University of
HelsinkiLuther's Reception of the Negative Theology in Operationes in Psalmos (1519-21)
1. Introduction to the Paper
Many Luther scholars of the 20th century have been reluctant to see mystical aspects in Martin Luther’s theology. Mysticism has often been seen as Catholic, foreign to Reformation theology However, it has also been recognized, that especially in his earlier writings Luther uses many formulations and images grounded in the medieval mysticism. Whereas the ‘classic’ tendency has been to interpret these as descriptions of wholly different, non-mystical content, I will in this paper present a different interpretation of Martin Luther’s reception and use of the so-called negative theology in his commentary on the psalms Operationes in Psalmos
Martin Luther’s Operationes in Psalmos, which might be translated as “activities”, “efforts” in the Psaltery, is the product of Luther’s second series of lectures on the first twenty-one/twenty-two1 psalms held between autumn 1518 or spring 1519 and the diet of Worms 1521. The explanation of the last psalm was finished by Luther during his refuge at Wartburg. This work of Luther is interesting for the purposes of this paper because it contains many sections rich in mystical vocabulary, among them multiple references to (Pseudo)-Dionysius and negative theology. The work is also a major source on Luther’s theology of the cross.
2. A Short Glimpse at the Mystical Theology by Dionysius
But before proceeding to Luther it is necessary to briefly summarise what is meant by negative theology. The term “negative theology” with its synonym “apophatic theology” stems from a 5th or 6th century Syrian theologian, “the father of mystical theology”, who wrote under the pseudonym Dionysius Areiopagita (and is hence also known as Pseudo-Dionysius). Heavily influenced by neoplatonic teachings, his most important works related the subject of this paper are De divinis nominibus dealing with the relationship of the Godhead to the names God is called in the Bible, and De mystica theologia, in which Dionysius presents the concept of mystical theology.2
Dionysius’ De mystica theologica is structured around the division of different types of theology: symbolic, cataphatic and apophatic or negative, which is mystical. 3 Symbolic theology means speaking and thinking of God using images derived from the sensible world, cataphatic speaking and thinking of God using abstract concepts. These two types of theology are affirmative, saying something
1 Twenty-two Psalms in the numbering of Vulgata, twenty-one in the most modern Bibles.
2 On Dionysios’ person and writings see Sheldon-Williams 1967, 457-472. Other works of Dionysios are writings on Ecclesiastical Hierarhcy (De ecclesiastica hierarchica), Celestial Hierarchy (De caelestica hierarchica) and a number of letters.
3 MT III; Sheldon-Williams 1967, 461-467. I have used the Latin translation of John Sarrazen except at places mentioned.
about God based on his work in the creation.4 However according to Dionysius God in his Godhead transcends all sensible things and all concepts.5 Therefore affirmative theology cannot reach God in his divine essence.6 The method of mystical theology is the opposite of affirmative theology, that is, it is based on negation. The idea is to deny that God would be like any sensible or comprehensible created thing. The negation does not here mean a complete denial, but is rather an expression of God’s superessentiality: God is above (super) any created thing. Following the way of negation from lower to higher things and approaching God as the Cause of all things the contemplating person reaches a stage where the highest concepts show the place where God is present. However they do not reach to the divine essence itself, which can’t be grasped by senses or intellect. At the end of conceptual thinking when all symbols and words have been denied, God is understood to be incomprehensible, beyond all concepts.
Dionysius describes the ascent by negation by the image of the ascent of Moses on the Sinai and the incomprehensibility of God by the image of the cloud God was hidden in the account of Moses. Leaving the concepts aside, by the way of negation the contemplating person can enter into this “truly mystical cloud” (caligo … vere mystica) that Dionysius calls “the cloud of unknowing” (caligo ignoratiae) and be united with God knowing by not-knowing in a way that exceeds his mind (super mentem cognoscens).7 For Dionysius mystical knowing is an objective state that can’t be known or understood, but can be experienced. The mind or intellect of the human being is blinded by the divine superluminescent darkness, but the human being experiences this darkness even though he or she is unable to analyze it conceptually.8
3. A Critical View on the Research History of Luther’s Reception of Dionysius
When one reads through the accounts on Luther’s relationship to the Pseudo-Dionysius and to the tradition of mystical, negative or apophatic theology rooted in his works, a very similar image of a transition from cautious positivism to full denial is given by most researchers: First it is noted, that Luther mentions Dionysios at positive or neutral light at two statements in Dictata super Psalterium (1513-15) explaining the nature of the darkness God is hidden in.9 Second it is pointed out that in the lectures on Romans (1516) Luther reminds of the importance of the suffering of Christ and purgation of the eyes and the heart by the incarnated Word before contemplating the uncreated Word.10 Luther is now seen as departing from his initial unqualified positivism. Finally Luther’s references in Operationes in
4 Sheldon-Williams 1967, 462-467; 470-471.
5 Dionysios has as his background the (neo)platonic ontology according to which concepts are not simply names or abstractions of properties, but have their existence independent of matter. Because God is the source of all concepts, there can be no concept that could encompass God himself.
6 MT III.
7 MT I; IV-V; Sheldon-Williams 1967, 467-
8 Sheldon-Williams 1967, 468-472.
9 WA 3, 124, 30-35 = WA 55, II, 138, 6-10; WA 3, 372, 16-21 = WA 55, II, 343, 10 - 344, 16.
10 WA 56, 299, 27 – 300, 3.
Psalmos to cross alone as “our theology”11 and his underscoring of living, dying and becoming damned as the way to become a theologian in opposition to speculation12 are taken as a proof of a rejection of Dionysios and his idea of negative theology. The quotations are presented as a proof of transition from a theoretical approval of the mystical speculation to wholly different theology of the cross. This view may then be corroborated by Luther’s suspicion of the true personality of Pseudo-Dionysius and his criticism of the Angelic and Ecclesiastical hierarchies and the Platonism of Dionysius which are applied to lead the bull to the slaughter.13
Now what is the trouble with this kind of analysis? I would say there are two problems with this common view of Luther’s Dionysius-Reception. The first is that the analysis is based almost completely on sections of Luther’s texts where either Dionysius or the words “theologia … mystica” are explicitly mentioned. The second, which results from the taken approach, is that very little thematic analysis of the influence of the Dionysian heritage is done, because the scope becomes limited to the texts with explicit references to Dionysius. This is not enough. My claim is that important sections of Luther’s writings where the influence of negative theology in the Dionysian tradition is clearly perceptible have been overlooked because of the lack of thematic analysis. Such sections omitted in the research shed more light on Luther’s relationship to mysticism and negative theology in general. When they are taken into account the whole picture of Luther’s reception of Dionysius is changed: Luther actually relies more on the ideas of negative theology in the Operationes in Psalmos than in the early Dictata!
4. Elements of Luther’s Reception of Dionysios
4.1.
The Incomprehensibility of the Godhead
The first theme I’m going to take up is Luther’s view of the Godhead (summae divinitatis).
In the following quote from Luther’s explanation of Ps. 3:5 “I cried with my voice to the Lord, and he heard me from his holy mountain. Sela”14 we can see a clear influence of negative theology on Luther’s view of the incomprehensibility of the Godhead. There may have been reasons such as aversion to metaphysical themes that would explain why this text to my knowing has not been discussed in relation to Luther’s reception of Dionysius, though it is definitely relevant. The context of the text is Luther’s
11 AWA 2, 318, 20 – 319, 3.
12 AWA 2, 294, 19 – 295, 11.
13 See Oberman 1967, 24-28; Zur Mühlen 1972, 51-54, 101-104, 198-205; Peters 1985, 75-76; Blaumeiser 1995, 67; Rorem 1997; Hoffman 2003, 214; McGinn 2002, 96-100; Rorem 2008; Cleve 2008. Also Loewenich (1982, 92-95) rejects the idea of Luther’s mysticism by referring to a number of above quotations but without mentioning Dionysios by name. It is noteworthy that there seems to be a discrepancy on the interpretation of the nature of the difference between negative theology and the theology of the cross. Whereas the English-speaking researchers (espc. Rorem, Hoffman, McGinn) tend to think that the content of the theology of the cross is the idea of knowing God in Christ the Crucified (stressing incarnation and history of Christ), the German researchers (espc. Zur Mühlen, Loewenich, Blaumeiser) tend to understand the cross as the way God works through the suffering, which is realised in the (existential struggles of) Christian life. Both stress the concrete and the historical as the focus of reformation theology.
14 AWA 2, 137, 5-6. ”Voce mea ad dominum clamavi, et exaudivit me de monte sancto suo. Sela”.
theology of the cross and the tribulations, in which it has been discussed, though with the usual rejection that it would contain anything mystical15 :
He says from his holy mountain I see that this mountain is understood in different ways. Some think it means Christ receiving help from himself, others from the highest Godhead, others [yet] other things. I’m pleased with the mountaing of the highest Godhead, because – as I imagine – you can see this mountain has no name. For Ps. 2 ”On Zion, my holy Mountain” says that someone constituted over someone is a king. Therefore that mountain had to be named, because he could not rule it if it were not known. But here that from which he is ruled and heard can not be named, having no name or form.
This seems to me to teach us all to hope in the time of tribulation a divine help from above, the mode, time and kind of which should be unknown to us, so that there would be place for faith and hope, which depend on that which is not seen, not heard and has not entered the heart of man. So the eye of faith looks up to the interior darkness and the cloud on the mountain but does not see anything, except that it is weakened while looking into the high and waiting, where its help shall come. It looks to the highness and expects a helper from the highness, but what this highness and the forthcoming help is, it does not know. Even if Christ knew everything, he was still tried in all things like us for our sake, so that even for him this mountain was according to his humanity in some way unknown and incomprehensible at the time of passion. This is what Ps. 22 means when it says: ”But you dwell in holiness”, that is, in hiddenness and in inaccessible secret. As God is ineffable, incomprehensible and inaccessible, so is his will and help, especially in the time of abandonment.
Therefore if faith tested by tribulation does not give this by experience, it can be by no words told what this holy mountain of God is. It is the same thing when he said “He heard me from his holy mountain” that is said in common language: He heard me in an ineffable and incomprehensible way that I would never have imagined. I know I have been heard from above, but I don’t know how. He grasped me from above and took me to the highness (as is said elsewhere), but I do not know what is this high, this highness, this mountain. […]
This is what the word ”holy” means, that it is above expression, separate and secret, distinctly that which cannot be reached by senses or by mind; who is taken there is taken to the invisible God, purified, separated and sanctified perfectly. This is truly hard and intolerable to the human nature, if the Spirit of Lord does not carry over these waters and kindle the darknesses of this abyss, so that there be light.16
First let us simply note the thematic and verbal affinities of the text to Dionysius’ De mystica theologia. First there are the general images of the mountain and the cloud and darkness (tenebras interiores et caliginem montis) God is hidden in. While Luther does not present in the text an ascent to the mountain, he speaks of the eyes of faith looking to the highness of the mountain and
15 See Beintker 1954, 149-150 where Beitnker wishes to take clear distance from mysticism and understand the following as an image of an inner struggle of uncertainty of God’s forgiveness.
16 AWA 2, 139, 7 - 140, 26. ”De monte sancto suo inquit. Hunc montem varie intelligi video. Aliis ipse Christus de seipso exauditus intelligitur, aliis de summa divinitate. Placet mihi mons summae divinitatis, modo id - quantum somnioobserves monti huic non esse nomen. Nam Ps. 2<,6> ”Montem sanctum Zion” dixit, super quem tamquam inferiorem constitutus esset rex. Ideo nominandus erat illic mons, ut quem regere non posset, nisi nosset. Hic vero, a quo regitur et de quo exauditur, innominabilis est, nec speciem nec nomen habens. Quo mihi videor erudiri nos omnes in tempore tentationis auxilium divinum sperare quidem debere desursum, sed modum, tempus et genus auxilii nobis esse incognitum, ut fidei et spei locus sit, quae nituntur in ea, quae nec videntur nec audiuntur nec in cor hominis ascendunt <1Cor 2,9>. Atque ita oculus fidei in tenebras interiores et caliginem montis suspicit, nihilque videt, nisi quod attenuatur suspiciens in excelso exspectansque, unde veniat auxilium ei. In sublime videt et de sublimi exspectat adiutorem; sed quale sit hoc sublime, et quale auditorium futurum, ignorat. Etsi enim Christus omnia sciebat, tamen tentatus est in similitudine in omnia pro nobis <Hebr 4,15>, ut et ipse hunc montem quammodo iuxta humanitatem habuerit ignotum et incomprehensibilem pro hora passionis, quod et alio Ps. 21<,4> significat dicens: ”Tu autem in sancto habitas”, id est, in abscondito et inaccesso secreto. Sicut enim / deus est ineffabilis, incomprehensibilis, inaccessibilis, ita euis voluntas et auxilium praesertim in tempore derelictionis. Ideo nisi fides hic expertum reddat et tentatio probatum, nullis verbis tradi potest, quid sit mons iste sanctus dei. Idem ergo est, ac si diceret: Exaudivit me de monte sancto suo, quod vulgo dicitur: Exaudivit me ineffabili incomprehensibilique modo, quam nunquam cogitassem. Desursum scio me exauditum, sed quo modo, ignoro. Eripuit me de alto et de summo accepit me (ut alibi dicet), sed non cognosco, quid sit hoc altum, hoc summum, hic mons. […]
Hoc est, quod vocabulum illud sancto indicat, quod, ut supra dictum est, separatum et secretum significat planeque id, quod attingi nec sensu nec mente potest; in quod qui rapitur, in deum invisibilem rapitur ac perfectissime purificatur,
awaiting help from above, whereas Dionysius speaks of the most high places above which God is present. Luther writes that the help is given through raptus and accessus to the divine, a common mystical notion. While waiting the person in the tribulation does not see anything and does not know (ignorat) what the help will be. Its mode and time and kind are unknown (incognitum). Dionysius speaks of the cloud of unknowing (caligo ignoratiae)17. And where for Dionysius the knowledge of God happens in mystical union, for Luther the help the Psalm is speaking of is the raptus and accessus to the Godhead itself. The person grasped will know and experience that he is helped, but he cannot know or express what the help and the divine nature is (Scio me axauditum, sed quo modo, ignoro). He does not know what the highness is (non congosco… quid sit hoc altum): Dionysios speaks of knowing by notknowing (nihil cognoscit super mentem cognoscens).18 Especially noteworthy area also the terms and the notions Luther uses of the Godhead: It cannot be named (innominabilis, nec speciem nec nomen habens), which seems like a reference to the ideas of Dionysius in De divinis nominibus. It is above expression (supra dictum). God is ineffable, incomprehensible and inaccessible. He cannot be reached by senses or mind (attingi nec sensu nec mente potest).
Even if it may not be possible to establish direct literary dependence between Luther’s text and Dionysius, to me it is clear that there is a continuity between themes and certain expressions.
4.2. Faith as Union with the Incomprehensible Godhead
At the end of chapter 3 I claimed that Luther relies more on the ideas of negative theology in his Operationes in Psalmos than in Dictata. To prove that the text we just analyzed is not an isolated incident but belongs to the larger context of Luther’s theology of the cross utilizing Dionysian themes let us take a look at another quotation from explanation of Ps. 2:10 “And now, kings, understand. Take instruction, you who judge the earth.”19 where Luther discusses the object of faith:
That which the faith understands has no name nor form. Prosperity and adversity in present things inwardly perverts everyone who does not by faith understand the invisible. This understanding comes from faith, according to “If you will not believe you will not understand” and it is entrance to this cloud in which everything the senses, reason, mind and intellect of man can comprehend are dissolved. Faith namely unites the soul with the invisible, ineffable, unnameable eternal, unthinkable Word of God while separating it from all visible things. This is the cross and the “Passover” of the Lord, in which he preaches this necessary intellect.20
The Dionysian union with God in the cloud of unknowing, that has as its precondition the relinquishment of all sensible and comprehensible things seems to be the thematic background of the text. However for Luther it is faith which separates from the visible and comprehensible things and separatur, sanctificatur. Verum dura haec res humanae naturae et intolerabilis, nisi spiritus domini feratur super haes aquas et tenebras huius abyssi foveat, donec lux fiat <Gen 1,2s>.”
17 MT I, 6.
18 MT I, 6.
19 AWA 2, 103, 22-23.
20 AWA 2, 107, 23 – 108, 5. ”Non enim habent nomen nequem speciem ea, qua fides intelligit. Nam praesentium rerum prosperitas vel adversitas penitus subvertit omnem hominem, qui fide non intelligit invisibilia. Hic enim intellectus ex fide venit, iuxta illud <Is 7,9>: ”Nisi crediderits, non intelligetis”, et est ingressus ille caliginis, in qua absorbetur, quicquid sensus, ratio, mens intellectusque hominis comprehendere potest. Coniungit enim fides animam cum invisibili, ineffabili,
unites with God. That this is the case is confirmed with the next quotation. But before that note also, that Luther calls this passover by faith from the visible to the invisible the “cross of the Lord.” And now to Ps. 4:6-7 which contains a lengthy and very interesting discussion on the nature of the light of faith, but which we will deal only briefly with. Luther explains Ps. 4:6-7 “There are many who say: Who shall show us good things? The light of your face, O Lord, is sealed over us”:
Hieronymus translates: There are many who say: Who will show us what is good? Elevate over us the light of your face, O Lord. He says the same by a petition. Indeed he [God] will elevate the light over us, when he elevates us by that light. Faith namely is a light over all our comprehension. Therefore this “elevation” is nothing else than to shed over us the light of faith, which in itself is most high, and by which we are elevated. Therefore it may be called sealed, because it is inaccessible and incomprehensible to us, but comprehends us and captivates us into its subservience.21
According to Luther the light of faith is a “ray of divinity” in which God himself is present and illuminates us.22 But at the same time this light remains incomprehensible and sealed to us. Even so, the light of faith makes the believer sure of the presence and help of God.23 It is that, which “elevates” us to the divine nature, uniting us with God. Therefore what Luther is here describing is the same help that is the accessus and raptus to Godhead, experience of the help of God who is present but at the same time remains incomprehensble and above us.
4.3. The Cross as the True Negation
These themes having been discussed there is now ground to proceed to the third point of Luther’s reception of Dionysius, which is the utilization of the negative theology in Luther’s own theology of the cross. As was laid out in chapter 3 almost all researchers have claimed that Luther’s endorsement of the theology of the cross in Operationes constitutes a full rebuttal of the tradition of negative theology originating from Dionysius. There are two famous quotations of Luther used to support this view and I will now examine both of them. The first one contains the famous quote about becoming a theologian by living, dying and becoming damned:
Many labour a great deal with mystical, negative, proper and symbolic theology inventing fables about them, not knowing what they speak or what they say about them. They have not known what affirmation or negation are or how they happen. Their commentaries cannot be read without danger, because as they have been, so they have written, what they have experienced, so they have spoken. They have however experienced the contrary of negative theology, that is, they have not loved death and hell and therefore it has been impossible they would not have lead in error themselves with their readers. I have wanted to say this as a free warning, because here and there are spread around commentaries of Dionysius’ Mystical theology, some from Italy, some from Germany, that are merely irritable and inflated science of exhibiting oneself, so that no one would believe to be a mystical theologian if he has read, understood and teached or rather
innominabili, aeterno, incogitabili verbo dei simulque separat ab omnibus visibilibus, et haec est crux et ”phase” domini, in quo necessarium praedicat hunc intellectum”
21 AWA 2, 202, 21 – 203, 2. ”Hieronymys: Multi dicunt: Quis ostendit nobis bonum? Leva super nos lumen vultus dei, domine [PsH]. Idem per modum petitionis dicit. Levat vero lumen super nos, dum nos lumine eo levat. Est enim fides lux supra omnem captum nostrum. Quare hoc ’levare’ est aliud nihil quam lumen fidei, quod seipso altissimum est, super nos effundere, quo ipsi elevemur. Unde et signatum dici potest, quia clausum et incomprehensibile nobis comprehendens autem nos et in obsequium sui captivans.”
22 AWA 2, 200, 3 – 202, 6. In Luther’s expression ”radius quidam divinitatis” there might be an affinity to Dionysius’ ”divinarum tenebrarum radium”, but because Luther does not in this context use the term darkness, it is not at all clear
23 AWA 2, 201, 8-21; WA 5, 506, 12-25.
thought to have understood and taught them. One becomes a theologian by living, no indeed, by dying and becoming damned, not by understanding, reading or speculating.24
The second quotation ends with the famous “CROSS alone is our theology”. However in order to really understand what is meant by it, we need to examine the text in its context. Both quotations are part of a large section in which Luther is discussing the infusion of grace and divine virtues:
So the other virtues dwell in concrete, corporeal, external things, but these [the theological virtues] in the pure internal Word of God that comprehends the soul, but which the soul does not comprehend. This is the undressing of the tunic and the shoes, that is, being grasped away from everything, both [corporeal] things and mental images [phantasms] by the Word (to which it [the soul] clings, or rather by which it is apprehended and lead in a miraculous way) “in solitude” (as Hosea 2 says), in the invisible, in its bedroom, “in the wine cellar”. But this being led, being grasped, being purified desperately tortures it. It is a steep and narrow way to leave all visible, be deprived of all sensible, be lead away from the customary, and finally it is to die and to descend to hell. He seems to vanish completely from himself when he is carried away from everything on which he stood, dwelled and lived. He can neither touch the Earth nor the Heaven, feel neither himself nor God, saying: Tell to my beloved that I am ill from love, as if he were to say: I have been reduced to nothing and I did not know; I live only from faith, hope and love and become weaker (that is, I suffer), “because when I am weaker, then I am stronger”.
This being lead is what the mystical theologians call ”stepping into darkness”, ”ascending over being and non-being”. I really do not know whether they understood themselves if they attributed it to chosen acts and did not rather believe it to signify the passions of cross, death and hell. CROSS alone is our theology.25
Of the first quotation it is to be noticed, that Luther’s criticism is primarily directed towards commentaries of the works Dionysius.26 Therefore it cannot be taken as a firsthand rebuttal of Dionysius. Luther’s criticism that the writers of these commentaries have not known what affirmation or negation are or how they happen implies there is also true affirmation and negation. Luther also gives a hint what the true negation might be: the cross and the passions that lead to spiritual experience, instead of theoretical speculation.
The second quotation is the one with the most discernible references to Dionysius’ works though they do not appear to be direct quotations.27 Also the language of unknowing is at its thickest
24 AWA 2, 294, 19 - 296, 11: ”Multi multa de theologia mystica, negativa, propria, symbolica moliuntur et fabulantur ignorantes. nec quid loquantur, nec de quibus affirment. Neque enim quid affirmatio aut negatio sit, aut quomodo utra fiat, noverunt. Nec possunt commentaria eorum citra periculum legi, quod quales ipsi fuerunt, talia scripserunt, sicut senserunt, ita locuti sunt. Senserunt autem contraria negativae theologiae, hoc est, nec mortem nec infernum dilexerunt, ideo impossibile fuit, ut non fallarent tam seipsos quam suos lectores. Haec admonendi gratia dicta velim, quod passim circumferuntur tum ex Italia tum Germania commentaria Dionysii super theologiam mysticam, hoc est, mera irritaibula inflaturae et ostentaturae seipsam scientiae, ne quis se theologum mysticum credat, si haec legerit, intellexerit, docuerit seu potius intelligere et docere sibi visus fuerit. Vivendo, immo moriendo et damnando fit theologus, non intelligendo, legendo aut speculando.”
25 AWA 2, 318, 5 - 319, 3: ”Denique ceterae virtutes versantur circa res crassas et corporales externe, illae vero circa purum verbum dei interne, quo capitur et non capit anima, hoc est, exuitur tunica et calciamentis suis, ab omnibus tam rebus quam phantasmatibus rapirturque per verbum (cui adhaeret, immo quod eam apprehendit et ducit mirabiliter) ’in solitudinem’ (ut Oseae 2<,14> dicit), in invisibilia, in cubiculum suum, ’in cellam vinariam’ <Cant 2,4>. At hic ductus, hic raptus, hic expolitio misere eam discruciat. Arduum est enim et angusta via relinquere omnia visibilia, exui omnibus sensibus, educi ex consuetis, denique hoc mori est et ad inferos descendere. Videtur enim ipsa sibi funditus perire, dum subtractis omnibus, in quibus stetit, versabatur, haerebat, nec terram tangit nec caelum, nec se sentit nec deum dicens <Cant 5,8>: Nuntiate dilecto meo, ’quia amore langueo’, quasi dicat: Redacta sum in nihilum et nescivi, in tenebras et caliginem ingressa nihil video; fide, spe et caritate sola vivo et infirmor (id est, patior), ’cum enim infirmor, tunc fortior sum’ <2Cor 12,10b>.
Hunc ductum theologi mystici vocant ’in tenebras ire’, ’ascendere super ens et non ens’. Verum nescio, an seipsos intelligant, si id actibus elicitis tribuunt et non potius crucis, mortis infernique passiones significari credunt. CRUX sola est nostra theologia.”
26 It was customary to publish the quite obscure works of Dionysios with commentaries. Luther is probably referring to the Dionysios commentaries by Marsilio Ficino and the Firenze Platonists, and to that of his adversary John Eck published in 1519.
27 Compare especially “ascendere super ens et non ens” to the translation of Robert Grosseteste, MT I, 1, p. 64: ”Tu autem, o amice Timothee, ea que circa misticas visiones forti attricione et sensus derelinque et intellectuales operationes et
here. From the context it becomes questionable whether those researchers who interpreted Luther’s definition of the cross here as Christ the Crucified understood themselves. The cross is here to be taken in the same meaning Luther’s explanation of Ps. 2:10. It means the transition from the visible and comprehensible things to the union with the incomprehensible, invisible Word of God that is Christ. According to Luther this transition causes great suffering for the soul. This is also the major point in Luther’s criticism of Dionysius: The ascent or descent to the divine darkness is something so unbearable that no person may wish for it. Therefore it cannot be attained by active speculation. This is the crux of Luther’s theology of the cross in Operationes in Psalmos: Cross is the way in which God works under suffering in an incomprehensible way. It is of course grounded in the cross of Christ, which is the archetype of God’s hiddenness under contraries.28 But the hiddenness does not only concern Christ. It concerns the work of God in the infusion of grace through the external word and the sufferings of life, which lead the soul away from reliance on the visible and make it a real participant in the divine reality.29
Luther’s theology of the cross therefore means transition from a false reliance on and love of the visible through suffering to a reliance on the invisible and incomprehensible but present God. The connection of the suffering and incomprehensibility lies on Luther’s distinction of the flesh and the spirit. The issue is too wide to be discussed here, but it suffices to say that for Luther the experience of the carnal man, the flesh, is contrary to the experience of the new man, the spirit. These take place in the same person. 30 That this is the point of Luther’s Dionysius-criticism can be seen from the last quotation commonly applied to divorce Luther from Dionysius:
The account confirms this saying: ”A dense cloud begin to cover the mountain”. And Deut. 5 and Hebr. 12 are mentions of this same cloud. So is Ex. 19. ”Lord descended over Sinai on the top of the mountain and called Moses to its peak.” Many have fabricated much about this cloud, especially that Dionysius, whoever he was. We having began the way follow our own allegory, when we say that God humiliates the proud by the ministry of the law, and this is what this place is about […]
“And the cloud was under his feet”, that is, his works and ways cannot be known. This happens, when he does his alien work so that he might do his proper work, when he damns in order to save, when he makes the conscience tremble in order to pacify it. The works of justification are namely against all human experience, because man does not bear to be humiliated and be reduced to nothing by the power of the law, because he does not understand how well it will turn out with him. He thinks that he will be consumed when he is actually born new as the Morning Star and dispersed, so that he would be brought together, plucked out so that he would be planted. Faith is namely required in this cloud, as Job 3 says: ”For men his way is hidden and God surrounds him with darkness.”31
omnia sensibilia et intelligibilia et omnia entia et non entia […]” It is however possible that Luther himself is referring to a commentator of Dionysious or to another mystical writer using his themes, such as Jean Gerson.
28 See AWA 2, 179, 17 – 180, 12.
29 Loewenich 1982, 135-144 and Blaumeiser 1995, 98-102 correctly understand that the cross means the way in which God works through suffering. However both seem to draw too sharp distinction between mystical theology and theology of the cross and understand the suffering Luther speaks of as only in terms of existential suffering. Blaumeiser (1995, 101) however recognizes that Luther takes positive elements from mysticism into his theology of the cross.
30 AWA 2, 97, 12-18. ”Vides autem et hunc versum esse totum allegoricum, non sine causa, siquidem significat quandam allegoriam, quae geritur re ipsa et vita. Cum enim verbum Christi sit verbum salutis et pacis, verbum vitae et gratiae, atque haec non in carne, sed in spiritu operetur, necesse est, ut salutem, pacem, vitam, gratiam carnis opprimat et expellat. Quod cum facit, apparet carni ferro ipso durius et inclementius. Aliud enim sentitur et aliud fit, quoties homo carnalis verbo dei salubriter tangitur […]”
31 WA 5, 503, 6-33. ”[2. Mos. 19, 16.] Hoc historia confitetur dicens ‘coepit nubes densissima operire montem’. [5. Mos. 5, 22 f., Hebr, 12, 18., 2. Mos, 19, 20.] Et Deutro. 5. et Heb. 12, eiusdem caliginis mentio fit, dicitque Exo. 19. ‘Descendit dominus super Sinai in ipso montis vertice et vocavit Mosen in cacumen eius’. Multi multa de ista caligine
5. Conclusion
We can therefore note that even when harshly criticizing Dionysius Luther at the same time makes use of some Dionysian ideas, such as understanding the cloud by which God is covered as denoting the unknowability of God. Luther’s criticism must therefore be seen in the narrower context of rejecting metaphysical speculation as a way towards knowledge of God. This is evident in that while Luther uses a lot of mystical images and vocabulary related to the incomprehensibility, the only mention of the super-aspect that was so important for Dionysius is when Luther reinterprets it as a denoting the passions. But at the same time Luther remains indebted to the Dionysian view of the ultimate incomprehensibility of the divine nature and the experiential descriptions of the union with God that takes place above the normal mental capabilities, and in which the presence, consolation and help of God is experienced but God in his essence remains unknown. Luther’s theology of the cross can therefore be seen as a reinterpretation of the Dionysian negative theology, which owes in these aspects a lot to the theological discourse that preceded it. We can therefore see that a rejection of a person or the authority of a person does not in itself constitute a rejection of influence of the person. A thorough theological and thematic analysis is necessary in order to see how much influence remains.
6. Sources and Litterature
6.1.
Sources
Luther, Martin
AWA 2 Operationes in Psalmos 1519-1521. Teil II. Psalm 1 bis 10 (Vulgata). Herausgegeben und bearbeitet von Georg Hammer und Manfred Biersack. Archiv zur Weimarer Ausgabe Band 2. Köln, Wien: Böhlau Verlag. 1981.
WA D. Martin Luthers Werke. Kritische Gesammtausgabe. 1. Band. Weimar. 1883-
Pseudo-Dionysius Areiopagita
MT Mystical Theology: The Glosses by Thomas Gallus and the Commentary of Robert Grosseteste on De Mystica Theologia. Edition, Translation and Introduction by James McEvoy. Paris – Leuven – Dudley, MA: Peeters. Dallas medieval texts and translations 3.
6.2.
Litterature
Beintker, Horst
1954 Die Überwindung der Anfechtung bei Luther. Eine Studie zu seiner Theologie nach den Operationes in Psalmos 1519-21. Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt.
Blaumeiser, Hubertus
1995 Martin Luthers Kreuzestheologie. Schlüssel zu seiner Deutung von Mensch und Wirklichkeit. Eine Untersuchung anhand der Operationes in Psalmos (1519-1521). –
commenti sunt, praesertim Dionysius ille, quisquis fuerit. Nos coepto itinere prosequamur allegoriam nostram, qua diximus, superbos humiliari per ministerium legis, idque hoc loco tractari.” […]
‘Et caligo sub pedibus eius’, idest quod opera et viae eius cognosci non possunt. Hoc fit, dum alienum opus operatur, ut operetur opus suum, dum damnat, ut salvet, dum conscientiam conturbat, ut pacificet. Contraria enim sunt opera iustificationis omni sensui humano, qui sese humiliari et in nihilum redigi per virtutem legis non sustinet, quia non capit, quam bene secum agatur. Putat enim, sese consumi, cum revera oriatur sicut Lucifer et dispergatur, ut congregetur, evellatur, ut plantetur. Fide ergo opus est in ista [Hiob 3, 23.] caligine, sicut Iob 3. ‘Viro cuius abscondita est via et circundedit eum [Jer. 10, 23 f.] deus tenebris’.”
Konfessionskundliche und kontroverstheologische Studien Band LX. Paderborn: Bonifatius.
Cleve, Fredric
2008 Martin Luther and Dionysios the Areiopagite. –Grapta Poikila II. Saints and Heroes. Ed. by Leena Pietilä-Castrén and Vesa Vahtikari. Helsinki: Ekenäs Tryckeri. Papers and monographs of the Finnish institute at Athens vol. XIV. 91-109.
Hoffman, Bengt R.
2003 Theology of the Heart. The Role of Mysticism in the Theology of Martin Luther. Minneapolis, MA: Kirk House Publishers.
Loewenich, Walther von 1982 Luthers Theologia crucis. 6. unveränderte Auflage. Bielefeld: Luther-Verlag.
McGinn, Bernard
2002 Vere tu es Deus absconditus: the hidden God in Luther and some mystics. –Silence and the Word. Negative theology and incarnation. Ed. by Oliver Davies and Denys Turner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 94-114.
Oberman, Heiko A.
1967 Simul gemitus et raptus: Luther und die Mystik. –The Church, Mysticism, Sanctification and the Natural in Luther’s Thought. Ed. by Ivar Asheim. Philadelphia: Fortress press. 2059.
Peters, Albrech
1985 Verborgener Gott – Dreieiniger Gott. Beobachtungen und Überlegungen zum Gottesverständnis Martin Luthers. –Martin Luther. „Reformator und Vater im Glauben“. Referate aus der Vortragsreihe des Instituts fur europäische Geschichte Mainz. Hrsg. von Peter Manns. VIEG 18. 74-105.
Rorem, Paul
1997 Martin Luther’s Christocentric Critique of Pseudo-Dionysian Spirituality. –Lutheran Quarterly vol X / Number 3. 291-307.
2008 Negative Theologies and the Cross. –Harvard Theological Review 101:3-4. 451-464.
Sheldon-Williams, I. P.
1967 The Greek Christian Platonist Tradition from the Cappadocians to Maximus and Eriugena. –The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosopy. Ed. by A. H. Armstrong. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 425-533.
Zur Mühlen, Karl-Heinz
1972 Nos extra nos. Luthers Theologie zwischen Mystik und Skolastik. Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie 46. Tübingen.