Bonhoeffer Interpretation of Luther

8/13/2019 Bonhoeffer Interpretation of Luther

1/18

BONHOEFFER'SEARLYINTERPRETATION OF

LUTHERASTHESOURCE OF HISBASIC

THEOLOGICALPARADIGM

By Jonathan D. Sorum, Greenfield Lutheran Church, Harmony, Minnesota

Luther was foundational for Bonhoeffer. When he met incomprehension

abroad, it was because he was speaking from within his vision of Luther, a the

ological framework alien to most of his ecumenical colleagues. When he met bitter

opposition at home, it was because his opponents believed that Bonhoeffer's vision

of Luther betrayed Luther' s central concerns. When, after his death, his interpreters

have claimed him for the most varied theological movements and trends,1 it is

because they have mostly failed to comprehend his vision of Luther, the theological

paradigm that was integral to him as a theologian and Christian.

THEMISSING CENTER

Justification of the ungodly by faith alone in Christ alone is central toBonhoef-

fer. Virtually all responsible interpreters have noted the importance of Bonhoeffer's

christology and the close connection between christology and ethics in his theology.

But what they have often failed to see is that christology and ethics are integral

to each other within the framework of justification by faith alone, as Bonhoeffer

learned that doctrine from Luther.2

^or example, Bonhoeffer has been characterized as a Bultmannian by Ronald Gregor Smith,SecularChristianity(NewYork:Harper&Row,1966);as apioneer of the exit from the bourgeoischurch into a new socialist world by Hanfried Mller,Von der Kirchezur Welt(Hamburg-Bergstedt: H. Reich Evang.,1961);as a (failed) Kierkegaardian by Klaus M. Kodalle,DietrichBonhoeffer:ZurKritik seiner Theologie(Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1991);as a prophet for conservative evangelicals against "modernism" by Georg Huntemann,TheOtherBonhoeffer: AnEvangelical Re-assessment ofDietrich Bonhoeffer, trans. Todd Huizing(Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993); as a forerunner of liberation theology by G. ClarkeChapman, Jr.; "Bonhoeffer: Resource for Liberation Theology," UnionSeminary Quarterly

Review36:4 (Summer 1981) 225-42; and, most infamously, as a herald of the so-called "Deathof God" by ThomasJ.J. Altizer and Willian Hamilton,Radical Theology and the Death of God


2/18

JonathanD. Sorum

Without justification by faith alone, chns tology and ethics are media ted by an

active imitatio Christ is at most the patt ern or example to which those who follow

Christ are to strive to conform their lives One gets the impression from man

Bonhoeffer interpreters that the Chris t they find in Bonhoeffer is one who led th

way into a new kind of existence "for others" and merely invites us to do the sameNot surprisingly, this "new existence" usually turns out to more or less reproduc

the interpreter's own political views,whether Marxist, liberationism existentialist

tradit ionalist, or liberal In whatev er terms it is described, however, this new

existence presents itself as law, a standard that we must actively strive to attain In

the last resort, such interpreters leave us on our own to attempt tolive up to thei

vision of Christ, a Christ who remains absent, impotent, and ul timately irrelevant

Bonhoeffer was completely capt ivated by God's act of justifying the ungodl

inJesus Christ Bonhoeffer developed the themes that have excited so many of hi

interpretersthemes such as the sociality of Chnst, costly grace, the view from

below, the ul timate and the penultimate, the world come of age, and rehgionles

Christianityprecisely on the basis of his understanding of Luther's doctrin

of justification The foundation of any adequate understa nding of Bonhoeffer i

therefore a thorough grasp of his interpretation of Luther And Bonhoeffer found

his way to Luther very early as he absorbed the lessons of his Berlin teachers o

theone hand, and of Karl Barth on the other

BONHOEFFER'SWAY BETWEENHISTEACHERSAND BARTHIn his evaluat ion of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's doctoral dissertation, Sanctorum

Communio, Reinhold Seeberg wrote, "He is striving to stake out his position

independently "3While gratefully bor rowing from both the liberal tradit ion of hi

Berlin teachers and Karl Barth's revolt against that tradition, Bonhoeffer went hi

own way, a way that he believed encompassed the main concerns of both and a

thesam e time avoided their senous deficiencies Bonhoeffer conceived of this third

way as an at temp t to recover Luther

What Bonhoeffer affirms in the liberal tradi tion is its loyalty to the world and

respect for whatexists He shares the Ritschhan rejection of metaphysics taken ove

by his teachers, such as Harnack, Holl, and Seeberg He,likethem, did notwish to

make claims about God that would somehow devalue the reality of the empirical

Thatone mustalways have one's feet ftrmly planted on the earth was always basi

for Bonhoeffer4

fundamental elementin my view,the fundamental elementof his theology" (Note Inthis and all subsequent quotes from German originals, the translations are mine Much o

theBonhoeffer scholarship in German is, of course, untranslated, as is much of Bonhoeffer

work itself Moreover, many of the present English translations of Bonhoeffer's works arclearly inadequate The forthcoming English translation oftheDietrichBonhoefferWerkesh

remedy this situation )


3/18

BONHOEFFER'S EARLY INTERPRETATION OF LUTHER

But Bonhoeffer came tobelieve that his teachers could only affirm theworld

by,ineffect, denying God.5The resultwas theeclipseof thedoctrineof justification

by faith among them.6Harnack had reduced Christianity to akind ofnomism. In

his case, Christianity ismerelyateaching, withou t thenecessityof thepresenceof

God.7

Seeberg, though a"conscious Lutheran"who asserted that religions cannotbe explained rationally,butonly in connection with revelation, thought that faith

has to be shown as fulfilling a need of the human spirit.8 Holl asserted that the

new thing inChristianity is the Godsinner relation. Butaccording to him,Jesus

is merely the one who teaches thejustification of theungodly. So even Holl did

not giveup theliberal imageofJesusas atbottom merelyateacherof truths about

God.9And forHoll, theknowledgeof sin wasessentially thesameas knowledge

of grace.10

All of these shared the basic conviction that Christianity supplies the completion or fulfillment of something given in human existence, such as religion,

personality,or themoral life.Theresultof this conceptionwas a dual ethic which

could neverinprincipleberesolved intoaunified one. Each individualis incontrol

of deciding when to follow the dictates of culture and when to follow the new

ethic offered by Christianity. The only unity is in the individual Christian. But

where does the human goalend and theChristian onebegin?Theultimate basis

of thepremature solutionsofthis dichotomyis the contradiction between human

individual autonomy and theheteronomy ofChristianity.On the onehand, how

can therebe a God who istrulyGod and yetdoesno tannihilate human freedom?

On theother hand,how canhuman beingsbetruly autonomous and free without

annihilat ing God 's freedom? The likely solution is thatGodfinally becomes nothing

more thanthefulfiller ofhuman needs,aconceptof Godthat eventually falls prey

totheFeuerbachian claim thatGod isnothingbu t aprojectionof the ideal human,

that is, an extension of thehuman self, so that God is completely dissolved into

humanity's claims about itself.

5Bonhoeffer's evaluatestheworkofhis teachersin hislectures entitled, "Die Geschichtedersystematischen Theologie des20.Jahrhunderts," (1931-32)inGesammelte Schriften(hereafterGS)ed.by Eberhard Bethge (Munich: Christian Kaiser Verlag, 1958-1972)vol.V,181-227.Theeditor states thatthetext oftheselectures, reconstructed from student notes,isthe best attestedof alltheBerlin lectures: "One may assume with some certainty that here one encounterstheauthentic voiceofBonhoeffer." (181)The following paragraphs arelargely based on theselectures.6Bonhoeffer correlates theAlleinwirksamkeitof God (Godacting alone without humanco-

operation)andjustificationbyfaith. See,e.g., hispaperatUnion Seminary "Charakterund

ethische Konsequenzendesreligisen Determinismus,"DBW10,411.7GSIII,197-201.8GS III 201


4/18

Jonathan D. Sorum

Barth, taking Feuerbach to heart, made God the central theme of theology

sharply distinguishing God from humanity and the world so that God in God's

freedom becomes the real theme of theology again. In a review of Karl Heim's

book,Glaubeund Denken(1932), Bonhoeffer reveals the extent of his agreement with

Barth. Heim had accused Barth of trying to make God an object of thought, withthe result that his theology is a last effort to secure himself against God and God's

entry into human life. On the contrary, Bonhoeffer wrote, Barth's whole theologica

program aims precisely to guard against this danger. Barth knows that only the

Holy Spirit can speak theconcretissimumand that everyconcretum of human wordsremainsabstractum if it is not spoken by the Holy Spirithimself.11In his evaluationof Barth's theology in his Berlin lecture on the history of systematic theology in the

twentieth century, Bonhoeffer pointed out that Barth's beginning point was neither

the World War nor the cultural crisis, but rather a new coming to the Word. His

theology arose, not from the trenches, but from a village pulpit, from the struggle

to hear the Word between God and the devil. God himself must speak on Sunday

morning at 10 a.m. Bonhoeffer stood side by side with Barth reckoning on a God

who is truly God, whose utter actuality humans could never hope to usurp, though

they sinfully try.When Barth speaks of transcendence, he means something entirely

concrete,

[nlamely the humbling of the human being who must speak God's Word and yet only speakaboutGod. A human being cannot be in control over God. Instead, a human being's word i

bound to an act of God that precedes it, and therein also follows it. In Tillich and in the YouthMovement transcendence is an enlarging of perspectives; in Barth it is the God who bringsto decision, the God who comes as opposed to the God who merely exists. God is neither farnor near; he is the one who comes.12

The Barthian revolution is truly theological. "The turning point is therefore not anevent of history in general, but instead occurs within theology as such: one wishes

once again really 'to speak rightly of God.' "13

And to speak rightly of God means to stand back and let God speak God'sjustifying Word. Bonhoeffer writes of Barth. "Here w e are deal ing with a theology

that wants to thoroughly understa nd thesola fideagain, which therefore is based onpredestination, and which therefore makes use of a dialectical form of speech."14

Barth aims to recover the Pauline and Reformation theme of justification by faith

alone. Only on that basis can one then consider what the world and human existence

are all about.

From the beginning Bonhoeffer is also critical of Barth. Barth's understanding

of ethics as demonstration guards the divine transcendence: he refuses to let God

be subsumed into human religious and moral striving. But in doing so, Barth is

unable to bring Christian existence down to earth. His extreme actualism cannotarticulate a being of God that would be the basis of the earthly existence of God's


5/18


theology, he has done so at the expense of not taking the world as seriously as the

liberals did. Consequently, the church's message is essentially other-worldly and

therefore ineffectual. God and humans are not in the same world; hence, there is a

chasm between dogmatics and ethics. The liberals have only ethics (the world) and

cannot make dogmatics (God) intelligible and Barth has only dogmatics (God) andcannot make ethics (the world) intelligible. So both fail to adequately elucidate the

place where God and the world are both real.

But Luther was not caught in such a bind. For Luther, God is truly God, not by

being made distinct from the world but by going deeply and unreservedly into the

world. The Word and Sacraments set Christians in a "Christmas world," a world

in which God is truly present, present in the churchitself:"The congregation is the

present Christ himself."15

The church's life in the world is not its efforts to imitate

God and somehow attain to the character of God 's life, that is, its own grasping fordivinity in actual opposition to God. The church's life is truly God's life by virtue

of the imputation, the word of justification, which is the gift to it of God's earthly

existence in Jesus Christ. So dogmatics and ethics are one. Bonhoeffer concludes

his lecture on systematic theology in the twentieth century as follows, "Luther

could writeThe Bondage of the Will and the pamphlet on usury16 at the same time.Why can't we do that anymore? Who shows us Luther?"17 Luther could do both

dogmatics and ethics at the same time. Precisely God's being God (and it is deeply

in the flesh on the cross that God achieves being God to his fallen creatures) is what

gives to believers the gift of concrete, bodily existence in this world, the gift that

also gives the foundation of the whole world's reality.

Bonhoeffer seeks to follow Luther. Bonhoeffer's way between his teachers

and Barth is not some compromise between the two, but a third way, the way

of Martin Luther. Any unders tanding of the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer must

begin with an underst and ing of his unde rstanding of the theology of Martin Luther,

for Bonhoeffer's task was nothing else than to "show us Luther."18

THE"HOLYCIRCLE":BONHOEFFER'SEARLY UNDERSTANDING OF LUTHER

Bonhoeffer staked out his basic position as an interpreter of Luther whi le still

a student. His early understanding of Luther is evident in a paper he wrote in

Karl Holl's Luther seminar in 1926 entitled "Luthers Anschauungen vom Heiligen

5GSIII, 226.Still thinking in the categories ofAkt undSeinin this lecture in1932,Bonhoefferstates what could be taken asadefinition ofhistheologicaltask:"Itisto the shame of present-day Lutherans that it simply does not occur to them to define the Lutheran understanding ofrevelation in oppositiontothe Catholic notion of substance on the oneside,and the actualismof the Reformed on the other."GSV, 226.16Bonhoeffer evidently means Luther's "Von Kaufshandlung und Wuchen " WA 15 293-313


6/18

Jonathan D. Sorum

Geist nach den Disputationen von 1535-1545 herausgegeben von Drews."19 A

close reading of this paper reveals Bonhoeffer in the process of formulating th

nucleus of his own theological position as he found his way between Barth and hi

teachersin this case, Hollto an understanding of Luther that undergirded al

his subsequent theological work.Bonhoeffer based his essay, in part, on two of Holl's essays,The Reconstructio

of Morality and What Did Luther Understand byReligion?70 Holl interpreted Luthe

in terms of a religion of conscience. According to Holl, Luther discerned the basi

immorality of the Roman Catholic conception of morality. Since Augustine, th

church had understood the moral life as that which established one's relationship

with God. The purpose for doing good was to acquire merit, either for salvation

itself or else forahigher level of salvation. But Luther's conscience would not let him

believe that he could ever make any claim on God through his own miserable worksHe experienced the claim of God on him as sheer duty, which must be offered wit

a will wholly oriented toward God in love and faith, without any selfish motives a

all. In the midst of his despair, Luther made the great discovery that morality is no

the basis of religion (right relationship to God) but rather that religion is the basi

of true morality. The certainty that one is forgiven by God creates a new feeling

within one that leads to freely and joyfully loving God and the neighbor withou

any selfish ulterior motives at all. One is freed from individualistic self-seekin

in the moral life to a life of service within the community. Thus, the message o

justification is the only basis of true morality.

Holl's interpretation of Luther aimed to be profoundly theocentric. Th

commandmentparticularly the First Commandmentas the demand for a tota

submission to God out of a pure duty to God that is free of all self-seeking is th

foundation of transcendence, the assurance that one is truly dealing with God, no

with a projection of oneself, and that the forgiveness of sins is not a mere wish

fulfillment of the ego.21The very fact that God does not withdraw the command

ment from the guilty sinner reveals that God still wishes to be in relationship to th

sinner, and the sinner under judgment lays hold of the commandment itself as th

implicit forgiveness of sins, in a real sense wielding God against God. Precisely in

thus giving all glory to God inAnfechtungen(spiritual trial), holding God to God

own primal will for communion with the creature for God's sake, without any

i9DBW 9,355-410.

20The original German versions are in Karl Holl,Gesammelte Aufstze zur KirchengeschLuther,2dand3dexpanded and improveded.(Tbingen: J.C.B. Mohr[PaulSiebeck],1923110,155-287.ET:The ReconstructionofMorality,ed.James Luther Adams and Walter F. Btrans.Fred W. Meuser and Walter R. Wietzke (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1979)and What D

Luther UnderstandbyReligion?ed. James Luther Adams and Walter F. Bense, trans. Fre


7/18


benefit in sight for theself,the self gives God his right and becomes conformed to

Christ in the true God-relationship.

Despite his intentions, however, Holl's position is still essentially anthropocen-

tric.The continuity between the old and new existence is in the inward experience

of believers. Luther 's merit , according to Holl, is to have shown the true earnestnessof human religion in general, which is founded on the consciousness of one's

duty to fear and love God completely free of any thought of seeking after one's

own blessedness. The knowledge of the forgiveness of sins places religion on its

true basis by transforming the despairing conscience into the joyful conscience,

which becomes the new will that responds to God's grace in joy and gratitude.

The will suffers a complete transformation with the reception of the gospel, but it

is a transformation that is completely intelligible in immanent terms and can be

fully described psychologically. The human self retains its continuity throughoutand Christianity is explicated in terms of its needs and aspirations. So Holl has not

really advanced fundamentally beyond the liberal theology from which he sprang,

and from which he was consciously trying to distance himself after World War I.

Christ recedes far into the background in Holl's conception of Luther. As

we have seen, Bonhoeffer later judged that in Holl's version of Luther Christ is

at bottom merely a teacher, the one who reveals that God wills to be gracious

to sinners.22 Indeed, Christ seems almost superfluous in Holl's schema, since in

Anfechtungen, when Christ appears as judging law-giver, one has to go beyondChrist to the primal God-relationship given in the First Commandment, and there

lay hold of God as gracious. So despite his more radical understanding of sin, Holl

has not really moved beyond the liberal conception of Christ as essentially a teacher,

whose teachings can be detached wi thout harm from his person, and whose person

is therefore ultimately unimportant to faith.23

By the time the young Bonhoeffer wrote his paper for Holl's seminar he had

come under the influence of Barth and these last two pointsHoll's anthropocentric

reliance on human religion as the foundation for understanding Christianity and his

devaluing of Christwould surely have become objectionable to him. Bonhoeffer

22See the 1930 Berlin lecture, "Die Frage nach dem Menschen in der Gegenwrtigen Philoso

phie und Theologie,"DBW10,371,where Bonhoeffer makes this point. Holl responded toGogarten's similar critique ofhisposition inalengthy footnote inWhat Did Luther UnderstandbyReligion,51-53,n.28.His main point is that Christ's main function is to reveal the Father'swill, both the depths of the moral demand and the radicality of the offer of forgiveness. "Whatultimately matters, therefore, is how the Father is disposed"(53).If this is true, then it is hardto see how Christ is finally more than a teacher.23

Holl's conception of Christ in Luther is quite confusing and contradictory, which is notsurprising given the extreme christocentrism that most interpreters now find in Luther. Onthe one hand Holl is not unhappy to report that Luther often verges on the heresies of


8/18

JonathanD.Sorum

could not besatisfied with Holl's "psychologism "2 4

For Bonhoeffer, the conscienc

could not possibly be the bridge to the transcendent, much less its guarantor In

that case, the hum an religious impulse would be entirely in control But it is thi

very impulse, the whole moral and religious selfincluding even the conscienc

thatperceives the sinfulness of hu ma nstrivingafter blessednessthat must comto an end with the actual coming of God ^

Some of Hol l's critiques of the nascent dialectical theology nevertheless would

always find echoes m Bonhoeffer In his reply to Gogarten's attack on his Luthe

interpretation, Holl asks how a gospel that is totally alien to human moral and

religious experience can reach people m their concretelives "H ow do we get from

the testimony of theology (and preaching) to conviction7"

2 6 Bonhoeffer will neve

ask the question in terms of the famous "point of contact," as Holl does here, bu

hewill never be content to say that one must preach the Word of God in defiancof earthly reality and simply wait for God to unilaterally work the miracle of faith

Holl further accuses Gogarten of subscribing to the old Mela nchthoman Lutheran

Orthodoxy, in which Christ is merely the one wh o covers the believer's sin as faith

lays hold of his atoning work Holl insists that Lutherbelieves that Christ is also

"aliveand at work in the hearts of believers" so that the "one with who m Godo u

of free gracehas entered into relationship will actually become righteous in thi

relationship "2 7

He goes on almost prophetically to attack Gogarten's virtua

detachment of "secular matters" from any moral standards given in revelation

a fatal move that a decade later would lead many leading German Protestants

Gogarten among them, into the arms of the Nazis Barth, of course, did not fal

into this trap His refusal to separate faith in Christ from obedience to Chns t made

him the theological leader of the resistance to the Naziftcation of the church and

a bitter opponent of Goga rten and his kind Bonhoeffer stood firmly with Barth in

thechurchstruggle Yet he would alwaysuntil the end of his life have reservation

24The "Notiz zu Luthers Romerbriefvorlesung" (DBW9,324), which mostlikely stems from

his time as a student, underscores Bonhoeffer's rejection of psychologism, most especiallyin his interpretation of Luther "Theological logic has the intention of freeing itself frompsychologism, it does not speak of sin and revelation as the content of consciousness, but a

what isgiveninrevelation recognizingthatwhich is spokeninrevelationandtheauthorities Sin, he remarks, must also be believed Bonhoeffer is here rejecting the Troeltschian religiou

apnon, the law of consciousness that is actually expressed in religious life which providethebasisfor determining thetruthof religion, and also for the purification and developmenof naturally occurring psychological religion SeeDBW 9,324, 325

See Barth's critique of religion,TheEpistleto theRomans, trans Edwyn Hoskyns (Lond

Oxford University Press, 1933) 44,4849, 67 and throughout InTheWordofGodandtheW

ofMan, trans DouglasHorton(Gloucester, MA Peter Smith, 1978) 196, Barthexpressesthimost pungently "There are those to whom Schleiermacher's peculiar excellence liesin hi


9/18


about Barth's ability to articulate a concrete ethic on the basis of his fundamental

theological position.

Clearly Holl 's protests are a consistent theme in Bonhoeffer's career, prevent

ing him from ever becoming a true Barthian (to say nothing of falling in with

Gogarten's brand of Neo-Lutheranism) even as he deeply identified himself withBarth's protest against liberal theology. Bonhoeffer, then, had to find his own way to

Luther, and this student essay reveals how he combined Holl's interpretation with

basic insights from Barth in order to do just that. As one would expect in such an

immature work, the combination of the two positions is sometimes crude, in some

places amounting to little more than a juxtaposition of the two. Yet, Bonhoeffer's

original position does emerge with some clarity, and it was this position that formed

the foundation of all his future work.

Bonhoeffer follows Holl's conception quite closely in much of his expositionof Luther. He reports that Luther teaches that the Holy Spirit "in majesty," working

through the preaching of the law, gives the realization that the commandments are

to be followed out of the will of the one commanding, but humans can only follow

them out of their own will. With this realization, the whole weight of sinfulness

falls upon a person and one realizes for the first time what conscience is. This is

not a merely subjective psychological experience, but a truly objective collision

between God as God and the human. Those with a secure conscience cannot hate

and blaspheme God, that is, the true God, since they only have their own false god.

When those undergoingAnfechtung (spiritual trial) come to believe that it is the t rueGod who is after them, the way is open to their consolation. The Spirit in majesty is

the Holy Spirit, and as such, cannot let the person be destroyed, but as the burden

of sin is laid upon the person, the Holy Spirit removes it again. The person believes

in the fact that this burden is removed and gains the evangelica desperatio.Hatredfor God becomes love for God and the person atta ins to the fulfillment of the law

and is righteous and holy before God.

This newself,however, is righteous and holy precisely as sinner.

[A]nd as certainly as he [the believer] is righteous before God, just as certainly is he still asinner in this world; as certainly as the Spirit is in him, just as certainly is he also in the flesh;and a mighty battle rages between the two colossal powers."28

Since even Christians remain in the power of sin and cannot not sin, they mustrepeatedly turn from despair and give God the glory as children, not as slaves,

and grasp in faith the forgiveness of sins by the working of the Holy Spirit. This

is evangelical repentance, in which Christians continually only make a beginning

at living in faith, only to fall into sin again. The foundation of this struggle andrepentance is the certainty that Jesus has won the victory. Apart from this certainty,

th t l i t i i t j i d i d d t d it t


10/18

Jonathan D. Sorum

believer is to be overwhelmed by sadness over one's sin, for such sadness is itsel

sin,virtually the essence of sin The work of the gospel is certainty with regard t

God's will for one, doubt is the work of the law The whole ministry of the Spiri

leads to a yearning for the Last Day, when faith will be seeing and when believer

will be able to bear the vision of the Spirit in glory because their hearts are entirelcleansed

Bonhoeffer, however, breaks with Holl at the crucial point by introducin

Barth's eschatological discontinuity between the old self and the new self Bu

for Bonhoeffer the discontinuity is not based on the abstract otherness of Barth'

God, the discontinuity is based on thesubstitution of a totally new self for the old

sinfulself,and this new self is none other than Christ himself, God who isprome I

contrasttoHoll, Bonhoeffer's Luther interpretation is chnstocentnc (and, one migh

add, therefore truly theocentnc ) It is not the self's perception of the awesomenes

of the moral demand before God but rather ChnstGod deep in the flesh unde

the crossthat secures transcendence The self dies and is replaced by Christ

In this early writing, Bonhoeffer expresses his christology in terms of the Hol

Spirit as gift, as Christ The Holy Spirit as gift produces faith Like can only b

grasped by like Faith grasps God, not in his absolute essence, in which he canno

be grasped, but as gift, that is, as Christ In the faith worked by the Holy Spirit

I grasp subjectively that Chnst's death and resurrection are for me, not merel

objective historical events As such, I possess Christ as gift In fact, Christ is in m

as faith is m me, and Christ lives, dies, etc, in me "He [Luther] could equally welsay I believe, I have the Holy Spirit, I have Christ ',30In this way, a "holy circle

comes into being

Bonhoeffer borrows this concept of a "holy circle" from Barth and his col

leagues31In his student paper, "Referat ber historische und pneumatischeSchrif

tauslegung,"32 Bonhoeffer describes the circle m "spiritual" interpretation If i

really is God who speaks m the Bible, then it cannot be humans who hear, bu

again God who hears The object of knowledge must make the knowing subjec

as the organ of knowing in the act of knowing In this way, God "becomes" Hol

Spirit Like can only be known by like, God only by God

Spiritual understanding is not to be identified with a prion insight, as, for example, whemathematical axioms are heldtobe self-evident In that case anaprion spmtual structure ohuman beingsis assumedthat inspintual understandingisfirst created byGod For Godcaonly be grasped out of God's Spirit Spintual understanding is therefore experience of thmost remarkable kind, and notapnon Only here does enlightenment occur, without whicheverything amounts to nothing ^

The holy circle undermines the religion of conscience Holl finds m Luther, fo

the conscience cannot be the organ that apprehends revelation The conscience mus

30DBW 9 373


11/18

BONHOEFFER'S EARLY INTERPRETATION OFLUTHER

come toan endwith the comingofGod's Spirit. But Bonhoeffer parts company with

Barth bygrounding transcendence,not in the abstract distinction ofCreator, the

"Wholly Other," from creation, but in the Creator' s unreservedly going into creation

to take theplaceofsinners.Inthisway, the young Bonhoeffer could describe the

concrete existenceof the newself in theworld (whichwasdifficult forBarthbutnotforHoll), whileat thesame time assertingi tsradical discontinuity wi ththe old

(whichwasimpossible forHollbutabsolutely necessaryforBarth).

Therefore, Bonhoeffer can take over Holl's description of Luther's concept

of the new self, but what Holl interprets psychologically, Bonhoeffer interprets

eschatologically The Holy Spiritis not to beidentified wi thafeelinginresponseto

God's forgiveness "that springsupoutofthe innermost depths of personal being."34

The Holy Spirit takestheplaceof that "personal being"in thecomingof theWord

of justification.But theHoly Spiritis notsimply to be identified with theWord,asifonecould possess theSpiritbypossessing theWord.Inthat case,theself would

be intactandhavetheWordat itsdisposal. Instead,theHoly Spirit comes through

the Word. As Bonhoeffer writes, "To be sure, theWord is accessible to me and

its contentcan be grasped intellectually,but itspower torelate itscontent to me

is hidden from m e . . . In order to acquire faith from theWord, I need spiritual

understanding."35 Toapprehend theWord as "for me"what Bonhoeffer calls

"spiritual understanding"is thesovereign workof theSpirit.TheSpirit working

in theWord must become thereceptor of theWord aswellas theproclaimer. In

order for this tohappen, theWord,as theWord of the crucified Christ, must go

into thesinner and take thesinner's placeas the one who is for the sinner. Faith,

receptionof theWordofjustification, is in nosense one'sownwork,"butinsteadis

purelytheworkof theSpirit(passio)."36The self contributes nothingatall,notevenitsowndeepest and purest apprehension of the legal demand.Theself dies.The

gospelis not themere satisfyingofthe legal demand, therebyineffect ratifying it as

still bindingandsecuringthecontinuityof thelegalself. Ifthatisso, then Christis

not lord;theself remains lord,theself whose needs Christ servesin this case,the

need tosatisfy thelaw.ButChrist abolishesthewhole legal schema, includingthelegalself, andtakesitsplace.My newexistenceisChrist's existencein theworld,

and not my own atall.

Bonhoeffer therefore concludes that Luther's viewof spiritual understanding

has nothingto dowith Dilthey's (and Holl's) psychological interpretation, which

posits a different kind of "circle."37

InDilthey's hermeneutical circle,one brings

one's own consciousness to a text, which then critiques it. One then brings this

modified consciousnessto thetext, which then critiquesitfurther. Inthis way,one

^Holl, WhatDidLuther UnderstandbyReligion?53,n.28.35DBW 9 395-6 Holl wrote in the margin at this point "What is spiritual understanding?


12/18

JonathanD.Sorum

hopes eventually toshare at least approximately in the same experience that the

author had.In hisearlier essayon spiritual interpretation, Bonhoeffer had pointed

out that inDilthey's hermeneutic theinterpreting "I" cannever quite cometo the

contentof thetext,butalways remains essentially aloneand incontrol: "Eventhe

most sympathetic interpreter understandsout of his or her own "I;"faith, whichis God' s willitself,understandsout of thecontent[of thetext itself.]"38

ButinLuther, according to Bonhoeffer, faithis not theself extending beyond

itselfand behind the Wordto gain the experienceofcertainty, joy,andgratitude

that issupposedly thetrue meaningof themessageof thegospel. Instead, thesel

comesto an end in"spiritual understanding ." Itdies,andsomething entirelynew

comeson thescene,theWord that takes theplaceof thesinner.God is notjustthe

object offaith,butalsothesubject.Theconscience,thewhole moraland religiou

self, is "out of theloop,"so tospeak.Farfrom beingthelocusofthe unionofdivineand human freedom in the transformed will,theself is at an end.

If the self dies, then the certaintyoffaith, the certainty of having the Holy Spirit

must find itsground outsidethe self, inChrist.Inwhat issurelyacritiqueofHoll

Bonhoeffer pointsoutthatagood conscience, evenaChristian's good conscience

is thoroughly ambiguous;itcannot supplythe "proof" offaith. So whatcansupply

the proof of faith? Where isthis union ofdivine and human freedom outside the

self that grounds thecertaintyof faith?

The answer is surprising. Bonhoeffer discovers that insteadofdirecting people

to look within themselves to their consciences for certainty, Luther directs people

to look outside themselves to their works. Faith will produce actsof love, which

will testify to theauthenticityofone's faith, both tooneselfand toothers.Butsince

these works remain marred bysin,ho w cantheybe thebasisofcertainty thatone

has theHoly Spirit? Bonhoeffer answers:

[TJhose who truly believe havethestrength to believe that even their impureandimperfecworks pleaseGod and arepureandperfectin hissight,andtherefore they become certainthrough their works.But it isinsofar astheybelieve that they become certain through th

works, through which faith is firstto be madecertain?9

Soone becomes certain through one's works in that oneregards them infaith as

Christ's works.We areback to theholy circle. Faith canonly become certain outof faith, likecanonly grasp like."God isbecause Ibelievehim and Ibelievehim

becausehe is. Ihave theSpirit because Ibelieve that I do andbecause Ihave the

Holy Spirit, I believeinhim."40If theHoly Spiritisalways subject, thereis noroom

foranyindependent human subject;thecomingof theHoly Spirit meansthedeath

ofthe self.Faith believes that the one wh o isworkingin one is thevery Spiritof

Christ.

Here we stand at a crucial place in Luther's concept of the Christian life for


13/18


and insight. The death of the self in faith is an entirely concrete happening. This

is so because faith is the laying hold of the concrete, earthly life of Jesus, an alien

existence, not a continuously existing self appropriating for itself the "knowledge"

of the forgiveness of sins and thereby acquiring new affections of certainty and

gratitude (a so-called "new self") that become the motives for true good works.God has led and still leads a concrete life in the world defined once and for all by

Jesus' going under sin, being accounted a sinner for the sake of humanity . Therefore,

in finally going into the actuality of their sinful lives, humans go into God's life.

They lose all claim on their works, even the claim that might accrue to their credit

for agonizing over their sins to the point of paralysis. Their whole identity is to be

sinners borne by Christ. When they claim their works in all their sinfulness and

impurity, yet believe that these works are pleasing to God, they are claiming their

identity as sinners, yet believing that they are pleasing to the God who justifiesthe ungodly. In effect, in grasping one's works in faith as utterly sinful one grasps

Christ who became utterly sinful for humanity's sake, trusting in him as the one

who alone is righteous.

Faith is therefore a concrete action in the world , not an inward experience

that transforms one's dispositions. The locus of the union of human and divine

freedom is not in the transformed will, but in one's actions, in the movement into

one's own sinful existence, where one is borne by Christ. In claiming one's self as

sinful, one loses oneself and has only Christ. The old self is dead. The life of the

Christ ian is truly new, an eschatological existence, precisely as existence under the

cross that does not any more seek to climb out of the place that Christ took for

sinful humanity. What comes to expression in the world in the Christian's works

is Christ's own life, with its downward movement toward the cross, in place of the

life of the moral and religious person, with its upward movement toward glory.

In terms of law and gospel, Bonhoeffer's christocentric view leads him to see

both law and gospel revealed in Christ, for it is only in Christ that the law becomes

pure accusing voice, so that it can no longer be confused with the gospel, as it would

seem to be for Holl. Acceding to the law as pure accusing voice is precisely what thesinful human can never do, for the sinful human must always have some hope that

somehow the law can be fulfilled, if only through having the accounts squared by

being forgiven by God so that this forgiveness can be the basis of a "reconstruction

of morality." We see here that Hollhimself,as long as he held onto the legal schema,

could not completely excise self-seeking from it, for one could only give all glory

to God for God's sake alone for one's own sake alone. The legal schema, no matter

how refined, is essentially egoistic. But for Bonhoeffer, the believer grasps his or

her sinfulnessthe law purely as accusing voicein grasping Christ as the onewho became a sinner for the believer. One's whole identity, as saint and as sinner,

is given in the imputation This faith is what for the first time gives one one's


14/18

Jonathan D. Sorum

Christis tolive Christ's ownlifeonearth, thelifeof the one wh owent undersin

foroursake. The Christian lifeistherefore both entirely concreteandentirelynew

THE ESCHATOLOGICAL BOUNDARY

In thisway, theeschatological boundary, theboundary betweenthe old andthe new, between thisage and the age tocome, appears entirely within this world

and within historyin theworksofbelievers entered intoinfaith. Believersare no

left towonder where thenorms of this world leaveoff and the norms introduced

by Christianity begin. The bounda ry between the old and the newdoesnotappea

where theinadequacyof the old comes into view and the self must turn to God

for divine help. Christianity is not about supplementing, strengthening, or even

transforming theselfsothatit canreachitsgoalofrighteousnessand communion

with God. Christianity isabout thesubstitution ofChristfor thetotally sinful self

The boundary betweenthe old and the newappearsinthis world whereoneclaim

one's sinfulness in itstotalityas it isgiveninChristandthereby exhibits the bodily

concrete life of Christ within theworld. Thebeliever leaves behind thenormso

this world entirely and lives Christ's ownlife inthis world, completely free from

the law. Theeschatological boundary appearsin theworld where human beings

in faith inChrist,arecompletely emptiedand die tothemselvesand theworld in

their works. These worksof thebeliever arethereforenot at allworksof the self

theyareidentical toGod's unilateralact for theworldat thecrossof Jesus Christ.

Soatthe very beginning of his theological development, Bonhoeffer definestheboundar y betweenGod and theworld as amonergismof theSpiritasunderstood

within thecontextofLuther's doctrineofjustification. God is histheme, firstand

foremost, and God as trulyGod, as the one who acts alone in his creating and

redeeming Word.41TheSpiritofGod, comingin theWord,for thefirst time bring

the individual human being into existence beforeGod as awill opposed to God

41Bonhoeffer repeatedly returns to this theme. In a paper he wroteforDeimann, he remarkthat both PaulandJohn teach thetotal inabilityofhuman beingstosave themselves.In

very early sermon (DBW 9,485-91), Bonhoeffer states thatthePharisees forgot thatGod iGod andhumansarehumansand God stands overandagainst thewhole human, bodyand spirit.He wasespecially atpains tostress this point with Americans.In thelecture"CharakterundEthische Konsequenzen desReligisen Determinismus/' (1931)(DBW10411) Bonhoeffer asserted that belief that God works alonetosave humanity, without humancooperation, and beliefinjustification by faith are the same. He goes on to say that in contrasto religious determinism,inwhich goodandevil are always already subsumed inan apriorsynthesis within theideaofGod,inChristian faith thereis nointerpretationof theworldaheadoftime according toanideaofGod,butratheraquestioningofthe humanandhisorher situation before God. The human doesnotknow the answer aheadoftime,butwaitsfor

an answer fromGod himself. God andhuman being standaspersonandperson overandagainst one another.Godalone worksinfreedom. The human remains fullyinthe almightypowerofGod. This, Bonhoeffer maintainsinDBW10,413-14,is themain pointofLuther'


15/18

BONHOEFFER'S EARLY INTERPRETATION OFLUTHER

butwho is a newself in thecertainty of Christ's death and resurrection for me,

a certainty based on the fact that theHoly Spirit aloneis atwork in justification,

indeed, thattheHoly Spiritas theSpiritofChristis the new self.The true boundary

between the old and the new isdrawnas Godgives himself overasinvincible gift

tobe thebeliever'sown identity.

BONHOEFFER'SBASIC PARADIGM

This understanding of thecross as the eschatological boundary is thebasic

paradigmof all of Bonhoeffer's later theology. It differs fundamentally from the

basic paradigm underlying most theology, whichwe maysummarize in general

termsasfollows:

1.Godis Godbyvirtueofanapriori distinction between Godandcreation.The

beginning pointoftheologyissome understandingof theworld;God ispositedasin somewayother than that world, even if closely identified withit.

2.God's workinsomewayeffects thehealingof afallen creation. This healing

may beunderstood in primarily individualistic terms (e.g., the salvation of the

soul)orprimarily social terms (e.g.,theestablishmentof thekingdom ofGod).In

either case theology describes some defect inhuman selvesand howthat defect is

tobe remedied.

3.The huma n will is free with regardtoits relat ionship with God. There always

remains some substrateofgood withinthe self, however feeble, that canrespond

totheremedy thatGodoffers andmakeiteffective in thelifeof the self.

4.Any God that theology posits isathreat to hu ma n freedom, the very freedom

that posits thisGod in thefirst place.So theconflict between God's freedom and

ours remainsanunsolvable puzzle thatcanfinally onlybefinessed or ignored.

5. The Christian life is (at least ideally) a process of the defect gradually

diminishing in a person (or a community of persons) the more the remedy is

allowed towork.

It is evident that this paradigm describes the basic outline, notonly of the

medieval Christianity criticizedby theReformation, butalsoofmuch of present-day Christianity in all itsvariety. Bonhoeffer's basic paradigm,on theother hand,

parallels Luther' s in protest against both medieval andmodern Christianity.His

paradigmis asfollows:

1.God is not defined abstractly indistinction from theworld,but concretely

as fully intheworld without remainder in thelifeanddeathof thehuman being

Jesus Christ. The onlyGod weknowis thehuman being Jesus,whowas born,who

suffered, and whodiedforus. This christology, whichheexpoundsatlengthin his

1933 christology lectures,isbasicfor all hiswritings.2.Thetheme of theology is not thehealing of the self, but thedeath of the

lf Th "h l i l " i di t th t Ch i t t k th l f th b li F ith


16/18

Jonathan D. Sorum

as congregation" is Bonhoeffer's way of describing the justified community whose

personisthe Christ-person. Bonhoeffer's most extensive reflections on the death ofthe self are inThe Cost of Discipleship,where he struggles to break free entirely fromthe "psychologism" of his teachers by means of his concept of "following" (Nach

folge).LifeTogether reports Bonhoeffer's experience of life together in a communityof the Word that understood itself as "Christ existing as congregation." The critique

of "religion" and the attempt at a non-religious interpretation of Biblical concepts

inLetters and Papers from Prison is Bonhoeffer's final and sharpest critique of thChris tianity tha t tries to palm itself off as the answer to the various "religious needs"

that human beings supposedly have. Bonhoeffer claims that the "world come of

age" can get along very well without this Christiani ty's nostrums, finally forcing

Christianity to abandon the religious guise it has worn for so long and reclaim its

identity at the cross of Jesus, where all religious claims die and believers are forced

down into the world , without (the religious) "God," but with Jesus, there to watch

with him and share in his bearing of the sufferings of the world. The death of the

self with Jesusthe actual death of theself, not the mere humbling of the self or

the death of the self in some other merely metaphorical senseis at the core of

Bonhoeffer's theology.

3.The human will is not free to accede to what God has done in Christ, but is

bound to refuse it. The confession tha t one will inevitably and incorrigibly refuse

Christ is integral to faith, which clings to Christ alone, and not to itself at all. Faith

as non-reflexive regard for Christ is truly the death of the self and all claims the self

makes foritself.The doctrine of hum an free will with regard to salvation necessarily

reduces Christianity to an activeimitatio,even if the extent of theimitatiois merely to"accept" the offer of God' s grace. Even the slightest concession to "free will" at this

point gives up everything. That God works all in all without h uman cooperation

is always fundamental to Bonhoeffer.

It is precisely in weakness at the cross that God is truly God, the one who

works all in all. Therefore, Bonhoeffer's doctrine of predestination never lapses

into a fatalism. It is not an abstract doctrine that obviates the need for any others(you are either predestined or not and there is nothing you can do about it either

way).Bonhoeffer understood predest ination in the spirit of Luther'sBondageof theWill: as the final nail in the coffin of the sinful self anxiously trying to secure itsown election. The predestining God has revealed his decision for the believer in the

proclamation of the cross as invincibly for the believer. God's unilateral decision

puts an end to living out of one's possibilities and marks the beginning of living

out of the actuality of the present and living God.

4.God's freedom and human freedom co-inhere. The conflict between the two

disappears because true human freedom only appears with the believer's new

identity as Christ given in the Word of justification. The believer for the first time


17/18


in the word of justification is to claim one's works as utterly sinful and yet to dare

them in the faith that the Holy Spirit is working in them. If any good is to happen

through me, God will have to do it! Note carefully the fundamentally different

imitatiothat comes into view here. It is not an active imitatiothat strives to attain a

standard set before it, but a passive imitatiowhose content is precisely the givingup of such striving. It is the coming to expression in the life of believers of the

very life of Christhimself.Believers lose themselves in looking to Christ alone and

in this way they are the very body of Christ. Their works, instead of being that

which constitutes their identity, are lost to them. They never truly know what God

is doing in them. But what others observe and experience in them is the very love of

Christ. Bonhoeffer's most extensive completed work,The Cost of Discipleship,is hisexplication of this new imitatioto a church for which the Christian life had become

little more than assent to the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins. Following Jesus isentering into Jesus' own existence in this world, living his life instead of a life one

manufactures for oneself with works of the law. The Christian life is being borne

by him, being justified by faith in him alone, being persecuted by an evil world for

his sake, and being preserved in hope of a resurrection like his. It is the passive

suffering of grace, in which the very resurrection life of God becomes evident in

the life of believers under the cross.

With the five points of this paradigm firmly in mind, even the most obscure and

fragmentary of Bonhoeffer's writings become clear. From an early age, Bonhoeffer

took seriously God's actual presence in the world in Jesus Christ as the one

who justifies the ungodly. His whole theological production reflects his efforts

to elucidate this God 's coming and presence as it had to be expressed differently

in different contexts. At the same time, his understanding of the issues involved

deepened, not just through theological reflection, but through following the way

of Christ himself, especially after about 1932.42

If we do not fail to remember

the essential structure of Bonhoeffer's theology, that christology and ethics are

mediated only through justification by faith, then we can avoid the many false starts

and dead-ends that have marred Bonhoeffer interpretation and begin to understandand appropriate his witness to Jesus Christ in our own context.


18/18

^ s

Copyright and Use:

Asan ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permissionfrom the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal

typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

Documents

Bonhoeffer Interpretation of Luther