The legacy of Martin Luther’s political theology is contested in the philosophy of religion. More contemporary voices like Žižek and Mjaaland have begun challenging the older, intensely critical readings of Engels, Adorno, and Fromm, but the former authors’ defenses of Luther are underdeveloped. This study aims to fill this lacuna and argues that Luther’s critiques of revolutionary prophetism go hand in hand with his challenge to Rome’s magisterial authority. Both, for the reformer, constitute forms of ‘subjectivism.’ The objective Word’s standing over against the congregation is what guarantees the latter as a site of deliberative rationality. In order to see why this is the case, however, we cannot look only at Luther’s explicitly political writings, but also to his rejection of memorialism in the Eucharistic controversy.