God's Devil

It's attributed to him often in my search, but no direct reference is given to Luther's work. The best I could find would be a reference to Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, pp. 162–68.

Darum wollen wir solchen nichts gepredigt haben, auch nach unserem Willen nichts von unserer Freiheit zugestehen noch einen Nutzen haben lassen, sondern wieder den Papst oder seinesgleichen über sie (kommen/regieren) lassen, der sie zwinge wie ein rechter Tyrann. Denn es gehöret doch unter den Pöbel, der dem Evangelium nicht gehorchen will, nichts anderes als ein solcher Stockmeister, der Gottes Teufel und Henker sei. Den anderen aber, die ihn gerne sagen lassen, müssen wir immer predigen, anhalten, reizen und locken, dass sie solchen teuren und tröstlichen Schatz, durchs Evangelium vorgetragen, nicht umsonst hingehen lassen. Darum wollen wir auch von der Beicht etwas reden, um die Einfältigen zu unterrichten und zu vermahnen.

title={Bekenntnisschriften des Protestantismus},
year={2018} }

Bekenntnisschriften des Protestantismus | Logos Bible Software

While explaining the psalm verse where God is prayed: "You turn us back to dust, and say, 'Turn back, you mortals.'" (Psalm 90:3), Luther ponders on the difficult thought of God causing death. This is his solution:

"Moses rightly refers death to God Himself. He wants to warn us not to look frantically for help anywhere except to Him who has caused the evil. “For He who has torn, the same will also heal” (Hosea 6:1). This is the name of our God: “He kills and restores to life; He brings down to hell and raises up” (1 Samuel 2:6). Of this God, Moses here says: “Thou causest men to die.” It is this God, too, who commands the sons of men to return. Just as we initially receive life through Him, so also through Him we finally overcome death. But this death is the cause not only of concupiscence but of all sin.
God indeed uses the devil to afflict and to kill us. But the devil cannot do this if God does not want sin to be punished in this way." (LW 13, Emphasis mine).

While explaining the sufferings of Job stirred by Satan but afflicted by God, writes Luther:

"It is very shocking that the Prophets should make such a point of saying that evils come from God Himself, though it is true that of Himself God does not do evil things but uses instrumental means. So the Lord says in Job 2:3: “You moved Me against him, to destroy him without cause.” But the history clearly shows that the devil burned the house, killed the children, and persuaded him to despair and to murmur against God. These, I say, are really the devil’s works, and yet the Lord says, 'I afflicted him.' "(LW 12, Emphasis mine).

Could this be the thought behind Luther's thought on the Devil being "God's Devil"? Luther is denying dualism. The Devil is (only) the instrument of God.

Why ape? I'm wondering?

Good thought, Mike but it would take a lot of research to devour this topic. I am not sure. When calling others apes they are likening them to animals that are not disliked, as far as I can remember with my linguistic background. However these metaphors convey the message that these people are literally subhuman. In short, some offensive animal metaphors are degrading whereas others are disgusting. 

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari said:

mike said:

Why ape? I'm wondering?

Isn't there a saying - also in english - "to ape something/someone"? In aping God the Devil might show that evil isn't an entity of it's own but rather the absence of goodness - as classical theology puts it? 2 Corinthians 11: 14?

Just my guess. Anyway, a powerful metaphor!

Aping someone or something means imitating it. "Monkey see, monkey do." Here's evidence that that's what Luther had in mind.

Christian Alexander said:

Good thought, Mike but it would take a lot of research to devour this topic. I am not sure. When calling others apes they are likening them to animals that are not disliked, as far as I can remember with my linguistic background. However these metaphors convey the message that these people are literally subhuman. In short, some offensive animal metaphors are degrading whereas others are disgusting. 

I don't think that's what Luther meant by the term "ape". He meant a false mimicker, not the original. Like when Satan appears as an angel of light.

MJ. Smith said:

... one is required to use the metaphor historically in referring to texts that use it. In such cases, one should understand it as it was understood at the time the author used the metaphor, not as it would be understood today...

Thanks for the good comment and reminder, MJ! It would seem that Luther inherited the saying of the Devil as "God's ape" from Tertullian (born circa 160 a.D.), who wrote referring to the pagans or to the Gentiles of his time, how they imitated the Christian rituals, in which "we recognise here also the zeal of the devil rivalling the things of God" (De Baptismo).

Hence, Diabolos Dei Simius.

Olli-Pekka Ylisuutari said:

it is true that of Himself God does not do evil things but uses instrumental means.

This sounds like someone saying, "I didn't kill him; the gun killed him." In other words, "I'm not culpable...the instrument I used is culpable."

MJ. Smith said:

Precisely why some theologies are either/or while others are both/and.

I prefer the theology of paradox...sometimes "yes" and sometimes "no", i.e. it all depends - per Prov. 26:4, 5.

MJ. Smith said:

David Paul said:

I prefer the theology of paradox..

Which I associate with Henri de Lubac but under the name both/and ...

I would suggest it is the combination of both either/or & both/and. At times, one might apply either/or to "answer or don't answer"; other times, potentially both/and. It depends.