Commandment.

In 1519, Luther wrote “A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage” in which he says there are three kinds of loves: false love, natural love, and married love.[1]  False love is idolatry; natural love is that between parents and children, friends and relatives.  And then Luther goes on to say this of married love:

     “Over and above all these is married love, that is, a bride’s love which glows like a fire and desires nothing but the husband” and “All other kinds of love seek something other than the loved one: this kind wants only to have the beloveds’s own self completely.”[2] 

Luther clarifies that married love, too— can be corrupted and he follows up that statement by suggesting that it takes “special grace from God” to remain a celibate.   The remainder of his sermon points to the three theological functions of marriage. 

1) Marriage is sacrament: “It is an outward and spiritual sign of the greatest, holiest, worthiest, and noblest thing that has ever existed or will exist: the union of the divine and human natures in Christ.”[3]

2) Marriage is a “covenant of fidelity” that two people promise to one another.

3) The third is what Luther calls the “chief function of marriage”: “producing offspring” (who should be brought up well). 

So of course I then wondered how long marriage existed as a sacrament for Luther and the Lutheran church.  If Luther views marriage a sacrament of course, married love would have an elevated status, as the presence of Christ is made known through sacrament.  If we go back to what the marriage rite in the ELW suggests, we would see a completely different picture— marriage is solely an institute of the state that reminds us of Christ’s bond to the church and one that does not elevate marriage to sacrament, but rather sees it as a vocation among many vocations. 

My pondering led me to consider what the Book of Concord had to say on the matter, and I was totally overwhelmed by the fact that there are several entries listed under the heading of marriage.  I took a chance and placed my finger blindly on the page (as one does when they’re overwhelmed) and wound up in a rather unexpected place: the explanation of the sixth commandment in Luther’s Large Catechism. 

We all know the sixth commandment (You shall not commit adultery).  We are to honor our marriage partners by being faithful to them.  Luther then elaborates on this basic statement to say something about the institution of marriage and its elevated status as a walk of life.  He argues that there would not be two commandments that deal with the estate of marriage if it was not, in fact, a better way of life.  Commandment four (Honor your mother and father) and this commandment assume the state of marriage.  Simply because this commandment exists, Luther suggests that we “should carefully note, first, how highly God honors and praises this walk of life, endorsing and protecting it by [God’s] commandment.”[4] Paragraph after paragraph Luther speaks to this elevated state of marriage.  He even confronts priests, monks, and nuns—advising them to let go of their false vows before the succumb to “unchaste thoughts and evil desires.”[5] 

In a way a feel like I’m pulling on a string and unraveling a sweater.  One thing is leading me to another.  And yet, at the same time, I’m trying to be aware of my own reaction to Luther.  I think I might be (dare I say it?) a bit mad at him.  While he comes back to Matthew 19 (See conversation in my previous entries) allowing for the fact that not all can adhere to the commandments based on their state, I still get the feeling that if you’re single by “default” that you in some way are just waiting to commit a sin.  Jesus speaks to those “Who are eunuchs for the kingdom of God”—committing their celibacy to the Lord—and while we virgins “may have more time for reading the Bible” (ummm… yes… that is what he said) I can’t help but wonder if this is the place where marriage in the church really became elevated.  And I struggle with that.  I struggle mostly because of this notion of vocational dignity.  If marriage is a vocation that I am or am not called to—why would it be that one state is better over the other?

Luther’s views are rooted in scripture—I get that—but so much more was going on historically regarding marriage at that time.  Still Stephanie Coontz in Marriage A History still credits Luther for a major shift in how the world thought about marriage.  (A side note, here book and work on the subject matter is fascinating.  Here’s a summary on You-tube that breaks it down: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwtb7jz8G4k)  

This is our heritage.  This is my heritage.  But then why is it getting me so riled up?

I’m hoping before the end of this week to read the following (all by Luther):

The Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows, 1521.

The Persons Related by consanguinity and Affinity who are Forbidden to Marry According to the Scriptures, Leviticus 18, 1522.

The Estate of Marriage, 1522.

An Answer to Several Questions on Monastic Vows, 1526.

On Marriage Matters, 1530.  

---

[1] Luther, Martin. A Sermon on the Estate of Marriage in Luther’s Works, 1519: The Christian in Society I. Vol. 44. Ed. James Atkinson. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966). p. 9

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., p. 10

[4] Luther, Martin.  The Large Catechism in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Ed. Kolb and Wengert.  (Minnapolis: Fortress Press, 2000).  (414.206). 

[5] Ibid., (414.216).