Luther: "I Prefer a Dead Rather Than a Disobedient Son." Child Abuse?

 Here's a strange one I came upon:

Luther was a stern disciplinarian with his children. On one occasion, he commented that he would prefer to have a “dead rather than a disobedient son” (Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102). On another occasion, he forbade his son to see him for three days as punishment for his disobedience. At the end of the period, he required the boy to write a letter begging his father' forgiveness.

This is the first time I've run across this quote. It must not be one that Luther's detractors find all that compelling! However, after digging around a bit I discovered it's one of the passages used to prove Martin Luther's abuse of children. Let's take a closer look to see what's going on.

Documentation

This snippet above comes from a 2012 article entitled, Martin Luther on Marriage and Family from Andrews University by a member of the faculty. A quick Google search immediately linked me to a snippet from an old 1932 periodical:

Finding a full view of this old article was futile. The similarities though between the two snippets strongly suggests to me that the former may have relied on this old article, unattributed. It looks like some of the words have been altered in order to avoid plagiarism. It's either a bizarre coincidence, or the former utilized the historical content of the later. 

However, what is provided in a meaningful reference:  "Luther, WA, TR 5: 489, n. 6102." This refers to the standard German collection of Luther's writings, the Weimar edition (WA). The "TR" refers to "Tischreden," in English known as the Table Talk. I never tire of pointing out the Table Talk is a collection of secondhand comments written down by Luther's friends and students, published after his death. It often falls on deaf ears when I point out that Luther didn't write the Table Talk. Since the statements contained therein are purported to have been made by Luther, they should serve more as corroborating second-hand testimony to something Luther is certain to have written. " 5: 489" refers to the volume and page number in WA TR. "n. 6102" refers to the utterance number of the statement from Luther found on page 489. Unfortunately, I was not able to determine which of Luther's associates recorded this particular remark.

Table Talk utterance 6102 is not contained in the standard English edition of Luther's Works (LW). to my knowledge, none of the earlier English editions of the Table Talk include this utterance. The line in question is "Ich wollt lieber einen todten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben." 

Context 

Google AI rendering:

6102. (B. 1, 253) Martin Luther refused to accept his eldest son John for three whole days, although he had humbly supplicated in writing, interceding with his mother, Doctor Iona, Doctor Cruciger and Philip. To whom he replied: I would rather have a dead son than a disobedient one. Paul did not say in vain that a bishop (B. 1, 254) should be such as rules his house well and educates his children well, so that others may be edified and not scandalized. We are set in a high place as an example to all, and our children are a scandal to others; so the boys want to take advantage of our privileges. Finally, even though he often sins, I never or rarely repent, and it happens to us according to the proverb: The evils of our house are the last to be experienced; when all the people have carried us through all the streets, we will experience them first. Therefore he must be punished, and we must not be connived at.

Conclusion

Contrary to the paper from Andrews University, it appears to me this Table Talk statement is not referring to two separate instances of discipline of Luther's oldest son. Rather, not talking to his son for three days and then saying he would rather have a “dead...  than a disobedient son” is the same occurrence. Also of note is Luther's oldest son was named Hans. The Table Talk says "loannem" (John). Lest there be any confusion, this is the Latin way to write "Hans."

I certainly see that this second-hand statement demonstrates Luther was a strict disciplinarian.  On the other hand, the statement does not prove Martin Luther abused his children... there's no record of that. The usual canard is that Luther was an abused child, not that he himself was an abuser of children.  However, I did discover that there are those sifting Luther's writings and charging him of child abuse.  In another on-line paper a writer makes insightful observations:

Anne Waldschmidt kindly mentioned work by Christian Mürner (1996), a disability activist who denounces the usual catalogue of supposed Luther-crimes, i.e. wanting to kill disabled children, rebellious peasants and Jews, with focus on the strange boy at Dessau. That work hardly aims for a balanced view of Luther and disabled people in historical context; yet it does discuss some primary Luther texts and quotes a few more writers in German on allied topics.

-snip-

Christian Mürner (1996), weaving together sources out of context, seems to suggest that little Hans really was in danger: in disciplining his children, supposedly Luther "would not even shrink from murder" (quoting Carl-Heinz Mallet, "nicht einmal vor einem Mord zurückgeschreckt"). This is supported by Luther's 'threat' that "Ich wollt lieber einem toten denn einen ungezogenen Sohn haben", with an unspecified Biblical saying that the Parents' will is God's will, and one should kill disobedient children ("Er beruft sich auf die Bibel, 'der Eltern Diener, under der Eltern Wille is Gottes Wille. Der heisst under gebeut, dass man ungehorsame Kinder töten soll.'") The latter could perhaps refer to the Torah provision, that parents might bring their son before the city elders and accuse him of being stubborn and rebellious, profligate, drunken and leading a riotous life. If proven, the community could stone the delinquent (Deuteronomy 21: 18-21); though in practice, such a penalty was not carried out without serious warnings and community action to correct the behaviour problems (Hertz, 1952, pp. 841-842, 845). One can apply this kind of rhetoric to Luther only by imagining that he was a wild, crazy man in his home, liable to break out and attack his own small children with axe or hammer. Luther's many students and companions, friends and guests, who saw and recorded his everyday behaviour, somehow never met this homicidal maniac.

 

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #9

 

This is a Martin Luther meme typically posted by Rome's defenders. I've noticed that out of all the Roman Catholic "Luther" memes circulating, there seems to be a majority expressing something about Martin Luther's view of Mary. Weird. 

How to Respond:

1. Begin with the provided documentation, "Martin Luther Explanation of the Magnificat, 1521." If you search Luther's exposition of the Magnificat, you will not find this exact quote in this form. The quote is actually a truncated English version from an article entitled, "Was Luther a Marian Devotee?" by Roman Catholic scholar William Cole. See my detailed explanation here. 

2. Luther's exposition of the Magnificat was originally viewed as an attack on popular sixteenth century Mariology by Rome's sixteenth century defenders. See my detailed examination here.  Times have changed... now Rome's defenders use it to promote their current understanding of Mariology.

3. Did Luther "honor" Mary. Yes... but what is meant by "honor"? Roman Catholic apologists need to define their terms. They need to be able to tell you what Marian "honor" is. They cannot be allowed to equivocate: Luther saying nice things about Mary does not equal Rome's version of devotion / honor. Force them to provide an official statement from the Magisterium.  Then, apply that official statement to Luther’s writings. I do not deny that Luther spoke favorably about Mary, but when Roman Catholics say "honor" or “devotion”, they mean something quite different than Protestants. In fact, in Luther's exposition of the Magnificat he says, "Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says..." (LW 21:322). And also, "all those who heap such great praise and honor upon her head are not far from making an idol of her..." (LW 21:322).

4. Was Luther invoking Mary as an intercessor when he writes, "Mary does not wish that we come to her, but through her to God"? No! In context Luther is exhorting people to consider themselves low and humble and in awe of God's grace, like Mary:

Whoever, therefore, would show her the proper honor must not regard her alone and by herself, but set her in the presence of God and far beneath Him, must there strip her of all honor, and regard her low estate, as she says; he should then marvel at the exceedingly abundant grace of God, who regards, embraces, and blesses so poor and despised a mortal. Thus regarding her, you will be moved to love and praise God for His grace, and drawn to look for all good things to Him, who does not reject but graciously regards poor and despised and lowly mortals. Thus your heart will be strengthened in faith and love and hope. What do you suppose would please her more than to have you come through her to God this way, and learn from her to put your hope and trust in Him, notwithstanding your despised and lowly estate, in life as well as in death? She does not want you to come to her, but through her to God.

Again, nothing would please her better than to have you turn in fear from all lofty things on which men set their hearts, seeing that even in His mother God neither found nor desired anything of high degree. But the masters who so depict and portray the blessed Virgin that there is found in her nothing to be despised, but only great and lofty things—what are they doing but contrasting us with her instead of her with God? Thus they make us timid and afraid and hide the Virgin’s comfortable picture, as the images are covered over in Lent. For they deprive us of her example, from which we might take comfort; they make an exception of her and set her above all examples. But she should be, and herself gladly would be, the foremost example of the grace of God, to incite all the world to trust in this grace and to love and praise it, so that through her the hearts of all men should be filled with such knowledge of God that they might confidently say: “O Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, what great comfort God has shown us in you, by so graciously regarding your unworthiness and low estate. This encourages us to believe that henceforth He will not despise us poor and lowly ones, but graciously regard us also, according to your example.” (LW 21:322-323).

Bogus Roman Catholic Memes #8

 

Here's a meme that highlights the 1519 Leipzig debate between Martin Luther and the Roman Catholic theologian John Eck.  The Luther character asks where prayers for the dead are in the Bible, the Eck character responds with 2 Maccabees 12:43-46. 

The Argument: The issue of "prayers for the dead" is symbiotically related to purgatory. Proving the first becomes a prooftext for the other. Rome's defenders often argue that Eck trapped Luther into denying the seven books of the Old Testament Apocrypha at this moment of the debate. That is, in order to deny prayers for the dead and the reality of purgatory, Luther was forced to deny the infallible authority of the Apocrypha. It is at this juncture in which Luther decided to remove the seven books of the Apocrypha from the Biblical canon. 

How to Respond:

1.Luther went into the Leipzig debate still affirming the reality of Purgatory (though with reservations) and still adhered to it for a while after the Leipzig debate, probably rejecting it sometime in 1520. 

2. There is no meaningful proof that the Leipzig debate was the point in which Luther rejected the Apocrypha. If one searches Luther's writings, he consistently quoted from the Apocrypha in the same way both before and after the Leipzig debate. 

3. Luther did not accept the Apocrypha and then reject it. He never accepted it as primary infallible Scripture. Luther was schooled in a tradition that gave the Apocrypha secondary non-canonical status.

4. Rome's defenders typically only provide evidence Luther rejected 2 Maccabees and then make the illogical leap that he rejected the entire Apocrypha because of Eck's trap at the Leipzig debate. Evidence is not offered as to why the other books were rejected by Luther, it is assumed. 

For further reading, see my old AOMIN entries in which I critiqued Roman Catholic Apologist Gary Michuta's book, Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger:

• Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (1)
• 
  
• Why Gary Michuta Says Protestant Bibles Are Smaller (#2)

  

Mary's Superpower of Invisibility

(Begin: Sarcasm alert)
Did Mary has the super-power of invisibility? She appears in brief historical narratives in the four Gospels, then at the end of the four Gospels, did she cloak herself with her superpower of.... invisibility? She uncloaks herself in Acts for a second or two, then she stays totally invisible for the rest of the New Testament! Did she secretly tell Paul, James, Peter, Jude, and the writer to the Hebrews not to mention her so as to keep her invisibility a secret? Paul may have slipped up a bit in Galatians 4 ("born of a woman"), and John got a little risky in Revelation 12... but he was careful enough to make it so we're not exactly sure if it's Mary he's writing about. It amazes me that the early church fathers and those from the medieval period missed this superpower! 

(End: Sarcasm alert)

While it may have been a concern throughout church history to properly define Mary, I see that concern more often as a long-winded rabbit trail initiated and provoked by a human gravity to violate the first commandment. The New Testament writers didn't spend a lot of time painstakingly defining every aspect of Mary or any other individual (although, we know much more about some people in the Bible to a greater extent than we know about Mary!). So along with those inspired writers, I don't see the God glorifying importance in doing so either. In my thinking, all the people God used salvifically as recorded in the pages of sacred scripture are important and worthy of honor... but by honor, I don't believe it's much more than saying, "Wow, I think it's wonderful that God used you in such a unique way to be memorialized in the pages of sacred scripture. Thank you!" Yes, yes, it was an incredible privilege for Mary to have the role she had, and yes, I'm aware of Luke 1:48. Yes, certain people in Scripture are used in greater ways than others. I get it...BUT: it is not "honor" to create theological aspects of Mary that are not found in the Bible. 

If Paul took a few chapters in one of his letters to expound on distinctly Roman Catholic Marian dogmas and that I needed the information to have a rich and deep daily understanding of Mary in order to grasp the Gospel, I'd sign up for that. This doesn't mean I don't think it's interesting, but it's not anything that I need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17).

Lutheran Scholars Writing About Luther You Should Know: J.M Reu + My Two Cents on Academia

If I recall, there used to be meaningful search hits to J.M. Reu's Luther and the Scriptures via Google. Now they're gone. That's weird. J.M. Reu was an excellent trustworthy twentieth Century Lutheran scholar that I've utilized often. Back in 2011 I noted that I spent a lot of money purchasing this book on the left only to have it eventually appear online for free (this loss of money for old books that eventually come online has happened to me many times!). If you're interested in a clear and simple approach to Luther, Reu is good author to have in your library. His book, Luther's German Bible is one of the best books in English on the subject. Also, I just discovered a tribute book to J.M. Reu on the Internet Archive. J.M. Reu is the type of scholar I gravitate toward.

As of the writing of this entry, Wikipedia has a fairly innocuous short biography on him (Wiki is subject to change at the whims anonymous miscreants). Biola provides a decent bio. This bio states,

 He was criticized by some professional theologians because he was not coming up with some original nuance of theology. His answer was that he was not that kind of theologian. His calling was to collate and systematize the teachings of all the Lutheran theologians and communicate this to the lay members of Lutheran congregation by way of the students he was teaching in the seminary.

Higher Education and Publishing

If this anecdote is accurate, I can only channel my inner Wayne's World and say, "Not Worthy!" The current zeitgeist of higher education is fixated on publishing something "new" and original in order for someone to climb the ladder of higher education. I've had discussions with two friends involved in Philosophy. One earned his doctorate many years ago, and I've watched him struggle to earn a living with his degree. The other is working on his doctorate now. I listened to his struggle in putting together an original dissertation. My heart was breaking for him as I listened to him attempt to present something "new."   

True, I think there are gifted people out there that do achieve the goal of "new" and "groundbreaking," but they are not the majority. This scholastic goal has led to the influx of... junk, in all fields. For instance, I think there's a lot of junk in Luther studies particularly. Every year a new batch of books, studies, journal articles, etc. dedicated to Luther are released. They often present complicated arguments subject to the presuppositions and worldview of the author. Sifting through them sometimes is futile. Even understanding some of them is often futile. They seem to write books for the ivory towers of academia that only a small minority can comprehend. Many of the books / articles are also far too expensive to purchase... and quickly go out of print. Those of us in the trenches are unfortunately reliant on those that can sift out the main points from these expensive scholarly expeditions and spoon feed the main points to the rest of us. Hopefully, they get it right. 

Personal Stuff
Sometimes people wonder if I have any pedigree to be writing what I do. They're asking for credentials. Sure. I did my undergraduate work in Philosophy at a reputable college (I was double major in Philosophy and Communications), and I have two post graduate theological degrees from two respected conservative theological seminaries. I have been a member in good standing of a reputable conservative denominational church for over two decades and have served as an elder and teacher. I do have a Martin Luther book that's supposed to be published, but I have no control over what the publisher's timeline is. It is not a money-making venture.  I have also served as a researcher for this book. Granted, I don't agree with every conclusion this author makes, but I agree with many of them! 

Are these respectable credentials for me to write blog entries? For some people, yes, for others no. I get it... and I don't really care. Beggars All is a hobby for me. It is not a source of income. I write primarily for me about the topics I like. If someone benefits from them, that gives me a greater joy than what I already have in writing them for me. I'm fine with not creating anything new or original. If I were to have had an opportunity to interact with J.M. Reu, I would repeatedly thank him for avoiding the ivory towers of academia and providing good historical overviews that are practical and helpful.