Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Dissertations (1934 -) Projects Dominus Mortis: Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ David Luy Marquette University Follow this and additional works at: https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Luy, David, "Dominus Mortis: Martin Luther on the Incorruptibility of God in Christ" (2012). Dissertations (1934 -). 235. https://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/235 DOMINUS MORTIS: MARTIN LUTHER ON THE INCORRUPTIBILITY OF GOD IN CHRIST by David J. Luy, B.M., M. Div. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin December, 2012 “I will deliver this people from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?” - Hosea 13:14, NIV “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil” - Hebrews 2:14, NIV “Sceleratum est, cum noveris, pium et sanum esse alicuius sensum, ex verbis incommode dictis statuere errorem.” - Martin Luther, WA 39/II, 95 ABSTRACT DOMINUS MORTIS: MARTIN LUTHER ON THE INCORRUPTIBILITY OF GOD IN CHRIST David J. Luy Marquette University, 2012 Contemporary literature broadly presupposes that Luther‟s Christology represents a definitive course correction within Christian reflection upon the doctrine of God. The hinge point of Luther‟s innovation, according to this understanding, resides in his apparent endorsement of a mutual transfer of predicates between the divine and human nature of Christ. This mutuality represents a significant radicalization of pre-existing theological opinion, which is content to affirm the statement „God suffers‟, for instance, only in the carefully restricted sense that Christ (who happens to be divine) suffers according to His human nature. According to this more traditional explanation, it is not the divinity of Christ per se, which suffers, but only the single, acting subject who is both divine and human. Luther‟s principal innovation in relation to these matters, is widely supposed to reside in his eschewal of such predicational restrictions. For him, God truly suffers in His own nature. He does so by virtue of a reciprocal idiomatic exchange between Christ‟s divinity and humanity. Such, in any case, is the historical narrative now prominent within studies of Luther‟s theology. The point possesses more than a merely antiquarian, or reductively historical interest. Luther‟s construal of God‟s suffering is a central feature within contemporary appraisals of his theological vision. His perceived christological innovation has also funded a host of constructive appropriations of his legacy across the many sectors of modern theological inquiry. The prevailing narrative is frequently invoked soteriologically to insist that human redemption relies upon the genuine participation of God‟s essence in creaturely vulnerability. In its most programmatic expressions, this interpretation of Luther has buttressed the rather generic perception within contemporary theology that Luther engineers a re-conceptualization of the Christian doctrine of God, which is significant primarily because it enables a more radical recognition of God‟s immanent involvement with the created order. Thus construed, Luther has understandably been mined as an invaluable resource for modern theologies of divine passibility, which tend to stress the „historicization‟ of God‟s being as opposed to putatively static alternatives espoused within preexisting theological tradition. It is the intent of this study to critique the interpretation of Luther‟s Christology used to underwrite this reception, and thus create the conditions necessary for an alternative appropriation of the reformer‟s thought within contemporary discourse. i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS David J. Luy I have relied upon the support, wisdom and patience of many people during the composition of this work. Sincere thanks are due to each of my primary readers, D. Stephen Long and Mickey Mattox, for their steady encouragement and constructive advice throughout the development of my project. They have been stimulating conversation partners, and have both forced me to think more deeply about the questions in this study than would otherwise have been the case. I would also like to thank Fr. Philip Rossi, S.J. and Wanda Zemler-Cizewski for their willingness to serve as additional readers. I am especially grateful to Dr. Robert Jamison, for his expert assistance in all matters pertaining to the German language. His willingness to give of his time and energy for the sake of my development as a scholar has been more than humbling. He is among the most generous people I have ever met. It goes without saying that the mistakes within the following manuscript remain solely the fault of its author. The reader may be assured, however, that such mistakes would surely have multiplied had it not been for the labors of these exemplary scholars. It has been a joy, during my time at Marquette, to cultivate a number of theological companions from whose fellowship I have gained far more than can be mentioned here. Among these, I am grateful especially to Phillip Anderas and Chris Ganski. I am fortunate and grateful to have such wise and godly friends. The members of my family are a constant source of support and stability in my life. They have encouraged me in my studies long before the present manuscript was ii even a flicker in my mind. In particular, I would like to thank my wife Pam for making it possible for me to pursue doctoral studies in theology, and for her unwavering patience in allowing me to finish the course. It is my honor to dedicate the following study to my father Lawrence Luy, with whom I have enjoyed many engaging theological conversations, and eagerly anticipate many more in the future. Soli Deo Gloria! iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1 THE ROAD OFT-TAKEN: A THEMATIC ANATOMY OF THE DIVERGENCE THESIS ......................................................................................................................... 9 I. A Preliminary Survey of the Operative Logic ............................................. 11 II. A Sequentially Organized Review of the Literature ...................................... 17 a. Luther‟s Two-Fold Divergence from the Late-Medieval Metaphysics of the Incarnation ....................................................................................... 18 i. Sub-Division 1: A Rejection of Suppositional Carrying in Favor of an Alternative Definition of Christ‟s „Person‟ ............................. 18 ii. Sub-Division 2: The Divine Nature of Christ also Suffers ........... 33 b. A Soteriology of Requisite Divine Passibility ....................................... 41 c. A Fundamentally New Doctrine of God ................................................ 47 III. An Agenda for Subsequent Examination .................................................... 56 IV. Conclusion: The Thesis Re-visited ............................................................. 60 DETRACTOR OR DEBTOR?: LUTHER ON THE LATE MEDIEVAL METAPHYSICS OF THE INCARNATION ............................................................... 61 I. The Issue of Suppositional Carrying ........................................................... 62 II. The Putative „Whence‟ of Christological Divergence: Luther and His Late Medieval Context ....................................................................................... 63 III. Luther‟s Rejection of Suppositional Carrying: Fact or Fiction? ................... 72 IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................... 109 THE SUFFERING OF GOD IN CHRIST: A 16TH CENTURY BREAKTHROUGH? ............................................................................. 111 iv I. Contracting the Sphere of Inquiry ............................................................. 115 II. Dispensing a Few, Prominent Evidentiary Non-Sequiturs ......................... 118 III. At the Root of the Issue: Modes of Christological Qualification ............... 125 IV. Conclusion to Chapter 3 ........................................................................... 163 V. Concluding Reflections on Luther‟s Alleged Christological Divergence ... 164 ONLY THE IMPASSIBLE GOD CAN HELP: LUTHER ON THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST AND THE INVIGORATION OF HUMAN DEBILITY ............................. 167 I. Situating the Question: Christology and Soteriology in Luther‟s Thought ................................................................................. 169 II. The Redemptive Sufferings of Christ‟s Divinity: A Presentation and Critique of the Divergence Rendering .................................................................... 179 a. Outline of a Divergence Coordination of Luther‟s Christology and Soteriology ................................................. 180 b. Evaluation of the Divergence Interpretation ........................................ 185 III.