Martin Luther and the Antichrist Dennis Pettibone Southern Adventist University

Home , Free church, Man of sin, Pope Clement VII

Perspective Digest Volume 13 Article 1 Issue 2 Spring

2008 Martin Luther and the AntiChrist Dennis Pettibone Southern Adventist University

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd Part of the History of Christianity Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons

Recommended Citation Pettibone, Dennis (2008) "Martin Luther and the AntiChrist," Perspective Digest: Vol. 13 : Iss. 2 , Article 1. Available at: http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/1

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Perspective Digest by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist On “The Well Women Revisited” minds to what it is God has to reveal B Y DENNIS PETTIBONE* (PD 2007:4) to us, allowing the Word to trans- It has been said that feminism is form our lives and not vice versa. the radical notion that women are Kaaryn Sanon people. To that end, as we revisit the Baltimore, Maryland “well women,” I’d strongly urge that we truly take a critical, unbiased Jo Ann Davidson in “The Well MARTIN LUTHER look, and not simply replace our Women Revisited” reminds us of the biases for others. matter of mistreatment, subjuga- With that caution out of the way, tion, and denigration of women in Davidson’s presentation of many of societies across the world despite the the “well women” we take for granted breaking of the glass ceiling in West- AND THE is enlightening and truly thought- ern societies and the fact that provoking. In the end, perhaps that women in some Eastern countries is what’s most needed. In reading are power brokers. Thankfully, it is Davidson’s account of Jesus’ en - not all men who treat women dis- ANTICHRIST counter with the Samaritan woman paragingly, and men in general, at the well, it appears to me that the especially Christian gentlemen, need commentators are the ones oppress- to scrutinize the methods Christ ing women and propagating false used both in word and deed so as to images through time. inform them as to how they need to A study of the Reformer’s interpretation of scriptural Indeed, we would all do well to act toward others. prophecies has serious considerations for today. check our assumptions. Does our I’m glad she reminds us that image of Father God allow for the despite my status in life, my God still n the warm ecumenical afterglow Even the United States Congress numerous places where “He” has re - regards me as an equally created of Vatican II, Martin Luther’s has put itself on record regarding vealed “His” nature through in spired being, and He speaks to me “without identification of the papacy as this issue. In 2000, Congress passed a writers as that of a suckling mother prejudice,”just as He did the women I the antichrist of Bible prophecy is joint resolution condemning Bob or other such feminine images? He met and conversed with. often seen as narrow-minded, Jones University for promoting this We would be well served, then, to Thank God, my heavenly Father bigoted, and even unchristian. His belief. truly approach Scripture without says He can use me just as He did the view, which until recently was The politicians who passed that bias—whether it be feminist, cul - well women if I dedicate myself to shared by a broad spectrum of con- resolution were probably unaware tural, or even that which is “tradi- Him, because I, too, am called, and servative evangelical Protestants, is that they were undermining the his- tionally” Christian. Let us open our despite my gender, He talks to me now seen as an embarrassment by torical foundations of Protestantism. and I understand, and can act ac - some members of churches that If Protestantism owes its very cording to His will. retain this interpretation. It is no existence to Luther’s conviction that Beverly Henry longer socially acceptable to describe Mandeville, Jamaica the papacy as the fulfillment of a col- *Dennis Pettibone, Ph.D., is Professor lection of prophecies regarding a of History at Southern Adventist Uni- powerful spiritual tyranny. versity, Collegedale, Tennessee.

6 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,7 2008 1 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 Luther’s target was not the papacy; it was a greedy Luther’s position by Sylvester Cardi- soon to replace Staupitz as the head nal Prierias, the papal court’s chief of the Augustinian order in Ger- Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel who was distorting theologian. Prierias wrote, “He who many, asking him to evaluate, on the Catholic doctrine by exaggerating the benefits of indulgences. does not accept the doctrine of the basis of some of his writings, Luther had no intention of splitting the church: he was only Church of Rome and pontiff of whether his early suspicions that Rome as an infallible rule of faith, Rome was the center of the true trying to protect his parishioners. from which the Holy Scriptures, too, antichrist. draw their strength, is a heretic.” A few months later, Luther wrote Furthermore, “Whoever says that to his friend and former student the papacy was the antichrist, it intrigue, asked, “Are there any bold the Church of Rome may not do Georg Spalatin, chaplain and secre- might be instructive to inquire how enough to maintain that the priests what it is actually doing in the mat- tary to Elector Frederick of Saxony, he came to this conclusion. He did, of the Lord over all the world are to ter of indulgences is a heretic.”4 telling him that he had been study- in fact, come to this view slowly and take their law from monsters of guilt Prierias had transformed the debate ing papal decretals in preparation reluctantly, driven by historical cir- like these?”2 When a person so defi- from a question of procedure to one for the upcoming disputation at cumstances and theological reflec- cient in virtue sits on the papal of authority. Leipzig. He added, “Confidentially, I tion. throne, Arnulf suggested that he Responding to the papal sum- do not know whether the Pope is It is important to focus primarily must “be the ‘Antichrist, sitting in mons, Luther traveled to Augsburg Antichrist himself or his apostle, so on Luther because it was his views the temple of God, and showing to appear before a papal legate, Car- miserably is Christ (that is, the on the subject that triggered the himself as God.’”3 dinal Thomas Cajetan, who de - truth) corrupted and crucified by Protestant Reformation. It should be Martin Luther was probably manded that Luther recant. When the Pope in the decretals.”5 noted, however, that he was far from unaware of the previous attacks on Luther asked for scriptural reasons In July 1519, at the Leipzig debate the first person to hold this view. He the papacy when, in 1517, he drafted to do so, none was given him. Rome with Johann Eck for which Luther himself credited John Huss with his 95 Theses. If he had been, he had ordered that Luther be arrested had been preparing, Luther took the being the first to call the Pope an would have been unsympathetic. At if he refused to recant, but Luther— position that both popes and church antichrist.1 Huss did indeed consider the time, he regarded John Huss a mindful of the fate of John Huss— councils could err, averring that the Pope to be the antichrist, but he heretic. His target was not the pa - avoided arrest by stealing away from everything should be subject to the was not the first to do so, nor was his pacy; it was a greedy Dominican Augsburg on the night of October judgment of Scripture. He would mentor, John Wycliffe, although monk named Johann Tetzel who was 16, 1518. soon be using Scripture to pass judg- Wycliffe and at least some of his Lol- distorting Catholic doctrine by ment on the Pope. land followers, including Sir John exaggerating the benefits of indul- First Hesitant Steps Luther read two things the follow- Oldcastle, held this belief. This idea gences. Luther had no intention of Luther had read Prierias’ asser- ing year that lessened his hesitation also circulated among the Walden- splitting the church: he was only try- tions of papal infallibility and had about calling the Pope anti christ. sians, the Albigensians, and the Frat- ing to protect his parishioners. experienced Cajetan’s reliance on First, in February 1520, he read icelli, a group of Franciscans with Enraged, Tetzel made sure that tradition, refusal to discuss Scrip- Lorenzo Valla’s demonstration that more regard for the rule of St. Fran- Rome knew what was happening. tures, and implicit threats of force. the Donation of Constantine—the cis than for papal authority. This set in motion a chain of events Now he began to consider the possi- document on which Rome based its But even earlier than that, back in that led to a summons for Luther to bility that these men might be serv- claim as supreme in the Western 991, Bishop Arnulf of Orleans, appear before a papal representative. ing antichrist. On December 18, World—was a forgery. This seems to describing papal murder, lust, and It also led to a theological attack on 1518, he wrote to Wenzeslaus Link, have inspired another letter to http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/18 2 9 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist Luther’s target was not the papacy; it was a greedy Luther’s position by Sylvester Cardi- soon to replace Staupitz as the head nal Prierias, the papal court’s chief of the Augustinian order in Ger- Dominican monk named Johann Tetzel who was distorting theologian. Prierias wrote, “He who many, asking him to evaluate, on the Catholic doctrine by exaggerating the benefits of indulgences. does not accept the doctrine of the basis of some of his writings, Luther had no intention of splitting the church: he was only Church of Rome and pontiff of whether his early suspicions that Rome as an infallible rule of faith, Rome was the center of the true trying to protect his parishioners. from which the Holy Scriptures, too, antichrist. draw their strength, is a heretic.” A few months later, Luther wrote Furthermore, “Whoever says that to his friend and former student the papacy was the antichrist, it intrigue, asked, “Are there any bold the Church of Rome may not do Georg Spalatin, chaplain and secre- might be instructive to inquire how enough to maintain that the priests what it is actually doing in the mat- tary to Elector Frederick of Saxony, he came to this conclusion. He did, of the Lord over all the world are to ter of indulgences is a heretic.”4 telling him that he had been study- in fact, come to this view slowly and take their law from monsters of guilt Prierias had transformed the debate ing papal decretals in preparation reluctantly, driven by historical cir- like these?”2 When a person so defi- from a question of procedure to one for the upcoming disputation at cumstances and theological reflec- cient in virtue sits on the papal of authority. Leipzig. He added, “Confidentially, I tion. throne, Arnulf suggested that he Responding to the papal sum- do not know whether the Pope is It is important to focus primarily must “be the ‘Antichrist, sitting in mons, Luther traveled to Augsburg Antichrist himself or his apostle, so on Luther because it was his views the temple of God, and showing to appear before a papal legate, Car- miserably is Christ (that is, the on the subject that triggered the himself as God.’”3 dinal Thomas Cajetan, who de - truth) corrupted and crucified by Protestant Reformation. It should be Martin Luther was probably manded that Luther recant. When the Pope in the decretals.”5 noted, however, that he was far from unaware of the previous attacks on Luther asked for scriptural reasons In July 1519, at the Leipzig debate the first person to hold this view. He the papacy when, in 1517, he drafted to do so, none was given him. Rome with Johann Eck for which Luther himself credited John Huss with his 95 Theses. If he had been, he had ordered that Luther be arrested had been preparing, Luther took the being the first to call the Pope an would have been unsympathetic. At if he refused to recant, but Luther— position that both popes and church antichrist.1 Huss did indeed consider the time, he regarded John Huss a mindful of the fate of John Huss— councils could err, averring that the Pope to be the antichrist, but he heretic. His target was not the pa - avoided arrest by stealing away from everything should be subject to the was not the first to do so, nor was his pacy; it was a greedy Dominican Augsburg on the night of October judgment of Scripture. He would mentor, John Wycliffe, although monk named Johann Tetzel who was 16, 1518. soon be using Scripture to pass judg- Wycliffe and at least some of his Lol- distorting Catholic doctrine by ment on the Pope. land followers, including Sir John exaggerating the benefits of indul- First Hesitant Steps Luther read two things the follow- Oldcastle, held this belief. This idea gences. Luther had no intention of Luther had read Prierias’ asser- ing year that lessened his hesitation also circulated among the Walden- splitting the church: he was only try- tions of papal infallibility and had about calling the Pope anti christ. sians, the Albigensians, and the Frat- ing to protect his parishioners. experienced Cajetan’s reliance on First, in February 1520, he read icelli, a group of Franciscans with Enraged, Tetzel made sure that tradition, refusal to discuss Scrip- Lorenzo Valla’s demonstration that more regard for the rule of St. Fran- Rome knew what was happening. tures, and implicit threats of force. the Donation of Constantine—the cis than for papal authority. This set in motion a chain of events Now he began to consider the possi- document on which Rome based its But even earlier than that, back in that led to a summons for Luther to bility that these men might be serv- claim as supreme in the Western 991, Bishop Arnulf of Orleans, appear before a papal representative. ing antichrist. On December 18, World—was a forgery. This seems to describing papal murder, lust, and It also led to a theological attack on 1518, he wrote to Wenzeslaus Link, have inspired another letter to

8 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,9 2008 3 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am If the Pope expected Christians to He also attacked as “the very works of the very Antichrist” practically cornered, and can hardly place their faith in something visible doubt any more that the Pope really is (himself) rather than that which was papal claims to power over earthly authorities and the Antichrist . . . because everything invisible, Luther concluded, “I even over angels. Reminding his readers that Jesus said His so exactly corresponds to his life, would say right out that he is the real kingdom was not “of this world,” Luther bluntly said, action, words, and commandments.”6 Antichrist.”8 Notice that in neither of After reading Valla’s treatise, these statements did Luther directly “No vicar’s rule can go beyond his lord’s.” These “over- Luther, hesitantly at first, began to say that either the Pope or the pa - presumptuous” claims were devil-devised devices say publicly what he had previously pacy was the antichrist, but he raised written privately to friends. Augus- the possibility. to facilitate bringing in Antichrist and raising “the Pope tine Altveld was a monk in Leipzig The second source that weakened above God, as many are already doing.” who asserted that the Bible sup - his hesitancy to openly declare that ported total papal control of the the Pope was antichrist was Prierias’ church and that submission to the second treatise against Luther’s that this is a game of Antichrist or a ity. He said 2 Thessalonians 2:9 had Pope was essential for the operation teachings. Reprising his earlier argu- sign that he is close at hand.”10 predicted that antichrist would use of effective government. Luther ments that the Pope had more Luther then suggested calling a deceit through Satan’s power. responded early in 1520 with On the authority than either Scriptures or free church council and said if the He also attacked as “the very Papacy in Rome Against the Famous church councils, Prierias quoted a Pope tried to block this, he would be works of the very Antichrist” papal Romanist at Leipzig. This publication passage of canon law that horrified hindering the church’s edification, claims to power over earthly author- mentioned several reasons for possi- Luther: The Pope could not be thus violating 2 Corinthians 10:8, ities and even over angels. Remind- bly considering Rome to be the anti - deposed from office even if he “were which Luther paraphrased as, “God ing his readers that Jesus said His christ. “It is said that the Antichrist so scandalously bad that he led mul- has given us authority not for the kingdom was not “of this world,” shall find the treasures of the earth,” titudes of souls to the devil.”9 destruction but for the edification of Luther bluntly said, “No vicar’s rule Luther wrote, suggesting that the Christendom.” Then Luther said, “It can go beyond his lord’s.” These “insufferable Roman thieves” were Address to the Christian Nobility is only the power of the devil and of “over-presumptuous” claims were finding their treasure by exploiting Now Luther’s pen began to fly. Antichrist which resists the things devil-devised devices to facilitate the Germans, and quoting what he First came Address to the Christian that serve for the edification of bringing in Antichrist and raising said was a Roman proverb: “Squeeze Nobility of the German Nation Con- Christendom.”11 If the Pope claimed “the Pope above God, as many are the gold from the German fools, in cerning the Reform of the Christian the “power to interpret the Scrip- already doing.”13 any way you can.”7 Estate, which went to press June 13, tures by mere authority,” that Commenting on the report that Luther then raised the issue of 1520. Early in this treatise, a book would—like trying to prevent or the Pope had prevented the Bishop papal infallibility. Expressing a will- that repeatedly linked the papacy control a church council—be evi- of Strassburg from implementing ingness to accept anything the Pope and antichrist, came Luther’s reac- dence that the papacy was “in truth moral reform in his diocese, Luther decreed after first testing it by the tion to Prierias’ appalling statement: the communion of Antichrist and of said, “Thus priests are to be encour- Bible, he contrasted this position “On this accursed and devilish foun- the devil,” Luther said.12 aged against their own bishop, and with that of “Roman knaves” who dation they build at Rome, and Quoting Christ’s warning in their disobedience to divine law is to placed the Pope “above Christ” and think that we should let all the world Matthew 24 about false prophets be protected! Antichrist himself, I made him “a judge over the Scrip- go to the devil, rather than resist deceiving the elect, Luther said mir- hope, will not dare to put God to tures” and said that he was infallible. their knavery. . . . It is to be feared acles were no proof of papal author- such open shame.”14 http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/110 4 11 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist Spalatin (February 24, 1520): “I am If the Pope expected Christians to He also attacked as “the very works of the very Antichrist” practically cornered, and can hardly place their faith in something visible doubt any more that the Pope really is (himself) rather than that which was papal claims to power over earthly authorities and the Antichrist . . . because everything invisible, Luther concluded, “I even over angels. Reminding his readers that Jesus said His so exactly corresponds to his life, would say right out that he is the real kingdom was not “of this world,” Luther bluntly said, action, words, and commandments.”6 Antichrist.”8 Notice that in neither of After reading Valla’s treatise, these statements did Luther directly “No vicar’s rule can go beyond his lord’s.” These “over- Luther, hesitantly at first, began to say that either the Pope or the pa - presumptuous” claims were devil-devised devices say publicly what he had previously pacy was the antichrist, but he raised written privately to friends. Augus- the possibility. to facilitate bringing in Antichrist and raising “the Pope tine Altveld was a monk in Leipzig The second source that weakened above God, as many are already doing.” who asserted that the Bible sup - his hesitancy to openly declare that ported total papal control of the the Pope was antichrist was Prierias’ church and that submission to the second treatise against Luther’s that this is a game of Antichrist or a ity. He said 2 Thessalonians 2:9 had Pope was essential for the operation teachings. Reprising his earlier argu- sign that he is close at hand.”10 predicted that antichrist would use of effective government. Luther ments that the Pope had more Luther then suggested calling a deceit through Satan’s power. responded early in 1520 with On the authority than either Scriptures or free church council and said if the He also attacked as “the very Papacy in Rome Against the Famous church councils, Prierias quoted a Pope tried to block this, he would be works of the very Antichrist” papal Romanist at Leipzig. This publication passage of canon law that horrified hindering the church’s edification, claims to power over earthly author- mentioned several reasons for possi- Luther: The Pope could not be thus violating 2 Corinthians 10:8, ities and even over angels. Remind- bly considering Rome to be the anti - deposed from office even if he “were which Luther paraphrased as, “God ing his readers that Jesus said His christ. “It is said that the Antichrist so scandalously bad that he led mul- has given us authority not for the kingdom was not “of this world,” shall find the treasures of the earth,” titudes of souls to the devil.”9 destruction but for the edification of Luther bluntly said, “No vicar’s rule Luther wrote, suggesting that the Christendom.” Then Luther said, “It can go beyond his lord’s.” These “insufferable Roman thieves” were Address to the Christian Nobility is only the power of the devil and of “over-presumptuous” claims were finding their treasure by exploiting Now Luther’s pen began to fly. Antichrist which resists the things devil-devised devices to facilitate the Germans, and quoting what he First came Address to the Christian that serve for the edification of bringing in Antichrist and raising said was a Roman proverb: “Squeeze Nobility of the German Nation Con- Christendom.”11 If the Pope claimed “the Pope above God, as many are the gold from the German fools, in cerning the Reform of the Christian the “power to interpret the Scrip- already doing.”13 any way you can.”7 Estate, which went to press June 13, tures by mere authority,” that Commenting on the report that Luther then raised the issue of 1520. Early in this treatise, a book would—like trying to prevent or the Pope had prevented the Bishop papal infallibility. Expressing a will- that repeatedly linked the papacy control a church council—be evi- of Strassburg from implementing ingness to accept anything the Pope and antichrist, came Luther’s reac- dence that the papacy was “in truth moral reform in his diocese, Luther decreed after first testing it by the tion to Prierias’ appalling statement: the communion of Antichrist and of said, “Thus priests are to be encour- Bible, he contrasted this position “On this accursed and devilish foun- the devil,” Luther said.12 aged against their own bishop, and with that of “Roman knaves” who dation they build at Rome, and Quoting Christ’s warning in their disobedience to divine law is to placed the Pope “above Christ” and think that we should let all the world Matthew 24 about false prophets be protected! Antichrist himself, I made him “a judge over the Scrip- go to the devil, rather than resist deceiving the elect, Luther said mir- hope, will not dare to put God to tures” and said that he was infallible. their knavery. . . . It is to be feared acles were no proof of papal author- such open shame.”14

10 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,11 2008 5 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 The Pope expected his condemnation of Luther to tioned two specific reasons for calling does as a tyrant and Antichrist.”23 the papacy antichrist. First, it had dis- trigger automatically his temporal punishment, probably by torted the sacraments by withholding Luther’s Response to the Bull execution. Before his death, Emperor Maximilian I had the Communion cup from the laity The threatening bull, Exsurge promised Leo that he would enforce any papal verdict against and, “with the wickedness of Anti - Domine, primarily the work of Eck, christ,” calling it heresy for anyone to Cajetan, and Prierias, denounced 44 Luther. On January 18, 1521, Leo ordered Maximilian’s say it was necessary for laymen to of Luther’s published statements as successor, Charles V, to do likewise. have access to the cup as well as to the “poisonous, offensive, misleading bread.20 Second was the annulment of for godly and simple minds, unchar- legitimate marriages, of which Luther itable, counter to all reverence for said, “I am incensed at that barefaced the Holy Roman Church, the mother Luther then spoke of the corrup- he said, undeniably more corrupt wickedness which is so ready to put of the faithful and the mistress of the tion and immorality in Rome. than Babylon or Sodom. asunder what God hath joined to - faith.” Condemning anyone holding “There is buying, selling, bartering, gether that one may well scent Anti - or defending these positions, it trading, trafficking, lying, deceiving, Babylonian Captivity christ in it, for it opposes all that warned Luther that he must return robbing, stealing, luxury, harlotry, In August, Luther learned that Christ has done and taught. What “to the bosom of the church” within knavery and every sort of contempt Leo was sending a bull threatening earthly reason is there in holding that 60 days. Meanwhile, it ordered that of God, and even the rule of Anti - him with excommunication. With no relative of a deceased husband, he keep silent and that his books be christ could not be more scan- this, Richard Marius observes, “all even to the fourth degree, may marry burned.24 After its arrival, on De - dalous.”15 He also complained of ambiguity about the Antichrist the latter’s widow?”21 cem ber 10 Luther burned it as well papal legates accepting money to evaporated from his mind; to him Luther wrote three other tracts as books of canon law. Leo X signed “legalize unjust gain” and “dissolve the pope was the Beast, the man of that year that linked the papacy and the actual bull of excommunication oaths, vows, and agreements” while evil foretold in the New Testament, antichrist. In Treatise on Christian on January 3, 1521, but for various saying “the pope has authority to do and no compromise was possible.”18 Liberty he denounced the “soul- reasons it was not delivered until this.” This alone, Luther said, was After this, Luther published On destroying traditions of our popes” much later. enough “to prove the pope the true the Babylon Captivity of the Church, as “snares” by which “numberless The Pope expected his condem- Antichrist.”16 By accepting money which charged the papacy with lead- souls” had “been dragged down to nation of Luther to trigger automat- for annulling oaths, the Pope was ing church members into a new im - hell,” clearly “the work of Anti - ically his temporal punishment, suppressing “God’s commandment” prisonment. Criticizing those who christ.”22 probably by execution. Before his and exalting “his own command- claimed that the Pope had “the In the Treatise on Usury he again death, Emperor Maximilian I had ment over it,” according to Luther, power to make laws,” Luther wrote, discussed Rome’s antichrist-like promised Leo that he would enforce who added, “If he is not Antichrist, “Unless they will abandon their laws, financial exploitation of “German any papal verdict against Luther. On then let some one else tell me who and restore to Christ’s churches their fools,” while in his Treatise on the January 18, 1521, Leo ordered Maxi- he can be!”17 liberty, they are guilty of all the souls New Testament he said in the context milian’s successor, Charles V, to do Nevertheless, after saying all this, that perish under this . . . captivity, of the papal denial of the cup to the likewise. Papal nuncio Girolamo Luther held out an olive branch to and the papacy is of a truth the king- laity, “The pope . . . does not have a Aleandro then tried to convince first Pope Leo X. He implied that his dom of Babylon, yea, of the very hair’s breadth of power to change Charles and then the Diet of Worms quarrel was not with the Pope him- Antichrist.”19 what Christ has made, and whatever simply to condemn Luther without self but the Roman curia, which was, In addition, this booklet men- of these things he changes, . . . he granting him a hearing. http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/112 6 13 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist The Pope expected his condemnation of Luther to tioned two specific reasons for calling does as a tyrant and Antichrist.”23 the papacy antichrist. First, it had dis- trigger automatically his temporal punishment, probably by torted the sacraments by withholding Luther’s Response to the Bull execution. Before his death, Emperor Maximilian I had the Communion cup from the laity The threatening bull, Exsurge promised Leo that he would enforce any papal verdict against and, “with the wickedness of Anti - Domine, primarily the work of Eck, christ,” calling it heresy for anyone to Cajetan, and Prierias, denounced 44 Luther. On January 18, 1521, Leo ordered Maximilian’s say it was necessary for laymen to of Luther’s published statements as successor, Charles V, to do likewise. have access to the cup as well as to the “poisonous, offensive, misleading bread.20 Second was the annulment of for godly and simple minds, unchar- legitimate marriages, of which Luther itable, counter to all reverence for said, “I am incensed at that barefaced the Holy Roman Church, the mother Luther then spoke of the corrup- he said, undeniably more corrupt wickedness which is so ready to put of the faithful and the mistress of the tion and immorality in Rome. than Babylon or Sodom. asunder what God hath joined to - faith.” Condemning anyone holding “There is buying, selling, bartering, gether that one may well scent Anti - or defending these positions, it trading, trafficking, lying, deceiving, Babylonian Captivity christ in it, for it opposes all that warned Luther that he must return robbing, stealing, luxury, harlotry, In August, Luther learned that Christ has done and taught. What “to the bosom of the church” within knavery and every sort of contempt Leo was sending a bull threatening earthly reason is there in holding that 60 days. Meanwhile, it ordered that of God, and even the rule of Anti - him with excommunication. With no relative of a deceased husband, he keep silent and that his books be christ could not be more scan- this, Richard Marius observes, “all even to the fourth degree, may marry burned.24 After its arrival, on De - dalous.”15 He also complained of ambiguity about the Antichrist the latter’s widow?”21 cem ber 10 Luther burned it as well papal legates accepting money to evaporated from his mind; to him Luther wrote three other tracts as books of canon law. Leo X signed “legalize unjust gain” and “dissolve the pope was the Beast, the man of that year that linked the papacy and the actual bull of excommunication oaths, vows, and agreements” while evil foretold in the New Testament, antichrist. In Treatise on Christian on January 3, 1521, but for various saying “the pope has authority to do and no compromise was possible.”18 Liberty he denounced the “soul- reasons it was not delivered until this.” This alone, Luther said, was After this, Luther published On destroying traditions of our popes” much later. enough “to prove the pope the true the Babylon Captivity of the Church, as “snares” by which “numberless The Pope expected his condem- Antichrist.”16 By accepting money which charged the papacy with lead- souls” had “been dragged down to nation of Luther to trigger automat- for annulling oaths, the Pope was ing church members into a new im - hell,” clearly “the work of Anti - ically his temporal punishment, suppressing “God’s commandment” prisonment. Criticizing those who christ.”22 probably by execution. Before his and exalting “his own command- claimed that the Pope had “the In the Treatise on Usury he again death, Emperor Maximilian I had ment over it,” according to Luther, power to make laws,” Luther wrote, discussed Rome’s antichrist-like promised Leo that he would enforce who added, “If he is not Antichrist, “Unless they will abandon their laws, financial exploitation of “German any papal verdict against Luther. On then let some one else tell me who and restore to Christ’s churches their fools,” while in his Treatise on the January 18, 1521, Leo ordered Maxi- he can be!”17 liberty, they are guilty of all the souls New Testament he said in the context milian’s successor, Charles V, to do Nevertheless, after saying all this, that perish under this . . . captivity, of the papal denial of the cup to the likewise. Papal nuncio Girolamo Luther held out an olive branch to and the papacy is of a truth the king- laity, “The pope . . . does not have a Aleandro then tried to convince first Pope Leo X. He implied that his dom of Babylon, yea, of the very hair’s breadth of power to change Charles and then the Diet of Worms quarrel was not with the Pope him- Antichrist.”19 what Christ has made, and whatever simply to condemn Luther without self but the Roman curia, which was, In addition, this booklet men- of these things he changes, . . . he granting him a hearing.

12 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,13 2008 7 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 Meanwhile, replying to Exsurge pels us to go to the sacrament once a Having been twice condemned by the papacy, Domine’s charges in his Defense and year.” Thus, in both “his commands Explanation of All the Articles, Luther and his prohibitions, he is the direct Luther’s life was clearly in jeopardy. Nevertheless, he opposed said, “Beware of the Antichrist, the opposite of Christ, as befits a true Ulrich von Hutten’s proposal to defend the new faith 25 27 Pope!” Arguing that Christ was the Antichrist.” This reflected a general militarily. He fully expected, however, that he himself would rock of Matthew 16:18, Luther said papal tendency to bind Christians that interpreting this text to suggest with “man-made laws” while “this lose his life. Nevertheless, when appearing before the imperial papal authority perverted God’s unspeakable Antichrist at Rome” diet at Worms, he courageously refused to retract anything he Word. This, Luther continued, con- treated God’s Word “as though it were firmed Paul’s prediction that anti - a carnival joke.”28 had written unless convicted by Scripture or reason. christ’s entrance would be character- One of the statements Leo had ized by deceit and false scriptural condemned in Exsurge Domine was, interpretation. In this book he also “The burning of heretics is contrary called the Pope antichrist for giving to the will of the Holy Spirit.”Luther when appearing be fore the imperial fits this description.”31 people false assurance through indul- responded that papists had burned diet at Worms, he courageously Now Luther introduced a new gences, for denying that belief was the “good Christians” John Huss and refused to retract anything he had reason for calling the Pope anti - required for forgiveness of sins, for Jerome of Prague and “the pope and written unless convicted by Scrip- christ, one to which he would re - spreading errors worldwide in ex - other heresy-hunters have burned ture or reason. Consequently, he was peatedly return in the future, the change for “the wealth of the nations, other good Christians,” including declared an outlaw. The fact that he denial of the right of the clergy to and for imposing on people a system “the godly man of Florence, . . . survived despite the imperial ban marry. Speaking sympathetically of of ‘contrition, confession, and satis- Girolomo Savonarola,” thus “fulfill- was due to the intervention of Fred- “the pitiable flock of fallen priests,” faction.’”26 ing the prophecy concerning the erick of Saxony. Luther said, “if the pope had Returning to the Communion Antichrist that he will cast Chris- During his protective confinement brought about no other calamity issue, Luther said that Jesus gave both tians into the oven.”29 In this booklet at Wartburg Castle, he continued to than this prohibition of marriage, it bread and wine to everyone and told Luther also condemned “the error describe the papacy as the antichrist: would be sufficient to stamp him as everyone to repeat the ordinance in about the free will” as “a peculiar “St. Paul calls Antichrist the man of antichrist, who is rightly called the His remembrance, but that the Pope teaching of Antichrist”30 and de - sin and the son of perdition, because man of sin and son of perdition, and offered only a half sacrament by nounced the creation of mendicant through his precepts and laws he will the abomination, so much sin and excluding some from Communion. orders as a ruse of the antichrist to turn all the world from God and perdition have followed in the wake Then, addressing Leo, Luther offered increase his own power. prevent God and the world from of this one law.”32 to recant if the Pope could prove that coming together; he shall be a mas- he wasn’t condemned by God by To Worms and Wartburg (1521) ter of sin and all iniquity, and yet Usurping God’s Place Paul’s curse on anyone who changes Having been twice condemned by will retain the name and appearance Luther did not soften his charac- the ordinance or the gospel. Unless he the papacy, Luther’s life was clearly in of Christ and call himself Sanctimus terization of the Pope as antichrist could prove this, Luther said, the jeopardy. Nevertheless, he opposed and Vicarius Dei and Caput Ecclesiae after the crisis had passed and he Pope should not take offense when Ulrich von Hutten’s proposal to [‘most holy one; vicar of God; head could feel reasonably secure under Luther called him the antichrist. Fur- defend the new faith militarily. He of the Church’], and persecute all Frederick’s protection. Indeed, he thermore, Christ merely invites us to fully expected, however, that he him- who will not obey him. It is easy to expanded and strengthened this posi- partake, whereas “the pope . . . com- self would lose his life. Nevertheless, recognize that the pope more than tion. Of course, he could never feel http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/114 8 15 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist Meanwhile, replying to Exsurge pels us to go to the sacrament once a Having been twice condemned by the papacy, Domine’s charges in his Defense and year.” Thus, in both “his commands Explanation of All the Articles, Luther and his prohibitions, he is the direct Luther’s life was clearly in jeopardy. Nevertheless, he opposed said, “Beware of the Antichrist, the opposite of Christ, as befits a true Ulrich von Hutten’s proposal to defend the new faith 25 27 Pope!” Arguing that Christ was the Antichrist.” This reflected a general militarily. He fully expected, however, that he himself would rock of Matthew 16:18, Luther said papal tendency to bind Christians that interpreting this text to suggest with “man-made laws” while “this lose his life. Nevertheless, when appearing before the imperial papal authority perverted God’s unspeakable Antichrist at Rome” diet at Worms, he courageously refused to retract anything he Word. This, Luther continued, con- treated God’s Word “as though it were firmed Paul’s prediction that anti - a carnival joke.”28 had written unless convicted by Scripture or reason. christ’s entrance would be character- One of the statements Leo had ized by deceit and false scriptural condemned in Exsurge Domine was, interpretation. In this book he also “The burning of heretics is contrary called the Pope antichrist for giving to the will of the Holy Spirit.”Luther when appearing be fore the imperial fits this description.”31 people false assurance through indul- responded that papists had burned diet at Worms, he courageously Now Luther introduced a new gences, for denying that belief was the “good Christians” John Huss and refused to retract anything he had reason for calling the Pope anti - required for forgiveness of sins, for Jerome of Prague and “the pope and written unless convicted by Scrip- christ, one to which he would re - spreading errors worldwide in ex - other heresy-hunters have burned ture or reason. Consequently, he was peatedly return in the future, the change for “the wealth of the nations, other good Christians,” including declared an outlaw. The fact that he denial of the right of the clergy to and for imposing on people a system “the godly man of Florence, . . . survived despite the imperial ban marry. Speaking sympathetically of of ‘contrition, confession, and satis- Girolomo Savonarola,” thus “fulfill- was due to the intervention of Fred- “the pitiable flock of fallen priests,” faction.’”26 ing the prophecy concerning the erick of Saxony. Luther said, “if the pope had Returning to the Communion Antichrist that he will cast Chris- During his protective confinement brought about no other calamity issue, Luther said that Jesus gave both tians into the oven.”29 In this booklet at Wartburg Castle, he continued to than this prohibition of marriage, it bread and wine to everyone and told Luther also condemned “the error describe the papacy as the antichrist: would be sufficient to stamp him as everyone to repeat the ordinance in about the free will” as “a peculiar “St. Paul calls Antichrist the man of antichrist, who is rightly called the His remembrance, but that the Pope teaching of Antichrist”30 and de - sin and the son of perdition, because man of sin and son of perdition, and offered only a half sacrament by nounced the creation of mendicant through his precepts and laws he will the abomination, so much sin and excluding some from Communion. orders as a ruse of the antichrist to turn all the world from God and perdition have followed in the wake Then, addressing Leo, Luther offered increase his own power. prevent God and the world from of this one law.”32 to recant if the Pope could prove that coming together; he shall be a mas- he wasn’t condemned by God by To Worms and Wartburg (1521) ter of sin and all iniquity, and yet Usurping God’s Place Paul’s curse on anyone who changes Having been twice condemned by will retain the name and appearance Luther did not soften his charac- the ordinance or the gospel. Unless he the papacy, Luther’s life was clearly in of Christ and call himself Sanctimus terization of the Pope as antichrist could prove this, Luther said, the jeopardy. Nevertheless, he opposed and Vicarius Dei and Caput Ecclesiae after the crisis had passed and he Pope should not take offense when Ulrich von Hutten’s proposal to [‘most holy one; vicar of God; head could feel reasonably secure under Luther called him the antichrist. Fur- defend the new faith militarily. He of the Church’], and persecute all Frederick’s protection. Indeed, he thermore, Christ merely invites us to fully expected, however, that he him- who will not obey him. It is easy to expanded and strengthened this posi- partake, whereas “the pope . . . com- self would lose his life. Nevertheless, recognize that the pope more than tion. Of course, he could never feel

14 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,15 2008 9 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 Leo’s successor, Hadrian VI, warned Frederick that, over the whole world.”34 He cited can also see this in the hostile both Scripture and history to show unless he separated himself from Martin Luther “and put a monastery life and holy orders. There that neither Peter nor the bishop of we find fasting, holiday-making, lying muzzle on his blasphemous tongue,” church and state Rome at the time of the Council of in hard beds, watching, keeping would jointly subject Frederick to both earthly punishment Nicea ruled over the whole church. silent, wearing coarse clothes, being Excommunicating and persecut- tonsured and locked in a cell, being and eternal torment. “Repent therefore,” he said, ing people for following God’s Word unmarried—and God has com - “before you feel the two swords.” Later, in 1530, Pope was another way the Pope was manded none of these things.”37 usurping God’s authority, according Rather than being subject to God, Clement VII specifically ordered Emperor Charles V to to Luther. “The false church is always the antichrist exalted himself “above “exterminate the evangelical heretics.” the persecutor of the true church, God’s Word and worship,” thus “sit- not only spiritually . . . but also phys- ting in judgment over God.”38 ically, by means of the sword and The prophecies of Daniel, Mat - tyranny,” he said, declaring that the thew, and Revelation were also signif- completely secure. Indeed, Leo’s suc- established his own laws, sitting in Bible had foretold that antichrist icant for Luther’s understanding of cessor, Hadrian VI, warned Frederick judgment on God’s Word and making would “kill those who cling to the the papacy as antichrist usurping that, unless he separated himself from decrees that oppose what Scripture Word.”35 God’s prerogatives. Luther inter- Martin Luther “and put a muzzle on says, nullifying the texts assuring us of Central to Luther’s understand- preted Daniel 2 and 7 as depicting his blasphemous tongue,” church and forgiveness of sins, distorting Christ’s ing of the Pope as antichrist usurp- four great empires, culminating with state would jointly subject Frederick words, falsely interpreting Scripture, ing God’s place was 2 Thessalonians the Roman Empire, which would be to both earthly punishment and eter- diluting biblical mandates, and giving 2:3 and 4. Noting that the villain in 2 divided, after which the antichrist nal torment. “Repent therefore,” he people a distorted picture of God. Thessalonians 2 sits in God’s temple would arise. His own generation, he said, “before you feel the two swords.” Rather than feeding Christ’s sheep, and exalts himself above God, believed, was symbolized by the toes Later, in 1530, Pope Clement VII according to Luther, the Pope taught Luther said, “The Antichrist took his in the image of Daniel. The little horn specifically ordered Emperor Charles and did the very opposite of Christ’s seat in the church, yet not to govern arising out of the Roman Empire he V to “exterminate the evangelical her - life and teachings. it with divine laws, promises, and identified as the papal antichrist. Per- etics.”33 Luther charged that one way the grace,” but with “his foolish and haps he was thinking of the prophecy The chief reason the mature Pope usurped God’s place was by innumerable laws and altogether that the little horn would “think to Luther described the Pope as anti - teaching that the Scriptures derived unnecessary traditions.”36 change times and laws” (Dan. 7:25, christ was because, in Luther’s opin- their authority from the church Luther connected this passage KJV) in his earlier statement that the ion, he had usurped God’s place as rather than vice versa. Another way with Matthew 15:3: “Paul tells the Pope had no power to change what lawmaker, adding his own rules to was by claiming authority not only Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:4) that the Christ has made. those in the Bible, burdening con- over the church but over the whole antichrist ‘exalts himself above every Luther believed that Daniel 8, 11, sciences with human traditions, and world, judging everyone but not so-called god or object of worship’— and 12 contained blended prophecies infringing on Christian freedom, permitting himself to be judged. The surely by means of his self-invented applying to both Antiochus and the declaring as sinful things that Christ Pope’s claim to divine prerogatives holiness. Christ bears witness, Matt. antichrist. He interpreted Daniel’s has said are not sinful, including cler- had “denied and utterly buried the 15:3, that the Jews transgress the prophecy of a ruler who would “exalt ical marriage. Indeed, Luther said, the office and divinity of Christ,” who commandments of God so that they himself, and magnify himself above Pope had deposed Scripture and never “intended the Pope to rule might keep the traditions of men. We every god, and shall speak marvellous http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/116 10 17 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist Leo’s successor, Hadrian VI, warned Frederick that, over the whole world.”34 He cited can also see this in the hostile both Scripture and history to show unless he separated himself from Martin Luther “and put a monastery life and holy orders. There that neither Peter nor the bishop of we find fasting, holiday-making, lying muzzle on his blasphemous tongue,” church and state Rome at the time of the Council of in hard beds, watching, keeping would jointly subject Frederick to both earthly punishment Nicea ruled over the whole church. silent, wearing coarse clothes, being Excommunicating and persecut- tonsured and locked in a cell, being and eternal torment. “Repent therefore,” he said, ing people for following God’s Word unmarried—and God has com - “before you feel the two swords.” Later, in 1530, Pope was another way the Pope was manded none of these things.”37 usurping God’s authority, according Rather than being subject to God, Clement VII specifically ordered Emperor Charles V to to Luther. “The false church is always the antichrist exalted himself “above “exterminate the evangelical heretics.” the persecutor of the true church, God’s Word and worship,” thus “sit- not only spiritually . . . but also phys- ting in judgment over God.”38 ically, by means of the sword and The prophecies of Daniel, Mat - tyranny,” he said, declaring that the thew, and Revelation were also signif- completely secure. Indeed, Leo’s suc- established his own laws, sitting in Bible had foretold that antichrist icant for Luther’s understanding of cessor, Hadrian VI, warned Frederick judgment on God’s Word and making would “kill those who cling to the the papacy as antichrist usurping that, unless he separated himself from decrees that oppose what Scripture Word.”35 God’s prerogatives. Luther inter- Martin Luther “and put a muzzle on says, nullifying the texts assuring us of Central to Luther’s understand- preted Daniel 2 and 7 as depicting his blasphemous tongue,” church and forgiveness of sins, distorting Christ’s ing of the Pope as antichrist usurp- four great empires, culminating with state would jointly subject Frederick words, falsely interpreting Scripture, ing God’s place was 2 Thessalonians the Roman Empire, which would be to both earthly punishment and eter- diluting biblical mandates, and giving 2:3 and 4. Noting that the villain in 2 divided, after which the antichrist nal torment. “Repent therefore,” he people a distorted picture of God. Thessalonians 2 sits in God’s temple would arise. His own generation, he said, “before you feel the two swords.” Rather than feeding Christ’s sheep, and exalts himself above God, believed, was symbolized by the toes Later, in 1530, Pope Clement VII according to Luther, the Pope taught Luther said, “The Antichrist took his in the image of Daniel. The little horn specifically ordered Emperor Charles and did the very opposite of Christ’s seat in the church, yet not to govern arising out of the Roman Empire he V to “exterminate the evangelical her - life and teachings. it with divine laws, promises, and identified as the papal antichrist. Per- etics.”33 Luther charged that one way the grace,” but with “his foolish and haps he was thinking of the prophecy The chief reason the mature Pope usurped God’s place was by innumerable laws and altogether that the little horn would “think to Luther described the Pope as anti - teaching that the Scriptures derived unnecessary traditions.”36 change times and laws” (Dan. 7:25, christ was because, in Luther’s opin- their authority from the church Luther connected this passage KJV) in his earlier statement that the ion, he had usurped God’s place as rather than vice versa. Another way with Matthew 15:3: “Paul tells the Pope had no power to change what lawmaker, adding his own rules to was by claiming authority not only Thessalonians (2 Thess. 2:4) that the Christ has made. those in the Bible, burdening con- over the church but over the whole antichrist ‘exalts himself above every Luther believed that Daniel 8, 11, sciences with human traditions, and world, judging everyone but not so-called god or object of worship’— and 12 contained blended prophecies infringing on Christian freedom, permitting himself to be judged. The surely by means of his self-invented applying to both Antiochus and the declaring as sinful things that Christ Pope’s claim to divine prerogatives holiness. Christ bears witness, Matt. antichrist. He interpreted Daniel’s has said are not sinful, including cler- had “denied and utterly buried the 15:3, that the Jews transgress the prophecy of a ruler who would “exalt ical marriage. Indeed, Luther said, the office and divinity of Christ,” who commandments of God so that they himself, and magnify himself above Pope had deposed Scripture and never “intended the Pope to rule might keep the traditions of men. We every god, and shall speak marvellous

16 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,17 2008 11 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 things against the God of gods” and high priest, Luther said, the Pope Luther said the papacy also negated Christ’s sacrifice by who would not “regard. . . the desire had set up his own clergy, claiming of women” (Dan. 11:36, 37, KJV) as that he was “imprinting on their proclaiming the Mass to be “a sacrifice for the living and the referring to the papacy because of the souls an indelible character,” when dead,” obtaining “forgiveness of sins. . . . It is as though Pope’s ban on clerical marriage and in actuality he was imprinting them Christ had not done this very thing on the cross, as though his his demand for obedience to himself with “the mark of the beast in Reve- and his rules rather than to God’s lation.”41 sacrifice had no validity and were of no value.” Luther instruction. Using the symbolism from Reve- suggested that these “daily repeated sacrifices” were “coun - Quoting Daniel 9:27 and 12:11, lation 14, 17, and 18, Luther fre- Jesus in Matthew 24:15 refers to the quently referred to Rome as Babylon terfeiting Christ” and purporting to do “that which Christ “‘abomination of desolation’” spo- and the “scarlet whore of Babylon,” alone by his sacrifice once for all effected.” ken of by the prophet Daniel. Noting sometimes using these terms when that the Pope had threatened burn- discussing the papacy’s persecution ing to all who opposed him, Luther of religious dissent. Calling Rome a interpreted this text as follows: “The “scarlet murderess,” Luther remem- posed that He was a severe judge, who away and is the true Anti christ.”45 pope is a god on earth over every- bered the attempt to have him had to be placated by our works. This Luther said the papacy also thing heavenly, earthly, spiritual, and brought “as a prisoner to that mur- was to blaspheme Christ to the ut - negated Christ’s sacrifice by pro- secular, and all on his own. No one is derous Jerusalem, that Babylon most and . . . to nullify the grace of claiming the Mass to be “a sacrifice permitted to say to him: ‘What are clothed in purple.” Declaring, “This God, to make Christ die to no pur- for the living and the dead,” obtain- you doing?’ That is the abomination Babylon in Rome burns Christ’s pose . . . And this is . . . the ‘desolating ing “forgiveness of sins. . . . It is as and stench of which Christ speaks in children,” he “praised and thanked” sacrilege, standing in the holy place’” though Christ had not done this Matthew 24.”39 the Lord for rescuing him from “the (Matt. 24:15).44 very thing on the cross, as though his In other passages applying this scarlet whore.”42 The doctrine that monks could sacrifice had no validity and were of text to the papacy, Luther said, “The justify themselves by “their hypocriti- no value.” Luther suggested that desolating sacrilege stands in the Negating Christ’s Sacrifice cal sanctity . . . , even though it is the these “daily repeated sacrifices” were holy place . . . and rules over us in the Not only did the Roman anti christ proper function of Christ alone to “counterfeiting Christ” and purport- place of Christ” and “he has set up usurp God’s prerogatives and perse- justify the sinner” had, he said, “de - ing to do “that which Christ alone by his own law for God’s law and his cute His people, according to Luther, nied and completely suppressed the his sacrifice once for all effected.”46 own priesthood for Christ’s priest- but he also in effect negated Christ’s work of Christ and his divinity.” The Luther insisted that Christ was hood, and thus set abomination in sacrifice and mediation. “Antichrist . blasphemy on the forehead of the still our only mediator and that the the holy place.”40 . . abolishes grace and denies the scar let whore he interpreted to be Scriptures recognized nothing of the Luther also found predictions of blessings of Christ, our High Priest, “the manifold, innumerable, self-cho- priestly system set up by the papacy. the antichrist in the Book of Revela- who gave himself as a sacrifice for our sen works or forms of worship” which Jesus had not abdicated His High tion, especially chapters 13 and 17. sins,” he said.43 One way he did this were presented “as sacrifices in order Priestly office, nor had He trans- In Revelation 13, he was the lamblike was through the doctrine of merit. to suppress Christ’s sacrifice.” Luther ferred it to the Pope. beast, appearing “to be Christian,” Said Luther, “The noxious notion of de clared, “The chief article of the yet speaking “like the devil,” preach- our own righteousness . . . was why Chris tian doctrine is . . . that Christ is Eschatology ing the doctrines of “the dragon we could not at all see Christ as the our righteousness. He who is now at - Luther believed that the Bible from hell.” Usurping Christ’s role as Mediator and Savior but simply sup- tacking this is taking the whole Christ foretold the church’s future and sug- http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/118 12 19 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist things against the God of gods” and high priest, Luther said, the Pope Luther said the papacy also negated Christ’s sacrifice by who would not “regard. . . the desire had set up his own clergy, claiming of women” (Dan. 11:36, 37, KJV) as that he was “imprinting on their proclaiming the Mass to be “a sacrifice for the living and the referring to the papacy because of the souls an indelible character,” when dead,” obtaining “forgiveness of sins. . . . It is as though Pope’s ban on clerical marriage and in actuality he was imprinting them Christ had not done this very thing on the cross, as though his his demand for obedience to himself with “the mark of the beast in Reve- and his rules rather than to God’s lation.”41 sacrifice had no validity and were of no value.” Luther instruction. Using the symbolism from Reve- suggested that these “daily repeated sacrifices” were “coun - Quoting Daniel 9:27 and 12:11, lation 14, 17, and 18, Luther fre- Jesus in Matthew 24:15 refers to the quently referred to Rome as Babylon terfeiting Christ” and purporting to do “that which Christ “‘abomination of desolation’” spo- and the “scarlet whore of Babylon,” alone by his sacrifice once for all effected.” ken of by the prophet Daniel. Noting sometimes using these terms when that the Pope had threatened burn- discussing the papacy’s persecution ing to all who opposed him, Luther of religious dissent. Calling Rome a interpreted this text as follows: “The “scarlet murderess,” Luther remem- posed that He was a severe judge, who away and is the true Anti christ.”45 pope is a god on earth over every- bered the attempt to have him had to be placated by our works. This Luther said the papacy also thing heavenly, earthly, spiritual, and brought “as a prisoner to that mur- was to blaspheme Christ to the ut - negated Christ’s sacrifice by pro- secular, and all on his own. No one is derous Jerusalem, that Babylon most and . . . to nullify the grace of claiming the Mass to be “a sacrifice permitted to say to him: ‘What are clothed in purple.” Declaring, “This God, to make Christ die to no pur- for the living and the dead,” obtain- you doing?’ That is the abomination Babylon in Rome burns Christ’s pose . . . And this is . . . the ‘desolating ing “forgiveness of sins. . . . It is as and stench of which Christ speaks in children,” he “praised and thanked” sacrilege, standing in the holy place’” though Christ had not done this Matthew 24.”39 the Lord for rescuing him from “the (Matt. 24:15).44 very thing on the cross, as though his In other passages applying this scarlet whore.”42 The doctrine that monks could sacrifice had no validity and were of text to the papacy, Luther said, “The justify themselves by “their hypocriti- no value.” Luther suggested that desolating sacrilege stands in the Negating Christ’s Sacrifice cal sanctity . . . , even though it is the these “daily repeated sacrifices” were holy place . . . and rules over us in the Not only did the Roman anti christ proper function of Christ alone to “counterfeiting Christ” and purport- place of Christ” and “he has set up usurp God’s prerogatives and perse- justify the sinner” had, he said, “de - ing to do “that which Christ alone by his own law for God’s law and his cute His people, according to Luther, nied and completely suppressed the his sacrifice once for all effected.”46 own priesthood for Christ’s priest- but he also in effect negated Christ’s work of Christ and his divinity.” The Luther insisted that Christ was hood, and thus set abomination in sacrifice and mediation. “Antichrist . blasphemy on the forehead of the still our only mediator and that the the holy place.”40 . . abolishes grace and denies the scar let whore he interpreted to be Scriptures recognized nothing of the Luther also found predictions of blessings of Christ, our High Priest, “the manifold, innumerable, self-cho- priestly system set up by the papacy. the antichrist in the Book of Revela- who gave himself as a sacrifice for our sen works or forms of worship” which Jesus had not abdicated His High tion, especially chapters 13 and 17. sins,” he said.43 One way he did this were presented “as sacrifices in order Priestly office, nor had He trans- In Revelation 13, he was the lamblike was through the doctrine of merit. to suppress Christ’s sacrifice.” Luther ferred it to the Pope. beast, appearing “to be Christian,” Said Luther, “The noxious notion of de clared, “The chief article of the yet speaking “like the devil,” preach- our own righteousness . . . was why Chris tian doctrine is . . . that Christ is Eschatology ing the doctrines of “the dragon we could not at all see Christ as the our righteousness. He who is now at - Luther believed that the Bible from hell.” Usurping Christ’s role as Mediator and Savior but simply sup- tacking this is taking the whole Christ foretold the church’s future and sug-

18 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,19 2008 13 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 gested that the time of judgment 1545, the final year of his life. That although Luther was antipapal, he monk. He first began to suspect that predicted in Daniel 7:8-10 was tak- year, in his preface to a compilation was not anti-Catholic. He opposed the papacy was the antichrist when ing place during his lifetime. Affirm- of his complete works, he described the dictatorial monarchial episco- its representatives resorted to power ing that his own teachings were the Pope not only as antichrist but pate at the head of the church, not plays rather than appealing to Scrip- those of “the ancient and true also as the devil’s vicar. the church itself. ture, supported the execution of dis- church at the time of the apostles,” His final and most acerbic attack, By the time of Luther’s death, sidents, and—long before it became he thought the little horn was being Against the Roman Papacy, An Insti- other voices had joined him in pro- official dogma—claimed papal in - judged as “the original and ancient tution of the Devil, was written at the claiming that the Pope was the fallibility. He became sure of his church” shone “forth once more request of Elector John Frederick. It antichrist, including both his friend position when the Pope himself (like the sun emerging from the was a response to two letters from and disciple Philip Melanchthon threatened Luther with excommuni- clouds behind which it [had been] Pope Paul III forbidding the em - and a man for whom he had little cation, pressured rulers to silence shining but where it could not be peror from calling a German Na - respect, Ulrich Zwingli. him, and ordered the extermination seen).” He found comfort in the tional Council to settle the religi ous Other contemporaries of Luther of his followers. prophecies that the last days would disputes within the empire. Three who shared his belief about the papal But Luther’s antichrist theology “be shortened for the sake of the times in this publication Luther antichrist included John Calvin, John was the result of biblical analysis as godly” and “that the church” would referred to the Pope as “the most Knox, and Thomas Cranmer. Among well as personal experience. The key “be preserved and Antichrist [would] hellish father.”He denounced him as the later reformers who held this theological reason for Luther’s posi- not encompass everything with error a “teacher of lies, blasphemies, and view were the Anabaptist Menno tion was his belief that the Pope was and falsehood.”47 idolatries,” a murderer of kings, an Simons and various Hugue not the- in many ways usurping God’s place He noted that in the second inciter to all kinds of bloodshed, and ologians. Even King James I of Eng- and negating Christ’s sacrifice. angel’s message of Revelation 14, the “a brothel-keeper above all brothel- land got into the act, writing an Clearly, Luther’s position on the gospel was followed by a voice pre- keepers and all vermin”—and even exposition of the Book of Revelation antichrist is no longer politically dicting that the spiritual papacy “a true werewolf.”49 that called Rome the seat of the correct. It is out of sync with the would be destroyed. This would be Were such attacks unchristian? antichrist and Babylon. Many of the groupthink of the 21st century. done, according to other passages, Luther didn’t think so. Earlier, he foundational creeds of Protestant - However, with so great a number “without human hands,” with the denied that it was sinful to refute ism, including the Formula of Con- of voices stretching back so many breath of Christ’s mouth, “slaying Satan’s “reviling against godliness cord, the Second Scottish Confes- centuries who courageously asserted him with spiritual preaching” before and God himself.” They must, he sion, the Westminster Confession, that the papacy was the antichrist, destroying him “by his glorious”— said, “be exposed and refuted” so the the Savoy Declaration of the Con- the question for us should not be, Is and sudden—coming, which would people could “be corrected and lib- gregational Churches, and the Bap- this position embarrassing or is it free “Christendom from every evil.” erated from the tyranny of Satan.” tist Confession of 1688, echoed politically correct or socially accept- At that time, “those who cling to the Paul’s attacks on “the false apos- Luther’s belief on this subject. able? Rather, it should be, Is this papacy against the gospel shall be tles” were not slander: he was “judg- position biblically correct? This view cast outside the city of Christ, into ing them by his apostolic authority.” Conclusion was not politically correct in the winepress of God’s wrath.”48 Likewise, when Luther called the Luther’s conflict with church au - Luther’s day. And in Luther’s day, Pope antichrist, he said, he was thorities over the financial exploi - unlike ours, this opinion could have Luther’s Final Year “judging . . . by divine authority” on tation of his parishioners through been literally fatal for the person The intensity of Luther’s attacks the basis of Galatians 1:8. indulgences led to papal attempts to holding it, as it was for John Huss on the papacy increased during It can be argued, however, that silence the independent-minded and Thomas Cranmer. http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/120 14 21 Pettibone: Martin Luther and the AntiChrist gested that the time of judgment 1545, the final year of his life. That although Luther was antipapal, he monk. He first began to suspect that predicted in Daniel 7:8-10 was tak- year, in his preface to a compilation was not anti-Catholic. He opposed the papacy was the antichrist when ing place during his lifetime. Affirm- of his complete works, he described the dictatorial monarchial episco- its representatives resorted to power ing that his own teachings were the Pope not only as antichrist but pate at the head of the church, not plays rather than appealing to Scrip- those of “the ancient and true also as the devil’s vicar. the church itself. ture, supported the execution of dis- church at the time of the apostles,” His final and most acerbic attack, By the time of Luther’s death, sidents, and—long before it became he thought the little horn was being Against the Roman Papacy, An Insti- other voices had joined him in pro- official dogma—claimed papal in - judged as “the original and ancient tution of the Devil, was written at the claiming that the Pope was the fallibility. He became sure of his church” shone “forth once more request of Elector John Frederick. It antichrist, including both his friend position when the Pope himself (like the sun emerging from the was a response to two letters from and disciple Philip Melanchthon threatened Luther with excommuni- clouds behind which it [had been] Pope Paul III forbidding the em - and a man for whom he had little cation, pressured rulers to silence shining but where it could not be peror from calling a German Na - respect, Ulrich Zwingli. him, and ordered the extermination seen).” He found comfort in the tional Council to settle the religi ous Other contemporaries of Luther of his followers. prophecies that the last days would disputes within the empire. Three who shared his belief about the papal But Luther’s antichrist theology “be shortened for the sake of the times in this publication Luther antichrist included John Calvin, John was the result of biblical analysis as godly” and “that the church” would referred to the Pope as “the most Knox, and Thomas Cranmer. Among well as personal experience. The key “be preserved and Antichrist [would] hellish father.”He denounced him as the later reformers who held this theological reason for Luther’s posi- not encompass everything with error a “teacher of lies, blasphemies, and view were the Anabaptist Menno tion was his belief that the Pope was and falsehood.”47 idolatries,” a murderer of kings, an Simons and various Hugue not the- in many ways usurping God’s place He noted that in the second inciter to all kinds of bloodshed, and ologians. Even King James I of Eng- and negating Christ’s sacrifice. angel’s message of Revelation 14, the “a brothel-keeper above all brothel- land got into the act, writing an Clearly, Luther’s position on the gospel was followed by a voice pre- keepers and all vermin”—and even exposition of the Book of Revelation antichrist is no longer politically dicting that the spiritual papacy “a true werewolf.”49 that called Rome the seat of the correct. It is out of sync with the would be destroyed. This would be Were such attacks unchristian? antichrist and Babylon. Many of the groupthink of the 21st century. done, according to other passages, Luther didn’t think so. Earlier, he foundational creeds of Protestant - However, with so great a number “without human hands,” with the denied that it was sinful to refute ism, including the Formula of Con- of voices stretching back so many breath of Christ’s mouth, “slaying Satan’s “reviling against godliness cord, the Second Scottish Confes- centuries who courageously asserted him with spiritual preaching” before and God himself.” They must, he sion, the Westminster Confession, that the papacy was the antichrist, destroying him “by his glorious”— said, “be exposed and refuted” so the the Savoy Declaration of the Con- the question for us should not be, Is and sudden—coming, which would people could “be corrected and lib- gregational Churches, and the Bap- this position embarrassing or is it free “Christendom from every evil.” erated from the tyranny of Satan.” tist Confession of 1688, echoed politically correct or socially accept- At that time, “those who cling to the Paul’s attacks on “the false apos- Luther’s belief on this subject. able? Rather, it should be, Is this papacy against the gospel shall be tles” were not slander: he was “judg- position biblically correct? This view cast outside the city of Christ, into ing them by his apostolic authority.” Conclusion was not politically correct in the winepress of God’s wrath.”48 Likewise, when Luther called the Luther’s conflict with church au - Luther’s day. And in Luther’s day, Pope antichrist, he said, he was thorities over the financial exploi - unlike ours, this opinion could have Luther’s Final Year “judging . . . by divine authority” on tation of his parishioners through been literally fatal for the person The intensity of Luther’s attacks the basis of Galatians 1:8. indulgences led to papal attempts to holding it, as it was for John Huss on the papacy increased during It can be argued, however, that silence the independent-minded and Thomas Cranmer.

20 Published by Digital Commons @ Andrews University,21 2008 15 Perspective Digest, Vol. 13 [2008], Iss. 2, Art. 1 NOTES AND REFERENCES 22 Ibid., p. 346. BY NORMAN R. GULLEY* 1 Luther’s Works, Jaroslav Pelikan and Hel- 23 Ibid., vol. 4, p. 50; vol. 1, pp. 320-322. mutt T. Lehman, eds. (St. Louis: Concordia; 24 Luther’s Works, op cit., vol. 32, pp. ix, x. 1955-1986), vol. 13, p. 417. 25 Ibid., p. 42. 2 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian 26 Ibid., p. 47. Church, third ed., rev. (New York: Charles Scrib - 27 Works of Martin Luther With Introduc- ner’s Sons, 1910, repr. Grand Rapids, Mich.: tions and Notes, vol. 3, p. 73. Eerdmans, 1985-1986), vol. 4, pp. 290, 291. 28 Ibid., p. 94. 3 29 Luther’s Works, op cit., pp. 82, 87, 88. THE UNION OF Ibid. 30 4 Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Be - Works of Martin Luther With Introduc- tween God and the Devil, trans. Eileen Wal- tions and Notes, op cit., vol. 3, p. 111. 31 lisn-Shwartzbart (New York: Doubleday Ibid., p. 368. 32 Image, 1990, 1992), pp. 193, 194. Ibid., p. 388. 33 5 George Waddington, A History of the Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of CHURCH AND STATE: Reformation on the Continent (London: Dun- Martin Luther (New York: Abingdon, 1950), p. can and Malcolm, 1841), vol. 1, p. 201. 250. 34 Luther’s Works, op cit., vol. 22, p. 82; vol. 6 LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our 27, p. 342; vol. 29, p. 42; vol. 13, pp. 281, 282; Fathers: The Historical Development of Pro - vol. 14, pp. 12, 13. Historic and Scriptural Views phetic Interpretation (Washington, D.C.: Re view 35 Ibid., vol. 24, p. 308; vol. 2, pp. 34, 101, and Herald Publ. Assn., 1950), vol. 2, p. 255. 214, 316; vol. 22, p. 61. 7 Works of Martin Luther With Introduc- 36 Ibid., vol. 8, p. 283. tions and Notes (Philadelphia: A. J. Holman & 37 Ibid., vol. 20, p. 264. Castle, 1915-1932), vol. 1, p. 343. 38 Ibid., vol. 13, pp. 178, 190, 191; vol. 41, 8 Ibid., pp. 391, 392. The relationship between church and state p. 364. 9 Heiko A. Oberman, op cit., p. 42. 39 Ibid., vol. 31, p. 393. 10 throughout history has a Works of Martin Luther With Introduc- 40 Ibid., vol. 36, pp. 138, 218. tions and Notes, op cit., vol. 2, p. 73. 41 Ibid., p. 201. direct relevance to post-9/11 America. 11 Ibid., pp. 73, 78. 42 Ibid., vol. 39, p. 102; vol. 52, p. 89; vol. 12 Ibid., p. 79. 48, p. 109; vol. 32, p. 89; vol. 41, p. 206; vol. 13, rguments over the “union of church are free from the potential 13 Ibid., pp. 81, 108, 109. p. 327; vol. 35, p. 402. church and state” include a con- temptation to repress the other, with 14 Ibid., p. 90. 43 Ibid., vol. 26, p. 180. 15 nection between the two or a the state as neutral (not favoring one Ibid., p. 95. 44 Ibid., pp. 200, 201. 16 separation of the two, both for religion over another). The state is Ibid., p. 138. 45 Ibid., pp. 259; vol. 13, p. 327; vol. 30, p. 17 A Ibid., p. 140. 252. mutual benefit. With re spect to free to legislate in civil matters, and 18 Richard Marius, Martin Luther: The 46 Ibid., vol. 7, p. 297; vol. 13, p. 313; vol. a connection, the Judeo-Christian all citizens are free to follow the dic- Christian Between God and the Devil (Cam- 40, p. 15. heritage offers an advantage to the tates of their conscience. bridge: Belknap, Harvard, 1999), p. 248. 47 Ibid., vol. 24, p. 367; vol. 41, p. 198; vol. state, compared to atheism, in up - Here are two major views on the 19 Works of Martin Luther With Introduc- 2, p. 229. holding biblical values. relationship of church and state in tions and Notes, op cit., vol. 2, pp. 234-236. 48 Ibid., vol. 35, pp. 407, 408; vol. 39, p. 20 Ibid., pp. 236, 247. 279; vol. 13, p. 258; vol. 24, p. 366. At the same time, the church is America: (1) when religion is not al - 21 Ibid., p. 268. 49 Ibid., vol. 41, pp. 263, 264, 336, 357. advantaged by tax exemption, protection of property, recognition of *Norman R. Gulley, Ph.D., has been a ministers and marriages, and free- pastor, missionary, and college and dom to preach religious liberty. With university professor and dean. He respect to separation, both state and resides in Collegedale, Tennessee. http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/pd/vol13/iss2/122 16 23