In his essay “Simul Gemitus et Raptus: Luther and Mysticism,” Heiko Oberman argues that Luther’s relationship with the theology of Tauler did not change fundamentally through the course of Luther’s life. However as we have seen in the previous chapter, Luther’s relationship with Tauler was, by 1518, already strained to the breaking point. Oberman argues “there is a basic continuity throughout this large span of years (1515-1538), notwithstanding Luther’s encounter with Tauler and the Schwärmer.” Yet even before Luther’s encounter with the Schwärmer and the Zwickau Prophets, he had already rejected mystical theology. As already noted through his editing of the second edition of Eine Deutsche Theologie, Luther was forced to examine mystical theology in detail, and he soon discovered conflicts between his beliefs and those of the mystics. It was shortly after the second edition was published that Luther began his Operationes in Psalmos, a reexamination of the Psalms. During this same period (1518-1521) Luther’s theology comes to fruition. The language of Luther’s faith, which has been present throughout the lectures on Romans, and becomes apparent in his 95 theses, became formalized, with his rejection of mysticism, in his doctrine of the Righteousness of God. Luther’s theological break with mysticism brought him into conflict with the radical Reformers such as the Zwickau Prophets, Thomas Muentzer, and his erstwhile associate Andreas Karlstadt. This chapter will explore Luther’s rejection of mysticism, together with the impact of this rejection on the development of the Reformation.

Luther’s doctrine of the Righteousness of God was the culmination of his ideas concerning faith and salvation. It maintained that only through the righteousness of Christ could man attain grace. In one sense, such a theology is the ultimate statement of Luther’s belief in man’s depravity, in that man is incapable of doing so much as performing an unselfish act without the righteousness of Christ to aid him. James Kittelson, in his biography of Luther, maintains that “in those months of relative calm Luther also made a very important discovery:” that of the righteousness of God. The months of calm Kittelson refers to are those of 1518-1519, at the same time that Luther began his Operationes. Kittelson goes on to note that “in a moment, … Luther suddenly realized that what he had been teaching for four years all fit together” that is, all fell under the idea of God’s righteousness. If Luther’s discovery of this doctrine was indeed as sudden and shattering as Kittelson maintains, this discovery, interestingly, would have coincided with his rejection of mysticism. It is impossible to pinpoint the exact timing of Luther’s rejection of mystical theology, but the rejection clearly occurred during his writing of his commentary on the Psalms:

Here Luther is attacking the mystics for their lack of understanding of suffering (“death and hell”), which was embodied in Luther’s idea of Anfechtung, and which was a crucial idea in the theology of God’s righteousness. Man, for Luther, must suffer this “death and hell” before he can truly understand God’s righteousness, and before, even more to the point, that he can understand that he is incapable of being righteous without God’s grace.

Luther continued in this attack on mysticism by criticizing the works of Psuedo-Dionysius: “the commentaries of Dionysius are everywhere handed abroad from both Italy and Germany, which are mere ‘oppositions of science’ vaunting to show off.” Such a view of the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius is in opposition to the view he expressed in his first lectures on Psalms in 1512: “Therefore blessed Dionysius teaches that one must enter into anagogical darkness and ascend by way of denials. For thus God is hidden and beyond understanding.” Clearly there has been a change in Luther’s understanding of Pseudo-Dionysius from this 1512 statement and the attack being addressed by Oberman. Oberman is arguing that Luther in 1519: “When from 1519-1520 onward Luther attacks ‘Dionysian speculations’ there is no reason to base on this finding a theory of development, let alone of reversal.” Yet if we look more closely at both statements we see that in 1512 Luther is praising Psuedo-Dionysius for his concept of “darkness,” the same concept that he is attacking in his statements in Operationes. This concept of darkness as a divine light is not merely a Dionysian one, but is one found in Tauler as well: “this ‘darkness’ is to be understood in such a way: It is light inaccessible to created reason, far beyond comprehension. It is wilderness because no natural path leads to it. In this wilderness the spirit is raised above itself.” The concept of ‘darkness,’ then, is crucial to Tauler’s understanding of the baptism of the Spirit. Furthermore, Luther’s rejection of mysticism in his Operationes does not begin with a rejection of Psuedo-Dionysius. Rather here he attacks mystical theology itself, and employs Pseudo-Dionysius only as an example of this theology.

In 1519, while Luther was writing his Operationes, he attended a debate between his associate, Andreas Karlstadt, and the leading theological opponent of Luther’s writings, Dr. Johann Eck. Luther, who at first tried to remain outside debates, stepped in when Karlstadt began to flounder. Attending these debates was the young theologian Thomas Muentzer, whose “critical period of development occurs in the months before and after June 1519,” or in other words during the same Leipzig debates. Muentzer was a radical Reformer whose theology was intrinsically linked with that of Johannes Tauler, and no doubt he was familiar with Luther’s editions of Eine Deutsche Theologie. Friesen writes, “whether Muentzer was drawn to a study of Tauler’s through Luther’s meditation cannot be unequivocally ascertained,” but it is clear that in Luther Muentzer found a kindred spirit. It is ironic that Muentzer would have experienced such a profound development in his own theology, partly owing to his understanding of Luther’s relationship with mysticism, in view of the fact that at this very time Luther was breaking with the mystical theology. It is this situation, in which the Radical Reformers viewed Luther as a friend and mystic, which would lead to both the conflict at Wittenburg and Luther’s later conflict with the Radical Reformers. Thomas Muentzer later came into contact with the Zwickau Prophets, who, like Muentzer, followed the mystical theology and believed that they had experienced a baptism of the Holy Spirit. In addition to claiming to have the Spirit “nakedly” within them, both Muentzer and the Zwickau Prophets preached a doctrine of “direct illumination by the Spirit,” this was the doctrine that a bearer of the Spirit did not require scripture to determine theological truth. This belief that the Spirit supplanted the written Word comes from Tauler:

The ‘warnings of the Holy Spirit’ for Muentzer and the Zwickau Prophets similarly implied man’s understanding of God’s will without the aid of Scripture. Both this doctrine of “direct illumination,”- the idea of a baptism of the Spirit- and the Zwickau Prophet’s rejection of infant baptism brought Luther into conflict with Muentzer and the Zwickau Prophets

Condemned at the Diet of Worms by the Holy Roman Emperor in April 1521, Luther went into hiding at the Wartburg, leaving Andreas Karlstadt in charge of the Reformation in Wittenburg. Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos was in the process of being published, and thus his theological break with mysticism was still unknown to even his closest associates. Meanwhile, as noted in our brief examination of Muentzer and the Zwickau Prophets, the Saxon Radical Reformation, with its strong roots in mysticism, was beginning to gain momentum. The political consequences of Luther’s break with mysticism became clear during the Wittenburg disturbances, touched off by Karlstadt’s change of the Catholic Liturgy during the Christmas Mass of 1521. It was through these disturbances that Luther had his first encounter with the Radical Reformers. The change in the liturgy of the mass, forbidden by Duke Frederick of Saxony, was the beginning of Karlstadt’s reforms in Wittenburg along radical lines. Karlstadt, in addition to reforming the liturgy, attacked images used in Cathedrals, removed such icons from the Churches, and closed parish schools, all of which led to unrest among the population of Wittenburg.

The Zwickau prophets had entered Wittenburg in December of 1521, influencing Karlstadt’s reforms, and prompting Philip Melancthon to write Luther. He requested Luther’s advice on how to interpret the teachings of the Prophets, most especially their rejection of infant baptism, and he further inquired of Luther as how best to treat the Prophets and the growing disturbances. That Melancthon appealed to Luther implies that Luther’s policy towards the Prophets and there mystical ideas was, towards the end of 1521, still unclear. Melancthon appears no more aware of Luther’s hostile attitude, than were the Prophets themselves. Luther responded in a letter from the Wartburg dated January 13^th 1522, in which he appears little concerned over the current unrest created by Karlstadt’s reforms, and he offers Melancthon advice on testing the Prophets’ claim, that they had the Holy Spirit:

Luther is employing mystical terminology in recommending that Melancthon test whether the Prophets indeed bear the Holy Spirit. Yet in his statement we see that Luther also departs from mystical theology, when he advises Melancthon to test the ‘individual spirit’ but fails to question the presence of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, we see the importance now placed by Luther on Anfechtung, in questioning what ‘spiritual distress’ the Prophets may have experienced.

While Luther did not immediately attack the Prophets in his letter, he nevertheless very clearly rejected the idea of a baptism by the Holy Spirit. In requesting that Melancthon test the Prophets, he was requesting Melancthon to test both their understanding of God’s righteousness and their experience of Anfechtung. As the disturbances at Wittenburg worsened, and it became clear to Luther that the Prophets do not adhere to his theology, he lashed out at them in a March 17^th letter to Nicholas Hausman:

In this statement, it is clear that Luther has rejected the idea of a baptism of the Holy Spirit. The mystics who claim such to be possible and the Saxon Radicals who claim to have experienced such a baptism no longer have the gifts of the Spirit, but rather are ‘pregnant with monstrosities.’

Luther wrote this letter to Hausman following his return to Wittenburg, and subsequent to his response to Karlstadt’s reforms. Luther returned to Wittenburg at the beginning of March 1522, even though Frederick had forbidden his return, because Luther was disturbed by the reforms of Karlstadt and felt responsible for the well being of his congregation:

Despite the fact that Frederick did not wish Luther to return to Wittenburg, Luther nevertheless successfully controlled a potentially rebellious situation. Luther brought the congregation back under his control and restored order to Wittenburg through the Invocavit sermons, which he gave over an eight-day period from March 9^th through March 16^th. These sermons consist of an attack on the reforms of Karlstadt, on Karlstadt himself, and on the foolishness of both Karlstadt and the congregation for turning the Reformation in the direction of violence. At the onset of the sermons differences between Luther’s method of presenting his theology prior to his stay at the Wartburg and his statements within the Invocavit sermons demonstrate a profound change in Luther’s view of the Reformation and its relationship to earlier religious movements. In his first sermon on March 9^th Luther states, “I was also the very first whom God called to this work” and again, “I was also the one to whom God first revealed that his Word should be preached to you.” Clearly Luther is arguing in these statements that he was the first theologian to arrive at a true understanding of the scripture. Not only is this an attack on the validity of Karlstadt’s reforms, which Luther was seeking to undermine, but Luther moreover was no longer relying on past authority for justification of his actions as he had been inclined to do in his responses to both Tauler and Hus. That Luther could so forcefully declare that he was the first to come to these reforms demonstrates a separation from the mystical theology that he had earlier hailed. Continuing his attack on Karlstadt, Luther argues “Here one can see that you do not have the Spirit, even though you have a deep knowledge of the Scripture.” He is still employing mystical terminology, but as seen in the January 13^th letter, he no longer believes it possible to bear the Spirit, as did the mystics, Muentzer, and the Zwickau Prophets.