1

Luther, the Reformers, and MarriageJoel Elowsky

For someone who started out his adult life as an avowed celibate Augustinian monk, and who didn’t get married until he was forty one years old, Martin Luther had a lot to say about marriage.1 Not all of what Luther had to say is helpful for our discussion here due, not least of all, to the casuistic nature ofany number of his pronouncements that are not readily transferable to our present context.2 But Luther also has some profound insights into the institution of marriage, largely in his interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis, which I believe can make a small contribution to our current discussion on marriage. I would have liked to include more of Calvin’s thought and that of the other Reformers, some of which is included at the end, but the primary focus of this paper has beenon Luther.

We will proceed by chronologically examining some of Luther’s key writings on marriage. Within these writings several themes will emerge: (1) Luther’s foundational treatment of 1 For a representative sampling, one may consult Susan C. Karant-Nunn and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks, Luther on Women: A Sourcebook (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) as well as the article on “Marriage” in Ewald Plass, What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1959), 884-908. Another helpful overview of Luther’s views on marriage is Scott Hendrix, “Luther on Marriage” in Timothy J. Wengert, ed. Harvesting Martin Luther’s Reflections on Theology, Ethics, and the Church Lutheran Quarterly Books (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 169-184. His opening footnote surveys much of the literature on Luther and marriage up to the year 2000. Luther quotations, unless otherwise noted, will be taken from Luther’s Works, American ed., 55 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press; St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955-86), hereafter abbreviated as LW. References to the Book of Concord are from Robert Kolb & Timothy Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2000), hereafter abbreviated KW.2 His counsel to the Landgrave Phillip of Hesse is perhaps the most famous example. See, however, the discussion by John Alfred Faulkner, “Luther and theBigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse” The American Journal of Theology 17.2 (April 1913):206-231. Faulkner makes a convincing case that Luther was much more conservative in his approach to this issue in counseling the bigamous marriagethan the discussion around the decision would lead one to believe.

2

marriage as the first of the three estates, along with governmentand the spiritual estate of the church that has been defined and instituted by God for the good of society; (2) His developing definition of the purpose of marriage which comprised the three components of (i) procreation, (ii) fidelity, and (iii) the restraint of sin3, although his early writings also speak of marriage as a sacrament; (3) Luther’s reluctant conclusion that divorce is permissible; (4) Clerical celibacy as a primary catalyst for his writings about marriage; (5) the contention, related to the first point, that marriage is a matter to be regulated by the civil government and not by the church, something on which Luther and Calvin did not agree. This last point, however, should not be construed as though Luther left thedefinition of marriage to the state as we will see below. There are other considerations which we could pursue, but these are what seem most germane to our discussion.

The State of Marriage at the time of the Reformation For many centuries in the West prior to the time of Luther,

the church was dependent on Roman civil law when it came to regulating marriage. Roman civil law, as we heard from Robert Wilken in our previous meeting, entailed the formal mutual consent of a man and woman symbolized by the joining of hands in the presence of witnesses. There was no civil or religious act orceremony that was deemed necessary to confirm that consent. In his introduction to Luther’s “On Marriage Matters,”4 Robert Schultz confirms that German custom at the time of Luther considered an agreement to marry in the future (what we might call “engagement” today), followed by intercourse, as a marriage.But as church and state had become largely intertwined, how this agreement and consent to marry was regulated, and who could marry3 Calvin has a similar threefold purpose of marriage which he couches in termsof “covenant,” closely associated with Luther’s “fidelity” as we will see below.4 LW 46:262.

3

whom and under what circumstances, grew into a rather complex civil and legal process. Marriage was largely governed by the canon law of the church but sanctioned by the government of the Holy Roman Empire and overseen by the local or provincial government. It was not a government official but the parish priest who would normally officiate at a marriage. For all practical purposes, the priest or other clergy who might perform the ceremony represented both the church and the state since civil authority and church authority were essentially one. With the advent of the Reformation, in places such as Germany and England a fissure between church and state began to develop in some areas and we see this manifesting itself especially on the issue of marriage.

1519 Sermon on the Estate of MarriageMarriage was a topic that occupied the Reformers early on.

One of Luther’s earliest ruminations on marriage is his 1519 “Sermon on the Estate of Marriage” which he delivered a little over a year after he had posted his 95 theses.5 In the sermon he distinguishes the marriage of Adam and Eve from that of all the rest of creation. “[I]n the case of Adam, God creates for him a unique, special kind of wife out of his own flesh. He brings her to him, he gives her to him, and Adam agrees to accept her. Therefore, that is what marriage is.”6 For Luther this reflects the basic constitutive element of marriage. God provides a wife and Adam agrees to accept her. The estate of marriage consisted essentially in consent having been freely and previously given one to another.7 Thus Luther largely viewed Roman and German law—the civil law—in this regard in agreement with Scripture and 5 Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:7-14. Someone had taken notes on his sermon and published them without his knowledge, to which he replied “[I]f anybody wants to start writing my sermons for me, let him restrain himself, and let me have a say in the publication of my words as well.”6 Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:8.7 Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:11.

4

divine ordinance. As he says in his much later Commentary on Genesis2.22, “For the lawful joining of a man and a woman is a divine ordinance and institution.”8

In this early sermon On the Estate of Marriage, he reflects the basic teaching of the church which he had learned as an Augustinian monk.9 The doctors of the church say that marriage is: (1) a sacrament that confers God’s grace; (2) a covenant of fidelity; and (3) a gift from God that produces offspring, the last of which Luther understands as the chief end and purpose of marriage.10 These three benefits of marriage are still expounded in his writings twenty years later in his Genesis commentaries (1535-1545), where he speaks highly of Augustine who “learnedly enumerates three benefits in marriage: trust, children, and its sacramental character.”11 These three components of marriage formthe backbone of Luther’s definition of marriage, although the sacramental component is not always included.

Taking these three components in reverse order: (3) Raising ones’ children well is the most valuable work a parent can do, and Luther has much to say in extolling the importance of parentsin forming not only children, but also society.12 (2) The fidelity of marriage provides security and safety in knowing thatthe estate of marriage has the mutual consent of husband and wifeto remain faithful to each other. Within this covenant of trust, marriage provides a safe place (especially since the Fall) “for the pursuance of wicked lust, which is almost as strong a

8 Luther, Commentary on Genesis (1535); LW 1:1349 See Augustine, de Genesi ad litteram 9.7.12. The threefold goodness in marriage isthe goodness of fidelity (bonum fidei); of children (bonum prolis), and its sacramental or permanent character (bonum sacramentum) [CSEL 28:275-276]. It isthe third which Augustine held provides the specifically Christian character of marriage.10 Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:10-12.11 Luther, Commentary on Genesis; LW 2:30112 Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:12. See also his comments on the important role of parents in his discussion on the Fourth Commandment, “Honor your father and mother,” in the Large Catechism 1.4.

5

motive”13 as companionship and children. He likens marriage to “ahospital for incurables which prevents inmates from falling into graver sin.”14 Concerning (1) the sacramental character of marriage,15 he writes:

The Doctors say that marriage is a sacrament. A sacrament is a sacred sign of something spiritual, holy, heavenly, and eternal. . . . It is an outward and spiritual sign of the greatest, holiest, worthiest, and noblest thing that has ever existed or ever will exist: the union of the divine and the human natures in Christ. The holy apostle Paul says that as man and wife united in the estate of matrimony are two in one flesh, so God and man are united inthe one person Christ, and so Christ and Christendom are onebody. It is indeed a wonderful sacrament, as Paul says [Eph.5:32], that the estate of marriage truly signifies such a great reality. Is it not a wonderful thing that God is man and that he gives himself to man and will be his, just as the husband gives himself to his wife and is hers? But if God is ours, then everything is ours.

Consider this matter with the respect it deserves. Because the union of man and woman signifies such a great mystery, the estate of marriage has to have this special significance.”16

This high view of marriage stood in stark contrast to how societyand culture regarded marriage at the time of the Reformation. Luther was disgusted by the fact that city brothels were not onlytolerated (even by some in the church), but considered a healthy outlet for men who needed to deal with their sexual urges. His

13 Ibid.14Luther, A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage (1519); LW 44:9.15 His and the other Lutheran reformers’ redefinition of a sacrament in light of his polemic against Rome, colors his use of the term “sacrament” with marriage, but doesn’t fully eliminate its usage because of the salutary and Scriptural imagery he sees in Paul’s use of the language of “mystery” in Ephesians 5.16 LW 44:10.

6

own experiences as a celibate monk drew his concern for those whohad taken vows of chastity but could not keep them. Marriage as an institution, in Luther’s mind, was not valued in the church tothe same degree that celibacy and virginity were. Luther became increasingly vocal in his dissatisfaction with both the state andthe church’s treatment of marriage.

1520 WritingsJust a year after he had delivered his sermon on marriage he

wrote his 1520 treatise To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation where he advocates for the abolition of clerical celibacy, arguing thatevery man, including priests, should be free to marry or not to marry.17 In another treatise of the same year, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520), Luther deals with the sacraments of the church. In the section on the sacrament of marriage he takes issue with many of the eighteen accepted impediments to marriage found in canon law and confessional manuals. He is disgusted thatmany of these impediments could be overcome if the person had enough money.18 He also discusses what might possibly allow for an annulment concerning a marriage that has already been contracted. Already by 1520 he began to question whether divorcemight be allowable, asserting that it was still a question for debate even though he admits that he personally detests divorce.19 In his polemic against Rome and its view of sacraments, he says there is no divine promise or divinely instituted sign attached to marriage and insists marriage is not a sacrament but is at most a figure or allegory of our relationship with God.20 The fact that marriage is also found

17 Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520); LW 44:176.18 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); LW 36:97. 19 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520): LW 36:105.20 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520); LW 36:92. His discussion on marriage as a sacrament occurs on pp. 92-106. Scott Hendrix (p. 172) notes that Luther has replaced the sacramental imagery with “love” as the chief feature of marriage. While true, Luther never left behind the sacramental imagery fully. But for him it was only understood allegorically rather than

7

among unbelievers further substantiates his claim.21 It is nonsense, he says, to say that marriage is a sacrament only in the church.22 Luther and Melanchthon winnow down the sacraments from seven to three—baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Absolution (the sacrament of repentance). They distinguish those sacraments which “have the command of God and the promise of grace” in the forgiveness of sins23 from the larger numbering found in the church of Rome. The numbering of the sacraments themselves the Reformers understood to be an adiaphora. It depends on how one defines the term “sacrament,” a term they insisted was not found in Scripture. In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession Melanchthon, in fact, allows that marriage could still be considered a sacrament,but still must be distinguished from those which offer forgiveness, the heart of the Gospel, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper and Confession/Absolution.24

providing any special grace or merit. In fact, two years later, in his sermon of November 10, 1522 Luther uses almost the exact same imagery as he used in in his 1519 sermon, focusing on the duality and unity of Christ’s two natures as mirrored in the duality and unity of husband wife as imaged in the Song of Songs and Ephesians 5. The sacramental understanding of marriage remains in Luther, but it is a different understanding of sacrament than his Roman Catholic counterparts. For one thing, while he strongly affirms the permanenceof marriage, which is a key consideration in Roman Catholic understanding, he is also convinced that Scripture allows for divorce in Matthew 5 and 19. See the discussion on divorce below.21 Ibid.22 Luther, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520; LW 36:93-94. He refuses to equate the Greek mysterion with the Latin sacramentum, although he still uses the term “sacrament” in the sense of “a mystery, or a secret thing which is set forth in words, but received by the faith of the heart.” The language of Ephesians 5 should be understood more of an allegory than a sacrament, properly understood.23 Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIII “The Number and Use of the Sacraments”; KW, 219.24 Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Art. XIII “The Number and Use of the Sacraments”; KW, 221. “Marriage was not first instituted in the New Testament but in the very beginning, at the creation of the human race. It has the command of God as well as certain promises that pertain not properly speaking to the New Testament but rather to the bodily life. Therefore, whoever wishes to call it a sacrament should still distinguish it from the preceding ones which are distinctive signs of the New Testament and testimonies of grace and

8

The basic outline of Luther’s views had already been cast concerning the definition of marriage, the issues of clerical celibacy and divorce, and marriage as a civil estate in these writings. One gets the impression that as soon as Luther started writing and preaching about marriage in 1519, challenging the established norms and questioning canonical rulings on impediments to marriage and issues of lawful divorce, he became amagnet for issues of casuistry that previous canon law had heretofore answered. This no doubt occasioned his 1522 treatise on The Estate of Marriage which begins, “How I dread preaching on the estate of marriage!”25

Luther’s Treatise on the Estate of Marriage (1522)This treatise is divided into three parts: (1) Who can enter

into marriage; (2) Who can get divorced; (3) How to live a Christian and godly life in the estate of marriage.

1. Who Can Marry?Luther first of all extols the complementarity of marriage

found in Genesis 1:27 noting that God divided humanity into two classes, namely male and female:

“Therefore, each one of us must have the kind of body God has created for us. I cannot make myself a woman, nor can you make yourself a man; we do not have that power. But we are exactly as he created us: I a man and you a woman. . . .[E]ach should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is well-pleasing unto God himself.26

This complementarity is part of the divine order which God intended for marriage. It is what enables humanity to fulfill thecommand to be “be fruitful and multiply.” This not just a command, however; it is a divine ordinance [werck] “which it is

the forgiveness of sins.”25 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:17.26 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:18.

9

not our prerogative to hinder or ignore.”27 It is a nature and disposition, just like eating and drinking or breathing, which weignore to our peril, putting more of a burden on our nature than it can bear. Throughout his life and his many writings on the subject, Luther reiterates that the desire to procreate is built into our natures and to go against such a basic aspect of our nature is not natural—one of his primary arguments in favor of a married clergy.

He details three exemptions to the command to be fruitful inthis same treatise, exemptions that Jesus himself spoke of in Matthew 19:12. Those exempt from the divine ordinance to be fruitful and multiply are those who are (1) Eunuchs from birth, (2) eunuchs who have been made so by men, and (3) eunuchs who have made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom. “Apart from these three groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse”28 otherwise it will be impossible to remain righteous because we all have that rule of being fruitful and multiplying within us that cannot be ignored. Vows of celibacy – unless given that grace by God – go against nature. No oaths will help you overcomethis rule, “for to produce seed and to multiply is a matter of God’s ordinance, not your power.”29 If you go against this rule, you will inevitably fall into secret sins or fornication. Luther did not deny that there are those who could remain celibate underthe third category listed above, but it is fairly rare—one in a thousand. Later, in 1531, Melanchthon would reflect a similar argument against clerical celibacy, listing six arguments for themarriage of priests and clergy in Article XXIII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession.30

27 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:18.28 Ibid.29 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:19.30 For the full discussion, see Art. XXIII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession “The Marriage of Priests” (KW 247-260). I provide a summary of Melanchthon’s argument here: (1) The love of a man for a woman in marriage is a divine ordinance that cannot be contravened; (2) The union of man and woman for procreation is a matter of natural law and natural law is immutable; (3)

10

Luther concludes the first part of his treatise, reiteratinghis rejection of two years earlier regarding the pope’s 18 distinct reasons for preventing or dissolving marriage, addressing each of them one by one. Concerning who can marry, he appeals to the laws of consanguinity in Leviticus 18:6-13. Many of his solutions to casuistry rely on Old Testament precedent, including his later solution of bigamy for Philip of Hesse’s marital troubles.31 He also held that there was no impediment forChristians to marry Muslims (Turks), Jews, heretics, or pagans because Paul allowed such marriages in 1 Corinthians 7.32 Ordination was also not an impediment to marriage because Scripture nowhere speaks of the one ordained being married to thechurch—which would otherwise preclude him from being married to anyone else.33

Marriage was given to provide a proper channel for sexual desire and to keep immorality in check (1 Cor 7); (4) The ancient canons do not prohibit clericalmarriage and actually expressly allowed it in certain circumstances; (5) Celibacy is not to be regarded as purer than marriage, although the reformers do say that “virginity is a more excellent gift than marriage”; (6) the most important reason for disapproving the law of perpetual celibacy is that “it endangers souls and causes public scandal. Even if the law were not unjust, this alone should keep good people from approving this kind of burden that hasdestroyed innumerable souls. Good people everywhere have long complained aboutthis burden, either for their own sake or on account of others whom they saw to be in danger. . . . It is no secret how this regulation undermines public morals and what vices and shameful lusts it has produced” [Art. XXIII 51-52].31 See footnote #2 above.32 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522): LW 45: 25. See also Luther, The Babylonian Captivity (1520); LW 36:100, where he notes that if the pagan Patricius married Augustine’s Christian mother Monica, why should such a marriage not be permitted today? 33 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45: 28. See also The Babylonian Captivity (1520); LW 36:102. There he dismisses the “impediment of ordination” as an impediment to marriage as though ordination had already brought about the marriage of the priest to Christ and the church. He views it is a mere human invention of the church since Paul in 1 Timothy 3:2 charges a bishop to be husband of one wife. He insists that even if the church nullifies the marriageof deacon, priest, bishop or any other order “it is nevertheless right before God, whose command must take precedence if it conflicts with commands of men [Acts 5:29].”

11

2. Permissibility of DivorceIn the second section of the treatise The Estate of Marriage

Luther deals with divorce.The Catholic Church allowed no grounds for divorce because of marriage’s sacramental character and the permanence thus attachedto it by Christ’s words that what God has joined together, let man not separate (Mt 19:6). A divorce thus cannot be permitted; annulments were another matter. An annulment could be granted if certain conditions were met which would allow the Church to conclude that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with. The fact that Luther no longer considered marriage as a sacramentopened the door to his exegesis of Matthew 19. Although he, too, very much championed the permanency of marriage, he found three grounds for divorce from Scripture, appealing to the fact that Jesus allowed for an exception to the no divorce rule, in Matthew19:9. Luther lists three grounds for divorce: (1) The husband or wife is not physically equipped for marriage so they cannot fulfill the biblical command to be fruitful. Luther here was primarily thinking of a husband or wife who knew about their infertility but kept back the truth about either their infertility or their inability to conceive. Thus it was the deception that was key. If someone went into marriage knowing theother was infertile, then he/she could not later change his/her mind. (2) Adultery,34 which he defines as being unchaste. The 34 The Catholic exegesis I’ve run across makes much of the fact that the word in Matthew 19:9 is not moiceia, but pornei,a|. The implication is that Jesus was not talking about adultery as the exception but rather fornication as the exception. Fornication, in turn, according to the Catholic understanding wouldimply that there was no sacramental marriage to begin with; rather they were just living together in an illicit union. To quote from Dave Armstrong’s Biblical Evidence for the Prohibition of Divorce: “To understand the present disagreement between Catholics and Protestants on divorce, it is useful to examine the basis of the supposed loopholes or exception clauses found in Jesus’ teaching on the subject. The Greek word for unchastity in Matthew 19:9 isporneia, which is defined in standard Greek lexicons and other Bible study aidsas “unlawful sexual intercourse.” Catholics hold that Jesus is here contrasting a true marriage, with a state of concubinage or some other illicitunion. If there is not truly a marriage present, then a separation can take

12

innocent person can remarry. Whoever divorces his wife because ofher unchastity and then marries another does not commit adultery.35 The accusation and the adultery, however, need to be public knowledge – and then it is to be decided by the civil courts, not by the church.36 (3) The third reason for divorce is if one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person (desertion).37 His concern stems from Paul’s argument in 1 Corinthians 7:1-6 about the need to control sin and that husband and wife should not deprive one another.

3. Marriage as an Estate/InstitutionIn the third and final section of his treatise he treats how

to live a Christian and godly life in the estate of marriage. Marriage was the first estate, preceding both the church and the

place, but it is not truly a “divorce” because there was no marriage there to begin with.” http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/11/translation-bias-for-matthew-199.html. According to the USCCB.org on the exception clause in Mt 5:31-32, “Matthew’s “exceptive clauses” are understood by some as a modification of the absolute prohibition. It seems, however, that the unlawfulness that Matthew gives as a reason why a marriage must be broken refers to a situation peculiar to his community: the violation of Mosaic law forbidding marriage between persons of certain blood and/or legal relationship(Lv 18:6–18). Marriages of that sort were regarded as incest (porneia), but some rabbis allowed Gentile converts to Judaism who had contracted such marriages to remain in them. Matthew’s “exceptive clause” is against such permissiveness for Gentile converts to Christianity; cf. the similar prohibition of porneia in Acts 15:20, 29. In this interpretation, the clause constitutes no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce when the marriage is lawful.” But this answer brings up another question: Why does Jesus answer a question about divorce from the Pharisees with an answer about living together?35 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45: 31.36 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45: 32. Luther advocates that the guilty party should be stoned to death like they did in the Old Testament since, in Luther’s mind, the adulterer has already forfeited his life by his adultery. Where the government is lax, he can flee to another country and remarry if he can’t remain continent. If this solution looks like license to divorce, Luther asks, “Can I help it? The blame rests with the government” whoshould put adulterers to death.37 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45: 33.

13

government, the two other estates established by God. He purposely calls marriage an estate, noting that “to recognize the estate of marriage is something quite different than merely beingmarried.”38 Those who are married but do not recognize the estate of marriage will view marriage much as the pagans do and will find it filled with bitterness, drudgery and anguish. This is whythe estate of marriage has “universally fallen into such awful disrepute.”39 The devil’s goal is to frighten us away from the institution of marriage and instead entangle us in a web of fornication and secret sins because the estate of marriage is God’s good will and work which Satan always opposes. The one who recognizes marriage as an estate establish by God in Genesis to beget and care for children will find continual joy and delight in marriage.40

Looking at the tasks of marriage—changing diapers, making the bed, dealing with the stench of sickness, having to work for a living—can all appear so unappealing. But Luther then asks, “What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned withdivine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, “O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother.”41 Luther has a way of talking about even the occasional drudgery of marriage, when lived out in Christian faith, as one

38 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:38.39 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:36.40 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:38. “Many have wives, but few find wives. They are blind; they fail to see that their life and conduct with theirwives is the work of God and pleasing in his sight. Could they but find that, then no wife would be so hateful, so ill-tempered, so ill-mannered, so poor, so sick that they would fail to find in her their heart’s delight.”41 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:39.

14

of the glorious privileges human beings have. The devil wants us to despise marriage because God has established it as the first estate—and anything that God has established the devil will fightagainst. Luther notes that the estate of marriage not only benefits the body, property, honor, and soul of an individual butalso whole cities and countries. Luther also advocated marriage at a young age in order to avoid fornication; our society advocates the opposite in order to promote upward mobility and financial security.42

1530’s – Confessional Writings, the Treatise On Marriage Matters, Genesis Commentary

Between 1522 and 1530, much happened in Luther’s life—not least of which is that he married a former nun, Katherine von Bora on June 13, 1525. He now began to practice what he had been preaching. His “rib” as he called Katie, was an “empress, a theologian, a gift of God” that he would not exchange for all of France or Venice.43 She, no doubt, taught him much about marriagematters from the woman’s perspective. His writing about Eve in his Genesis Commentary, for instance, which he began in the mid-1530s, demonstrates a deep appreciation for Eve’s share in the image of God, even as she does not share in that glory to the same extent as man, although this is only because of the Fall. Had she not been deceived she would have been the equal of Adam in all respects.44

42 Luther, The Estate of Marriage (1522); LW 45:47-48. “A young man should marry at the age of twenty at the latest, a young woman at fifteen to eighteen; that’s when they are still in good health and best suited for marriage. Let God worryabout how they and their children are to be fed. God makes children; he will surely also feed them.”43 Gene Edward Veith, A Place to Stand: The Word of God in the Life of Martin Luther (Nashville,TN: Cumberland House, 2005), 100.44 Luther, Commentary on Genesis (1535): LW 1:66-69,”[H]here Moses puts the two sexes together and says that God created male and female in order to indicate that Eve, too, was made by God as a partaker of the divine image and of the divine similitude, likewise of the rule over everything. Thus even today the woman is the partaker of the future life, just as Peter says that they are

15

The married Luther’s 1530 treatise On Marriage Matters45 reiterates what his other writings say about marriage. But here he is even more forceful in grounding marriage in God’s institution of it. We are not free to do with marriage what we want. In the following quote he is speaking to those who would enter into secret betrothals, but we could also think of these words in our present context of churches who would sanction same-sex marriage:

[Matthew 19:6 says] “What God has joined together.” It does not say, “What has joined itself together,” but, “What God has joined together.” The joining together is easily seen, but men refuse to see that it is to be God who does the joining. As soon as a joining together has come about by theparties’ own efforts, they immediately want to hang God’s name over it as a cloak to hide their shame, and say that God did it. This is misusing and dishonoring God’s name and is contrary to the second commandment. The verse itself clearly indicates that two kinds of joining take place, one by God, the other without God. Joining by God means that

joint heirs of the same grace (1 Pet 3:7). In the household the wife is a partner in the management and has a common interest in the children and the property, and yet there is a great difference between the sexes. The male is like the sun in heaven, the female like the moon. . . . Let us note from this passage [Gen 1:26) that it was written that this sex [the female] may not be excluded from any glory of the human creature, although it is inferior to the male sex. Aristotle designated woman “as a ‘maimed man’; others declare that she is a monster. But let them themselves be monsters and sons of monsters—these men who make malicious statements and ridicule a creature of God in which God Himself took delight as in a most excellent work, moreover, one which we see created by a special counsel of God.” Also, pp115-116: “[I]t follows that if the woman had not been deceived by the serpent and had not sinned, she would have been the equal of Adam in all respects. For the punishment that she is now subjected to the man, was imposed on her after sin and because of sin, just as the other hardships and dangers were: travail, pain, and countless other vexations. Therefore Eve was not like the woman of today; her state was far better and more excellent, and she was in no respect inferior to Adam, whether you count the qualities of the body or those of the mind.”45 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530); LW 46:265-320.

16

which is done by us according to his word and commandment; joining without God means that which is done by ourselves alone without his word and commandment. Now we have taught so often that we should do nothing unless we have the express approval of God’s word; God himself has nothing to do with us, nor we with him, except through his word, which is the only means by which we recognize his will, and according to which we have to govern our actions.46 He held that even if the temporal authorities upheld secret

engagements he would not, because his calling is to “set straightall those who consciences are so entangled and perplexed by secret engagements” and the miasma of ecclesiastical laws.47 The church cannot give its approval to that which God does not approve either. He singles out secret engagements—which were engagements done without the consent of the parents—as a cause ofconcern because of the public nature of marriage. “Marriage is a public estate which is to be entered into and recognized publiclybefore the church, [and so] it is fitting that it should also be established and begun publicly with witnesses who can testify to it.”48 Secret engagements do not allow for such public confirmation. Although he is dealing with the topic in his treatise, he makes it clear that he would rather have all of these marriage matters left to the temporal authorities: “Marriage is an external, worldly matter, like clothing and food,house and property, subject to temporal authority, as the many imperial laws enacted on the subject prove. . . . I simply do notwish to become involved in such matters at all and beg everyone not to bother me with them.”49 On the one hand, Luther seems to be arguing that marriage should be governed by temporal authorities, but in the next breath he speaks of marriage as a

46 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530); LW 46:276.47 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530); LW 46:272.48 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530); LW 46:268.49 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530); LW 46:265.

17

public estate “recognized publicly before the church.” So which is it: a worldly affair or a churchly affair?

As we have seen, at different places, different times, and with somewhat varied terminology, Luther speaks of marriage as one of the three estates ordained by God: (1) marriage; (2) the government; (3) the church.50 These three estates, or orders, arethe ways and means by which the Creator orders and sustains his world in the face of humanity’s rebellion. Luther considers the first two estates, marriage and government, as residing in the civil realm; the third, the church, resides in the spiritual realm. As we look at these three estates, it is of the utmost importance that we distinguish the two realms—the civil and the spiritual, which Luther also refers to as the realm of creation and the realm of redemption.51 The church takes care of the individual’s souls and consciences; the state takes care that the societal structures which God ordained are protected and governed properly so that they endure. Persons are transformed in the realmof redemption, the spiritual realm. Institutions and estates are transformed in the civil realm, which is the realm of creation and the created order. Where the civil estates and institutions are in accord with God’s Word and will, they are to be honored and supported in their present form. Marriage as a civil estate or institution is thus dealt with in the civil realm and is governed by the other civil estate ordained by God, i.e., the government. The gospel which serves in the realm of redemption, the spiritual realm, properly speaking, has nothing to say

50 See Luther, Confession Concerning Christ’s Supper (1528). Luther also uses different terminology as is evident in his discussion, for instance, on the fourth commandment in the Large Catechism 158 where he refers to three kinds of fathers, and also on the sixth commandment 207 where he speaks of the primary position of the marriage estate among the three. See also Melanchthon’s Augsburg Confession Article XVI, “Concerning Public Order and Secular Government”and the Apology Art. XVI as well.51 See my previous paper for ECT on “Religious Freedom in Luther and the Two Kingdoms” (December 2010).

18

concerning marriage as a civil estate.52 The Gospel does, however, speak to those individuals in marriage concerned with marriage matters, or those contemplating marriage whose conscience may be troubled by sin. The Gospel promises them God’sblessing for married life. But marriage is first and foremost a civil estate. God honors and praises marriage and also seeks to protect it in the sixth commandment. Luther comments:

For the following reasons he also wishes us to honor, maintain, and cherish [marriage] as a divine and blessed walk of life. He has established it before all others as thefirst of all institutions, and he created man and woman differently (as is evident) [wie für Augen] not for indecency but to be true to each other, to be fruitful, to beget children, and to nurture and bring them up to the glory of God. God has therefore blessed this walk of life most richly, above all others, and, in addition, has supplied and endowed it with everything in the world in order that this walk of life might be richly provided for. Married life is no matter for jest or idle curiosity, but itis a glorious institution and an object of God’s serious concern. For it is of utmost importance to him that persons be brought up to serve the world, to promote knowledge of God, godly living, and all virtues, and to fight against wickedness and the devil (LC 1, 6, 207).53

There are a number of implications we can draw from Luther’s thought here. (1) Marriage, as the first estate, has been definedand established by God. Neither the state, nor the church for

52 “The gospel does not overthrow secular government, public order, and marriage but instead intends that a person keep all this as a true order of God and demonstrate in these walks of life Christian love and true good works according to each person’s calling. Christians, therefore, are obliged to be subject to political authority and to obey its commands and laws in all that may be done without sin. But if a command of the political authority cannot befollowed without sin, one must obey God rather than any human being” (AC XVI, 5-7).53Kolb-Wengert, 414; cf. the German translation in the Bekenntnischriften, 612.

19

that matter, were yet established when God brought Adam and Eve together. Thus God defines marriage in Genesis 1 and 2 before either church or government had appeared on the scene. If either church or government contradicts God’s Word, then they are not tobe listened to. “We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. (2) There is complementarity in marriage as he created man and woman differently—as any eye can see. (3) The purpose of marriages is to provide a proper place for sexual desire and to foster faithfulness and support of the man and the wife who, God-willing will produce children that will be cared for by them both; (4) God has provided for marriage—which is of the utmost importance to him—as a foundation for nurturing society that seeks to serve rather than to be served, to live virtuous and godly lives in the fear of God and to restrain and fight against wickedness. This type of life is nurtured first and foremost in marriage and family, and cannot be nurtured in the same way by either the state or the church. In other words, Luther is arguingthat if the first estate falls, the other estates stand little chance of survival. Nothing of society, in the end, will be left.This is why he says again and again that marriage in particular, as the foundation of society, is always under attack by Satan from within and from without. Temptations from within try to leadhusband or wife into unfaithfulness; temptations and trials from without denigrate marriage and despise and trash talk it (Luther’s language would be even a bit more colorful).

One possible solution to the marriage debate that has gainedsome traction in public discourse is to simply relegate marriage to the spiritual realm and keep it out of the civil realm altogether. The church would provide God’s blessing to marriage but also allow civil unions to take place as the state chooses todefine them and “bless” them—thus allowing heterosexual, homosexual, polygamous marriages or whatever the state deemed appropriate. The added “benefit” is that the church and its

20

clergy would not be forced to perform marriages that in good conscience it cannot perform.

Luther, I believe, would see a number of problems with such a solution: (1) While Luther held that marriage matters belong inthe civil realm (as opposed to the spiritual realm), God still rules over both realms and you cannot simply privatize marriage. God established marriage as a public institution, a civil institution that is not something which is meant to be private orprivatized or segregated from society, but is rather the foundation of worldly, secular society—what William Lazareth called a “sacred secularity.”54 (2) Neither the state, nor the church has the authority to redefine this estate since this estate preceded them both and was defined by God himself. The biological order precedes the social order. Society cannot redefine biology. It would be like redefining a human being as a dog or cat: a human being is a human being—just as a rose by any other name is still a rose; marriage is marriage, as God created it, not as how human beings or society define or construe it.55

(3) Another danger, as Luther saw it, was that if marriage were simply relegated to the spiritual realm, with no civil

54 Lazareth writes in his introduction to Vol. 44 of Luther’s Works on the Christian and Society, “By this doctrine of the ‘two kingdoms’ of creation andredemption, Luther reaffirmed the ‘sacred secularity’ of the ordinary tasks ofthe common life as those which best serve our neighbors’ needs to God’s glory.Whether empowered by Christ in faith-activated love (Christian righteousness) or compelled by Caesar in law-abiding reason (civil righteousness), the Christian citizen lives not for himself but for the benefit of others” (LW 44:xiii-xiv). 55 Melancththon’s Apology of the Augsburg Confession asserts that the union ofmale and female is a matter of natural law and natural law is immutable. “For where nature is not changed, it is necessary for that order with which God endowed nature to remain; it cannot be removed by human laws. . . . the marriage of male and female is a matter of natural right. Moreover, a natural right truly is a divine right, because it is an order divinely stamped upon nature. However, because this right cannot be changed without an extraordinaryact of God, the right to contract marriages must of necessity remain, for the natural desire of one sex for the other sex is an ordinance of God in nature. For this reason it is right; otherwise why would both sexes have been created?” (KW 249).

21

responsibility or connection, it would occupy all the church’s time and the Gospel proclamation would suffer (something he complains of often as cases of casuistry continued to be laid at his doorstep). Marriage is not the primary responsibility of the church: the Gospel is the church’s primary responsibility. The danger in giving the church the primary role in marriage, he says, is that we “may be misled with good intentions, until finally we fall away from the gospel into purely worldly matters.As soon as we begin to act as judges in marriage matters, the teeth of the millwheel will have snatched us by the sleeve and will carry us away to the point where we must decide the penalty”56 for adultery, and then we won’t be able to stop there but will have to decide other concerns about the body and goods until all of our time is spent on marriage matters and none on the Gospel. He noted that there is no instance in the New Testament where Jesus or the apostles were concerned with maritalmatters, i.e., regulating marriage as an estate and institution. Where they talk about marriage, it has to do with matters of conscience, such as discussed in1 Corinthians 7, “and especially where unbelievers or non-Christians are concerned, for it is easyto deal with these and all matters among Christians or believers.But with non-Christians, with which the world is filled, you cannot move forward or backward without the sharp edge of the temporal sword.” 57 There is no reason for Christians to set up laws and decisions about marriage as long as the world is not subject to the church’s authority. And such laws would do no goodunless they were backed up by godly rulers.58

56 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530): LW 46:266.57 Luther, On Marriage Matters (1530): LW 46:265.58 See Luther, The Babylonian Captivity (1520); LW 36: 97ff. There Luther notes thatwriting the right laws are not going to save marriage. “This I do know that nostate is governed successfully by means of laws. If the ruler is wise, he willgovern better by a natural sense of justice than by laws. If he is not wise, he will foster nothing but evil through legislation, since he will not know what use to make of the laws nor how to adapt them to the case at hand. Therefore, in civil affairs more stress should be laid on putting good and wise men in office than on making laws; for such men will themselves be the

22

Calvin and Luther Luther and Calvin shared a basic understanding of the

threefold purpose of marriage: (1) licit procreation; (2) mutual love and support within the confines of a committed faithful relationship; (3) protection from sexual sin and temptation.59 AsCalvin scholar John Witte observes, Calvin’s primary organizing idiom for his reformation of marriage and family life was the doctrine of Covenant.60 The Covenantal pattern for marriage was modeled after God’s covenant with us. God draws the elect into a covenant relationship with him just as he draws husband and wife into a covenantal relationship with each other that models constant faithfulness and sacrificial love towards one another just as God expects of us towards him.61 Just as Luther, Calvin held that God is the founder of marriage. He went further in stipulating that God forms the covenant of marriage through four groups of chosen agents here on earth:62 (1) The couples’ parentsinstruct their children in the mores and morals of Christian marriage and give their consent to the union; (2) Two witnesses testify to the sincerity and solemnity of the couple’s promises

very best of laws, and will judge every variety of case with a lively sense ofequity. And if there is knowledge of the divine law combined with natural wisdom, then written laws will be entirely superfluous and harmful. Above all,love needs no laws whatever” (LW 36: 98). The divine law cannot be contravenedby human law, whether it is the law of the church or the law of the state. “For the joining together of a man and a woman is of divine law and is binding, however much it may conflict with the laws of men; the laws of men must give way before it without hesitation. . . Christ has granted to Christians a liberty which is above all the laws of men, especially where a law of God conflicts with them” (LW 36:98-99).59 See Calvin, Comm. and Lect. on Genesis 1:27-28; 2:18,21-22; Comm. and Serm. 1 Cor 9:11: Comm. and Serm. Eph 4:22-31, as cited in John Witte, Jr. “John Calvin on Marriage and Family Life” an online paper accessed from the website of the Social Science Research Network. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1014729. This article will be included in the Brill Handbook on John Calvin, Herman Selderhuis, ed. (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming), 7.60 John Witte, Jr., “John Calvin on Marriage and Family Life,” 2.61 Ibid.62 These are all taken from Witte’s article, pp. 3-4.

23

to each other, as well as to the marriage event itself; (3) The minister holds God’s spiritual power of the Word in blessing the union and admonishing the couple of their biblical duties and rights; (4) The magistrate holds “God’s temporal power of the sword” registering the parties, ensuring their union is legal andproviding the protection of their property and rights in their newly formed union. As Witte observes, these four parties represented four different dimensions of God’s concern for the marriage covenant, and to omit any one of them was to omit God from the marriage covenant.

Calvin built on what Luther and others had done in providingan alternative to the marriage regulations of Roman Catholic canon law. But Calvin also did not shy away from making marriage an ecclesiastical matter, much more than Luther would have done. Where Luther sought to offer counsel for rulers, Calvin constructed his own veritable canon law for marriage regulations in concert with the civil government in Geneva, Switzerland. In the words of John Witte, Calvin “constructed a comprehensive new theology and law that made marital formation and dissolution, children’s nurture and welfare, family cohesion and support, and sexual sin and crime essential concerns for both church and state.”63 Geneva Switzerland became a Protestant prototype in uniting the forces of church and state in regulating almost all aspects of married life. Monasticism and mandatory clerical celibacy were outlawed and marriage was encouraged among all those who were able to do so. Divorce was vociferously discouraged, but allowed. Witt shows the extent to which marriagewas regulated by the Genevan authorities in concert with the church:

They set clear guidelines for courtship and engagement and firm restrictions on pre-marital sex and consortium. They mandated parental consent, peer witness, church

63 John Witte, Jr., “John Calvin on Marriage and Family Life,” 1. See also John Witte, Jr. and Robert M. Kingdom, Sex, Marriage and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva, 3vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).

24

consecration, and state registration for valid engagement and marriage promises. They truncated the impediments to engagement and marriage and streamlined and opened up the procedures for annulment. They made public church weddings mandatory and prepared a new marital liturgy heavy with biblical instruction and congregational participation. They reformed the laws of marital property and inheritance, dowryand dower rights, guardianship and adoption. They created new rights and duties for fiancées before their weddings, for wives within the bedroom, and for children within the household. They introduced absolute divorce on grounds of adultery and malicious desertion, and allowed innocent husbands and wives alike to sue for divorce, custody, and alimony. They encouraged the remarriage of divorcées and widow(er)s. They punished adultery, rape, fornication, prostitution, sodomy, and other sexual felonies with growingseverity. They put firm new restrictions on dancing, sumptuousness, ribaldry, obscenity, and dissolute songs, literature, and plays. They put firm new stock in catechesisand education of children, and created new schools, curricula, and teaching aids for boys and girls. They provided new sanctuaries and opportunities for illegitimate,abandoned, and abused children. They created new protectionsand provisions for abused wives, impoverished widows, and ravished maidens. 64

In this all too brief presentation of Calvin’s views on marriage we see that he and Luther agreed on most aspects of marriage, although Calvin was much more comfortable with the church assuming legislative authority over marriage than Luther was.

Conclusion:1. The Reformers lived in a time when marriage was denigrated, much as it is being denigrated today. Although some of the

64 Ibid.

25

tactics and issues are different—no one in Luther’s day would ever have entertained gay marriage—the animosity and attacks against marriage then and today demonstrate that Satan views marriage as an important battleground. The devil’s concerted opposition to marriage is itself cause enough to convince one that the estate of marriage is a godly estate.65 As the first estate, Luther considered marriage foundational for society and God’s ordering of the world.

2. The primary purposes of marriage are procreation, fidelity to one another in a covenantal relationship, and restraint of sin and temptation.

3. Marriage and the capacity and desire to procreate are a part of human nature that human beings have as part of natural law. Totry and regulate this with unfulfillable vows such as enforced clerical celibacy was going against nature. Clerical celibacy needed to be abolished.

4. Luther held that marriage matters and the estate itself shouldbe left to the temporal authorities even as the church should provide counsel and aid to the individuals in marriage. Calvin inmany ways viewed marriage in a similar way, although he counseleda much more active involvement of the church in legislating marriage matters.

5. The Reformers viewed marriage as a public estate ordained by God to be protected by the civil realm. Secret engagements or private unions were not to be tolerated.

6. The Reformers condemned divorce, even as they allowed its possibility under certain circumstances

65 That Parents Should Neither Compel nor Hinder the Marriage of Their Children and That Children Should Not Become Engaged Without Their Parents’ Consent (1524); LW 45:385.

26

7. The Reformers advocated marriage at a young age in order to avoid fornication; our society advocates the opposite in order topromote upward mobility and financial security.