Table Of ContentDepartment of Systematic Theology
University of Helsinki
Helsinki
In your Light we see the Light
Martin Luther’s Understanding of Faith and Reality
between 1513 and 1521
Ilmari Karimies
ACADEMIC DISSERTATION
To be presented, with the permission of the Faculty of Theology of the University of
Helsinki, for public examination in Festival Hall, University Language Centre,
on 27 January 2017, at 12 noon.
Helsinki 2017
ISBN 978-951-51-2879-9 (pbk.)
ISBN 978-951-51-2880-5 (PDF)
Unigrafia
Helsinki 2017
Abstract
The aim of the dissertation is to investigate and clarify Martin Luther’s understanding of
faith and of reality in his biblical lectures between the years 1513 and 1521. The method
of the study is systematic analysis. With regard to its content the work can be seen as an
investigation of the history of ideas or dogma.
The general context of the study is the examination of the cognition of God in terms of
“knowledge of acquaintance,” as in the tradition of divine illumination. The specific
background is the understanding of faith as union with Christ in the Finnish School of
Luther research. The study first examines Luther’s understanding of reality and then
Luther’s understanding of faith, as the two are connected.
With regard to Luther’s understanding of reality, the nature of God, the universe and
the human being are examined. Central to the understanding of God is the eternal birth of
Christ seen through the concept of the highest good, the idea of God as light, and the
divine as uniting contraries. With regard to the universe, the creation as a sign of God, the
distinction between the visible and the invisible world, and their coming together in Christ
and the Church are examined. With regard to the human being, the distinction between the
tripartite and the bipartite anthropologies is analyzed. In them the spirit is the highest part
of the human being, capable of grasping God. In the carnal person the spirit is dead and
empty. It is made alive by faith. However, the natural capacities cannot grasp the content
of faith. Therefore, there is a cognitive and affectual conflict between the flesh and the
spirit in the Christian person.
With regard to the understanding of faith, Luther’s relation to divine illumination is
examined. Luther’s reading of Ps. 4:7 represents a realist, Augustinian view of
illumination. For Luther, the divine light by which the soul knows the true good is
precisely the light of faith. Luther defines faith as actual and immediate cognition of God.
In relation to God, with regard to the intellect, it is an incomprehensible, captivating light.
With regard to the affect, it is a light which grasps God as the highest good, creating joy
and delight. In relation to the universe, faith is a light of understanding (intellect) in which
all things are seen as related to God. It is also a light for the affect that directs through
tribulations, towards good thoughts and actions. Faith is distinct from the heavenly vision
because it is only partial possession, it is commixed with the human nature of Christ, and
it is made enigmatic by sin. Luther understands the cognition of God through the concept
of infused faith. Acquired faith (dogmas or trust) is secondary, but plays a role in
tribulations, in which God is not yet perceived as the immediate content of faith.
Luther’s understanding of faith thus follows in its general form the theory of divine
illumination. Luther attributes this illumination to the light of faith, which becomes the
true theological intellect. Luther’s early theology as a whole can be seen as a continuation
of the theology of the medieval Augustinian School. The centrality of faith, seen in
interpretation of the divine light precisely as faith, guards the sola gratia principle
fundamental to Luther.
Acknowledgements
The study you have at hand is the product of years of engagement with Luther and
Augustinian tradition. Besides the Catechism, I first encountered Luther and Augustine as
a student at Parola High School around year 1996, when by the suggestion of the local
youth pastor Jari Wihersaari I read Luther’s De Servo Arbitrio and Augustine’s
Confessions. This encounter sparked my interest in systematic theology. The episte-
mological theory of Augustine, the doctrine of illumination, has fascinated me ever since.
When I entered professor Antti Raunio’s seminar in 2003, my aim was to investigate
the relationship of ontology and epistemology in Luther’s understanding of faith. After
writing my master’s thesis, in which I only scraped the surface of the subject, I worked for
a year as a pastor and then in the Diocesan Chapter at Helsinki under bishop, professor
emeritus Eero Huovinen, who is also a Luther scholar. I thank Eero for his encouragement
to take up this task when the opportunity arose. Little did I know that this project would
draw me back again to Augustine’s doctrine of illumination. I was also unable to predict
was how many years of my life this research would ultimately take. Especially Luther’s
anthropology proved to be significantly more complicated than I had expected. The length
of the process makes me even more indebted to those parties who believed in me and
enabled me to bring this task to its completion.
Especially grateful I am of course for my Alma Mater, University of Helsinki, and her
excellent Faculty of Theology and its Department of Systematic Theology. I thank
professor of Ecumenics Risto Saarinen for supervising the long process of this work and
for his abilities at creating an internationally networked and inspiring intellectual
atmosphere at the Faculty. For professor Antti Raunio, currently at the University of
Eastern Finland, I wish to express my thanks for guiding me during the preliminary stages
of this work. I also wish to thank our university lecturers: Without Pekka Kärkkäinen’s
expertise in late medieval anthropology this work would lack a lot of precision. I also
reminisce with warmth our co-supervised master’s seminar on Luther’s sermons. I thank
Olli-Pekka Vainio and Pauli Annala for their feedback as the inspectors of my licentiate
thesis. Olli’s short but appreciative comments have often been a source of motivation. To
Pauli Annala I am grateful for enabling me to understand the mystical traditions behind
Luther’s thought. He is a rare person who not only speaks of mysticism, but lives it. I
thank Virpi Mäkinen for advising me on Franciscan thought. I also wish to mention docent
Sammeli Juntunen, who left the Department to be the Vicar of Savonlinna, but not before
forging a fire for Luther studies in the hearts of many of his students. He worked as one of
the pre-examiners of this thesis. I also wish to thank professor Miikka Ruokanen for being
a source of moral support during the long years. The same applies to docent Aku Visala,
my friend since confirmation school. I have admired Aku’s academic resilience, and
enjoyed our common discussions on philosophical and theological anthropology. I also
wish to express my thanks to my colleagues in Ecumenics: Minna Hietamäki, Elina
Hellqvist, Panu Pihkala, Jason Lepojärvi, Tiina Huhtanen and Heidi Zitting, as well as
Matti Nikkanen and Sari Wagner, who emigrated to German-speaking countries during
this process. The same thanks apply to the scholars of scholastic theology: Ritva Palmén,
Tuomas Vaura and Mikko Posti, who have offered important insights with regard to
Luther’s background in the Victorine and Franciscan traditions, as well to Joona Salminen
who works in Patristics. All of you have contributed with your ideas to my work. Finally I
wish to express my thanks to the two academic giants of our Faculty: To professor
emeritus Simo Knuuttila, the chair of the Center of Excellence, who with his questions
was able to show connections of this study to a number of topics of intellectual history and
philosophy of religion, and to professor emeritus Tuomo Mannermaa, (1937-2015), who
in spite of his health invited younger researchers to his home and by the example of his
person served as a great source of motivation.
I also extend my thanks to all parties which funded this work: To the Finnish Graduate
School of Theology for hiring me at a doctoral student position and to the Philosophical
Psychology, Morality and Politics Center of Excellence which continued this post. These
institutions allowed me to submit my licentiate thesis at the end of 2013. To the last part
of my dissertation I received scholarships from Church Research Institute, STI -
Theological Institute of Finland, and the Doctoral School in Humanities and Social
Sciences (HYMY) of the University of Helsinki. The Theological Institute of Finland not
only gave me a research grant, but also allowed me to work at its facilities. I wish to thank
Ville Auvinen, the general secretary of the institute, Timo Eskola, the long time researcher
at the institute, as well as the students at the institute, for many interesting discussions at
the coffee table, as well as for the opportunity to participate at lecturing at the institute.
Alongside my research I also worked at Church committees and Ecumenical dialogues.
Through this I was able to achieve a part of my dream of being a Pastor-Scholar, and to
draw from the research into Ecumenical dialogues and intra-Church discussion. The salary
from these positions helped to relieve academic poverty, and the support received from the
people in the committees was a source of inspiration. I also wish to express my thanks to
Department for International Relations of the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland
for a number of travel grants received during the course of this work.
I also thank the many ecclesial organizations which have invited me to give
presentations during my studies. It is a great source of motivation to see that there are
people who are interested on the subject one works with. The same applies to my
colleagues at a number of international conferences, who are too numerous to list here. I
will only mention professor Anna Vind from Copenhagen, whom I have known since
2004. She worked as the other pre-examiner of my thesis and will also serve as my
opponent. I also thank dr. Grant White, who has revised the language of this dissertation.
Moreover, I wish to thank my other friends who have contributed to this work and to
bearing its burden. You too are too numerous to list, but I will mention doctoral student,
m.th., fil.cand. Juha Leinonen, theol.cand. Kimmo Saastamonen (who might merit a
honorary degree in theology on the basis of his actual knowledge), pastor Pauli Selkee, dr.
Mari Stenlund and cantor Jukka Stenlund. I also wish to express my thanks to all my
colleagues at the Divinity Students Alumni organization, to all the people upholding
traditions at Hämäläis-Osakunta student nation, and to the people fighting for the rights of
the Academic proletariat at Helsinki University Researchers’ and Teachers’ Association.
My thanks go also to all doctoral students of theology who have worked within the
Doctoral School in Humanities and Social Sciences to make the Doctoral Programme in
Theology a better place.
Finally I wish to thank those who have suffered most from my years of hard work with
this thesis: my two sons Tiitus and Justus. To them I dedicate this work. I also wish to
thank my other relatives for their support with this work, as well as my ex-father-in-law
Sakari Meinilä for inspiring theological discussions regarding Luther’s thought, and my
ex-spouse Salla for the burden she has carried during the times when this work has forced
me to be absent.
Helsinki, on the 4th week of Advent 2016
Ilmari Karimies
Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 4
Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 8
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 10
1.1. The Rationale of the Study ......................................................................................... 10
1.2. The Aim, Methods and Outline of the Study ............................................................. 17
1.3. The Sources of the Study ............................................................................................ 19
2. Luther’s Understanding of Reality ................................................................................. 22
2.1. The Question of Luther’s Platonism in Previous Research ........................................ 22
2.2. God ............................................................................................................................. 30
2.2.1. God as the Eternally Moving and Resting Trinity ................................................. 30
2.2.2. God as the Highest Good and Giver ...................................................................... 37
2.2.3. God as Light and Wisdom ..................................................................................... 45
2.2.4. God as Incomprehensible and Hidden ................................................................... 51
2.2.4.1 The Different Aspects of God’s Incomprehensibility and Hiddenness ............... 51
2.2.4.2 God as Incomprehensible .................................................................................... 55
2.2.4.3 God as Hidden ..................................................................................................... 66
2.3. Universe ...................................................................................................................... 70
2.3.1. The Creation as a Sign ........................................................................................... 70
2.3.2. The Works of God ................................................................................................. 76
2.3.3. The Relationship of the Visible and Invisible World ............................................ 82
2.3.3.1 Their General Nature ........................................................................................... 82
2.3.3.2 Can they be Interpreted Non-Ontologically? ...................................................... 85
2.3.3.3 The Three Stages as the Key: Visible Creation, Church, Heavenly Glory ......... 87
2.4. The Human Being ....................................................................................................... 94
2.4.1. Composition ........................................................................................................... 94
2.4.1.1 The Natural Constituents (Body, Soul, Spirit) .................................................... 94
2.4.1.2 The Role of the Spirit as the Determining Part ................................................. 117
2.4.1.3 Spirit and Flesh as a Qualitative Distinction ..................................................... 124
2.4.2. The Christian ....................................................................................................... 129
2.4.2.1 The Infusion of Faith – the Creation of the Spirit ............................................. 129
2.4.2.2 The Duality of Christian Existence: The Conflict between the Spirit and
the Flesh ............................................................................................................ 134
2.4.2.3 The Relationship of the Flesh and the Spirit in the Same Person ..................... 141
3. Luther’s Understanding of Faith ................................................................................... 150
3.1. The Question of the Light of Faith and the Intellect of Faith in Previous
Research ................................................................................................................... 150
3.2. Luther’s Relation to the Tradition of Divine Illumination ....................................... 163
3.2.1. The General Development of the Theory from Augustine to the Nominalists .... 163
3.2.2. Traditional Interpretations of Ps. 4:7 ................................................................... 172
3.2.3. Luther’s Interpretation of Ps. 4:7: The Light of the Face of God as the Light
of Faith ................................................................................................................. 179
3.3. The Functions of the Light of Faith .......................................................................... 188
3.3.1. The Light of Faith in Relation to God ................................................................. 188
3.3.1.1 Faith as Actual and Direct Cognition and Union with Christ ........................... 188
3.3.1.2 The Cognition of God in Relation to the Intellect ............................................. 194
3.3.1.3 The Cognition of God in Relation to the Affect ................................................ 201
3.3.2. The Light of Faith in Relation to the Universe .................................................... 204
3.3.2.1 Faith as Intellectual Illumination ....................................................................... 204
3.3.2.2 Faith as Moral Direction .................................................................................... 225
3.4. Faith as the Enigmatic Middle Stage between the Earthly and Heavenly Vision .... 236
3.4.1. Faith as Theological Sign and Partial Possession ................................................ 236
3.4.2. Faith and the Human Nature of Christ ................................................................. 244
3.4.3. Faith and the Conflict between the Spirit and the Flesh ...................................... 252
3.5. Faith as Beliefs and Trust ......................................................................................... 257
3.5.1. Acquired and Infused Faith .................................................................................. 257
3.5.2. Tribulations as a Test of Trust and Teacher of Faith ........................................... 261
4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 265
5. Bibliography ................................................................................................................. 282
5.1. Sources ...................................................................................................................... 282
5.1.1. Editions and Abbreviations Used......................................................................... 282
5.1.2. Martin Luther ....................................................................................................... 283
5.1.3. Ancient and Medieval Authors ............................................................................ 283
5.2. Literature .................................................................................................................. 285
1. Introduction
1.1. The Rationale of the Study
Near the beginning of his second encyclical, Spe salvi (2007), Pope Benedict XVI presents
the question of how the definition of faith given in Hebrews 11:1 should be interpreted.
Seeing in the issue a major dispute between Lutherans and Catholics not only with regard
to exegesis, but in the definition of faith as well, he states:
Ever since the Reformation there has been a dispute among exegetes over the central word
of this phrase, but today a way towards a common interpretation seems to be opening up
once more. […] “Faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; the proof of things not seen”.
For the Fathers and for the theologians of the Middle Ages, it was clear that the Greek
word hypostasis was to be rendered in Latin with the term substantia. The Latin translation
of the text produced at the time of the early Church therefore reads: Est autem fides
sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium—faith is the “substance” of
1
things hoped for; the proof of things not seen.
Thus for Benedict there are two conflicting interpretations of the verse with regard to
the words substantia and argumentum, as to whether they are understood to refer to a
present reality or to an absent object of hope. Presenting the Catholic stance Benedict
refers to Thomas Aquinas, whom he sees as substantiating the first view:
Saint Thomas Aquinas[4], using the terminology of the philosophical tradition to which he
belonged, explains it as follows: faith is a habitus, that is, a stable disposition of the spirit,
through which eternal life takes root in us and reason is led to consent to what it does not
see. The concept of “substance” is therefore modified in the sense that through faith, in a
tentative way, or as we might say “in embryo”—and thus according to the “substance”—
there are already present in us the things that are hoped for: the whole, true life. And
precisely because the thing itself is already present, this presence of what is to come also
creates certainty: this “thing” which must come is not yet visible in the external world (it
does not “appear”), but because of the fact that, as an initial and dynamic reality, we carry
2
it within us, a certain perception of it has even now come into existence.
Against the view of Thomas, the Pope sets Luther, who according to him understood
faith only in the subjective sense, as an expression of interior attitude, devoid of any
reality present within the believer:
To Luther, who was not particularly fond of the Letter to the Hebrews, the concept of
“substance”, in the context of his view of faith, meant nothing. For this reason he
understood the term hypostasis/substance not in the objective sense (of a reality present
1
Benedict XVI 2007: Spe salvi, 7.
2
Benedict XVI 2007: Spe salvi, 7.
10
