Birgit Stolt: Joy, Love and Trust

I look at Martin Luther from the perspective of a linguist. Many years ago I wrote my dissertation - in germanic philology - on the mixture of Latin and German in Luther´s Table Talks. Now the Table Talks are a very special text. You cannot intimately study their peculiar language without getting involved in their contents. Their subject matter is a kaleidoscopic blend of everyday matters and politic and theological reasoning. Because Luther´s large family and household participated in the meals alongside students, friends and guests, - one estimate gives up to 20-30 persons - the topics ranged over an unlimited field of interest. After spending some time reading the Table Talks you feel a personal relationship with the people. In many ways they do not differ from us today, but on the other hand there are also differences as a result of the 500 years which have passed since their time.

Most of the Table Talks are written in the early 1530's making my picture of Martin Luther that of a mature man in his mid to late forties, head of a growing family. This time of his life has not been as exhaustively treated by historians as have been the dramatic early years.

My other access to Luther is by way of his Bible translation, which still causes admiration from everyone concerned. There we have a rich material comprising both theoretical insights of surprisingly 'modern' character and his applied rhetoric, all integrated in his theology.

In spite of the 500 years separating us from Luther´s time, most of his writings are still directly speaking to us: you can hear his voice and feel the impact of his speech. Still there are pitfalls and difficulties to be aware of when dealing with his writing.

Difficulties arise of course at once from the problems of the German language and the changes it has undergone during the centuries. Unfortunately the American translation in Luther´s Works is not always reliable. (I have called attention to just one instance in the rendering of the 'Hail Mary' in Luther´s 'Open Letter on Translation' in LQ 1998:1,105f., LW 35, 181 f.). When discussing critical and difficult points, a consultation of the original text is necessary, possibly by a professional philologist.[1]

There are also difficulties arising out of the historical changes brought about by the development in our knowledge in science and philosophy. The age of enlightenment and the following secularisation changed our outlook on life, the world and the universe. Until then the story of the Bible about the creation of the world had the dignity of historic authenticity: this was how it happened. We who have to live with the concept of a 'Big Bang', more suggestive of gigantic destruction than creation, can envy them their homely and endearing picture of the creator-God enjoying a walk in his garden at the time of the evening breeze.

When the scientific explanation of the world replaced the biblical one, the general out-look on life, the 'Lebensgefühl', as the Germans say, changed. The consequences for the language are in many instances not perceptible at first glance. I illustrate this by the example of the rainbow: for us it is a beautiful phenomenon, no more: we can explain it, we know about Newton and the spectrum of light. For Luther and his time the rainbow meant something else, it was a message of God: 'My bow I set in the cloud, sign of the covenant between myself and earth [...] Never again shall the waters become a flood to destroy all living creatures' (Gen. 9,12ff.). So even if the word 'rainbow' today denotes the same thing, and the visible phenomenon looks alike, the experience of the vision feels different: there is nothing holy about it, it is not awe-inspiring today as it must have been once. God does no longer talk to us through it. This affects what philologists call the 'connotation' of the word: the aura of feelings and associations that are called up in the mind by it. Thus it can happen that even if we use the same word as Luther did, we need not mean exactly the same. We know more about the world today than the people before the enlightenment, but surely in many cases we feel much less. Our language today is suited to our world of science. It can express matters of space and astronomy, technology and communication by computers and e-mail - you name it - but in the case of the essential questions of life and death, our own existence, time and eternity and the meaning of it all there is a peculiar helplessness of expression compared with older times.

The change in connotations affects many of our everyday words. The Table Talks give many examples. "The world" is for Luther the domain of the devil and therefore always used with negative connotations. When we today use 'devil' or 'angel' the words have lost most of their emotional impact and have become metaphors, while for Luther they meant concrete - if unseen - entities whose activities he believed he felt around him daily. Cold winter storms were the hissings of the devil, while a lovely spring breeze was the breathing of angels (cf.TR nr.122, 489, 1651).

This means that we must remember that Luther was a child of his age. There is a lot of medieval superstition still in his mind. What makes it confusing for us is that, at the same time, he can seem surprisingly modern in many ways. It is impossible for us to put a label on him and class him as, for example, a mystic, or a humanist, or a renaissance personality, or a forerunner of enlightenment, although he has traits of them all. He was a man of immense learning, and he had followed the biblical advice of putting everything to the test and keeping what was good, or what suited him, but very often by transforming it, and always integrating it in his theology. The Table Talks reveal several dimensions of Luther, and I will continue by giving some examples.

The Medieval Luther
In his dealings with the devil Luther was altogether a man of the late Middle Ages. He was often afflicted by what we today would call depressions: nightly anguish, sleeplessness, doubts, worries and vexations of spirit. He called this 'tristitia.' For Luther these were not mental afflictions, but concrete attacks by the devil himself. He defends himself by using the means the teachers of his time had recommended: scorn and contempt, demonstrated by a vulgar expression (meaning: 'Kiss my behind') and the bodily device of farting. Many Table Talks tell of nightly combats of this kind. 'That makes the devil stop. It is the only way to treat him,' he advised. (cf. TR 83, 122,141, 248, 469, 590, 1557 etc.). These texts have not found their way into the selections of chosen to be published in official volumes of Luther's Works! This kind of defense [farting] is not a device Luther had invented by himself. How you should defend yourself against the devil was a subject repeatedly treated by the learned theologians of the age. Luther himself once cited a source: the famous director of the Paris University Sorbonne, Jean Charlier de Gerson (1363-1429, TR nr. 141). On the other hand, some other kinds of defences are quite modern: the afflicted person ought not to isolate himself or herself by brooding, but seek cheerful company, good food and drink, and amusements like music or dance. 'If you can find recreation in thoughts of beautiful girls, do so.' (TR 122, p. 49f.) Many of these utterances were censored by the first editor of Table Talks, Johannes Aurifaber, in 1566. If you want to cite Table Talks, beware of Aurifaber´s versions! Similarly, the translators of Luther´s Works have left out the most vulgar bits!

On the other hand, Luther did not believe in the modern superstition, the horoscope. In this he differed from most of his contemporaries, among them his nearest associate Melanchthon, who was a renowned authority often asked to cast a horoscope for important people. Luther snorted: the stars could not affect our lives; God was the ruler of the stars and our fates. Melanchthon, by contrast, held that God had given us the stars so that we could by mathematic skills find out how he had planned the future and act accordingly.

A modern trait: democratizing.
When Luther pulled down the wall between clerics and laity, this was a 'democratization of theology'.[2] No more barriers between the choir, for the clerics, and the nave for the laity. Every human being had access to God through Christ, without the mediation of a priest or the pope. The piety and dedication to God was taken out of the monastery into the world of the lay men and women: everyone of them had his or her vocation, of equal importance and dignity in the eyes of God as the vocation of the clergy! The barber Peter was taught the art of meditation in a Simple Book on Prayer, and the call 'Ora et labora,' [pray and work] the practice of religious orders, could also be the duty of ordinary simple people.

This duty to work out one's vocation ought to fill people with great joy and gratitude, which Luther pointed out repeatedly. A Christian had a duty to be glad and cheerful, and the gratitude for Christ´s redeeming love ought to fill the heart with jubilation, make people leap and dance for joy. This is not always evident to us in the texts because of changes in language and culture: Luther's word 'fröhlich' denoted a stronger emotion in his time than it does today, translating the Latin 'exultare.'[3] In Luther´s time, as in biblical times, even grown-ups seem to have expressed overflowing joy by leaping and dancing, a behaviour that today is restricted to children, with few exceptions, mostly in the domain of sports.

Luther meant that this joy arises out of doing one´s duty knowing it is of great value before God´s eyes, no less than the vocation of the monks, as he writes in his Catechism: 'Must your heart not be leaping and flowing over for joy when you go to your daily tasks, and say: 'Look, this is better than the holiness of all Cartusian monks, even if they are fasting themselves to death and incessantly pray on their knees' (WA 30:1, 159).

Everyone, man and woman alike, should be able (and was considered able!) to read and understand the Bible. In his translation Luther had devoted immense care in finding a wording that average readers could understand and recognize as their own way of speech. He describes his difficulties in his 'Open Letter on Translation'.[4] 500 years before Chomsky he understood the importance of the competence of the ordinary 'native speaker' in his /her mother tongue and used what Chomsky would call 'native informants.' And 'informant' did not mean for Luther just the educated male! When searching for the best expression in German, he noted, you have to ask 'the mother in the home, the children in the street, and the ordinary man in the market-place,' and 'look at their mouth, how they speak,' and translate accordingly. Nowadays researchers in literature speak of 'close reading.' Apparently what Luther practised was 'close listening.' Whoever of importance in those days listened to the mother at home, let alone the children, and attached any significance to their ways of expressing themselves?

The humanistic Luther
At the monastery at Erfurt, where Luther as a novice and young monk got his extensive education, intimate contacts with Italian humanists were maintained. Humanistic erudition has left deep impacts on Luther. Here are some references from his writings that indicate the ready familiarity Luther had with the humanistic tradition: 1. His advice: ad fontes, "back to the sources," which Luther adhered to in his search for the early, apostolic Church, and also sought in his Bible translation; 2. The cultivation of language in all its aspects: as God´s gift to humans, the faculty that above all others distinguishes us from beasts; the importance attached to the study of the 'holy' languages Hebrew, Latin and Greek; 3. His aversion to scholasticism's dependence on Latin as opposed to Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible. The most outstanding names that appear in Luther's speaking are the Italians Petrarch, Bocaccio and Lorenzo Valla; in Germany Johann Reuchlin, who founded the study of Hebrew by writing a grammar and a dictionary, and Erasmus, who published a Greek Testament alongside with a Latin version, with annotations. This was the learned foundation for Luther´s Bible translation, which had not been possible without these humanistic accomplishments.

Luther seems to have found a kindred spirit in Lorenzo Valla, whom he often praised in the Table Talks. Valla (1407-1457), who was professor for rhetoric in Rome, claimed that only those who mastered Hebrew and Greek and could read the Bible in the original version were entitled to interpret Holy Scripture. Luther and Melanchthon agreed wholeheartedly. This meant that a great deal of scholastic exegesis was rejected by humanists on the grounds that it was founded on the Latin Vulgate. Valla was the founder of what today is called text criticism by exposing the Constantinian Donation - a substantial source of income to the Vatican - as a fake. He argued against monasticism and scholasticism. He wrote a book on the freedom of the will 'De libero arbitrio' in which he proclaimed justification by faith alone 'sola fide' and reduced the role of priest and sacrament in the economy of salvation. Luther cited this in his controversy with Erasmus. 'I like Valla very much, and he is a good author and a good Christian. I have avidly read his books.' [ego cum summa aviditate legi] Luther said in a Table Talk (TR 5, 5729). Valla, and with him Luther and Melanchthon, praised the rhetorician Quintilianus above Cicero, who was the main authority for scholastists. The main difference between these two consists in their evaluation of what was most important for an orator. For Cicero it was ratio, the intellectual part, while Quintilianus considered `affectus´, the power over the emotions, as the life and soul of oratory, without which all else was bare, meagre and weak (Inst.or., cited after Loeb 6, 2,7).

Thus Luther was largely indebted to humanism. But he added his own touch. Language, as already said, was also for him the foremost faculty that distinguishes human from beast. But the main reason for its outstanding value was not rooted in philosophy or anthropology but in theology: the holy languages were the shrine in which we keep the treasure above all treasures, the Bible. If we lose the languages also the Gospel is lost for us. (1524, WA 15,38, Schulpredigt)

Was Luther a mystic?
Again: yes and no. The answer depends largely on what is meant by 'mystics,' or what kind of mysticism is intended. Luther allegedly appreciated such German mystics as Johann Tauler and the unknown author of the Theologia Germanica, which he himself published with an introduction as 'a German Theology'. (An English translation with an introduction and commentary has been published by Bengt Hoffman in 1980). But again it seems to me to be a case of 'testing it all and keeping what is good.' He had himself experienced something of the raptus, the rapture of the mystical union (unio mystica), so that he recognised what the apostle Paul calls 'being called up as far as the third heaven' (2 Cor 12, 2ff.), and alluded to it (WA 11,117, 35-36; WA 4,265,30f.), but seemingly without attaching much importance to it. Above all he did not make this rapture an aim in itself, to be sought by spiritual exercises, as the speculative mystics did. He claimed that rapture was evoked by Christ, not by spiritual techniques and endeavours. In a temperamental Table Talk he criticised Bonaventura´s and Dionysius´ 'speculative scientia theologum:' 'He [Bonaventura] has almost made me mad when I tried to experience God´s union with my soul as a combination of intellect and will, as he babbled.' The mystical theology of Dionysius he called 'purest nonsense' ('mystica theologia Dionisii sunt merissimae nugae'). They were just fanatics, Luther said, the true speculative theology was more practical: 'Believe in Christ and do your duty' (TR 1, nr 644). However, in the concrete experience of Christian faith in the innermost recesses of the soul, in Luther´s terminology the heart, there are great affinities. Luther talked of a 'raptus mentis,' enrapture of the soul, 'in the clear knowledge of the faith, as the true extasis.' [5] The claim: 'Experience alone makes a theologian' (sola experiencia facit theologus TR1, nr.46), and the definition of mysticism as a 'wisdom of experience and not of doctrine' Luther borrowed from Bernard de Clairvaux. The eminent Swiss expert on Meister Eckart, Alois Haas, defines Luther´s theology as 'Mysticism of hearing' or 'of the ear.' [6] Bengt Hoffman has shown both relationships and distinctions, close affinities and differences in two important books: Luther and the Mystics (1976) and in the forthcoming Theology of the Heart - (a translation and improvement from the Swedish Hjärtats teologi 1989). He makes outstandingly clear that in Luther research mysticism has not been properly recognized as a creative force in Luther´s thought. In Luther and the Mystics Hoffman includes a critical examination of earlier research in this field. I strongly recommend both books to everybody interested in this important issue. - In the last 20 years Finnish research has contributed significant new insights into this question, see especially Simo Peura's "The Essence of Luther's Spirituality" in Seminary Ridge Review winter 2000.

Now I will turn to the problem of language, which in Luther´s case is closely interwoven with his theology.

It has often been observed that the typical verbal coinage of the mystics (i.a. 'Seelengrund,' the ground of the soul for the meeting place between God and human) is not to be found in Luther´s writing. The mystic´s creativity regarding new words has often been admired. It is still impossible for us today to discuss abstract philosophical issues without using terms introduced by mystical thinkers, who faced the difficulty of having to express what was by definition unknowable and unspeakable. They derived their material from the terminology of scholastic philosophy. Eckart used a "negative" way to solve the problem of the inexpressible: he described God by what He was not: 'a not-God, not-Spirit, not-Person,' whom one should get to know without the help of pictures, similes or metaphors. This was an abstract, highly intellectual way to seek God, where theology often becomes indistinguishable from philosophy, and its utter consequence for the speaker is silence. (Cf. WA 3,372, 23-25) Luther, as Valla before him, considered scholastic philosophy damaging for faith. He did not agree with Eckart in abolishing pictures or picturesque language. His thinking was concrete, and to be silent was not his strong point. His strong point was to express feelings, find picturesque expressions, illustrate by examples and striking similes. The proverb he cites in his 'Open letter on Translating:' 'Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur,' literally: 'from the overflowing heart speaks the mouth,' gives an adequate description of his own situation regarding the relationship between man and God by speech.

With the phrase 'The overflowing heart' we are at the center of Luther´s activity in all its verbal aspects, and this is my own starting-point. We have to start by assessing what Luther meant by 'the heart'.

In the Bible, as in the works of Augustinus, the heart is the center of the personality and seat of all human faculties: reason, understanding, decision-making, willpower, emotionality, memory, and so forth. In the heart the human being meets God. In the parable of the sower the seed is sown in the heart (Luke 8:12-15). When the Bible says that somebody was 'thinking in his heart' this is no metaphor for emotional thinking. From the heart proceed good and evil thoughts. And 'with the heart man believes unto righteousness' (Romans 10:10; NEB: 'the faith that leads to rightousness is in the heart').

When I have pointed out that Luther´s ways of thinking can seem strange to us and pose problems, in this case it is our modern way of separating feeling from thinking that is the problem. After the enlightenment we have assigned intellectual faculties solely to the brain, while feeling is still located in the heart. Understanding is regarded as the work solely of the mind. In such a view, emotions are considered to hamper clear reasoning. From the 1960's and onward great importance was attached to the 'IQ,' reached by a series of tests of varying grades of validity. Then it was shown that occasionally people with a low IQ were quite successful at a job while high IQ-persons could make a mess of things. Today there is talk even of an EQ, an emotional quotient, and of a 'social competence.' The preoccupation with 'intellectus' is giving way to a more differentiated view of the personality and its components. Martin Luther´s concept of anthropology can be called 'holistic'. Nowadays we tend more and more to return to a holistic view of ourselves. The modern way of separating thoughts from feelings can very often not stand up to scrutiny. What, for instance are thankfulness, or jealousy, if not feelings called up by thoughts? Most of the seven deadly sins of the Middle Ages were what we to-day would class as feelings: hate, envy, greed, lust, pride. The confession of sin names thoughts, words and deeds, but the most important of all commandments prescribes a feeling in the modern sense of the word: the loving of God and one´s neighbors. Obviously the intimate connection between heart and mind was no problem in the old times, placing memory, too, in the heart: to have learnt something by heart means that you have learnt and memorized a text so diligently that you can produce it yourself word by word without having to look in a book. In Luther´s time this involved emotional engagement as well.

Knowing that Luther shared the anthropological view of the Bible is crucial to understanding his thought. If Lutheranism, as is frequently the fact at least in Sweden, is accused of being an intellectual religion, more concerned with the mind than with the heart, this is a misunderstanding arising out of the different ways of understanding both heart and anthropology. Since Martin Luther translated the Bible so that everybody would be able to understand it, and because of the stress he put on preaching and teaching, we are easily led to regard Lutheranism as a religion primarily for the mind. But for Luther it all depends on the heart in the old sense of the word. The intimate connection between thoughts and feelings is amply shown in his Preface to the Psalter (WA Bi 10:2, 99-105.LW 35:2, 53.57.). In the Psalter we can look into the hearts of the saints, he writes, and see what kind of thoughts they had, how their hearts were disposed, and how they acted in danger and in need. Thinking and understanding are never devoid of feeling. In his commentary on Ps 119:10: 'With my whole heart have I sought thee' (NEB: 'With all my heart I strive to find thee') he writes, that the philosophers (i.e. the scholastics) only seek by half their hearts, as they seek only with their intellect, not their feeling. In a commentary on Ps 27, 8f he writes that one can only seek God by turning to him 'per intellectum et affectum,' with intellectual and emotional endeavour.

'Affectum' means all kinds of emotions, soft and warm ones [ethos] like joy and love, as well as strong and harsh ones (pathos). It is to be noted that the education of the young monks at the monastery attached great importance to the cultivation of the emotional life. Also the art of rhetoric, an important subject at school and university, dealt exhaustively with emotions, and ways and means of alternately exciting them and calming them down. As has already been mentioned, this was the main concern for Quintilianus. Luther praised him repeatedly in his Table Talks and recommended the study of him 'because he moves your heart' [TR 2299].

The intimate connection between feeling and intellectual understanding has again to be stressed: feeling was a way to knowledge. 'The faith of the heart' mentioned by Paul becomes for Luther the connection of thinking and feeling. There is no belief in God without feeling it 'in the heart.' Today we would call it 'personal involvement,' 'loving dedication,' 'fervour.' In a 'House sermon' on the Apostles´ Creed (1537) in the third part, dealing with the Holy Spirit, the heart is named no less than fifteen times (WA 45, p.22-24). Just hearing and knowing is not enough: 'a human being might be redeemed, but as long as he or she does not believe it, does not feel it, it is not in his or her heart.' 'The Pope and his followers may have it in their books, but because they do not feel it in their hearts, they despise it.' It is the Work of the Holy Spirit, poured by God into the heart, who enables the heart to grasp the Gospel, 'for in those who hear it a flame is kindled so that their heart says: 'That is really true, even if I should die a hundred times over for it.' This active response of the heart is important. Receptive listening that leads to faith is a not a passive but an active reaction to the work of the Holy Spirit. In this context Luther may speak of faith as the first of all 'works.' (WA 6:206)

This describes what Luther means by 'to believe with the heart,' when he writes in his German Mass and Order of Service(1526) in the question and answer form of the catechism: 'What does it mean to believe in God'? Answer: 'It means to trust him with all your heart and confidently to expect all grace, favour, help, and comfort from him, now and forever.'(WA 19:76; LW53: 65)

Feeling for Luther is never a case of sentimentality, or to be sought for its own sake. Feeling as never devoid of thinking, and the heart is not only warm and intense but also wise. In fact, what has struck me most in Luther´s Bible translation is the perfect balance between 'intellectus et affectus.' As an example consider his Open letter on Translating. Having dealt with difficult problems of Bible translation he exclaims: 'Ah, translating is not every man´s skill [...] It requires a right, devout, honest, sincere, God-fearing, Christian, trained, informed, and experienced heart.' (WA 30:2, 640; LW 35, 194.)

It is not only translating the Bible that depends on the knowledgeable heart. Even reading and understanding it involves the entire person. In his Lecture on Genesis (1523) Luther declared the correct assessment of the emotional content of a text as equally important as the intellectual understanding of the meaning of the words: 'you have correctly to grasp the words, and the emotional content (den Affekt), and feel it in your heart. Those who cannot do this are not allowed to read it.' (WA 12, 444). Again the crucial combination of 'intellectus et affectus.'

Regarding 'the faith of the heart' Luther makes a distinction between the mere intellectual acceptance of biblical history as true, and the personal involvement by hearing and feeling. The first kind he calls a cold, historical faith (fides historica), which is worthless and shared by the devil and heretics. The true, living faith which has entered the heart and created love and hope he compared to the kind of 'knowing' in Genesis 4:1, where it says: 'And Adam knew Eve, his wife;' not, he said, by speculation or storytelling, by what is heard and narrated, but by personal experience (WA 40:3, 738). His reasoning, which feels bold to us, is to a large extent philological and makes use of the Latin and Hebrew terms for faith and knowledge. It illustrates the concrete, down to earth intertwining of thinking, experience and feeling, resulting in understanding and deeply felt knowledge in ones innermost being, an 'erudition of the heart' to an extent that is related to mystical thought.

This holds true also for the question of salvation, the grace of righteousness. In practice it was not enough just to know, but feeling induced understanding was necessary: 'After I have already been justified and acknowledged that my sins are forgiven without my merits through grace, then it is essential that I begin to feel so that I may in some measure understand.' [7]

When Luther says 'A theologian is made solely by experience' (Sola autem experiencia facit theologum TR 1,46) he refers to the affective knowledge of salvation. This statement has sometimes been cited by scholars as proof that Luther was a mystic. Bengt Hoffman has underlined that for Luther 'the feeling component of faith did not spell emotionalism [...] Feeling in faith was rather an experience of God´s comforting presence.'[8] This experience could, however, in its turn call up strong emotions.

Luther was not the first one to stress the importance of a heartfelt faith for a theologian: the previously mentioned John Gerson, often referred to by Luther, had concerned himself with a balance of thought and piety. He talked of an 'erudition of the heart,' claimed an integration of theory and practice, a balance between the religious feelings (devotio or affectus) and intellectual understanding, and a theology integrated into the concrete dimensions of life.[9] 'But, alas, Hoffman writes, [...]the church has rather opted for the descriptions of faith which turn revelation into dogmatic intellectualism.' (219)

It is this concept of the 'faith of the heart' that dominates all Luther´s work, preaching, teaching, translating, and marks his style. I have analyzed this in articles and recently in a book in German.[10] There is a strong emotional undercurrent to his Bible translation. His aim was a language that spoke to the reader´s heart. He devoted great care and skill to finding appropriate and moving German equivalents for the feelings expressed in the original, especially love and joy.

Experience: theory and practice
There is a difference between theory and practice, noted Luther: 'To be sure, the saints understood the Word of God and could also speak about it, but their practice did not keep pace with it.' 'Here one forever remains a learner' he is reported to have said in the early 1530s (WA TR 1, 81; LW 54:9). It has been claimed by German scholars that 'experience' here meant biblical experience alone, as Luther uttered this opinion in connection with exegesis.[11] But his exegesis was pervaded by the experience of everyday-life, and every-day-life was conducted in close contact with God in prayer, so that there was a constant interplay between the vita activa and the vita contemplativa, the active and the religious life. In the Operationes in psalmos Luther has another saying about what makes a theologian: 'By living, even by dying and being damned one becomes a theologian, not by intellectual understanding, reading and speculating' (Vivendo, immo moriendo et damnando fit theologus, non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando WA 5, 163, 28f.).

Faith is not a system, but a dynamic process, like life itself, and its center is prayer. Even for a teacher, said Luther, the experience of spiritual tribulation, anguish, doubts and despair (Anfechtung) is of utmost importance. He insists upon this in connection with Ps. 77. Again affectus plays a crucial part: 'Nobody who has not experienced such compunctions and anguish of the conscience can teach so much as one word about this psalm [...]For no one is able or competent to speak about parts of Scripture, or listen to them with understanding, if his emotional disposition is not in conformity with them, so that he feels inside what he speaks or hears outside, and agrees: `Eia, vere, sic est´ (Yes, truly so it is!)' [12]

I will give some instances to illustrate the impact of the experience of everyday family life in its relationship with God, and his experience of God´s love and grace, on Luther´s Biblical exegesis.

Luther had an intimate relationship with the Bible. That it was a case of intellect and emotionality is amply demonstrated by a Table Talk about the Letter by Paul to the Galatians: 'The Epistle to the Galatians is my dear [little] epistle; I have entrusted myself to it (LW:put my confidence in it). It is my Katy von Bora' (TR 146). Love, trust, warmth and high regard characterize equally Luther´s dedication to his wife and to the Bible.

As I am asked to concentrate more on theology than linguistics in this paper I will highlight such instances in the Bible translation that have a direct bearing on Luther´s religious life.

Occasionally he has given an explanation for his choice of words which gives us an insight not only into his work as a translator but also into his relationship with God. Thus in Psalm 54:6 he has his own opinion about the sacrifice David is promising God for help against his enemies: 'I will offer thee a willing sacrifice' is the translation of the NEB. Modern German and Swedish versions all stress the willingness. But Luther translates: 'I will offer thee a sacrifice of joy' (ein Freudenopfer) and explains: 'To offer a sacrifice of laughter and joy, because our God likes it when we rejoice in him, because He is so good, kind, comforting, fills the heart with joy' [13] This is a very endearing image of God the Father, a contrast to the harsh and awe-inspiring conception of God the young monk was struggling with in the monastery.

In a Table Talk from the early 1530s Luther stresses the importance of his daily prayer, and again we find the comforting image of God: whenever Luther is prevented from his morning prayer by duties he feels bad all day. 'Prayer helps us very much and fills the heart with joy, not on account of any merit in the work, but because we have talked with our Lord and entrusted everything to his care' 14].

In the relationship to his children Luther seems to gain insight in what is meant by God as 'Our Father.' (I have dealt with this question more thoroughly in LQ VIII:4, 1994,385-395, and am taking the following examples from that article.) The conception of God as a Father and the feelings evoked by the word 'father' are influenced by one´s own experience. Luther´s own father had been austere and demanding. In later years Luther told his friends how severely he had been punished as a child for minor offences, and even said that it was the austerity of his parents that had driven him to enter the monastery (WA Tr 3, 3566; LW 54:234 f.) In 1526, when he was 42 years old, his first son was born, and Luther was amazed by the emotional intensity of fatherhood, a warmth and tenderness he had never expected or imagined possible. Five more children were born until 1534, two of whom died young. There is ample evidence that Luther was a dedicated and loving father. By the experience of what it meant and how it felt to have a child of one´s own Luther´s concept of the fatherhood of God seems to have undergone a change. I find this reflected in an addition to the Small Catechism in 1531. We have a Table Talk from the same year in which he mentions that he daily teaches and prays the Catechism with his little Hans and Leni (WA TR 1, 81; LW54:9). Five years earlier, in his 'German Mass,' he had written: 'What is meant when you say: 'Our Father in Heaven' Answer: 'That God is not an earthly, but a heavenly Father who would make us rich and blessed in heaven' (WA 19,76,24-27;LW 53:65). The distance to this Father is great; the stress is put on 'in heaven.' In 1531 Luther revises his Catechism and gives quite another answer to the same question. Now the stress is put on 'Father.' This is what Hans and Leni learned: 'By these words God wants to lead us to believe that he is our real father and we his real children, so that we may turn to him in our prayer with every trust and faith, as dear children to their dear father.'[15] ( I am indebted to Professor Wengert for drawing my attention to this addition to the Small catechism.) Nobody can miss the striking difference in warmth and nearness. You can almost hear the loving voice of the human father.

In 1531 another son was born and christened Martin after his father. Once, when he was only a few weeks old, Luther reflected on the loving voice of his wife Katy when fondling and nursing the infant in her lap. She used the endearing form 'Martinichen,' little Martin. Luther said: 'God must be much friendlier still to me and talk even more loving to me than my Katy to her little Martin.' (TR 2, 1237) In his prayers the voice of God thus takes on the loving sound of his wife´s voice when caressing and talking to her infant Martin. Thus the words of the Bible: 'Unless you become like children...' (Mt 18:3) are loaded with emotion by tangible, deep felt experience, and the category of children included even the smallest and most helpless infants.

Luther wonders occasionally about the essence of parental love. Once he fondles his little Martin and asks: 'By what have you merited it, or why must I love you so, that I make you my heir? By peeing, dirtying diapers [Luther used a coarser word!], weeping and filling the whole house with your cries - and still I must be full of loving care for you'? (WA TR 1,1004.) Unmerited love is the prerogative of children, Luther feels deep down in himself, and that perhaps makes it easier to understand and believe in God´s, 'our father´s,' unmerited love and forgivenness.

Tuomo Mannermaa has stressed the importance of the connection between faith and love, as fides concreta, the center of Christian faith.[16] In Luther´s meditations on God the Father, love, trust, joy and intellectual understanding, all colored by experience, are combined to make faith.

Being informed is one thing, belief in practice is another matter. Once a guest asked during the meal, if God does not tire of forgiving us the same sins day in and day out, as we did not get any better. Luther did not answer him with a learned theological or dogmatical argument but by an everyday example: 'Mother love is much stronger than the filth and scabbiness on a child,' he said. He had daily watched Katy taking care of soiled infants, changing diapers and comforting them the while. From this example he turns to theology. In rhetoric this would be a 'how much more...'argument: 'and so the love of God toward us is stronger than the dirt that clings to us. Accordingly, although we are sinners, we do not lose our filial relation or fall out of grace on account of our filthiness.? (WATR 1,437; LW 54,70) In Luther´s German sins are said to be ?stinking.? The association between the stench from soiled diapers and the sins of grown-ups was therefore not far-fetched. Luther made it repeatedly. 'How our Lord has to put up with many a murmur and stink from us, worse than a mother must endure from her child.' (WATR 3,3203a) Here theological thinking draws on everyday experience of deeply felt, patient parental love shown in its concrete manifestations, in this case an instance of a lesser attractive duty. Notably it is not only the human father´s love towards his children that is compared to the love of God towards humankind, but explicitly also the love of a mother. Luther has himself experienced how it feels when a parent lovingly bends down to lift up a small child, only to find with dismay that the little one is in urgent need of a change of diapers, so he knows that you do not love the child less, but you clean it. That is what God does. This is how God feels. Luther the theologian learns from Luther the father.

This experienced feeling of fatherhood occasionally helps Luther to understand passages of the Bible. Especially in the Psalms the emotional content of a verse is sometimes by Luther regarded as the essential meaning of the text. In Psalm 2:11 a problem is caused by the emotional attitude of a human being, consisting of seemingly conflicting emotions, joy and fear while serving God: 'Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.' Luther ponders how it is possible to do both at the same time. In his everyday family life he finds a comparable situation, thereby providing us with a vivid picture of his life during the early 1530s. He describes his situation, writing at his table with little Hans playing around him, singing a little tune. When the child becomes too disturbing his father has to call out sharply for less noise. Still Hans goes on singing, but now hushed, under his breath: 'more privately and with a certain awe and uneasiness,' describes Luther. And from this situation he draws his inference: 'This is what God wishes: that we be always cheerful, but with reverence.' (TR 1,148; LW 54,21) Clearly here Luther the father is compared to God the father with regard to due respect.

Thus, in the emotional assessment of biblical texts from the later 1520s forward Luther´s own experiences from everyday family life can be detected. Given the emotional intensity that is a distinguishing feature in his character, his intimate involvement with family life and the stress put on the emotional dimension of faith, it all combined to color Luther´s theology, linking understanding of the mind with heartfelt practice. We have witnessed a part of the 'learning process,' in following Luther´s grappling with the love of God by comparing it with his own experience. 'Here one forever remains a learner.'

It is difficult to sum up in a single lecture the impression of Luther one gains by the study of his writing for nearly forty years. What has struck me most is the balance of intellectus et affectus, in his words: the 'erudition of the heart' and his combination of deep erudition and high intelligence on the theoretical side with humility and simplicity in practice; also the joyfulness, love and trust in his relationship with God. It all centers around the heart. (intellectus et affectus) Striking is his humility. Once in the early 1520s as Luther entered the lecture-room for his lesson the students rose. He was irritated and asked the reason for this new custom and was told that this was an order from the new rector of the university, Melanchthon, to show their respect. Luther did not like it: He had to say ten ?Our Fathers? in repentance for the ego-boost it gave him! This is still the reaction of the monk. It does not mean that he was not acutely aware of his proficiency, erudition and ability: they were of use to him when he was attacked by his scholastic enemies, and, as he said in a Table Talk, the devil had early recognized his capacity and attacked him in consequence. But before God we are all as children, 'life-long learners,' or even 'beggars,' as he wrote on a scrap of paper shortly before his death. All his learning in practice boiled down to the catechism, which he prayed every day 'like the children,' claiming that nobody ever grasped its depth (TR 81, 122). 'I am a doctor, but not ashamed to recite the Ten commandments, Creed and Our Father just like the school-children `by heart´ and have never finished learning and understanding them.'

His stress on the joy found in his dealings with God in prayer and meditation is also striking. As my last quotation I will cite from Luthers Magnificat. (1521) Mary praised God with her heart leaping for joy [mit fröhlichem springenden Geist], as Luther wrote, no doubt with the Vulgate´s exultavit spiritus meus in Deo in mind.

'No one can praise God without first loving Him. No one can love him unless He makes Himself known to him in the most lovable and intimate fashion. And He can make Himself known only through those works of His which He reveals in us, and which we feel and experience within ourselves. But where there is this experience, namely, that He is a God who looks into the depths and helps only the poor, despised, afflicted, miserable, forsaken, and those who are nothing, there a hearty love for Him is born, so that the heart overflows with gladness and goes leaping and dancing for the great joy [LW: pleasure] it has found in God. There the Holy Spirit is present and has taught us in a moment of experience such overwhelming [LW: exceeding] knowledge and exultation [LW: gladness].'[17]

This strong undercurrent of joy in his dealings with God one has to remember when reflecting on the afflictions, sicknesses, strife and worries that filled Luther´s life.

[1] B. Stolt, Germanistische Hilfsmittel zum Lutherstudium, in:Lutherjahrbuch 64(1979)120-133; J. Schilling, Latinistische Hilfsmittel zum Lutherstudium,in: Lutherjahrbuch 55(1988)83-101.

l [2] A comparable process has been noted by Burrows in connection with Gerson and mysticism, 143f.

l [3] Birgit Stolt, ?Vor Freuden springen?. Zu ?fröhlich? bei Martin Luther, in: ?Der Buchstab tödt - der Geist macht lebendig?. Festschrift für Hans-Gert Roloff Bd.1, Bern etc. 1992, 21-28.

l [4] WA 30:2, 627-646; cit. 637. LW 35, 181-202.

l [5] WA 4, 265,32f.: ?Extasis illa [...] Secundo est raptus mentis in claram cognitionem fidei, et ista est proprie extasis?.

l [6] Haas 1986, 198, A.118.

l [7] WA 40:III, 738,4-14; cf. Hoffman 1976, 159.

l [8] Luther and the Mystics 219.

l [9] Mark Stephen Burrows, Jean Gerson and De Consolatione Theologiae (1418), Tübingen 1991, 135-139.

l [10] Martin Luthers Rhetorik des Herzens, Tübingen 2000.

l [11] cf. Oswald Bayer, Oratio, Meditatio, Tentatio. Lutherjahrbuch 55 (1988) 7-59, 55.

l [12] WA 3, 549, 30-35; my translation, slightly differing from Schwarz´s in Principles... 179.

l [13] WA Bi 3:56, Luther´s annotations to the revision of the Psalter, 1531, my translation.

l [14] TR 1,122. The translation in LW 54,17 is not adequate; cf. Stolt, Luther on God as a Father 392 and 395 n.29-31)

l [15] WA 30:II, 369f.; Cf The Small Catechism in The Book of Concord, ed. Th.E.Tappert, 1959, 346;

l [16] T. Mannermaa, Zwei Arten der Liebe. Einführung in Luthers Glaubenswelt. Aus dem Finnischen übers. v. Hans-Christian Daniel, in ders., Der im Glauben gegenwärtige Christus. Hannover 1989 (=AGTL NF 8) 109 f.

l [17] WA 7, 548; cited with slight alterations from LW 21, 300.

The Institute for Luther Studies is part of the
Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
A Seminary of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
© 2001 Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg
E-mail comments and questions to info@ltsg.edu