Martin Luther on a man’s natural desire for a woman

Reformed Covenanter

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in terms that are within our power, such as to give God cattle, sheep, houses, land, and so on. Now, chastity is not in our power, as little as are God’s other wonders and graces. But we are all made for marriage, as our bodies show and as the Scriptures state in Gen., ch. 2: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

Whoever, therefore, considers himself a man and believes himself to be included in this general term should hear what God, his Creator, here says and decrees for him: he does not wish man to be alone but desires that he should multiply, and so he makes him a helpmeet to be with him and help him so that he may not be alone. This is the Word of God, through whose power procreative seed is planted in man’s body and a natural, ardent desire for woman is kindled and kept alive. This cannot be restrained either by vows or by laws. For it is God’s law and doing. Let him who will be alone abandon the name of man and prove or make himself an angel or spirit, for God does not grant or allow such a condition to a man. ...

For more, see:

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Martin Luther on a man’s natural desire for a woman

First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in ter…
reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in terms that are within our power, such as to give God cattle, sheep, houses, land, and so on. Now, chastity is not in our power, as little as are God’s other wonders and graces. But we are all made for marriage, as our bodies show and as the Scriptures state in Gen., ch. 2: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

Whoever, therefore, considers himself a man and believes himself to be included in this general term should hear what God, his Creator, here says and decrees for him: he does not wish man to be alone but desires that he should multiply, and so he makes him a helpmeet to be with him and help him so that he may not be alone. This is the Word of God, through whose power procreative seed is planted in man’s body and a natural, ardent desire for woman is kindled and kept alive. This cannot be restrained either by vows or by laws. For it is God’s law and doing. Let him who will be alone abandon the name of man and prove or make himself an angel or spirit, for God does not grant or allow such a condition to a man. ...

For more, see:

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Martin Luther on a man’s natural desire for a woman

First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in ter…
reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
I’d be curious to see how Luther exegeted 1 Corinthians 7:7-8 KJV.
 
From Luther's Preface to 1 Corinthians (1545)

In chapter 7, he gives instruction concerning chastity and the wedded state. He praises chastity and virginity, saying that they are profitable for the better attending to the Gospel; as Christ also teaches, in Matthew 19:12, concerning the chaste who are chaste for the sake of the Gospel or the kingdom of heaven. But Paul wills that it shall not be forced or compulsory, and that it shall not be kept at the risk of greater sin; otherwise, marriage is better than a chastity which is a continual burning.​
 
Phil D. said:
From Luther's Preface to 1 Corinthians (1545)

In chapter 7, he gives instruction concerning chastity and the wedded state. He praises chastity and virginity, saying that they are profitable for the better attending to the Gospel; as Christ also teaches, in Matthew 19:12, concerning the chaste who are chaste for the sake of the Gospel or the kingdom of heaven. But Paul wills that it shall not be forced or compulsory, and that it shall not be kept at the risk of greater sin; otherwise, marriage is better than a chastity which is a continual burning.​
Click to expand...
I found this online as well, but it seems to contradict Luther’s statement in the original post, which reads: “Let him who will be alone abandon the name of man and prove or make himself an angel or spirit, for God does not grant or allow such a condition to a man. ...”

Perhaps he changed his mind?
 
Reformed Covenanter said:
First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in terms that are within our power, such as to give God cattle, sheep, houses, land, and so on. Now, chastity is not in our power, as little as are God’s other wonders and graces. But we are all made for marriage, as our bodies show and as the Scriptures state in Gen., ch. 2: “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

Whoever, therefore, considers himself a man and believes himself to be included in this general term should hear what God, his Creator, here says and decrees for him: he does not wish man to be alone but desires that he should multiply, and so he makes him a helpmeet to be with him and help him so that he may not be alone. This is the Word of God, through whose power procreative seed is planted in man’s body and a natural, ardent desire for woman is kindled and kept alive. This cannot be restrained either by vows or by laws. For it is God’s law and doing. Let him who will be alone abandon the name of man and prove or make himself an angel or spirit, for God does not grant or allow such a condition to a man. ...

For more, see:

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

Martin Luther on a man’s natural desire for a woman

First, the vow must be possible of fulfilment and within our power to perform. For who will vow an impossible thing? Or who will demand it? All vows are therefore described in the Scriptures in ter…
reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com
Click to expand...
I think Luther is wrong on this. He is swinging the other direction from romish celibacy. If anyone desires to be single, man or woman, and can remain chaste, he/she is at liberty to do so (Matt 19:12). There is no need to burden this person with "cares of the world" (1 Cor 7:33, 34)
 
Last edited:
He is speaking in general terms. Generally speaking, most people do not have the gift of celibacy and need marriage. It is really just common sense.
 
Here are the first 3 pages (of 18) from Luther’s commentary on 1 Cor. 7:6-8 (1523):

WIDOWHOOD​
​
6 I say this by way of concession, not of command. ​
7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
​
​
If above he already said in the way of command: "But because of the temptation to immorality, each man should have his own wife," and enjoined "conjugal rights" in the married state, why does he in this passage say that he speaks "by way of concession, not of command"? Doubtless he wants to say that marriage should be a free choice and not required of everyone, as in the Old Testament; therefore he commands no one to marry but leaves it to the individual. But once having married, the individual is commanded to maintain the conjugal rights. But where the grace to be free to marry or not marry is not present, there marriage is commanded, yes, even more than commanded.​
​
Why, furthermore, does he say: "I wish that all were as I myself am"? Is this not spoken against matrimony, as though he wanted no one to marry? True, Paul wishes that everyone might have the great gift of chastity so that he would be relieved of the labor and cares of marriage and might be concerned only with God and His Word, as he himself was. And who wouldn't wish this for everyone, especially since Christian love desires all good things, both temporal and eternal, for everyone? Love knows no limits of the good it can do and desire, even though it be something impossible, as when Paul in Rom. 9:3 wishes himself cut off from Christ for the salvation of the Jews.​
​
"But," he says, "each has his own special gift from God, one of one kind and one of another." Here he confesses that his wish cannot be fulfilled and that it is not God's will to grant everyone this great gift. Note this passage well, for there is much in it, and it praises marriage no less than celibacy. For when one compares marriage and virginity, then of course chastity is a nobler gift than marriage. Nevertheless, marriage is just as much a gift of God, St. Paul says here, as chastity is. A man is nobler than a woman, yet woman is just as much a creation of God as is man. For God all things are equal which yet among themselves are unequal. Everything He has created calls Him Creator and Lord, and none of it calls Him so more or better than another, whether it be small or large. Therefore, marriage and virginity are equal before Him, for both are His divine gift, even though, when compared, one is better than the other.​
​
From this it is clear how grievously in error are those who glorify nuns, claiming that their state is more glorious and better in the sight of God than matrimony. They contrive fictitious crowns for them and all kinds of virtues and honors, and thus they produce vainglorious, unchristian, and even ungodly people who rely more on their station and work than on faith in Christ and on God's grace, despising marriage as something much inferior - even before God - to their own status and calling themselves "brides of Christ." They are rather the brides of the devil, because they do not use chastity as it should be used, namely, not to pretend to be better in the eyes of God but to make people here on earth freer and more capable to give attention to God's Word rather than to marriage.​
​
Now since both are a gift from God and marriage is given as a common gift to all but chastity is reserved for the few as a very special gift, it is clear that each must consider carefully whether he finds in himself the common or the special gift. And since St. Paul here freely concludes that it is a gift, we must admit that it is not our doing, possession, or capacity. Therefore no one can either vow it or keep such a vow. For I cannot bind in promise that which is His or is His gift unless He has already given it to me or I am certain of His promise to give it to me, as was Jeremiah (Jer. 16:2). And that is why there is no example of vows in the Scriptures except of things that have already been given to us or are to be given to us, as for instance in Num. 30, where we read of houses, fields, money, cattle, the chastisement of the body with fasting or other discipline, etc.​
​
One of the more interesting things he says about verse 8, is that it shows Paul was a widower.
 
Last edited:
CovenantPatriot87 said:
I think Luther is wrong on this. He is swinging the other direction from romish celibacy. If anyone desires to be single, man or woman, and can remain chase, he/she is at liberty to do so (Matt 19:12). There is no need to burden this person with "cares of the world" (1 Cor 7:33, 34)
Click to expand...
Those that desire to be single shouldn't give chase to anyone.
 
Challer said:
I found this online as well, but it seems to contradict Luther’s statement in the original post, which reads: “Let him who will be alone abandon the name of man and prove or make himself an angel or spirit, for God does not grant or allow such a condition to a man. ...”

Perhaps he changed his mind?
Click to expand...
Brother,

In the quote from the OP, Luther is opposing vows of celibacy, as vows that we have no promise of strength to perform. It's the exact same doctrine as WCF XXII.vii:

No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise or ability from God.a In which respect, Popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

In the commentary on I Cor, he's talking about the preferability of one state over another, which doesn't imply taking vows to remain in a particular state perpetually.

The difference can be illustrated from Luther's own life. He took the unlawful vow while he was still in darkness, and later repudiated it, while still preferring singleness for his work's sake. Later, he chose to marry, reasoning that it would "please his father, rile the pope, cause the angels to laugh, and the devils to weep."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top