"A Broken Clock is Right Twice a Day"

There have a been a number of occasions in which someone has responded to me, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." I've had the comment directed to me personally and I've also had it directed toward Luther.  While the statement may appear to be logical, it's drenched in negative sentiment, and meant to be an insult.  It's tantamount to saying to someone, "I think you're a fool, but you got _____ correct. There are a few of reasons why I personally do not use this statement.

1."Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is correct about something by luck or by chance. When used against me, it often infers that the conclusion I've reached on a topic is not the result of research and hard work. As my blog entries demonstrate, a lot of work goes into something before it's posted. 

2. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" has the inference that someone is usually wrong on everything, but in a rare instance got something correct. I think this is just an expression of the ad hominem fallacy, of insulting someone personally even if one agrees with their point or conclusion. Rome's defenders have hurled this insult at me particularly when I present historical facts they've gotten wrong. They mention I'm correct and they're wrong but then proceed to insult me. 

3. I've seen "even a broken clock is right twice a day" applied to Luther after I point out that a defender of Rome trashes Martin Luther but then appeals to him positively. This is the same method of insult as described above.  My usual response is to turn the tables by showing that Rome's defenders are still using Luther as an authority.

For instance, I interacted with a defender of Rome that repeatedly uses this Luther quote: "In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church" (A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373). This quote is meant to demonstrate that Luther ultimately believed Jesus established the pope / papacy in Matthew 16. Rome's defender ignored the fact that this writing was from 1520: a transitional year that ended with Luther being threatened with excommunication from the papacy and being officially excommunicated in January 1521. 

It is also rather odd since Luther went on to trash the pope and papacy numerous (if not countless!) times, demonstrated throughout his writings throughout the majority of his life. For instance, note these statements from Luther incorporated into The Book of Concord: 

[T]he pope is the real Antichrist who has raised himself over and set himself against Christ... [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 300). Mühlenberg Press].

Accordingly, just as we cannot adore the devil himself as our lord or God, so we cannot suffer his apostle, the pope or Antichrist, to govern us as our head or lord, for deception, murder, and the eternal destruction of body and soul are characteristic of his papal government, as I have demonstrated in many books [Tappert, T. G., ed. (1959). The Book of Concord the confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. (p. 301). Mühlenberg Press].

Rome's defender rejected these statements and clung to his sole prooftext. At that point I simply continued to praise him for accepting Luther as an authority! 

Luther: “The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God”

 

Here's one meme-ing its way around cyberspace: 

“The most damnable and pernicious heresy that has ever plagued the mind of man is that somehow he can make himself good enough to deserve to live forever with an all-holy God.”--- Martin Luther

Where did it come from? Via a few cursory searches the earliest usage in this exact form I could find was from D. James Kennedy, Evangelism Explosion (1977), p.38

Notice Kennedy does not put the statement in quotes.  As far as I can tell, this is the source where this English quote originated from. I suspect he's paraphrasing Luther. From where? I do not know!

Martin Luther: If Your Spouse is Sick... Take a New Wife?

Here's an old character defaming Roman Catholic analysis of Martin Luther from the nineteenth century:

At the end of the second part of the famous sermon on matrimony Luther has some words of comfort for those, whose husbands or wives are ill. He will not allow such illness to be considered as a legitimate cause of divorce. „Blessed art thou, if thou acknowledgest such a grace, and servest thy sick partner willingly in the name of God. If thou sayest, thou canst not contain thyself, I answer: thou liest." But alas! Words! Words! We are used to see the „Reformer" change his opinion and contradict himself. In 1527 a case is brought before him, of a certain Hans Behem, whose wife is suffering from leprosy. Luther decides, that, if the wife consents, the husband may consider her as dead and proceed to a new marriage. Car tel est notre plaisir. (17)

(17) De Wette III. 194. This decision will also be found Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S.

According to this nineteenth century Roman Catholic author, Martin Luther first stated that if a spouse is ill, that illness does not provide legitimate grounds for divorce. Then the author posits Luther is grossly inconsistent because later Luther approved of a man abandoning his sick wife and remarrying! This Roman Catholic author seals his interpretation with the French phrase, Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever whimsically pleasures him, like swapping wives out when the first one breaks. 

Let's take a closer look and see if Luther was inconsistent and was suggesting licentious wife changing. 

Documentation
The quote above comes from a book by J. Verres, Luther an Historical Portrait, p. 211-212.  The 1884 version I utilized does not contain the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. This book was quoted more frequently in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than it is today. I've not uncovered much about this author other than he was a nineteenth century German Roman Catholic (as per his admission). There are a number of old reviews of Luther: An Historical Portrait.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review. What's useful about this negative review is that it seems his contemporaries didn't know much about him either. Th review states, "Dr. Verres, we believe, a Catholic priest whom the vexatious Maigesetze compelled to find a second home in England." His book is best classified as belonging to the Roman Catholic period of destructive criticism of Martin Luther.

Two references are provided. The first is "De Wette III. 194." This refers to Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe. This is a collection of Luther's letters edited by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette in the nineteenth century. This exact reference can be found here. It is a letter from Luther to Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf, August 23, 1527.To my knowledge, this letter has not been officially translated into English.  

The second reference is "Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S." Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  In his book, "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836."  What Verres is citing is a second-hand source of comments Luther is alleged to have made, written down by his collogues and friends published after his death. These second-hand statements can be helpful as corroborating evidence for something Luther is known to have written or said while alive. The version / edition of Tischreden Volume 2 as cited by Verres does not appear to be available online as of the writing of this entry.  However, what Verres may be referring to is this Tischreden entry, WA Tr 6:267,6915. This text also provides some extra information.

Context

De Wette III. 194

English Translation from Google A.I.:

Grace and peace in Christ. Your Grace. I have received your letter concerning H. B., and at your request, this is my reply. Since the same H. B. neither knows nor is able, as he indicates, to manage his household without a wife, I neither know nor can prevent him from taking another wife to accept; he too is well excused by God, because a previous body willingly departed from him in this way, eternally forfeiting itself, thereby (justly) being considered dead and he himself being free to judge by her. But if she had not so completely consented, it would be another matter; for otherwise so much malice is undertaken everywhere in matters of God that it is not easy to admit so many offenses. With this, God be with you.") 1527

Alternate English A.I. Translation (DeepL):

I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my answer: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Moreover, he is well excused before God because his previous wife willingly divorced him and eternally forgives him, so that she is justly considered dead and he himself is free from her judgment. If, however, she had not so completely consented, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much wantonness is practiced in marital matters that it is not easy to acknowledge so much offense. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

 

WA Tr 6:267,6915. 

 

 English Translation from Google A.I.

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the excommunication the marriage, D. M. L. objections to Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus settled. (A.449; St.564; p. Append. 15) A woman had become exile, and willingly and without coercion entered the hospital and permitted her husband to take another. Thereupon, D. M. L. raised objections, as follows:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, firm, dear Lord and Friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Furthermore, I believe he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him and has forgiven him, since she is rightfully considered dead and he himself is free from judgment. If, however, she had not so completely forgiven him, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much willful intent is taken in marital matters that it is not easy to accept so much wrongdoing. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

DeepL English Rendering:

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the divorce, D. M. L. Concerns about Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus dealt with. (A.449; St.564; S. Append. 15) A woman had been divorced and had willingly and voluntarily entered the hospital and allowed her husband to take another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. raised the following concerns:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, steadfast, dear sir and friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: If Hans Behem does not know how to manage his household, as he states, without a wife, then I do not know how to prevent or forbid him from taking another wife, and also, he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him, and he has forgiven her, since she is rightly to be considered dead and he himself is free from her. But if she had not been so completely lost, it would be another matter. For otherwise, so much arbitrariness is committed in matrimonial matters that it is not easy to grant so much forgiveness. With this, I commend you to God. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527."

Additional Information

Google A.I.  English Translation

The woman who had been expelled willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and allowed the man to woo another. Thereupon, D. M. L. sent a letter to Joachim von Weispach of Reyuersdorf, which was:

DeepL English Translation

The woman who was sent away willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and told her husband to find another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. had the following thoughts about Joachim von Weispach zu Reyuersdorff:

Conclusion
While these are clunky A.I. English translations, there are easily discernable facts: On August 23, 1527, Luther received a letter from Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf on behalf of Hans Behem. Behem's wife was stricken by a disease and taken (or went willingly) to the hospital. At some point during this illness, the husband (Hans Behem) asked his wife for a divorce and permission to marry another since he could not care of his household on his own. The wife completely consented. Luther says, if this severely ill woman had not consented, he would have given different answer, implying a negative answer. 

Here is what's not easily discernable. I could locate no specific information about either Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf or Hans Behem. The text is unclear whether or not the woman had died at this point in the writing of the response of Luther's letter.

What then of the charge of Luther's charges leveled by Verres? First, the charge of Luther's gross inconsistency. Verres is contrasting this 1527 private letter with Luther's earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage. Beggars All provides a detailed look at exactly what Verres was referring to. In that treatise, Luther symbiotically joined marriage and family 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). Hence when Behem presented the hardship of caring for his household alone, Luther viewed a two-parent household over a single-parent household. Because of the symbiotic relationship between marriage and family, Luther's allowance is consistent. True, Luther did write in 1522 that one is not free to divorce a sick spouse, but that again is symbiotically related to family. If a spouse is sick and unable to bear children, the other spouse is not free to divorce but to accept the situation he has been placed in by God. In Behem's complicated situation, it appears by managing a household, children were involved, and the wife willingly granted permission to her husband to divorce her. But what the charge by Verres that Luther's view is Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever pleasures him? This is not found in the letter at all, nor the earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage.