TO THE AUGUST AND HONORABLE HANS LOSER OF PRETZSGH, HEREDITARY MARSHAL OF SAXONY, MY GRACIOUS Grace and peace in Christ! August and honorable sir, my dear Lord and friend: I am keeping my promise to you according to my capacities and am most hopeful that you, too, according to your noble inclinations, will do as you said and no longer postpone your marriage. But that you may approach this in as Christian a way as possible, I have taken it upon myself to interpret the seventh chapter of the First Epistle of St Paul to the Corinthians — this I do as a ser¬ vice to you and as an aid to all those who take a liking to it. My reason for this choice is that this very chapter, more than all the other writ¬ ings of the entire Bible, has been twisted back and forth to condemn the married state and at the same time to give a strong appearance of sanctity to the dangerous and peculiar state of celibacy. And to tell the truth, none have given themselves such airs with this chapter as the very people who have been least chaste. I, too, once considered chastity as ordinary as they pretend it to be. But, thank God, the last three years have taught me how little chastity there is in the world outside marriage, both in convents and monasteries.
But God has laid it upon me to preach about marriage and to tear the veil from the chastity which is of the devil, so that there may be less fornication and our poor youth may not be so pitiably and dan¬ gerously misled by falsely glorified chastity. Therefore I must take particular care that this chapter, which is their principal defense, no longer remain to cover their shame but be understood according to the true meaning of St. Paul. And so I should like to give you this on the occasion of your wedding;2 thus I, too, shall once have sung a Christian epithalamium, or wedding song, as they used to do in the 1 In 1531 Luther dedicated his exposition of Ps. 147 to the marshal of the elector of Saxony. In 1533 Loser, together with Melanchthon and Jonas, was a sponsor at the baptism of Luther's son Paul. Cf. Luther's Works, 14, p. 110;
2 Not until December 1524 did Loser marry Ursula von Portzig. Luther per¬ formed the ceremony at Pretzsch in the presence of Amsdorf, Melanchthon, and [W, XII, 92—93] olden days, so that your plans may be carried out to the honor of God and for the promotion and fulfillment of your own blessedness.
With this I commend you and your dear bride to the mercy of God.
J^menWittenberg, in the year 1523 What a fool is he who takes a wife," says the world, and it is cer¬ tainly true. And many learned scholars have decided that a wise man should not take a wife, even if she were wisdom personified. This, too, is true and well said, for those who believe that there is no life after this one (as such people do) act almost wisely in falling back on free fornication and not tying themselves to the labor of married life.
In this way they have at least fewer evil days in this life. Our clergy have also grasped this point and have neatly committed themselves to chastity, that is, to free fornication, as Dan. 11:37 2 prophesied of them when he said: "They will neither regard nor desire women."
But on the other hand the Spirit says: "He is a wise man who takes a wife." This, too, is certainly true, and this truth leads to the conclu¬ sion that a wise man should take a wife, even though she were foolish¬ ness personified. This, too, is right and well said, for since a Christian man is waiting for another life after this one, it is a matter of wisdom that he should have fewer good days on earth so that in eternal life he might enjoy only happy ones; and this seemed good to God when
He created man and woman and brought them together.
In other words, there are two different views of matrimony: one derives from the smart alecks and sophisticates, that is, the principal fools and blind men in the sight of God. These fellows view the state of marriage as a superfluous, presumptuous human thing that one could dispense with and do without, just as I can do without an extra jacket or coat. Then they fill the world with their foolish and blasphe¬ mous scribbling and screeching against the married state, advising all men against it, although they themselves feel — and abundantly dem¬ onstrate by their actions — that they cannot do without women, these being created specifically for marriage; instead they run after and plague themselves with whores day and night.
Of this kind is that arch-fool, Johann Schmid of Constance,3 that 1 Only the Latin translation of 1525 has this heading.
2 The Weimar text has Dan. 8, but the Erlangen edition, following the Wittenberg edition, has Dan. 12.
3 Johann Heigerlin of Leutkirch, the son of a smith and therefore also called Fabri, Faber, or Schmid, had been rewarded with the canonicate of Constance for his defense of the papacy against Luther. His Opus aclversus nova quaedam et a Christiana religione prorsus aliena dogmata Martini Lutheri, originally pub- [W, XII, 94] renowned whoremonger, who has written an immense book, recently printed in Leipzig, against the state of matrimony. He tries to talk everyone out of it but says nothing more than that there is much effort and labor connected with it, as though this were not sufficiently known throughout the world and as if this ass must first teach us what every village peasant knows. If I were chastity herself, I could think of no greater and more unbearable shame and disgrace than to be praised by such rascals, whoremongers, and enemies of chastity. They rail against us, charging that we are enemies of chastity and promoters of marriage who prefer to see men married; and we are to consider them extremely wise, though they cannot but devote themselves to incessant fornication and though they praise chastity with their pens only and defame the married state.
They are rascals, not only on the surface but in the bottom of their hearts, and they are unworthy of an answer. And what matter if the whole world were to complain about the state of matrimony? We see right before our eyes that God daily creates not only men but also women and maintains their lives; and yet it is certain that he does not create any woman for the purpose of fornication. But since God's work and Word stare us in the face, declaring that women must be used either for marriage or for fornication, these heathenish pretenders should shut their blasphemous mouths and leave God's Word and work uncriticized and unhampered; unless perhaps they would like to teach us according to their own famed sagacity and contrary to God that all women should be strangled or banished. This would make a fine fool of God: what He does is no good; what we do is well done.
Now therefore since God created woman that she should and must be with man, it should suffice us that God is on our side, and we should honor the married state as a divine and noble institution. And if the wiseacres do not want to enter it, then let them continue in their heathenish blindness to practice rascality and fornication so long as God may allow it. We have God's Word on our side; that will remain and not be moved by such blundering Smiths,4 though they were more lished in Rome in 1522 and then reprinted in Leipzig in 1523 under the auspices of Duke George of Saxony, was a sellout. The answer to this attack on Luther, though impatiently awaited even by Faber himself, did not come until later in 1523, and then from the pen of Justus Jonas, a more suitable protagonist on the subject of marriage since he had married already in February 1522, whereas
Luther was still single. Luther contented himself with the incidental defense contained in the present essay. numerous than the sands of the sea. Still it is a great sin and shame that we Christians have become such great fools that we first have to ponder and decide whether women ought to be married or not, just as though someone should ask whether he ought to eat and drink in this life. Now let us hear the words of St. Paul.5
5 The Weimar edition quotes the full text of Luther's German translation of 1 Cor. 7 at this point. Since that text is repeated as commented upon, we have omitted it here.
The Seventh Chapter of the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians The occasion of the writing of this chapter was this: Those people of Corinth who became Christians, especially those converted from Judaism, held to the law of Moses in addition to the Gospel. But Moses had commanded every person to marry: every man was to have a woman, every woman was to have a man, for celibacy was con¬ demned as an unproductive state. This all happened because Christ had been foretold as coming from the seed of Abraham, and since nobody knew which person that was to be, all Jews had to marry in honor of this seed and submit until He came.
So the Corinthians asked whether they still had to keep this law of Moses or had authority to remain unmarried, saying that they had a desire and love for chastity and had been freed from many other laws of Moses through the Gospel. Those of weak conscience found it dif¬ ficult to abandon the law of Moses, to which they were accustomed.
Here St. Paul answers them and says that to remain chaste is not only free but also good for those who have the will and desire for it. But he speaks rather shyly and carefully about this and persists in bringing in the state of matrimony, saying:
1. It is well for a man not to touch a woman.
2. But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
Consider how quickly he breaks off in this statement, saying that it is well not to touch a woman, but he neither commands nor advises anybody to follow this but quickly goes over to talk of marriage as though he were afraid that such a fine thing would become rare and degenerate into general fornication, and so he orders that each should have his own spouse to avoid fornication. This, then, would be the first conclusion: that whoever does not feel that he has that precious quality but rather is inclined to fornication, he is commanded to marry.
And this commandment is to be received as coming not from a human being but from God. From this it follows that nobody can vow to be chaste, nor should he keep such a vow but rather break it if he finds
[W, XII, 98, 99] or feels that he does not have that precious quality but is inclined to fornication; for such a vow is really made contrary to God's command.
But one cannot vow anything against God's command, and even if the vow were made, still he is condemned who keeps it.
This touching of a woman has been interpreted so narrowly by some that they do not even want to touch the hands or the skin of a woman. For this purpose they have made many laws and regulations in order to keep themselves so far removed from women that they could neither see nor hear them, thinking that by so doing they had promoted chastity in a masterly fashion. This kind of thinking is typi¬ cal of those who conceived of and founded monasteries and nunneries, or thought to preserve chastity by keeping the boys away from the girls and the girls from the boys. How this turned out and how they made room for the devil in so doing — this would be awful to hear and tell.
Such poor blinded people thought chastity could be put into people from without, whereas it is a gift from heaven and must come from within. Although it is true that there is attraction and temptation wherever men and women are together, the matter is not helped by separating them. For how does it help me if I do not see, hear, or touch a woman and still my heart is full of women and my thoughts are taken up with them day and night, thinking of the shameless things that one might do? And of what help is it to a girl to shut her up so that she neither sees nor hears a man, when her heart still sighs day and night, without ceasing, for a young man?
One has to have the heart for chastity, otherwise all such things are worse than hell and purgatory. Therefore these words of St. Paul must be understood in a spiritual sense and for the heart, in this way: he is spoken of as not touching a woman who because of his own heart's desire and love keeps his body away from women, but not the one who outwardly remains chaste with women yet inwardly and in his heart is full of desire and love for women. The latter is a hypocrite whose chastity is a pretense before others but lost before God, yes, a double unchastity. The words of St. Paul are spoken in the freedom of the spirit, demand a free spirit, and must be understood with a free spirit.
But hypocrites are unwilling to understand them so. They make a dead letter and cowardly law of them, a law that applies force and makes their lost false chastity difficult with outward abstinence from women.
Just consider for a moment what reprehensible murderers of souls they are who want to force this outward chastity upon young people,
[W, XII, 99, 100] forcing them to bear this secret suffering (as they call it) without ever considering whether they have the inner will and desire for it. They think that the bitterer chastity is for someone and the harder to endure, the more precious it will be to God, just like any other bodily suffering or accident. They cannot see that the difference between such suffer¬ ing and bodily suffering is greater than that between heaven and earth, for one can bear other sufferings in good conscience without sin, and the suffering is only physical pain. But this suffering is a sinful suffer¬ ing that one cannot bear in good conscience, for in itself it is sin and wrong. Therefore there is no help or counsel for it except to escape it and get rid of it. This can be achieved through marriage and in no other way. But in the other suffering we should counsel them to pa¬ tience, even if they cannot rid themselves of their suffering.
In the same way St. Paul wants us to understand his words spir¬ itually also when he says, "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," namely, what is well here is not to be thought of as virtue before God, as though a celibate were better in the sight of God than a married man, as the text has also been interpreted so far by St. Jerome.1 Such an effect belongs only to faith and not to works. Rather these words speak of the temporal security and rest that a celibate has in this life as compared with a married man. For whoever lives unmarried and a celibate is relieved of all the labor and disgust which are a part of the married state. In short: It is a beautiful, delightful, and noble gift for him to whom it is given to have the will and desire for celibacy, and St. Paul will later explain in detail what he means by this gift.
He did not want to leave those uncomforted who desired to remain celibates. Still one must not deny that before God a married woman is better than a virgin, although the married woman has much labor and trouble here on earth, and the virgin much happiness, ease, and comfort.
Here then is St. Paul's meaning: It is well for a man not to touch a woman, and in the New Testament — unlike the Old — it is not a sin for a man to be without wife and child. In other words, whoever has the grace by choice and desire to live the life of a celibate can look forward to happy days, as the proverb says: "Fool, take a wife, and that will end your joy," or again: "Marriage is brief joy and long dis¬ gust," and many similar proverbs concerning the married state, all of them agreeing with St. Paul's statement here that it is well for a man
1 Jerome, Adversus Iovinianum, I, 3 ff., Patrologia, Series Latina, XXIII, 213 ff.
[W, XII, 100, 101] not to touch a woman. That is why the law of Moses decreed that one should leave the newly married man free for one whole year to be happy with his wife and not draft him into the army or charge him with any office,2 as though Moses wanted to say: "The joy will last for a year; after that we shall see."
Wherever there is not present this grace to live a celibate life by choice and desire, there it is better to marry. There is no other means to help there except marriage. Therefore if one cannot have the happy days of celibacy, then one must accept the evil days of marriage, for it is better to suffer evil days without sin in marriage than happy days without marriage in sin and unchastity. But no one likes to subject himself to such evil days, therefore everyone avoids marriage. This explains the saying "It takes a brave man to take a wife"; truly, he must be brave, and no one is so capable of this as a devout Christian, who lives by faith — he can adapt himself to these evil days and not com¬ plain, cry out, and blaspheme God and His works, as do the foolish, blind smart alecks.
And this is the meaning of St. Paul in moving so quickly from the praise of chastity to marriage and to say: "But because of the tempta¬ tion to immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." What does he mean, "because of the temp¬ tation to immorality"? Obviously this: When one cannot have the hap¬ piness which comes from chastity by choice and desire, then certainly unchastity and fornication will be present. But to avoid this, it is surely better to live a godly and blessed fife, to deny oneself the happy days of those who do not touch a woman, and to submit to evil days in order to avoid sin. For it is better to be unhappy without sin than to sin without unhappiness, or even to sin with unhappiness.
Notice in the words of St. Paul that he does not expect much chas¬ tity from the Corinthians, for he says: "To be sure, it is a delicate mat¬ ter concerning chastity; yes, if unchastity would only disappear; there¬ fore let each man have his own wife, etc." He did not take that ele¬ vated view of chastity that we have had until now and still have, but wanted to see all men bound in marriage. And being full of the Holy
Spirit, he certainly knew human nature and capacities far better than all the bishops who followed him, who have rejected and perverted the divine order so that St. Paul's words are no longer binding, "each man should have his own wife," but rather they preach: "Some may
[W, XII, 101, 102] have wives, some should not have wives," thus making "some" out of "each." But more of this later. St. Paul goes on to say:
3. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and like¬ wise the wife to her husband.
4. For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.
HOre St. Paul instructs married people in their conduct toward one another with respect to marital duty and speaks of "conjugal rights."
It is a right, yet it should occur voluntarily. This right arises out of God's permission of the marriage state and His forgiveness of what otherwise He punishes and condemns. For thus the state of matrimony is constituted in the law of love so that no one rules over his own body but must serve his partner, as is the way of love. Such is not the way of fornication, where none rules over the other or owes his partner anything, rather each seeks only his own in the other. Therefore it is against the law of love and also against God. Truly it is a profound saying that no one rules over his own body, that where fornication tempts, one should be subservient to the other and can give himself to no other. Thus we see that adultery is the greatest thievery and robbery on earth, for it gives away the living body, which is not ours, and takes another living body, which is also not ours.
Now the words of St. Paul are clear enough and do not need much commentary, so I do not wish to beat them out too thinly and write confusingly of marital obligations. A Christian person will, of himself, know how to conduct himself in such matters so as to live moderately.
It is of no significance here, how wildly or cruelly an unchristian person conducts himself in this area. Some of the older teachers used to quote the pagan saying: "He who is too violent in love commits adultery with his own wife." 3 But it was spoken by a heathen, therefore I ignore it and say it is not true. Certainly no one can commit adultery with his own wife unless he did not think of her as his wife or did not touch her as his wife.
I do not think that this matter can be better dealt with than St. Paul here deals with it when he says that marriage is there as a help and means against unchastity. Therefore whoever uses it to avoid fornica¬ tion has, as I see it, St. Paul as an advocate and patron. And by the 3 Adulter est in suam uxorem omnis impudicus vel amator ardentior was cited by Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 49, Patrologia, Series Latina, XXIII, 281.
[W, XII, 102, 103] same token it is not proper that in some places they separate the bride and bridegroom until the third night and instruct them to contain themselves until the third night, according to the example of Tobias
(Tob. 8:4). My own view is that everyone should do as he sees fit, for I have seen what misfortune has resulted when the evil spirit con¬ stantly wants to meddle. If the example of Tobias is so binding, why is not the example of the patriarch Jacob much more so, who in the first night touched and knew his Leah? It should be a matter of free¬ dom, and they are fools who lay snares and laws in such matters. The bride is the bridegroom's and not the ruler over her own body, and furthermore one should let the matter rest there and not try to do everything better.
In the same way these people have excluded certain days, such as Christmas Eve,4 or during pregnancy, etc.5 Of course, it is very well and good to be moderate in all things, but one should not set up abso¬ lute laws in these matters but let stand the words of St. Paul, who points out to us that no one rules his own body. May it be on this day or that, according as God disposes. His concern is that fornication be prevented and not given cause or opportunity. Oh, how many laws this little saying of St. Paul repeals: "No one rules over his own body"!
It can brook no laws. How can someone forbid me the body given to me by God's law and power? God's permission is greater than man¬ kind's prohibition; what He grants to me, St. Peter shall not deny me.
5. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by agreement for a sea¬ son, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come to¬ gether again, lest Satan tempt you through lack of self-control.
St. Paul has very little confidence in their chastity because he well knows the devil and his tricks and the weakness of the flesh too. Here you see that married people are so bound up in one another that one cannot withdraw from the other even to fast or pray without the agree¬ ment of the partner; St. Paul would rather see prayer and fasting be relaxed than that one should so rule his body as to deny it to the mar¬ riage partner. Yet prayer is indeed a precious good work, and that it must give way before what seems to be such a trivial work, this is all the result of the law of love in which they are bound.
4 Ambrosiaster, on 1 Cor. 7, Patrologia, Series Latina, XVII, 217.
5 Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 49, Patrologia, Series Latina, XXIII, 281.
The fasting and prayer referred to here is a specially arranged ex¬ ercise, as when a man and wife agree to fast and pray three, four, or six days, or a week or two, as anyone may freely take such a period of fasting upon himself to chastise the body and may do this as long as he wishes without any law or persuasion on the part of the authori¬ ties. Apart from this, married people are obligated like all other Chris¬ tians to pray and fast in an evangelical way. For Christ has said to all
Christians that "they ought always to pray" (Luke 18:1). This fasting means to eat and drink in moderation; and praying is to groan and cry from the heart, etc.
What refusing one another consists of between married people and what the reasons for it are, this I leave to married people themselves;
I can well believe that there are many reasons, as is to be expected in a state created and instituted for evil and not for happy days, and anger and dissension will occasionally also play a role. Excessive
"spirituality" also tends to get the upper hand. St. Paul allows only one reason, and neither I nor anyone else should prescribe more: that is, when both agree on a number of days during which they will chas¬ tise themselves more completely in a particular way through severe fasting and equally energetic prayer, particularly when there is some necessity for it. For strong prayer should be accompanied by strong fasting. Still St. Paul leaves it up to the individual and makes no law concerning it, leaving it rather to be agreed upon by both. Therefore no one can be compelled by order to such fasting and prayer, as has been done hitherto.
So much for that. Next St. Paul turns his attention to the three states of chastity: widowhood, matrimony, and virginity. He teaches us what we need to know of each.
6. I say this by way of concession, not of command.
7. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
If above he already said in the way of command: "But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife," and enjoined "conjugal rights" in the married state, why does he in this passage say that he speaks "by way of concession, not of command"?
Doubtless he wants to say that marriage should be a free choice and not required of everyone, as in the Old Testament; therefore he com¬ mands no one to marry but leaves it to the individual. But once having married, the individual is commanded to maintain the conjugal rights.
But where the grace to be free to marry or not marry is not present, there marriage is commanded, yes, even more than commanded.
Why, furthermore, does he say: "I wish that all were as I myself am"? Is this not spoken against matrimony, as though he wanted no one to marry? True, Paul wishes that everyone might have the great gift of chastity so that he would be relieved of the labor and cares of marriage and might be concerned only with God and His Word, as he himself was. And who wouldn't wish this for everyone, especially since Christian love desires all good things, both temporal and eternal, for everyone? Love knows no limits of the good it can do and desire, even though it be something impossible, as when Paul in Rom. 9:3 wishes himself cut off from Christ for the salvation of the Jews.
"But," he says, "each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." Here he confesses that his wish cannot be fulfilled and that it is not God's will to grant everyone this great gift.
Note this passage well, for there is much in it, and it praises marriage no less than celibacy. For when one compares marriage and virginity, then of course chastity is a nobler gift than marriage. Nevertheless, marriage is just as much a gift of God, St. Paul says here, as chastity is.
A man is nobler than a woman, yet woman is just as much a creation of God as is man. For God all things are equal which yet among them¬ selves are unequal. Everything He has created calls Him Creator and Lord, and none of it calls Him so more or better than another, whether it be small or large. Therefore marriage and virginity are equal before Him, for both are His divine gift, even though, when compared, one is better than the other.
From this it is clear how grievously in error are those who glorify nuns, claiming that their state is more glorious and better in the sight of God than matrimony. They contrive fictitious crowns for them and all kinds of virtues and honors, and thus they produce vainglorious, unchristian, and even ungodly people who rely more on their station and work than on faith in Christ and on God's grace, despising mar¬ riage as something much inferior — even before God — to their own status and calling themselves "brides of Christ." They are rather the brides of the devil, because they do not use chastity as it should be
[W, XII, 105] used, namely, not to pretend to be better in the eyes of God but to make people here on earth freer and more capable to give attention to God's Word rather than to marriage.
Now since both are a gift from God and marriage is given as a com¬ mon gift to all but chastity is reserved for the few as a very special gift, it is clear that each must consider carefully whether he finds in himself the common or the special gift. And since St. Paul here freely concludes that it is a gift, we must admit that it is not our doing, pos¬ session, or capacity. Therefore no one can either vow it or keep such a vow. For I cannot bind in promise that which is His or is His gift unless He has already given it to me or I am certain of His promise to give it to me, as was Jeremiah (Jer. 16:2). And that is why there is no example of vows in the Scriptures except of things that have already been given to us or are to be given to us, as for instance in Num. 30,° where we read of houses, fields, money, cattle, the chastisement of the body with fasting or other discipline, etc.
Now that we are at the place where Paul praises matrimony so highly, calling it a divine gift, let us look a bit further and show that matrimony is the most religious state of all, and that it is unjust and wrong to refer to certain others as "religious orders" while calling mar¬ riage a "secular order." It should be just the reverse, that marriage should be called the real religious order, as in truth it is, and these other orders should be called the real secular orders, which in truth they are. They have introduced a complete misuse of words into society, buttering the mouths of all of us and misleading us to call religious things secular and secular things religious.
In the first place, nothing should be called religious except that inner life of faith in the heart, where the Spirit rules. But since that also is termed religious which happens outwardly to the body through the spirit of faith, let us be very just and precise in our differentiation and understand that the state of marriage in all fairness should be termed religious and the religious orders secular. I speak here of the orders and the religious who have let people call and describe them thus. Those that act in true faith and are genuinely religious, they cer¬ tainly belong to the right religious order of chastity.
In the second place it cannot be denied that the doings and life of the religious are just as outward, temporal, and carnal as those of marG The Weimar editor suggests that Lev. 27:9 ff., 14 ff., 17 ff. are appropriate for the first section of the series of vows here mentioned, and Num. 30:13 for the second section.
[W, XII, 105, 106] ried people, for they are performed just as much by the body and its members as those of married people are. But whatever is performed by the body and its members must be a bodily and outward function, and even the intentions and thoughts at the heart of such outward bodily works must also be of the body and be called such. Now if any order is to be termed a religious one, then something more and different must be in it than such outward doings and life, namely, the faith of the heart, which is spirit and makes everything in man reli¬ gious, both inwardly and outwardly.
Now consider the religious orders so famous up to our time. The first thing you notice is that they are most securely provided with all the necessities of the body. A guaranteed income, food, clothing, shel¬ ter, and all sorts of other things they have in superfluity, earned by the work and care of others and given to them, so that they are not en¬ dangered in any way nor wish to be. Furthermore, no one enters the religious orders, or wants to enter, unless he is assured that he will receive lifelong care for his body; and the majority in the monastic and clerical orders are on the lookout that their stomachs and bodies get their due.
What else is this but to seek and have a position where one need not look to heaven and expect his daily bread from God or trust that God will provide? In short, in such estates faith has no place, no room, no time, no work, no exercise, for they sit prepared with everything, and that close at hand. Here is no substantia reruin sperandarum, no "conviction of things not seen," as is characteristic of faith, but rather certitudo reruin possessarum, "the certainty of things at hand." 7
But if you take a wife and are married, this is the first shock: How are you going to support yourself, your wife, and child? And this will go on for your whole life. Therefore the state of marriage is by nature of a kind to teach and compel us to trust in God's hand and grace, and in the same way it forces us to believe. For we can see that where there is no faith in marriage, there it is a most miserable institution, full of worry, fear, and hard work. On the other hand, the less faith these famous religious orders have, the better they get along, for their stomachs are filled gratis, and they need not look to God's hand nor await His goodness.
Tell me, then, which of these orders could justly be termed a reli7 Luther contrasts the definition of faith in Heb. 11:1 with the philosophy of the "bird in hand."
[W, XII, 106, 107] gious order, if not the one in which faith is a necessity and has its own work to do, having daily cause to exercise trust in the Lord and living according to these words of Ps. 145:15-16: 8 "The eyes of all look to Thee, and Thou givest them their food in due season. Thou openest
Thy hand, Thou satisfiest the desire of every living thing"? Only the order of marriage has such a reason for and exercise in faith toward
God. But no religious order has this, and none of them wants it, for they were founded and endowed precisely so that they should have need for no such a reason. And thus they have cast out faith and stopped up all the holes, lest it come back in.
Is this not indeed a perverse outrage, that they boast of their spir¬ ituality and boast of their orders as religious, when by their very nature and kind these orders cannot contain even a droplet of faith? When the Spirit and such religious orders are about as compatible as Christ and Belial, day and night, spirit and flesh, believing and feeling? For where there is no faith nor room nor cause for it, there can be no Spirit, and such a thing must of necessity be wholly carnal, worldly, physical, and external, as our experience with the members of these orders does indeed teach us. Furthermore, they attack marriage as worldly and carnal and don't see that it has been instituted by God, that it drives and helps along toward the Spirit and faith, and that it must consist almost entirely of faith if it is to prosper. For whatever is God's work and business is so arranged that it must practice and exercise faith.
Where this is not done, it becomes a burdensome and unbearable thing. But whatever men contrive, that will flourish best without faith, for it wants to be sure of things and certain of its supply.
Consider this, then, as the first point, that marriage by nature is of such a kind that it drives, impels, and forces men to the most in¬ ward, highest spiritual state, to faith. And there is no higher or more inward state than faith, for it depends solely on God's Word and is naked and divested of all that is not God's Word. And there is nothing higher or more inward, either in heaven or on earth, than God's Word, which is even God Himself. The religious orders, on the other hand, are by nature of a kind to tempt men to scatter themselves in temporal and outward things so that they have enough for their bodies, so that they finally do not even want to be religious orders unless first they have enough for outward needs and are sure of their supplies and don't
8 The Weimar text has "Ps. 103," but the editor suggests Ps. 145:15-16 and also the parallel statement of Ps. 104:27-28.
[W, XII, 107, 108] have to have faith and trust in God. Surely one must say that such religious orders are by nature very earthly, worldly, and heathenish compared with the order of marriage. And by the same token the order of marriage is a heavenly, spiritual, and godly order compared with the religious orders.
I say "by nature" deliberately, for it is true that many do not make the right use of marriage in faith, turning the good in it to evil through their lack of faith. On the other hand, it is not impossible that someone may make good use of a religious order through his faith, turning what is bad in it to something good for himself by means of his faith. But because of such good or bad usage one cannot say that therefore mar¬ riage is bad or the religious orders are good. For faith makes all things good, even death and all misfortune. Lack of faith makes all things bad and destructive, even life and God Himself. But at present we are not speaking of the use or misuse of orders, but of the nature and kind of these orders in themselves; and we conclude that marriage is gold and the religious orders are dirt, because the one promotes faith and the other unbelief.
In the second place, marriage strengthens not only the heart and the inmost nature through faith in God but also the body outwardly through works; so that marriage promotes both faith and works and helps, supplies, and guides both body and soul. For marriage is by nature such that it must work and support itself by means of its hands, precisely according to God's Word in Gen. 3:19: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." It must risk it that all its labor may fail and suffer much damage, that it may suffer the many things that can hap¬ pen to wife, child, and servants, and who can detail the whole picture of the "sweat of the face"? Certainly in the matrimonial order the body has its share of work, cares, and troubles, just as the heart has its troubles with faith; yet nothing is more certain than that all this is of God and pleases Him well.
But the religious orders are not supported by their labor. They are like a lazy rogue who does not exert himself bodily but lets others work for him, filling his belly through the sweat and blood of others.
Nor does he anticipate the slightest danger or damage to his posses¬ sions, so that, in short, there is in that situation very little "sweat of the face." His way of life follows the pattern of Ps. 73:5-6:9 "They are
9 The Weimar text has "Ps. 13," but the editor points out that Luther, quoting from memory, confused Ps. 14 (13) with Ps. 73, both of which contain descrip¬ tions of the ungodly. not in trouble as other men are; they are not stricken like other men.
Therefore pride is their necklace, etc." And although they pray and sing and pursue their spiritual occupations, this in no way contributes to the exercise of the body. Furthermore, even though these things are done in the finest way, it is still not certain that they are pleasing to God. Such things, because they are done without His command, can¬ not please Him.
Here you might say: "If that's the way you look at it, then the best thing would be for no one to remain chaste and everyone to get mar¬ ried; but that would certainly contradict this text of St. Paul." Answer:
I am speaking here of the religious orders over against the matrimonial order, and not about the state of chastity. Religious orders are good for nothing, and it were better that nobody were a religious but that everyone were married. But the state of chastity is quite different from a religious order, and St. Paul is not speaking of religious orders but of the true state of chastity. There is no more unchaste state than the religious orders, as we find confirmed daily. And even though some within them live chastely, still they do not use this state as St. Paul wants to see it used, so that it is not at all the same chastity concerning which St. Paul here instructs us. For they make of their chastity merit, credit, and glory before God and the world, and they place their reli¬ ance on it, which is against faith. But St. Paul makes of it a technique and service for God's Word and faith. He goes on to say:
8. 1 say therefore to widowers and widows. It is good for them if they abide even as I.
From this text it follows that St. Paul had had a wife, for he consid¬ ers himself a widower.10 Later he speaks of virginity in particular, which he does not ascribe to himself. Although many think that he remained a virgin, because he says in 1 Cor. 9:5-6: "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or is it only Barnabas and 10 The text on which Luther comments here in 1523 is from his German translation of 1522. It reads: Ich sage zwar den widwehern und witwynnen. The 1530 edition, described by V. Dietrich as denuo emendatum summa diligentia
(W, Deutsche Bihel, VI, xxv), reads: Ich sage zwar den ledigen und witwin (W, Deutsche Bibel, VII, 102). The last edition for which Luther could accept re¬ sponsibility, that of 1546, has Ich sage zwar den Ledigen und Widwen (W,
Deutsche Bibel, VII, 103). But as late as 1538 Luther is quoted as saying: "It is likely that he (Paul) had been a husband, for the Jews were accustomed to marry early and yet live a life of chastity (W, Tischreden, IV, 162).
I who have no right to do this?" But this does not prove anything, rather it gives further evidence that he did have a wife but didn't want to take her with him, as the other apostles did with their wives; or else he indicates that he does not now have a wife, like the other widowers, but would certainly like to have one.
It is certainly conceivable that he did have a wife. For in Jewry everyone had to marry, and celibacy was not allowable unless by spe¬ cial permission and as an exception made by God. This is supported by the passage in Phil. 4:3, where he says: "And I ask you also, true yokefellow, help these women, for they have labored side by side with me in the Gospel." This true yokefellow many people take to be Saint
Paul's wife, because he does not mention her name and otherwise never uses the address "true yokefellow," which in Greek means someone who pulls with us in the same yoke and has a special relation to us dif¬ ferent from others, as married people have. Furthermore, he com¬ mands this yokefellow to help women.11
His speaking in this way must indicate either that St. Paul's wife had died when he wrote this epistle and indicated that he was a wid¬ ower or else that he must have put her from him with her consent and did not take her with him and therefore lived chastely with her in the state of matrimony, as stated in chapter 9. Whatever the case may be, whether his wife was dead or had consented to live separately from him for the sake of the Gospel, one thing is certain: that he was living as a widower at that time and had been a married man. Now let us consider what this text shows us.
There are some who have advanced to the point where they are forced to admit that priests and bishops may marry and that married men may become priests and bishops, because the Scriptures convince them that almost all the apostles were married and many bishops after them. But they cast about for a way out, saying: "Yes, of course, we read that men who were first married became apostles and bishops.
But there were those who became apostles, bishops, and priests before marriage, and we do not read that at any later date they were married; therefore now, too, priests may not marry." Let us now answer these people.
11 Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum (1526), his Greek New Testament with notes and a Latin translation, commented on Phil. 4:3: "They are called yoke¬ fellows, as if they bore the yoke together. . . . Some people apply this to Paid's wife. . . . There are important authorities among the Greeks who think Paul had a wife. And it makes sense here for women to be commended to women."
First, if you admit at the very start that married men became bish¬ ops and priests and that they can be and become such — as the example of the apostles teaches and confirms — who are you to forbid that any married man should become a priest? You are driving away from the priesthood not only those who want to marry but also those who are already married, which is against Christ and all the apostles and also against the teaching of St. Paul (even though he remained unmar¬ ried ) 12 when he says that one should choose for a bishop a man with only one wife and well-behaved, obedient children. Now tell me, whom should we believe to be wiser and more holy — Christ or you?
Christ takes married men as priests and confirms this in His apostles, but you condemn them. In this either Christ is a fool and in the wrong, or you are necessarily antichrists and deceivers.
My friends, if you had only not meddled with this one little princi¬ ple, that according to the example of the apostles and the teaching of Christ married men may become priests, and if you had not persisted in forbidding priests to marry, there would not have been so much trouble. For then many married men would have become priests, and many would first have tried marriage, and there would have been far fewer whoremongers. Now you pretend that you have not read that priests have been married, and in so doing you thrust the whole mar¬ ried state out of the priesthood in contradiction to God, nature, reason, and justice, from sheer insolence, and without reason; and you have filled the world with fornication.
Second, why have you not read this text and given it due considera¬ tion? Does it not say here clearly that a priest may marry? For even if I concede that St. Paul was a virgin or a widower, still he says that he has the right to be accompanied by a wife. Tell me, was St. Paul at that time not an apostle, a bishop, and a priest? How dare he presume to have the right and authority to marry? And since the high order of the apostles permitted a person to marry or stay married, why should not the lesser order of priests permit both remaining married and being married?
Since St. Paul is a widower here and still presumes to have the right to take a wife, he is certainly a bigamist under papal law, al¬ though he is apparently not too concerned about that. A bigamist is so evil, in canon law, that even if he were without a wife at the mo¬ ment, still he could not be a priest. A bigamist, however, is one who 12 This statement should no doubt be understood in the light of p. 22 above.
24 LUTHER'S WORKS 7:8
[W, XII, in, 112] has had two wives. In the Old Testament it was a man who had two wives at one and the same time. But canon law has interpreted these sayings differently and has invented three kinds of bigamy: first, if one marries two wives, one after the other, even if they were both virgins; second, if one marries only once but marries a widow; third, if one marries a woman who is defiled, even if he did not know this before and took her to be a virgin.13
For the pope these are all "bigamists," or "men with two wives," and none of them may become priests after the death of such wives.
But even though one were to defile a hundred married women, corrupt a hundred virgins, and keep a hundred whores at one time, still this man can be a priest, become or remain a priest — so remarkably holy is this priesthood! No sin or shame is so great or so widespread in the whole world as to prevent a man from being or becoming a priest, except the state of holy matrimony, which they themselves name and confess a sacrament and work of God. This one work of God has no place in the priesthood.
Please explain to me how such vicious sacrilege can be harmonized with the teaching of St. Paul, who was a widower and assumed the right to marry, giving all widowers and widows the right to marry, excluding no one, neither priest nor layman. What can we answer except to say that such human restrictions are so obviously and scan¬ dalously opposed to God's Word, that we are taken to be no better than sticks and stones, and that we are expected to believe that whor¬ ing is better than marriage? And what do they expect to achieve by this, if not to defame the divine institution of marriage and pave the way for fornication throughout the world? And this is what is hap¬ pening before our very eyes, as Daniel prophesied of the rule of the Antichrist, saying: "He shall give no heed to women" (Dan. 11:37),14 as though he were saying: "Only to whores will he give heed."
Third, since they have to admit that the apostles remained married although they were already in the office of apostles, I should like to know why marriage is not permissible in the priesthood or after taking the priestly office? Is the poor little state of marriage such a devilish thing when it is entered into after the priesthood? Or is it so eminently divine when it precedes it? Are we to suppose that it suffers such a 13 Luther had already ridiculed these artificial definitions of bigamy in his treatise The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). Cf. Luther's Works, 36, p. 114. See also Luther's Works, 41, pp. 156—158.
14 Cf. Luther's Works, 41, p. 163, [W, XII, 112, 113] great change merely because of the going before or coming after?
Truly all reason must admit and anyone can understand that whatever remains divine during and after the entry into the priesthood, this can also certainly be accepted during the priesthood itself or entered into before the priesthood.
Furthermore, it is a shameful pretense to confess marriage a godly thing and a holy sacrament and then not permit such a godly thing and holy sacrament to stand beside the holiness of priests. How does it come about that here God must oppose Himself, that one of His works cannot suffer the other, that one holiness persecutes the other, and that one sacrament damns another? O insolent, blind outrage, that such unholy bunk has not only been fed to the people, but that they have been taught to think it the best, and still do! How could it ever have come to this end, if God's anger had not punished and blinded the world?
But let us stick to St. Paul, who will not mislead us. He tells us that widowers may marry, God willing, whether they be priests or not.
They may also take wives, virgins or widows, and the priest will not lose standing if he marries a widow nor gain it if he takes a virgin.
All such things should be open to Christians, for St. Paul wrote this epistle not only to laymen but also to bishops and all Christians in Corinth together. And since he did not make an exception of any per¬ son or estate, it is not for us to interpret or stretch his words to cover laymen or any other persons or conditions.
St. Paul well knew that by his teaching and conduct Christ did not want to obstruct or break any of God's creatures or works. Now man is the creature and work of God, created to be fruitful and multiply according to Gen. 1:28. Through His Gospel and priesthood He there¬ fore does not want to make of man a stick or a stone nor hinder him in his natural function, which God implanted in him. As for forbidding priests to marry, what is that but to say that a man is not to be a man but is to cease being God's creature and work in favor of human pre¬ sumption and legalism? Only God, who created us, may effect such a transformation through His gifts and power; human law or free will or effort are here all wasted and in vain. St. Paul now says:
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain as I do.
9. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
Indeed, it is well to remain like St. Paul. But he goes right on to say why it is not well to remain so and better to marry again than to remain a widow. Here St. Paul has piled all the reasons for marrying in one heap and set the goal for all the glory of chastity when he says:
"But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry." This is as much as to say: Necessity orders that you marry. Much as chastity is praised, and no matter how noble a gift it is, nevertheless necessity prevails so that few can attain it, for they cannot control themselves.
For although we are Christians and have the spirit of God in faith, still we do not cease to be God's creatures, you a woman, and I a man.
And the spirit permits the body its ways and natural functions, so that it eats, drinks, sleeps, and eliminates like any other human body.
Therefore mankind is not deprived of its male or female form, members, seed, and fruit, so that the body of a Christian must fructify and multiply just like that of other human beings, birds, and all the animals, as it was created by God to do according to Gen. 1:28. So it is by necessity that the man is attracted to the woman and the woman to the man, except where God performs a miracle by means of a special gift and withholds His creatures from one another. When
St. Paul says, "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry," it is as though he were to say: "Those to whom God has not given a special gift but lets their bodies retain their way and nature, for them it is better, yes, necessary, to marry and not to remain virgin or widow. For it is not God's intention to make this special grace a general one; rather marriage is to be general according to God's origi¬ nal institution and creation in both bodies. He will not cancel and deny His creation in everyone.
Furthermore, a Christian is spirit and flesh. According to the spirit he has no need of marriage. But because his flesh is the common flesh, corrupted in Adam and Eve and filled with evil desires, therefore be¬ cause of this very disease, marriage is a necessity for him and it is not in his power to get along without it. For his flesh rages, burns, and fructifies just like that of any other man, unless he helps and controls it with the proper medicine, which is marriage. God suffers this raging passion for the sake of marriage and its fruits. In Gen. 3:16 He indi¬ cated what He would suffer from man in that He did not take away the blessing of procreation but rather confirmed it, knowing full well that man's nature was corrupted, full of evil desires, and unable to carry out this blessing without sinning.
It is useless and futile, yes, a very foolish and evil thing, that the attempt is now being made to despise matrimony and to lure people away from it to celibacy because marriage is full of misery and disgust.
For things are not at all helped by this, but grim necessity always lies in our path and says: It cannot be, it will not be, one cannot cling to heaven. As St. Paul says here: "If they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry." On the other hand, extreme praise of marriage, though it is a godly institution, full of all spiritual good, also does not help matters, for none — or very few at any rate — are going to be in¬ duced to enter it because of such qualities. Human nature is afraid of trouble and labor.
There are many other reasons why people marry. Some marry for money and property. Many people marry because of sheer immaturity, to seek sensual pleasure and satisfy it. Some marry to beget heirs. But St. Paul gives but this one reason, and I know of none fundamentally stronger and better, namely, need. Need commands it. Nature will express itself, fructify, and multiply, and God does not want this out¬ side marriage, and so everyone because of this need must enter into marriage if he wants to live with a good conscience and in favor with God. If this need were not there, all the other reasons taken together would make very poor marriages. This is particularly true of that smart immaturity which leads fools to take lightly such a serious, need¬ ful, godly estate; but it is not long until they realize what they have done to themselves.
But what do these words mean: "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion." I have no doubt that everyone who wants to live chastely, though unmarried and without special grace for it, will understand these words and what they convey. For St. Paul is not speaking of secret matters, but of the common, known feeling of all those who live chastely outside of marriage but do not have the grace to accomplish it. For he ascribes this flaming with passion to all who live chastely but without the necessary grace, and prescribes no other medicine than marriage. If it were not so common or if there were some other advice to be given, he would not have recommended mar¬ riage. This thing is known in German as "the secret disease," but this expression would not be so common either if the ailment were truly rare.
There can also be no doubt that those who have the grace of chastity still at times feel evil desires and are tempted. But it is transi- [W, XII, 115, 116] tory, therefore their problem is not this burning. In short, "aflame with passion" is the heat of the flesh, which rages without ceasing, and daily attraction to woman or to man; we find this wherever there is not desire and love for chastity. People without this heat are just as few and far between as are those who have God's grace for chastity.
Now such heat is stronger in some, and weaker in others. Some among them suffer so severely that they masturbate. All these ought to be in the married estate. Truly it can be said: for every chaste person there should be more than a hundred thousand married people.
It will be best to give you an example. St. Jerome, who glorifies chastity and praises it most solemnly, confesses that he was unable to subdue his flesh with fasts or wakes,15 so that his chastity became for him an unimaginable plague. Oh, how much precious time he must have wasted with carnal thoughts! But he insists that chastity is something that we can achieve and a common possession. You see, this man lay in heat and should have taken a wife. There you see what "aflame with passion" means. For he was of the number who belong in marriage, and he wronged himself and caused himself much trouble by not marrying. We can read of many more such incidents in the lives of the fathers.
So this is St. Paul's conclusion: Where there is not a special gift of God, one must either be aflame with passion or marry. Now it is better to marry, says St. Paul, than to burn. Why? Because this burning, even if no act were to result from it, is still lost chastity, because it is held to not from desire and love, but with great dislike, unwillingness, and pressure. Before God this will be counted as unchastity, because the heart is unchaste and the body simply was not permitted to be unchaste. What use is it that you hold with such enormous, sour, un¬ willing effort to a lost and unchaste chastity? It were better to marry and rise above such unhappiness. For although in marriage there is also much trouble and unhappiness, still one can enter into it with good will and at times have peace and happiness. But outside mar¬ riage, where there is no grace, it is impossible to have good will toward chastity and live happily in it.
Consider how foolish are those teachers and administrators who drive young people to chastity in monasteries and nunneries, claiming that the harder it is for them and the more unwilling they are, the better their chastity is. They should play around with other things
15 E. g., Jerome, Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 7, Patrologia, Series Latina, [W, XII, 116, 117] and take something besides chastity, for it cannot be voluntary without a special grace. Everything else can be voluntary, if only faith is present. They act like the Jews who burned their children in honor of the god Molech (Jer. 32:35), so that I sometimes think St. Paul used the word "aflame" because he wanted to touch upon and refer to this abomination. For what is it to allow a young person to suffo¬ cate in such heat in a monastery or elsewhere his whole life but to burn a child to death in honor of the devil by making it observe a miserable, lost chastity?
In honor of such teachers and administrators I must tell you what I once heard from a brave man. Perhaps these blind boneheads will then see just how wisely they are proceeding. There once was one of those preachers who cried out that one really had to do something big and almost inflict harm on oneself if one wanted to serve God.
He cited the incident from the Lives of the Saints in which Simeon stood on one leg atop a high pillar for a whole year and prayed con¬ stantly, neither eating nor drinking, until the maggots grew in his foot; and these turned to jewels as they fell off.10 "This is the way you must torture yourselves," the preacher shouted, "if you want to serve God." It is only fitting that such lies be preached by such preachers; doubtless they were in ancient times fabricated by the devil through his evil minions to make fun of the Christians and coun¬ teract the miracles which they performed in such large numbers in those days, making them seem like so much trickery.
But this fool of a preacher found another fool as a pupil, according to the proverb: "One fool makes ten more." This fool wanted to serve
God by hurting himself and no longer urinating. After he had held off for four days and became very sick, and nobody could talk him out of it, and he wished for death; finally God inspired someone with the idea that he should praise and support this fellow in his under¬ taking (the way one must humor idiots in what they do, as Solomon tells us 17). "But," he said to him, "the story is that you are doing this solely for the glory in it, and if that is true, then it is all useless."
When he heard this, the fool left off his foolishness and said: "If that's what they're going to think, then I won't hold it any longer." 18
10 Cf. Patrologia, Series Latina, LXXIII, 328 f.
18 Luther had used these stories also in his Lectures on Romans (Luther's Works, 25, pp. 410—411), and they are included in the Cordatus collection of Table Talk (W, Tischreden, III, 51—54).
Well, that is a pretty crude piece of foolishness, but it should not be despised. God has shown by means of it, so I say at any rate, the damage done by such teachers and administrators. So let us forget all about this incident. The truth is, as the Scriptures and all experi¬ ence teach us, that this life on earth is a miserable life, full of misery and suffering regardless of what estate you choose for yourself (pro¬ vided it is godly). Still there is none so miserable who, if he were ordered to hold his urine or excrement, would not rather choose the state he was in rather than accept such an impossible order; but since nobody is bound to such an order, nobody pays any attention to the benefits and delight of elimination. Meanwhile he looks at and com¬ plains about the miseries of the state he is in, which are not one tenth what such a misery would be.
It is the same with this burning. Those who are married, they are rid of this; they can extinguish what burns them and pay no more attention to such torment (just as a woman after a birth sees things quite differently than before and in the birth), but instead they see nothing but the trouble and unhappiness of their married estate.
When good is present, it goes unobserved; when the bad is over, it is forgotten. But those who are still caught in passion and have no hope, must they not make fun of those fools who are married and yet still complain about marriage? For the former must hold what cannot be held, and do it all for nothing and waste all the bitter effort — that is indeed a terrible pity! Would they not much rather bear all the un¬ happiness of marriage than such burning? That is what St. Paul is speaking about when he says: "It is better to marry than to burn," as though he were saying: "Marriage is a bad thing, but burning is still worse." In short: Better an unhappy marriage than unhappy chastity.
Better a sour and difficult marriage than a sour and difficult chastity.
Why? The latter is a sure loss; the former can be of use.
I say this only of that burning which those suffer who control themselves — of whom there are few; for the majority do not suffer such heat, neither do they control themselves, but they do as they please and relieve themselves; of this I shall not write at present. But if they relieve themselves outside of marriage, then the pangs of con¬ science are soon there, and this is the most unbearable torment and the most miserable of earthly estates. This is the unavoidable result, that most of those who live without marriage and without grace in celibacy are forced to sin bodily in unchastity, and the others are
[W, XII, 118, 119] forced to outward chastity and inward unchastity. The former must needs lead a damnable life, the latter an unholy useless one. And where are the spiritual and secular rulers who consider the plight of these poor souls? Every day they are helping the devil to increase this misery with their pressures and compulsion.
10. To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband.
11. But if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband, and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
In the foregoing the apostle has spoken of widowers 19 and widows, among whom a man may take a wife or — in fact, it is good, if they have the grace — stay single. But this cannot be conceded for married people. For them there is God's command that compels them to stay together. That widowers and widows stay single, however, is neither a command nor prohibition from God but simply the apostle's own good advice; they are left free before God in good conscience either to marry again or to stay as they are.
But here the apostle concedes that man and wife may separate, provided that they do not marry again. In so doing he repeals the law of Moses according to which the man could send away his wife if he were displeased with her or tired of her and take another. And she, too, could take another, according to Deut. 24:1 ff. Now although
Moses gave such a law to the Jews, to people who were hardheaded and heathenish, still such actions are not fitting for a Christian, and therefore Christ himself revoked it in Matt. 19:8-9. For in the Old
Testament there were laws governing not only the spiritual realm but also the secular order, because God ruled over the same people both in the spiritual and the secular realm. In the same way we still have in the imperial code many laws for the secular realm which would be most unfitting for Christian use, as, for instance, the use of force against force, litigation in the courts, etc.
For many different kinds of laws are necessary to ward off and control evil, and many other kinds are required to teach and govern the good. This law therefore was made to repress and control the evil,
19 Cf. p. 21, n. 10, above.
[W, XII, 119, 120] so that they would not kill their wives or do even worse things. But Christians should be benevolent in their hearts and not need such laws but keep their wives as long as they live. Where there are no Christians, or only crude, false Christians, there even today it would be good to hold to this law and allow them, like heathen, to divorce their wives and marry others, so that they would not set up two hells in their disunited lives, one here and one there; but they should know that by separating they are no longer Christians but heathen and in a damnable condition.
The apostle refers to one cause of divorce: anger —when a man and his wife cannot live together in harmony but only in hatred and dispute, so that they can neither pray nor do any other good work. The text clearly states this by admonishing them either to be reconciled and not separate or to live without marriage if they cannot be recon¬ ciled and wish to separate. Where reconciliation is recommended, there anger and disharmony are indicated. The apostle certainly per¬ mits such separations by being lenient over against the weaknesses of Christians when two people simply cannot get along together. In all other cases everyone is obligated to carry the burden of the other and not to separate from him. That is also the reason why he does not per¬ mit divorced persons to change their status, that they may have the opportunity to come together again; yes, he may even thereby urge and force them together, for they may not have the grace of chastity.
But what if one party did not want to be reconciled with the other but remained quite separate and the other could not control himself and needed a mate? What should that party do? May he change his status? Answer: Yes, without doubt. For since he is not commanded to live in chastity and he does not have the grace to do so, and his spouse will not return to him, taking away the body he cannot do without, therefore God will not demand the impossible because of the disobedience of the other, and he should then act as though his spouse were dead. This is particularly true because it is not his fault that they cannot be reconciled. But the one who does not want recon¬ ciliation must remain unmarried, as St. Paul points out here. He goes on to say:
12. To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
13. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he con¬ sents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
Because St. Paul here bears witness that these words are not from the Lord but from himself, he indicates that these things are not com¬ manded by God but are left to the individual to choose in one way or another. For he distinguishes his own words from the Word of the Lord, that the Lord's Word is to be a commandment, but his own words advice. And he wishes to say this: "To the rest," that is, where there is no problem of anger between married people, as when there are two married people of whom the one is a Christian and the other non-Christian (as so often happened when the faith was newly preached among the heathen, so that one was converted and the other not), even though the Christian may divorce the non-Christian, the apostle's advice is that he do not do so, provided the non-Christian accepts and is satisfied with the choice of the partner to be Christian and does not object to or prevent his living a Christian life or force the mate to deny Christ or live in an unchristian way.
This is what St. Paul means when he says, "and she consents to live with him, etc.," that is, if the non-Christian is content and willing to stay with the Christian spouse and allows him to do all things proper to a Christian. For marriage is an Outward, physical thing that neither promotes nor hinders faith, and the one partner may well be a Christian and the other non-Christian, just as a Christian may eat with a heathen, Jew, or Turk, or drink, buy from him, and have all ordinary commerce with him.-0 In the same way one marriage partner may now be a true devout Christian and the other an evil, false Christian; still it is not necessary to dissolve the marriage because of piety or malice.
But if the non-Christian should not let his spouse be a Christian and live a Christian life and should hinder and persecute him, then it would be time to keep these words of Christ also physically: "He who loves wife or child 21 more than Me is not worthy of Me" (Matt. 10:37).
Then divorce is in order; but once the divorce is effected, then there 20 Luther had already previously denounced the impediments to marriage due to "spiritual affinity," "legal affinity," and "disparity of religion" in The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520) and The Estate of Marriage (1522).
Cf. Luther's Works, 36, pp. 99—101; 45, pp. 24—25.
21 Luther provides an extension of the meaning of the passage by substituting "wife or child" for "father or mother" and "son or daughter."
[W, XII, 121] must either be reconciliation, or that partner must remain unmarried who will not be reconciled, while the other is permitted to change his status, as explained above.22 For one must honor Christ, the spouse of the soul, more than the spouse of one's body; and where the one will not tolerate the other, one must stay with the spouse of the soul, who is eternal, and let the physical one go and take another who will tolerate the eternal spouse alongside himself.
And the same procedure is to be followed when a man encourages or forces his wife to commit theft, adultery, or any other wrong against God; here we have the same cause for divorce — and if they are not reconciled — the one may change his status. This explains why adultery brings on divorce and permits a change of status. For in the Old Testament, in Deut. 13:6-10, it is commanded that a man should kill his wife, brother, or best friend if they should advise or induce him to commit anything contrary to God. But in the New Testament, where one does not kill in the body, it is sufficient to divorce and separate from such persons.
From this it follows that those cases were wrong where we read how certain wives, with the consent of their husbands, committed adultery in order to save their husbands from death or prison. For one should keep God's commandments, even though it may cost us husband or wife, life or property. And no one has the right, for any reason whatever, to permit his wife to commit adultery. St. Paul says further:
14. For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Other¬ wise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
This is spoken in the Hebrew way and according to the manner of St. Paul, to the effect that all things are holy to him who is holy.
Thus he says in Titus 1:15: "To the pure all things are pure"; or in Romans 8:28: "We know that in everything God works for good with those who love Him," which is to say: A Christian spouse may not be divorced but can live with a non-Christian mate and even conceive and raise non-Christian children. The reason is this: if the non-Chris¬ tian spouse does not prevent the Christian mate from leading a Chris¬ tian life, then faith is such a mighty thing that no hurt will come from living with a non-Christian; it will make no difference whether he associates with religious or irreligious people, for even death, that most terrible thing of all, is still a holy thing for a Christian.
Faith can use all things for its purpose, whether good or bad, except unbelief and its fruits. For these are directly contrary to faith and do not permit faith to remain; those things that do permit faith to remain are themselves rendered harmless by faith, are made pure, holy, useful, and salutary, so that the believer may live with them and keep them without danger. If this were not so, no Christian could live, for he is forced to live among evil and non-Christian people. But if he does not follow them but puts them to good use, he may live with or among them to the end that they may gain piety and become
To a Christian, therefore, the entire world is holiness, purity, utility, and piety. Contrariwise, to a non-Christian the whole world is un¬ holiness, impurity, uselessness, and destruction — even God with all
His goodness, as Ps. 18:26-27 says to God: "With the pure Thou dost show Thyself pure; and with the crooked Thou dost show Thyself perverse." Why is this? Because the pure, that is, the believers, can use all things in a holy and blessed way to sanctify and purify them¬ selves. But the unholy and the unbelievers sin, profane, and pollute themselves incessantly in all things. For they cannot use anything in a right, godly, and blessed way, so that it might serve their own sal¬ vation.
In the same way children are also holy, even though they are neither baptized nor Christians. They are not holy in themselves
(St. Paul is not discussing this holiness here) but are holy to you, so that your own holiness may associate with them and raise them with¬ out profaning you, just as though they were holy things. St. Paul also wants to convey this: If a Christian spouse should have grown chil¬ dren with a non-Christian mate (as often happened in those days) and the children should not want to be baptized or become Christians, then, inasmuch as no one should be forced to believe but only willingly be drawn by God through His Gospel, the father and mother should not abandon the children or withdraw or fail in their motherly or fatherly duties, as though they could thereby sin and pollute them¬ selves in unbelieving children; rather they should guide and care bodily for these children as though they were the holiest of Chris¬ tians. For they are not impure or unholy, Paul says; that is, your faith can demonstrate itself in them and thus remain pure and holy.
36 LUTHER'S WORKS 7:15
So it should be done now and at all times. Where children do not want to accept the Gospel, one should not therefore leave them or send them away but care for them and support them like the best of all Christians, commending their faith to God, so long as they are obedient and upright in all other things having to do with outward living. For parents can and should resist and punish outward evil acts and works. But nobody can resist and punish unbelief and an inwardly evil nature except God alone. Thus this text of St. Paul's also concerns us and strengthens us, making all things holy and pure to the believer.
15. But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.
Here the apostle releases the Christian spouse, once the nonChristian partner has separated himself or will not permit his mate to lead a Christian life, giving the former the right and authority to marry another partner. What St. Paul says here concerning a nonChristian spouse is also applicable to a false Christian; so that if such a one wanted to traduce his spouse to his unchristian ways and not permit the Christian way of life or would separate himself, then that Christian spouse would be free to marry another. If this were not permitted, the Christian spouse would have to follow after the nonChristian mate or live a life of chastity without the will and capability to do so, and he would thus be the prisoner of another's caprice and live in danger of his soul.
St. Paul denies this and says that in such cases the brother or sister is not bound. It is as if he wanted to say: "In other eases where mar¬ ried people remain together, as in the marriage bond and similar things, one is bound to the other and not entirely his own, so that neither can change from the other; but in this matter, where one partner holds the other to an unchristian life or separates from him, the Christian is not bound or compelled to stay with such a mate.
But if someone is not bound, he is free and released. If he is free and released, he may change his status, just as though his spouse were dead.
But what would happen if the next spouse also went astray and tried to force his mate into a heathen or unchristian way of life or separated from him, and so on until the third and fourth mate; as often as the case may occur — could a man then have ten or more wives who were still living, all of whom had run away from him?
Or on the other hand, could a woman have ten or more husbands, all of whom had run away from her? Answer: We can't tell St. Paul to shut up; likewise we can't prevent those who are so inclined from using his teachings as often as they please. His words are clear: a brother or sister is not bound but free if the partner separates and will not consent to live with his mate. He does not say that this should happen only once but lets it work itself out as often as necessary, for he does not want to bind anyone to the danger of unchastity because of the frivolity and malice of another.
But shouldn't the Christian mate wait until his non-Christian spouse comes back or dies, as has been the custom and canon law until now?
Answer: If he wants to wait for his mate, that is up to his good will.
For since the apostle proclaims him free and unbound, he is not obliged to wait for his mate but may change his status in the name of God. I wish to God that people had made use of this teaching of St. Paul or would begin to make use of it in cases where man and wife run away from each other or one leaves the other sitting, for much whoring and sin have resulted from them. This has been in¬ creased by the senseless laws of the pope, which, in direct contradic¬ tion to this text of St. Paul, compel and force the one mate not to change his status on pain of losing his soul's salvation, but to wait for the runaway spouse or the death of the same. This means that the brother or sister in such cases is truly bound in irons, because of the wantonness and wickedness of another, and for no cause is driven into the danger of unchastity.
Now, what if the runaway mate should return and wanted to make amends, should one permit him to do this and accept him?
Answer: When the one who has remained behind has not changed his status, he may accept the returning mate, and it is advisable that they again sit down together. But where the one has already changed his status, he should let the other one go and not receive the returning spouse. Here we may profit from what is written of the rejected wife in Deut. 24:3-4, that the first man cannot take her back again, even though she is separated from the second by death or a bill of divorce.
One should do the same today, so that the runaway is punished. And if one were to do so, there would doubtless be less running away. But now that the pope has opened the door to the runaways and given their
[W, XII, 124, 125] wickedness and foolishness the right and authority to return, it is no wonder that the world is full of torn and broken marriages, yes, is full of fornication, which is just what the devil intended with such laws.
But when both are guilty and both run away, it is fitting that they both cancel their wrongs, become reconciled, and sit together again.
And this teaching of St. Paul should be stretched to cover all sorts of divorces, such as when a man and wife run away from one another not because of his or her Christian faith but because of some other matter, be it anger or any other dissatisfaction; nor should it be asked that the guilty party reconcile himself or remain unmarried, or that the innocent mate be free and have authority to remarry if the other will not be reconciled. For this is all unchristian and heathen, that a spouse runs away from his mate out of momentary anger or any other dissatisfaction, refusing to share fortune and misfortune, the sweet and the sour, with his partner — as he is obligated to. Such a spouse is truly a heathen and unchristian.
"God has called us to peace," Paul says; that is, we should live peaceably with one another. Therefore a Christian spouse should not quarrel with his non-Christian mate concerning belief or unbelief nor separate from his mate if that non-Christian mate permits him to lead a Christian fife. Each one should leave the other to his faith and commend the whole matter to God. For no one can be driven or forced to believe; instead, God must draw him in grace, and we should teach, admonish, and supplicate, not force. And so a Christian spouse should conduct the outward forms of the married state peace¬ ably with his non-Christian mate and not threaten or defy his partner either with running away or turning him away. For God is not a God of dissension but a God of peace, Rom. 15:33.23 Therefore He does not teach us dissension but calls us to peace. St. Paul next says:
16. Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband?
Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?
Only, let everyone lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him.
This means that you should live peaceably with one another in marriage, even with a non-Christian spouse, so long as he does not interfere with your Christian life, and not defy him, nor drive or force him to believe. For it is not your work or within your power that [W, XII, 125, 126] anyone should believe, but that is solely in God's power. But since you do not know whether you are worthy that God should save your spouses through you, you should live in peace with them; and no husband should put pressure on his non-Christian wife or quarrel with her concerning faith, nor should any wife do so with a non-Christian husband. If God wants to convert them through you. He will help you to achieve this and distribute among you the grace and gifts for that purpose. This seems to me to be the proper understanding of St. Paul in this passage, that he wants nobody to be forced into faith or piety but that we should live in peace with all men until God with His grace converts through us those whom He wants converted, as St. Peter also teaches in 1 Peter 3:1 f.24
One should also treat a spouse who is falsely Christian in the same way; that is, one should tolerate in peace his evil life and not defy him or force him toward the good, but instead, one should in peace and friendliness help him toward it. For you are perhaps not worthy to bring anyone to piety. If you should be worthy, however, God will assign and lend you the grace for it according to His will. Meanwhile you may be certain that you should live with your non-Christian or evil mate, so long as you do not follow or approve of his unbelief or evil life, and he on his part does not force or hold you to it; and you should tolerate such unbelief and injustice from your partner just as one has to tolerate them from the rest of the world and from devils, and you should use kind words to him and live in peace until God grants His grace, so that he, too, may be converted. We continue:
17. Only, let everyone lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him. This is my rule in all the churches.
This verse concludes the part dealing with the state of matrimony.
Its meaning is this: Faith and the Christian life are so free in essence that they are bound to no particular order or estate of society, but they are to be found in and throughout all orders and estates. There¬ fore you need not accept or give up any particular estate in order to be saved. On the contrary, the estate in which faith and the Gospel find you, there you may stay and find your salvation. There¬ fore it is not necessary that you give up marriage and leave your non-Christian spouse for the sake of your faith or salvation. On the 24 The text has "1 Peter 2," but we have followed the Weimar editor's sug¬ gestion.
[W, XII, 126, 127] other hand, it is not necessary for you to be married, either to a Chris¬ tian or a non-Christian spouse, for the sake of faith or salvation. And finally, if you are married, whether to a Christian or non-Christian, a virtuous or an evil mate, you are not on that account either saved or condemned. If you are unmarried, you are also on that account neither saved nor condemned. All this is free, free. But if you are a Christian and remain one, then you will be saved; and if you remain unchristian, then you will be condemned.
"This is my rule in all the churches" means "among all Christians to whom I preach. For I do not teach them to leave their present estate and cause dissension, but to stay as they are and live in peace."
You see from this that St. Paul considers no single estate blessed ex¬ cept this one — the estate of being Christian; the others are free in the sense that they cannot in themselves further our salvation or dam¬ nation. All of them, however, can become blessed through faith or damnable through unbelief, even though in themselves they be well maintained. What is to become of all the monks and nuns and other religious orders that they have elevated to orders of blessedness equal to or even greater than this one true order of salvation? All of them together are lost unless they set them free, so that their consciences are no longer bound and their bodies are restrained not for salvation's sake, but solely as a temporal discipline, as I have often said before.
18. Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
19. For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.
Here he gives us several examples for his conclusion that everyone should lead the life to which God has called him. The first part con¬ cerns the Jews and heathen, and it means: It makes no difference whether you are a Jew or heathen. If you are circumcised and under the Jewish law, do not imagine therefore that that is a sin or a wrong and you must free yourself of it. For faith is more than circumcision and all law, so that you may be circumcised or uncircumcised and neither is necessary for salvation; rather you are free to remain in either condition. In the same way it is not necessary to marry or remain unmarried, but you are free to do either. Likewise, if you are a heathen, uncircumcised and outside the Jewish law, you should not [W, XII, 127, 128] think that this is wrong and that you must be circumcised; this is optional. Faith alone justifies you, and it alone fulfills the command¬ ment of God.
These two sentences, "Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision" and "Let him not seek circumcision," are not to be understood as though St. Paul forbids circumcision or having a fore¬ skin. For who could follow both admonitions at the same time, since they are contrary to one another — circumcision and uncircumcision?
He himself says here, "Circumcision counts for nothing," and this con¬ tradicts the words "Let him not seek to remove the marks of circum¬ cision." For if he is not to seek to remove the marks of circumcision, then he must be circumcised, and how could circumcision then count for nothing? Therefore when he says, "Uncircumcision counts for nothing," he contradicts the words "Let him not seek circumcision."
For if he is not to seek circumcision, he must have a foreskin, and how could uncircumcision then count for nothing? St. Paul simply forbids that these things become matters of necessity and conscience.
In short, these things are to be optional in themselves, neither right nor wrong. And so one is not to seek to remove the marks of circum¬ cision, as though it were necessary to be uncircumcised, and on the other hand one should not seek circumcision, as though it were neces¬ sary to be circumcised. For both are of no value for salvation, and both may be accepted without qualms of conscience. Therefore neither
Jewish nor heathen birth or customs can of themselves hinder or ad¬ vance us in God's sight, but only faith.
In the same way one should also say to our people: Marriage is nothing, and celibacy is also nothing. To have a heathen spouse is nothing, and to have a Christian spouse is also nothing. Those who are married should stay married. Those who are unmarried should not marry — that is, they should not be disturbed in their consciences as to whether they should marry or not. Here is another example.
To be a monk is nothing, and to be a layman is also nothing; to be a priest is nothing, and to be a nun is also nothing. The layman should not become a monk, and the monk should not become a layman; all of which is to say that it should not be a matter of necessity or con¬ science whether one is a monk or a layman. Rather each should re¬ main as he is, provided that faith is pure and unshaken. For where faith cannot be maintained, there the monk should abandon his order just as a married person should leave an unchristian spouse who drives or keeps him away from the Christian faith.
But here the Jews might say to Paul: "You say that circumcision is nothing, but only keeping God's commandments. Now, circum¬ cision has been strictly commanded to us by God; how could it then be nothing?" It would take too long to speak on this point here;
I have done so adequately in other places.25 Briefly, all the laws in the book of Moses were given until Christ should come; when He came, He was to teach and bring faith and love. Where these are, there all the commandments are fulfilled and annulled and set free, so that after the coming of Christ no more commandments are needed, except those of faith and love. If love commands it, then I should be circumcised; if not, then I should let it be. When love demands anger, then I should get angry; when it does not, I should forget it. When love demands an oath, then I should swear an oath; when it does not, then I should not. And so one is to deal with regard to all the com¬ mandments of God and men. But what love is — how it gives attention only to the desire and need of the neighbor — and what faith is I have spoken of sufficiently in another place.26
20. Everyone should remain in the state in which he was called.
21. Were you a slave when calledP Never mind. Rut if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.
Here he again repeats his final conclusion and gives another ex¬ ample: the slave and the freeman. For at that time there were many bondsmen, as there still are in many places, now termed serfs, whom
St. Paul calls slaves. Now, just as a marriage partner is to conduct himself toward his mate, to whom he is bound in body, so a slave should conduct himself toward his master, whose bodily possession he is. That is to say, his being a serf does not hinder him in his Chris¬ tian belief, and he dare not run away from his master for that reason but should remain with him, regardless of whether the master is a believer or an unbeliever, righteous or evil; unless, of course, his master were to hold or force him away from his faith or compel him to associate himself with his evil life. In that case it is time to leave him and run away. And all that was said above 27 concerning a Chris¬ tian marriage partner and how he should conduct himself toward his
25 Luther had taken up this point in the 1519 Lectures on Galatians. Cf. Lu¬ ther's Works, 27, pp. 333—336.
26 E. g., in the 1520 pamphlet The Freedom of a Christian. Cf. Luther's Works, 31, pp. 367 f.
[W, XII, 129, 130] mate, the same is to be said here of the relations of a Christian serf toward his non-Christian master.
And what Paul here says concerning a slave, the same is to be said of all paid servants, maids, day laborers, workmen, and domestics in their relations to their masters and mistresses. It should also be said of all vows, associations, corporations, or of any tie by which one person is related or obligated to another: in all these matters service, loyalty, and duty are to be maintained, regardless of whether the one party is Christian or non-Christian, good or bad, so long as they do not hinder faith and justice and allow you to live your Christian life.
For all such estates are free and no impediment to the Christian faith; and if the king of Poland or Hungary allies himself with the Turks, he should hold to it and say, as St. Paul here teaches us, "God calls us to peace."
"But," St. Paul says, "if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity." This does not mean that you should rob your master of your person and run away without his knowledge and con¬ sent, but it means you are not to interpret the words of St. Paul, when he says that everyone should remain in the estate in which he was called, to mean that you must remain a serf, even though you could gain your freedom with the knowledge and consent of your master.
St. Paul wants only to instruct your conscience, so that you know that before God both estates are free, whether you are a bondsman or a freedman. He does not wish to hold you back from gaining your freedom, if you can do so with the consent of your master. Therefore it should be the same to your conscience whether you gain your freedom or remain a serf, provided it is done in God and with honor. For the Christian faith does not teach us to take from another what is his but instead to fulfill all duties, even toward those to whom one is not obligated and who have no claim to us.
22. For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord. Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of This means: It is the same for God whether you are free or in bondage, just as circumcision and uncircumcision are the same; neither hinders faith and salvation. It is the same as when I say: It makes no difference to faith whether you are poor or rich, young or old, beau¬ tiful or ugly, learned or ignorant, layman or priest. For he who is
[W, XII, 130, 131] called in poverty is rich before God. He who is called in riches is poor before God. He who is called in youth is old before God. He who is called in age is young before God. He who is called in ugliness is beautiful before God. And again: He who is called in ignorance is learned before God. He who is called as a layman is a priest before God. All this is true because faith makes us all equal before God and no difference of person or status will count.
The same is true here: "He who was called as a slave is a freedman of the Lord." This means that before God he counts as much as though he were free and not a slave. Again: "Likewise he who was free when called is a slave of Christ." This means that he is no better than one who is a slave. For things will be as St. Paul says in Gal.
3:28:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ
Jesus." There we have the same faith, the same possessions, the same inheritance — everything is equal. One could even say: He who is called as a man is a woman before God. And she who was called as a woman is a man before God. Therefore the words "a slave of Christ" cannot refer to the service one renders Christ but means rather that one is a slave among men on earth because one's self belongs to Christ and is subservient to Him, so that the slave is equal to a freedman, and the freedman is equal to the slave; but one is still the property of Christ, whose slave one is.
23. You icere bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.
What is the meaning of these words? Paul has just taught us that one should remain a slave and that this does not stand in the way of Christian faith; but here he forbids us to become slaves. Doubtless he says this as a general rule to contradict those teachings of men which destroy the freedom and equality of belief and place the indi¬ vidual conscience in a vise. For instance, when someone teaches that a Christian may not marry a non-Christian and remain with her — as the rules of the church do — he obstructs the freedom that St. Paul teaches us here and forces people to obey these rules more than God's
Word. He calls this "serving men," for these people think they are slaves of God and serving Him, when in reality it is but the teaching of men they serve, and they thereby become the slaves of men. The same is true of those who preached that Christians must be circum28 The Weimar editor has corrected the reference from the text's "Gal. 5."
[W, XII, 131] cised and thereby canceled this same freedom. At all points we find Paul caring and fighting for true Christian freedom against the snare and dungeon of human regulations.
That this is his true meaning is demonstrated in his words: "You were bought with a price." By this he means Christ, who with His own blood bought us and set us free from all sin and law, as we see in Gal. 5:1. But this purchase does not work itself out according to the way of the world and does not affect the relations men have with one another, such as that of a servant toward his master or that of a wife toward her husband. These relationships are all left intact, and God wants them maintained. The effect of this purchase is spiritual and takes place in our conscience. Therefore before God no law any longer binds or imprisons us. We are all free from all things. Before we were bound in sin, but now we are rid of all sin. Whatever out¬ wardly remains of relationship or freedom is neither sin nor virtue but only outward tranquillity or trouble, joy or suffering, as is all other bodily good and ill, in both of which we can live free and with¬ out sin.
24. So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him re¬ main with God.
Here Paul repeats this conclusion concerning Christian freedom for the third time: that all outward things are optional or free before God and that a Christian may make use of them as he will; he may accept them or let them go. But here the apostle adds the words
"with God." This means, to the extent that it is of importance between you and God. For you are doing no service for God if you marry, remain unmarried, whether you are in bondage or free, become this or that, eat this or that; on the other hand, you do not displease Him or sin if you put off or reject one or the other. Finally, you owe God nothing but to believe and confess; He releases you from all other things so that you can do as you please without endangering your conscience. This is so thoroughly true that He does not inquire on His own behalf whether you have let your wife go, have run away from your master, or have not kept your agreement, for what does He profit whether you do these things or don't do them?
But because in this relationship you are bound up with your neigh¬ bor and have become his servant, it is God's will that no one be de¬ prived of what is his by means of His freedom but rather that those
[W, XII, 131, 132] things of your neighbor be protected. For although God pays no atten¬ tion to these things on His own account. He pays attention to them on account of your neighbor. This is what he means with the words
"with God," as though He were admonishing us: "I did not make you free among men or with your neighbor, for I do not wish that which is his taken from him until he gives you permission. But you are en¬ tirely free with Me and cannot ruin yourself in My sight by keeping to or refraining from outward things." Therefore notice this and dif¬ ferentiate between the freedom existing in your relation to God and the freedom existing in your relation to your neighbor. In the former this freedom is present, in the latter it is not, and for this reason: God gives you this freedom only in the things that are yours, not in what is your neighbor's. There differentiate between what is yours and what is your neighbor's. That is why no man can leave his wife, for his body is not his own but his wife's, and vice versa. Likewise the servant and his body do not belong to him himself but to his master. It would be of no importance to God if the husband were to leave his wife, for the body is not bound to God but made free by Him for all outward things and is only God's by virtue of inward faith. But among men these promises are to be kept. In sum: We owe nobody anything but to love (Rom. 13:8) and to serve our neighbor through love. Where love is present, there it is accomplished that no eating, drinking, cloth¬ ing, or living in a particular way endangers the conscience or is a sin before God, except when it is detrimental to one's neighbor. In such things one cannot sin against God but only against one's neighbor.
And it should be emphasized that this little word "call" does not in this context mean the social status to which one is called, as when one says, "Your status is 'married,' " or, "His status is 'priest,' " and so on, as everyone has his calling from God. Here St. Paul is not speaking of this calling. He speaks instead of the evangelical call, which is as much as to say: "Remain in that calling to which you were called, that is, where you receive the Gospel; and remain as you were when you were called. If the call comes to you in the married state, then remain in that wherein you were found. If you are called in slavery, then remain in the slavery in which you were called."
But what if the Gospel calls me in a state of sin, should I remain in that? Answer: If you have entered into faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the Gospel, then sin as much as you please. But how can you sin if you have faith and love? Since God is satisfied
[W, XII, 132, 133] with your faith and your neighbor with your love, it is impossible that you should be called and still remain in a state of sin. If, however, you remain in that state, then either you were not called as yet, or you did not comprehend the call. For this call brings you from the state of sin to a state of virtue, making you unable to sin as long as you are in that state. All things are free to you with God through faith; but with men you are the servant of everyman through love.
From this you will see that monasticizing and making of spiritual regulations is all wrong in our time. For these people bind themselves before God to outward things from which God has made them free, thus working against the freedom of faith and God's order. On the other hand, where these people should be bound, namely, in their rela¬ tions with other men and in serving everyman in love, there they make themselves free, serving no one and being of no use to anyone but themselves, thus working against love. Therefore they are a perverse people, perverting all the laws of God. They want to be free where they are bound and bound where they are free, and yet they hope to be seated much higher in heaven than ordinary Christian people.
But they who make such a hellish prison out of heavenly freedom and such a hostile freedom out of loving service shall sit in the deepest hell.
25. Now concerning the unmarried, I have no command of the Lord, but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustivorthy.
26. I think that in view of the present distress it is well for a person to remain as he is.
We have now heard enough praise of the married state, and it is time to preach of its troubles and do honor to the unmarried state.
If it were not St. Paul, I should truly be vexed that he gives such miserly praise and small honor to the noble state of celibacy. First he says that it is not commanded by God, as little as marriage is; that is, it should be free for everyone. But he thus robs it of all the honor that great preachers have up to the present ascribed to it. For where there is no command, there is also no virtue or reward before God; the thing is then in itself absolutely independent. It will be immaterial to God whether you are unmarried or not. And as he says above (v. 22),
"For he who was called in the Lord as a slave is a freedman of the Lord," so here, too, one could say: "She who is called as a virgin is a wife before God," and, "She who is called as a wife in the Lord is a virgin before the Lord." For all is equal before God, and there is no difference between persons nor achievement through works, but solely this one same faith, in all and through all.
The Holy Spirit has therefore told us through St. Paul that celibacy is a very precious thing and highly to be respected on earth so that nobody, because of the greatness and dignity of this estate, should think himself better than another poor Christian but should rather remain in that simplicity of faith that makes us all one before God.
For our poisonous nature simply cannot tolerate that it should not preen itself before God in works; and the better the work, the more credit it wants for it. Therefore it is also blinded by the pure radiance of virginity that it considers no estate higher before God than vir¬ ginity, because nothing that we do on earth is greater or more beau¬ tiful. And so it concludes that just as a virgin counts for more on earth, so it will also be in heaven.
This is the source of all those nonsensical teachings of the devil which prepare special little crowns 29 in heaven for all virgins and make them brides of Christ, as though other Christians were not brides of Christ. Then all the poor misguided young people go wild, each one striving toward this little crown and wanting to fill heaven with virgins and brides of Christ. In the meantime the Christian faith is despised and forgotten and finally extinguished, although it alone can win the crown and make us brides of Christ. Know this, however, and remain certain of it, that such becrowned virgins who rely on such teachings and pretend virginity in this fashion instead of the way
St. Paul teaches, not one of them is a pure virgin or can remain one, and at the last they will be found to be neither virgins nor brides of Second, St. Paul says that in his opinion the unmarried state is good "in view of the present distress." This is the first praise St. Paul has given to virginity. And from this you will see what kind of bless29 What Luther here calls Kronlein refers to a term originally borrowed from the description of the golden border (corona aureola) of the table for the bread of the Presence (Ex. 25:25). In the Middle Ages the aureola sanctorum was a dis¬ tinction awarded to virgins, martyrs, and teachers of the church for their victories over flesh, death, and the devil. It was variously represented in the arts by styles called aureole, nimbus, halo, glory, or mandorla.
[W, XII, 134, 135] ing St. Paul meant when he said above (v. 1), "It is well for a man not to touch a woman," for he said nothing about the virtue of it or its reward in heaven. St. Jerome, too, erred on this point,30 for he misunderstood and misinterpreted Paul. Paul speaks only of the bless¬ ing in this temporal life, as I shall continue to show. This is indeed a good reason to remain unmarried and avoid the troubles of mar¬ riage — that a Christian is always under the threat of persecution for the sake of the Gospel, living in constant danger of losing his goods, his friends, and his life, and facing exile or execution. This is what
St. Paul terms "the present distress."
Now tell me, where will you find a virgin in any nunnery, as far as the might of the pope reaches, who has remained a virgin for this reason? How are their goods, bodies, or lives endangered? They are so firmly assured of their goods, lives, and friendships, through both papal and imperial power, that no more secure people ever lived on earth. Accordingly, everyone will have to admit that they do not remain virgins because of distress and danger but because of security and in order not to have distress, which is just the opposite of the reason given here by St. Paul. For if the people in the monasteries ever were in such danger or distress, you would see that where there are now thousands upon thousands of monasteries not a wall would be left standing. But why do I waste all these words? You can see well enough for yourself how much need and danger these monastic institutions together with the whole papacy are suffering with regard to their bodies and property: they are all fattened swine, the whole lot of them.
But you say: "But married people have to suffer the same distress and danger for the sake of the Gospel as do the unmarried, for as the Gospel is common to all Christians, so is the cross and persecution.
Didn't Abraham, in just such distress, have to take Sarah and leave his father, his goods, and risk his life with her at all times?" Answer:
St. Paul does not say that because of such distress one should or must remain unmarried. He says that it is good and useful to remain so.
Distress is common to all, but the unmarried have an easier time of it than the married ones. For if Abraham had not had his Sarah, he would have been spared much trouble and pain and would have got along much easier. An unmarried person is only one body and need care for nobody else; a married person is dependent on the partner,
30 Cf. p. 11, n. 1, above.
[W, XII, 135, 136] much care and effort is required, and quite a variety of incidents are involved, as experience teaches us only too well.
Many will make a wry face at this and be very peeved that they have preserved their virginity for nothing, especially since God will not regard them any more highly than other Christians. But by this very sign one will know that they are the foolish virgins (Matt. 25:3 ff.) who have spilled their oil in that they have remained virgins not from simple Christian belief but for the sake of reward, reputation, honor, and glory. They did not consider that it is well to remain so, as St. Paul tells us here, but wanted to gain something good by it in the life to come. Thus they have made a trade out of their virginity, hop¬ ing to gain something with it before God, not being satisfied with the temporal advantage of chastity and the eternal gain of faith. Therefore they cannot help but be downcast, for all this has been difficult for them and yet they have preserved a lost chastity.
27. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage.
28. But if you marry, you do not sin, and if a girl marries, she does not sin. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and 1 would spare you that.
Here you have a statement on both, that neither one is a sin, neither marrying nor not marrying. The apostle's prime concern is to instruct the conscience and secondly to say what is most proper here on earth and for the best. And he emphasizes with very sober words why it is well not to marry and says: "Those who marry will have worldly troubles." This is the song that the whole world sings, recites, and writes about married life: that nobody should marry if he wants peaceful days, and there is much effort and many evil days in that estate which the unmarried are spared. I shall not try to relate the sorrows of married life, for I am told that I know nothing about it and have not experienced it.
Very well, then, but I believe St. Paul in this matter. Furthermore, I know of these sorrows from the Scriptures. The first evidence is when God says to Adam in Gen. 3:19,17: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread" and "In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life." Here the curse is laid upon man that he must feed himself and his wife, and his faith is put to the test, for "poverty is pain."
In this same category belong misfortune with servants, danger to [W, XII, 136, 137] cattle and property, and finally the cunning and deceptions of those with whom he must live and associate. For often one must practice concealment and hold one's tongue and put up with some very evil tricks, because one is bound to one's wife, all of which he would not suffer if he were free. For her part the wife has her own troubles, what with conceiving and bearing children, giving birth to them in pain, not sleeping at night, wearing herself out, and hurting what she most prizes, all of which she would not have to suffer if she would remain a virgin; and God said to her in Gen. 3:16: "In pain you shall bring forth children."
The second evidence of sorrow, which St. Peter mentions is that a woman is a weak vessel and fragile,31 so that a man must endure much on her account if they are to stay united. It is for this reason that one seldom finds a good marriage where love and peace are at home. Furthermore, according to Gen. 3:16, God made woman subject to man, so that she must travel and stay where he travels and stays, and her spirit must be broken often. If there are more vexations con¬ nected with this estate and if you want to know them, just take a wife yourself; but I think these are the most serious ones, for they cover many things indeed. But all this is neither sin nor evil in the sight of God but only a temporal, outward unpleasantness in this life which all of us must consider when we want to, or must, marry. Doubtless it has been mentioned by the apostle so that nobody should despise the married state because of its difficulties, as though it were displeasing to God for that reason, or, as the false teachers have said, as though it were impossible to serve God in that state, for they have placed and praised all good works and service to God outside this estate.
For this reason St. Paul tempers his words and speaks of "worldly troubles" and not of "spiritual troubles." For the trouble of the spirit is sin and an evil conscience, but the world's troubles are outward unpleasantness, strain, and boredom. And that which St. Paul terms
"worldly" in the Hebrew manner we term "bodily," so that troubles of the flesh are the same as troubles of the body, not that they are of the body like a sickness, but that they are troubles in the things with which we must bodily associate, or troubles that concern the body, such as wife and child, servants, house and land, cattle and property, and all such things among people in general in this false and evil world.
52 LUTHER'S WORKS 7:29-34 Now he who has the grace to remain chaste should restrain his curiosity, stay away from marriage, and not deliberately call forth such misfortunes unless forced by necessity, as St. Paul faithfully ad¬ vises him here and as he should be advised. For it is a great and noble freedom to be unmarried, and it saves one much worry, unpleasant¬ ness, and suffering, which St. Paul wishes for everyone when he says,
"and I would spare you that." This is the proper praise of the un¬ married estate: not to mention its merit and virtue before God but to praise its peace and pleasure in this life. There are always those who rush into marriage from curiosity and without any need to, who might otherwise remain chaste, and thus they unnecessarily seek evil days.
And if they find them, it serves them right.
29. I mean, brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none,
30. and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods,
31. and those who deal with the ivorld as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away.
This is a general teaching for all Christians, that they should treasure that eternal blessing which is theirs in the faith, despising this life so that they do not sink too deeply into it either with love and desire or suffering and boredom, but should rather behave like guests on earth, using everything for a short time because of need and not for pleasure. This would mean having a wife as though I did not have one, when in my heart I would rather remain unmarried but in order to avoid sin have found it necessary to have one. But he who seeks not necessity but also desire, he does not have a wife but is himself pos¬ sessed by a wife. A Christian should hold to this principle also in all other things. He should only serve necessity and not be a slave to his lust and nurture his old Adam.
32. I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord;
33. but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, 34. and his interests are divided. And the unmarried girl or woman is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body
IW, XII, 138, 139] and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
Here we see another fruit and use of chastity on earth: that one may better please the Lord. Not in the way that the monastics now say, however, with their singing and readings, for with them it is no longer a divine service. Instead one should, in a blameless way, attend to the Word of God, read daily, pray, act, and preach as Paul ad¬ monishes Timothy.32 For a married man cannot give himself up en¬ tirely to reading and praying but is, as St. Paul here says, "divided"; that is, he must devote much of his time to making life agreeable for his wife, and like Martha, he is bound up in the multitude of con¬ cerns demanded by married life. An unmarried person is undivided by such concerns and can give himself entirely to God.
But the apostle does not want to condemn the married estate on this account. For he does not say that a married man is anxious only about the affairs of this world, or is separated from God. He says only that he is divided and is anxious about many affairs and cannot constantly pray or attend to the Word of God; although his work and care is good, still it is much better to be free to pray and attend to God's Word. In so doing the unmarried person is of much use and comfort to many people, yes, to all of Christendom, and this reason is great and noble enough to keep everyone from marrying who has the grace to remain single. But our monastics, who neither pray nor learn God's Word but torture themselves with the regulations of men and murmur and howl in the choir, they would do better to tend pigs as married people.
35. I say this for your oicn benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
Paul says here: "I do not command chastity but leave it to your choosing; furthermore I do not advise it for you, as though you had to be ashamed if you did not remain chaste but would rather marry, for I want no one to be ensnared or bound in this. All I say is that the unmarried state is a free and fine thing. He who wants to and can do so, let him accept it." Here you see that no snare is to be laid in these matters, nor is anyone to be forced to chastity by commands or vows.
54 LUTHER'S WORKS 7:36,37 It is also certain that Paul addressed these words to all Christians in Corinth and not only to the laity. He ascribes no virtue to the unmar¬ ried state in the sight of God but commends it for its good and utility in this life, as he also did above.
36. If anyone thinks that he is not in good repute because of his unmar¬ ried daughters, because they are over marriageable age, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them be married — it is no sin.
This is a strange text, that one may give a young woman in mar¬ riage solely because one has been made fun of on account of his daugh¬ ters being over the usual marriageable age. But even in this case
St. Paul wants everyone to feel free to do what he thinks is good and useful. "If it has to be," he says, that is, if it cannot be otherwise, and if it is the custom in your city and among your associates that one is ashamed to have his daughters become old maids, one should do as he wishes: he should marry them off, or refuse to be shamed. Truly this shows no great opinion of the unmarried estate, that the apostle would sacrifice it solely because of a little shame or derision. He must not have known about the little virgin crowns.33
37. Nevertheless, he who standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will and has so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well.
In the immediately preceding passage he says, "If anyone thinks . . . because of his unmarried daughters," and here he says, "he who . . . will keep his virgin," both of these referring to the father, mother, brother, or whoever the guardians are. Thus it is indicated that chil¬ dren should not marry or remain unmarried from their own whim, but those under whose authority they are should give them in marriage or keep them from it. But where they have no such guardians or they refuse to accept the responsibility for them, they should do as they can. What Paul says about the "power over his own will" is to be understood to mean that no guardian may restrain an unmarried woman against her will, for where her will opposes his, there he has no power over his own will. This would also be true in other cases where he might be forced by others to give her in marriage, such as his being shamed because of his old maids or being put under pressure by his friends or those in authority.
33 Cf. p. 48, n. 29, above.
38. So then he who gives her in marriage does well; but he who does not give her in marriage does better.
Here we find expressed the authority of the parents over their chil¬ dren: the children may not marry or remain unmarried without paren¬ tal consent, as I have often stated.34 Concerning the words "well" and "better" I have already said enough above;35 "it is well" should be understood to mean that on earth the married state is good, that is, without sin and pleasing to God and optional for everybody. But the unmarried state is more peaceful and freer.
39. A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. If the husband dies, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.
40. But in my judgment she is happier if she remains as she is. And I think that I have the Spirit of God.
Paul says the same thing in Rom. 7:2 ff., using a spiritual metaphor that he states here and elaborates on there. But it is the conclusion of this chapter that marriage is a bound thing in this world but free be¬ fore God, just as he says above that a slave is a freedman before the Lord, even though he be a slave in this world. Those who live without marriage are free and unbound, both before God and in this world.
Therefore he terms their estate more blessed than the married estate, not in the sense of eternal blessedness, in which only faith will be greater or count for more according to its quality, but in the sense of this life, in which that state has less trouble, worry, danger, and work.
Now we may summarize this chapter thus: It is well not to marry unless it is necessary. It becomes necessary when God has not given us the rare gift of chastity, for no one is created for chastity, but we are all born to beget children and carry the burdens of married life, ac¬ cording to Gen. 1, 2, and 3. Now, if someone should not suffer from this necessity, he would be the exception solely by the grace and the miraculous hand of God, not because of command, vow, or intent.
Where God does not effect this, it may be attempted, but it will come to no good end. Therefore they are nothing but abominable murderers of souls who put young people into monasteries and nunneries and keep them there by force, as though chastity were something that 34 E. g., in A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage, 1519 (Luther's Works, 44, pp. Ilf.) and in the sermon on Matt. 2:1-12 for Epiphany in Kirclienpostille,
1522 (W, X-i-1, 642—645).
33 E. g., p. 49 above.
[W, XII, 141, 142] could be put on and off like a shoe and something that is in our hand.
Meanwhile they themselves take quite a different view and drive others to attempt what they have never even raised their little finger to at¬ tempt or would not be able to. It is easy to say: "Be chaste," but why are you not chaste? It is great for you to eat like a pig and drink like a horse while telling me to fast! But enough said for those who are willing to listen. And what more can one say to those who will not listen? May God enlighten them or prevent them from strangling souls in this fashion! Amen.
In conclusion I herewith bring to the attention of all that every¬ thing published with my consent and knowledge has first been in¬ spected by the proper people, not only according to the imperial order but also in keeping with the authority of our university. Things pub¬ lished elsewhere and behind my back should in all fairness not be ascribed to me.36
36 About a month before the completion of this treatise on 1 Cor. 7, Luther had released an answer to a mandate of the Diet of Niirnberg entitled Against the Perverters and Falsifiers of the Imperial Mandate. Regarding Article III of the mandate, "That nothing new should be printed or be put up for sale unless it has first been approved by responsible people in the government," Luther wrote: "This article has long been overdue, and I will of course comply with it, for we at the university have adopted a similar code in the past year. But this is not to be taken to mean that it is forbidden to print and to sell the Holy Scriptures or that the stricture applies to things already in print. . . . The Word of God must remain unrestricted" (W, XII, 65).