond correctly in these situations, Luther claimed, is that “fear and trembling is not as great as the comfort and the promise, and that we should therefore know that in this life we shall have no rest if we are bearing Christ, but rather that in affliction we should turn our eyes away from the present suffering to the consolation and promise. Then we will learn that what Christ says is true: ‘In me you shall have peace’ [John 16:33].”[27]

Luther called this the “Christian art” that all cross-bearers must learn, “the art of looking to the Word and looking away from all the trouble and suffering that lies upon us and weighs us down.”[28] This “art” is set directly against the stratagems of both the world and the devil, whose objective is to obscure, distract, and redirect the Christian’s gaze of faith away from Christ.

Luther’s pastoral counsel had at least two theological motivations with regard to cross-bearing. The first was that while cross-bearing provides the context for blessing, that blessing cannot be found in the attending circumstances of cross-bearing itself. Jesus Christ remains ever present and active according to His promise, but at the same time hidden under these ostensibly contradictory realities. Therefore Christians must not look for Christ in the circumstances that attend their bearing of the cross, since it is unwise and unsafe to seek Him where He has not revealed Himself, and thus refuses to be found. Yet there is comfort to be had.

[W]hat makes this cross more agreeable and bearable for us is the fact that our dear God is ready to pour so many refreshing aromatics and cordials into our hearts that we are able to bear all our afflictions and tribulations.. .. When the suffering and affliction is at its worst, it bears and presses down so grievously that one thinks he can endure no more and must surely perish. But then if you can think of Christ, the faithful God will come and will help you, as he has always helped his own from the beginning of the world; for he is the same God as he has always been.[29]

Luther’s earlier comments demonstrated that this “Christian art” is clearly not motivated by escapism or denial. Equally important, the comment directly above indicates that Luther understood cross-bearing as being neither macabre nor morose. Christians are never to rejoice in suffering as such. Yet neither are they to suffer affliction with unrelieved gloom. For Luther, the bitterness of cross-bearing is sweetened by the corresponding summons to the afflicted to receive comfort and consolation through fellowship with the Crucified One.

Furthermore Christians must resist being preoccupied with the affliction itself because it renders no sense of its transitory nature. According to Jesus’ words in John 16:16–22, 33 affliction will last but “a little while.” Luther commented on verses 20–22 of this text as follows.

Sadness will not last forever; it will turn into joy. Otherwise our condition would be hopeless and helpless. But Christ has helped by saying that we will not be subjected to the eternal spectacle of the devil with his horns and claws, but that our hearts will again see Christ and rejoice in Him.. .. Therefore the lamenting does not have to last forever, even though it seems and feels that way when we are in it. But even though we cannot see or determine the end, Christ has already done so. He points out to us in advance that we must bear this suffering, no matter how bad and unpleasant the devil makes it. Even though we do not see the end, we must wait for Him who says: “I will put an end to it and will again comfort you and give you joy.”[30]

This constitutes the second motivation for Luther’s commendation of the “Christian art” of enduring affliction. It comes from the revelation that affliction will end soon, but more importantly still, why it will end soon. What Jesus’ words obliquely anticipated as He headed to the cross and what Luther subsequently concluded from them was that “the suffering of Christ has become so mighty and strong that it fills heaven and earth and breaks the power and might of the devil and hell, of death and sin.”[31] This is because the humiliation and ignominy of Jesus Christ on Good Friday was resoundingly overturned by His resurrection on Easter Sunday. For this reason Luther’s “theology of the Cross” must never be misconstrued as extracting the Atonement from the totality of Jesus Christ’s redemptive work. The Cross in isolation would be but the occasion of Christ’s defeat, and that would render the Christian’s cross-bearing a pointless, endless exercise in what McGrath called “at best a way of resignation to the futility of existence, at worst a way of despair and delusion.”[32] But for Luther, Good Friday and Easter Sunday are inextricable. Christ’s cross-bearing was followed by glorification, and the same will be true for Christians. This infuses Luther’s “theology of the Cross” with hope and makes cross-bearing meaningful.

The Purpose of Cross-Bearing

When discussing the purpose of cross-bearing Luther insisted that Christians carefully distinguish Christ’s cross from their own. In the Reformer’s estimation the point that must be grasped is that the cross of Jesus Christ “accomplishes everything” relative to Christians’ reconciliation to God, meaning there is nothing meritorious in their cross-bearing whatsoever.[33] “And those who teach otherwise,” concluded Luther, “know neither what Christ’s suffering nor our suffering is.”[34] Luther had already argued that Christ will not relieve Christians of their crosses; here he insisted that no one in turn should be so presumptuous as to attempt to relieve Him of His. This point was vital for Luther, since what he considered to lie in the balance is the difference between the gospel and false gospels and thus between the making of Christians and the fortification of sinners in their posture of defiance toward God.[35]

As already noted, Luther maintained that the peculiar purposes of God in the affliction of His people are beyond their ability to discern. The hidden nature of the Christian life and the inscrutability of divine providence preclude this. That is to say, Christians cannot understand God’s intentions in afflicting His people, nor can they draw precise conclusions and carry out exact applications relative to the effects of cross-bearing on them. Yet the chief purpose of cross-bearing is clearly revealed. God “wants to make us conformed to the image of his dear Son, Christ, so that we may become like him here in suffering and there in that life to come in honor and glory [cf. Rom. 8:29; 8:17; II Tim. 2:11–12], as he says, ‘Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer and enter into glory?’ [cf. Luke 24:26].”[36]

According to Luther, cross-bearing accomplishes this purpose by directing and redirecting Christians to the true source of life and blessing. This is a severe but necessary mercy, since the temptation to seek life and blessing by circumventing or even repudiating the cross is never too far removed from them. “Just as it was difficult to stay away from that living tree [of the knowledge of good and evil], so it is difficult to enjoy eating from the dead tree [the cross]. The first was the image of life, delight, and goodness, while the other is the image of death, suffering, and sorrow because one tree is living, the other dead. There is in man’s heart the deeply rooted desire to seek life where there is certain death and to flee from death where one has the sure source of life.”[37] Here is an eloquent expression of the great paradox in Luther’s “theology of the Cross.” Reality, as humanly perceived and defined, forever sets itself against truth as divinely revealed. Here also, then, is where the Reformer identified the threshold separating faith from unbelief, and ultimately, life from death. Luther knew intimately what it meant to live in the tension of this paradox and totter on this threshold. He also knew that in this regard he was not unique. As such he understood the bestowal of the cross as a manner in which God preserves His people by protecting them from spiritual calamity.

Cross-bearing also accomplishes its purpose by exposing and mortifying indwelling sin, and at the same time, forging Jesus Christ ever deeper into Christians’ hearts. Luther seems to have found pride and sloth of particular concern, since he considered these dispositions powerful influences in the distortion and misappropriation of the gospel itself.

We see so many people, unfortunately it is all too common, so misusing the gospel that it is a sin and a shame, as if now of course they have been so liberated by the gospel that there is no further need to do anything, give anything, or suffer anything. This kind of wickedness our God cannot check except through suffering. Hence he must keep disciplining and driving us, that our faith may increase and grow stronger and thus bring the Savior more deeply into our hearts. For just as we cannot get along without eating and drinking so we cannot get along without affliction and suffering.[38]

For Luther the Christian life is clearly, necessarily, and indelibly “cruciform.” Christians are birthed by the cross Christ bore for them, then instructed, fortified, preserved, and prepared for glory by the cross Christ bestows on them. Therefore the poignant question Luther posed nearly five centuries ago is one with which Christians must never grow weary of wrestling, even up to the pres-ent hour. “Since we know then that it is God’s good pleasure that we should suffer, and that God’s glory is manifested in our suffering, better than in any other way, and since we are the kind of people who cannot hold on to the Word and our faith without suffering, and moreover since we have the noble, previous promise that the cross which God sends to us is not a bad thing, but rather an utterly precious and noble holy thing, why should we not be bold to suffer?”[39]

Conclusion

Though Luther was a creature of the sixteenth century, his thinking on this topic has several insights worthy of continued consideration. First, if Luther was correct that suffering is not an alien imposition to the Christian life but rather a constituent aspect of it, then any understanding of Christian wellness that holds no place for suffering is inadequate. Luther robustly affirmed that the Christian life should be marked by comfort and hope, but did he have in mind the same comfort and hope on which modern Christians place a premium?

Second, if Luther was correct concerning the hidden nature of the Christian life, to what extent may Christians accurately assess their own—as well as others’—inner lives? Luther did not deny the value or even the necessity of an examined life. Yet might he perhaps think that some current trends in spiritual formation are in danger of obscuring Jesus Christ through self-preoccupation?

Third, if Luther was correct that it is the nature of the world to persecute Christ and the calling of Christians to display the power of the gospel through suffering, what ought North American evangelicals to make of the numerical—and according to some, the political—state of affairs they currently seem to enjoy? There is certainly no room for triumphalism, and perhaps as much occasion for suspicion as celebration.

Fourth, if Luther was correct regarding the inscrutability of divine providence, then deducing the will of God from world occurrence is insufficiently sophisticated—prominent among many reasons for this is that the logic of his “theology of the Cross” inverts the world’s tendency to associate might with right.

Fifth, if Luther was correct that God’s omnipotence is demonstrated in the effectual suffering of Jesus Christ, then his voice should continue to inform Christians seeking to affirm and expound this great scriptural doctrine.

Potential applications abound, but this is certain: Luther understood Jesus Christ as both the bearer and bestower of the cross. May believers hear Luther and learn to receive this and all other things from God’s hand when and as He gives them.

Notes

1. In his Heidelberg Disputation of 1518 as well as his Disputation against Scholastic Theology of 1517, Luther formulated incisive criticisms of late medieval Catholicism, claiming that its theological edifice was constructed on a largely Aristotelian substructure. According to Luther the result was an epistemology and soteriology that obscured the uniqueness and sufficiency of Jesus Christ, particularly with regard to His ministries of revelation and reconciliation. Both treatises are found in Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann (St. Louis: Concordia, 1957), vol. 31.
2. When Luther spoke in this way he used the word “Cross” as theological shorthand to encompass the revelation of Jesus Christ throughout Scripture. In his estimation Jesus Christ can never be properly understood apart from Good Friday. Yet at the same time, the “Cross” can and must never be reduced to that event. See Gerhard O. Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross: Reflections on Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, 1518 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 1 n. 1. This point will be revisited and clarified later in the article.
3. Alister E. McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985), 1.
4. For more on Luther’s “theology of the Cross” see Walther von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 5th ed., trans. Herbert J. A. Bouman (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1976); McGrath, Luther’s Theology of the Cross; idem, “The Dark Night of Faith,” in Spirituality in an Age of Change: Rediscovering the Spirit of the Reformers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994): 75–94; Forde, On Being a Theologian of the Cross; and Timothy George, “The Atonement in Martin Luther’s Theology,” in The Glory of the Atonement, ed. Charles E. Hill and Frank A. James III (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004): 263–78.
5. Martin Luther, “On the Councils and the Church,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 41 (1966), 164.
6. Martin Luther, “A Meditation on Christ’s Passion,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 42 (1969), 7. Luther’s comment was directed toward the medieval practice of carrying a replica of the cross, or other paraphernalia regarding Christ’s passion, on one’s person because of its supposed ability to protect from harm and bring good fortune. His criticism was that this superstitiously reduced the cross to a talisman.
7. Ibid., 7.
8. Martin Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 51 (1959), 198.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” in Luther’s Works, 31:301.
12. Ibid., 302.
13. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:200–201.
14. Martin Luther, “Lectures on Galatians, 1535,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 26 (1963), 40.
15. Thesis twenty-one of the Heidelberg Disputation reads, “A theology of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theology of the cross calls the thing what it actually is” (Luther’s Works, 31:40).
16. Thesis seventeen of the Disputation against Scholastic Theology reads, “Man is by nature unable to want God to be God. Indeed, he himself wants to be God, and does not want God to be God” (Luther’s Works, 31:10).
17. This depiction may strike some readers as hyperbolic. However, it accurately represents Luther’s view. One of the twentieth-century’s foremost interpreters of Luther said this concerning the place of sin in the Reformer’s thought: “In Luther’s own biography as well as in the structuring of his new theology a radical view of sin had been given preeminence. It is not an exaggeration to state that in his Reformation theology this new view of sin comprises the actual motif for practically all other themes” (Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development, trans. and ed. Roy A. Harrisville [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999], 248). Luther maintained that to minimize sin’s reality, extent, or effects is both theologically myopic and pastorally cruel. “This [the manifold corruption of nature] should be emphasized, I say, for the reason that unless the severity of the disease is correctly recognized, the cure is also not known or desired. The more you minimize sin, the more grace will decline in value” (Martin Luther, “Lectures on Genesis,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 1 [1958], 142).
18. Martin Luther, “A Letter of Consolation to All Who Suffer Persecution,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 43 (1968), 62–63.
19. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:199.
20. Ibid.
21. Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” 24:380.
22. Luther deals notably with the reality of God’s providential care even when its beneficiaries remain unaware of it (Martin Luther, “Fourteen Consolations for Those Who Labor and Are Heavy-Laden,” in Luther’s Works, 42:117–66).
23. Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” 24:380.
24. Ibid.
25. Martin Luther, “Comfort When Facing Grave Temptations,” in Luther’s Works, 42:183.
26. Ibid., 183–84.
27. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:203.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., 200.
30. Luther, “Sermons on the Gospel of St. John,” 24:382.
31. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:200.
32. McGrath, Spirituality in an Age of Change, 88.
33. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:208.
34. Ibid., 208.
35. According to Luther, Jesus Christ is always a gift to be received rather than a reward to be achieved. Even when Luther spoke of Christ as both gift and example, he maintained that the order in which Christ is these things to the Christian must never be inverted. “However this [Christ as an example] is the smallest part of the gospel, on the basis of which it cannot yet even be called gospel. For on this level Christ is of no more help to you than some other saint. His life remains his own and does not as yet contribute anything to you. In short this mode [of understanding Christ as simply an example] does not make Christians but only hypocrites.. .. The chief article and foundation of the gospel is that before you take Christ as an example, you accept and recognize him as a gift, as a present that God has given you and that is your own.. .. Now when you have Christ as the foundation and chief blessing of your salvation, then the other part follows: that you take him as your example, giving yourself in service to your neighbor just as you see that Christ has given himself for you” (“A Brief Instruction on What to Look for and Expect in the Gospels,” 35:119–20).
36. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:206.
37. Martin Luther, “That a Christian Should Bear His Cross with Patience,” in Luther’s Works, 43:183.
38. Luther, “Sermon at Coburg on Cross and Suffering,” 51:207.
39. Ibid., 208.