Luther on lethal force self-defense (vs. Biermann, LC-MS)

     There is some controversy in the LC–MS caused by an essay entitled “Lawful Lethal Force” authored by Prof. Joel Biermann, Professor of Systematic Theology, Concordia Seminary, as reported here. This is one of several "Contemporary Applications" essays included in the new, controversial, LC–MS version of Luther's Large Catechism that claims to update Luther's work. In this essay Biermann states that

“…a legitimate place for the use of the sword within God’s plan for His creation is not a license for any Christian to use the sword for any reason unilaterally deemed legitimate and necessary.… Lethal force, Luther consistently taught, is rightly used only by the one placed into the Amt [office] of authority in the state. It is never exercised for the sake of self, but always and only for the sake of the neighbor.”

The claim by Prof. Biermann that "Luther consistently taught" against lethal force self-defense was documented to be false by a responder [WB]. — 

      The purpose of this blog post is to expand on the "response" by publishing the actual words of Luther from a 1539 Disputation. The Weimar Edition carried the original Latin text, the German Missourians translated it into their native German. I was unable to find that the American Edition, Old or New Series, published this Disputation. So I am presenting a translation of both the Latin and German so that readers may judge Luther's actual teaching:

Google Translation from the Latin (WA 39II, 40-41; Luther's Theses 31–35:

31. Now if a robber or a thief wants to force you or steal because you are a Christian, here you must resist the evil, if you want to be a pious citizen of this world.

32. Because, just as he himself resists the magistrates, of which you are a member, so he orders you to resist by virtue of the second table, to which you are bound to obey.

33. Thus, if a robber on the road wants to kill you for Christ's sake, you must defend yourself, even if he is to be killed.

34. Because you know that the magistrate has commanded that robbers are to be resisted and that his citizens are to be defended, you therefore obey both the first and the second tables.

35. And there is no need to worry if he claims Christ, that is, as the first plan, when it is certain that he seeks to kill you, not for Christ's sake, but for your cause.

DeepL translation from the German of the St. Louis Edition, 10, 580 [DE]:

31. Now if a thief or robber wanted to do violence to you or steal from you because you are a Christian, you must resist the evil here, otherwise you are not a pious citizen of this world. 

32. For just as the temporal authorities, whose member and subject you are, resist you in such a case, so they also command you, who are bound to obey, by virtue of the second tablet to resist. 

33. Therefore, if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must resist him even if it costs him his life. 

34. For you know that the authorities have commanded that you defend their citizens and resist a murderer; in such a case you obey the demands of both the first and second tablets. 

35. Nor is it necessary to turn away from this if he wants to refer to Christ, that is, to the first tablet, in his violence; for it is obvious that he does not want to do violence to you for the sake of Christ, but for the sake of your possessions and goods.

Just so the comparison is crystal clear, here are the two contrasting statements:

Prof. Joel Biermann	Martin Luther
“Lethal force, Luther consistently taught,… is never exercised for the sake of self”	“Therefore, if a murderer attacks you in the street and wants to kill you because you are a Christian, you must defend yourself, even if he is to be killed.”

Prof. Biermann's claim about Luther's teaching is fiction. But this offense against Luther and Christian teaching pales in comparison to Biermann's classroom teaching which has been documented in videos of his lectures. I may present that story in a future blog.