Page History

...

"But how many people are there even today who worship God not as God but as something that they have imagined in their own hearts! Just look at all our strange, superstitious practices, products of utter vanity. Or is it not exchanging the glory of God into the likeness of an image and fanciful figure if you refuse to do the things which it is your duty to do and if you honor Him with a work which you have chosen yourselves and in so doing you imagine God is the kind who has regard for you and your ways, as if He were different from the way He has revealed Himself to you by giving you commandments? Thus even today many people are being given up to their ovvn base mind, as we see and hear. "\Ne can also simply say: They did not honor Him as God,' that is, they did not honor Him as it was fitting for them to render to Him honor and thanks. The word 'not' denies the act of honoring Him as it would have been fitting. But if 'not' negates the adverb 'as,' then according to the first interpretation the act of glorifying is admitted and the manner that would have been proper is denied. \'Vhat What follows can be applied conveniently to both interpretations" (LW, 25: Lectures on Romans: 157 ff.).

                                                                                                                                    * * * * * * *             

It's interesting to compare what P.S. Watson has to say in interpreting this passage:

Men should, no doubt, have recognized the true nature of God, even from their general knowledge, at least sufficiently to avoid idolatry – -- otherwise they could hardly be said to be 'without excuse.' Indeed, Luther can actually assert that the very heathen would have,been saved, if only they had rested content with their bare general knowledge and had not 'changed and adapted it to their own wishes and desires.' They would, however, owe their salvation ultimately to Christ, for their knowledge would be by no means full and complete until it was perfected by 'the Christ who was to come.'... It is interesting that Luther can suggest a possibility of salvation for men who have never actually heard of Christ; and we may notice that he also ventures to hope that Cicero 'and men like him' may be saved. But on such matters he does not dogmatize; they are for God, not Luther, to decide. What is more important is that he cannot conceive of any saving knowledge of God, that is, representing a right relationship to God, except a knowledge which, explicitly or implicitly, may be said to contain Christ. It is in this sense that we must understand his assertion that 'without Christ there is nothing else but mere idolatry, an idol and a false imagination of God.'

...

For Luther, . . . God is one who comes down, veiled in the larvæ of His creatures, and meets man precisely in the 'material substantial sphere' of the external world. In the stations, offices, and vocations He ordains, His divine will of love confronts men. It confronts them, of course, primarily as Law; but for those who have eyes to see, the Gospel is there as well. God gives and does so much good to us by means of His creatures, which remain good despite our sinful abuse of them, Luther maintains, that we should be able to recognize that He is a gracious God. Just as the larvæ Dei can be said, as it were, to contain Christ, so it can be said that 'God has placed forgiveness of sins in all His creatures'" (115 f.).

                                                                                                                                   * * * * * * *

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that neither Luther nor Watson interpreting Luther can fairly claim to hold a stable, self-consistent position.

...

As for Watson's totally unexpected and altogether unexplained qualifying phrase, "explicitly or implicitly," it is consistent and makes sense if, and only if, it applies to the distinction between the particular, or proper, knowledge of God, on the one hand, and the general knowledge of God, on the other, i.e., if the first is rightly said to be the explicit – -- and, for Christians, decisive – -- re-presentation of the second, just as the second is rightly said to have always already presented implicitly what the first re-presents explicitly – -- decisively.

Finally, if Luther's right both that knowledge of the Law is general and inobscurable and that the First Commandment is not only the fountain of all promises and the head of all religions and wisdom, but also contains within itself (implies?!) Christ and the Gospel, then it will hardly do to say that "the divine will of love" confronts women and men "primarily as Law." If Luther's right that the First Commandment, appropriately, doesn't command anything, but rather gives something – -- "I am the Lord your God!" – -- ; and if he's further right that without the First Commandment, there wouldn't be any Law at all – -- natural, Mosaic, or evangelical – -- then truly, and without inconsistent hedgings and qualifications, Christ and the Gospel are contained in all the "masks of God" and God has placed forgiveness of sins in all of God's creatures.

...