The Bondage of the Will (De Servo Arbitrio)

Summary

The Bondage of the Will is Martin Luther's long Latin reply to Erasmus's On Free Will, published at Wittenberg in December 1525, fifteen months after Erasmus's book appeared. It was written in a crowded year: the Peasants' War had been fought and suppressed, the Elector Frederick the Wise had died, and Luther had married Katharina von Bora in June. Luther follows Erasmus's treatise section by section, quoting or summarizing it and answering each point, and then adds a positive case of his own. He begins by thanking Erasmus for attacking the real question rather than side issues such as the papacy, purgatory or indulgences, and then turns sharply on Erasmus's preface. Against Erasmus's preference for suspending judgment, Luther argues that Christians must delight in assertions, because the Holy Spirit is no sceptic and has written plain truths on the heart. Against the claim that Scripture is obscure on this point, he distinguishes the external clarity of Scripture, its words read and preached, from its internal clarity, the understanding the Spirit gives, and holds that the subject matter of Scripture has been made plain in Christ even where particular words are hard. On necessity, Luther argues that God foreknows and wills all things immutably, so that human beings act by a necessity of immutability, not of compulsion: they do evil willingly, not under force, but cannot change their own will. He pictures the human will as a beast standing between two riders, God and Satan, going where its rider wills. Free will, he says, is properly a divine title; in things below, such as eating and managing property, people choose freely, but in matters of salvation the will is bound. Answering Erasmus's proof texts, Luther argues that commands show what people ought to do, not what they can do, since through the law comes knowledge of sin; he disputes the authority of Ecclesiasticus; he insists that Pharaoh's hardening, Jacob and Esau and the potter's clay mean what they appear to mean. He distinguishes God preached and revealed in the Word, whom Christians must seek, from God hidden in his majesty, whose secret will is not to be searched. In the final sections he builds his own case from Paul's Romans and from John's contrast of flesh and spirit, and closes by saying he would not want free will even if it were offered, because his salvation would then rest on his own unstable effort rather than on God's faithful promise. The English translations of Henry Cole and Edward Thomas Vaughan (both 1823) are public domain, but they survive only in poor scanned copies, so the library stores no full text.

Plot or Argument

• Introduction

  Luther explains his delay in answering, praises Erasmus's learning and eloquence, and says Erasmus alone has gone to the hinge of the whole controversy instead of trifles.

• Review of Erasmus's preface

  Luther defends assertions as essential to Christian faith, argues for the clarity of Scripture (external in the Word, internal through the Spirit), and insists that the questions of God's foreknowledge and human ability are necessary for Christians to know.

• Necessity and foreknowledge

  Because God foreknows and wills all things immutably, human acts happen by a necessity of immutability, not of compulsion. The will acts willingly but is ridden by God or by Satan, as a beast of burden goes where its rider directs.

• Erasmus's definition and Old Testament texts

  Luther attacks Erasmus's definition as giving the will too much, questions the canonical standing of Ecclesiasticus, and argues that commands and conditional promises reveal duty and expose inability rather than proving ability.

• Erasmus's New Testament texts

  Passages about reward, striving and Christ's lament over Jerusalem are read as law and invitation; Luther introduces the distinction between God preached, who wills that sinners live, and God hidden, whose secret will is not to be pried into.

• The hard texts defended

  Luther defends the plain sense of Pharaoh's hardening, Jacob and Esau and the potter and the clay. God works in evil wills as a rider on a lame horse, using what is already corrupt without himself doing evil.

• Luther's own case from Paul and John

  From Romans 1-3 Luther argues that all are under sin and that righteousness comes by faith apart from works of the law; from John he draws the contrast of flesh and spirit and the necessity of new birth.

• Conclusion: assurance and the three lights

  Luther says he would not want free will if it were offered, because grace alone makes salvation certain, and answers the charge of divine injustice by the light of nature, the light of grace and the light of glory, in which what is now hidden will be made plain.

Characters

• Martin Luther, author

  Wittenberg professor and reformer who answers Erasmus point by point and states his doctrine of grace in its sharpest form.

• Desiderius Erasmus, opponent addressed

  Humanist scholar whose 1524 treatise Luther quotes and answers, addressing him throughout in the second person.

• Paul the Apostle, chief authority

  Author of Romans, whose teaching on sin, law and grace forms the core of Luther's positive argument.

• Augustine of Hippo, authority cited

  Church father whose anti-Pelagian writings Luther claims as support for his reading of grace.

Lessons

• The case for assertion

  Luther holds that faith must make confident assertions about what God has revealed, and that a Christian cannot treat the central truths of Scripture as matters of opinion. He sets this against Erasmus's preference for suspending judgment.

  • What does Luther mean by saying that a Christian must delight in assertions?
  • How does Luther's distinction between external and internal clarity answer Erasmus's claim that Scripture is obscure?
  • Is there a difference between confidence in a truth and harshness toward an opponent? How does Luther's tone bear on the question?

• Necessity without compulsion

  Luther distinguishes a necessity of immutability, by which God's will and foreknowledge cannot fail, from a necessity of compulsion, by which someone is forced against his will. Sinners act willingly, but they cannot change the bent of their own will.

  • Explain the image of the will as a beast ridden by God or Satan. What does it affirm, and what does it leave unexplained?
  • Does Luther's distinction between immutability and compulsion preserve any meaning for willing? Why or why not?

• Law and gospel

  Luther answers Erasmus's argument from commands by saying that the law shows what we ought to do and so reveals our inability, while the gospel promises what God does for us in Christ. The distinction is central to all his theology.

  • Why does Luther think a command does not prove that the hearer can obey it?
  • How does Romans 3:20 shape Luther's reading of the commandments Erasmus cites?
  • What is the difference between an imperative and a promise in Luther's account?

• The hidden and the revealed God

  Luther separates God as he has revealed himself in the Word, who invites and wills the life of sinners, from God hidden in his majesty, whose secret will we are not to investigate. Christians are to cling to God preached in Christ.

  • Why does Luther think it is dangerous to inquire into God's hidden will?
  • How does the distinction help Luther answer Ezekiel 18:23, where God says he does not desire the death of the sinner?

• Assurance as the goal

  Luther ends by saying that even if free will were offered he would refuse it, because he could never be sure he had done enough; only God's promise gives certainty. For Luther, the doctrine is ultimately about comfort.

  • Why does Luther think that free will would take away assurance of salvation?
  • Does Luther's conclusion change how the rest of the book should be read?

Context

Erasmus's On Free Will appeared in September 1524 and was greeted by many humanists as a moderate correction of Luther. Luther delayed his reply for more than a year, in a period that included the Peasants' War of 1524-1525, the death of Frederick the Wise and his own marriage. The book was written as evangelical teaching was being organized in Saxony and elsewhere and as the break between the Wittenberg reformers and many Catholic humanists was becoming final.

Composition

Luther wrote the reply in Latin in the autumn of 1525 and it was published at Wittenberg in December 1525. Justus Jonas translated it into German in 1526. The Weimar Edition prints it in volume 18; the standard modern English versions are by J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (1957) and Philip S. Watson with Benjamin Drewery (1969, also in Luther's Works vol. 33). Henry Cole's 1823 translation, revised by Henry Atherton in 1931, was the main English version for a century.

Reception

Erasmus responded with Hyperaspistes (1526-1527), and the exchange ended any prospect of the two working together. Within Lutheranism the book's teaching on predestination and divine necessity was discussed and sometimes softened, while Reformed theologians drew heavily on it. Luther himself is reported to have said in a 1537 letter to Wolfgang Capito that among his writings he would acknowledge only this book and the Catechism. Scholars continue to debate how its doctrine of necessity relates to his later teaching and to Melanchthon's; the book remains a central primary source for the theology of grace.

Comparisons

• erasmus-on-free-will

  The treatise Luther is answering; the two books share nearly the same list of texts, read in opposite directions.

• luther-selected-sermons-and-treatises

  The Freedom of a Christian (1520) and Luther's sermons give the pastoral setting of the doctrine he defends here at its most technical.

• calvin-selected-sermons

  Calvin, who also wrote on the bondage of the will against Albert Pighius, carried Luther's teaching on grace and predestination into the Reformed tradition.

• confessions

  Augustine's account of the divided will in Book VIII is the classic description of the inability Luther describes, and Luther claims Augustine as his teacher on grace.

• the-consolation-of-philosophy

  Boethius argues that divine foreknowledge does not impose necessity on free acts, a position Luther rejects in favour of God's immutable will.

• pensees

  Pascal, writing from within the Jansenist controversies over grace, wrestles with the same questions of a bound will and a hidden God.

Quotes

For Students

A reading companion for classical Christian high school students. See the student guide.

Reading Guide

Watch for

• The opening, where Luther both praises Erasmus and rebukes him; watch how the tone shifts between courtesy and sharp polemic throughout the book.
• His defence of assertions and of the clarity of Scripture in the review of Erasmus's preface, which sets the ground rules for the whole debate.
• The distinction between necessity of immutability and necessity of compulsion, and the image of the will as a beast with two possible riders.
• How Luther answers Erasmus's argument from commands with the distinction between law and gospel.
• The closing pages, where he says he would refuse free will even if offered and appeals to the light of glory for what remains unexplained.

Key terms and names

servum arbitrium

Latin for bound or enslaved choice, Luther's answer to Erasmus's liberum arbitrium. It means the will is not forced but cannot free itself from sin.

necessity of immutability

Luther's term for the certainty that what God wills and foreknows will happen, as distinct from compulsion, which forces someone against his will.

assertion

A firm, public confession of truth. Luther argues that Christianity is made of assertions and that a sceptical suspension of judgment is foreign to faith.

clarity of Scripture

Luther's teaching that Scripture is clear externally in its words and internally through the Spirit's illumination of the heart, even where some passages are hard.

law and gospel

Luther's distinction between God's commands, which show sin and inability, and God's promises in Christ, which give what the law demands.

Deus absconditus

The hidden God: God in his majesty and secret will, which Luther says we must not investigate, in contrast to God preached and revealed in Christ.

the three lights

The light of nature, of grace and of glory. Luther argues that what nature and grace cannot yet explain about God's justice will be made plain in glory.

Seminar Questions

1. Comprehension Why does Luther thank Erasmus at the start of the book, even though he disagrees with him?
2. Comprehension What is the difference between a necessity of immutability and a necessity of compulsion in Luther's argument?
3. Comprehension How does Luther answer Erasmus's argument that God's commands imply human ability?
4. Interpretation What does the image of the will as a beast with two riders explain well, and what questions does it raise?
5. Interpretation Why does Luther insist on distinguishing God preached from God hidden? How does this distinction shape his pastoral advice?
6. Interpretation Luther says he would not want free will even if it were offered. How does this statement connect the technical arguments of the book to Christian assurance?
7. Big Question Can a person be held responsible for a will that he cannot change by his own power?

Faith Connections

• Romans 9:14-24 (Scripture)

  Paul's discussion of mercy, hardening and the potter and the clay is the passage over which Erasmus and Luther disagree most sharply. Luther reads it as teaching God's sovereign choice; Erasmus as speaking of foreknowledge and particular callings.

• Ephesians 2:8-10 (Scripture)

  Salvation by grace through faith, not of works, and yet unto good works: Luther's reading of the will rests on this pattern.

• John 15:5 (Scripture)

  Christ's words that without him his disciples can do nothing are central for Luther, who reads them as excluding any power of the will toward salvation apart from grace.

• Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter (Church Fathers)

  Augustine argues that the law commands so that we may seek grace to fulfil it, a line of thought Luther develops in answering Erasmus's argument from commands.

Logic and Rhetoric

Central argument: God foreknows and wills all things immutably, so nothing happens by chance or by human power alone. Since the Fall, the human will is bound to sin; it acts willingly but cannot turn itself to God. Scripture's commands show what we owe and expose our inability, while the gospel promises what God alone gives. Therefore salvation depends wholly on God's grace and not on free will, and this is not a cause for despair but the only ground of certainty, because God's promise cannot fail as our effort would.

Rhetorical device: extended metaphor. In the discussion of necessity Luther pictures the human will as a beast of burden standing between two riders. If God rides it, it goes where God wills; if Satan rides it, it goes where Satan wills; it cannot choose its rider.

Debate: Resolved: that Luther's distinction between necessity of immutability and necessity of compulsion answers Erasmus's objection that denying free will makes God unjust.

Writing Prompts

Essay: Luther ends The Bondage of the Will by saying he would not want free will even if it were offered. Explain why he says this, and argue whether his conclusion follows from his treatment of necessity, the law and the hidden God.

Comparison with On Free Will (De Libero Arbitrio): Erasmus argues that commands imply ability; Luther answers that the law reveals inability. Present each argument in its strongest form, test both against two biblical commands, and decide which reading you find more persuasive.

Medical Lens

The work is a theological treatise on grace, necessity and the interpretation of Scripture; it contains no medical material.

Creative Prompts

• Dialogue

  Write a short dialogue in which Luther and Erasmus each explain the beast-and-rider image to a student, Luther defending it and Erasmus raising his objections.

• Classroom

  Create a two-column chart of five passages discussed by both Erasmus and Luther, with each author's reading, and let students argue which reading follows the passage's context more closely.

• Essay

  Explain Luther's distinction between God preached and God hidden, and assess whether it answers the charge that his doctrine makes God unjust.

• Fiction

  Imagine Katharina von Bora reading the finished manuscript in the winter of 1525. Write a letter she might send to a friend describing her husband's work on it.

Further Reading

• The Bondage of the Will, Martin Luther; trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston

  Standard modern English translation (1957), with a historical introduction; in copyright.

• Luther and Erasmus: Free Will and Salvation, E. Gordon Rupp and Philip S. Watson (eds.)

  Both treatises in one volume (1969); in copyright.

• Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, Roland H. Bainton

• Luther: Man between God and the Devil, Heiko A. Oberman

• The Captivation of the Will: Luther vs. Erasmus on Freedom and Bondage, Gerhard O. Forde