Cause why St. Paul wrote this chapter. 5)
1) The reason for writing this chapter was this: Those at Corinth, when they became Christians, especially those who were converted from the Jews, kept the law of Moses along with the gospel. Moses had commanded 7) that every man must be legitimate. What was a man must have a wife; what was a woman must have a husband, for chastity was condemned as a barren estate. All this happened because Christ was promised from Abraham's seed,
5) This caption is missing in Weimar's.
6) Wittenberg: of the Cap. Weimarsche: Capitels.
7) Weimarsche: hatte; in the other editions: hat.
and no one knew which person this should be, in honor of this seed all Jews had to become married and breed until he came. So the Corinthians ask whether they still have to keep such a law of Moses and do not have the power to remain without marriage, because they have the desire and love for chastity, and many other laws of Moses have now become free through the gospel3); because the weak consciences could hardly leave the law of Moses, which they were used to. To this St. Paul answers them here and says: It is not only free, but also good to keep chastity, whoever has desire and love for it. But he speaks of it very stupidly and carefully, and always includes the marriage state, and says:
8) In the issues: warm.
*) Here follows the text of the entire seventh chapter in the Weimar edition.
B. i. 2. It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But for the sake of fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
(2) Behold the words, how briefly he breaks off, saying that it is good for a man not to touch a woman, but he does not say it, nor does he advise anyone to do so; indeed, he soon falls on the marriage state, as if he were concerned that such a good or gift of chastity would be strange, and that it would become vain fornication. Therefore he commanded that every man should have a lawful spouse, and avoid fornication.
3 So this is the first conclusion: that whoever does not feel this good thing 1) about himself, but feels fornication, he is commanded here to become married. And this commandment you shall not receive as from a man, but from God. From this it follows that no one can vow chastity, nor should he keep such a vow, but tear it up where he finds and feels that he does not have the good thing, and finds himself inclined to unchastity. For such a vow is actually made against this commandment of God; but against God's commandment one cannot vow anything, and if it were vowed, he who keeps it is damned.
(4) Some have stretched this "touching women" so tightly that they do not want to touch women's hands and skin. To this end, they have invented many laws and ways to separate themselves so far from women that women could neither be seen nor heard; they meant to help chastity in a masterly way. Thus those who conceived and founded monasteries thought to keep boys chaste by the absence of maidens and maidens chaste by the absence of boys. But how well this was done, and what room was given to the devil, would be terrible to hear and to say.
(5) Such blind, wretched people have thought to bring chastity to men from within, when it must be a gift from heaven, springing from within. For although it is true that it is almost provocative and inflammatory when the male image and the female image are one among the other, it does not help the cause that they are one among the other. For what does it help me if I see no woman?
1) Jena and Weimar: the fine thing. Erlanger: dieß Gute.
and yet my heart is full of women, and my thoughts cling to women day and night, and I think more shameful things than anyone should do? And what is the use of shutting up a maiden, so that she neither sees nor hears a man's image, and yet her heart sighs day and night without ceasing for a boy? One must have the heart for chastity, otherwise such a being is worse than hell and purgatory.
(6) Therefore this word of St. Paul must also be understood spiritually and in the heart, so that he is called "touching no woman" who outwardly abstains from women out of his heart, desire and love; and not he who must outwardly abstain from women, and yet inwardly in his heart is full of desire and love for women. For this is a hypocrite, whose chastity appears before the world, and is lost before God, yes, is a twofold unchastity. For St. Paul's word is freely spiritual, and demands a free spirit, and must be grasped with a free spirit. But the hypocrites take it with displeasure, and make a dead letter and a fearful law out of it, which compels them, and makes the lost, false chastity sour for them, with their outward abstention from women.
7. Now notice what horrible murderers of the soul these are, who keep the mad, young people to chastity only outwardly, and force them to bear the secret suffering (as they say), and have no eye at all on whether such a person also has desire and love for it inwardly; think that chastity, the more sour it becomes, and the harder it is to bear, the more precious it is in the sight of God, like other bodily sufferings and accidents, but do not see that such sufferings and bodily sufferings have greater difference than heaven and earth. For other sufferings can be borne with a happy conscience without sin, and are only painful sufferings. But this affliction is a sinful affliction, which cannot be borne with a happy conscience, for it is sin and wrong in itself; therefore it is not to be counseled nor helped, except that one may get rid of it and be rid of it, which may be done by marriage, and not otherwise. But that suffering is to be counseled by 2) patience, whether one also cannot get rid of his.
2) Weimarsche: through the.
8 Thus St. Paul also wants the word to be understood spiritually, when he says: "It is good for a man that he" 2c. That such "good" is not said of merit before God, as if a chaste man were better before God than a married man, as so far the text is also interpreted by St. Jerome; for that belongs to faith alone and not to any work; but is said of the temporal good chamber and rest from this life, which a chaste man has over a married man. For he who lives without marriage and chastely is above all the toil and unpleasure that are in the conjugal state. And lately it is a lovely, 1) merry and even a fine gift to whom it is given, that he is chaste with pleasure and love. Also, he himself will afterwards sufficiently emphasize what he means by such "good," for it behooves St. Paul not to leave unconsoled those who like to remain chaste. But one must leave it alone that a married woman may be higher before God than a virgin, although the wife here on earth has much trouble and unpleasure in her state, and a virgin has much pleasure, rest and good days.
(9) Now the opinion of St. Paul is, "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," and in the New Testament it is not a sin to be without wife and child, as it was in the Old; that is, he who has grace to live chastely with lust and love can have good days; as it is also said, Fool, take a wife, and thy joy shall be ended; item, Marriage is a short joy, and long displeasure, and what more sayings are of the married state; which all here agree with St. Paul. Paul, that it is good not to touch a woman. Wherefore also in the law of Moses it was commanded, that a new husband should be given liberty a whole year to rejoice with his wife, and not to go to war, or to have common offices; as Moses should say, The joy shall be for a year; after that it shall be found.
(10) But where there is no grace to live chastely with pleasure and love, it is better to become married; indeed, there is no other means that can help, except the married state. Therefore, where one cannot have the good days of chastity, one must go to the evil days of matrimony. For it is ever better to have evil days
1) Wittenberger: bodily. Latin: umaBils.
suffer without sin in the marriage state, because have good days without marriage state with sins in unchastity. But no one likes to avoid such evil days, so everyone shuns the marriage state. Therefore it is said: It must be a bold man who takes a wife. Yes, indeed, bold, and no one does so well as a devout Christian who walks by faith, who can direct himself into evil days, so that he does not complain and cry out and blaspheme God and his work, as the foolish, blind wretches do. This is also what St. Paul means here, that he so soon falls from chastity to the marriage state and says: "But for fornication's sake let every man have his own wife, and every woman her own husband.
(11) What is this said for the sake of fornication, for this much: Where such good days cannot be, that chastity may be willing and merry, there will certainly be unchastity and fornication? But that there be not, it is better to live godly and blessedly, and to forgive oneself for the good days, which they have that touch no woman, and to consider the evil days, to avoid sin, because it is ever better to have unpleasure without sin, than sin without unpleasure, yea, sin with unpleasure added.
12 And notice the words of St. Paul, that he does not make much provision for chastity to the Corinthians. For he saith, It is a fine thing about chastity; yea, if unchastity did 2); "therefore have every man his wife" 2c. He does not mean chastity as we have done so far, and still do, but wants to have them all united in marriage. And yet he (when he was full of the Holy Spirit) knew human nature, kind and capacity better than all the bishops who have come after him, who have perverted and rejected this divine order, so that now St. Paul's word no longer applies: "Let every man have his own wife"; but so now he preaches: Some may have wives; some shall not have wives; make the "every one" "some". But of this hereafter. Further on St. Paul speaks:
2) Latin: si irmontinsrUiu non obskurst. - The Weimar edition makes the remark here, "On this use of .thete* equal to mhd. [ntsts cf. Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie, vol. XXIII, pp. 41 ff." Cf. s 54 of this writing.
3) "eigen" is only in the Jenaer.
V. 3. 4. Let the man render the owed friendship to the woman. The woman is the same as the man. The woman is not powerful in her body, but the man is. The man is not powerful in his body, but the woman is.
Here St. Paul instructs the spouses how they should behave toward each other for the sake of marital duty, and calls it a guilty will or friendship. It is guilty, and yet it should be done willingly. This guilt makes God allow and forgive the marriage state, which he otherwise punishes and condemns. For in this way the marriage state is written in the law of love, that neither is powerful in his own body, but must serve the other, as is the way of love. But this does not work in fornication, since neither is powerful nor indebted to the other, but each seeks its own in the other; therefore it is against the law of love, therefore it is also against God. It is indeed a great word that no one is powerful in his own body, that where unchastity is concerned, one should serve the other, and can give himself to no one else. Therefore it is seen how adultery is the greatest robbery and theft on earth, for it gives away a living body that is not its own, and also takes away a living body that is not its own.
14 Now, the words of St. Paul are clear enough, and do not require much gloss; so I do not want to dig so deeply into them, and write uncleanly about the duty of marriage. A Christian man will know how to be moderate even in this. So there is nothing in it, as an unchristian man rages and rages in this. Some old teachers have probably used the pagan saying: He who is too hot in love is an adulterer against his own wife. But a heathen has spoken it, therefore I do not respect it and say it is not true. Of course, no one can be an adulterer with his wife if he does not want to consider her his wife or touch her as his wife.
(15) I am careful not to speak ill of the matter, for St. Paul says here that the marriage state is there as a help and means against unchastity. Therefore, whoever needs to defend himself against unchastity, keep
I, who have St. Paulum here as my advocate and patron.
16 Therefore it must not be right in some places to separate the bride and bridegroom until the third night, and to teach them to abstain until the third night, according to the example of Tobiah. I let everyone keep this, as far as he desires. For I have also experienced what misfortune has followed from the fact that the evil spirit always wants to be in the game. If the example of Toby is so valid, why is not the example of the patriarch Jacob much more valid, who touched his Leah the first night and recognized her? Let it be free; fools are they that set the rope and the law in such matters. The bride is the bridegroom, and her body is not powerful, and again. Let it remain so, and do no better.
(17) So they have also exempted some days, as the holy evenings; item, pregnant bodies 2c. Well, it is fine and well done to be moderate in all things, but still one should not make a necessary law in this, and these words of Paul are right, who states that no one is powerful in his own body, God grant, be it this or that day, as God gives it. He only sees to it that unchastity is prevented and not given room or cause. O, this little word of St. Paul cancels a great deal of law: "No man is powerful in his own body; indeed, he cannot suffer any law. For how should anyone forbid me the body that is granted to me by God's right and power? God's leave is greater than all men's commandment; what he giveth me, let not St. Peter deny me. Weather follows:
V. 5. Do not withdraw one from the other, except by the consent of both for a time, that you may have leisure for fasting and prayer, and come together again, lest Satan tempt you because of your unchastity.
18 How poorly Saint Paul trusts in their chastity! He knows the devil and his wiles well, and also the weakness of the flesh. Here you see that married people are so closely bound to each other that one cannot escape the other.
He can also be drawn to fasting or praying without the other's will, so that he will have given up both fasting and praying before one of them should become powerful enough in his body to deny the other. Now prayer is a highly, deliciously good work, and must give way to such a low (as it appears) work; this makes all the law of love, in which they are joined.
(19) This fasting and praying is spoken of as a special fasting and praying that is accepted; as when husband and wife become one, to fast and pray for three, four, six days, or a week or two, as each one may freely accept such fasting for 1) himself, to mortify the body as long as he wishes, without all law and activity of the authorities. Otherwise, married people as well as all other Christians are obliged to fast and pray in an evangelical way. For Christ has said to all Christians [Luc. 18:1], "Pray without ceasing." This fasting is to eat and drink moderately. So praying is groaning and crying out with the heart 2c.
(20) But as to what is the withdrawal among married people, and what causes occur, I will let them interpret for themselves. I can well believe that they are of various kinds, as befits the state, which is created and appointed for evil days and not for good days. Anger and dissension will also run along; sometimes 2) superfluous clergy will also want to rule there. St. Paul sets only one; more may [neither] I, nor anyone set. This is that both agree to fast harder for several days in a special way, and to pray all the more diligently, especially where there is a need. For strong prayer also requires strong fasting. However, St. Paul leaves it free, and gives no law about it, but puts it in both's discretion. Therefore, no one can be forced by commandments to fast and pray as has been done up to now. Let this be said of it.
(21) Now St. Paul takes before him the three states of chastity, namely, widowhood, matrimony, and virginity, and teaches further what is necessary to know about them, saying:
1) Wittenberg: through. Latin: pro.
2) Weimarsche: at times, It will etc. w.
The first part.
From the widowhood: 3)
V. 6. 7. But I say these things out of favor, and not out of command. I would rather all men were like me, but each one has his own gift from God, one otherwise, the other so.
22. above [v. 2] he said by commandment, "Let every man have his own wife for fornication's sake," and he also commanded conjugal concubinage. How then does he speak here: he does not say this out of commandment, but out of favor? Without doubt he wants that it should be free to become married, that not, as in the Old Testament, everyone must become married; therefore he does not give anyone the right to become married, but grants it to everyone. But when they have become married, he gives them the right to keep their marriage. Even where there is no grace, that one may be free to become married or not, there also marriage is commanded, yes, more than commanded.
23 How that he also saith, I would that all men were as I am. Is this not spoken against the married state, as if he did not want any man to be married? Yes, of course, he wanted everyone to have the great grace of chastity, to be freed from the worries and troubles of marriage, and to be free to do only with God and his word as he pleased. And who would not and should not grant this to everyone, since Christian love wishes everyone everything good, both temporal and eternal? Love has no measure to do good and to desire good, even though it is impossible. Just as he desires to be banished from Christ for the sake of the Jews' salvation in Romans 9:3.
(24) "But each one has his own gift from God, one otherwise, the other so. Here he confesses that his wish may not come to pass, and that God's will is not to give the high grace to everyone. And mark this text well, for it has much in it, and marriage is not praised less than chastity. For where marriage and virginity are held in opposition to each other, chastity is certainly a nobler gift than marriage; but
3) This caption is found only in the Jena edition.
Nevertheless, marriage is a gift of God (says St. Paul) as well as chastity. A man is also more noble than a woman; nevertheless, the woman is a work of God as well as the man; for before God all things are equal, which are nevertheless unequal among themselves. Everything that he has created is called his Creator and Lord, and none is called more or higher than the other, whether great or small. So marriage and virginity are equal before him, because both are his divine gift, although one is better than the other, to be counted against each other.
(25) From this it follows that those who make nuns out to be more glorious and better in the sight of God than those who are married, and invent special crowns, and I do not know how many other honors and dignities, make them trustworthy, unchristian, godless people, who rely more on their status and work than on Christ's faith and God's grace, and despise marriage as much less, even in the sight of God, than their status, and call themselves Christ's brides. Yes, they are the devil's brides, because they do not need chastity for what it is needed; namely, not that it is better before God, but that it makes people here on earth freer and more skillful to wait on God's word than marriage.
(26) Now, since both are gifts of God, and marriage is given to everyone as a common gift, but chastity is a peculiar, strange gift to very few people, it is hereby indicated that each one must examine whether he finds the common or the peculiar gift in him. And because St. Paul freely concludes here that it is a gift, we must ever confess that it is not our work, good or ability, therefore no one can vow or keep the same. For I cannot pledge to God his own and his gift, for he has given it to me beforehand, or be sure of his promise that he will give it to me, as Jeremiah was. So we read no example in Scripture of vows, without in the things that are already given to us, or are to be given to us, as [Deut. 27:2 ff.]1 ) Deut. 30:3 ff. is written, as, of houses, fields, money, cattle,
1) In the Erlanger wrong: Numbers 27.
to mortify one's own body, with fasting or other discipline 2c.
27. Since we are here in the place where Paul praises marriage so highly and calls it a divine gift, let us look further into it and prove that marriage is the most spiritual estate, and that some estates have been wrongly and unjustly called spiritual orders, and marriage secular estate; but it should be the other way around, that marriage is called the right spiritual estate, as it is; and the orders should be called the right secular estates, as they are. They have brought into the world vain misuses of words, and have smeared the mouths of every one with them, and deceived them, that spiritual must be called worldly, and worldly must be called spiritual.
28 In the first place, nothing should be called spiritual without the inward life of faith in the heart, where the spirit rules. But since this is also called spiritual, which is done by heart in the body through the spirit of faith, we want to see and grasp here evenly and finely that the married state should rightly be called spiritual, and the orders secular. But I am speaking of the orders and clergy that have so far allowed themselves to be called and praised in this way. For those who are right in the faith, and are truly spiritual, certainly have the right spiritual state of chastity.
(29) Moreover, no one can deny that the works and nature of the clergy are just as external, temporal, and bodily as those of the married. For they are done through the body and its members as well as through the married. But what is done through the body and its members must be a bodily and outward work, yes, even the thoughts and ideas in the heart of such outward, bodily works must also be and be called bodily. Now if any state is to be called spiritual, something else and more must belong to it than such outward works and beings, namely faith in the heart, which is spirit, and makes everything spiritual that is in man, both outwardly and inwardly.
(30) Now look at the clergy, who have been famous up to now, and you will find, first of all, that they have the greatest need of the body.
1042 Erl. si, is-si. Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. vm, ws? imo. 1043
They have certain interest, food, clothes, house, and all kinds of superfluous things, and are "murdered and given to them through the work and care of others, so that they neither have nor want to have any danger of this. For no one becomes spiritual, nor wants to become spiritual, if he knows that he will be taken care of physically for the rest of his life; and that many also seek such things in monasteries and the priesthood, so that their belly and skin have enough. But what is this but to seek and have such a state, where one may not gape at heaven, and wait for the daily bread of God, and trust that God will feed them? Recently, faith has no room, nor place, nor time, nor work, nor exercise in such booths. For they sit in sure full readiness and cash, and there is not substantia rerum sperandarum [Heb. 11, 1.], confidence of goods, which matt does not see, as is the nature of faith, but certitudo rerum possessarum, certain security of present goods.
(31) But if you take a wife and marry, this is the first thing: where will you support yourself, your wife and your child? And this lasts all your life, so that the conjugal state is by nature such that it teaches and drives to marriage by God's hand and grace, and at the same time compels to faith. For we also see that where there is no faith in the marriage state, there is a heavy, miserable being, full of worry and fear and work. Again, the less faith the famous spiritual state has, the better days it has. For his belly is freely supplied, may not look on God's hands, nor wait for His goodness.
(32) Tell me, then, which state is properly called the spiritual, whether it is not that in which faith is necessary, and has its own work, and has daily exercise and cause to trust in God, and goes according to the saying of the 145th Psalm, v. 15, 16: "All eyes wait upon thee, O Lord, and thou givest them their meat in due season. Thou dost open thine hand, and dost fill all that liveth with good pleasure" 2c. Now only the married state has such a cause and exercise of faith in God, but no spiritual state has it; nor does anyone want it, nor are they endowed for it, and assured that they may not have such a cause.
have thus cast out faith, and stopped up all holes, that it might not come in unto them. Is it not a perverse sacrilege, then, that they should boast of their spirituality, and present their estate as spiritual, in which, by nature and estate, there cannot be a drop of faith? that the spirit and such spiritual estate rhyme with each other, as Christ and Belial, as day and night, as spirit and flesh, as believing and feeling. For where faith is not, nor space, nor cause, there can be no spirit, and must of necessity be a vain carnal, worldly, bodily and outward thing, as experience gives and teaches in the religious.
(33) Again, they make a fuss about the marriage state, as if it were worldly and carnal, and do not see how it is set up by God in such a way that it drives and promotes the spirit and faith, and there must be almost one spirit if it is to be 1) well. For what is God's work and business has been prepared in such a way that it should work in faith and practice faith; if not, then it is a difficult, unpleasant thing. But what men devise always works best without faith, because it wants to be sure of things and to be provided for.
(34) Behold, you grasp here for the first that the marriage state is by nature such that it drives, chases and forces man into the most inward, highest, spiritual being, namely to faith, since there is no higher inward being than faith. For it is only attached to God's word, and is stripped naked of everything that is not God's word. Now there is nothing higher and more inward, neither in heaven nor on earth, than God's Word, which is also God Himself. Again, the spiritual state by nature is of such a kind that it lures a man out, and pours him out completely on temporal and external things, that he has enough in the flesh, and does not want to be a spiritual state, because he has enough externally, and is sure of things, that he does not need faith and trust in God; so that you must say that such a spiritual state is by nature a right earthly, worldly and pagan state, compared to the marriage state.
1) Weimarsche: er.
The marriage state, in turn, is a true heavenly, spiritual and divine state, as opposed to the spiritual state.
35 For I say of a kind; for it is true that many of the married state have not rightly need in faith, and make the good themselves evil by unbelief. Again, it is not impossible for a man of the spiritual estate to need well by his faith, and to make that which is evil good to himself by his faith. But for the sake of such a good or evil custom, it cannot be said that the married state is evil, or the spiritual state good. For faith makes all things good, even death and all misfortunes: unbelief makes all things evil and harmful, even life and God Himself. Now we do not speak of the custom or abuse of the estates, but of the nature and character of the estates themselves, and conclude that the marital estate is gold, and the spiritual estate filth; therefore that the former is conducive to faith, but the latter to unbelief.
(36) Secondly, the marriage state not only exercises the heart and inner being before God through faith, but also the body outwardly in works. So that the marriage state drives both faith and work, helps both body and soul, provides for them, and leads them rightly. For the marriage state by nature is of the kind that it must work and feed itself with its hand, and actually goes in the words of God Genesis 3:19: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread." He has to dare that his work is not good for him, that he often suffers damage, that he suffers much from his wife, child and servants; and who can tell all the sweat of the face? That the body in the conjugal state also has its part to do with work, care and toil, as the heart has to do with faith; and yet it is always certain that it is all divine, and so pleases God. But the spiritual state does not nourish itself with its work, it is a lazy rascal, and does not exercise the body at all, but lets others do the work for it, and feeds its belly on the sweat and blood of others, and does not want to wait for a ride or damage to its goods. That recently here is no sweat of the face, but its essence goes in the saying, Ps. 73, 5: "They are not in the
They do not work like other people, nor are they afflicted like other people; therefore, their defiance must be a delicious thing" 1) 2c. And even though they pray and sing and do their spiritual works, none of them is useful for the exercise of the body. Moreover, even if they are done to the best of their ability, it is uncertain that they please God; indeed, such things, because they are done without God's word, cannot please God.
(37) Here you may say, If you will, it should be better that no one remain chaste, and that everyone become conjugal; would that ever be contrary to this text of St. Paul? Answer: I am now speaking of the spiritual state as opposed to the conjugal state, and not of the chaste state. The spiritual state is of no use, and it would be better that no one should be spiritual, and everyone should be conjugal. But the chaste state is another thing than the spiritual state; and St. Paul speaks nothing of the spiritual state, but of the right chaste state. There is no more unchaste estate than the spiritual estate, as one learns daily. And even if some lived chastely in it, they do not need it, for which St. Paul would have used it; that it is not chastity at all, of which St. Paul teaches here. For they make of chastity a merit and glory and honor before God and the world, and rely on it, which is contrary to faith; but St. Paul makes of it a skill and service 2) to God's word and faith. Further he speaks:
V. 8. Though I say to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they also abide as I do.
38 From this text it follows that St. Paul had a wife, because he counts himself among the widowers. For afterwards he speaks of virginity in particular, since he does not count himself as such. Although many think that he remained a virgin, because he says 1 Cor. 9:5, 6: "Do we not also have power to take a sister to wife with us, as the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? Or have not I and Barnabas alone power to do this?" But this does not compel, but
1) Jena and Weimar: "darum sind sie beladen mit Stolzheit" instead of: "drum muß ihr Trotzen" etc. w.
2) Jenaer: merit. Latin: sorvitutein.
1046 Erl. si, 24-ss. Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. vm, ivse-ivss. 1047
Rather, it indicates that he had a wife, but he did not want to take her with him, as the other apostles did with their wives. Or does he ever so much as say that he had no wife now, as the widowers had, and yet would have her.
39 It is also probable that he had a wife. For in Judaism, everyone had to be married, and chastity did not apply without a special leave and exodus from God. To this he also agrees with Phil. 4, 3, where he says: "Yes, I also ask you, my faithful companion, to stand by them who have fought together with me over the gospel." Many understand this faithful companion to have been St. Paul's wife, because he is silent about the name 1) and does not address anyone else in such a way that he calls him a faithful companion. Which is read in Greek as pulling with him in one yoke, and having a special alliance with him before others, like married people, to the effect that he commands the same companion to accept wives. To speak in this way, one must say that St. Paul's wife either died when he wrote this epistle, and gave himself a widower; or she must have left him with her will, that he did not lead her around with him, and thus lived with her chastely in the conjugal state, as it says 2) in the 9th chapter. Be it so, then, that his wife was dead or willingly left him for the sake of the gospel, it is certain that he lived as a widower at that time and was a married man. But now we want to look at what this saying concludes the most.
From the priest marriage. 3)
40 There are some who are so far gone that they must confess that priests and bishops may be conjugal, and conjugals may be priests, because the Scripture compels them, that the apostles were almost all conjugals, and many bishops afterward. But they look for a remedy, and say: Yes, we do read that those who were married before became apostles and bishops and priests; but if they are now apostles, bishops and priests before
1) Weimarsche: the name.
2) Wittenberg, Jena and Weimar: er.
3) This superscription is only in the Wittenberg.
of marriage, we do not read that they were married afterward; therefore now the priests may not marry. To these this saying shall answer:
41) First of all, because you confess for the first time that married men have become bishops and priests, and may also be and become priests, as the apostle teaches and enjoins by example, who are you that you will not now let a married man become a priest? You drive from the priesthood not only those who still want to be married, but also those who are already married, which is contrary to Christ and all the apostles, and also contrary to St. Paul's teaching (although he remained without marriage), since he says that one should choose as bishop one who has only one wife and chaste, obedient children. Now say, which shall we believe to be wiser and holier? Christ, or you? Christ takes married people as priests and confirms it through his apostles, but you reject them. Here either Christ must be a fool and unrighteous, or you must be antichrists and deceivers.
(42) Gentlemen, if you had only let the little piece remain that, according to the example of the apostles and the teaching of Christ, married people should be priests, and had not forbidden more than that priests should not become married, there would not have been so much need. For in this way many would have become married priests, and many would have tried the married state before, and would have become less of whoremongers. But now you pretend that you have not read that priests have become married, and yet you reject the whole marriage state from the priesthood, against God, nature, reason, and right, out of pure sacrilege, without any cause, so that you make the world full of fornication.
43 To the other: Why then have you not read this text and considered it rightly? Does it not clearly say that a priest may still be married? For I suppose that St. Paul was a virgin or a widower; yet he says here that he had a good right to take a wife with him. Tell me, was not St. Paul then an apostle, bishop and priest? How is he so bold that he still wants to have the right and power to marry? And if the high apostleship
suffer, remain conjugal and become conjugal, why should not the lesser priesthood also suffer, both to remain conjugal and to become conjugal?
44 In addition, because St. Paul is a widower here, and still wants to have the right to take a wife, he is certainly, according to papal law, a digamus. law, he is a digamus, even though he does not ask for it. A digamus, however, is such an evil thing in spiritual law that, even if he were now without a wife, he still could not become a priest. But digamus means one who has had two wives. This was such a man in the Old Testament, who had two wives at the same time. But the spiritual law has now interpreted the sayings differently, and invents three digamos: The first, if someone twice in succession frees, whether they are both virgins. The second, if a man marries only once and takes a wife. The third, if someone takes a woman who is crazy, even if he did not know it, and has taken a virgin for 1). These are all called digami, or two-woman men, by the priest, and none may ever become priests after the death of such wives. But even if he violated a hundred wives, weakened a hundred virgins, and kept a hundred whores with him every day, he can be, remain, and become a priest; so perfectly holy is this priesthood. No sin nor disgrace is so great, and so much in all the world, that prevents him from being and becoming a priest, without only holy matrimony, which they call a sacrament and God's business 2) itself and confess; that some work of God must not be able to be in the priesthood.
45 Now tell me, how does such an abominable outrage rhyme with St. Paul's teaching, who is a widower, and wants to have right to free, and gives power to free to all widowers and widowesses, no one excluded, neither priest nor layman? What else can we say here, but that such human statutes, so publicly and shamefully raging against God's word, do not consider us other than sticks and blocks, that we should believe that fornication is better than conjugal life? And what else is sought by this, but that God's business, 2) marriage, is desecrated, and fornication is only freely given room for?
1) "for" is missing in the Wittenberger.
2) Business - creature. Latin: orsadura - that which God created.
As Daniel proclaimed about the end of the Christian reign, and said Cap. 12 [11, 37]: "He will not respect the love of women"; as if he should say: He will respect vain harlots.
46 Thirdly: Since they must then confess that the apostles remained in marriage after the apostleship, I would like to know why marriage is also not to be approached in the priesthood, and is valid after the priesthood. 3) Is then the poor marriage so much a devilish thing when it comes after the priesthood, and so much divine when it comes before? Should it have such a great change for the sake of its procedure and offspring? Truly all reason must confess, and everyone must grasp, that everything that can remain divine with the priesthood and after the priesthood, may also certainly be accepted in the priesthood and begun before the priesthood.
(47) It is also a shameful pretense to profess that marriage is a divine thing and a holy sacrament, and yet not to allow a divine thing and holy sacrament to stand with priestly holiness. How is it that God must be against Himself here? That one of his works cannot stand the other, and one holiness persecutes the other, and one sacrament condemns the other? O impudent, blind abominations, that one should have such an unskillful thing not only persuade people, but also lead them to consider it the best, and still consider it? How would this always have been possible to end, 4) if God's wrath had not thus blinded and punished the world?
(48) But let us remain here with St. Paul, who will not deceive us, and establish that widowers may be free, God granting that they may be priests or not; item, that they may take wives, they may be virgins or widows; that nothing may be detrimental to the priest's status if he takes a widow, and nothing may be detrimental if he takes a virgin. All these things shall be free among Christians. For St. Paul wrote this epistle not only to the laity, but also to the bishops and to all Christians at Corinth.
3) Wittenberg and Weimar: apply.
4) "end" - lead out.
1050 Erl. sr, 28-sv. Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. vm, wW-nm. 1051
and because he does not single out any person or class, it does not behoove us 1) to interpret or apply his words to the laity or to any special person or class.
He knew well, St. Paul, that Christ did not want to break or hinder God's creation and work through his teaching and rule. Now a man is created for God's creatures and works, to be sown and multiplied, Genesis 1:28. Therefore, through his gospel and priesthood, he does not want to make a wood or stone out of the man, nor hinder his natural works, which God has implanted. For what else is it said where priests are forbidden to marry, but that a man is not a man, and that God's creation and work should be abolished and cease for the sake of human sin and commandment? God alone, who created him, can also accomplish such things through His gifts and works; human law and free will, or diligence, is lost and in vain here. Now says St. Paul:
V. 8, 9: It is good for widows and widowers to remain as I do. But if they do not abstain, let them go free. It is better to be free than to burn. 3)
(50) It is good, of course, to remain as St. Paul says; but he adds why it is not good to remain thus, and better to be free again than to remain a widow. And St. Paul has indeed here poured out in one heap all the cause of freeing, and put the end to all the glory of chastity, since he says: "But if they cannot keep, let them free." So this is said a lot: Necessity means you to become conjugal. No matter how highly chastity is praised, and how noble the gift of chastity is, necessity still hinders that very few can go to it, for they cannot keep it. For though we are Christians, and have the Spirit of God in faith, yet is not God's creation abolished, that thou art a woman, and I am a man; and yet the Spirit doth not allow the
1) Weimarsche: nothing.
2) "den" is missing in the Jenaer, in the Erlanger and in the Weimarschen.
3) The words: "It... brennen" are missing in the Wittenberger.
The Christian body has its own nature and natural works, so that it eats, drinks, sleeps, feeds and ejects like the body of another human being. So he does not take from man a female or male form, member, seed and fruit, so that a Christian's body must inseminate and multiply and discipline itself as well as other men, birds and all animals, for which it was created by God, Genesis 1:28. So that because of necessity a man must keep himself as a woman and a woman as a man, if God does not perform miracles through a special gift and stop his creature.
This is what St. Paul means here: "He who cannot keep himself free. As if he should say: To whom God does not give the special grace, but leaves his body its kind and nature, it is better, yes, necessary to be free, and remain neither a widow nor a virgin. Now God does not intend to make such special grace common, but the free shall be common, as he has once established and created it in both bodies; he will not set aside and deny to any man his creature.
52) Above this, a Christian is spirit and flesh. Because of the spirit he may not marry; but because his flesh is of the common flesh, corrupted in Adam and Eve, and made full of evil desire, marriage is also necessary to him because of the same disease, and it is not in his power to contract it. For his flesh rages, burns, and swells as well as another man's, if he does not help and ward it off with marriage as with the necessary medicine. And God tolerates such rage for the sake of marriage and fruit, for He well indicated in Genesis 3:16 what He would tolerate in man, since He did not take away the blessing of multiplying, but confirmed it, knowing full well that nature, corrupt and full of evil desire, could not accomplish such a blessing without sin.
(53) To despise the married state and to encourage chastity, so that it is full of misery and unwillingness, does not help and is not valid, and is done foolishly and wickedly. For nothing is helped by this, but necessity always lies in the way, and says: It cannot be, it will not be, one cannot hold to heaven, as here.
St. Paul says: "He who cannot keep free". Again, that one praises the marriage state highly, as it is also a divine being, full of all spiritual good, does not help either, because no one or even few can be moved to give such good to themselves; nature shuns effort and work.
There are also many more reasons to free. Some free for the sake of money and goods. A large number do so for the sake of avarice, to seek pleasure and to atone for it. Some to beget heirs. But St. Paul indicates some of these, and I know of none stronger or better, namely necessity. 1) Necessity means that nature wants to come forth and beget and multiply, and God does not want it apart from marriage. So everyone must enter into marriage because of this need, if he wants to live with a good conscience and go with God. If this necessity were true, 2) other things would of course all make for a bad marriage, especially the arrogance that drives fools to take such a serious, necessary, divine position lightly, and then to realize very soon what they have done to themselves. But what is this said?
It is better free, because burn?
(55) Doubtless every one that will live chastely without marriage and without grace shall understand this word, and know what it is. For St. Paul does not speak of secret things, but of the common, public feeling of all those who live chastely without marriage, and yet do not have grace. For he gives the burning bad to all who are without grace in chastity, and shows no other remedy than marriage. If it were not such a mean thing, or other advice, he would not have suggested marriage; although in German it is called "das heimliche Leiden" (the secret affliction), which saying would not be so mean if it were a secret evil.
(56) There is also no doubt that those who have the grace of chastity still feel the evil desire at times and are challenged, but it is a transition; therefore their thing is not burning. Recently, "burn" is
1) "Noth" is missing in the Wittenberg.
2) Latin: nisi Nase nrxsrst nsosssitas. Compare the note to § 12 of this writing.
the heat of the flesh, which does not end with raging, and the daily inclination toward the woman or the man, which is everywhere where there is no desire and love for chastity; that one finds so few who are without heat as one finds those who have God's grace for chastity. Now such heat is harder in some, in some it is less; some also suffer it so hard that they inseminate themselves. These all belong to the married state, so that I may say: Where there is one chaste person, there shall be more than a hundred thousand married ones.
Nothing better, but take an example before you. St. Jerome, who praises chastity highly and most dangerously, confesses how he could not force his flesh with any fasting or vigilance, that his chastity has turned sour beyond measure. Oh how much good time he will have lost with carnal thoughts! He also stood on the fact that chastity was to be worked out with us, and was a common thing. Behold, the man is in heat, and should have taken a wife. There you see what burning means. For he was in the number of those who are to be married, and he himself did wrong and took much trouble that he was not given in marriage. We read many more examples of this in the lives of the fathers.
Thus St. Paul concludes: Where there is not God's special gift, there must be either burning, or free. "Now it is ever better (says Paul) to free than to burn." Why? Because burning, even though it is not followed by a work, is chastity lost, because it is not kept out of desire and love, but with great unwillingness, unwillingness and compulsion, so that it is counted as unchastity before God, since the heart is unchaste and the body is not allowed to be unchaste. What is the use, then, of keeping a lost and unchaste chastity with great, sour, unpleasant effort? It would ever be better to be married, and to be above such unpleasure. For though in matrimony there is also toil and unpleasure, yet one can give the will to it, and at times have rest and pleasure. But where there is no grace apart from marriage, it is impossible to give the will to chastity and live with pleasure in it.
59. see now what great teachers these are
and rulers are, who force the young people back and forth into monasteries to chastity, and pretend that the more sour it becomes for them, and the more unwilling 1) they are to it, the better chastity is. So jest with other things, with chastity take another; for it cannot be willing where special grace is not; everything else can be willing where only faith is. They do just as the Jews did, who burned their children in honor of the idol Moloch; that methinks. St. Paul also used the word "burn" because he wanted to touch and interpret such an abomination. For what is it different to let a young person in a monastery, or otherwise, be stuck in such heat all his life, than to burn a child in honor of the devil, who must keep a miserable, lost chastity?
I must tell here in honor of such teachers and rulers what I once heard from a brave man, so that such coarse, blind heads may grasp how wisely they go about their ruling. Once such a preacher had cried out how one had to start something great, and almost hurt himself who wanted to do God a service, and brought in from Vitis patrum as an example Simeon, who stood a whole year on one leg on a high pillar, and always prayed, neither ate nor drank, until maggots grew in his foot, which became noble stones when they fell down. So you must attack yourself (said he) if you want to serve GOD. For to preach such lies belongs to such preachers, which no doubt the devil at that time invented to mock the Christians through wicked men, so that he destroyed their miraculous signs, of which they did much at that time, as if they were all such jugglery. Such a fool preacher now met a fool for a disciple; as it is said: A fool makes ten of them; who began to serve God, and wanted to hurt him himself, and no longer let his urine. When he had lasted four days and was ill, no one could talk him out of it, and so he wanted to die, until finally God gave one in mind to praise and strengthen him in his conduct, as he did right and well (as one must speak to fools what they hold to be true).
1) Wittenberg: willing. Latin: inviti.
But they say you do it for vain honor; if so, it is lost. And when he heard it, he ceased, and said, Because they interpret it so unto me, I will not keep it. 2)
(61) Well, this is a grossly foolish thing; but not to be despised badly. God has indicated with it (as I say) what such teachers and rulers do. And let us strike out this piece. It is true, as Scripture and all experience teaches, that this life on earth is a miserable life, full of misery and suffering, whatever state you choose (if it is otherwise divine): nor is anyone so miserable, if he were commanded to keep his urine or dung, he would rather choose the state than accept such an impossible thing. And because no one is bound to such a commandment, no one considers how good and delicious it is to keep urine and dung from oneself, and in the meantime looks at and laments the misery in one's state, which is not a tenth part as great and much as this misery would be.
62 This is also the case with this burning. For those who are married are now free, can extinguish what burns them, and no longer consider the misery (just as a woman after childbirth thinks much differently than before and during childbirth), and now no longer consider the trouble and unpleasantness of her state. For good, when it is present, is not regarded; evil, when it is past, is not remembered. But those who are still in heat, and have no hope, how can they do otherwise than mock and make fools of those who are in marriage, and yet complain of marriage? For they must keep that which cannot be kept, and keep it in vain, and lose all such sour toil. That is ever a miserable pity. How much would they rather bear all the unpleasantness of marriage than such burning?
(63) Behold, St. Paul says here, "It is better to marry than to burn," as if to say, "To marry is evil, but to burn is worse. And summa: It is better the unfunny marriage than the unfunny chastity; better a sour and heavy marriage than a sour and
2) The same narrative in the Table Talks, Cap. Walch, St. Louis Edition, Vol. XXII, 814.
severe chastity. Cause: this must be lost; that can be useful.
64 Now this I say of the burning which they that keep it suffer; which are almost few. For the more part suffereth not such burning, neither keepeth it, but doeth as they do unto them, that they may be rid of it; of which I will not write now. But if they get rid of it outside of marriage, then conscience is there immediately; that is still the most unbearable misery and the most miserable state on earth. Thus it must finally happen that those who live without marriage and without the grace of chastity are forced to sin with physical unchastity, and the others are forced to live outwardly chaste and inwardly unchaste, and thus the former must lead a damned, the latter an unholy, useless life. And where are the spiritual and temporal rulers here who consider this plight of the poor souls? Yes, they only help the devil to increase such misery every day with their activities and coercion.
The second part.
Of the marital status. 1)
V. 10, 11: But to the married I do not command, but the Lord, that the wife not separate from the husband; but if she separate, that she remain without marriage, or be reconciled to the husband, and that the husband not leave the wife.
(65) Hitherto he hath said of widowers and widowesses, among whom there may be a man by a woman, and again; yea, it is good where they have grace to abide by one another. But this cannot be admitted among the married; for here is God's commandment, which compels to remain with one another. But that widows and widowers remain from one another is not a commandment of God nor a prohibition, but the apostle's good counsel, and left them free before God, that they may again be free with a good conscience, or so remain.
(66) But here the apostle allows a man and a woman to separate, so far as they remain without marriage. So that he cancels the law
1) The words: "Von dem ehelichen Stande" are found only in the Jenaer.
For although Moses gave such a law to the Jews, as to those who were hard-headed and pagan, it is not proper for Christians to do so. Therefore Christ Himself abolished it, Matth. 19, 9. For in the Old Testament there were not only such laws that served for spiritual rule, but also for worldly rule, because God ruled the same people, both spiritually and worldly. Just as even now in imperial law there are many provisions for the secular that are not appropriate for Christians, such as resisting violence with violence. 3)
(67) For many other laws are necessary to restrain and compel the wicked, and many others to teach and govern the good. So this law also was to restrain and compel the wicked, lest they kill their wives, or do evil. But Christians should be devout in their hearts, so that they do not need such a law, but keep their wives all their lives. But where there are no Christians, or unrighteous, false Christians, it would still be good today to keep this law, and they, like the pagans, divorce their wives and take others, so that they would not have two hells with their discordant lives, both here and there. But they should know that by divorcing they would no longer be Christians, but pagans and in the damned state.
68 But the apostle speaks of one cause of divorce, namely of anger, when husband and wife cannot live together in harmony, that they live in hatred and strife, so that they can neither pray nor do any good work. The text makes this clear when it says, "They should be reconciled and remain undivorced, or live without marriage if they do not want to be reconciled and divorced. But where reconciliation is commanded, there will be
2) Jena, Erlangen and Weimar: one.
3) In the Weimar edition, the following still follows: "Item für gericht handeln" 2c. The fact that these words are omitted in the Wittenberg edition seems to indicate that Luther himself took part in the composition of the text of the Wittenberg edition.
4) Wittenberger: ""divorced. Latin: [sparati.
Anger and dissension are indicated. But the apostle certainly allows such separations, that he sees the weakness of the Christians through the fingers, because two do not like to behave with each other; otherwise each one is obliged to bear the other's burden, and should not separate from him. This is also the matter that he does not allow the divorced to change, so that he leaves room for them to unite and come together again, even forcing and urging them to unite again, because they may not have the grace of chastity.
How? if one did not want to be reconciled with the other and remain separate, and the other could not hold on and had to have a spouse, what would it do? Would it change? Answer: Yes, without a doubt. For since he is not commanded to live chastely, nor does he have grace, and his spouse does not want to be with him, and so takes away his body, which he cannot do without, God will not force him to do the impossible for the sake of another transgression, and must act as if his spouse had died to him; especially since there is no lack of him for them to come together. But that which is unwilling shall remain without marriage, as St. Paul says here. Further he speaks:
But I say to others, not to the Lord, that if a brother has an unbelieving wife, and she allows herself to live with him, he should not separate from her. And if a woman have an unbelieving husband, and he suffer him to dwell with her, let her not put her away from him.
Because St. Paul here testifies that this piece is not spoken by the Lord, but by himself, he indicates that it is not commanded by God, but that he is free to do otherwise or to do so. For he distinguishes his words from the word of the Lord, that the Lord's word is to be commandment, but his word is to be counsel. And so he wants to say: The other, that is, when there are no matters of anger between the spouses; as when there are two spouses, one of whom is a Christian, 1) the other an un-Christian (as often happened when the faith was preached anew among the Gentiles, that the two were not Christians).
1) In the old editions: "Christians" instead of: a Christian.
one converted, the other not), although here the Christian may divorce the un-Christian, yet it is the apostle's counsel that he not divorce him, as long as his un-Christian 2) spouse suffers and is content that he may be a Christian, and does not hinder or prevent him from living Christianly, and does not force him to deny Christ or to live un-Christianly.
This is what St. Paul means by the word: "and he allows him to dwell with her" 2c., that is, if the unchristian is content and wants to stay with his Christian spouse, and allows him to do everything that is due to a Christian 2c. For marriage is an outward, bodily thing, which neither hinders nor promotes faith, and one may well be a Christian, the other an un-Christian: just as a Christian may eat, drink, buy and engage in all kinds of outward dealings with a heathen, a Jew, a Turk; just as now a married spouse may be a right, pious Christian, and the other a wicked and false Christian, so that for the sake of piety or wickedness it is not necessary to break up the marriage. 3)
But where the unchristian did not want to suffer that his spouse was a Christian, nor lived a Christian life, 4) and resisted and persecuted him, here it would be time to keep Christ's saying in the flesh [Matth. 10, 37]: "Whoever loves his wife or child more than me is not worthy of me. This is the beginning of divorce. But if it is divorce, then there must be either reconciliation, or that without marriage remains, which does not want to reconcile, and the other has power to change, as is said above [§ 69]. For one must hold Christ, the soul's spouse, higher than the physical spouse; and where one does not want to suffer the other, remain with the soul's spouse, who is eternal, and let the physical one go, taking another who may suffer the eternal one next to him.
73) So it should also happen now, that where a man wants to keep his wife, or urge her to commit theft, adultery, or any wrong against God, here also the same cause is to be divorced, and (where she is
2) In the old editions: Unchristian.
3) Weimarsche: "die ehe nicht zureyssen nott ist."
4) In the old editions: "to be his spouse Christians, nor to live Christian."
not reconcile) power of the One to change. Hence it is that adultery divorces and gives power to change. For in the Old Testament, Deut. 13:6-10, it was commanded that every man should help his wife, brother and best friend to death, who would lead him or provoke him to do evil against God. But in the New Testament, since one does not kill bodily, it is enough to divorce him and let him go.
From this it follows that the examples which are read that some wives, in order to save their husbands from death or from the prison sentence, have broken marriage with the consent of their husbands, have not been right; for God's commandment is to be kept, at the cost of man or woman, body or goods, and no man has the right, for any reason, to permit his wife to break marriage. Further, St. Paul speaks:
V. 14 For the unbelieving man is sanctified through the woman, and the unbelieving woman is sanctified through the man. Otherwise their children would be unclean, but now they are holy.
(75) This is spoken in the Hebrew way, according to St. Paul, that to him who is holy all things are holy, as he says Titus 1:15: "All things are pure to the pure"; and Romans 8:28: "All things are for the good of the saints. And thus he means to say: A Christian spouse must not divorce, but may well remain with his unchristian spouse, and also beget and bring up unchristian children. Reason is this: If the unchristian spouse does not prevent his Christian spouse from living a Christian life, then faith is such a powerful thing that it does him no harm to be with unchristians, and is equally valid for him, whether holy or not, so that he may go around. For even death, which is the most horrible thing, is nevertheless a holy, blessed thing to a Christian. Faith can use all things, whether evil or good, without unbelief and its fruits. For these are directly contrary to faith, and do not allow it to remain. Otherwise, what faith allows to remain becomes harmless, pure, holy, useful and wholesome through the same faith, so that the believer can handle it and remain with it without any danger. For if this were not the case, no Christian would have to live, since he would have to live among the wicked and unbelievers.
live with the people. But now that he does not follow them, but needs them well, he may live with them and among them, so that they may also become godly and Christians through him 2c.
(76) Thus, to a Christian, the whole world is holy, pure, useful and pious; again, to an unbeliever, the whole world is unholy, unclean, harmful and corrupt, even God Himself with all His goods, as the 18th Psalm, v. 26, 27, says to God: "With the holy you are holy, and with the pious you are pious, and with the pure you are pure, but with the perverse you are perverse". Why is that? Because the saints, that is, the faithful, can use all things holy and blessed, and sanctify and purify themselves in them; but the unholy and unbelieving sin, desecrate and defile themselves without ceasing in all things, for they cannot use any of them rightly and divinely nor blessedly, which would serve them to blessedness.
(77) So also the children are holy, though they be not baptized nor Christians. They are not holy in their own person, of which holiness St. Paul does not speak here, but they are holy to you, so that your holiness can deal with them and raise them up, so that you are not desecrated in them, as if they were a holy thing. For St. Paul wants to say: If a Christian spouse had great children with an unchristian spouse (as it often happened at that time), and the children did not yet want to be baptized, nor become Christians; because no one should be forced to believe, but be willingly drawn by God through the gospel: Therefore the mother or father shall not leave the children, nor withhold or neglect their maternal or paternal duty, as if they had sinned and defiled themselves against the unbelieving children, but shall 1) have bodily charge over them and care for them, even as if they were the most holy Christians. For they are not unclean nor unholy, that is, your faith may be exercised in them, that it may remain pure and holy.
78. This is how it should be now and always: Where children did not want to accept the gospel
1) Wittenberger and Erlanger: those.
1062 Erl. si, ts-is. Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. vm, iiis-nis. 1063
Therefore, they should not be abandoned or cast out, but cared for and provided for, just as the very best Christians, and their faith should be commanded by God, as long as they are otherwise obedient and pious in other things that affect their outward nature. For parents should and can prevent and punish outward evil behavior and works; unbelief and inward evil behavior can be prevented and punished by no one but God alone, so that this text of St. Paul may still be valid and powerful for us, so that all things may be holy and pure for the faithful.
V. 15 But if the unbeliever divorces himself, let him divorce himself. The brother or sister is not caught in such cases.
Here the apostle absolves and frees the Christian spouse, where his unchristian spouse separates from him or does not want to allow him to live as a Christian, and gives him the power and right to free another spouse.
But what St. Paul speaks of a pagan spouse here is also to be understood of a false Christian; that if he wanted to keep his spouse to unchristian beings and not let him live Christianly: If he would keep his spouse to an unchristian nature and not let him live a Christian life, or if he would separate from him, that same Christian spouse would be free to trust in another. For if this were not right, the Christian spouse would have to run after his unchristian spouse, or live chastely without his will and property, and thus be imprisoned for the sake of another's transgression, and live in his soul's fate. Here St. Paul denies this, and says: "That in such cases the brother or sister is not a prisoner nor his own. As if to say, "In other matters, where husband and wife remain together, as in conjugal duty and the like, one is bound to the other and is his own, so that neither may change from the other; but in these matters, where one spouse keeps the other unchristian to live, or separates from him, he is not bound, nor is he bound to cling to him. But if it is not bound, it is free and loosed; if it is free and loosed, it may change, as if its spouse had died.
81 How, if the other spouse also
1) Weimarsche: den.
If a man, who had been in evil, and also wanted to live a pagan or unchristian life, keep his Christian spouse, or also run away from him; and so on, the third, the fourth, how often such a case would happen; would a man then have ten or more wives who were still alive and had run away from him? and again, a wife have ten or more husbands who would have run away from her? Answer: We cannot stop St. Paul's mouth, so we cannot stop those who need his teaching as often as they want. His words are clear that a brother or sister is free and loose if his spouse runs away from him and does not want to live with him. And he does not say that it should happen only once, but lets it stand and go as often as necessity demands; for he does not want anyone to be caught up in the road of unchastity for the sake of another's wickedness and wickedness. 2)
(82) How then should not the Christian spouse wait until his unchristian spouse returns or dies, as has hitherto been the custom and spiritual right? Answer: If he wants to wait for him, let it be in his good will; because the apostle here speaks freely, he is not obliged to wait for him, but may change in the name of God. And would God that this teaching of St. Paul had been used until now, or that it had been brought into the custom, where husband and wife run away from each other, and one leaves the other behind, from which much fornication and sin have followed. This was helped by the pernicious laws of the pope, who, contrary to this text of St. Paul, forced and compelled one spouse, in case of loss of the soul's bliss, not to change, but to wait for the runaway spouse or to endure his death. In such a case, the brother or sister has been badly imprisoned for the sake of another's wickedness and wickedness, and has been driven without cause into the road of unchastity.
But how if the runaway spouse came back, and now wanted to turn herself in,
2) Walch enclosed this entire paragraph in brackets and made the erroneous remark that it was not in the very first edition. However, it is missing only in the Wittenberg edition, but is found in the Jena, Weimar and Latin editions. The Erlanger brings it in the margin as an addition of Walch.
should one also allow it again and accept it? Answer: Where this, which is stayed, has not yet changed, it may receive him again, and it is to be advised that they sit together again. But where this has changed, one should let that go badly and not take it up again. And it may serve here that Deut. 24, 3. 4. is written about the rejected wife, that the first husband cannot have her again, even if she would get rid of the other one by death or a bill of divorce. So should one do here also, that his running may be punished. And where one did so, there would undoubtedly be less running. But now that the pope opens the door to the runners, and gives their wickedness and evil the power and right to come back, it is no wonder that the world has become full of broken and single marriages, yes, full of fornication, which the devil has sought through the pope's 1) law.
(84) But if they are both guilty, and both run away from each other, it is right that they should immediately take up with each other, and be reconciled, and sit together. And this doctrine of St. Paul shall be stretched so far as to comprehend all separations. As if a man or a woman run away from each other, not only for the sake of Christian faith, but also for whatever reason, be it anger or any other unwillingness, that the guilty spouse should be reconciled or remain without marriage, and the innocent one be free to go, and have power to change, if the other does not want to be reconciled. For all this is an unchristian and heathen thing, that a husband runs away from another for anger or displeasure, and will not suffer good and evil, sweet and sour, with his husband, as he is guilty; therefore such a husband is truly a heathen and an unchristian. But in peace (he says) God has called us.
This is that we should live peaceably with one another: so that even a Christian husband should not quarrel with his unchristian husband for the sake of faith or unbelief, nor divorce him if his unchristian husband lets him live Christianly,
1) "Pabsts" is missing in the Weimar and the Erlanger.
but each should leave the other in his faith, and command the matter to God. For no one should or can be forced or driven to faith, but God must draw him by grace; to this end we should teach, admonish and ask, not force. Therefore, a Christian spouse should conduct the outward affairs of marital status in peace with his non-Christian spouse, and neither defy nor oppose him, neither by running nor by chasing. For God is not a God of strife, but of peace, Rom. 15, 33. Therefore He does not teach us strife, but keeps us at peace. St. Paul continues:
V. 16 But what do you know, you woman, whether you will save the man? Or you man, how do you know if you will save the woman? But as God has distributed to each one.
That is why you should live peacefully with one another in marriage, even with your unchristian spouses (if they do not hinder your Christian nature), and not oppose them, nor force or compel them to believe. For it is neither your work nor your power that anyone should believe, but God's alone. Since you do not know whether or not you are worthy to be saved by God through you, you should be at peace with them, and no man should force his unbelieving wife or quarrel with her for the sake of faith, nor a woman with her unbelieving husband. But if God wants to convert her through you, he will help you to do so, and will distribute grace and gifts among you that serve this purpose. This seems to me to be the right mind of St. Paul in this place, that he does not want to urge anyone to faith or godliness, but to live peacefully with everyone until God converts through us with his grace those whom he wants to convert; as St. Peter also teaches 1 Ep. 2, 12.
(87) So also a false Christian husband is to be dealt with, that his evil life is to be tolerated in peace, and he is not to be defied nor driven to goodness, but only to be kept and helped peaceably and kindly. For you may not be worthy to make someone righteous. But if you are worthy of it, God will grant and distribute it to you.
1066 Erl. SI, 47-so. Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. VIII, IIIS-U2I. 1067
according to his will. However, you are sure that you live with your unchristian or evil husband, as long as you do not follow or approve of his unbelief or evil life, and he does not urge you or hold you to it, but tolerate such unbelief and injustice in your husband, just as one must tolerate it from all the world, even from devils, and always act with good words and peaceful life toward him, until God gives his grace that he also converts. Further:
V. 17: Every man as the Lord hath called him, so let him walk. And so I do in all the wicked.
This is the conclusion of this part of the marriage state. To say, then, that faith and the Christian state are such free things that they are not bound to any state, but are above all states, 1) in all states, and through all states. Therefore there is no need for you to accept or leave any class in order to be saved; but in whatever class the gospel and faith finds you, there you can remain and be saved. Therefore it is not necessary for you to leave marriage and run away from your unchristian spouse for the sake of faith or salvation. Again, it is not necessary that you marry for the sake of faith or salvation. Finally, if you are married, whether to a Christian or an unbeliever, to a pious or a wicked person, you are neither saved nor damned. If thou art without marriage, thou art neither saved nor damned; all this is free, free; 2) but if thou be and remain a Christian, thou shalt be saved; and if thou remain an unchristian, thou shalt be damned.
That's how I create or order it in all the commons.
That is, among all the Christians I preach. For I do not teach them to leave their estates and make mischief, but to remain and live in peace. There 3) you see that St. Paul does not let any state be a blessed state without the one, the Christian state. The others he makes all free, so that they may
1) Weimarsche: "above all estates" and immediately following: "through all estates".
2) "free" is missing in the Wittenberger.
3) Weimarsche: See, there.
They are neither blessed nor condemned by themselves, but may all be blessed by faith and condemned by unbelief, even if they are considered the very best for themselves. Where then will the monks and nuns and other spiritual states remain, which elevate them to higher states of blessedness, next to and above this one state of blessedness? They are all lost, so they let them be free, that the consciences are not bound to them, and are not kept for blessedness, but for the sake of temporal exercise of the body, as I have often said.
V. 18. 19. If anyone is called circumcised, let him not be circumcised. If anyone is called in the foreskin, let him not be circumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and the foreskin is nothing, but keeping God's commandment.
90 Here he sets forth several examples of the decree, that every man should walk as the Lord hath called him. The first is of Jews and Gentiles, saying, "It is all the same whether you are a Jew or a Gentile. If you are circumcised and under the Jewish law, do not think that it is sin and wrong, and you must come out. For faith is above circumcision and all laws, that thou mayest be circumcised or uncircumcised, and need not be either unto salvation, but both are free to abide therein; even as it is not necessary to be married, or to remain without marriage, but both are free. So also, if you are a Gentile, uncircumcised and without Jewish law, you must not think it is wrong, and must be circumcised, but [itj is free. Faith alone makes you righteous, which also alone fulfills the commandments of God.
(91) These two words, "Do not witness foreskin" and "Do not be circumcised," are not to be understood as if St. Paul forbids circumcision and foreskin. For who could keep them both at the same time, since they are contrary to each other, being circumcised and uncircumcised? And he himself also says here, "Circumcision is nothing." Which is contrary to what he says, "Do not witness foreskin." For, if he beget not foreskin, he must be circumcised; how then can circumcision be nothing? So when he says, "The
Foreskin is nothing" is contrary to "Do not be circumcised. For if he is not to be circumcised, he must beget the foreskin; how then can the foreskin be nothing? but he pleads to have trouble, constraint, and conscience about it, namely, that the work in himself is free, neither right nor wrong. And so one should not beget a foreskin, as if one had to be uncircumcised; again, one should not be circumcised, as if one had to be circumcised. Neither is worth anything for salvation, and both may be kept without conscience; so that both, Jewish and Gentile birth or being, neither hinders nor promotes anything before God, but faith alone.
(92) So it should also be said to our people now: To be married is nothing; to be without marriage is also nothing. Having a pagan spouse is nothing; having a Christian spouse is also nothing. He who is married, let him remain married; he who is without marriage, let him not be married, that is, let him leave his conscience unburdened, as if he must be married or not married. Item, being a monk is nothing, being a layman is also nothing; being a priest is nothing, being a nun is also nothing. He who is a layman, let him not be a monk; he who is a monk, let him not be a layman, that is, let him not make any trouble or conscience of being a monk or a layman, but let him remain as he is, so far as the faith remains pure and sure. For where faith cannot remain, the monk should almost leave it, as a married spouse should leave his unchristian spouse, who keeps and drives him from the Christian faith.
But here the Jews would say to Paul: You say that circumcision is nothing, but keeping God's commandment. Now circumcision is hard commanded by God for us Jews; how is it nothing? It is too long to talk about it now, I have talked about it enough in other places. Finally, all the laws in the Book of Moses are given except for Christ; when he comes, he should teach and give faith and love. Where these are, all commandments are fulfilled and abolished, and made free; so that after Christ's coming no commandment is needed any more, except of faith or love. Where love demands it, I should circumcise myself; where it does not, I should leave it alone. Where love demands anger, I should be angry; where not, I should not. Where love demands swear
If I swear, I shall swear; if not, I shall not swear. So from now on, act in accordance with all God's and man's commandments. But what love is, how it only looks at the neighbor's benefit and will, and what faith is, has been said enough elsewhere.
V. 20, 21: Let every man abide in the calling wherein he is called. If you are called as a servant, do not worry; but if you can become free, you will need it much more.
Then he repeats the decision for the second time, and gives another 1) example of a servant and a free man. For at that time there were many of their own people, as there still are in some places, who are called serfs; here St. Paul calls them servants. Now, just as a legitimate husband should hold himself against his wife, because he is also a bondman, so a servant should hold himself against his master, because he is a bondman. That is, the fact that he is in bondage does not prevent him from his Christian faith, and therefore he must not run away from his master, but remain with him, whether the master is believing or unbelieving, pious or wicked; unless his master wanted to keep him from the faith and force him, or to follow his wicked life; for then it is time to run and leave. And all that which is said above 70 ff.] is said of a Christian husband, how he should behave toward his unchristian husband, that is also to be said here of a Christian servant, toward his unchristian master.
95 And what Paul says here of a bondman is also to be held of all hired servants, maids, day laborers, workers, and servants, against their masters and wives; yea, of all vows, covenants, societies, and how one may be related and bound to the other. In these matters, service, loyalty and duty are to be kept by all, whether Christians or un-Christians, pious or wicked; as long as they do not hinder faith and justice, and let you live Christianly. For such states are all free, and unhindered by the Christian faith. 2) As if the king of Poland or Hungary united with the Turk, he shall keep it, and
1) Weimarsche: still; this is missing in the other editions.
2) The following sentence is missing in the Wittenberg.
1070 Erl. si, es--". Interpretations on the I Epistle to the Corinthians. W. vm, 1:21-1128. 1071
say, as Paul teaches here, "GOD has called us in peace."
96) "But if thou canst be free (says St. Paul), thou needest it much more". Not that you should steal and run away from your 1) master without his knowledge and will, but that you do not understand St. Paul's word, when he says that you should remain in the profession in which you are called, as if you had to remain in bondage, although you could become free with the knowledge and will of your master. St. Paul only wants 2) to instruct your conscience, so that you know how it is both free before God, whether you are bond or free. With this, he does not want to prevent you from becoming free, if you can, with the favor of your Lord, so that your conscience should apply equally, you become free or bondage, if you can with God and with honor. For this is not what the Christian faith teaches, to take from another what is his, but rather to do all duty, even to those to whom we owe nothing, nor have any right over us.
V. 22: For he who is called a servant in the Lord is a soldier of the Lord. In the same way, whoever is called a freeman is a servant of Christ.
97. This is what is said: In the sight of God it is equal whether you are free or bond; just as circumcision and foreskin are equal; neither hinders faith and salvation. Just as when I say, "It is all the same in faith whether you are rich or poor, young or old, handsome or ugly, learned or unlearned, layman or priest. For whoever is called poor is rich before God; whoever is called rich is poor before God; whoever is called young is old before God; whoever is called old is young before God; whoever is called ugly is pretty before God. And again, he who is called unlearned is learned before God; and again, he who is called a layman is a priest before God. All of this is because faith makes us all equal before God, and no distinction of person or status counts for anything.
98 So also here: "He who is called a servant is a freeman of the Lord," that is, he
1) Wittenberger: dem.
2) Wittenberger: "wie nu" instead of: will nur.
is as much before him as if he were free, and not a servant. Again, "He that is called a freeman is Christ's servant," that is, he is no better than one that is a servant. For here it is, as St. Paul Gal. 3, 28. says: "Here is no Jew, no Gentile, no servant, no free, no male, no female, but all and all Christ." For there is equal faith, equal goods, equal inheritance, and all things equal. So you might also say, "He who is called a man is a woman before God; and he who is called a woman is a man before God. Therefore the word "a servant of Christ" cannot be said here of the service done to Christ, but it is called a servant among men on earth, because the same belongs to Christ and is under him, so he is as much counted as a freeman, and a freeman as a servant; and yet is Christ's own, in that he is a servant.
V. 23. You are bought with great price; do not become servants of men.
99. What is this saying? Now he has taught that one should remain a servant, and that this does not hinder the Christian faith; but here he declares that one should not become a servant. He undoubtedly says this as a common saying against the teachings of men, which nullify such freedom and equality of faith, and tighten the consciences; namely, whoever teaches that a Christian should not take an un-Christian woman in marriage and stay with her, as the spiritual law does, hinders this freedom, taught by St. Paul here, and makes people have to be more obedient to him than to God's words. That is what he calls human service here. For they think they are becoming servants of God and serving Him, and yet this is the doctrine of men, and so they become servants of men. So did those who preached that Christians must circumcise themselves, and in doing so they also abolished the freedom mentioned above. So Paul fights for Christian freedom at all ends, against the ropes and dungeons of human statutes.
100 But that this is his opinion is proved by his saying, "Ye are bought with a price. There he means Christ, who bought us with his own blood from all sins and laws and made us free,
Gal. 5, 1. Now this purchase does not take place in a worldly way, nor does it affect the alliances that men have with one another, such as the servant against the master, the wife against the husband. He leaves such covenants and wants them kept, but goes spiritually in conscience, so that before God no law binds us anymore, nor sows us, but there we are all free in all things. For before we were bound in sins, but now all sins are gone. But what alliance or freedom remains outwardly, that is neither sin nor merit, but outward estate or trouble, suffering or joy, as other bodily good and evil, in both of which we could live free and without sin.
V. 24. Every man, brethren, in what he is called, let him abide with God.
Then he repeats for the third time this decision about Christian freedom, that all external things are free before God, and a Christian may use them as he pleases, he may accept them or let them go. And he adds: 2) "By God," that is, as much as is between you and God. For you do no service to God, 3) to be free, to remain without marriage, to be a servant, to be free, to become this or that, to eat this or that; again, you do him no displeasure or sin, where you let the one go or stand by. Finally, you owe nothing to God except to believe and confess. In all other matters he releases you and sets you free, so that you may do as you please, without all the trials of conscience; 4) so also that he does not inquire on his account whether you have let your wife go, have left the Lord, and have not kept a covenant; for what does he gain from your doing or not doing these things? But because you are bound to your neighbor, because you have become his own, God does not want to take away his own by his freedom, but wants to keep it for your neighbor. For although God respects nothing for his own sake, he respects it for your neighbor's sake. This is what he means when he says, "By God," as if to say:
1) In the old editions: "Such alliance".
2) Weimarsche: Hiezu.
3) Thus the Jena, Weimar and Latin: okssHuiuin. In the other German editions: Verdienst.
4) Weimarsche: "gefähr des gewissen".
With man, or with your neighbor, I will not set you free; for I will not take from him what is his, until he himself also sets you free; but with me you are set free, and can by no means spoil it, you leave or keep what is external.
Therefore, notice and discern this freedom correctly, that it is not between God and you as it is between you and your neighbor; there this freedom is, here it is not. The reason for this is that God gives you this freedom only in what is yours, not in what is your neighbor's. Separate therefore from one another what is yours and what is your neighbor's. Therefore the man cannot leave the woman, because his body is not his but the woman's. Again. Item: The servant with his body is not his own, but his master's. In the sight of God there is nothing to be gained by a man leaving his wife, for the body is not joined to God, but is freely given by Him for all outward things, and is only inwardly God's own through faith; but before men the covenant is to be kept. This is Summa Summarum: We owe nothing to anyone but to love, and through love to serve our neighbor. Where there is love, that makes it one's own, so that there is no driving of conscience or sin before God, living with food, drink, clothing or otherwise, without it being against one's neighbor; one cannot sin against God here, but against one's neighbor.
103. And it is to be known that this little word "call" here does not mean the state in which one is called; as it is said: The marriage state is your call; the priesthood is your call; and so on. Everyone has his call from God. St. Paul does not speak of such a call here, but he speaks of the gospel call, so that it is said: Remain in the profession in which you are called, that is: As the gospel meets you, and as its call finds you, so remain. If it calls thee in matrimony, abide in the same call wherein it finds thee; if it calls thee in bondage, abide in the bondage wherein thou art called.
(104) How then, if it were to befall me in a sinful state, should I remain in it? Answer: If you are in faith and love, that is, if you are in the call of the gospel, do it,
1074 Erl. 51, 57-5". Interpretations on the 1st epistle to the Corinthians. W. VIII, II2S-IIS2. 1075
But how can you sin if you believe and love? Because it is enough for God through faith, and for your neighbor through love. Therefore it is impossible that you should be called and remain in the sinful state. But if you remain in it, you are not yet called, or have not yet grasped the call. For this call causes you to come out of the sinful state into a godly state, and makes you so that you cannot sin if you remain within, and are free from all things with God through faith; but with men you are everyone's servant, through the
From this you can see that monasticism and spiritualism are unjust in our times, for they join themselves before God to external things, since God freely gives them away, and thus strive against the freedom of faith and God's order; again, since they should be joined, namely, before men, and serve everyone through love, they make themselves free, so that they serve no one, nor are they useful except to themselves, and thus strive against love. So they are a perverse people, perverting all the rights of God; they want to be free, since they are bound, and to be bound, since they are free; and yet they hope for much higher seats in heaven than the common Christian man. Yes, they will sit in the abyss of hell, who turn the heavenly freedom into such a hellish prison, and the lovely servitude into a hostile freedom.
The third part.
Of virginity.
V. 25. 26. But of the virgins I have no commandment of the Lord. But I speak my mind, as I have obtained mercy from the Lord to be faithful. So I think it is good for the present need, that it is good for a man to be so.
We have now heard enough praise for the married state; now we should also preach its misfortune, and honor virginity. But if it were not for St. Paul, it would be quite annoying that he praises the noble state of virginity so scantily 1).
1) In the old editions: kercklich.
and narrow price. First of all, he says: "It is not commanded by the Lord, as little as the marriage state, that is, it should be free for everyone; but with this he takes away all the honor that has been given to him by the high preachers. For where there is no commandment, there is neither merit nor reward before God, but a free being for himself. For it counts the same before God, whether you are a virgin or not. And as he says above [v. 22], "He who is called a servant is a freeman of the Lord," so it may also be said here, "He who is called a virgin is a woman before God; and he who is called a woman before God is a virgin before God. For all things are equal before God, and there is no distinction of person or merit of works, but only the same faith in all and by all.
For this reason the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul that virginity is a precious and noble thing, highly esteemed on earth, so that no one should think himself better and higher before God than another bad Christian because of the greatness and height of such status, but should remain in the simplicity of faith, which makes us all equal before God. For the poisonous nature cannot refrain from making itself seem superior before God through works, and the higher the work, the more it wants to be considered superior. For this reason, it is almost blinded by the fine splendor of virginity, because no work is greater or more beautiful on earth, so that it does not respect a higher status before God than virginity, and thinks that just as a virgin is much more valid on earth than a wife, so it should also be so in heaven.
(108) Hence come the foolish teachers of the devil, who forge special crowns in heaven for nuns and all virgins, and make them brides of Christ, just as if other Christians were not brides of Christ. Then the poor, foolish young people fall down and want to make everyone into these little crowns, and want to make heaven full of virgins and Christ's brides. Meanwhile the Christian faith goes into contempt and oblivion, and dies out, which alone acquires the crown and makes Christ's brides. But know, and be sure, that such crowned virgins, who rely on such doctrine, and in such
The first is to pretend virginity, and not, as St. Paul teaches here, that certainly none of them is or remains a pure virgin, 1) and will finally be found neither a virgin nor Christ's bride.
On the other hand, virginity, according to his faithful opinion, is good for the sake of the present need. This is the first price of St. Paul's virginity. And there you see of what "good" 2) St. Paul also spoke above [v. 1], when he said: It is good not to touch a woman, that he does not speak a word of merit or reward in heaven; as St. Jerome also missed here, and understood and interpreted Paul wrongly; but of the "good" 2) on this temporal life, as will follow more. So this is a good reason to remain a virgin and to avoid the arduous marriage, that persecution is always on a Christian's neck for the sake of the gospel, and that he is in danger every hour that he must risk his goods, his friends and his life, and be driven away or strangled. This is what St. Paul calls the present distress.
Now tell me, where will you find a virgin in all the monasteries, as far as the pope has ruled, who have remained virgins for such a cause 3)? Where is their property, life and limb in the driving? They are so highly liberated and assured of their goods, life and friendship, both by imperial and papal authority, that no safer people on earth ever came; that everyone must confess that they remain virgins, not for the sake of distress and danger, but for the sake of security, and that there should be no distress with them; like the contradiction of this cause, which St. Paul sets here. For you should well see 4) where one would have to wait in the monasteries for such distress and trouble, where now a thousand and a thousand monasteries stand, there would not stand one stick. But 5) What am I talking about? One can see what monasteries, together with the entire papal
1) The thread in this sentence is this: "But you know that of such crowned virgins certainly none is a pure virgin" 2c.
2) Erlanger: Good.
3) In Latin better than in German: psrnmirssrit.
4) Thus the Weimar. Wittenberg: solst.
5) Weimarsche: And.
thum for hardship and suffering in body and soul; they are all fattening sows.
111 Thus you say: Married people must be in trouble and distress for the sake of the gospel, just as virgins are; for as the gospel is common to all Christians, so also is the cross and persecution. Did Abraham have to leave his father and his property with his Sarah in such distress and risk his life with her at all times? Answer: St. Paul does not say that anyone should or must remain a virgin for the sake of such distress, but he says, "It is good and profitable to remain so. The need is common, but virgins are better off than married women. For if Abraham had not had his Sarah, he would have been spared many troubles and sorrows, and would have passed through more easily. A virgin is only one body and may not care for anyone; a married person is attached to another, and there is much care and trouble, and many things are involved, as experience teaches.
112. but they will make shameful eyes, and will pout a lot that they have kept their chastity in vain, because they should not be higher before God than all other Christians. But by this it will also be noticed that they are the foolish virgins who spilled the oil [Matth. 25, 8.], because they did not remain virgins out of a Christian, simple opinion, but for the sake of reward, fame, height and honor; not considering that it is good to remain like that, as St. Paul says here, but to acquire something good by it in that life in the first place 7). And so they have made a use of their virginity, so that they want to make a profit with it before God, and not be satisfied with the temporal advantage of chastity, and with the eternal good of faith; therefore it must grieve them, because it has become sour to them, and yet they have kept a lost chastity.
V. 27, 28: If you are bound to a wife, do not seek to be loosed. But if thou art loosed from a wife, seek no wife. But if you are free, you have not sinned. And such a
6) In the old editions: "Mestsew".
7) "to" is missing in the Wittenberger.
Virgin freed, she does not sin. But such will have bodily tribulation. But I spared yours gladly.
(113) There you have it both that there is no sin, free and not free. For the apostle thinks most highly of consciences, to instruct them; after that also, what is profitable and best here on earth. And why it is good not to be free, he points out in brief words, saying, "The married must have tribulation in the flesh. This is the cry that all the world sings, says and writes about the conjugal life, that for the sake of good days no one may become conjugal, there must be much trouble and evil days in the state; all of which virgins are above. But I cannot yet tell you about the tribulations of married life, for I am told that I know nothing about them and have not experienced them.
114 Well, then, I believe here Sanct Paulo. But I know two of these tribulations from the Scriptures: The first, when God said to Adam, Gen. 3, 19: "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread, and in sorrow shalt thou eat upon the earth all the days of thy life." A man is burdened with the misery of feeding himself and his wife, and faith suffers hardship because poverty is painful. Here belongs the misfortune with the household, the danger of the cattle and the goods; finally the cunning and unfaithfulness of the people with whom he must live and deal. For he has to keep himself very low, and often keep still and bite off evil tricks, because he is bound to his wife, whom he otherwise would not look at, where he would be free. Thus is the woman's affliction, that she must bear children, beget and give birth with pain, 1) not sleep at night, and even often break off her own, and suffer all good things, which she would not be allowed to do if she remained a virgin, as God also says to her, Gen. 3, 16: "You shall bear children with pain" 2c.
The other is that St. Peter says that a woman is a weak and frail thing, and that a man must bear much with her if they are to remain one. From which error it comes that one so rarely has a good marriage.
1) Weimarsche: des weybs "über diß seyn trübsal mit linder tragen, zeugen, geperen mit schmerzen, und".
as love and peace is within. Again, the woman God, 2) Gen. 3, 16, is subject to the man, that she must go and be where the man goes and wants, that her mind must also often be broken. If there is something more sinister, and you want to know it, then take a woman. I consider these two to be the greatest, for they understand a great deal in themselves. But all this is neither sin nor evil in the sight of God, but only a temporal, external adversity in this life, which must be considered by anyone who wants or needs to be married. Of course, the apostle suggests that no one should despise such a state because of its inconvenience, as if it did not please God or was not to serve God in it, as the false teachers did, who put all worship and good works outside this state and praised it.
For this reason St. Paul also moderates his word and says: Tribulation of the flesh, not of the spirit, because the tribulation of the spirit is sin and an evil conscience; but the tribulation of the flesh is outward trouble, toil and unpleasure. And what St. Paul calls "of the flesh" in the Hebrew way, we call "bodily," so that bodily affliction is as much as bodily affliction. Not that in the body, like a disease, but it is tribulation in the things, so that we have to deal bodily, and as for the body, as wife and child, servants, house and farm, cattle and property, and all beings among the people, in the false, evil world.
Whoever then has the grace to remain chaste, let him keep his pride, and beware of the marital state, and do not enter into such trouble, for necessity compels him; as St. Paul here faithfully counsels, and is also to be advised. For it is a great, noble freedom to be without marriage, and it saves much trouble, trouble and suffering, which St. Paul grants to everyone, as he says here, "I spared you gladly." Behold, this is rightly praising virginity, not putting on her merit and height before God, but praising her rest and good estate in this life. For one also finds those who become married out of sheer pride, without need, who otherwise might well remain chaste.
2) Wittenberg, Jena and Weimar: by GOtt. The latter remarks: "Luther probably wanted to write: 'von GOtt, dem man Unterthan ist'".
They wrestle after evil days without restraint, and it serves them right where they find them.
But I say this, brethren, that the time is short. This is also the opinion: Those who have wives are as if they had none. And they that weep, as if they wept not. And they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not. And they that buy, as if they kept not. And they that need this world, that they abuse not the same. For the things of this world perish.
This is a common teaching for all Christians, that they should be aware of their eternal good, which they possess in faith, and despise this life, so that they do not sink too deeply into it with love and lust, or with sorrow and unpleasure, but keep themselves as guests on earth, so that they only need everything for a short time for need, and not for lust. That is, to have a wife, as if I did not have one, when in my heart I would rather be without a wife, and yet, for the sake of avoiding sin, a wife is necessary to me. But he that seeketh not only need, but also pleasure in it, hath not a wife, but is wholly possessed of a wife. In the same way, a Christian should be careful in all other things, so that he only saves the need with it, and does not atone for the lust and feed the Adam.
V. 32, 33, 34: But I would that ye were without care. He who is single cares for what belongs to the 1) Lord, as he pleases the Lord. But he that is free careth for the things that pertain to the world, as he pleaseth the woman. There is a difference between a woman and a virgin. She who is not free (2) cares for what belongs to the Lord, that she may be holy, both in body and in spirit. But she that is free careth for the things that pertain to the world, that she may please the man.
1) In the old editions, "angehören" is always construed with the accusative.
2) The text reads in the redaction, which the Weimar edition brings: "wie er dem weybe gefalle, und ist zur teylet [Vulgate: st [st äivisus^. Eh" weyb und eyn Jungfraw, die on ehe ist, sorget" 2c. The interpretation, of course, refers to this text, so there are significant deviations from the text of the Wittenberg edition in the two following paragraphs. Otherwise, our text agrees almost word for word with that of the Weimar edition.
This is the other fruit and benefit of chastity on earth, that one can care for God all the more, not with their singing and reading, as the clergy now think, for there is no more worship with them; but that one can hang on to the word of God with good rest, reading, praying, acting and preaching daily; 3) as St. Paul admonishes Timothy. For a married man cannot wholly devote himself to reading and praying. Therefore there is a difference, as St. Paul speaks here, between a wife and a virgin. A wife must devote a large part of her life to making sure that she is right with her spouse, and so, like Martha, she is bound by many of the worries that married life demands. A virgin, however, is free from such worries; therefore, she can give herself completely to God.
120 But the apostle does not want to condemn the married state for this reason. For he does not say that a married man has vain care for the world or is separated from God, but that there is a difference between him and a single man, namely, that he must have much care and cannot always pray and handle the word of God. Although his care and work are good, it is much better to be free to pray and to handle the word of God; for in this way he is useful and comforting to many people, and indeed to all of Christendom: that this is a great and noble thing, to keep anyone from marrying who has grace. But our clergy, who neither pray, nor teach, nor learn the word of God, but torment themselves with the laws of men, and murmur and howl in the choir, would do better to guard the swine in the marriage state.
V. 35. But these things I say for your benefit; not that I should cast a snare about your necks, but that it may be well done, and that ye may always serve the Lord without hindrance.
(121) This is: I do not command chastity, but leave it free, nor do I advise it, as if you should be ashamed if you do not remain chaste and would rather be married; for I do not want anyone to be entangled or entangled with it.
3) Thus the Jena, the Weimar and the Latin. Wittenberg and Erlangen: "read and pray and act, preach.
have bound. I alone say that it is a fine and free thing about the state of virginity; whoever is willing and able, let him accept it. Here you see that in this matter there is no rope to be laid, nor anyone to be forced to chastity by commandments or vows. So it is certain that Paul writes these words to all Christians in Corinth, not only to the laity; and does not yet bring up any merit of virginity before God, but praises that it is good and useful in this life, as he did above [v. 26].
V. 36 But if anyone thinks it is not right with his virgin, because she is manly, and it will not be otherwise, let him do as he pleases; he does not sin, he sets her free.
This is a strange text, that even a man may give a virgin in marriage, but it is considered that he is mocked with his virgin, as having gone too long. St. Paul wants everyone to be free in this and to do what is good and useful for him. If it will not be otherwise, he says, that is, it must be done, and so it is the way in your city and among your people that one is ashamed if one lets old virgins become, then he does what he wants, he gives them up, or despises the shame. Truly virginity is not esteemed, if the apostle, even to avoid a little shame or ridicule, gives it away; he will not have known the virgin's little crown.
V.37. But if a man, being at liberty and having free will, resolves in his heart to let his virgin remain so, he does well.
123. hard above [v. 36.], where he says: "If someone with his virgin" 2c., and here: "Who will thus let his virgin remain" 2c., he speaks of father, mother, brothers, or who the guardians are. This indicates that children are not to be married or remain virgins of their own free will, but those under whose authority they are are to forgive or keep them. But where these are not, or do not take care of them, they may go as they may. But what he says here about free will is to be understood in such a way that no one keeps his virgin without her will;
because where she does not want, he does not have a free will to let her remain a virgin. So also, where otherwise a thing would be that he would be forced by others to give her up, as that he would be ashamed with his old virgin, or would be forced by friends or authorities.
V. 38. Finally, he who marries does well, but he who does not conceal does better.
Now the power of the parents over the children is expressed, that they may not marry without their will, nor remain without marriage, as I have often written about it. This "good" and this "better" is sufficient above.
50 ff] said that it is to be understood from the "good" here on earth that the married state is good, that is, without sin and pleasing to God, and free is everyone, but the chaste state is calmer and freer.
V. 39, 40 A woman is bound by the law as long as her husband lives, but if her husband passes away, she is free to marry whom she pleases, only that it may be in the Lord. In my opinion, she is more blessed where she remains. But I think I also have the Spirit of God.
He also tells this piece in Rom. 7, 1. ff. and goes with it to a spiritual likeness, which he leaves standing here and continues there. 1) But it is the conclusion of this chapter that the marriage state is a captive thing before the world, but free before God. Just as he says above [v. 22] of the servant that he is free before God, even though he is in bondage before the world. But those who live without marriage are both free and unchained before God and the world. Therefore he calls their state more blessed than that of the married, not according to eternal blessedness, since faith alone is greater or more valid, according to which it is, but according to this life, that it has less trouble, worry, driving and work.
This, then, is the sum of this chapter: it is good not to be free unless necessary; but it is necessary when God does not give the strange, noble gift of chastity. For no man was created for chastity, but we are all created to beget children, and the
1) Wittenberger: vorführet. Latin: sxxlicnt.
If someone should not be in this trouble, neither commandment, nor vow, nor intention, but only God's grace and miraculous hand shall take him out. If he does not, it may be lifted up, but it will not gain a good end.
For this reason, they are terrible murderers of souls, who push the young people into the monasteries and keep them in by force, just as if chastity were a thing, like putting on and taking off shoes, and in our hands; even though they find themselves otherwise, and drive others there, which they have never touched with a finger, nor are able to. It is soon said, Be chaste; yea, why art thou not also chaste? It is a good thing: Eat and drink thou, and bid me fast always. But it is said enough to those who let them say; the
but do not hear, what more can be said to them? God enlighten them, or forbid them, so that they do not strangle the souls. Amen.
1) In the end, everyone shall know at once2 ) that everything that goes out with my will and knowledge, that such has been inspected beforehand by those who are due, as not only imperial, but also our university order and order holds. But what goes out behind me elsewhere shall not be attributed to me.
1) This postscript is missing in the Wittenberg and Erlangen editions, but is found in the Jena, Weimar and Latin editions. It refers to the edict issued in February 1583 at the Imperial Diet in Nuremberg, which enjoins a censorship: "to ensure that the said Luther and his followers do not write or truck anything new until the future council. Cf. De Wette, vol. II, p. 357. Walch, old edition, vol. XV, appendix, no. 102, s 2. Weim. Ausg., vol. XII, p. 59.
2) "at once" -- once and for all.