**3. Luther's Commentary on the** *Magnificat*

When we come to Luther's commentary on the *Magnificat*, we seem to be entering a different world. Before commenting on its contents, it is worth noting that, according to the Preface, this work is dedicated to Prince John Frederick, Duke of Saxony. Luther writes

addressing Frederick because "the heart of man, being by nature flesh and blood, it is of itself prone to presumption. And when, in addition, power, riches and honour come to him, these form so strong an incentive to presumption and smugness that he forgets God and does not care about his matters" (298). That is why there is no more appropriate part of the Bible than the Magnificat in order to teach and instruct Frederick the art of humility. The commentary is a phrase-by-phrase exposition of Mary's song. It consists, in addition to the preface, of an introduction and ten sections corresponding to the ten phrases into which Luther has divided the hymn.

Especially noteworthy is the fact that Luther does not hesitate to pray to Mary before starting his work: "May the tender Mother of God herself procure wisdom, profitably and thoroughly to expound this song of hers, so that your Grace as well as we all may draw from it wholesome knowledge and a praiseworthy life, and thus come to chant and sing this Magnificat eternally in heaven. To this may God help us. Amen."

For Luther, Mary's song is a doxology to the grace of God (Wright 1989, pp. 164–66). At its heart there is the question: "how should a creature deserve to become the Mother of God?" (327) Of course, for Luther this question is rhetorical. No creature can ever deserve such an honor. Reading carefully the biblical text and staying close to the witness of the Holy Virgin herself, Luther observes that "Mary freely ascribes all to God's grace, not to her merit" (327). Though he believes that Mary was without sin (Wright 1989, pp. 174–76), he insists that God's grace was bestowed in her as a gift and not as a reward. Mary was suited to become the Mother of our Lord by being a woman, virgin, from the tribe of Judah and ready to accept the angelic message. Suitability, however, does not entail worthiness or merit (136). The key word that sets the tone of the entire hymn is the word "despite".

Already at the very beginning of the introduction of his commentary he writes, "when the Holy Virgin, then, experienced what great things God was working in her, *despite* her insignificance, lowliness, poverty, and inferiority, the Holy Spirit taught her this deep insight and wisdom, that God is the kind of Lord who does nothing but exalt those of low degree and puts down the mighty to break whatever is whole and make whole whatever is broken" (299). Her basic virtue was humbleness. The word 'ταπε*ι*´νωσιν' (humilitas) in the text should not be rendered as "humility", a virtue that Mary could attain and could therefore boast about. "In His sight we ought to boast only of His pure grace and goodness, which He bestows upon us, unworthy ones" (313). On the contrary, when Mary refers to her "humbleness", it is as if she says: "God has regarded me, a poor, despised and lowly maiden, though He might have found a rich, renowned, noble and mighty queen, the daughter of princes and great lords. He might have found the daughter of Annas or of Caiaphas, who held the highest position in the land. But He let His pure and gracious eyes light on me, and used so poor and despised a maiden, in order that no one might glory in His presence, as though he were worthy of this, and that I must acknowledge it all to be pure grace and goodness and no at all my merit or worthiness" (314).

What attracts God's eyes is not her stature but the "depths" of her human existence. God acts as in creation, ex nihilo. He does not turn his eyes to the heights but to the depths of human existence. Being the Most High, He has nowhere else to look but inside Himself and lower than Him. We need to clarify here two things. The first thing is that by emphasizing "humility", Luther does not promote an anthropology of misery. He emphasizes that the Virgin Mary boasts neither about her worthiness, nor about her unworthiness. That is, what we have here is not a masochistic, self-loathing attitude. The opposite of a man-centered humanism is not misanthropy. Luther's point in his analysis is that what ultimately matters is the divine initiative; it is not what Mary is or does but God's decision to look upon her (314).

What explains Luther's motive emphasizing the divine "despite" and Mary's "unworthiness" is his steady commitment not to "overshadow or diminish even in the slightest the glory of God" (327). Commenting on the first phrase of the Magnificat, he notes that the Virgin Mary's last word is "God". She does not say "my soul magnifies itself" nor "exalt me". She does not desire to be honored. She magnifies only God (*Soli Deo Gloria*)

and gives all glory to Him (308). This again is for the benefit of the believer. Because the experience of God's mercy to those who are poor, despised, abandoned and insignificant makes their hearts to "overflow with gladness and go leaping and dancing for the great pleasure it has found in God" (300). Emphasizing the Virgin Mary's "humility" does not mean that Luther underestimates her. His commentary is full of respect and affection for her, in ways that perhaps he could teach us Protestants to overcome our awkwardness in front of her. It is worth noting the ways in which he addresses or makes reference to her. The two most common are "Maria", as might be expected, but also "Mother of God". He also calls her "Blessed Mother of God", "Sweet Mother of God", "Blessed Virgin Mary", "Holy Virgin", "Sweet Mother of Christ", "Pure and Righteous Virgin" etc. In two parts of his work, in fact, he teaches us the right way to give her honor providing us with two "salutations" towards her. Here is one of them.

"O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example" (323)

Luther's analysis has a definite pastoral dimension. The Holy Virgin is "the foremost example of the grace of God" (323) that could teach us and help us to understand the ways of God. She is different from us, but at the same time she is just like us; in order to give us confidence (323). Luther comments that her hymn contains the wonderful works of God and serves a threefold purpose as it is given "for the strengthening of our faith, for the comforting of all those of low degree, and for the terrifying of all the mighty ones of earth." We are to let the hymn serve this threefold purpose; for she sang it not for herself alone, but for us all, that we should sing it after her" (306).

It is a comforting, optimistic anthropology of divine grace.

#### **4. Why, Then, Is Luther So Far Apart from Cabasilas?**

There are many ways by which we could have tried to explain the difference of perspective between Cabasilas and Luther. We will focus on the one that we believe is central. In short, Cabasilas' Mariology constitutes a theology of glory, while Luther's a theology of the cross. An attempt to describe in detail what we mean by the terms theology of glory and theology of the cross is beyond the scope and limits of our study. There are, however, several points to make that will help us grasp the main thrust of this important aspect in Luther's theology. First of all, it is important to emphasize that according to almost all of Luther's interpreters, his theology of the cross is not simply about the content of his theology, but is also about the way he does theology, his theological method and perspective. Before we articulate it, it will be useful to make reference to three of Luther's theses from his famous *Heidelberg Disputation* (Luther 1957, p. 40) which best encapsulate his understanding of his theology of the cross:

Thesis 19. That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened (Rom. 1:20).

Thesis 20. He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things go God seen through suffering and the cross.

Thesis 21. A theologian of glory calls evil good and good evil. A theologian of the cross calls things what they actually are.

The error of the theologians of glory is that they do not approach reality through the lens of God's revelation. They think according to the logic of the world, according to what seems apparent and obvious. They think that "the way the world appears to be is actually an accurate account of who God is" (Trueman 2015, p. 62). On the other hand, the theologian of the cross focuses on the revelation of God, particularly at the point He chose to reveal Himself, namely on the Cross. That does not mean that he reduces God's revelation only to that single event, but that he makes the cross the "fundamental criterion for the theology of the gospel" (ibid., p. 63). Thus, for the theologian of the cross, paradox

is at the heart of the theological method. In contrast to this, for the theologian of glory, reciprocity is the focal point. Trueman comments, "the world around us operates on the basis of reciprocity: those who do good are the ones who consequently receive a reward; those who do evil receive punishment" (ibid., p. 62). The theologian of glory assumes that the same principles apply in the way God deals with humanity.

With that in mind, we come once again to examine Cabasilas' Mariology focusing now on the concept of synergy. Building his Mariological argument, Cabasilas starts with the saints of the Old Testament emphasizing their merit and then talks about Abraham who "as a reward of his piety became the patriarch of a nation ... ". The same goes for those who will bring the Virgin Mary to life. The logic that governs Cabasilas' thinking is that "God gave the greatest of all the gifts to humanity through those who were in every way the best." On account of that principle, addressing the parents of the Virgin Mary, he says, "the fact that you were able to accomplish such great things before God and were honoured because of them with such admirable honour is a glorious proof that you are more beloved of all men to God. The crown proves and reveals the achievement and this is because God 'measures all things with fair measures'" (*On the Birth*, pp. 46–50). According to this logic, "grace" is defined as the "goal" (τ*ε*´λo*ς*) of the Law (ibid., p. 50) and the "fulfilment ('πλ*η*´ρωμα') of the law" (52). They received grace because they were "strict observers of the law" (53). Grace is not a gift but a fruit or an achievement. They have built the house so that grace can then place the roof at the top (ibid. p. 52). God's call to synergy with Him comes as a reward for our achievement to live a life of purity (*On the Birth*, p. 46). Therefore, the Holy Virgin "attracts" God and becomes His "helper" (*On the Birth*, p. 108) because she has first lived an "immaculate life" (*On the Annunciation*, p. 116). Therefore, "through her beauty she showed the beauty of the common human nature; and thus she attracted the dispassionate God and he became man because of her" (ibid. p. 118). It is important to underline the word "because", which reveals the logic of reciprocity. God's righteousness is understood in terms of fairness, that is for God to render to everyone according to his or her deeds (*On the Annunciation*, p. 146). On that account, when Mary's achievement is placed on the "scale" of God's righteousness, it is only fair (δ*ι*´καιoν ών) for Him to make her the Mother of God (ibid.). That is why, when Gabriel brings the good news to Mary, there is no surprise, no wonder on her part, "her mind was not disturbed nor did she consider that she was not worthy of this work" (*On the Annunciation*, p. 132). This is because "she was aware that there was nothing in her soul incompatible with the mystery and that her life was such that she couldn't mention any human weakness of hers" (ibid., p. 130). She loved God with such intensity that "it would be completely unlikely that God would not consider it His duty to give her a proportionate ('αντ ` *ι*´ρρoπoν') reward to become her son" (ibid., p. 148).

This logic of merit, reciprocity and proportionality lies at the heart of Cabasilas' concept of synergy and is, according to Luther, also at the heart of the theology of glory. For the theologian of the cross, the key work is not the word "because" but "despite". The key question is not one of admiration: "how could the Virgin alone escape the common disease, being just human and without receiving anything more than other men?" (Tsirpanlis 1979, p. 93/*On the Birth*, p. 68) but of humility "how should a creature deserve to become the Mother of God?" (327)

#### **5. Bridging the Gap**

As we bring our study to a close, it is worth making four final remarks which may help, so to say, to bridge the gap between Cabasilas and Luther, or more generally between the Eastern Orthodox and the Evangelical positions on Mary.

#### *5.1. The Question of Synergy as It Relates to Mariology Remains a Stumbling Block for Evangelicals*

It is one of most troubling issues, even if we may not share Barth's vehement sentiments when he claims that "in the doctrine and worship of Mary there is disclosed the one heresy of the Roman Catholic Church which explains all the rest" and he explains that "the

'mother of God' or Roman Catholic Marian dogma is quite simply the principle, type and essence of the human creature co-operating servantlike in its own redemption on the basis of prevenient grace, and to that extent the principle type and essence of the Church" (Barth 1978, p. 143).6 Interestingly enough a good corrective to this emphasis on synergy may be found in Cabasilas' other work, On the Life of Christ. It is beyond the scope of our study but it will be interesting to note that Nellas, who otherwise is an enthusiastic admirer of the theology of synergy7, admits that in On the Life of Christ, Cabasilas is "being faithful to the Biblical tradition he relativizes without a doubt every human endeavour and strife for the achievement of righteousness and he rejects every autonomous human endeavour which is 'our own'". (Nellas 1998, p. 110).
