The above quote attributed to Luther was used by a Facebook friend to make a case against forensic justification. It seems this is from Table Talk, though I did not invest the time to run down the quote and secure a page number. But assuming that the quote is true, Dr. Luther’s critic puts words into the Wittenberg reformer’s mouth, that Luther is expressing a belief that “a person can rape and murder their [sic] way into heaven.”

It should be obvious to any scholarly opponent of Luther that this is clearly not the argument that he is making. He is clearly employing the literary device of hyperbole to make a point. It is apparent to anyone willing to be fair-minded about the whole thing that Luther nowhere argues that a person can rape and murder his way into heaven, but rather the argument is that God’s grace is greater even than the sins of the world.

The use of hyperbole and other figures of speech is nothing new when it comes to theology. In fact, our Lord shocked His hearers by saying that they should poke out their own eyes and chop off their hands and hate their parents, wives, children, and siblings. St. Paul cited an old saying that people living on the Greek Island of Crete “are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” adding, “This testimony is true.” One of Paul’s more amusing turns of phrase intended for effect is that he wished the guys making such a fuss about circumcision would go big or go home, so to speak, and chop off the whole kit and caboodle. That is, of course, a paraphrase, and it has nothing to do with certain surgical procedures that are all the rage right now.

For as long as men have put pen to paper, or chisel to stone, there have been figures of speech. Our Lord often spoke in this way, to the point where the disciples one day were stunned when he spoke to them literally, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!”

So I find it hard to believe that a self-professed theologian and philosopher should be dumbstruck by something like a figure of speech on the part of a theologian - especially one as prolific and playful with language as Dr. Martin Luther. In fact, there’s a whole lot more where that came from! It’s certainly not an honest way to frame someone’s beliefs based on a figure of speech pulled out of context. And in fact, this treatment of Luther is not unlike the stunt pulled on our Lord at His trial before the Sanhedrin, when one of His figures of speech was trotted out and trumped up as evidence to suggest that our Lord should be tried as a terrorist under Imperial jurisdiction (where there was conveniently a death penalty). After all, Jesus was conspiring to start an insurrection by talking about destroying buildings. Yes. I’m sure it was an honest mistake on their part rather than the deliberate and dishonest placing of words into our Lord’s mouth. And by the way, what I just said was sarcasm, another literary device.

As far as defending Luther goes, it goes without saying that Luther was wrong about many things. By definition, he was a poor miserable sinner just like the rest of us, with his own foibles and errors, poor judgment, subject to mental lapses, and with more than enough ability to be wrong about things. That’s the nature of being a fallen human being. And many non-Lutherans are under the impression that we canonize Luther’s words or treat his writings like sacred oracles. Though history has tagged us with the label “Lutherans,” it does not follow that we are “Lutherists” or “Lutherolatrists.” And it also goes without saying that Luther was a brilliant and prolific theologian, professor, scholar, church father, lecturer, preacher, and debater. But again, we do not impute infallibility to him, even though his name was put upon us. But Luther’s greatest work was not in the scholarly realm, but in the pastoral. For when He spoke the words of Holy Scripture, he was infallible. When he pronounced absolution, he spoke as an oracle of God - as do all pastors. His greatest works were his evangelical proclamation, baptizing, absolving, and administering the Holy Eucharist, speaking and acting ex officio in the stead and by the command of Christ.

Perhaps some Lutherans go too far in their admiration of Luther. And perhaps this is an unfortunate result of his name being placed on those of us whose churches confess the Augsburg Confession. All that said, Luther is as entitled as anyone else of being quoted fairly, in having figures of speech interpreted as they were intended, and not in a comical, cartoonish literal sense that would make him out to be a monster - which is precisely what this writer did.

As far as the author’s invocation of Romans 6:1-2, Luther did indeed “remember the words of St. Paul,” and what’s more, he preached, lectured, and wrote on these very verses - even as he lectured extensively on the Epistle to the Romans.

Lecturing on Genesis 29:1-3, probably in 1542, Luther cites Romans 6:2:

Or consider Luther’s lecture on Isaiah 43 (covering verse 24, probably in 1529) in which he posits: “Only this teaching of Christ frees us from our burden. One has sinned, another bears the punishment…. The sinner does not make satisfaction: the Satisfier does not sin. This is an astounding doctrine.” He goes on to say how this doctrine of Christ’s satisfaction for us can well be abused:

In his 1539 treatise On the Councils and the Church, Dr. Luther also famously railed against antinomians who might have said something like “Listen! Though you are an adulterer, a whoremonger, a miser, or other kind of sinner, if you but believe, you are saved, and you need not fear the law. Christ has fulfilled it all!” To this, Luther replied: “For there is no such Christ that died for sinners who do not, after the forgiveness of sins, desist from sins and lead a new life.”

So our self-described theologian, mystic, and philosopher - who deduces that Luther was somehow teaching the ability to “rape and murder [one’s] way into heaven”, and that this is the result of the doctrine of imputed righteousness - has either not read very much of Luther’s works, or he is deliberately lying to defame and debase, and to win people dishonestly to his side. The charitable thing would be to conclude the former (that is, ignorance) rather than the latter (that is, malice).