According to his new teaching any man who is tired of his wife can leave her for any reason whatsoever and, forthwith, the marriage is dissolved and both free to marry again. "The husband may drive away his wife; God cares not. Let Vashti go and take an Esther, as did the king Ahasuerus." Does not such a permission open the gates to successive polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution?
It surprises me this quote doesn't get more usage online. I vaguely recall it appearing more in the early 2000's.
Father O'Hare's version of Luther embraces no-fault divorce and deregulated Christian remarriage. This will lead to societal "successive polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution."
From around the same historical period, Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle references the same quote and chastises Luther at length:
The new teachers likewise carried on as madly as possible — did it in their very sermons. In one of these, the spokesman instructs his hearers on the married life as follows: "One easily finds a stiff-necked woman, who carries her head high, and though her husband should ten times fall into unchastity, she raises no question about it. Then it is time for the husband to say to her: 'If you don't want to, another does;' if the wife is unwilling, let the servant-girl come. If the wife is then still unwilling, have done with her; let an Esther be given you and Vashti go her way" (Erl. 20,72). Quite logical: marriage under some conditions demands continency no less than does the religious state. The underlying Epicurean principle of this tendency was, that continency was an impossible requirement, that there is no resisting the instinct of passion, and that resistance is even a kind of revolt against the disposition of God...From such a state of affairs, it was only a step farther to polygamy. Several of these apostles of the flesh did go to that length, inasmuch as, faithful to their principles, they allowed, at times, two and three wives. Some, indeed, of these fallen priests and monks themselves had several women at the same time... After these apostles of the flesh had wallowed to their satisfaction in the slime of sensuality, then it was that they seemed to themselves to be the worthiest of forgiveness of sins (Denifle's original German text found here).
A celibate priest himself, Denifle's severe polemic was certainly provoked by Luther's attack on monastic vows. According to Denifle, if monastic vows were abandoned it would put "the indissolubility of marriage to the test and that adultery would no longer be considered a sin and a shame." Father Denifle determined this was exactly what happened historically, :
...[T]he entire concubinage of the fifteenth century and its congeneric continuation in the sixteenth, with all its abominations, pale before the doings and the teachings of the fallen priests and monks who, in the third decade of the sixteenth century, had branched off from the old movement.
I see little reason to doubt the conclusions of both of these priests were heavily motivated by their own vocations as priests. But... the quote from Luther is indeed shocking, even if you're not a priest: if a spouse refuses sexual intercourse, she is to be flippantly done away with, divorced. Now that's a version of Martin Luther that doesn't make the rounds in Protestant memorializing! Let's take a closer look at this quote to see what Luther actually said and if the implications actually were wife jettisoning, no-fault divorce, lawless remarriage, polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution. Spoiler alert: they were not!
Documentation
Father O'Hare's 1916 edition (with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur!) does not provide a reference. Cursory online searches seem to only offer "Wittenb. V, 123" and "Wittenb. 1, 123." Though incorrect as we'll see, the later reference is interesting. It's found in a Roman Catholic periodical entitled The Observer Edition of Our Sunday Visitor, August 22,1948:
The quote is in the now standard primary German source (Weimar Edition) is located at WA 10.2.290. WA 10.2:290 reads,
This text in Latin is from: Martini Lutheri de matrimonio sermo, habitus Wittembergae anno 1522. In German, this text is from Uom Eelichen Lebe. In English, the title is rendered The Estate of Marriage. In English, the quote is located in Luther's Works at LW 45:33. Of the background writing details of The Estate of Marriage, LW 45 says,
Unfortunately, the sources are virtually silent on the specific reasons which called forth the treatise here translated, as well as on the time of its composition and its appearance in print (LW 45:14).
In his introduction to the treatise Luther refers to it as a sermon, but says he dreads preaching on the subject. Luther’s introductory remarks are appropriate only to a treatise intended for the press, not to a sermon. If its original form was a sermon delivered from the pulpit, it must have been greatly expanded before publication. No corresponding sermon text is known to us, much less a particular Sunday or occasion for its delivery (LW 45:15).
Context
The immediate context of the quote is in regard to reasons Christian marriages are allowed the unfortunate possibility of divorce. Luther posits three main reasons. First, if either spouse is unable to perform conjugally to produce offspring. Second, adultery: "Here you see that in the case of adultery Christ permits the divorce of husband and wife, so that the innocent person may remarry" (LW 45:30-31). The third reason brings us to the context of the quote in question:
The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:12–2:17].
Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7[:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others? (LW 45:33-34).
A tedious detail worth mentioning arises in the context above. Notice the phrase "If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not" (Wiltu nicht, szo will eyn andere, wil fraw nicht, szo kum die magd) is placed between quotation marks (" "). This indicates the phrase did not originate with Luther. LW 45 states it was a popular proverbial expression [LW 45:33, fn. 34].
Conclusion
Something to notice immediately about the context above is to look beyond the shock value of the quote and understand the severity of the situation Luther is describing. First, it's not only adamant denial of conjugal duty, but a spouse that possibly refuses to live under one roof with her husband. Second, the spouse is described as someone that does not care if her husband has repeated extra-marital sex. Luther recommends the husband seek to first seek to keep this dysfunctional marriage intact by warning the wife of potential dissolution and also involving the church as a third-party arbiter. He also recommends the government be involved. Luther even allows that it could very well be possible to avoid divorce and maintain a marital relationship with an evil spouse:
Now if one of the parties were endowed with Christian fortitude and could endure the other’s ill behavior, that would doubtless be a wonderfully blessed cross and a right way to heaven. For an evil spouse, in a manner of speaking, fulfils the devil’s function and sweeps clean him who is able to recognize and bear it. If he cannot, however, let him divorce her before he does anything worse, and remain unmarried for the rest of his days. Should he try to say that the blame rests not upon him but upon his spouse, and therefore try to marry another, this will not do, for he is under obligation to endure evil, or to be released from his cross only by God, since the conjugal duty has not been denied him. Here the proverb applies, “He who wants a fire must endure the smoke” (LW 45:34-35).
While the shock quote seems to suggest simple abandonment of a spouse for the denial of sex, in the broad context of The Estate of Marriage Luther does not advocate no-fault divorce; he limited it to three main serious reasons. What's striking about these three reasons is that they are placed in a context in which marriage and family are symbiotically joined together. In Luther's thinking, you cannot consider one without the other. Luther saw the goal of family as more than a direct command from God. It is "a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore"(LW 45:18]:
... [A]fter God had made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply. Now this [ordinance] is just as inflexible as the first [honoring the divine creation of man and woman], and no more to be despised and made fun of than the other, since God gives it his blessing and does something over and above the act of creation (LW 45:18].
Even sexuality itself is teleologically designed by God for the eventual creation of a family. The ultimate reason why there is human sex drive exists is for the creation of a family:
...[I]t is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice (LW 45:18).
Could Luther's theological reasoning lead to difficult hypotheticals? For instance, suppose a couple marries and a spouse becomes severely ill? The divine creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply cannot be fulfilled. Should that person dispose of the sick spouse? Should the husband take an Esther and let Vashti go? No!:
What about a situation where one’s wife is an invalid and has therefore become incapable of fulfilling the conjugal duty? May he not take another to wife? By no means. Let him serve the Lord in the person of the invalid and await His good pleasure. Consider that in this invalid God has provided your household with a healing balm by which you are to gain heaven. Blessed and twice blessed are you when you recognize such a gift of grace and therefore serve your invalid wife for God’s sake (LW 45:35).
I think it's understandable that Luther's high regard for the creation of family comes off as extreme to modern Western ears. Also, the quote under scrutiny certainly does not emotionally provoke a reader to consider the broader context of Luther's theological underpinnings. It does the opposite: it distracts like a tray being dropped in a fine dining restaurant. Perhaps though in the sixteenth century Luther's shocking comments did not raise as many eyebrows as it would today? A cursory search of the period states there was a strong bond between having a family with physical and economic survival. For example: Children were utilized in working within the household. Widows and widowers relied on care from their children. A child was supposed to eventually care for their aging parents, etc. Well... some eyebrows were raised. Some sixteenth century readers ignored Luther's context and fixated on the shocking quote. LW 45 states,
In a letter of January 1, 1523, to Dietrich von Werthern, [Luther's] representative at the Diet of Nürnberg, Duke George of Saxony cited this phrase [the maid will come if the wife will not] out of context to discredit Luther. He sarcastically suggested that Dietrich make sure his maidservants were comely. Gess, op. cit., I, 415 [LW 45:33, fn. 34].
Also from a close scrutiny of the context, I grasp Luther's theological reasoning about Vashti and Esther, but to me, this isn't the most shocking statement. I think this one is:
For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another (LW 45:34).
From my vantage point, this seems extreme and in in contradiction to what Luther stated in the beginning of this treatise:
But we are exactly as he created us: I a man and you a woman. Moreover, he wills to have his excellent handiwork honored as his divine creation, and not despised. The man is not to despise or scoff at the woman or her body, nor the woman the man. But each should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is well-pleasing unto God himself [LW 45:17-18].
In conclusion, if you find yourself shocked by this obscure quote and subsequent context... and you claim the name "Christian," a meaningful response to Luther would best be to avoid secular pragmatism or arguing from potential modern societal results like O'Hare and Denifle. As I've investigated O'Hare and Denifle on this, neither of them touched Luther's reasoning as to why he said what he did in relation to the divine mandate of having a family or his high regard for marriage. They present him as a lawless lunatic whose fundamental error was rejecting monasticism. A closer look at this quote does not support the implications of flippant wife jettisoning, no-fault divorce, lawless remarriage, polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution.
Addendum #1: Previous Defenses of this Quote
There have been attempts from scholars to salvage this Luther quote. For instance, Lutheran theologian W.H.T. Dau sought to tackle the Roman Catholic criticism of divorce and polygamy. He does so by comparing Luther's view of divorce and polygamy with Luther's view that of the Turks. He states,
Luther says: "Many divorces occur still among the Turks. If a wife does not yield to the husband, nor act according to his whim and fancy, he forthwith drives her out of the house, and takes one, two, three, or four additional wives, and defends his action by appealing to Moses. They have taken out of Moses such things as please them and pander to their lust. In Turkey they are very cruel to women; any woman that will not submit is cast aside. They toy with their women like a dog with a rag. When they are weary of one woman, they quickly put her beneath the turf and take another. Moses has said nothing to justify this practice. My opinion is that there is no real married life among the Turks; theirs is a whorish life. It is a terrible tyranny, all the more to be regretted because God does not withhold the common blessing from their intercourse: children are procreated thereby, and yet the mother is sent away by the husband. For this reason there is no true matrimony among the Turks. In my opinion, all the Turks at the present time are bastards." (7, 965.)
All this is plain enough and should suffice to secure Luther against the charge of favoring polygamy. The seeming admission that polygamy might be permissible relates to cases for which the laws of all civilized nations make provisions. How a Christian must conduct himself in such a case must be decided on the evidence in each case. Likewise, the reference to the Christian's liberty from the law does not mean that the Christian has the potential right to polygamy, but it means that he must maintain his monogamous relation from a free and willing choice to obey God's commandments in the power of God's grace. Polygamy, this is the firm conviction of Luther, could only be sanctioned if there were a plain command of God to that effect. Luther's remarks about matrimony among the Turks should be remembered when Catholics cite Luther's remarks about King Ahasuerus dismissing Vashti and summoning Esther, and the right of the husband to take to himself his maid-servant when his wife refuses him. By all divine and human laws the matter to which Luther refers is a just ground for divorce, and that is all that Luther declares."
Lutheran theologian Ewald Plass said of this shocking quote, “The words, ‘If the wife is not willing, bring on the maid’ have been notoriously misconstrued by having been quoted out of context. As the following words clearly show, Luther is thinking of a separation and a remarriage, not a sort of concubinage” [Ewald Plass, What Luther Says vol 2, p.901, fn. 20]. Plass then provides a number of statements from Luther on Luther's views on marriage and divorce.
A lengthy defense of the quote "If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not" is suggested by LW 45. It mentions that put forth by Lutheran theologian Wilhelm Walther:
A charitable explanation of Luther’s use of the phrase is found in Wilhelm Walther, Für Luther wider Rom (Halle: Niemeyer, 1906), pp. 693–695. He suggests that Luther deliberately put these proverbial expressions into the mouth of the offended husband in order that the offending wife might know that her husband’s feelings in the matter were not peculiar to him but represented a generally accepted point of view [LW 45:33, fn. 34].
To my knowledge, this book is not available in English but can be found in its original German here. Walther's refutation is excellent and thorough.
The following is the lengthy argument from Wilhelm Walther, pages 693-695 along with a cursory A.I. English translation.
Google A.I. English translation:
The [Roman Catholics] most sharply accuse him of his advice concerning the refusal of marital duty.
This refusal is also a grave sin according to Roman law. But what is to happen if one deprives and withdraws from the other? According to Luther, a woman who refuses to pay her marital duty or remain with her husband "tears apart" the marriage. She thereby effectively annuls the marriage. Then, however, "the secular authorities must compel or kill the woman. If they do not do so, the husband must think that his wife has been taken from him by robbers and killed and seek another." He therefore advises such a man to threaten his wife with the prospect of divorce and remarriage, and should she persist in her "stubbornness," to carry out this threat. Naturally, the Roman Catholics, with their erroneous understanding of the indissolubility of marriages recognized by their church, must consider this false. But they should allow Luther to say nothing other than what he wants to say. They interpret his words as if the husband should then go to another woman, perhaps his maid, as if he himself had given advice and permission for adultery." And yet Luther says quite clearly that such a man should "get" another wife, and has just written beforehand how this should happen: "Divorce publicly, so that one may change (remarry), this must be done through secular investigation and force, so that the adultery is evident to everyone; or where the [authorities] will not do so, divorce with the knowledge of the community." Accordingly, he continues in our passage: "However, the husband should tell her this two or three times beforehand and warn her and let it happen before other people, so that her obstinacy is publicly known and punished before the community. If she still does not want to, then let her leave you and let her give you an Esther and the Vashti go, as King Assyrian did (Esther 2:17)." Denifle continues all this and quotes only the words: "One can find a stubborn woman who sets her mind on it, and should the man fall into insolence ten times, she still doesn't ask. Then it's time for the man to say to her: "If you don't want it, another will; if the wife doesn't want it, then the maid will come." Janssen quotes a little more. He excuses his omission of the entire passage with the words: "The whole passage cannot be published because of its obscenity." However, he later forgot this excuse himself; for in his second word to his critics, he prints it in its entirety.
Even Protestants, when presented with only the few words that Denifle quotes, have taken offense. This is because Luther also writes: "If you don't want it, another will; if the wife doesn't want it, then the maid will come." It was assumed that Luther was thereby expressing his advice, as if the man were permitted to go to his maid in such a case. This, however, is completely ruled out by what he said before and after about the path a man should take to arrange a marriage elsewhere. That sentence, however, was not even coined by Luther. He merely quotes two old proverbs. But when I express a thought using a proverb, only the intended thought comes into consideration, not the accidental form given to it by popular wisdom; here, therefore, only the thought that a woman who refuses her husband her marital duty forfeits her right to him. The husband should point this out to his wife, using the proverb, to make it clear to her that this is a general view, not an idea of his own. Anyone who wants to force the accidental wording of the proverb must also read in Luther that every man in the situation in question may desire no one other than his maid as a wife. Because, however, a misinterpretation of his words is conceivable due to the use of the proverb, Luther specifically adds: "However, in such a way that the man first warns the woman several times, then brings in others, tries to bring her to her senses before the community, and only then, if all is in vain, lets himself be taken by another."
Finally, what motivates Luther to give this advice to a man in such a situation? Why doesn't he demand that he abstain from marital relations altogether, even under such difficult circumstances? Denifle claims that his advice follows quite consistently from his Epicurean principle that abstinence is an impossible demand, that one cannot resist the natural urge. Is this correct? Or is Luther driven by righteous anger at what he believes to be the "disintegration" of the marriage by this woman? This question can be answered very definitively For in the same sermon in which the words in question are found, Luther also considered cases where, through divine providence and without any fault on the part of the woman, the man is unable to satisfy his natural drive within marriage, for example, if the woman is ill for an extended period. If Denifle is correct, then Luther must have permitted the man, even in such a case, to find other ways to satisfy his needs. But he writes: “What if someone has a sick spouse who has been of no use to him in his marital duties? Should he not take another? By no means! But if you say: Yes, I cannot abstain; you are mistaken… God is far too faithful to deprive you of your spouse in this way through illness, and not also to deprive you of the flesh’s desires when you otherwise faithfully serve your sick husband.” After that, all the talk of Denifle and his predecessors regarding Luther’s assertion of the irresistibility of the sexual drive, in the sense they intend, is pure slander. Rather: As soon as God imposes abstinence on us, we can and should practice it. However, it is not God who has imposed abstinence on priests, monks, and nuns, but their own will, and God clearly shows some of them that this was against his will. This is Luther’s irrefutable view.
Addendum #2 The Latin Text of the Quote from Martini Lutheri de matrimonio sermo, habitus Wittembergae anno 1522
Tertia ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persolvere nolit, aut habitare cum renuerit. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, quae, etiamsi decies in libidinem prolaberetur maritus, pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic opportunum est, ut maritus dicat: Si tu nolueris, alia volet, si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla, ita tamen ut antea iterum et tertio uxorem admoneat maritus, et coram aliis ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante conspectum Ecclesiae duritia ejus et agnoscatur et reprehendatur. Si tum renuat, repudia eam, et in vicem Vasti Ester surroga, Assueri regis exemplo.
A secondary related issue arises with this obscure quote, that being Luther's view of the canonicity of the book of Esther. There have been many voices saying Luther denied the canonicity of the book of Esther. Here though with this obscure quote, we find Luther positively referring to content in the book of Esther, saying, "take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did." Such a method of citation of the book of Esther can be found scattered throughout his written corpus. Here is a list of Luther's mentioning the book of Esther in his writings as compiled by Hans Bardtke, Luther und das Buch Esther, p. 88-90. Except for a few occurrences on this list, Luther's mentioning of the book of Esther lacks criticism. The book is referenced similarly as it in The Estate of Marriage.In a future blog entry, I'll be going though the references compiled by Bardtke.
"Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel (1534). Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther)" [LW 35:353].
Posts
