Luther: Mary... [She is the] highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified.

Here's one of a number of quotes used as proof that Martin Luther was devoted and venerated Mary:

[She is the]highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ . . . She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures. (Sermon, Christmas, 1531).

Documentation

This quote may have entered into cyber space via an earlier form of this article by a defender of Rome. This article says, “Luther held to the idea and devotional practice of the veneration of Mary and expressed this on innumerable occasions with the most effusive language.” The quote is used by Rome's defenders indiscriminately. For instance, Roman Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid uses this quote in the exact form in his book, Answer Me This! (p.142) as proof that “modern-day Protestantism has drifted from its 16th century moorings” and how far “modern Protestantism has drifted from the fifteen centuries of the historic Catholic faith that preceded the Protestant Reformation.” Madrid’s documentation of the quote equals that as found in various cyber-articles (“Christmas Sermon, 1531”). In terms of documentation, this is far from helpful. What it points to is that some defenders of Roman Catholicism took this quote from a secondary source, never bothering to look it up in context. Had they looked it up, they would have discovered this quote is comprised of words from different sources... and some of the words presented in this picture are probably not a direct citation of Luther but are from a secondary source summarizing his words. This quote is a concocted Roman Catholic hodgepodge at best or a fabrication and propaganda at worst. 

 I suspect the secondary source this quote comes from is William Cole’s article “Was Luther a Marian Devotee?” (Marian Studies Volume XXI, 1970, p.131). If I were to take the time to go through the Internet archive service, Cole states:

In a Christmas sermon of 1531, Luther speaks of Mary as the "highest woman and the noblest gem in Christianity after Christ." He goes on to claim that "she is nobility, wisdom and holiness personified. We can never honor her enough. Still honor and praise must be given to her in such a way as to injure neither Christ nor the Scriptures” (WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).

Note, the quote as cited by Cole is actually two quotes from two different pages, separated by an entire page! Here is one of the reasons why context is so important, and for some reason, Roman apologists don’t seem to care. What was on that page that separated these two quotes? Roman Catholic apologists can’t tell you!

Conclusion
If you come across a quote like this, it’s not up you to provide the context. It’s the responsibility of those using it to provide a context. It’s up to them to prove they have used the citation correctly. Your first reaction should be, please provide a context. If they can’t provide a context, you should let them know they are not doing responsible research, particularly if they are publishing books with such material. If they want to be taken seriously, they should do serious work!

This entry was written in 2007. Since then, I've been able to dig much deeper into this quote now that more sources are available. See this in-depth blog entry here. 

I contend that only sentences #1 and #3 of the quotes are based on Luther's Christmas sermon of 1531 (often documented as WA 34, 2, 497 and 499).  Unless whoever originally mined this quote had a different edition, WA 34.2.499 is a potential documentation error. WA 34.2:500 is the correct page.

Sentence #2 appears to be from a different sermon ("She is nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified").  In a 1537 sermon found in WA 45:105 Luther states: "hochgelobt über allen Adel, Weisheit, Heiligkeit!" I've yet to discover a meaningful primary source for sentence #4. What complicates this even more is that in this typical English rendering, I believe sentences 2, 3, and 4 were not originally a direct citation of Luther, but rather a summary statement from a secondary English source (Thomas O'Meara, Mary in Protestant and Catholic Theology). In essence, Roman Catholics have concocted a Luther quote to promote their version of Mariology.

When this quote is broken down into individual sentences, it demonstrates an over-the-top expression of Roman Catholic Mariology... said to come from the pen of Martin Luther.  Luther begins by calling Mary the "noblest gem" in Christianity, to then referring to her as the personification of nobility wisdom and holiness, then calling for her excessive honor... then weirdly qualifying all of this by preaching: do not go too far with these Marian facts. Not go too far? Think about it: Luther's just claimed Mary is almost as great as Jesus Christ, and like him, she's nobility, wisdom, and holiness personified! Luther also implies one should be in a perpetual state of honoring her... but... don't go too far in your honor and praise or you may injure Christ and the Bible! 

True, Luther does say flowery things about Mary in sentences #1 and #2. But a curious thing happens when the context of sentence #3 is displayed. Sentence #3 states,"We can never honor her enough." In context though, Luther states, 

24. Under the papacy only the mother has been praised and extolled. True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child. Nevertheless, we should not praise and extol the mother in such a way as to allow this child who has been born unto us to be removed from before our eyes and hearts and to think less highly of him than of the mother. If one praises the mother, the praise ought to be like the wide ocean. If either one is to be forgotten, it is better to forget the mother rather than the child. Under the papacy, however, the child has all but been forgotten, and attention riveted only on the mother. But the mother has not been born for our sakes; she does not save us from sin and death. She has, indeed, begotten the Savior! for this reason we are to wean ourselves away from the mother and bind ourselves firmly to this child alone! (Sermons of Martin Luther vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000) pp. 219).

Original text (WA 34.2:500)* 

A question needs to be asked of Rome's defenders: what exactly is Marian devotion? What does it mean for a Roman Catholic to be devoted to Mary, and what does it mean for Luther to be devoted to Mary? Are they the same? Roman Catholic apologists don’t tell you. They leave you thinking both are the same.

“Well,” They may say, “Luther’s devotion was that he preached on her feast days.” Yes, but if you go search out these sermons, more often than not, the sermon has nothing to do with Mary. “Well,” they may say, “Luther wrote hymns about Mary.” Yes, but if you go search out these hymns, you will note the absence of distinctly Roman Catholic Marian praise and find a strong emphasis on Jesus Christ. “Well,” they may say, “Luther venerated Mary.” Luther though abandoned the distinction between latria and dulia because biblically these words refer to the same thing. If you search out all the occurrences in which Luther used the word veneration, you will find an entirely negative meaning applied to the term (see this entry).

Challenge Rome's apologists to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian devotion is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of Marian devotion. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium. Don’t let them make up whatever they want to. Then, apply that official statement to Martin Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but whenRoman  Catholics say honor or devotion, they mean something quite different than Protestants.

*The English rendering of this text utilizes the textual notes found at WA 34.2:500.

Revised March 2026