On the Bondage of the Will

On The Bondage of the Will
by Martin Luther
Recommended Ages: 14+

This is the book Martin Luther (not King Jr.) considered his own best work: a rebuttal to a diatribe by Erasmus of Rotterdam about "The Freedom of the Will." Luther basically takes the position that if any part of our salvation depends on what is in us (such as our free will), the sacrificial work of Christ is all for nothing. First Luther responds to Erasmus' attacks on his own (Luther's) position; then he systematically replies to what Eramsus has to say about the subject; then he lays out a positive argument for the bound will in a tour-de-force of biblical theology. I'm the last person who should sit in judgment of Luther's writing, his theology or his interpretation of scripture – apart from noting that at one or two points, he seems to make an argument favoring double predestination, though he elsewhere (even in this book) condemns that false doctrine. Instead, all I want to say about this book is to make a few suggestions that may be helpful to people who start trying to read it and who then find it difficult.

First: This book, which I read in the Wildside Press imprint, is based on Henry Atherton's 1931 edition, which in turn is based primarily on Henry Cole's 1823 translation with some unspecified emendations based on a slightly later translation by somebody or other named Vaughan. I don't know how reliable these Anglican scholars' witness is to the theology of Luther or whether the occasional phrase or sentence that smacks of Calvinism isn't an artifact of their editorial bias. But I will observe this: Part of the difficulty for readers of c.2019 making an attempt on this book is that most of us aren't used to reading English in the style of Jane Austen's period. An updated translation by someone who knows his way around Lutheran theology might be a step toward making this book more accessible to Grandma Smurf and Uncle Smedley of today's Shepherd of the Cornfield Lutheran Church.

Second: Apart from the prose style, which would not have fazed one of the Brontës, there is the small matter of the typesetting – which is so badly out of order, at least in this imprint, that I think it actually impedes the correct interpretation of the text. Placement and non-placement of commas seems to be out of whack. Perhaps this is another matter of the year So Much in the U.K. as opposed to today in the U.S., but I think it actually goes farther than that: There are sentences that seem to make more sense when you experiment with reading them otherwise than the way they are punctuated. Of course, starting over with a fresh translation would also clear this up, but at the very least, do this. Right. Now.

Third: Ignore the glib, smooth-talking voice on the Lutheran radio program who tells you what to think about this book without actually answering your questions about it, and who suggests starting with the last 50 pages (Luther's positive statement of his position) and then going back to the beginning. First reading Erasmus' diatribe may not be necessary or even recommended. But reading straight through from Luther's introduction to his conclusion actually pulls his case together nicely, as one point builds on another. My advice is not to agonize over it or linger upon passages that aren't immediately clear. My approach would be to read it fast, maybe scribble a note (like, a check mark in the margin) next to something you'll have a question about later, and get through it in three or four sittings without over-exerting yourself. Many things not immediately clear will become clearer from what follows later. Other things can come out in group discussion or conversation with someone who studied theology like (say) your pastor. More to the point: Don't sweat the details. The case Luther makes, in its broad strokes, is overwhelming enough. And if the after-parts to this book (the Wildside imprint, at least) have anything to tell us, it's that Luther was really remarkably restrained in his treatment of Erasmus in this treatise. His final conclusion was that Erasmus was really not a Christian at all, and the case he makes for that opinion is pretty convincing, too.