Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T12:12:59.524Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Priesthood and Ministry in the Theology of Luther*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

B. A. Gerrish
B. A. Gerrish
Affiliation:
Associate Professor of Historical Theology, University of Chicago Divinity School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At the Diet of Augsburg in 1530 Philip Melanchthon advised against discussion of the priesthood of all believers, relegating it to the “odious and unessential articles which are commonly debated in the schools.” In the Augsburg Confession, which had already been finished and read when he gave this judgment, the doctrine is passed over in silence. But Protestant tradition has not followed Melanchthon in this respect. The priesthood of all believers has come to be regarded, along with Biblical authority and salvation by faith, as one of the three main points of evangelical theology. Like the other two, however, it has not always been interpreted in the same way, nor taken as seriously in practice as in theory. All too often it has become a dead letter in a clergy-dominated institution. And where it has come alive again, it has been used to support a bewildering variety of practices, such as Congregational polity, the Quaker meeting, Pietistic ecclesiolae, and the Methodist commissioning of lay preachers. Sometimes, again, it has become associated with such slogans as “the right of private judgment” or “immediate access to God,” and interpreted so individualistically that any institutional or corporate expression of it becomes unthinkable. Finally, it is perhaps not superfluous to point out that the “royal priesthood” is not a Protestant invention, but a Biblical category, which had an interesting history before Luther and has never been wholly neglected in the “Catholic” tradition. This fact, too, complicates the problems of interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , December 1965 , pp. 404 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See especially the learned studies by Dabin, Paul S.J., Le Sacerdoce royal des fidéles dans les livres saints (Paris, 1941)Google Scholar and Le sacerdoce royal des fidéles dans la tradition ancienne et moderne (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar. In English there are two useful works by Eastwood, Cyril: The Priesthood of All Believers: An Examination of the Doctrine from the Reformation to the Present Day (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1962)Google Scholar and The Royal Priesthood of the Faithful: An Investigation of the Doctrine from Biblical Times to the Reformation (Ibid., 1963). For an evaluation of Eastwood's two volumes see the critical review in McCormeck Quarterly, Vol. XVIII, no. 1 (11, 1964), pp. 43–48.Google Scholar

2. Lindsay, Thomas M., A History of the Reformation (2nd edn., Edinburgh, 1907), I, 180, 443, 444.Google Scholar

3. Lindsay, T. M., The Reformation (2nd edn., Edinburgh, 1883), pp. 185–86, 187.Google Scholar

4. Harbison, E. Harris, The Age of Reformation (Ithaca, New York, 1955), p. 50.Google Scholar

5. W. A. (= Weimarer Ausgabe) 6. 404–469; see esp. 407.9ff. Translations from the Weimar Edition of Luther's works are my own.

6. W. A. 6.497–573, esp. 560.19ff.

7. W. A. 7.49–73, esp. 56.35ff.

8. W. A. 11.408–416.

9. W. A. 12.169–196.

11. W. A. 311.189–218, esp. 210.9ff.

12. W. A. 8.485.28ff.

13. W. A. 38.195–256, esp. 229.29ff.

14. W. A. 302.517588.

15. W. A. 50.632.35ff.

16. Höfling, J. W. F., Grundsätze evangelisch-lutherischer Kirchenverfassung (3rd edn., Erlangen, 1835), p. 77.Google Scholar

17. Stahl, F. J., Die Kirchenverfassung nach Lehre und Recht der Protestanten (2nd edn., Erlangen, 1862), pp. 67, 101, 111.Google Scholar

18. Das allgemeine Priestertum bei Luther (Theologische Existenz Heute, New Series no. 37), Munich, 1953.Google Scholar

19. Die Theologie des Gottesdienstes bei Luther, Lund, 1952.Google Scholar (Eng. trans.: Luther on Worship, Philadelphia, 1958.)Google Scholar

20. “Luthers Auffassung vom geistlichen Amt,” Luther-Jahrbuch, XXV (1958), pp. 61–98.Google Scholar

21. Brunotte, Wilhelm, Das geistliche Amtbei Luther, Berlin, 1959Google Scholar; Lieberg, Hellmut, Amt und Ordination bei Luther und Melanchthon, Göttingen, 1962.Google Scholar

22. W. A. 302.455.37; 6.514.11, 517.8, 530.11 (cf. 520.26), 533.29, 538.7, 543.17; 301.215.34.

23. W. A. 11.408.8; 50.629.16; 8.491.34; 171.99.26; 7.721.9; 12.191.16; 6.560.33. As Hans Strorck puts it: “[The Word] has taken over for Luther the place and function of Jesus Christ. The Word is Christus praesens et vivens, the present and living Christ” (op. cit., p. 7). The Word “assumes for us the place of the historical Jesus” (Ibid., p. 9). Translations from the German secondary literature are mine.

24. W.A. 7.56.26.

25. W.A. 7.57.28; 12.307.22 (where the priestly office is threefold; sacrifice, prayer, and proclamation; cf. 41.210. 25); 6.566.26; 8.495.31, 498.15; 11. 412.5; 12.180.17.

26. W.A. 8.486.29, 495.1; 16.407.33; 7. 57.24. Sometimes faith itself is identified as the priestly office (e.g., W.A. 6.370.24). There are, of course, several distinct moments in the idea of the common priesthood. Storck lists three: immediate relationship to God, sacrifice for the neighbor, power to perform the acts of the spiritual office (op. cit., p. 53). W. Brunotte finds four basic elements: equality before God (including equal power in God's Word), free access to God and His Word, the obligation to make spiritual sacrifice, responsibility for proclaiming the Gospel (op. cit., pp. 138 ff.). A recent essay by Brunotte, Heinz, Das Amt der Verkündigung und das Priestertum aller Gläubigen (Luthertum, vol XXVI, Berlin, 1962)Google Scholar, distinguishes five elements in the common priesthood: spiritual equality immediate access, independence of earthly mediators, the spiritual sacrifice of praise, and the duty to witness (pp. 19–20). It lies beyond the scope of this article to discuss these differences of interpretation. Perhaps it should be added that neither of the present-day expressions, “priesthood of all believers” and “common (or universal) priesthood,” has been found in Luther himself.

27. W. A. 6.407.13, 15, 18, 22; 6.564.11; 7.58.14.

28. W.A. 6. 564.15, 24.

29. W.A. 12.173.9.

30. W.A. 12.180.1.

31. W. A. 12.180.5, 191.6.

32. W.A. 12.184.21 (cf. 2.191.16).

33. W.A. 12.183.38.

34. W.A. 11.412.32.

35. W.A. 12.171.17.

36. W.A. 19.75.3.

37. W.A. 11.411.22; 50.634.11.

38. W.A. 6.407.13, 409.1, 567.17; 303. 521.7.

39. W.A. 7.58.19; ef. 12.189.21; 311. 211.20.

40. W.A. 311.211.17; 303.519.25.

41. W.A. 50.632.36.

42. W.A. 50.633.5; 103.397.17; 101,2.239. 24; 12.189.21; 103.216.3; 8.495.31 (cf. 423.6).

43. W.A. 6.407.29, 32, 34.

44. W.A. 12.189.21; 6.564.6. For the ideas of “consent” and “representation” see, besides the passages already cited, W.A. 6.408.13, 566.26; 8.253.29; 103. 396.7, 398.8.

45. W.A. 6.440.21, 441.22. This passage seems to rule out a developmental resolution of the ambiguity in Luther's teaching on ministry and priesthood. Cf. also the passage referred to in a. 41.

46. Heinz Brunotte, op. cit., p. 26.

47. This suggestion was taken up by W. Brunotte (op. cit., pp. 131–32), who gives full references to the earlier literature. More recently, Regin Prenter has adopted a similar line of argument: see “Die Göttliche Einsetzung des Predigtamtes und das allgemeine Priestertum bei Luther,” Theologische Literaturzeitung, vol. 86, no. 5 (05, 1961), col. 325.Google Scholar

48. Op. cit., p. 102. Lieberg, too, gives more complete references to the sources and literature than could be presented here.

49. W.A. 11.410.29; 6.547.17.

50. W.A. 11.412.14, 33; 16.35.31; 171.509.24; 12.190.36; 41.456.19, 543.17, 546.11.

51. W.A. Briefwechsel 7.338–39 (no. 2281).

52. W.A. 50.633.12. Luther does concede, however, that many women could do as well as the preacher (W. A. 12.389.10).

53. W.A. 8.497.25.

54. Op. cit., p. 37. For documentation see W.A. 6.564.15, 566.30; 38.228.27.

55. W.A. 401.56.21, 59.16, 60.22, 27.

56. W.A. 6.407.29; 11.414–16 (where the congregational election is defended on the grounds that the people will know their man better than the bishop could); 12.189.21. For the notion of a succession linking the Apostles and the present-day ministry see, in particular, W.A. 401.59.18. Lieberg rightly comments that this passage does not speak of a Weihesukzession (a notion that Luther expressly rejects), but of a Kette von Vokationen durch geistliche Amsträger (op. cit., p. 154). The kind of ordination service Luther desired can best be judged from his advice to the Bohemians (W. A. 12.193- 94; cf. 191.18) and the various recensions of his Form for Ordination (W. A. 38.423–433).

57. Hök, Gösta, “Luther's Doctrine of the Ministry” (trans. from the Swedish by Ross Mackenzie), Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. VII (1954), p. 18.Google Scholar The laying on of hands is likened by Luther to a notary's official attestation (W. A. 53.257.6). Lieberg may be correct in arguing that “effectual blessing” or “a real spiritual gift” is one element in Luther's view of ordination (op. cit., pp. 201, 214 ff.). But that is a rather vague notion, and it certainly cannot be set alongside Luther's strong emphasis on confirming the call and commissioning for the work of the ministry as though all three ideas had equal prominence. This of course, Lieberg does not deny; rather he wishes Luther had given a firmer foothold for the idea of an ordination charisma (Ibid., p. 223, n. 296). W. Brunotte seems to preserve Luther's emphasis more adequately (op. cit., p. 189), though I doubt if Luther would approve the proposal to abolish the laying on of hands merely because it is liable to be misinterpreted (Ibid., p. 202). Cf. Luther's retort to Carlstadt on the elevation of the Sacrament; “Das thun schad nicht, die lere aber ist der teuffel” (W.A. 18.113.14).

58. Not the commission of anyone to minister, but the ministry itself is “perpetual” (W.A. 15.721.13). Cf. W.A. 53.74 for a succession grounded in the will of God who calls, not in the act of consecration as such. Luther's repeated insistence that a minister may be deposed (e.g., W.A. 6.408.18; 12.- 190.24) is not a pseudo-democratic idea, as though the minister were answerable to his congregation for what he says. He means that both are answerable to the Word: the minister by virtue of his office, the people by virtue of the common priesthood.

59. op. cit., pp. 40–41 (my emphasis).

60. Die Bekenntnisschriften der evangelisch-lutherischen Kirche (Göttingen, 1959), p. 449.Google Scholar My trans. is from the German text, which gives the last phrase in Latin (“per mutuum colloquium et consolationem fratrum”).

61. Priester may mean “minister” and “Christian” even in two consecutive sentences (W. A. 6.407.39, 408.2). Similarly, sacerdotium may refer to the (official) ministerium verbi (WA. 6.564.13, 566.32). A characteristic qualification is sacerdotes quos vocamus (W.A. 6. 564.11). And yet Luther can insist that it is improper to call a minister a priest (W.A. 12.190.11).

62. W.A. 6.441.24; 302.526–530; 303.525.-20. In W.A. 6.408.18 belonging to the priester stand is interpreted as being an amptman.

63. W.A. 12.179. 38: “… ex officiis sacerdotalibus (quae vocant). “Luther's general intention is clear from W. A. 101'2.122.8, where it is said that not all Dienst is Amt. The terminological problems are reflected in the secondary literature, See esp. Hök (op. cit., pp. 21–22), Storek (op. cit., pp. 42–43, n. 183), and H. Brunotte (op. cit., pp. 16–17, 23).

64. These concluding comments must here be offered as tentative suggestions. The remarks on Calvin will be substantiated, it is hoped, in a later publication. The further question whether Luther's fundamental position can be adapted to the present-day variety of “ministries” is dealt with in the essay by H. Brunotte. It does not affect the historical questions with which the present essay is concerned.