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.

Martin Luther and Polygamy... from AI and Wikipedia

People seem to blatantly trust whatever an AI search spits out. For instance, during the initial stages of the takeover of Artificial Itelligence, I had a hostile interaction with a Roman Catholic on Martin Luther and Polygamy. Despite the hostility and the negativity, this defender of Rome was inadvertently positively helpful in showing me early on how AI searches are not necessarily accurate.  Here was the AI screenshot he provided to prove his claims:

While there are a few claims presented, that which most intrigued me was "In 1521, Luther permitted a man to take a second wife." I'm familiar with the popular key pieces of evidence used to paint Martin Luther as a blatant polygamist, but the date of a 1521 was something I did not recall hearing before. I've not been able to recreate this AI search to get the exact same wording result presented in this screenshot (I wanted to see what link the little paperclip icon opens). I've gotten very close wordings, and each of them links to Wikipedia's article, Polygamy in Christianity. I suspect this is the source the AI search is pulling from. Wikipedia states, 

Martin Luther deplored divorce (only permitting it in the cases of adultery and the Pauline privilege) and taught that polygamy was allowed in Scripture, citing positive examples of it from the biblical patriarchs; as such in 1521, he granted the approval for a man to take a second wife, and again in 1539 for Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse to take a second wife.[68][69]

[68] Sorensen, Rob (7 July 2016). Martin Luther and the German Reformation. Anthem Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-1-78308-441-8.

[69] Cole, William Graham (6 November 2015). Sex in Christianity and Psychoanalysis. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-35977-7. Luther's preference for bigamy to divorce appeared again in the case of Philipp of Hesse. Luther insisted that whatever was not specifically forbidden by Scripture was an option for the Christian, and not only is there no Biblical ban on polygamy, there are positive examples of it, in the patriarchs. In January of 1521, long before the affair of either Philipp or Henry, Luther had written to a friend whose marital life was wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife and who had asked whether he might take a second wife. At that time Luther had responded that he could raise no objection if a man wished to take several wives, since Holy Scripture does not forbid it.

Wikipedia says it's a 1521 letter in which Luther "granted the approval for a man to take a second wife." Let's try and track Wiki's information down and see if it is accurate (spoiler: it isn't). Secondarily, we'll see that Martin Luther was not an unrestrained supporter of polygamy. He had a complex view, sometimes approving of it and sometimes disapproving of it depending on the reason or the context. 

Documentation

Wiki cites two sources. These sources appear to have been added in June 10, 2021.  I don't have access to the first source (Sorensen) and Wiki doesn't provide a page number or quote from Sorensen, so I suspect a trivial reference is being put forth. The second reference to William Graham Cole's book was added in first. This second source appears to be that which the 1521 date comes from, I'm going to assume Wiki's contributor primarily utilized the second source (Cole) for their information. Here's what the second source states:

Luther’s preference for bigamy to divorce appeared again in the case of Philip of Hesse. Luther insisted that whatever was not specifically forbidden by Scripture was optional for the Christian, and not only is there no Biblical ban on polygamy, there are positive examples of it, in the patriarchs. In January of 1521, long before the affair of either Philipp or Henry, Luther had written to a friend whose marital life was wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife and who had asked whether he might take a second wife. At that time Luther had responded that he could raise no objection if a man wished to take several wives, since Holy Scripture does not forbid it. Still, he went on to say, he would not like to see the practice become general, for Christians ought not to seize greedily upon anything to which their freedom gives them the right. This is very characteristic of Luther. He refused to legalize, he insisted on the liberty of the Christian man, but he wanted all believers to exercise their freedom with great care as to its effect upon others. He would only give advice and opinion, not command. Each man must, in the light of his own conscience, work out his course of action. Luther had been a confessor and he always displayed serious pastoral concern for those who turned to him in trouble. This was his attitude toward Philip of Hesse, who sought Luther’s help. Philip was saddled with a homely and frigid wife. He was infatuated with a younger woman who responded to his ardor with warmth. Divorce was beyond his reach, and he wrote to ask Luther if he might take a second wife. Luther strongly urged him to try to bear his cross with patience and courage, but when it became apparent that Philipp could not do this, that it was a second wife or a mistress, the pastor gave his approval to the former course of action, telling Philipp, however, that the whole matter must be kept secret. Luther was not alone in his views on polygamy, incidentally, as they were shared by no less a person than Cardinal Cajetan of the Roman curia, who advised the Pope to grant a dispensation to Henry VIII to take Anne Boleyn as a second wife. Luther was convinced that some sort of sex life is essential to all men, and in special cases of necessity, he regarded bigamy as a lesser evil than fornication or adultery.

William Graham Cole does not document his assertions. He claims the following:

1. Luther wrote a letter to a friend in January 1521.

2. That friend had written to Luther that he had a "marital life...  wholly asexual owing to the illness of his wife" and "asked whether he might take a second wife."

Both of these assertions are false. He does though present correct information:

1. Luther did not positively advocate for polygamy ("...he would not like to see the practice become general...").

2. Luther did not want to legalize polygamy ("He refused to legalize, he insisted on the liberty of the Christian man, but he wanted all believers to exercise their freedom with great care as to its effect upon others...").

I know of no letter from Martin Luther written to a friend from January 1521 addressing these issues. Based on what William Graham Cole wrote, I suspect he's actually referring to Luther's letter from January 13, 1524 to Chancellor Gregory Brück possibly mixed in with Luther's comments from his treatise, The Estate of Marriage (1522). I conclude this because in that 1524 Letter Luther stated almost the exact sentiment Cole mentions: "For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity." Compare this to what Cole summarizes: "For Christians ought not to sieze greedily to anything to which their freedom gives them the right."

The Chancellor had written to Luther asking for advice as to what to do about Luther's former colleague, Andreas Carlstadt. Carlstadt was using the Mosaic law to allow those people following him to have multiple wives. The letter had nothing to do with Luther writing to a friend about his asexual sick wife and wanting to take a second wife. In the 1524 letter, Luther does say that he cannot discount the practice of polygamy based on the Bible, but he goes on to say much more. Notice all the caveats Luther mentions about polygamy, entirely left out of Cole's presentation:

As for me, I truly admit that I cannot prohibit it if someone wishes to marry several wives, nor is it repugnant to the Sacred Scriptures: in truth, however, I would not want such an example introduced among Christians in the first place, among whom it is proper to abstain even from things that are allowed, in order to avoid scandal, and for the integrity of life, which everywhere Paul requires (Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy, p. 17). For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go. Perhaps they will even introduce circumcision at Orlamünde and will become Jews entirely (Luther, An Historical Portrait, p. 313.

Original text: Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere,si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis:verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci,apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt,pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubiquePaulus exigit. Vehementer enim dedecet Christianos, summaet novissima libertatis tam anxie pro suis commodis sectari,et tamen vulgaria illa et necessaria charitatis negligere. Ideoin sermone meo nolui hanc fenestram aperire, et vix credo,sic desertum a Deo Christianum, ut non queat continere conjux divinitus impedita Curiositas, metuo, in causa sit. Verumsinitote ire, quo it, forte etiam adhuc circumcidentur Orlamundae, et toti Mosaici futuri sunt (WA Br 3:231).  

Conclusion

The main lesson here is to not necessarily trust every bit of AI information spit back from an inquiry. Go the extra mile: look things up! Challenge dates and facts put forth by AI. Don't be surprised to discover Wikipedia as a main AI source. I asked ChatGPT directly: Does ChatGPT utilize Wikipedia as a reliable source for information? It replied: 

Yes — ChatGPT may use information that also appears on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia content was likely part of the broad public internet data used during training... In practice: Wikipedia is often reasonably accurate for general topics. ChatGPT can reflect information commonly found there. But ChatGPT can also reproduce Wikipedia’s errors, omissions, or editorial biases.

I also asked ChatGPT: Why would ChatGPT utilize Wikipedia as a source if the authors of Wikipedia entries are anonymous and biased? It responded in part:

Because large language models are trained on enormous amounts of publicly available text, and Wikipedia is one of the largest and most heavily linked knowledge repositories on the internet. Ignoring it entirely would remove a substantial amount of commonly referenced factual material... Your concern about anonymity and bias is still valid, especially in controversial fields...Those issues are more serious in: theology, politics, history, philosophy, ethics, disputed scientific or social questions. That is why historically rigorous work should not stop at Wikipedia. For example, when discussing Martin Luther, relying only on Wikipedia instead of primary texts and scholarly editions can easily produce oversimplifications or inaccurate claims.

I understand the scope of Wikipedia and why AI would use it... but I see a fundamental flaw in utilizing anonymous non-vetted sources! It doesn't add up. One other thing to realize is that AI models are set to gravitate to certain places on the Internet, determined by higher traffic. For instance, I asked the AI program Claude the following question: Do AI searches utilize Beggars All, Reformation and Apologetics? It responded: "Possibly, but unreliably and not by default." It then informed me that it tends to downplay Blogspot and WordPress content in favor of "institutional websites (.edu, .org, established news outlets)" because the former have "lower domain authority scores." Claude also stated:

AI searches like mine are not neutral. They reflect the biases of the search engines they rely on, which in turn reflect the biases of who gets to build authoritative web presences. A blog like Beggar's All Reformation...  would almost certainly offer a more nuanced and theologically grounded critique than several of the sources I actually used. The fact that it doesn't surface is a flaw in the tool, not a judgment on the quality of the content.

A secondary lesson not expounded on in this entry is that Martin Luther had a complex view of polygamy, sometimes he approved of it and sometimes he didn't. In this helpful article, Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy from Concordia Theological Journal, multiple statements from Luther are provided on his view of polygamy. When they're all viewed together, a clear picture arises that Luther did not haphazardly hold a view on polygamy (see particularly pages 33-34). The author states: 

It is relatively easy to select isolated quotations from Luther’s writings that make him appear to be completely inconsistent, at times approving, and at times disapproving, of polygamy. When Luther’s statements are examined together, one can see that his teaching about polygamy was for the most part consistent, though quite complex: he both approved and disapproved of polygamy, but for different reasons and in different contexts.

Eventually I think Luther experienced the problem of leaving the door open for polygamy. After the Philipp of Hesse debacle, Luther wrote:

Anyone following this fellow [Philipp of Hesse] and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell (Brecht 3:214).

Original text: Wer diesen Buben vnd buch folgete, vnd darauff mher denn eine Ehefrawen nimpt, vnd wil, das es ein Recht sein sol, dem gesegen der Teufel das bad in abgrund der hellen, Amen (WA 53:195-196).

The Roman Catholic caricature that Martin Luther unabashedly supported polygamy can be easily refuted by asking this basic question: how many wives did Martin Luther have? Answer: he had but one whom he was faithfully devoted to. Something doesn't add up with the Roman Catholic caricature: if Luther was such a devout supporter of polygamy, why didn't he himself have many wives? As I've experienced researching polygamy, those advocating for it practice it themselves and create biblical justification.  

Addendum #1 Resources for Martin Luther's View of Polygamy

The topic of Martin Luther and polygamy is complicated.  In Roman Catholic citations of Luther on polygamy, one pictures Luther flagrantly teaching and allowing polygamy, as if he and all his associates at Wittenberg had multiple wives. They did not! It is historically inaccurate to say Martin Luther supported or encouraged polygamy. Luther's dabbling in the theological basis for polygamy was hypothetical, cautioned, and sometimes outright denied.

Here are two helpful resources for this topic:

Luther's Connection with the Divorce of Henry VIII of England and the Bigamy of Philip of Hessen. What's useful about this article is it points out all the issues of polygamy the Roman Catholic Church has encountered. 

Luther's Authentic Voice on Polygamy: This article is a goldmine of citations from Luther on Polygamy.

Addendum #2 Martin Luther's Letter to Gregory Brück, January 13, 1524

Gratia et pax. Viro, qui secundam uxorem consilio Carlstadiipetit, optime Domine Doctor, sic respondeat Princeps:Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmumac certum per verbum Dei, sibi haec licere. Eos ergo requirat,qui verbo Dei eum tutum reddant: si is Carlstadius, velalius fuerit, nihil ad Principem. Neque enim si alioqui incertusest, per Principis consensum tutus esse poterit, cujus inhac re non sit quicquam decernere, et sacerdotum sit respondereverbum Dei, ex cujus ore requirent legem Domini, ut Zacharias dicit. Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere,si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis:verum tamen apud Christianos id exempli nollem primo introduci,apud quos decet etiam ea intermittere, quae licita sunt,pro vitando scandalo, et pro honestate vitae, quam ubiquePaulus exigit. Vehementer enim dedecet Christianos, summaet novissima libertatis tam anxie pro suis commodis sectari,et tamen vulgaria illa et necessaria charitatis negligere. Ideoin sermone meo nolui hanc fenestram aperire, et vix credo,sic desertum a Deo Christianum, ut non queat continere conjuxdivinitus impedita Curiositas, metuo, in causa sit. Verumsinitote ire, quo it, forte etiam adhuc circumcidentur Orlamundae, et toti Mosaici futuri sunt.

Scripsi et antea de alio casu, nescio, an literas reddiderit,qui accepit. Caeterum praedicatores pro Olsnizen duoshabeo. Sed unus, quem maxime vellem in hoc ministerioservire, uxorculam habet: alioquin omnibus dotibus pollet,quae evangelistam decent, modestia, eruditione, pietate etmorum honestate simul cum uxorcula insignis. Nam plusduobus annis inculpate ac magna cum laude vivit apud nos.Is est parochus Cranachio ab episcopopo Bambergensi pulsusob conjugium, cui tolerabilis fuisset, si scortator et adulteresse voluisset, id quod ei concessum ac permissum erat. Siis placet vel non placet, aut ferri vel non ferri potest, significaripeto. Nam eum in nostris regionibus teneri velim, ut est rarus talium virorum vultus, alioqui jam extra terras aliovocatur. Vale, et Principibus me commenda. Wittembergae MDXXIV. feria 4. post Pauli. T. Martinus Luther (WA Br 3:231). 

Grace and peace. To the man who, on Carlstadt's advice, seeks a second wife, Your Excellency, Doctor, the Prince should reply as follows: That he, the husband, must be firm and certain in his own conscience by the word of God that it is lawful for him to do this. Therefore let him consult those who will make him secure by the word of God: whether he is Carlstadt or someone else, it matters nothing to the Prince. For even if he is otherwise uncertain, he cannot be made secure by the Prince's consent, since the Prince has nothing to decide in this matter, and it is for the priests to respond with the word of God, from whose mouth they will seek the law of the Lord, as Zechariah says. I, for my part, confess that I cannot forbid anyone from taking more than one wife, if it does not contradict the Holy Scriptures; yet I would not want such a practice to be first introduced among Christians, among whom it is fitting to forgo even lawful things to avoid scandal and for the sake of the integrity of life that Paul demands everywhere. For it is exceedingly shameful for Christians to pursue the highest and newest freedoms so anxiously for their own convenience, and yet to neglect those common and necessary acts of charity. For this reason, in my sermon I did not want to open this window, and I can hardly believe that a Christian, so deserted by God, could not contain a wife divinely provided. I fear curiosity is the cause. But let him go where he is going; perhaps the Orlamunds are still being circumcised, and are to be entirely Mosaic.

I wrote before about another case; I don't know whether the recipient has returned the letters. However, I have two preachers for Olsnizen. But one, whom I would most like to have serve in this ministry, has a little wife; otherwise he possesses all the gifts befitting an evangelist—modesty, learning, piety, and an honorable character—and is distinguished even with his little wife. For he has lived among us for more than two years without reproach and with great praise. He is the pastor who was driven out of Cranach by the Bishop of Bamberg because of his marriage, which would have been tolerable if he had wanted to be a fornicator and adulterer, which had been granted and permitted to him. If it pleases or displeases you, or can or cannot be borne, I ask for a sign. For I would like him to remain in our regions, since such men are a rare sight; otherwise, he is already being called away abroad. Farewell, and commend me to the Princes. Wittenberg, 1524. Wednesday after [the Conversion of] Paul. Your Martin Luther.

Luther: "Let Vashti Go and Take an Esther, as did the King Ahasuerus"... a Blueprint for Polygamy and Divorce?

Here's a shocking obscure Martin Luther quote utilized in Father Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther: 

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:

Did this article take the quote from O'Hare? I'm not sure, but I've not found any older English renderings of the quote that predate and coincide with O'Hare's version. Nor do I know where O'Hare's English rendering came from. Is it O'Hare's rendering? I doubt it came from him translating from primary sources. As I've looked into the quotes he's utilized, the majority come from secondary hostile Roman Catholic sources. He was a flagrant copy-and-paster. It could very well be though he's summarizing the quote from a secondary source.

 

The reference from this 1948 news article is also a mystery. It does not appear in O'Hare's book but the volume 5 reference does find its way into the Roman Catholic assault Luther an Historical Portrait from the nineteenth century which predates O'Hare. There are other nineteenth century hits as well (here and here) and a twentieth century reference that predates O'Hare.

 The author of the article made a mistake citing :Wittenb. vol. 1." "Wittenb." refers to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings (1539-1558). When I checked the Wittenberg edition German volumes 1 and 5, the quote does not occur. In the Latin volumes, the quote does not occur at Wittenb. 1, 123, but... it does occur at Wittenb. 5, 123:

Helpfully, Father Denifle does provide a reference: "Erl. 20,72." "Erl." refers to the old Erlangen edition of Luther's writings, which can be abbreviated a number of ways (Erl, E, EA, Werke, etc.). Volume 20 page 72 can be found here. Denifle is citing the German text, not the Latin. The quote is on this page toward the bottom:

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).

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. God has entrusted to its bosom souls begotten of its own body, on whom it can lavish all manner of Christian works. Most certainly father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short, there is no greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is both spiritual and temporal. Whoever teaches the gospel to another is truly his apostle and bishop. Mitre and staff and great estates indeed produce idols, but teaching the gospel produces apostles and bishops. See therefore how good and great is God’s work and ordinance! (LW 45:46).

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. This charge against Luther is even recognized by him in The Estate of Marriage:

I once wrote down some advice concerning such persons for those who hear confession. It related to those cases where a husband or wife comes and wants to learn what he should do: his spouse is unable to fulfil the conjugal duty, yet he cannot get along without it because he finds that God’s ordinance to multiply is still in force within him. Here they have accused me of teaching that when a husband is unable to satisfy his wife’s sexual desire she should run to somebody else. Let the topsyturvy liars spread their lies. The words of Christ and his apostles were turned upside down; should they not also turn my words topsy-turvy? To whose detriment it will be they shall surely find out (LW 45:20).

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 “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come"

Sometimes this quote is put forth: “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come." It's from the same cntext of the quote in question. Popularly, this quote has a home on the propaganda filled webpage, Luther, Exposing the Myth. With slight variation, the quote can be found in the English translation of Hartmann Grisar, Luther, vol. 3, p.253. Grisar is worth citing at length. He's a hostile source but admits Luther is often wrongly understood on this quote. He writes, 

He declares, first, that if one or other of the married parties should be convicted of obstinately refusing “to render the conjugal due, or to remain with the other,” then ‘‘the marriage was annulled”; the husband might then say: ‘‘If you are unwilling, some other will consent; if the wife refuse, then let the maid come’’; he had the full right to take an Esther and dismiss Vasthi, as King Assucrus had done (Esther ii. 17).1_ To the remonstrances of his wife he would be justified in replying: ‘‘ Go, you prostitute, go to the devil if you please”; the injured party was at liberty to contract a fresh union, though only with the sanction of the authorities or of the congregation, while the offending party incurred the penalty of the law and might or might not be permitted to marry again.

The words: "If you won’t ... then let the maid come" were destined to become famous. Not Catholics only, but Protestants too, found in them a stone of offence. As they stand they give sufficient ground for scandal. Was it, however, Luther’s intention thereby to sanction relations with the maid outside the marriage bond? In fairness the question must be answered in the negative. Both before and after the critical passage the text speaks merely of the dissolution of the marriage and the contracting of another union; apart from this, as is clear from other passages, Luther never sanctioned sexual commerce outside matrimony. Thus, strictly speaking, according to him, the husband would only have the right to threaten the obstinate wife to put her away and contract a fresh union with the maid. At the same time the allusion to the maid was unfortunate, as it naturally suggested something different from marriage. In all probability it was the writer’s inveterate habit of clothing his thought in the most drastic language at his command that here led him astray. It may be that the sentence ‘‘Then let the maid come” belonged to a rude proverb which Luther used without fully adverting to its actual meaning, but it has yet to be proved that such a proverb existed before Luther’s day; at any rate, examples can be quoted of the words having been used subsequently as a proverb, on the strength of his example.

 Addendum #3 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.

 Addendum #4 Luther on Marriage by Scott Hendrix

Here's a helpful article from Lutheran Quarterly by Scott Hendrix. The article touches on Luther's view of women and its relationship to marriage.

Addendum #5 Luther's View of the Canonicity of the Book of Esther

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. 

The definitive answer on Luther's view of the canonicity of the Book of Esther may reside in his translation of the Bible into German. Luther translated Esther and allowed it in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his delineated Bible prefaces. He translated it, not with the Apocryphal books, but rather with the canonical books. If he considered it Apocryphal, why didn't he translate it with Apocrypha? Why didn't he place it with the Apocrypha when he placed the Biblical books in order? In fact, in one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings:

"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].

Luther's Polygamy? A Response to Mormon Apologists

There was a derailed discussion on a discussion board concerning Mormonism and polygamy  (some of the discussion was deleted, some was moved here).  As is standard per this topic, a Mormon defender entered the following Martin Luther quote into evidence as proof that the great Reformer likewise advocated polygamy:

"I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." - Martin Luther

To frame out the context of this discussion, a Mormon had stated, "Comments regarding Luther...and the followers of Luther...are appropriate in here when Luther actually approved of the very thing that followers of Luther are coming in here to lambaste US over." The Mormon goal is to point out "hypocrisy, double standards, 'mote and beam,' etc." In essence, as I see it, the Mormon argument is: if the polygamist finger is pointed at the Mormon church, don't ignore the fact that the same finger should also be pointed at Luther. One old Roman Catholic writer captured the heart of this controversy, "Perhaps this juxtaposition of Luther and the Mormon may be offensive to some of his friends. But we shall have the occasion to prove that Mormonism may confidently look up to Luther as a patron." On this topic, Rome's defenders have been supplying ammunition to Mormon apologists for years. We'll see below this very Luther quote came from a Roman Catholic author hostile to Luther and the Reformation.

It's easy to see why Mormons gravitate to this quote: it does indeed appear to present Luther as advocating blatant polygamy. Luther appears to be stating polygamy doesn't contradict scripture and that one should simply rely on their conscience and personal interpretation of "the word of God" to justify it. While I've been over this quote before, let's take a fresh look. We'll see that Luther was not advocating radical polygamy. We'll also see that the quote in context says something much different than the way it comes off in its propaganda form splattered all throughout cyberspace.

Documentation
The quote was cited as "Luter, Martin. De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330." The person who provided the reference said it was taken from the website of a Christian group "extolling polygamy." Perhaps it was this one? The same exact reference in the same exact form is presented.

The English form of the quote is exact to that as found in Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther, minus "pp. 329-330," and it's highly probable this is where the quote, in this form, was taken from. I doubt that Father O'Hare was responsible for the English rendering, though I've not been able to identify which secondary source he took it from (his English version appears to be his solely). More often than not, Father O'Hare simply did the equivalent of a cut-and-paste from hostile sources against Luther and the Reformation.  Wherever he took it from, we'll see below that O'Hare's version plays fast and loose with the context. Father O'Hare stated,

Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy. To say that he did not "counsel" polygamy, or that he advised that it should be kept secret as a sort of matter of "conscience," is utterly beside the facts. When Brück, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimer, heard that Carlstadt in 1524 advocated polygamy he consulted Luther on the new and pernicious teaching. The Reformer, not in the least abashed, openly and distinctly stated: "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter." (De Wette II, 459.) Many other clear statements wherein Luther sanctions polygamy might be reproduced here, but the one given above will suffice for the present.

In regard to the first part of the reference "De Wette II, 459": Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette was a Protestant scholar well-known for putting together an extensive collection of Luther's letters. Volume II:459 can be found here. The text reads,

This is the opening paragraph of a letter Luther wrote to Chancellor Gregory Brück on Jan. 27, 1524. Brück was a political figure-head (and supporter of the Reformation) in Electoral Saxony (LW 49:50). The letter does include comments about polygamy.

The second reference (not used by O'Hare) claims to be from the same De Wette volume, pointing to the earlier pages 329-330. These pages present Luther's letter to Spalatin, April 22, 1523 (the letter begins on page 329 and concludes on page 330). There is nothing though about polygamy in the letter, at all! If one does an online search for the phrase, "De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329-330," you'll discover this bogus reference repeated throughout cyberspace, most notably in Wikipedia's page, Polygamy in Christianity (see footnote #38). "pp. 329-330" isn't a reference to De Wette II at all, but rather to the 1987 TAN reprint of Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther, pages 329-330. Those are the pages in which Father O'Hare utilizes De Wette II, 459 and uses the quote in question.

Context

To my knowledge, there is no official English translation of the short letter presented in De Wette II, 459. Extended sections are available, typically from hostile Roman Catholic sources. For instance, Hartmann Grisar presents it, as does Audin. The following excerpt comes from Roman Catholic writer, J. Verres, Luther, An Historical Portrait, pp. 312-313. 

When in 1524 Carlstadt, then at Orlamünde, advocated polygamy, Brück, the Chancellor of the Duke of Saxe-Weimar, consulted Luther on this point. The reply was that such a thing could not be considered as forbidden in the new Law. Let the prince answer: "The husband must, by the word of God, be sure and certain in his own conscience, that it is lawful to him. Let him enquire of those who can make him sure through the word of God; whether this be done by Carlstadt or by anyone else this matters not to the prince. For if the man is uncertain, he cannot become certain through the consent of the prince, who in a matter of this sort cannot decide anything. It is the duty of the priests, to answer with the word of God . . .I confess that if a man wishes to marry several wives, I cannot forbid it, nor is it in opposition to the Holy Scriptures; but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go. Perhaps they will even introduce circumcision at Orlamünde and will become Jews entirely."

Conclusion

When the Latin text is consulted from De Wette II, 459, O'Hare's version is demonstrably odd. He has reversed the sentences. The first sentence actually appears further into the text ("Ego sane fateor, me non posse prohibere, si quis plures velit uxores ducere, nec repugnat sacris literis"). O'Hare's second and third sentences appear before it. O'Hare simply produced a sloppy summary of the opening of the letter, if it's his English translation at all. 

But there are greater problems with O'Hare's rendering. Luther was not simply saying, as O'Hare wants his readers to believe,  that a person wanting to be a bigamist needs nothing more than a certain conscience to justify it.  True, Luther does say that a person wanting a second wife needs to be sure of it himself ("Oportere ipsum maritum sua propria conscientia esse firmum ac certum per verbum Dei, sibi haec licere,"). Roman Catholic writers have jumped all over this. What O'Hare and many of Rome's defenders leave out is Luther's emphasis, that the prince had no jurisdiction in such a matter because "It is the duty of the priests, to answer with the word of God." Grisar's English version renders it as "For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned. " Luther is not simply saying to look into your heart and then do what you want. He's saying that secular authority should not decide on the matter, but rather spiritual authority. This paradigm was used later by the Wittenberg theologians during the Phillip of Hesse scandal. Phillip sought permission from theological leaders to take a second wife.

After this, Luther does say "I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture," but that is not the conclusion of the sentence (as O'Hare has it).  He goes on to immediately say,

...but I would not that such an example should be introduced amongst Christians, who ought to omit even lawful things for the sake of avoiding scandal and leading a pure life, as S. Paul demands. For it is very unbecoming to Christians, eagerly to pursue, for their own comfort, their liberty to its last consequences and yet to neglect the common and necessary duties of charity. Therefore I have not in my preaching opened this window, and I hardly believe, a Christian can be so far abandoned by God, that a man who by God's action is hindered (from the use of conjugal rights) should be unable to contain himself. But let things go where they go.

O'Hare leaves this out entirely! Note this interesting observation from McGiffert:

Some of the radical Anabaptists undertook to introduce polygamy, appealing to the patriarchal order of society in justification of their position. Even among Luther's followers and associates there was no little uncertainty about the matter, as was not altogether surprising when the old order of things was undergoing revision at so many points, including the marriage of monks, priests, and near relatives. But Luther himself was unalterably opposed to any such revolution. Monogamy he considered, under ordinary circumstances, alone tolerable in a Christian community, and held that no Christian ruler has any moral right to legalize polygamy. At the same time, finding no explicit prohibition in the Bible, he believed exceptions might be allowed in certain extreme cases such as are now generally recognized in Protestant countries as justifying divorce. Writing Chancellor Bruck about the matter in 1524, he said: I confess I am not able to forbid anybody to take more than one wife if he wishes to do so, nor do the sacred Scriptures forbid him. But I do not want this custom introduced among Christians, for it behooves them to give up things which are permitted, that scandal may be avoided and honorable living promoted, as Paul everywhere demands.

When O'Hare states, "Luther was an out-and-out believer in polygamy" he either grossly ignored the context, or perhaps never saw the context.  Rome's defender Hartmann Grisar explained the situation which provoked the letter was the sickness of a wife preventing "matrimonial intercourse." One must not immediately place this situation in a 21st century context. Offspring in the sixteenth century were of vital importance. Luther's response was not an all out anything goes. Rather, the comment was directed to an exception (For more on the "exception," see my earlier blog article). It is true Luther allowed for polygamy, but only in a very narrow sense. Heinrich Boehmer points out that it was only to be in cases of,

...severe necessity, for instance, if the wife develops leprosy or becomes otherwise unfit to live with her husband… But this permission is always to be restricted to such cases as severe necessity. The idea of legalizing general polygamy was far from the reformers mind. Monogamy was always to him the regular form of matrimony… (Luther And The Reformation in Light of Modern Research, 213-214).

This radical comment from Luther under scrutiny here was prompted by Luther's ex-colleague, Carlstadt. Carlstadt condoned a man taking a second wife. Von Ranke says of Carlstadt,

His rash and confused mind led him entirely to confound the national with the religious element of the Old Testament. Luther expected that before long circumcision would be introduced at Orlamunde [where Carlstadt was preaching], and thought it necessary seriously to warn the elector against attempts of this nature [source].

After Carlstadt had become increasingly radical, he left Wittenberg's faculty. Carlstadt went to Orlamunde in the Thuringian countryside, right around the time this letter from Luther was written (Jan. 27, 1524). The interesting thing about the quote in question is that by this time, Luther had a grave distrust of Carlstadt, yet in this letter Luther states, "it is the priests business to expound the Word of God." The way I read it, Luther is saying that secular authorities are not to interpret the Bible on this point. Rather, it is the job of spiritual authorities. For better or for worse, Carlstadt was the spiritual authority in Orlamunde. Early in 1524 the Wittenberg faculty took steps in attempting to recall Carlstadt from Orlamunde in order to try to curb his radical nature. They still held out some sort of hope that he wasn't too far gone in his radical leanings. The bigger point for Luther was not bigamy as such, but that secular authorities didn't have jurisdiction to interpret the Bible.

Was Luther the "patron saint" of Mormon polygamy? Hardly. While one could disagree with Luther's exception in regard to bigamy or while one could easily say Luther was wrong to even offer an exception, it's simply historically inaccurate to say Luther supported bigamy or polygamy in a Mormon sense. Had a Mormon defender read this quote in context, the difficulty in squaring Luther's view with their view is easily seen.  

I think it's ridiculous for Mormon apologists to use Luther on this issue. They paint him as some sort of all out polygamist, where, as I've studied it, Luther's dabbling in polygamy was typically hypothetical and cautioned, or out right denied. True, Luther got himself into mess with the scandal of Phillip of Hesse, but even in that, he was reluctant to authorize the bigamous relationship Phillip wanted. It wasn't like he was looking to allow Phillip to have a good time with two wives. When the entire situation was exposed, Phillip's supporters began writing books defending polygamy. Luther then wrote things like, "Anyone following this fellow and his book and takes more than one wife, and thinks that this is right, the devil will prepare for him a bath in the depths of hell. Amen" (Martin Brecht, Martin Luther the Preservation of the Church Vol. 3 1532-1546 , p. 214).