The Trinitarian House of David: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Exegesis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7*

John T. Slotemaker

doi:10.1017/S0017816011000174

The Trinitarian House of David: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Exegesis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7*

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2011

John T. Slotemaker

Show author details

John T. Slotemaker*: Affiliation:
Boston College

Article contents

Extract
The Late Luther's Trinitarian Writings
Luther's Analysis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies
The Trinitarian House of David
Trinitarian Exegesis as a Prerequisite to Messianic Interpretation
References

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The second book of Samuel was a neglected work in the theological, exegetical, and liturgical traditions of the Western church from the Patristic era through the Protestant Reformation. The theological developments and articulations of the early church focused on the books of Genesis, John, and the great Pauline corpus;1 for example, 1 Corinthians was central to the fourth-century trinitarian debates2 and Romans to the soteriological discussions of the entire western tradition.3 Similarly, the book of Psalms had an enormous impact on the liturgical life of the church as well as its christological statements.4 One need only cast an eye back to Augustine's numerous commentaries on the book of Genesis to understand the profound depth with which certain books of the Christian Scriptures were interpreted in the early and medieval church.5

Information

Type: ARTICLES
Information: Harvard Theological Review , Volume 104 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 233 - 254

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816011000174 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 2010

The second book of Samuel was a neglected work in the theological, exegetical, and liturgical traditions of the Western church from the Patristic era through the Protestant Reformation. The theological developments and articulations of the early church focused on the books of Genesis, John, and the great Pauline corpus;Footnote ¹ for example, 1 Corinthians was central to the fourth-century trinitarian debatesFootnote ² and Romans to the soteriological discussions of the entire western tradition.Footnote ³ Similarly, the book of Psalms had an enormous impact on the liturgical life of the church as well as its christological statements.Footnote ⁴ One need only cast an eye back to Augustine's numerous commentaries on the book of Genesis to understand the profound depth with which certain books of the Christian Scriptures were interpreted in the early and medieval church.Footnote ⁵

This was an exegetical tradition that Martin Luther knew well; as a professor of the Old Testament at the University of Wittenberg and a translator of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into German, he understood this scriptural tradition as well as anyone in the sixteenth century.Footnote ⁶ Luther commented, lectured, and preached extensively on what he saw as the central books of the Christian tradition: Psalms (1513–1515 C.E.),Footnote ⁷ Romans (1515–1516 C.E.),Footnote ⁸ Galatians (1519 C.E.),Footnote ⁹ Genesis (1535–45 C.E.),Footnote ¹⁰ and John (1537 C.E.).Footnote ¹¹ Arguably the heart of the exegetical and theological tradition of the Western church is found in these books. So, when Martin Luther wrote a work in 1543 entitled Von den Letzen Worten Davids—a commentary on 2 Sam 23:1–7—he knew not only that the work itself was unique but in particular that his christological and trinitarian reading of that text was without precedent. This short passage from 2 Samuel had not been commented on as extensively or as theologically in the previous 1500 years of the church, and Luther knew it. As a recent commentator on this work has noted, there is little or no precedent for Luther's christological and trinitarian reading of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in the patristic or medieval period.Footnote ¹² This historical fact begs the question: why, if Martin Luther intended to write a virtual De Trinitate in the tradition of Augustine, Boethius, and Richard of St. Victor, did he write it as an exegesis of 2 Sam 23:1–7?

The present work will argue that 2 Sam 23:1–7 was central to Martin Luther's Adversus Judaeus trilogy: Against the Sabbatarians, On the Jews and their Lies, and On the Last Words of David.Footnote ¹³ Luther comments on 2 Sam 23:1–7 in all three works, each time expanding and fleshing out in greater detail a passage that he found increasingly problematic. The theological and exegetical question that bothered Luther was the proper interpretation of the “House of David” and the eternal and immutable covenant or promise established between God and his people. This theological and exegetical problem first arises in the earliest of Luther's Judenschriften (Against the Sabbatarians) only to be considered in much greater detail in On the Jews and Their Lies. The present paper will argue that Luther found both of his earlier explications of this passage insufficient, and within a year wrote an extended commentary on 2 Sam 23:1–7 that interpreted it using a specifically trinitarian and christological hermeneutic. This latter reading of the text in On the Last Words of David reframes this pericope by developing a trinitarian reading that emphasizes the messianic dimensions of the text and simultaneously de-emphasizes a Jewish understanding of the eternality of God's promise or covenant with the Jewish nation and people.Footnote ¹⁴

The present reading of On the Last Words of David will function as a lens through which to glimpse certain questions within Luther scholarship. First, this paper will attempt to explicate historically one of Luther's most baffling texts. I will argue that previous explanations of why Luther chose 2 Samuel 23 as a point of departure for an analysis of the Trinity are problematic and that the impetus arose out of his earlier attempts to exegete 2 Samuel 23 in his Judenschriften. Second, this reading of Luther's late Judenschriften will show that the distinction made between Luther's polemical and exegetical anti-Jewish writings is unwarranted. The three works under consideration are related through their similar combination of polemical and exegetical interests in 2 Samuel 23 and comprise a genre that will be termed “polemical exegesis.” Finally, I will argue that these three texts taken in conjunction point to a theological tension within Luther's understanding of the Jews as God's covenant people. This tension—implicit in the proclamation of the eternal House of David—led Luther to interpret narrowly the Jews as a Regiment that fell with Jerusalem, not a chosen group of people that existed under God's covenant in sixteenth-century Europe.

The present essay will begin by locating, in the elder Luther, an increased interest in trinitarian theology. This historical contextualization will consider Luther's explication of trinitarian theology between 1535 and 1545 as a reaction to Turks, Jews, and Schismatics (anti-trinitarians). It is necessary to consider this historical context as On the Last Words of David is often interpreted within Luther's latter interest in trinitarian theology. In the second section of the paper, I will consider Luther's interpretation of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies; two works that form the foundation for Luther's latter trinitarian reading of the same pericope in On the Last Words of David. In the final section of the paper, I offer a close reading of Luther's final anti-Jewish treatise: On the Last Words of David. Here I argue that Luther's trinitarian reading of 2 Sam 23:1–7 arises out of his struggle to interpret God's eternal covenant with the people of Israel.

The Late Luther's Trinitarian Writings

Luther scholarship, until the last few decades, has neglected the Wittenberg Reformer's trinitarian theology. The traditional works on Luther's theology by Paul Althaus and Bernard Lohse contain little engagement with Luther's trinitarian doctrine;Footnote ¹⁵ more problematically, scholars such as Adolph von Harnack attacked Luther's trinitarian theology as modalistic.Footnote ¹⁶ In response to this general approach in the literature, Christine Helmer, in her recent work on Luther's trinitarian theology, argues that scholars have favored the “new” to the disparagement of the “old” in studying Luther's thought. According to Helmer the “old” doctrines, such as Christology and trinitarian theology, have been neglected in Luther studies in favor of the “new” theme of justification by faith.Footnote ¹⁷ This interest in Luther's “new” emphases, Helmer notes, has tended to focus the majority of Luther research on the “early Luther” to the neglect of the “old Luther,” and, thus, also to the neglect of his trinitarian doctrine which was most fully developed in his writings between 1535 and the end of his life.Footnote ¹⁸ But, despite these general trends in Luther studies, in the past few decades there has been a vital reappropriation of Luther's trinitarian doctrine.Footnote ¹⁹

Luther's discussions of the Trinity in this later period are found in his Lectures on Genesis, the Sermons on John, select doctoral Disputations, and his work On the Last Words of David.Footnote ²⁰ These texts were written by Luther at a time when he perceived the Jews, Turks, and anti-trinitarians to be a threat to the Christian church; fueled by an apocalyptic fervor, Luther responded to these groups of strict monotheists who challenged the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.Footnote ²¹

Further, one can note that Luther's texts show an increasing interest in trinitarian matters after the publication of Michael Servetus's De Trinitatis Erroribus Libri VII in 1531.Footnote ²² Servetus attacked the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity in 1531 arguing both against the traditional doctrine and for his own theological position. Further, it is clear that by 1532 Luther was aware of Servetus and his anti-trinitarian claims.Footnote ²³ Similarly to Phillip Melanchthon—who responded to the threat by “getting out a new edition of the Loci”—Luther was increasingly concerned with establishing the scriptural foundation for trinitarian doctrine.Footnote ²⁴ Therefore, it is evident that at the University of Wittenberg both Melanchthon and Luther were increasingly aware of the anti-trinitarian threat after 1532.

The years between 1532 and 1535 saw various changes at the University of Wittenberg. Melanchton wrote new statutes for the theology faculty in 1533, stipulating that the professors were to dedicate most of their energy to expounding the Old and New Testaments.Footnote ²⁵ The University also began giving doctoral degrees—and holding disputations—beginning in 1535, a papal privilege that had been revoked since 1525.Footnote ²⁶ Further, Luther was to take Jonas's position as the Dean of the Theology Faculty in 1535, adding administrative duties to his already busy schedule. Between 1535 and 1546 Luther presided over and drafted theses for the recently reinstituted disputations, totaling fourteen circular disputations and thirteen graduate disputations.Footnote ²⁷ Brecht notes that after 1537/1538 the disputation theses increasingly shifted from the doctrine of justification to Christology and the doctrine of the Trinity.Footnote ²⁸ The doctrine of the Trinity was particularly discussed in the disputations for Erasmus Alber (1543), George Major (1544), and Petrus Hegemon (1545). These disputations all contain discussions of the Trinity as well as the relationship between, on the one hand, faith and reason and, on the other, theology and philosophy.Footnote ²⁹

The above historical overview helps understand Luther's interest in the doctrine of the Trinity between 1535 and 1545, but it is not simply the work of Servetus that precipitated Luther's increased interest in trinitarian theology. Mark Edwards notes Luther's further engagement in IslamicFootnote ³⁰ and JewishFootnote ³¹ theology throughout the decade. Edwards argues that Luther viewed the Islamic “threat” as primarily “external” and the Jewish “threat” as “internal” in the sense that the Muslims were an external threat to Christian safety, and the Jews were an internal threat to Christian theology and exegesis of the Old Testament.Footnote ³² Thus, both Muslims and Jews held a strict monotheism that Luther argued against throughout his Genesis Lectures and the Sermons on John, and it is necessary to look briefly at these two great works.Footnote ³³

Luther's Lectures on Genesis and Sermons on John demonstrate that he became increasingly aware of the charges brought against the doctrine of the Trinity and made attempts to address those charges in both the medium of lectures and sermons. Luther probably began his Lectures on Genesis on Tuesday, 1 June 1535—immediately after he completed his final lecture on Psalm 90.Footnote ³⁴ Luther lectured on Genesis from 1535 until he completed the work in 1545.Footnote ³⁵ Simultaneously with his lecturing on the book of Genesis, Luther substituted for the parish pastor, Johannes Bugenhagen, who was called away to Denmark by the Danish King, Christian III.Footnote ³⁶ On 7 July 1537, Luther began his Sermons on the Gospel of John. These two great works—the Lectures on Genesis and the Sermons on John—were to occupy the last decade of Luther's life.

Throughout these two lecture and sermon series Luther engaged in an explication of the Trinity. The significance for the present argument is that throughout both works Luther repeatedly places his trinitarian reading of Genesis and John in contrast to the Jews, Turks, and anti-trinitarians (Novi Ariani).Footnote ³⁷ This constant refrain is found throughout Luther's entire corpus, although beginning in the mid-1530s it is employed in arguments regarding the trinitarian nature of God. Further, it is important to note that in these two works Luther developed his trinitarian arguments in the context of previously established exegetical trajectories. That is, Luther repeated traditional exegetical patterns when he interpreted Genesis 1–3 and John 1. Luther interpreted the Hebrew names for God in Genesis 1–3Footnote ³⁸ through a Christian trinitarian hermeneutic that was common to both patristic and medieval theologians. And, this same tradition supported Luther's trinitarian reading of the divine Word in John 1.Footnote ³⁹

This brief overview of Luther's interest in trinitarian doctrine in the last decade of his life is important for the present argument because in the above overview one can note that Luther developed his trinitarian theology in a traditional manner. That is, in his exegesis Luther argued for the Trinity in Genesis 1–3 and John 1, and he used the formal structure of doctrinal disputations to discuss particular trinitarian theses. These mediums of trinitarian discourse were traditional and in some sense expected. In contrast, Luther's longest and most developed account of the Trinity in On the Last Words of David is anything but “traditional” and “expected.” It is a work that had its origins in a distinct passage of Scripture that Luther struggled to interpret theologically: 2 Sam 23:5.

Luther's Analysis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies

Martin Luther wrote Against the Sabbatarians (1538) in response to a report from his friend Count Wolfgang Schlick zu Falkenau that Christians in Moravia were increasingly influenced by Jewish ideas and practices.Footnote ⁴⁰ The ideas and practices that Luther lists are circumcision, the belief that the Messiah had not yet come, and the belief that the Jewish law is eternal and must be adopted by the Gentiles.Footnote ⁴¹ In response to this perceived threat Luther wrote several works against the Jews including Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies. The present discussion will limit itself to an analysis of how Luther understands 2 Sam 23:1–7 within the larger argument of these two works. But, before turning to Luther, it is necessary to consider the scriptural passage that will be at the center of this paper.

Luther developed various interpretations of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians, On the Jews and Their Lies, and On the Last Words of David, and he increasingly relies on both the Hebrew and Latin texts. In his first analysis (Against the Sabbatarians) the Hebrew is hardly considered, but by the final work (On the Last Words of David) Luther will insist on specific translations from the Hebrew to make his argument. Below is given the recent English translation from the New Revised Standard Version.Footnote ⁴² 2 Sam 23:1–7 is a record of the last words of King David.

¹ Now these are the last words of David: The oracle of David, son of Jesse, the oracle of the man whom God exalted, the anointed of the God of Jacob, the favorite of the Strong One of Israel:

² The Spirit of the Lord speaks through me, his word is upon my tongue. ³ The God of Israel has spoken, the Rock of Israel has said to me: One who rules over people justly, ruling in the fear of God, ⁴ is like the light of morning, like the sun rising on a cloudless morning, gleaming from the rain on the grassy land.

⁵ Is not my house like this with God? For he has made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and secure. Will he not cause to prosper all my help and my desire? ⁶ But the godless are all like thorns that are thrown away; for they cannot be picked up with the hand; ⁷ to touch them one uses an iron bar or the shaft of a spear.Footnote ⁴³

Throughout the various Judenschriften Luther's interest in the last words of David centers around the claim in 23:5 that God established an everlasting covenant with the House of David. The two terms that Luther focuses on are “house” (domus) and “eternal covenant” (pactum aeternum). Luther pursues three questions that correspond to these two terms: What is the House of David? (a people, a nation, or a land?); what is meant by an eternal covenant or pact (pactum): eternal until the coming of the Messiah, or eternal until the end of time?; what is the relationship between the House of David and this eternal covenant? These are the questions that dominate Luther's earliest exegesis of 2 Sam 23:1–7.

Luther begins Against the Sabbatarians with a vigorous explication of what Heiko Oberman called the argumentum Augustinianum: the idea that “the diaspora of postbiblical Judaism was publicly and historically documented proof that God's wrath rested on the Jewish people.”Footnote ⁴⁴ The argument is constructed on the empirical premise that the Jewish people have been living away from Jerusalem, im elende (in exile), for fifteen hundred years.Footnote ⁴⁵ For Luther the implications of this exile are clear: “outside of Jerusalem they cannot have or hope to have their priesthood, kingdom, temple, sacrifices, and whatever Moses instituted for them by divine command.”Footnote ⁴⁶ This empirical fact—the exile of the Jews from Jerusalem—is evidence for Luther that the Jewish people are cursed by God. This basic theological argument, as noted by Jeremy Cohen, Robert Chazan, and Heiko Obermann, has its foundation in Augustine of Hippo,Footnote ⁴⁷ with various modifications in the high and late medieval period.Footnote ⁴⁸ Therefore, following the broader medieval tradition, Luther argues that the Jewish people must have committed some horrific crime that warranted God punishing them so cruelly.Footnote ⁴⁹

The argument as formulated above generates a tension that Luther attempts to reconcile throughout all of his Judenschriften. The tension arises from the conjunction of the argument above (that the Jews are in exile and therefore must have committed a crime warranting God's punishment) and the eternal promise or covenant between God and the Jews recorded in 2 Samuel. The problem, as Luther understands it, is how to account for the fact that God's “glorious, great and numerous promises” to Israel have failed to be fulfilled for fifteen hundred years.Footnote ⁵⁰ This can only be accounted for by the Jews, according to Luther, if they offer an explanation for how this could happen—that is, if they could name and explain what sin justifies such a long exile.Footnote ⁵¹ For Luther, God's promise is such that either it must be fulfilled or there must be a sin of such magnitude that it justifies God prolonging the coming of the Messiah. Luther argues that the latter cannot be true—as the Jews cannot produce evidence of such a grievous sin—therefore the former must be the case. The promises must already be fulfilled.

These arguments are the context in which Luther explicates 2 Sam 23:5 and his concern over the eternal covenant with the House of David.Footnote ⁵² He continues his argument by noting that, in the context of the everlasting promise to David (assuming the Jews cannot produce evidence of a sin that could justify God withholding His promise), either the Messiah came fifteen hundred years ago or God is a liar.Footnote ⁵³ The conclusion that Luther arrives at is that the Messiah came, fulfilling God's promise, in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. The house and line of David extends from the Davidic kingdom until the time of Jesus the Christ, at which point the eternal promise to David is fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Thus Luther is able to maintain that God is not a liar—He keeps His promises—and that the Jews simply did not recognize that the fulfillment of the promise had come.

Luther's analysis of 2 Sam 23:1–7 is brief in Against the Sabbatarians, but five years later when he composed On the Jews and Their Lies (1542/1543) it was a text that he returned to with increasing vigor. What had been a short exegetical discussion in 1538 expanded into a much longer exposition surrounding this central question: what is this everlasting covenant? (Was ist denn solcher ewiger Bund?).Footnote ⁵⁴ The central claim of the exegetical discussion in On the Jews and Their Lies is consistent with his earlier position. Luther begins with the argument that the House of David must endure forever, otherwise God would be a liar (oder Gott mueste ein Luegener sein).Footnote ⁵⁵ But, Luther has developed the argument somewhat by redefining what is meant by the House (Haus) of David. Luther argues that David's house or government (Haus oder Regiment) would have to remain, but includes the parenthetical statement implying an identity of house and government (das gleich viel ist).Footnote ⁵⁶

The interpretation of the House of David as a Regiment is significant because it defines more precisely the conditions that must obtain for the House of David to be an everlasting house. That is, this shift in language allows Luther to strengthen his argument by pointing to the historical fact that the Regiment (the Kingdom) of Israel ceased to exist after the coming of Jesus. Further, Luther expands his historical argument in conjunction with this understanding of Regiment by considering in detail the history of the kingdom of Israel.Footnote ⁵⁷ In particular, Luther makes the argument that during the Babylonian exile the kingdom of Israel persisted and even flourished.Footnote ⁵⁸ This is an interesting tension in Luther's argument as the designation of the House of David as a Regiment has necessitated this counter-intuitive argument—that the Kingdom of Israel persisted as a Regiment in Babylon—but is worth the risk because it makes the conditions for the persistence of the House of David much stronger. That is, by designating the House of David as a Regiment, Luther's argument that this house ceases to exist with the coming of Jesus is much easier to maintain.Footnote ⁵⁹ It is necessary to consider this argument in more detail.

Because Luther redefines the House of David as a Regiment he is easily able to demonstrate that God kept his covenant from the time of David to that of Herod, and finally from the time of Herod until the present and into eternity.Footnote ⁶⁰ The covenant was with the House of David, understood as the Regiment of Israel, from the time of David until Herod, but after the time of Herod the covenant was fulfilled in Jesus. This interpretation of the last words of David is supported, according to Luther, by Gen 49:10 “the scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor the mehoqeq from his feet until the Messiah comes [bis Messiah kome (!)], and to him shall be the obedience of the people.”Footnote ⁶¹ Aside from Luther's creative translation of this passage by inserting the term Messiah, this citation from Genesis supports his overall argument that the House of David as a Regiment lasts until the coming of the Messiah in whom it is fulfilled. This passage from Genesis supports Luther's central argument.

What is ironic is that Luther offers a Hebrew transliteration (Mehoqeq/) for the term for a “ruler's staff” but glosses over the fact that the term Messiah () never occurs in this passage.Footnote ⁶² Not only does the term Messiah not occur in the Hebrew text, but neither the Latin Vulgate nor the Greek Septuagint nor Luther's Deutsche Bibel Footnote ⁶³ gives a messianic translation of this passage.Footnote ⁶⁴ Luther's own translation in the Deutsche Bibel renders the phrase in question as: bis das der Hellt kome (until the Lord comes); in On the Last Words of David he translates it as: bis Messia kome (until the Messiah comes). Luther's exegesis of Gen 49:10, grounded in his highly creative translation, offers a clear hermeneutical lens through which the House of David can be interpreted as a Regiment that ends with the coming of the Messiah. As Luther understand Gen 49:10 the scepter will pass from Israel, and the Regiment will end, when the Messiah comes.

This interpretation of Genesis grounds Luther's argument that the House of David qua Regiment will end with the Messiah. But, the covenant with David found in 2 Sam 23:5 is not broken, because the Messiah is the House of David; Jesus, the Messiah, is the fulfillment of the covenant with David, hence making a nation (Regiment) or kingdom of Israel unnecessary.

Luther's analysis of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies progressively strengthens his argument that the covenant with David is an eternal covenant understood initially as a Regiment that is fulfilled in the Messiah. Further, given the historical situation as Luther understands it (the Jewish exile from Jerusalem), the argument proves that the Messiah must have come—for, given the fact that Jerusalem was destroyed in the first century, if the Messiah did not come God's covenant would be broken.Footnote ⁶⁵

The Trinitarian House of David

Finally, we turn to Luther's analysis of 2 Sam 23:1–7 in his work On the Last Words of David. What is striking about this work, as noted above, is that there are no identifiable sources for Luther's trinitarian reading of this passage. Further, Luther's latter exegesis of this text seems unnecessary given the explication of 2 Sam 23:1–7 discussed above in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies. Here I want to argue that Luther's trinitarian reading of 2 Sam 23:1–3 functions to strengthen the messianic reading of 2 Sam 23:5 that he developed it in the earlier two works. Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies both focused narrowly on 2 Sam 23:5, theologically interpreting the terms house (domus) and eternal covenant (pactum aeternum). In this latter work Luther offers a trinitarian reading of the entire speech of David, making an explicit argument that David knew of the coming Messiah (supporting, indirectly, his argument from Gen 49:10) and that the Triune God spoke to him. This interpretation of David's last words functions to strengthen the messianic significance of 2 Sam 23:5 by placing the messianic promises, and the covenant of God, within a trinitarian framework.

Before turning to the text it is necessary to briefly consider how this unusual text has been interpreted. Mark Edwards, in his work Luther's Last Battles, grounds his interpretation of On the Last Words of David on the dichotomy between polemical and exegetical texts. Edwards argues that this final anti-Jewish writing of the aging Luther “just happens not to be a polemical treatise.”Footnote ⁶⁶ Instead Edwards views the work as a “fascinating example of Luther's theologically based hermeneutics and Christocentric interpretation of the Old Testament.”Footnote ⁶⁷ The consequence of this approach is that Edwards does not adequately consider the work—devoting a single paragraph to it—in his analysis of Luther's Judenschriften. The tendency to dichotomize between polemical and exegetical texts is made despite the fact that Luther engages in vicious polemics in On the Last Words of David Footnote ⁶⁸ and that the earlier works (Against the Sabbatarians, On the Jews and Their Lies), properly read, are themselves exegetical works that offer their own “Christocentric interpretation” of the Old Testament. This has been demonstrated above in our analysis of Luther's christological interpretation of 2 Sam 23:1–7. The present argument is that a blurring of this dichotomy demonstrates a cohesive exegetical argument put forth throughout this series of Judenschriften that is simultaneously exegetical and theologically polemical.

A more recent analysis of this work is put forth in an article by Mickey Mattox. Mattox's reading of On the Last Words of David emphasizes the trinitarian aspects of this work, locating the text within the late Luther's trinitarian “resurgence” described in section I of this paper. Further, following Edwards, he de-emphasizes the anti-Jewish nature of the text arguing that, “On the Last Words of David did not at all take the form of an extended argument with the Jews. Instead it offered one example after another of how to discern the authentic grammatical and theological meaning of the Old Testament as Luther understood it.”Footnote ⁶⁹ Again, this argument is difficult to maintain as Luther explicitly states at the end of his extended discussion of the Trinity that “I hope that this may suffice to exhort our Hebraists to wrest the Old Testament from the rabbis wherever possible, regardless of their interpretations, commentaries, or grammars.”Footnote ⁷⁰ Luther argues that the work is an educational manual for German speakers who are working as pastors, preachers, and schoolteachers (Pfarrherrn, Predigere und Schulmeistere) so that they can respond to the arguments of the Jews and Turks.Footnote ⁷¹ Therefore, following the tradition laid out in the earlier Judenschriften, this work is nothing but an “extended argument with the Jews” that maintains and furthers Luther's christocentric interpretation of 2 Sam 23:1–7 that he developed in his earlier works.

The present interpretation of On the Last Words of David places it within the earlier discussions of 2 Samuel and argues that it must be interpreted as a work of “polemical exegesis.” The category of “polemical exegesis” is applicable to all of Luther's works considered throughout this paper, and enables one to interpret Luther's theological and exegetical arguments without diminishing the inherently polemical nature of these texts as directed towards the Jews and Rabbinic inter-pretation. A reductive exegetical reading of these texts diminishes the fact that they are directed against Jews and Jewish interpretations of the Old Testament and obfuscates the theological continuity that underlies even Luther's harshest rhetoric. It is in this sense that one can endorse Heiko Oberman's remark that “the Jewish question does not occupy a dark corner in Luther's work, but a central place in his theology.”Footnote ⁷² It is only by moving beyond the dichotomy of exegesis versus polemic that one can force Luther's understanding of the Jews out from Oberman's dark corner into the light. The remaining section of this paper will consider Luther's trinitarian reading of 2 Sam 23:1–3 within the context of his previous works.

Luther's interpretation of 2 Sam 23:1–3 is grounded in a new translation of the passage that he offers:

Es sprach David, der Son Jsai, Es sprach der man, der von dem Messia des Gottes Jacob versichert ist, Lieblich mit Psalmen Jsrael, Der geist des HERRN hat durch mich gered, und seine Rede ist durch meine zunge geschehen, Es hat der Gott Jsrael zu mir gesprochen, Der Hort Jsrael hat gered, der gerechte Herrscher unter den Menschen, der Herrscher in der furcht Gottes.Footnote ⁷³

[The oracle of David, the son of Jesse, the oracle of the man who is assured of the Messiah of the God of Jacob, the sweet psalmist of Israel: The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me, His word is upon my tongue. The God of Israel has spoken to me, the Rock of Israel has said, He who rules justly over men, He who rules in the fear of God.]Footnote ⁷⁴

This is in keeping with Luther's claim in the preface to the work that he will provide a new translation. Luther states that “I have decided to discourse on the last words of David, not according to the German translation [Deutsche Bible], in which I followed all the others.”Footnote ⁷⁵ This new translation, as in the earlier translation from On the Jews and Their Lies, emphasizes the explicitly messianic reference.Footnote ⁷⁶ But, the central phrases for Luther are the ones in which David “begins to talk about the exalted Trinity, of the divine essence.”Footnote ⁷⁷ This is evident textually in that the central trinitarian passage (2 Sam 23:2–3) occupies over eighty percent of On the Last Words of David, leaving less than twenty percent for the remaining exegesis (2 Sam 23:1, 4–7) and his introduction and conclusion.Footnote ⁷⁸

The persons of the Trinity are evident for Luther in three phrases: “The Spirit of the Lord speaks by me” indicates the Holy Spirit; “His word is upon my tongue” indicates the Son; and “The God of Israel has spoken to me” indicates the Father.Footnote ⁷⁹ For, as Luther says, “we have three speakers.”Footnote ⁸⁰ The three speakers in this passage are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Luther's exegesis of this passage is fascinating in that he clearly argues that the Holy Spirit is speaking through David's tongueFootnote ⁸¹ and is revealing to humanity the other two persons of the Trinity. Thus through the mouth of David, and to David's knowledge, the Holy Spirit is speaking about the two “sublimest doctrines” of the Christian church.Footnote ⁸²

The two doctrines that Luther understands David to be putting forth are the Incarnation and the Trinity. Luther writes that David confesses in 2 Sam 23:2–3,

that there are three distinct Persons in God, and that one of the these, the Son, should become man and receive honor and dominion over all from the Father, that the Holy Spirit, who has previously proclaimed this through the mouth and lips of the prophets should inscribe this into the hearts of man by faith.Footnote ⁸³

Luther finds the distinction of the three persons in the three phrases mentioned above (v. 3), and the incarnation of the Son in the following verse that discusses the eternal House of David (v. 5). The messianic reference in verse five had been defended in Luther's earlier writings, as noted above, but the trinitarian reference is new to this treatise. Given this new interpretation of verse three, Luther extends his argument linking the trinitarian reading of verse three to the messianic interpretation of verse five (contra Rabbinic interpretations) that he defended in his earlier treatises. This brief argument is worth considering in more detail.

Following this trinitarian explication above Luther notes that “not everybody has the competence to note and to distinguish the three Persons of the Godhead as distinct from one another as he reads Scripture and the Psalms.”Footnote ⁸⁴ Luther argues that the untrained, or carnal mind (fleischlicher Verstand), understands passages such as 2 Sam 23:2–3 as referring to God as a single person (Gott als von einer Person). That is, the untrained mind cannot make the proper distinctions between the persons of the Trinity found in this passage.Footnote ⁸⁵ The inability to distinguish the persons, Luther argues, is Judissche blindheit (Jewish blindness); this blindness, with respect to 2 Sam 23:2–3, prevents the Jews, and presumably others who have Jewish blindness, from interpreting correctly the following verses (2 Sam 23:4–7) regarding the eternal covenant with David.

Or he [the carnal mind] falls into the Jewish blindness according to which they suppose that David is this just ruler, a ruler in the fear of God. They transform the promise into commands and laws, implying that he who aspires to rule over men must be just and God-fearing, although David enthusiastically and sincerely proclaims that these are words of promise to the Messiah of the God of Jacob and not precepts pertaining to worldly rulers.Footnote ⁸⁶

Luther argues in this passage that those who are infected with Judissche blindheit—the inability to distinguish the persons of the Trinity—are incapable of reading 2 Samuel 23 correctly, because they interpret David as a temporal ruler. Such interpreters, who cannot distinguish the Trinity in 2 Sam 23:2–3, will also not recognize the messianic interpretation of 2 Sam 23:5. That is, Luther thinks it is necessary to formulate the trinitarian argument in 2 Sam 23:2–3 in order to justify the messianic reading of 2 Sam 23:5. In this sense the entire trinitarian explication of this passage functions to elucidate Luther's messianic reading of the “eternal covenant” with the House of David.

Further, it is evident from this passage that for Luther the eternal covenant of God with the House of David can be interpreted in two distinct ways. Historically, the House of David and God's covenant referred to the Regiment of Israel and a covenant made with that kingdom; this interpretation of 2 Sam 23:5, and its covenant, was valid until the coming of Jesus. This interpretation is not only historical, but it is also supported by those who have Jewish blindness and cannot recognize the trinitarian and messianic interpretations of the text. The second interpretation, according to Luther, is possible for those who recognize the three persons of the Trinity in 2 Sam 23:2–3. According to this interpretation, Jesus came in the first century and the true meaning of this text is christological; the House of David and God's covenant prophesy the coming of Christ for a Christian reader. This interpretation of Luther can help explain the phrase above, where Luther argues that “David enthusiastically and sincerely proclaims that these are words of promise to the Messiah of the God of Jacob and not precepts pertaining to worldly rulers.”Footnote ⁸⁷ These words of David are no longer words about this world, or a present kingdom (Regiment), but words proclaiming the Messiah.

As noted above, Luther understands Jewish blindness (Judissche blindheit) to be the inability to distinguish the three persons of the Trinity in Scripture. This blindness to the Trinity influences how one reads various passages, and here Luther is arguing that the inability to distinguish the persons of the Trinity in 2 Sam 23:2–3 limits the “carnal mind” form interpreting 2 Sam 23:5 in a proper way. The messianic interpretation of the “eternal covenant” with the House of David (v. 5) is jeopardized, according to Luther, when one does not understand that the Holy Spirit is speaking through David about the Father and Son in the verses that immediately precede the covenantal passage (vv. 2–3). In short, without understanding the trinitarian nature of 2 Sam 23:2–3 one cannot grasp, according to Luther, the true meaning of 2 Sam 23:5.

Trinitarian Exegesis as a Prerequisite to Messianic Interpretation

Previous interpretations of On the Last Words of David have focused on his trinitarian exegesis as an end in itself. Mattox argues that this text is an example of the regula fidei—“the exegetical application of the faith which grasps and knows the Triune God”—being applied to a unique passage of the Old Testament.Footnote ⁸⁸ And, while I certainly do not disagree with Mattox that the regula fidei is being applied by Luther to an Old Testament passage in this work, the roots of it are grounded in Luther's earlier Judenschriften.

The unfortunate dichotomy that scholars often employ between Luther's “polemical” and “exegetical” anti-Jewish writings has led to a situation in which On the Last Words of David is divorced from Luther's other Judenschriften and consequently misinterpreted. On the Last Words of David is primarily an addendum to Luther's earlier Judenschriften that functions to sustain his messianic reading of 2 Sam 23:5 found in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies. Further, Luther's previous exegesis of this passage is found to be incomplete until he ultimately contextualizes his messianic reading of 2 Sam 23:5 within the trinitarian framework laid out in On the Last Words of David. Therefore, despite Luther's increased interest in trinitarian theology described briefly in section one of this paper, On the Last Words of David must be interpreted not only within the context of his trinitarian interpretations in the Genesis Lectures or Sermons on John but within the context of his Judenschriften.

Finally, it is worth returning briefly to Luther's discussion of the House of David. I have posited that in Against the Sabbatarians (1538 C.E.), On the Jews and Their Lies (1542 C.E.), and On the Last Words of David (1543 C.E.) there was a fundamental theological tension for Luther between an eternal covenant with the House of David and his own Christian theology. What was this theological tension? I would argue that based on the above reading it is clear that Luther was uncomfortable with a theological interpretation of an eternal covenant with the Jews because it implied the non-necessity of Jesus Christ. That is, if there was an eternal covenant with the Jews—and we might add “Judaism”—independent of Christian interpretations of Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of the promised Messiah, it would undermine the Christian proclamation of the significance, and indeed the necessity, of Christ. Thus, Luther had to find a way to exegete this passage that reinterpreted the covenant and the covenant partners.

It was demonstrated above how Luther continually reinterpreted these passages, and how each time he continually strengthened first the messianic and christological reading of the passage and finally the trinitarian reading of the passage. This, in short, was a continual “Christianization” of this passage by Luther, as he was clearly uncomfortable with the theological implications of an eternal covenant with the Jews. This first occurs with his redefining of the House of David as the Regiment of Israel in On the Jews and Their Lies, but is furthered with his trinitarian reading of 2 Samuel in On the Last Words of David. It is clear from these texts that Luther is uncomfortable with his earlier positions and repeatedly attempts to strengthen the overall argument to the point of offering a novel trinitarian and christological reading of God's covenant with the House of David.

References

1 The Pauline corpus traditionally consisted of the following: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, and Philemon.

2 See, Barnes, Michel R., “De Trinitate VI and VII: Augustine and the Limits of Nicene Orthodoxy,” AugStud 38 (2007) 189–202Google Scholar. Barnes correctly reads books 6 and 7 of Augustine's De Trinitate as an extended analysis of I Corinthians 1:24.

3 A fine example of the centrality of the book of Romans can be found in Early Patristic Readings of Romans (ed. Kathy L. Gaca and Laurence L. Welborn; Romans Through the History and Culture Series 5; London: T&T Clark, 2005); and Engaging Augustine on Romans: Self, Context, and Theology in Interpretation (ed. Daniel Patte and Eugene TeSelle; Philadelphia: Trinity, 2003).

4 See Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos (CCSL 38–40); Cassiodorus, Expositio psalmorum (CCSL 97–98).

5 Augustine, De Genesi ad litteram (CSEL 28.1); De Genesi ad litteram imperfectus liber (CSEL 28:1); De Genesi adversus Manicheos (CSEL 91).

6 Throughout this paper I refer to the Hebrew Scriptures as the Old Testament simply because historically that is how Luther understood this body of literature and his position as Professor of Old Testament at the University of Wittenberg.

7 Martin Luther, D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe (ed. Joachim K. F. Knaake et al.; 69 vols.; Weimar: Hermann Böhlau, 1883–1997) vols. 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as WA with volume and page numbers); Luther's Works (ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehmann; 55 vols.; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1955–1986) vol. 11 (hereafter referred to as LW with volume and page numbers).

8 LW 25; WA 56 and 57.

9 LW 26, 27; WA 2.

10 LW 1–8; WA 42–44.

11 LW 22–24; WA 46.

12 Mattox, Mickey L., “From Faith to the Text and Back Again: Martin Luther on the Trinity in the Old Testament,” ProEccl 15 (2006) 281–303Google Scholar, esp. 295–98. As Mattox notes, neither the Glossa Ordinaria nor Nicholas of Lyra offered Luther a precedent for interpreting 2 Samuel in such a trinitarian fashion. Nicholas of Lyra, in contrast to Luther, tended to favor christological readings of the Old Testament over trinitarian readings—as a quick reading of Martin Luther and Nicholas of Lyra on Genesis 1–3 demonstrates. The one medieval exegete of note is Denis the Carthusian, who, Mattox argues, found traces of the Trinity in this unfingerprinted passage.

13 Luther's other anti-Jewish work, Vom Schem Hamphoras und vom Geschlecht Christi (1543 C.E.), also contains a short discussion of 2 Sam 23:1–7. As the title indicates, On the Unknowable Name and the Generation of Christ, it is not primarily focused on God's eternal covenant with the Jews and consequently does not substantially engage the central question of the present paper. “Ob man mueste mich angreiffen und thaddeln, der ich zu weilen jnn der dolmetschung gefeilet hette, das wil ich mit danck annemen, Denn wie offt hat Hieronymus gefeilet, Und ich sehe, wie die zween feine Menner, Sanctes und Muenster, haben studio incredibili & diligentia inimitabili die Biblia verdolmetscht, Viel guts damit gethan. Aber die Rabinen sind jhr etwo zu mechtig, das sie auch der ‘Analogia des glaubens’ gefeilet, der Rabinen glose zu viel nach gehenget haben. Denn ich auch selbs jrer translation etwa zu [2 Sam 23:1ff.] viel gefolget, das ich mus widerruffen, sonderlich II. Reg. 22. in verbis novissimis David, wie ich bald thun wil. Mit dieser weise kuend man der Jueden verstand jnn der Biblia fein schwechen, Und ist das vorteil da, das Mose und die Propheten nicht haben mit puncten geschrieben, welchs ein new menschen fuendlin, nach jhrer zeit auffbracht, Darumb nicht not ist, dieselben so steiff zu halten, als die Jueden gern wolten, Sonderlich, wo sie dem newen Testament zu wider gebraucht werden. Eben so sol man auch mit der Equivocatio und Distinctio thun, wo sie wider das newe Testament dienen. Die Jueden haben doch lust, all jr ding zweifelhafftig und nichts gewisses zu machen. Darumb, wo sich die Equivocatio in einem vocabel begibt, So neme man die significatio, die mit dem newen Testament stimmet, so wird sie gewis, Und die recht significatio hat einen starcken zeugen und beystand am newen Testament. So bleibt den Jueden die andere significatio, das ist: die ledige huelsen und Peres, on zeugen und beistand.” WA 53:647–48.

14 For a representative selection of publications on Luther and the Jews, see Kaufmann, Thomas and Burnett, Stephen, “Luther and the Jews” in Jews, Judaism, and the Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Germany (ed. Bell, D. P. and Burnett, S. G.; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 69–104Google Scholar (and other essays in this volume); Lewin, Reinhold, Luthers Stellung zu den Juden (Berlin: Trowitzch, 1911Google Scholar); Oberman, Heiko, The Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Age of Renaissance and Reformation (trans. James I. Porter; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983Google Scholar); von der Osten-Sacken, Peter, Martin Luther und die Juden. Neu Untersucht anhand von Anton Margarithas “Der Gantz Jüdisch Glaub” (1530/31) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002)Google Scholar; Späth, Andreas, Luther und die Juden (Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft, 2001Google Scholar); Vogelsang, Eric, Luthers Kampf gegen die Juden (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933Google Scholar). The literature on Luther and the Jews is immense and encompasses an enormous variety of theories from the psychological and apocalyptic to the theological and exegetical. Taking two of the oldest works cited here (Lewin and Vogelsang), two interpretations emerge. Lewin argues that Luther's writings on the Jews are not primarily theological, while Vogelsang, somewhat as a corrective, argues for the importance of Christology in Luther's Judenschriften. My approach is perhaps closest to that of Heiko Oberman, who argues that the Jewish question is rooted at the heart of Luther's theology. That is, questions surrounding the theological relationship between Jews and Christians are inherent in Luther's reading of Scripture. But, it should be noted at the outset that this paper is not primarily attempting to engage in the vexed question of the origins of Luther's Judenschriften but seeks instead to explain the theological background to one of these particular texts: On the Last Words of David.

15 Althaus, Paul, The Theology of Martin Luther (trans. Robert C. Schultz; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966Google Scholar); Lohse, Bernard, Martin Luther's Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (trans. Roy A. Harrisville; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1999Google Scholar).

16 Harnack, Adolph, History of Dogma (trans. Neil Buchanan; 7 vols.; New York: Dover, 1961) 7Google Scholar:242.

17 Helmer claims that “the determination of the intersection between ‘new’ and ‘old’ is related to a neo-Kantian philosophical conceptuality. Formed by neo-Kantian presuppositions, Luther scholarship is characterized by a privileging of Luther's ‘new’ evangelical principle that erodes the significance of the ‘old' trinitarian dogma in his theology.” I do not think it is necessary to ground the favoring of the “new” over the “old” in “neo-Kantian presuppositions”—and would argue that the fact that the majority of Luther scholars have been Protestant, and were “searching for a point of departure” from the Catholic tradition, more than adequately explains the favoring of the “new.” Although, Helmer does offer a convincing argument that in neglecting the nominalist/late medieval influence on Luther—protestant historians “attempted to ground Luther's commitment to orthodox dogma in the early church, an endeavor that, on second glance, exposed the situatedness of the interpretation in the neo-Kantian paradigm.” Helmer, Christine, The Trinity and Martin Luther: A Study of the Relationship Between Genre, Language and the Trinity in Luther's Works (1523–1546) (VIEG 174; Mainz: von Zabern, 1999) 2Google Scholar, 7–25.

18 Martin Brecht offers some historical context for understanding Luther's interest in trinitar-ian doctrine between 1535 and the end of his life. Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church 1532–1546 (trans. James L. Schaff; Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1993). Brecht offers valuable historical information regarding Luther's relationship to the formal disputations on the Trinity (126–134), the Jews (334–351), and the Turks (351–357).

19 Jansen, Reiner, Studien zu Luthers Trinitätslehre (Bern: Herbert, 1976Google Scholar); Knuuttila, Simo and Saarinen, Risto, “Innertrinitarische Theologie in der Scholastik und bei Luther,” in Caritas Dei. Festschrift für Tuomo Mannermaa zum 60 Geburtstag (ed. Bayer, Oswald, Jenson, Robert W., and Knuuttila, Simo; SLAG 39, Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, 1997) 243–64Google Scholar; Knuuttila, Simo and Saarinen, Risto, “Luther's Trinitarian Theology and its Medieval Background,” ST 53 (1999) 3–12Google Scholar; Helmer, Christine, “Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic and the Old Testament,” MoTh 18 (2002) 49–73Google Scholar; idem, The Trinity and Martin Luther (Mainz: von Zabern, 1999); Markschies, Christoph, “Luther und die altkirchliche Trinitätstheologie,” in Luther—zwischen den Zeiten. Eine Jenaer Ringvorlesung (ed. Markschies, Christoph and Trowitzsch, Michael; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.) 37–85Google Scholar; Kärkkäinen, Pekka, Luthers trinitarische Theologie des Heiligen Geistes (VIEG 208; Mainz: von Zabern, 2005Google Scholar).

20 See Helmer, “Luther's Trinitarian Hermeneutic.”

21 Marc Lienhard argues that Luther's interest in the doctrine of the Trinity was particularly acute after 1543 in the various Disputations. Lienhard notes that it was not the “traditional church” that proved to be the problem, “but it was rather that the doctrine of the Trinity was called into questions as much by the Jews and Turks as by such adversaries as Servetus.” Luther: Witness to Jesus Christ (trans. Edwin H. Robertson; Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg, 1982) 319–20.

22 See the edition in Servetus, Michael, The Two Treatises of Servetus on the Trinity (ed. and trans. Earl M. Wilbur; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1932Google Scholar). Servetus's more substantial arguments against the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity are found in book 1 while his own position is fleshed out in greater detail in books 2–7. On Servetus see: Bainton, Roland, Hunted Heretic: The Life and Death of Michael Servetus (1511–1553) (Boston: Beacon, 1953Google Scholar); idem, “Michael Servetus and the Trinitarian Speculation of the Middle Ages,” in Autor de Michel Servet et de Sebastien Castellion (ed. Bruno Becker; Haarlem: H. D. Tjeenk Willink, 1953); Friedman, Jerome, Michael Servetus: A Case Study in Total Heresy (Geneva: Droz, 1978Google Scholar); and Kinder, A. Gordon, Michael Servetus (Bibliotheca Dissidentium 10; Strasbourg: Koerner, 1989Google Scholar).

23 LW 54:32. Veit Dietrich recorded that “when an exceedingly virulent book was published in 1532 against the [doctrine of the] Trinity, he [Martin Luther] said, ‘These people do not realize that others, too, have been assailed by doubts about this article. But to set my opinion over against the Word of God and the Holy Spirit is insupportable.’” It is worth noting that Luther here understands there to be more persons involved than just Michael Servetus—by indicating “these people.”

24 Cited in Bainton, , Hunted Heretic, 68Google Scholar.

25 Brecht, , Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church, 115Google Scholar.

26 Ibid., 115–16; 126–27.

27 Ibid., 128.

28 Ibid., 129. For a prolonged discussion of the Luther's understanding of the Trinity in various disputations, see Christine Helmer, , The Trinity, 41–120Google Scholar; and Lienhard, , Luther, 318–26Google Scholar. Lienhard sees Luther as developing a similar position to Augustine's doctrine of relations within the Trinity, ibid. 318–26.

29 See Brecht's discussion of these disputations for more detail, particularly regarding Luther's growing interest in the doctrine of the Trinity in his later years. Martin Luther, 132–34.

30 Edwards, Mark, Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics 1531–46 (Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress, 1983) 97–114Google Scholar. Luther read the Koran by February of 1542. See also, Brecht, , Martin Luther: The Preservation, 351–58Google Scholar. Brecht notes that Luther became increasingly concerned with the Turks after 1532 and the advancement of the Turks into Hungary.

31 Edwards, , Luther's Last Battles, 115–42Google Scholar.

32 Ibid., 140–42.

33 See: LW 1:59; WA 42:44. In the Lectures on Genesis Luther argues that “both Jews and Turks laugh at us because we are convinced that there is one God and that there are three Persons, nevertheless, unless they are brazen enough to deny the authority of Scripture, they are compelled by this passage and also by those quote above to adopt our conviction.” LW 22:17–18; WA 46:551. In the Sermons on John Luther writes that “this text, ‘And God was the Word,’ has been tortured by the Jews, the schismatic spirits, and the Turks, all of whom presume to measure and correct it on the basis of their reason,” and further that “the Turks likewise regard us as stupid geese devoid of reason and understanding, since we do not realize that one family can have no more than one father; and, they aver, it makes even less sense to believe in, and worship, three gods.”

34 LW 1:ix.

35 Brecht, , Martin Luther, 136–41Google Scholar.

36 LW 22:ix–xi.

37 Regarding the “novi Ariani” see: LW 1:16. WA 42:13. “Iam hodie novi Ariani imperitis Ebraicae linguae sic fucum faciunt: verbum significare rem creatam, et hoc modo dici etiam Christum verbum.” For a broader treatment of Luther's understanding of the Jews, Turks and Anti-Trinitarians in relationship to the Trinity, see: LW 1:21; WA 42:16–17; LW 1:59; WA 42, 44; LW 1:222–24; WA 42:166–68; LW 2:52–53; WA 42:298–99; LW 2:226–28; WA 42:422–23; LW 3:190–95; WA 43:11–14; LW 3:353; WA 43:128–29; LW 22:340–42; WA 47:67–68; LW 23:99–105; WA 33:151–61. The following passage from his sermon preached on John 1:2 is particularly clear: “Es ist dieser Text: ‘Und GOTT war das Wort’ wohl zumartert von Jueden, Rottengeister und Tuercken, die alle jn durch jre Vernunfft haben messen und meistern wollen. Und haben sich erstlich die Jueden an den Artikel gemacht, spotten unser, sagen, wir Christen sind Abgoettische, Gotteslesterer, ehren und beten drey Goetter an, so doch nur einer ist. Also halten uns die Tuercken auch fur Gense, die keine Vernunfft noch verstand haben und nicht bedencken, das in einem Haus nicht mehr denn ein einiger Vater koenne sein, viel ungereimeter sey es, das wir gleuben und anbeten drey Goetter, und gleuben die Tuercken nicht an Christum, und hat Mahomet mit seinem Tuerckischen glauben zu CHRJSTO auch eingestuermet. Es lesst der Mahomet wol zu, das Christus von einer Jungfrawen geboren sey, aber es sprechen die Tuercken, solches sey bey jnen nicht seltzam. Nu es mag geschehen und kan war sein, aber bey uns werden dieselbigen Jungfrawen (so Kinder tragen) zu Frawen, eine Jungfrawe, so ein Kind gebiert, kan nicht Jungfraw bleiben, sie komen uns damit nicht in unsere Heuser, wir gleubens nicht, sonst wuerden uns unsere Toechter alle zu Huren, ich gleube es nicht, das eine Jungfraw sol ein Kind haben und bleiben Jungfraw, es ist nicht gleublich bey uns, es sind grobe Esel, die solches duerffen fuergeben. Weiter so sagen die Tuercken, Christus sey wol ein hoher Prophet und grosser Man gewesen, preisen jn hoeher denn den David, Esaiam und alle andere Propheten. Und muessen bekennen, das CHRJSTUS das Wort des Vaters sey, so geben sie doch fur, das er nicht so gros sey als jr Mahomet.” LW 22:17–18; WA 46:551.

38 Luther argues that the “plurality” of God is clearly evident in Genesis, when Moses chooses to use the name (Elohim) instead of (Adonai) to refer to God—the former being a plural noun and the latter being singular. Later in the Lectures on Genesis Luther uses the phrase to discuss the “entire Divinity—Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” As Luther understood this phrase the term denotes the “unity” (tota divinitas) and the term denotes the plurality (Pater, Filius, Spiritus sanctus)—although it is difficult to see what Luther intended. “Nimiram Iehova Elohim, hoc est, tota divinitas, Pater, Filius, Spiritus sanctus.” LW 1:134; WA 42:100. Luther's arguments here are traditional, although they could be directed against Servetus who offered an extended discussion of the various Hebrew names for God, concluding that the term (Elohim) could be used for Christ and God in a sense that does not necessitate them being equal at the level of essence. See Servetus, , On the Errors of the Trinity, 1.16–22Google Scholar.

39 LW 22:5; WA 46:540–41. “Der Euangelist Joannes leret und gruendet gewaltiglich im anfang seines Euangelij den hohen Artikel unsers heiligen Christlichen Glaubens, da wir gleuben und bekennen, das ein einiger, warer, Allmechtiger, ewiger Gott sey, doch, das in demselbigen einigen Goettlichen wesen drey unterschiedliche Personen sind, Gott der Vater, Gott der Son, Gott der heilige Geist. Der Vater zeuget den Son von ewigkeit, der heilige Geist gehet aus vom Vater und Son etc., das also drey unterschiedliche Personen sind, und doch ein einig Goettlich wesen, gleicher herrligkeit und Maiestet.”

40 For the historical background of this text, see Brecht, , Martin Luther, 338Google Scholar.

41 LW 47:65; WA 50:312. “Das jr mir nu angezeigt habt, wie jnn den Lendern hin und widder die Jueden mit jrem geschmeis und lere ein reissen, auch etliche Christen schon verfueret haben, das sie sich beschneitten lassen und gleuben, das Messias oder Christus noch nicht komen sey, Und der Jueden gesetze muesse ewiglich bleiben, dazu von allen Heiden angenomen werden &c.”

42 The text reproduced here is The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989). Throughout this paper it will be shown how Luther translates this passage in diverse ways, some of which will be indicated in the footnotes. The present translation is provided to simply introduce the passage to the reader, and it should be noted that there are important differences between the NRSV translation and texts that Luther was reading. Luther's own translations and variations will be considered in more detail below.

43 Here is the version present in the Biblia Sacra Vulgata: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). I have followed the editors and left out all punctuation and capitalization. “haec autem sunt verba novissima quae dixit David filius Isai dixit vir cui constitutum est de christo Dei Iacob egregius psalta Israhel spiritus Domini locutus est per me et sermo eius per linguam meam dixit Deus Israhel mihi locutus est Fortis Israhel dominator hominum iustus dominator in timore Dei sicut lux aurorae oriente sole mane absque nubibus rutilat et sicut pluviis germinat herba de terra nec tanta est domus mea apud Deum ut pactum aeternum iniret mecum firmum in omnibus atque munitum cuncta enim salus mea et omnis voluntas nec est quicquam ex ea quod non germinet praevaricatores autem quasi spinae evellentur universi quae non tolluntur manibus et si quis tangere voluerit eas armabitur ferro et ligno lanceato igneque succensae conburentur usque ad nihilum”

44 Oberman, Heiko, The Two Reformations: The Journey from the Last Days to the New World (ed. Donald Weinstein; New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2003) 148CrossRef Google Scholar.

45 LW 47:66; WA 50:313. “Und ist dis das Argument. Die Jueden sind nu Fuenffzehen hundert jar ausser Jerusalem im elende, das sie weder Tempel, Gottes dienst, Priesterthumb noch Furstenthumb haben, Und ligt also jr gesetze mit Jerusalem und allem Juedischen Reich jnn der asschen so lange zeit her.”

46 LW 47:66.; WA 50:313. “So konnen sie ja Moses gesetz nicht halten denn alleine zu Jerusalem, wie sie selbs auch wissen und bekennen muessen, Denn jr Priesterthumb, Fuerstenthumb, Tempel, Opffern, und was Moses fuer sie und auff sie gestifftet hat (aus Goettlichem befelh) konnen sie ausser Jerusalem nicht haben noch hoffen.”

47 On Augustine and the Jews, see Fredriksen, Paula, Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism (New York: Doubleday, 2008Google Scholar); Blumenkranz, Bernhard, Les Auteurs chrétiens latins du Moyen Âge sur les Juifs et le Judaisme (Paris: Mouton, 1963Google Scholar) and, idem, Die Judenpredigt Augustins. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der jüdisch-christlichen Beziehungen in der ersten Jahrhunderten (Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 1946).

48 For discussions of the relationship between Augustinian theology and anti-Judaism, see Cohen, Jeremy, Living Letters of the Law: Ideas of the Jews in Medieval Christianity (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1999Google Scholar); idem, The Friars and The Jews: Evolution of Medieval Anti-Judaism (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1984); Chazan, Robert, Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-Century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1989Google Scholar); idem, The Jews of Medieval Western Christendom, 1000–1500 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2007). The debate between Jeremy Cohen and Robert Chazan—regarding the relationship between Augustine and post-Augustianian medieval theology—is important in tracing the development of medieval Christian attitutudes towards Jews and Judaism. For the present purposes it is enough to note that Luther's basic approach to the Jews and Judaism, as articulated above, is a product of high and late medieval Christian attitudes towards Jews and Judaism.

49 LW 47:66; WA 50:313. “Hierauff solt jr nu fragen, Was doch die Sunde sey, und wie sie heisse, darumb sie Gott so grewlich gestrafft hat, das sie so lange on Priesterlich, Fuerstlich, das ist on Mosisch stifft und Regiment, on Opffer und andere des gesetzes ordnung, sonderlich on Jerusalem im elende leben muessen.”

50 LW 47:67; WA 50:313. “So doch Gottes verheissung da stehet (wie sie auch rhuemen), das jr gesetz solle ewiglich bleiben und Jerusalem solle Gottes eigen wonung sein, Und sollen alle zeit beide, Fuersten vom stam David und Priester von den Leviten fuer Gott bleiben, wie denn solcher verheissung die Propheten und schrifft vol sind, wie sie wissen und (wie gesagt) sie sich rhuemen, Und hat doch solche herrliche, gewaltige, manchfeltige verheissung gefeilet nu wol Fuenffzehen hundert jar, wie sie leider wol fuelen.”

51 Luther here will take as evidence the “fact” that the Jews committed horrible crimes in the past that only merited a seventy-year exile in Babylonia. LW 47:69; WA 50:315.

52 LW 47:71–2; WA 50:317. “Und wie keme auch der gute Koenig David dazu, das Gottes verheissung, so jm geschworen ist von Gott, solt umb der Jueden sunde willen jm nicht gehalten sein noch werden, Weil auch seine eigen sunde, so er gethan und jnn der schrifft gar klerlich genennet und gelesen werden (als von dem Ehebruch, Mord seines fromen dieners Urie und Gottes lesterung &c.) nichts gehindert haben Gottes verheissungen, Welche David an seinem todbette unter seinen letzten worten oder Testament widerholet und rhuemet, Es sey ein fester, gewisser Bund gemacht von Gott zu seinem Hause, wie man lieset im drey und zwentzigsten Capitel des Andern teils Samuel, Und da bey weissaget, das die Gottlosen, ungleubigen Jueden sollen ausgerottet und verderbet werden.”

53 LW 47:73; WA 50:318. “Entweder Mesias mus vor Funffzehen hundert jaren komen sein, odder Gott muesse gelogen.”

54 LW 47:193; WA 53:462–63. “Das solt jr hoeren, Das Gott mit mir und meinem Hause einen ewigen, festen, gewissen Bund gemacht hat (des mein Haus nicht werd ist), Ja, es ist nichts gegen Gott, dennoch hat ers gethan. Was ist denn solcher ewiger Bund? Ey, thu die Ohren auff und hoere, Mein Haus und Gott haben zusamen geschworen, und sich verbunden ewiglich, Das ist ein Bund, eine Verheissung, die ewig sein und bleiben mus, Denn es ist Gottes Bund und Verheissung, die niemand brechen noch hindern sol noch kan, Mein Haus sol heissen: Ewig, fest und fein zugericht in allen dingen, wie das wort (aruch) gibt, das nicht sol umb ein har feilen1 oder misraten.”

55 LW 47:193; WA 53:463.

56 LW 47:193; WA 53:463. “Wolan, ist nu Gott warhafftig und allmechtig, und hat durch David diese wort geredt (wie kein Juede leugnen thar), So mus Davids Haus oder Regiment (das gleich viel ist), sint der zeit er solchs gered, blieben sein, und noch und jmer fur und fur, das ist ewiglich, bleiben, oder Gott mueste ein Luegener sein. Summa, Wir muessen Davids Haus oder Erben haben, der da regiret von Davids zeit an bis daher und in ewigkeit, oder David ist gestorben als ein verzweivelter Luegener an seinem letzten ende, da er diese wort so mit vielen unnuetzem gewesch (als scheinet) da her saget: ‘Gott redet, Gott spricht, Gott verheisst.’

57 LW 47:193–96; WA 53:463–67.

58 LW 47:195; WA 53:464. “Das aber die Jueden geifern von der Babylonischen gefengnis, als sey es daselbs unter gangen, ist nichts wie wir droben auch gesagt. Denn es war nur eine kleine Staupe, auf. jar gewis gestimmet, und Gott sein Wort dafur zu pfande einsetzt, und sie durch treffliche Propheten erhielt. Auch Jechonia zu Babel uber alle Koenige erhaben ward. Daniel und seine Gesellen nicht allein uber Jueda und Jsrael regirten, Sondern auch uber das Keiser thum Babylon. Und ob sie ein kleine zeit nicht an dem ort zu Jerusalem waren, So regirten sie doch an einem andern ort, viel herrlicher, denn zu Jerusalem, das man also mag sagen, Das Haus David sey nicht verlosschen zu Babel, Sondern herrlicher geleucht, denn zu Jerusalem. Allein haben sie den ort muessen ein kleine zeit reumen zur straffe. Denn, Wo ein Koenig ausser dem Lande zu felde ligt, der sol nicht heissen ein verlosschen Koenig, ob er nicht da heim ist, Sonderlich, wo er grossen Sieg und glueck hat wider viel Voelcker, sondern sol heissen: Herrlicher leuchten ausser dem Lande, den da heime.”

59 Luther's argument that the House of David is a Regiment in the strict sense is contrasted to various other interpretations of the House of David. For example, if one understands the House of David as a people, a group of persons descended from David, it is much more difficult to maintain—as Luther insists—that the House of David ceases to exist in its Old Testament form and is fulfilled with the coming of Jesus. That is, Luther argues that the House of David is fulfilled with Jesus such that the House of David as a Regiment disappears, but this reduction of the House of David to a Regiment is complicated by the historical fact of the Babylonian exile. Further, Luther is clearly aware that there are Jews alive in Europe throughout the sixteenth century, thus he is uncomfortable with a simple designation of the House of David as a people descended from David. If Luther allowed this interpretation it would imply that the eternal House of David never ceased to exist but was present in sixteenth-century Europe through the Jewish people.

60 LW 47:195; WA 53:464. “Hat nu Gott seinen Bund gehalten die zeit, von David an bis auff Herodes, das sein Haus nicht verlosschen ist, So mus er jn fort an gehalten haben, und ewiglich halten, Das Davids Haus nicht verlosschen ist noch verlesschen kan ewiglich. Denn wir muessen unsern HERR Gott nicht halb warhafftig und halb luegenhafftig schelten, das er die zeit von David an bis auff Herodes in seinem Bunde warhafftig und Davids Haus trewlich erhalten habe.”

61 LW 47:195; WA 53:464. “Das Scepter sol von Juda nicht weg komen, noch Mehokek von seinen Fuessen, bis Messia kome, dem werden die Heiden gehorchen.”

62 The point here is simply that Luther had the Hebrew text before him as he wrote On the Jews and Their Lies but simply chose to ignore certain aspects of the text.

63 WA 8:194. “Es wirt das scepter von Juda nicht entwendet werden, noch eyn meyster von seynen fussen, bis das der Hellt kome, vnd dem selben werden die volcker zu fallen.”

64 Luther considers Gen 49:10 in his great Lectures on Genesis and remarks that he had previously considered this passage in his libello contra Iudaeos (WA 44:753). Here Luther argues his case against the Jews, Papists, and the Louvanienses asini. The argument that Luther puts forth is an interpretation of Schilo as Messiah that is consistent with the analysis considered above. [Sic Iudaei non possunt negare, aut contra hoc mutire, quod nos ex hoc loco colligimus Regnum Iudae cum urbe Ierosolyma iacuisse iam 1500 annis, quae est manifesta veritas luce meridiana clarior. Sceptrum hoc Iudae, ut est in Textu, catuli illius leonis, quod leo constituit, et iure occupavit, hoc stabit, non auferetur, donec venerit Schilo. Is vero ubi advenerit, cessabit, non durabit amplius. WA 44:754.] This argument is a much stronger case for the translation that Luther offers in On the Jews and Their Lies, although it still must be insisted that Luther originally (Luther Bible) did not translate this passage as messianic. It is evident that Luther finds his translation supported by Bernard Ziegler. Ziegler was a professor of Hebrew at Leipzig who Luther often consulted regarding Hebrew translations. [Vocabulum (Schilo) etiam varie torquent. Sed placet mihi sententia Bernardi Ziegleri, qui deducit a (Siliah), sicut ex Rabinis quidam eo argumento impugnat divinitatem Christi, cum fuerit in (Siliah) utero matris suae a capite usque ad pedes, quomodo potuit esse Deus? Nos vocamus secundinam. WA 44:755.] Finally, it should be noted that Luther, at the time of the Lectures on Genesis, was clearly not aware of Rashi's messianic interpretation of this passage that could support his own reading of this text. Throughout this discussion Luther continually attacks the “Rabbis” and argues that concerning the messianic interpretation of this verse: De his Rabini nihil sciunt (of this the Rabbis know nothing). WA 44:758.

65 But, it is important to recognize that without reducing the “House of David” to a Regiment—not a group of people grounded in a religious identity—Luther's argument fails.

66 Mark Edwards, , Luther's Last Battles, 134Google Scholar.

67 Ibid., 134.

68 LW 15:344; WA 54:93. “Billicher, sage ich, gleuben wir solchen rechten bekandten Jueden und Jsraeliten, denn das wir solten gleuben den falschen unbekandten Jueden oder Jsraeliten, die diese 1500. jar kein wunder gethan, kein Schrifft der Propheten ausgelegt, alles verkeret und im liecht offentlich nichts gethan, Sondern in jrem winckel meuchlinges wie die Kinder der finsternis, das ist des Teuffels, eitel lestern, fluchen, morden und liegen wider die rechten Jueden und Jsrael (das ist, wider die Apostel und Propheten) geuebet haben, und noch ueben teglich, damit sie uber weiset, das sie nicht Jsrael, noch Abrahams samen, Sondern gifftige, Teufelissche feinde sind, des rechten Jsraels und Abrahams kinder, dazu der Heiligen schrifft diebe, reuber und verkerer. Darumb man als von offentlichen dieben wider nemen sol die Schrifft, wo es die Grammatica gerne gibt und sich mit dem Newen Testament reimet, wie die Aposteln uns Exempel reichlich gnug geben.”

69 Mattox, , From Faith, 294–95Google Scholar.

70 LW 15:343; WA 54:93. “Hie wil ich auffhoeren dis mal, von diesen Hoehen Artikeln zu reden, aus dem Alten Testament, Denn ich hoffe, Es sollen hiemit gnug Vermanet sein, unser Ebreisten, das sie das Alte Testament sollen den Rabinen nemen, wo sie jmer konnen, unangesehen jre deutung, glosen oder Grammatiken, Weil die Rabinen selbs unternander offt hierin nicht wissen, wo sie daheimen sind, und die Vocabula und Sententz gerne Equivocirn auff jren tollen verstand, da doch der Buchstabe gerne mit dem newen Testament sich reimet, Und gewis ist, das Jhesus Christus der HERR uber alles ist, dem die Schrifft sol zeugnis geben, als die allein umb seinen willen gegeben ist.

71 LW 15:303–4; WA 54:58–59. “Dis alles ist villeicht uns Deudschen scharff oder subtil, und solt billicher in den Schulen bleiben, Aber weil der Teuffel den schwantz reget, in dieser letzten zeit, als wolt er gerne allerley Ketzerey wider auffwecken, Und die Welt on das Luestern und Toll worden ist, newes zu hoeren, und uberdrussig der [2. Tim. 4, 3] heilsamen lere (wie Sanct Paulus weissagt), damit dem Teuffel die Thuer auffgesperret sind, hinein zu fueren, was er wil, So ists nutz und not, das doch ettliche, beide Leien und Gelerten, sonderlich Pfarrherrn, Predigere und Schulmeistere, von solchen noetigen Artickeln unsers Glaubens auch lernen dencken und Deudsch reden, Wem es aber zu schweer ist, der bleibe mit den Kindern bey dem Catechismo und Bete wider den Teuffel und seine Ketzerey, wider Juden und Mahmet, damit er nicht gefueret werde in anfechtung, Darumb weil wir drauff komen sind, wollen wir [Bl. K 1] denen, so es gerne haben, mehr gleichnis geben von dem Artikel, das die Einige Gottheit nicht zertrennet, noch die Personen in ein ander gemenget werden sollen, unsern Glauben zu stercken und zu bekennen.”

72 Oberman, , The Roots of Anti-Semitism, 94Google Scholar.

73 WA 9:380. The above German translation from On the Last Words of David should be compared to the version found in the Deutsche Bible. “Djs sind die letzten wort Dauid, Es sprach Dauid der son Jsai, Es sprach der man der zum gesalbeten Gottis Jacob auffgericht ist, vnd eyn lieblicher tichter Jsrael. Der geyst des HERRN hat durch mich geredt, vnd seyn aussprechen ist durch meyne zungen gescheen. Er sprach, der Gott Jsrael hat myr gered, der hort Jsrael, der hirscher vnter den menschen, der gerechte hirscher ynn der furcht Gottis.”

74 LW 15:345; WA 54:94.

75 LW 15:270; WA 54:94. “Darumb hab ich zum Exempel fur mich genomen die letzten wort David auszulegen, nicht wie sie verdeudscht sind, da ich den andern allen gefolget habe, damit ich nicht allein klug were.”

76 In this case Luther is closer to the Vulgate, “haec autem sunt verba novissima quae dixit David filius Isai dixit vir cui constitutum est de christo Dei Iacob egregius psalta Israhel spiritus Domini locutus est per me et sermo eius per linguam meam dixit Deus Israhel mihi locutus est Fortis Israhel dominator hominum iustus dominator in timore Dei.” Luther is perhaps on better ground with respect to this translation as the Hebrew phrase (2 Sam 23:1) contains an explicitly messianic reference () and is rendered in the Sepuagint as χριστὸν θεου§§ Iακωβ.

77 LW 15:275; WA 54:34. “Denn er fehet hie an von der hohen heiligen Dreifaltigkeit, Gottliches wesens zu reden.” Mattox also argues that this is the central trinitarian passage: “Luther argued that the interpretive key to 2 Samuel 23 consisted in the proper identification of the divine persons mentioned in versus 2 and 3: “the Spirit of the Lord,” “the God of Israel,” and “the Rock of Israel.” Mattox, , From Faith, 299Google Scholar.

78 These rough percentages were calculated on a page count of the WA. The point is simply that Luther's emphasis in this work is a trinitarian exegesis of 2 Sam 23:2, to the neglect of the surrounding verses.

79 LW 15:276; WA 54:35–36. “Darumb sind diese wort Davids auch des Heiligen geistes, die er durch seine zunge redet, von zween andern redenern. Was redet er denn von denselben? Er redet erstlich von dem Gotte Jsrael, der zu David gesprochen, das ist, jm verheissen habe. Wer nu Gott dieser Sprecher sey, wissen wir Christen aus dem Euangelio Johannis, Nemlich ists der Vater, der im anfang sprach, Gen. j.: ‘Es werde liecht’. Und sein wort ist die person des Sons, durch welch wort alles gemacht ist, Joh. j. Den selben Son nennet der Geist durch David hie ZUR, den Hort Jsrael, und gerechten herrscher unter den Menschen. Der redet auch, das ist, der Heilige geist fueret den Hort Jsrael ein, das er auch rede. Also reden alle drey Personen, und ist doch ein redener, Ein verheisser, Eine verheissung, wie es ein einiger Gott ist.”

80 LW 15:277; WA 54:36. “Nu haben wir drey redener.”

81 See n. 74. “Der Geist des Herrn habe durch seine zunge geredt.”

82 LW 15:277; WA 54:36. “die zween hoechsten artickel.”

83 LW 15:277; WA 54:36. “das in Gott drey unterschiedliche Personen seien. Und die eine, der Son, Mensch werden solt, und das reich und ehre von dem Vater uber alles empfahen. Und der Heilige geist solchs in der Menschen hertz durch den glauben schreiben, ders zuvor auch verkundigt hat, durch den leiblichen mund und zungen der Propheten.”

84 LW 15:277; WA 54:36. “Es ist auch nicht eines jedern, in der schrifft und Psalter, die Goettliche drey Personen unterschiedlich also zu mercken und zu lesen.”

85 LW 15:278; WA 54:37.

86 LW 15:278; WA 54:37. “Oder fellt in die Judissche blindheit, da sie David zu solchem gerechten Herrscher, und Herrscher in der furcht Gottes machen, Und die verheissung in gebot und gesetze verkeren, das wer uber Menschen wil herrschen, der solle gerecht und Gottfuerchtig sein. So doch David so andechtig und hertzlich rhuemet, Es seien wort der verheissung von dem Messia des Gottes Jacob, und nicht gebot uber die weltliche Herrn.”

87 See n. 83 above.

88 Mattox, , From Faith, 302Google Scholar.

Article contents

The Trinitarian House of David: Martin Luther's Anti-Jewish Exegesis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7*

Extract

Information

The Late Luther's Trinitarian Writings

Luther's Analysis of 2 Samuel 23:1–7 in Against the Sabbatarians and On the Jews and Their Lies

The Trinitarian House of David

Trinitarian Exegesis as a Prerequisite to Messianic Interpretation

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests