Luther: The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "The Jews":

"The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves" (Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502.)

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With these quotes, they attempt to show while Christ taught "You shall love your neighbor as yourself," Luther held the opposite in regard to the Jews.


Documentation
Luther Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar, Vol. 53, Pg. 502." It is probable that the quote actually was taken from  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

It will be found, at close inspection, that Luther's laws are much more strict, or at least as severe, as those of Hitler. Very often he repeated his order, “The Jews have to be expelled from our country.” Or he gave the Christian advice. “The Jews deserve to be hanged on gallows seven times higher than ordinary thieves” (W53, 502).

The reference, "W53, 502" is accurate. It's from Luther's treatise, Von den Juden und ihren Lügen (On The Jews and Their Lies, 1543). Here is WA 53:502. The text being referred to is lines 8-10 ("Denn ein Wucherer ist ein Ertzdieb und Landreuber, der billich am Galgen sieben mal höher denn andere Diebe hengen solt") from this paragraph:

Von den Juden und ihren Lügen was a response to a letter from Count Schlick of Moravia. The Count had sent Luther a Jewish apologetic pamphlet allegedly containing a Jewish attack against Jesus, the Virgin Mary, and Christian exegesis of the Old Testament. The Count asked Luther to refute it. Unfortunately, this letter and attack have been lost, so we are unaware of the exact tone of argument Luther was responding to. Whatever was in that Jewish writing, Luther erupted in vicious polemic, attacking not only through theology, but also in antagonistic ad hominem as well. Luther moved from his earlier writings of attacking Jewish theology to attacking Jewish people.

This treatise has been translated into English in LW 47. The quote can be found at LW 47:241-242. This treatise was translated "only to make available the necessary documents for scholarly study of this aspect of Luther's thought" and its translation "is in no way intended as an endorsement of the distorted view of the Jewish faith and practice or the defamation of the Jewish people which this treatise contains" (LW 47:123).

Context

If they were not so stone-blind, their own vile external life would indeed convince them of the true nature of their penitence. For it abounds with witchcraft, conjuring signs, figures, and the tetragrammaton of the name, that is, with idolatry, envy, and conceit. Moreover, they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury. Thus they live from day to day, together with wife and child, by theft and robbery, as arch-thieves and robbers, in the most impenitent security. For a usurer is an arch-thief and a robber who should rightly be hanged on the gallows seven times higher than other thieves. Indeed, God should prophesy about such beautiful penitence and merit from heaven through his holy angel and become a flagrant, blasphemous liar for the sake of the noble blood and circumcised saints who boast of being hallowed by God’s commandments, although they trample all of them under foot and do not keep one of them [LW 47:241-242].

The context shows Luther was totally convinced of the medieval stereotype of the Jews as thieves, in this context, because of the practice of usury. The editors of Luther’s Works explain,

The practice of usury, in the simple sense of the taking of interest on loans (without any connotation of exorbitant rates), is prohibited in such texts as Exod. 22:25, Lev. 25:35 ff., and Deut. 23:19 f., but only with respect to fellow Israelites. The Deuteronomy text is the most explicit with regard to dealings with others: “To a foreigner you may lend upon interest, but to your brother you shall not lend upon interest” (23:20). The practice of usury was strictly forbidden to Christians by the medieval church, but permitted to Jews. They prohibition began to break down during the Reformation period; Luther himself, however, steadfastly maintained the medieval position [LW 47: 169 (footnote 31)].

Even if Luther was right that the Jews practiced some sort of usury, the situation during the sixteenth century was not as simple as Luther makes it out. Eric Gritsch explains,

In a sermon of 1519, Luther joined the discussion on the use and abuse of money-lending, linked to the practice of "usury." Jews were accused of usury. But the charge was linked to an arrangement between Christian princes and Jewish merchants: the Christian political authorities permitted Jews to charge interest rates, but also made the Jews pay considerable sums for protection. It was a form of pawn-broking or of retail trade. Jewish traders offered discount prices, and Christian artisans complained about being cheated, using popular anti-Semitic rhetoric. Roman Catholic Canon Law prohibited usury, referring to Luke 6:35 ("lend, expecting nothing in return") [Eric Gritsch, Martin Luther's Anti-Semitism, Against His Better Judgment (Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2012), p. 57].

Conclusion
In Luther studies there have been a number of researchers who conclude Luther's later anti-Jewish tracts were written from a position different than current anti-semitism. Luther was born into a society that was anti-Judaic, but it was not the current anti-Judaic type of society that bases it racism on biological factors. Luther had no objections to integrating converted Jews into Christian society. He had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. If one frames the issues with these two categories (anti-semitism, anti-Judaic), Luther was not Anti-semitic. The contemporary use of the word "anti-semitism" though does not typically consider its distinction from anti-Judaism. The word now has a more broad meaning including anti-Judaism. The current debate centers around whether the evolved use of the term is a significant step towards describing previous history or if it's setting up an anachronistic standard for evaluating previous history [see my entry here in regard to Eric Gritsch]. As I've looked at this issue from time to time, I'm beginning to think more along the lines of evaluating Luther with the current understanding of the word anti-semitism.

I don't have anything to gain by an exoneration of Luther's obvious societal stereotype against the Jews. Luther was not infallible. He said a number of things ranging on the scale of brilliant to typical to ridiculous to offensive. From my perspective, Luther's theology neither stands nor falls because of statements on the negative side of the scale. It's my opinion that Luther's attitude toward the Jews is part of Church history, and, to point a finger at Luther one needs to consistently point the fingers beyond Luther as well. This would be the consistent thing to do. There are though a number of Rome's cyber-defenders that think the Third Reich began with Luther and think posting Luther's dreadful comments from The Jews and Their Lies is a meaningful argument against Protestantism. Consider what Luther, Exposing the Myth states:

While I leave to the reader to draw his own conclusions, it suffices to say that what Luther really was; and the picture that is presented of him today by modern scholars, Lutherans and Protestants alike is far from the truth. Given this fact, it’s not difficult to see how a nation like Germany was able to blindly follow a person like Hitler if it had previously so readily embrace a person like Luther. Adolf Hitler himself was indeed no doubt a true (spiritual) son of Luther and in many ways was only being logical to the principles set forth by Luther in his approach to things. Hitler himself declared the reality of this point in one of his speeches saying: “I do insist on the certainty that sooner or later – once we hold power – Christianity will be overcome and the German Church established. Yes, the German church, without a Pope and without the bible, and Luther, if he could be with us, would give us his blessing.”

Despite the slander against the nation of Germany (as if there is something intrinsically wrong with them), it's simply illogical to think Luther invented Jewish oppression and that the church collectively didn't play it's part in creating the anti-Judaic culture Luther lived in. If Luther's spiritual son was Hitler, whose spiritual son is Luther? Nope, many of Rome's cyber-defenders won't touch that one. The story of Luther's negativity towards the Jews is really to tell the story of medieval Christianity and medieval society's negativity towards the Jews.

Luther Wanted to Drown Jews Seeking Baptism?

Over on the Christian Forums discussion boards, a Luther quote about the Jews came up:

"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words `I baptise thee in the name of Abraham” – Martin Luther 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290. [36] Grisar, “Luther”, Vol. V. pg. 413."

This is a popular anti-Luther quote used by Roman Catholics, atheists, secularists, cultists, and virtually anyone with an ax to grind against Luther. This quote has a long history with usage increasing post-World War II. In the age of the Internet, it has the characteristics of a viral Facebook post or YouTube clip. Upon a surface reading of this quote snippet, one pictures a Jewish convert approaching Luther for baptism, and Luther brimming with murderous anti-Jewish hatred. Is this the case? Was Luther advocating drowning Jews that were being baptized into the Christian faith? Well see below the quote is not something Luther wrote but rather exists as an anecdote with such a sparse context, that even if he did say it, there's not enough information for an exact interpretation.

Documentation
The quote in the form above is probably being pulled from the Roman Catholic webpage, "Luther Exposing the Myth" (the references are similar and the "[36]" is a clear indicator this webpage was utilized). I've reviewed this webpage here. Some years back I contacted the author and was told he would take a look at my reviews and get back to me. He never did.

The documentation provided first refers to "Martin Luther 'The Facts About Luther, TAN Books, 1987, p. 290." This old book had sunk into obscurity until it was revived by the Roman Catholic publisher Tan Books in 1987. This particular quote is not on page 290 (nor did I locate its use anywhere in the book). Luther, Exposing the Myth does use this reference but attaches it to another quote.  The second bit of documentation ("Luther", Vol. V. pg. 413) is verbatim from Luther, Exposing the Myth and attached to this quote.  Luther, Exposing the Myth may have taken the quote from  Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

Of course, Luther proposed in detail how his followers should treat the “damned Jews.” “Never ought a Christian to eat or drink with a Jew”. “On being asked whether it would be right to box the ears of a Jew, Luther replied `Certainly. I for one would smack him on the jaw. Were I able, I would knock him down and stab him in my anger. It is lawful, according to both the human and the divine law, to kill a robber; then it is even more permissible to slay a blasphemer.'” Not a very Christian attitude; but worse is still to come. If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words `I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'” (Detailed references given in Grisar, “Luther”, vol. v, p. 413)

Wiener points to Hartmann Grisar, a Roman Catholic historian writing during the period of destructive criticism and hostility towards Luther. After noting Luther's disappointment that Jews were not converting to Christianity after the outbreak of the Reformation,  Grisar states on pages 412 - 413:

The fact is, however, that no increase in the number of conversions took place. This disappointing experience, the sight of the growing insolence of the Jews, their pride and usury, not to speak of personal motives, such as certain attempts he suspected them to have made on his life at the instigation of the Papists, brought about a complete change in Luther s opinions in the course of a few years. As early as 1531 or 1532, when a Hebrew baptised at Wittenberg had brought discredit upon him by relapsing into Judaism, he gave vent to the angry threat, that, should he find another pious Jew to baptise he would take him to the bridge over the Elbe, hang a stone round his neck and push him over with the words: I baptise thee in the name of Abraham; for "those scoundrels," so he adds, " scoff at us all and at our religion.

Cordatus, " Tagebuch," p. 196. Schlaginhaufen, "Aufzeichn.," p. 131. In both the passage begins: "Should I again baptise a Jew," thus pointing to an unfortunate experience of Luther's own, which is related more in detail in Schlaginhaufen's report. In the corresponding passage in "Colloq.," ed., Bindseil, 1, p. 460, we read further: " sicut fecit ille, qui hie Wittebergae baptizabatur."

Grisar mentions a historical setting and provides documentation to the primary sources. The words "Cordatus," "Tagebuch," "Schlaginhaufen," "Colloq.," and "Bindseil," are clues that the primary source for the quote is Luther's  Tischreden, in English known as the Table Talk. Luther didn't write the Table Talk. It is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written.

Grisar first refers to "Cordatus, "'Tagebuch,' p. 196." Conrad Cordatus was one of the earliest to take notes on Luther's incidental statements. Of his notes, he didn't always hear and record the comments himself. He is said to have taken Luther's comments from other sources. He later revised his Table Talk notes, making stylistic changes, thus his notes are as LW says, "a step further from what was actually said at the table" (LW 54:170). Because of this, Luther's Works (English edition) includes only a small sampling of those statements compiled by Cordatus (found in WA TR 2, 1950-3416).  Here is page 196 from Tagebuch Über Dr. Martin Luther, Geführt Von Dr. Conrad Cordatus (1885). The text reads:

"Schlaginhaufen, Aufzeichn.," refers to According to the records (nach den Aufzeichnungen ) of  John Schlaginhaufen. Schlaginhaufen was responsible for the entries 1232 to 1889 in WA, TR 2. His entries date from 1531 to 1532. LW states, "Nothing more is known about him until he appears in November, 1531, as one of the young men who lived in Luther’s home and ate at his table"(LW 54:125). Here is page 131 of Tischreden Luthers aus den jahren 1531 und 1532 Nach Den Aufzeichnungen von Johann Schlaginhaufen (1888):

 The last reference is to "'Colloq.,' ed., Bindseil, 1, p. 460." This refers to to D. Martini Lutheri Colloquia published by Henrico Ernesto Bindseil in 1848.  Here is page 460. The text reads,

This text from Bindseil can also be found in WA TR 2, 566 (entry 2634b). The Cordatus entry can be found on the same page (entry 2634a). Both of these entries appear in the Cordatus collection in WA.

As to the historical setting mentioned by Grisar ("As early as 1531 or 1532, when a Hebrew baptised at Wittenberg had brought discredit upon him by relapsing into Judaism"), Grisar says the information comes from "an unfortunate experience of Luther's own, which is related more in detail in Schlaginhaufen's report." This report does say something like,  "those villains of our religion laugh at us, as did the one who was baptized here at Wittenberg." Other than this, no documentation is provided. I've yet to find any credible information documenting or expounding on the details of this event.

For reasons mentioned above, the translators of LW chose not to include either of these entries. However, an English translation of (what appears to be) the German text did appear in 1848 by William Hazlitt: The Table Talk Or Familiar Discourse of Martin Luther, p.165.  Hazlitt's  translation is unique in three ways. First, the entry is probably mis-dated as 1541 (it is more likely from 1531-1532). Second Hazlitt rearranged the sentences in the statement, placing the leading controversial statement towards the end. Third, he added a concluding sentence not found in the primary contexts cited above.


Context

In 1541, Doctor Menius asked Doctor Luther, in what manner a Jew should be baptized? The Doctor replied: You must fill a large tub with water, and, having divested the Jew of his clothes, cover him with a while garment. He must then sit down in the tub, and you must baptize him quite under the water. The ancients, when they were baptized, were attired in white, whence the first Sunday after Easter, which was peculiarly consecrated to this ceremony, was called dominica in albis. This garb was rendered the more suitable, from the circumstance that it was, as now, the custom to bury people in a white shroud; and baptism, you know, is an emblem of our death. I have no doubt that when Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan, he was attired in a white robe. If a Jew, not converted at heart, were to ask baptism at my hands, I would take him on to the bridge, tie a stone round his neck, and hurl him into the river; for these wretches are wont to make a jest of our religion. Yet, after all, water and the Divine Word being the essence of baptism, a Jew, or any other, would be none the less validly baptized, that his own feelings and intentions were not the result of faith [William Hazlitt: The Table Talk Or Familiar Discourse of Martin Luther, p.165].

The original sources cited above demonstrate that this English text has been edited into a different order. The text should read this way, the added sentence is in red lettering:

[Martin Luther said:] If a Jew, not converted at heart, were to ask baptism at my hands, I would take him on to the bridge, tie a stone round his neck, and hurl him into the river [Elbe]; for these wretches are wont to make a jest of our religion [as did the one who was baptized here at Wittenberg].  Doctor Menius asked Doctor Luther, in what manner a Jew should be baptized? The Doctor replied: You must fill a large tub with water, and, having divested the Jew of his clothes, cover him with a while garment. He must then sit down in the tub, and you must baptize him quite under the water. The ancients, when they were baptized, were attired in white, whence the first Sunday after Easter, which was peculiarly consecrated to this ceremony, was called dominica in albis. This garb was rendered the more suitable, from the circumstance that it was, as now, the custom to bury people in a white shroud; and baptism, you know, is an emblem of our death. I have no doubt that when Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan, he was attired in a white robe. [Yet, after all, water and the Divine Word being the essence of baptism, a Jew, or any other, would be none the less validly baptized, that his own feelings and intentions were not the result of faith].

I've yet to find the Table Talk entry the last sentence was taken from. It is strikingly similar to a statement from Luther's Large Catechism:

For even though a Jew should to-day come dishonestly and with evil purpose, and we should baptize him in all good faith, we must say that his baptism is nevertheless genuine. For here is the water together with the Word of God. even though he does not receive it as he should, just as those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe.

Conclusion    
I began this entry by saying that upon a surface reading of this quote snippet, one pictures a Jewish convert approaching Luther for baptism, and Luther brimming with murderous anti-Jewish hatred. Luther though,  had nothing against Jews as “Jews.” He had something against their religion because he believed it denied and blasphemed Christ. In the same Table Talk collection, an utterance verifies that Luther had no problem baptizing converted Jews:

“A Jew came to me at Wittenberg, and said: He was desirous to be baptized, and made a Christian, but that he would first go to Rome to see the chief head of Christendom. From this intention, myself, Philip Melancthon, and other divines, labored to dissuade him, fearing lest, when he witnessed the offences and knaveries at Rome, he might be scared from Christendom. But the Jew went to Rome, and when he had sufficiently seen the abominations acted there, he returned to us again, desiring to be baptized, and said: Now I will willingly worship the God of the Christians for he is a patient God. If he can endure such wickedness and vallany as is done at Rome, he can suffer and endure all the vices and knaveries of the world” (Hazlitt, p. 353).

While this story also appears to have some odd additions placed by Hazlitt, notably the words "Wittenberg" and "Philip Melancthon" making this popular late Middle Ages story personal (contrast Hazlitt's rendering with WA TR 3, 3479 and LW 54:208-209), the sentiment from this alleged 1536 Table Talk gives the impression that Luther had no issue with Jews converting to Christianity and seeking baptism. The Table Talk material is highly rhetorical, and easily misconstrued when over-literalized. While some may see the quote under scrutiny exemplifying Luther's antisemitism, perhaps the quote would be better viewed as hostile hyperbole or bitter sarcasm. Certainly Luther wrote hostile rhetoric towards enemies of the Gospel, and certainly his rhetoric heated up in his later years towards the Jews. However, this quote contradicts his actual written statements about Jews converting to Christianity.

Addendum (2016)
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2007. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ

Here's an obscure Table Talk quote that makes the rounds: “I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ” (Table Talk, 2397b). It surfaces on Internet discussion boards. as well as on Roman Catholic web pages like Luther Exposing the Myth, The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote, Martin Luther the Bare Truth Unfolded, and many others.

Documentation
The most common documentation given is "Table Talk, 2397b." This is a good indicator that the quote came from Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (1945). Wiener states,

"Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ. 'I have greater confidence in my wife and my pupils than I have in Christ,' he said on one occasion quite shamelessly (“Table Talk”, 2397b).

The Table Talk is a collection of second hand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It is not something he actually wrote, but rather contains utterances he's purported to have said. "2397b" is not a page number. The utterances are numbered, so  "2397b" refers to the actual statement purported to have been made by Luther. LW 54 explains of this numbered statement, "The pieces numbered 1950 to 3416 in WA, TR 2 and 3 belong to the years 1532 and 1533 and were collected, though not necessarily recorded, by Conrad Cordatus" (LW 54:169). The actual reference then would be to WA 2:446.

Context

2397a and 2397b say similar things, but the text is purported to come from 2397b. The text in 2397b does say " Ego uxori meae et vobis singulis plus confido quam christo," but then comes a comma with the conclusion: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." The conclusion of the sentence is left out of the popular form circulating around the Internet, and actually gives the utterance quite a different meaning than that implied by Rome's defenders. 

Neither of these statements are contained in the English Luther's Works vol. 54. However, an old edition of the Table Talk (The Familiar Discourses of Dr. Martin Luther)  includes the following:

That God is more loving unto us than a Father towards his Children
GOD hath a better and more friendly heart towards his faithful ones, than a father or mother can have towards their children; as God himself saith in the Prophet Isaiah, Chapter xlix. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion of the son of her womb? yea, they, may forget, yet will not I forget thee, etc. But God must have patience with us. I believe that St. Paul was at enmity with himself, because he could not believe and love Christ so entirely as willingly he would have done. Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

Some form of the text of 2397a / 2397b appears to be at the conclusion of this paragraph:

Fie on the devil, and on our wicked flesh, that we cannot believe and trust in God, who hath given us so great and manifold benefits, and still doth give us all his goodnesses, I myself must confess, that I can put more trust in my wife, and in every one of my friends, than in Christ: when as, notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me.

As to the former part of the paragraph, it appears to come from a different Table Talk statement all together. Or, it could very well be two other Table Talk statements that precede the quote in question.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that the Table Talk is often devoid of context, the popular version of this statement leaves out the entirety of the sentence: "cum tamen nullus vestrum haec pro me faceret, ut crucifigeretur et moreretur pro me." This is captured and expanded upon in the English rendering, "notwithstanding, I well know, that none among them all would do and suffer for me that which he suffered, namely, to be crucified and slain for me." Perhaps the author putting this into English utilized both 2397a and 2397b. Whatever liberties may have been taken with the English rendering, the sentence even in a bald literal form presents a sentiment expressing the fact that it is wrong and sinful to put trust in anyone more than in Christ. This is much different than Wiener saying it means, "Luther does not always see eye to eye with God or Christ."

Addendum
This blog entry is a revision of an entry I posted back in 2009. The original can be found here. Because so many sources are now available online, I'm revising older entries by adding additional materials and commentary, and also fixing or deleting dead hyperlinks. Nothing of any significant substance has changed in this entry from that presented in the former.

Luther: Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery

A few years back I did an extensive series of blog entries looking at Luther quotes presented in the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth. Going through my Blogger drafts, I recalled that of the 50+ quotes, there was only one I was not able to track down.

Under the heading "Social Justice," Luther Exposing the Myth states:

“Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery”[Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1].

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should thirst after justice, while Luther believed rulers had their authority by God's will, even if that power was taken by unjust means. The implicit argument is that secular authority is to be obeyed at all costs because they have been placed in power by God. This is a caricature of Luther's views on secular authority missing the nuances, as well as not taking into account Luther's career-long appeals to Romans 13.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar Vol. 30, Pg. 1". The first bit of trouble this documentation has is that WA 30 comprises three separate volumes: WA 30 1 (catechism sermons, 1528-1529), WA 30 2 (writings 1529/30), WA 30 3 (writings, 1529/32). Which one is Luther, exposing the Myth referring to?  The second bit of trouble this documentation has is that the quote in question does not appear on page 1 in any of these volumes (WA 30,1:1; WA 30,2:1; WA 30,3:1). The actual source utilized was probably the secondary source, Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor by Peter Wiener. After doing a number of searches, I've not found any author before Weiner using this quote in this form. Wiener states,

Over and over again he returns to this favoured subject, that there are two moralities; the one in which we are faithful Christians and which regards merely our spiritual life, and the other which we adopt as citizens and where we owe obedience to the secular power.

The secular power has to be blindly obeyed by the citizens. It is God's will that there are rulers and princes in order to see that these secular laws are obeyed. The princes are the gods upon earth. “Wherever the princes take their power from, it does not regard us. It is the will of God, irrespective whether they have stolen their power or assumed it by robbery” (W30, 1). “If anybody has the might, he obtained it from God. Therefore he has also the right.” It is strange to notice that more than once Luther—not Bismarck!—uses the term “Might is Right”.

Nobody has a right ever to oppose this secular power. “Even if the authorities are wicked and unjust, nobody is entitled to oppose them, or to riot against them.” The people, the mass of the people have no rights whatsoever. “The ass must have blows and the people must be ruled by force. God knew this well, for it was not a fox's brush He gave to rulers, but a sword.” “Even though the authorities act unjustly, God wills that they should be obeyed without deceit . . . for to suffer unjustly harms no man's soul; indeed it is profitable to it.”

As stated above, this was the only quote from Luther, Exposing the Myth in which I could not locate the specific context. Weiner's documentation in his book is notoriously spurious [See Gordon Rupp's response, Martin Luther, Hitler's Cause or Cure, in reply to Peter F. Wiener (London: Lutterworth, 1945), p.10]. Weiner claims to "guarantee that before going to press I have carefully checked all quotations." In fairness, perhaps "W30,1" was a publishers typo.  Weiner admits to only reading some of Luther's writings, "his most important works," and also notes reliance on secondary sources. After going through a number of his citations, I would conclude that the majority of Weiner's references were taken from hostile secondary sources.


Context?
With that caveat, I offer the following as a possible source: To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate (1520) [LW 44:115-218; WA 6, (381 404-469]. If Weiner actually was citing Luther directly,  it would be consistent with his claim of utilizing Luther's "most important works."  Luther states,

Since the empire has been given us by the providence of God as well as by the plotting of evil men, without any guilt on our part, I would not advise that we give it up, but rather that we rule it wisely and in the fear of God, as long as it pleases him for us to rule it. For, as has been said already, it does not matter to him where an empire comes from; his will is that it be governed. Though the popes were wrong in taking it from others, we were not wrong in receiving it. It has been given us through evil men by the will of God: it is the will of God we have regard for rather than the wicked intentions of the popes. Their intention when they gave it to us was to be emperors, indeed, more than emperors, and only to fool and mock us with the title. The king of Babylon also seized his kingdom by robbery and violence. Yet it was God’s will that that kingdom be ruled by the holy princes Daniel, Hananiah, Azariah, and Michael. Much more, then, is it God’s will that this empire should be ruled by the Christian princes of Germany, no matter whether the pope stole it, got it by force, or established it fresh. It is all God’s ordering, which came about before we knew about it. [LW 44:210]

Conclusion
Granted, this paragraph  from LW 44 doesn't have the exact structure of the quote under scrutiny, but all the elements are there. Perhaps at some point in the future the exact source for Weiner's quote  will emerge. Till his source is located, it may be the case he took this quote from a secondary source that may have been summarizing Luther's view from WA 6 (LW 44).

Regardless of the documentation tedium, Weiner does not to take into account that the church and her theologians have had to contend with Romans 13:1-7,

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Christians of all generations have wrestled with this text. This passage (along with Titus 3:1 and 1 Peter 2:13-14) is not simply an apostolic suggestion.  If one searches Luther's writings, he appealed to this text often. Yes, it's true Luther said rulers come to power by the will of God, and if this is so, some of those rulers have come to power by nefarious means. For a Christian, there's nothing mythical to be exposed about this. Luther, Exposing the Myth did nothing more than prove they're unaware of Romans 13.

The caricature also comes in when the nuances of Luther's views are missed. Yes, Luther said to be obedient to bad government. But it wasn't left at that.  In a sermon on John 19:11 he says to tolerate injustice from bad government, but to not be silent about it (LW 69:236-237). One need only read through Luther's writings in regard to the peasant's revolt to see that Luther criticized the secular authorities. Even a less tolerant biographer has commented,

Luther's treatise on secular authority shows that he was anything but passive before princes. He railed against their evils and foibles. He always stood ready to assault not only the Duke Georges of the world but also his own successive princes in Wittenberg when they did things- such as raising taxes— that he regarded as immoral and unjust. Yet these protests remained individual and pastoral, and Luther never saw himself as the leader of a rebellion that might organize itself politically to force a government to accede to its wishes. The Christian minister should speak out and be willing to suffer for his opinions, trusting that God was sovereign. Always Luther remained fixed on the admonition of Jesus in John 18:36, "My kingdom is not of this world" [Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death (Massachusetts: The Belknap Press, 1999), p. 370]

There were also situations in which Luther said rulers legislating against the authority of God can be resisted and a Christian is not obliged to obey their contrary commands (WA 52:533). Eric Gritsch has stated that "Although Luther has been depicted as a staunch defender of the political status quo, if not a 'princely hireling,' there is sufficient evidence to show he did exercise and teach what has been called 'the right to resist secular government' (Widerstandscrecht)" [Martin- God's Court Jester, Luther in Retrospect (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), p. 124]. Gritsch then presents a number of historical examples from Luther's life, like when Luther disobeyed orders to stay in hiding at the Wartburg.

In the Church Postil he preached,

But what if they would take the Gospel from us or forbid us to preach it? Then you are to say: The Gospel and Word of God. I will not give up to you. This is not within your power, for your rule is a temporal rule, over worldly matters; but the Gospel is a spiritual, heavenly treasure, and therefore your authority does not extend over the Gospel and God's Word. We recognize the emperor as a master of temporal affairs, not of God's Word; this we shall not suffer to be torn from us, for it is the power of God, Rom. 1, 16, against which not even the gates of hell shall prevail. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther, Volume 3 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000, 305].

For a  helpful compilation of quotes from Luther demonstrating the complexity of his view, see the entry, "Government" in What Luther Says by Ewald Plass. Plass presents almost thirty pages of citations from Luther. From there, one could venture out to find the primary sources cited by Plass and then evaluate the opinions of various biographers (most basic biographies of Luther present his view of secular authority).

Luther: "To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself"

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Lying":

Christ taught: “You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof” [John 8:44]...Luther teaches: “To lie in a case of necessity or for convenience or in excuse – such lying would not be against God; He was ready to take such lies on Himself” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375.)

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther taught contrarily to Jesus on lying. This has been a popular charge against Luther for centuries- that he blatantly taught lying was an acceptable practice.

Documentation 
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 375." Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 375 which documents material from  the a protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 17, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting.

The chances that Luther, Exposing the Myth actually used Lenz as the source for this quote are slim. If this source was used, the quote was mined out of a writing from an out-of-print book from something written in German and then translated into English.  As with other quotes used by this webpage, it was probably taken from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 41. Wiener probably took the quote from Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther, His Life and His Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1930), p. 522 or Grisar's Luther IV page 51. Wiener uses two quotes in the same order and documentation as that presented by Grisar (and also Luther, Exposing the Myth does the same).  So, the ultimate source for this quote is in this form is probably Grisar. As I've looked into this quote, it appears that Grisar is the primary source for the English translation, and perhaps the only source for the English translation in its multiple uses on contemporary Internet webpages. Denifle provides the following, typical of Roman polemicists in regard to the context:

On July 17, the Reformer went to still worse lengths. There is much that is right before God, he said, which before the world must be suppressed. Were one to acknowledge all that is right before God, not right before the world, that is the devil's work. That the Landgrave cannot compass some stout lies, it matters not. There is a maiden here concerned. He would lose land and people, were he to attempt to stick to his decision. "A lie of necessity, a lie of utility, a helping lie — to bring about such lies were not against God; he would take them upon himself." They had granted a dispensation to the Landgrave, because it was a case of necessity. He and his associates "give the advice and suffer him to retain the maiden secretly and on denial or "he should bear no burden in telling a lie on account of the girl for the sake of the advantage to Christendom and all the world."

A curious thing about this quote (and another covered previously) is that one would think the context for such a popular quote would be easy to track down. That is, a context would be readily available. But it isn't. The reason is probably due to the complexity of the primary source. the source appears to be the account of a meeting, not a specific writing. Moreover, it's usually the case that Internet polemicists don't really care what a context says anyhow. That has been my finding, particularly with Roman Catholic polemicists.



Historical Context 
If you've got a Luther biography, chances are a treatment of the incident of Philip's bigamy is included. As it stands though in English, the most thorough historical thorough treatment of the bigamy of Philip of Hesse incident may be that found in Grisar's Luther IV (and this would be a Roman Catholic evaluation).  It begins on page 13 and stretches to page 79. The strength of Grisar's treatment is his attention to detail. I've discussed the historical context of this incident before, and I've done a number of entries on Luther and polygamy or bigamy. To attempt to provide a complete historical response to Grisar would probably wind up being the size of a small book. That being said, Grisar was responded to by his contemporaries:

1) W.H.T. Dau, Luther Examined and Reexamined: A Review of Catholic Criticism and a Plea for Revaluation. Dau almost certainly had Grisar in mind throughout this book. His discussion of this incident begins on page 225 and ends on page 235.

2) Heinrich Boehmer, Luther and the Reformation in the Light of Modern Research (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1930), 213-224.  An earlier shorter version of this book is available online, with the discussion beginning on page 227. Boehmer also wrote in light of Grisar's work.


Luther and Lying
The main thrust of Luther, Exposing the Myth with this quote is not bigamy, but rather the aspect of lying. Boehmer tackles this directly:

But even if the reformer was not a falsifier, did he not take up a very equivocal attitude towards the commandment of truthfulness and himself transgress this commandment in the most reprehensible way? It is true, indeed, that he did not scruple to declare Nutzlügen, expedient or beneficial lies, as theoretically permissible, and in one' famous case even advocated such a white lie. These are facts which are beyond doubt, but let us once more listen to the accused before indulging in the exquisite pleasure of outraged morality. Luther defines as "Nutzlügen" those lies which are told for the advantage and happiness of another, such as the lie of the Egyptian midwives in favour of the Hebrew male children whom they were ordered by Pharaoh to throw into the Nile (Exodus 1. 18, 19). Certain early Christian theologians such as Hilarius, Chrysostomn, Cassian, also declared such beneficial lies to be, morally blameless. Augustine, however, stamped them as sinful, and he was followed by St. Thomas and the whole Thomist school; still they regarded this kind of lie as a venial sin, and on the other hand held the clever concealment of the truth (dissimulatio) to be permissible. Other theologians were of opinion that in certain circumstances it might be a greater sin to speak the truth than to be guilty of a Nutzlüge. For it is only the harmful lie which God unconditionally forbids (mendacium adversus proximum prohibet), the beneficial lie He only restricts (pro proximo cohibet). Luther adopted the latter view, but in many respects, while choosing almost the same examples as illustrations went along lines of his own. He found that the Holy Fathers in the Bible had occasionally made use of the Nutzlüge without their conduct receiving blame on that account from the authors of the Holy Scriptures; indeed it seemed to him that St. Paul, Christ and God did not always say exactly what they meant. This to him was sufficient to prove the permissibility not only of the ordinary lie of necessity, but also of the expedient lie to the benefit and advantage of one's neighbor. This method of proof will not be countenanced by any Protestant today. But that does not prove that Luther was wrong in, his view of the question itself  As far as the question itself' is concerned, most ethical writers think exactly as he does, with the exception of a few rigorists. And even those rigorists often find their principles very hard pressing among the minor and major emergencies of life...[Boehmer (1930), 211-212].

 While not a primary source, Preserved Smith includes a Table Talk entry on what Luther is purported to have stated about lies:

33. CONCERNING LIES
Lies are of four kinds: First the sportive lie, a hearty, ludicrous jest, which affords amusement or cheers up those who are depressed. Second the charitable lie, a good useful lie, which springs from the desire to help our kindred or our friends, as for example, that of Abraham, when he said that his wife Sarah was his sister, or of Michal, when she saved David, or of Elisha, when he said to the Syrians: 'This is not the way, nor is this the city.' The third kind is the noxious lie, which seeks to deceive and injure, according to the way of the world. The fourth is the irreverent lie, by which God is blasphemed. The first two are praiseworthy, since they do no harm; the last two are intolerable, since they offend both man and God. There is also another kind, namely, the necessary lie, although it does not differ much from the second kind, the charitable; and this may be resorted to without fault, if it is not accompanied by an oath such as 'really,' 'truly,' 'by God,' or the like." "A liar is far worse than a murderer and does more harm, because he deceives, while the murderer is unable to deceive. Judas, however, was both a liar and a murderer, like his father the devil." "It is a marvel that when Judas was eating at table with Christ and the disciples he should not have blushed with shame,when Christ said  'One of you shall betray me.' The other disciples had not the slightest suspicion that Judas was about to betray Christ; each one feared indeed that he himself would be the traitor rather than Judas, to whom Christ had entrusted the purse and the whole business management, on account of which he was held in the highest esteem among the apostles."

This statement finds some verification in the transcripts of Luther's Genesis Commentary. In regard to Genesis 12:3, Luther is said to have stated:

Thus this passage has given rise not only to many questions but also to a variety of offenses; for Abraham values his own life more highly than the chastity of his wife and the welfare of others. We shall first speak about lying, concerning which Jerome and Augustine engage in an argument. Augustine assumes three kinds of lies: the playful, the obliging, and the deadly. Playful lies he calls those of poets or of actors on the stage. We know that they are lying when they represent something as actually having been done; yet the lie does no harm and is even pleasing, because it entertains and provokes laughter. This, therefore, can be termed a literary sin. The second kind of lie is the obliging one, when we lie for the sake of someone’s good, as Michal lies when she says (1 Sam. 19:17) that David had threatened her with death. Augustine relates the example of a certain bishop who was unwilling to betray someone who had taken refuge with him. Such is the lie of Hushai the Archite (2 Sam. 15:34) and that of the woman at the well of רֹגֶל (2 Sam. 17:20). This lie is called “obliging” because it not only serves the advantage of someone else, who would otherwise suffer harm or violence, but also prevents a sin. Therefore it is not proper to call it a lie; for it is rather a virtue and outstanding prudence, by which both the fury of Satan is hindered and the honor, life, and advantages of others are served. For this reason it can be called pious concern for the brethren, or, in Paul’s language, zeal for piety. Strictly defined, it is a lie when our neighbor is deceived by us to his ruin and our own advantage. Out of respect for the fathers I am keeping this distinction, even though it is not precise enough[Luther, M. (1999, c1960). Vol. 2: Luther's works, vol. 2 : Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 6-14 (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (2:291). Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House].

Conclusion
When Luther's actual views on lying are fleshed out a bit, it becomes apparent how a simple context-less quote can mean something more than it intends.  Luther did not believe that lying in all its various forms was allowable.  As a trained medieval theologian, he made crucial distinctions.

The question as I see it in regard to the historical context of the quote is if the situation was such that a lie of necessity was prudent and acceptable. That's a different question. In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons. Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).

Luther: We cannot claim to fathom completely the meaning of a single verse of Scripture

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "Sacred Scripture":

It is worth noting that while Luther claimed for himself the right to interpret scripture according to his own view, and claimed that he was intelligent enough to judge anyone and everything by scripture alone yet he openly affirms that "We cannot claim to fathom completely the meaning of a single verse of Scripture; we succeed in apprehending only the A B C of it, and even that imperfectly." - Luther, Table-talk, trans. Gustave Brunet, Paris, Garnier, 1844, pg. 288.

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther contradicted himself saying he could interpret the Bible, but elsewhere claimed he could not.

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Luther, Table-talk, trans. Gustave Brunet, Paris, Garnier, 1844, pg. 288." First, the Table Talk isn't something Luther actually wrote. It's something he's purported to have said. Second, based on previous documentation, it's improbable that Gustave Brunet's book was actually used by Luther, Exposing the Myth (they typically have compiled their assortment of Luther quotes from various secondary English sources). Third, in regard to Gustave Brunet's French translation of the Table Talk: Les Propos de Table,  Preserved Smith has provided a brief overview of this translation. According to LW 54, Brunet's French translation follows John Aurifaber's translation (LW 54, introduction). Page 288 can be found here.

Context
In Brunet's French translation, the quote in question states,

Le docteur Juste Jonas, étant une fois à table avec le docteur Martin Luther, dit qu'il y avait dans l'Ecriture sainte une sagesse si profonde que personne ne pouvait l'étudier à fond, ni la comprendre entièrement; et le docteur Luther dit alors : « Nous sommes en effet des écoliers, car nous ne saurions prétendre à approfondir complètement un seul verset de l'Ecriture, et nous ne réussissons qu'à en saisir l'A, B, C, et même imparfaitement.

The German text can be found here:

English translations are available in older versions of the Table Talk. For instance:

Dr. Jonas Justus remarked at Luther's table: There is in the Holy Scripture a wisdom so profound, that no man may thoroughly study it or comprehend it. "Ay," said Luther, "we must ever remain scholars here; we cannot sound the depth of one single verse in Scripture; we get hold but of the ABC, and that imperfectly. Who can so exalt himself as to comprehend this one line of St. Peter: 'Rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings.' Here St. Peter would have us rejoice in our deepest misery and trouble, like as a child kisses the rod."

In this English version, the line that begins, "Who can so exalt himself as to comprehend this one line of St. Peter..." is based on a translation of a few sentences from the next paragraph in the German version (and it can also be found in Brunet's French translation).

Conclusion
In context, the remark simply points out the profound depth of the Scriptures. It's not that the Scriptures can't be understood according to Luther, it's that they have a rich unfathomable depth due to the fact they are the very words of God. Note the example given to Peter's words.

This quote doesn't appear to be in LW 54, but something very similar is presented:

No. 5562: To Believe and to Comprehend Are Not the Same Spring, 1543

When Dr. Jonas said that the mind of man cannot comprehend articles of faith and that it is enough that we begin only to assent, the doctor [Martin Luther] said, “Yes, dear Dr. Jonas, if one could believe them the way they’re written, our hearts would leap for joy. That’s certain. Accordingly we won’t arrive at the place where we comprehend them. In Torgau a wretched little woman once came to me and said, ‘Ah, dear Doctor, I have the idea that I’m lost and can’t be saved because I can’t believe.’ Then I replied, ‘Do you believe, dear lady, that what you pray in the Creed is true?’ She answered with clasped hands, ‘Oh yes, I believe it; it’s most certainly true!’ I replied, ‘Then go in God’s name, dear lady. You believe more and better than I do.’

“It’s the devil who puts such ideas into people’s heads and says, ‘Ah, you must believe better. You must believe more. Your faith is not very strong and is insufficient.’ In this way he drives them to despair. We are so constructed by nature that we desire to have a conscious faith. We’d like to grasp it with our hands and shove it into our bosom, but this doesn’t happen in this life. We can’t comprehend it, but we ought to apprehend it. We should hold to the Word and let ourselves drag along in this way.” [LW 54:453].

Luther: What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Lying":

Christ taught: “You are of your father the devil: and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning: and he stood not in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof” [John 8:44.]Luther teaches: “What harm could it do if a man told a good lusty lie in a worthy cause and for the sake of the Christian Churches?” (Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373.)

Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Luther taught contrarily to Jesus on lying.

Documentation 
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Lenz: Briefwechsel, Vol. 1. Pg. 373." Lenz refers to German historian  Max Lenz. Lenz edited the correspondence and documents related to Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse. "Briefwechsel" refers to correspondence, so this particular reference appears to be to his work,  Briefwechsel des Landgrafen Philipp mit Bucer. Vol. I. Leipzig. 1880. This volume covers materials from February 1540 to February 1546 from Phillip of Hesse. Here is page 373 which documents material from  the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. The quote therefore is not specifically to one of Luther's writings. It is actually from documentation of what was said at this meeting.

The chances that Luther, Exposing the Myth actually used Lenz as the source for this quote are slim. If this source was used, the quote was mined out of a writing from an out-of-print book from something written in German and then translated into English.  As with other quotes used by this webpage, it was probably taken from Peter Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 41. Wiener probably took the quote from Hartmann Grisar, Martin Luther, His Life and His Work (Maryland: Newman Press, 1930), p. 522 or Grisar's Luther IV page 51. Wiener uses two quotes in the same order and documentation as that presented by Grisar (and also Luther, Exposing the Myth does the same).  So the ultimate source for this quote is in this form is probably Grisar.

The quote exists is other forms: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." Simply Google book search this quote, and a number of hits occur. The quote in this form is actually two different quotes from two different documents. The second half would be found on page 375 of Lenz. In tracking down the quote in this form, see this discussion from Snopes.com, Questionable Quotes, "Martin Luther Quote."

Context
The relevant text in German from page 373 of Lenz reads:

In his book The Life and Letters of Martin Luther,  Preserved Smith provides (at the very least) a brief overview of the details of the historical context surrounding this quote  (The Bigamy of Philip of Hesse 1540, pp. 373-386), as does Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol 3 1532-1546 (pp. 205-215). Both of these sources present a good compare and contrast. Smith isn't always sympathetic to Luther, Brecht though typically will be.

The quote itself was the outcome the situation provoked by Landgrave Philip of Hesse. Philip, an important political figure for the early Protestants, went through a series of maneuverings attempting to justify taking a second wife. Smith recounts Philip began this effort as early as 1526, writing Luther for advice. Luther denied him any approval (p. 373).  Fast forward to 1539, Philip "determined Luther or no Luther" to take a second wife. Philip, convincing Bucer, sent him to get approval from Wittenberg.  The Wittenberg theologians noted that God intended monogamy, but conceded to Philip's bigamy, noting it as an exception. They denied it any sort of precedent becoming law, and intended it to be secret pastoral counseling. Brecht calls the advise "extremely risky and in all probability wrong from the very beginning" (p. 207).

Brecht was right, the  bigamy approval became public. This after some denial from Luther and the Wittenberg theologians. Brecht notes that at one point during this fiasco that had the Emperor called Philip to account for his bigamy, Luther would assume responsibility for the Wittenberg counsel (p. 211) as giving Philip private pastoral counseling. This position was maintained by Luther at the First protocol to the Eisenach Conference, July 15, 1540. On the other hand,  Luther maintained the advise was not meant for public policy, but as only the solution to a messy personal problem (See Brecht, p. 212). At these meetings Luther argued the best thing to do was deny the second marriage, for as Brecht points out "Luther foresaw grave consequences for him and the church, and in this he was proved to be correct" (Brecht 3, p. 212).

The quote in question comes from these meetings. Smith translates:

Is it not a good plan to say that the bigamy had been discussed and should not Philip say that he had indeed debated the matter, but had not yet come to a decision? All else must be kept quiet. What is it, if for the good and sake of the Christian Church, one should tell a good, strong lie? .. . And before he, Luther, would reveal the confession which Bucer had made him in the Landgrave's name, or let people talk so about a pious prince whom he always wished to serve, he would rather say that Luther had gone mad, and take the blame on himself.

In the end, Luther was to find out that Philip was not entirely honest about his extra-marital activities and said that had he knew beforehand, he would never have given Philip permission to take a second wife. Even after the entire situation was exposed, more controversy followed as supporters of Philip published treatises defending his polygamy. Luther immediately began writing against this, writing things like,  "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (p. 214). This writing was stopped for publication for political reasons (Brecht, pp. 213-214). Brecht concludes that in the end Luther realized giving confessional advise to Philip was one of the worst mistakes he made (p. 214).  Smith concludes a bit differently:

Luther's letters tell the truth but not the whole truth. Regrettable as is his connection with the bigamy, an impartial student can hardly doubt that he acted conscientiously, not out of desire to flatter a great prince, but in order to avoid what he believed to be a greater moral evil. His statement in the Babylonian Captivity that he preferred bigamy to divorce, and his advice to Henry VIII in 1531, both exculpate him in this case. Moreover the careful study of Rockwell has shown that his opinion was shared by the great majority of his contemporaries, Catholic and Protestant alike. It is perhaps harder to justify his advice to get out of the difficulty by a lie. This, however, was certainly an inheritance from the scholastic doctrine of the sacredness of confession. A priest was bound by Church law to deny all that passed in the confessional. Moreover, many of the Church Fathers had allowed a lie to be on occasions the lesser of two evils. Nevertheless, though these considerations palliate Luther's guilt, the incident will always remain, in popular imagination as well as in historic judgment, the greatest blot on his career.

Conclusion
I think it's beyond question that Luther got himself into trouble here. Perhaps one could argue that Philip was an important political person to the well-being of the Protestant territories and this set the stage for Luther's bending of the rules.  There are though probably other instances in Luther's writings in which he would abhor bending the rules or lying, whatever the consequences.

I would side with those who believe Luther got himself into trouble over this, and deserved the consequences.  Here's though where  presuppositions come into play. I don't believe Luther was any sort of infallible pope, nor do I think he was beyond error or sin throughout his career. Since I consider Luther a basically honest person, it's not much a stretch for me to conclude he got himself in trouble here and subsequently learned his lesson. That's at least what the evidence shows.

On the other hand, web pages like Luther, Exposing the Myth presuppose that Luther was basically a dishonest person. This cover-up was simply Luther being Luther. No amount of evidence will persuade people like that otherwise. No, in their minds Luther was a lifelong advocate of polygamy and lying. The ironic thing is that web pages like Luther, Exposing the Myth don't appear to have any problem giving off the false impression that their research was primary and honest, when it really does not look to be so.

Luther: "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it"

The following is from the web page Luther, Exposing the Myth, under the heading "On Pride":

Christ taught: “And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled.” Luther teaches: “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it”[Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401].
Luther Exposing the Myth says their stated purpose is to show that "from Luther’s own words we shall see him for what he really was, that is a rebellious apostate, who abandoned the faith and led many into apostasy from God under the guise of “reformation” in order to follow his perverse inclinations." With this quote, they attempt to show Christ taught one should be humble, while Luther pridefully claims his teachings are true "even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it."

Documentation
Luther, Exposing the Myth cites "Weimar, Vol. 18, Pg. 401." This page can be found here. It's the last page from the treatise entitled, "Ein Sendbrief von dem barten Büchlein wider die Bauern" (1525). In English, it's referred to as "Circular Letter on the Severe Booklet Against the Peasants" or "An Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants." In the English LW set, the quote can be found in LW 46:84, and also in the earlier Works of Martin Luther IV:281.

The possibilities the author of Luther, Exposing the Myth actually reading any of the above sources is rather slim. It's more probable the quote was taken from Peter F. Wiener's Martin Luther, Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor, page 28. There the author states,

Luther knew that he was superior to any man or saint. “St. Augustine or St. Ambrosius cannot be compared with me.” “They shall respect our teaching which is the word of God, spoken by the Holy Ghost, through our lips”. “Not for a thousand years has God bestowed such great gifts on any bishop as He as on me” (E61, 422). “God has appointed me for the whole German land, and I boldly vouch and declare that when you obey me you are without a doubt obeying not me but Christ” (W15, 27). “Whoever obeys me not, despises not me but Christ.” “I believe that we are the last trump that sounds before Christ is coming”. “What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it.” (W18, 401). “Whoever rejects my doctrine cannot be saved.” “Nobody should rise up against me”.

Wiener probably got the quote from reading Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar. Grisar cites the same quote on page 284 of Martin Luther His Life and work, and also on page 208 of Luther volume 2.

Historical Context
This quote comes from Luther's writings during the peasants war.  Luther's statements about the peasants and rulers were being maligned from friend and foe alike. In the writing in question, Luther offers a public explanation for his views. LW explains, 

In this treatise Luther defends at length the views he had advanced in Admonition to Peace and Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants. The peasants should not have rebelled, for the duty of a Christian is to suffer injustice, not to seize the sword and take to violence. His opponents, Luther says, can criticize him as they will, but they cannot change the fact that in the light of God’s word the rebellious peasants deserved to be put to death and to have their insurrection suppressed by the full force of the governing authorities. Force was the only language the rebels understood. Furthermore, Luther argues, his critics’ sudden surge of sympathy for the defeated peasants marks them as secret rebels against God and state.

But if there was no excuse for the peasants to rebel, neither was there any excuse for the rulers to indulge their lust for rebel blood. Here, however, Luther is not moved by any sense of “fair play.” He disclaims responsibility for the wanton cruelty of the rulers, which, he says, is nothing but the flagrant abuse by the princes of their God-given office. Such cruelty is as reprehensible and sinful as insurrection. The princes, he says, will surely reap God’s wrath for such conduct. [LW 46:61]

Context
An important question to ask is exactly what Luther was referring to when he said "What I teach and write remains true even though the whole world should fall to pieces over it." The quote in question comes from the very last paragraph of the treatise:

This, dear sir and friend, is my answer to your letter. I hope that I have more than satisfied you. If anyone is not satisfied, let him remain, in God’s name, wise and prudent, righteous and holy; and let me remain a fool and a sinner. I wish that they would leave me in peace; but they will not win, and what I teach and write will still be true, even though the whole world were to burst. If anyone wants to be peculiar, I, too, shall be peculiar, and we shall see who is right in the end. [LW 46:83-84]

Interestingly, the very same sort of comment can be found in the beginning of the treatise:

Here I do not want to hear or know about mercy, but to be concerned only about what God’s word requires. On this basis, my little book was and remains fight, even though the whole world take offense at it. [LW 46:56]

What is it that God's word requires?

God’s word says, “My son, fear the Lord and the king; if you do not, disaster will suddenly come upon you” [Prov. 24:21–22]. And in Romans 12 [13:2], “Whoever resists God’s authority will incur judgment.” Why is not St. Paul merciful? If we are to preach God’s word, we must preach the word that declares his wrath, as well as that which declares mercy. We must preach of hell as well as heaven, and help extend God’s word and judgment and work over both the righteous and the wicked, so that the wicked may be punished and the good protected.[LW 46:66]

Conclusion
In this treatise, Luther offers a thorough defense of his earlier writings about the peasants. This is not the place to restate all those arguments, the interested reader can seek them out.

What concerns me is the particular interpretation placed on Luther's words by his various critics. Luther, Exposing the Myth sees the statement as prideful. Peter F. Wiener interprets the statement as a claim to superiority. What the context though shows is a carefully argued defense based on a Scriptural principle that the government bears the sword. I would simply ask Luther's critics to explain Romans 13 before charging him with either pride or a superiority complex:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Addendum
As an aside, one could argue that those rulers who slew the peasants were overly harsh, so Luther was simply helping tyrants be tyrannical. Such an argument though would be at the expense of Luther's stated position:

I made it plain that I was speaking of those who were first approached in a friendly way, and would not respond. All my words were directed against the obdurate, hardened, blinded peasants, who would neither see nor hear, as anyone may see who reads them; and yet you say that I advocate the merciless slaughter of the poor captured peasants. If you are going to read books this way and interpret them as you please, what book will have any chance with you? Therefore, as I wrote then so I write now: Let no one have mercy on the obstinate, hardened, blinded peasants who refuse to listen to reason; but let everyone, as he is able, strike, hew, stab, and slay, as though among mad dogs, so that by so doing he may show mercy to those who are ruined, put to flight, and led astray by these peasants, so that peace and safety may be maintained. It is better to cut off one member without mercy than to have the whole body perish by fire, or by disease [Matt. 5:29–30]. How do you like that? Am I still a preacher of the gospel who advocates grace and mercy? If you think I am not, it makes little difference, for you are a bloodhound, and a rebellious murderer and destroyer of the country, you and your rebellious peasants, whom you are flattering in their rebellion.[LW 46:73]

I earnestly ask you, and everyone, to read my book fairly, and not run through it so hurriedly. Then you will see that I was advising only Christian and pious rulers, as befits a Christian preacher. I say it again and for the third time. I was writing only for rulers who might wish to deal in a Christian or otherwise honest way with their people, to instruct their consciences concerning this matter to the effect that they ought to take immediate action against the bands of rebels both innocent and guilty. And if they struck the innocent, they were not to let their consciences trouble them, since they were by the very act confessing that they were bound to do their duty to God. Afterward, however, if they won, they were to show grace, not only to those whom they considered innocent, but to the guilty as well.

But these furious, raving, senseless tyrants, who even after the battle cannot get their fill of blood, and in all their lives ask scarcely a question about Christ—these I did not undertake to instruct. It makes no difference to these bloody clogs whether they slay the guilty or the innocent, whether they please God or the devil. They have the sword, but they use it to vent their lust and serf-will, I leave them to the guidance of their master, the devil, who is indeed leading them.

Luther goes on to further describe such rulers:

Why should I write for scoundrels and hogs like that? The Scriptures call such people “beasts” [Titus 1:12], that is, “wild animals,” such as wolves, boars, bears, and lions, and I shall not make men of them; and yet we must put up with them, when God plagues us with them. I had two fears. If the peasants became lords, the devil would become abbot; but if these tyrants became lords, the devil’s mother would become abbess. Therefore I wanted to do two things: quiet the peasants, and instruct the pious lords. The peasants were unwilling to listen, and now they have their reward; the lords, too, will not hear, and they shall have their reward also. However, it would have been a shame if they had been killed by the peasants; that would have been too easy a punishment for them. Hell-fire, trembling, and gnashing of teeth [Matt. 22:13] in hell will be their reward eternally, unless they repent.[LW 46:83-84]