Did Luther promote Polygamy??!!

[ImaginaryDay2]

Attributed to Martin Luther:

The husband must be sure and convinced in his own conscience by means of the Word of God that it is lawful in his case. Therefore let him seek out such men as may convince him by the Word of God, whether Carlstadt, or some other, matters not at all to the Prince. For if the fellow is not sure of his case, then the permission of the Prince will not make him so; nor is it for the Prince to decide on this point, for it is the priests business to expound the Word of God, and, as Zacharias says, from their lips the Law of the Lord must be learned. I, for my part, admit I can raise no objection if a man wishes to take several wives since Holy Scripture does not forbid this;
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.ca/2009/01/luther-i-confess-that-i-cannot-forbid.html

:scared:

 

[MoreCoffee]

Attributed to Martin Luther:



:scared:

How naughty!

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

:smirk:

 

[IACOBVS]

I don't think he was actually promoting it. He merely said that since it wasn't forbidden in Holy Scripture, so he couldn't forbid it. The whole "traditional marriage" argument that so many use against certain other marriages gets quite murky very quickly, and those who would use that phrase to defend modern, Western, heterosexual, monogamous marriage quickly find themselves neck-deep in matrimonial doo-doo.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Perhaps a back-fire of "Sola Scriptura" that Protestants hadn't counted on? But I'm with the same thinking as the blog writer - we can't necessarily frame the argument in a 21st century context, but have to use a cultural lens for his opinion, and read further into context....

Nah, it's the back-fire thing

 

[MoreCoffee]

Perhaps a back-fire of "Sola Scriptura" that Protestants hadn't counted on? But I'm with the same thinking as the blog writer - we can't necessarily frame the argument in a 21st century context, but have to use a cultural lens for his opinion, and read further into context....

Nah, it's the back-fire thing

Sola Scriptura lands you in uncharted territory with every reader who wants to ignore tradition. Luther may have respected some of the saints and some of the church councils but he was in uncharted territory a lot of the time so he had to wing it for doctrines (and he did).

 

[IACOBVS]

Perhaps a back-fire of "Sola Scriptura" that Protestants hadn't counted on? But I'm with the same thinking as the blog writer - we can't necessarily frame the argument in a 21st century context, but have to use a cultural lens for his opinion, and read further into context....

Nah, it's the back-fire thing

See ... I'm still an Anglican even though I attend a Lutheran church. No Sola Scriptura for me. Anglicans use the "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason" thing, or at least are supposed to. It has to make sense in the end.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

^^^ Patiently waits for Lamm and Josiah to sign on...

 

[IACOBVS]

^^^ Patiently waits for Lamm and Josiah to sign on...

Cheeky

 

[faramir.pete]

Personally I do not see that Luther is promoting polygamy here, he is simply stating the biblical truth, that polygamy is not seen as wrong in the bible, indeed if you read the narrative polygamy is commonly practised by the Patriarchs and their peoples and indeed must have been common amongst societies during the time when Paul wrote his epistles, otherwise why would he choose to state that leaders and elders of the church should have just one wife.

It is interesting that Paul never condemns anyone for polygamy, that is left until a much later era in Christian history and if I am honest I am not convinced the ruling was necessary or correct, but as I am not in any position to say or do anything about it and the laws of my country outlaws polygamy, the issue is moot in any case.


Pete from Peterborough UK

 

[MoreCoffee]

Personally I do not see that Luther is promoting polygamy here, he is simply stating the biblical truth, that polygamy is not seen as wrong in the bible, indeed if you read the narrative polygamy is commonly practised by the Patriarchs and their peoples and indeed must have been common amongst societies during the time when Paul wrote his epistles, otherwise why would he choose to state that leaders and elders of the church should have just one wife.

It is interesting that Paul never condemns anyone for polygamy, that is left until a much later era in Christian history and if I am honest I am not convinced the ruling was necessary or correct, but as I am not in any position to say or do anything about it and the laws of my country outlaws polygamy, the issue is moot in any case.


Pete from Peterborough UK

Jesus said "the two will be one ..." rather than "the many will be one ..." when he spoke of marriage.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matthew 19:3-6

 

[faramir.pete]

Jesus said "the two will be one ..." rather than "the many will be one ..." when he spoke of marriage.

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder."
Matthew 19:3-6

You are correct with your quotes, however I am not sure you are correct in applying them as you have.

The fact that Jesus did not speak of many wives does not preclude them from acceptance. His statement that the two shall be one speaks of the sanctity of marriage, as does his teaching on divorce, all of which can be applied to polygamous relationships.

The position would simply be that a man should not divorce any of the wives with whom he has united to be become one.

I know our societies both fall over themselves to interpret the scriptures to support monogamous marriages, and I believe that monogamy is a good and blessed position to live in (I have enjoyed it for over 40 years now), but I do not believe that the bible teaches it nor do I believe that God expects it.

You only have to research the OT teaching on how a brother should marry his dead brother's widow to see that the Jews believed in and practiced polygamy. And we know that the other nations of ancient middle east, far east and even Europe practiced this too.

Indeed the Mormons of the US even practice(d) it until very recently.

From my research the reasoning behind outlawing the practice was more to do with confusing inheritances than with any religious edict and certainly has never been referred to expressly by God in anything I have read in the bible.


Pete from Peterborough UK

 

[Lamb]

When reading Luther we have to determine 1) the context of what was written, 2) the time period of when it was written and 3) to whom it was written to have a full understanding. Luther changed his mind on things throughout his lifetime. He said vulgar things. He said things that make Lutherans cringe. Which is why we do not worship Luther or believe in every little thing he wrote or said

I always understood that quote to come out of the Philip of Hesse bigamy situation but the link the OP gave says that's not true. I'll have to research it again.

 

[Josiah]

Sola Scriptura lands you in uncharted territory with every reader who wants to ignore tradition.

.


1. OF COURSE, you are entirely misrepresenting the praxis of Sola Scriptura. As you know, the praxis of Sola Scriptura has nothing to do with ignoring ANYTHING or with "every reader" doing anything. And as we all know, it has NOTHING to do with the current, official "tradition" of your individual denomination or it itself insisting that there is only ONE "authoritative, infallible interpreter" - it itself alone (of course). And it certainly has NOTHING to do with "ignoring" the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as we all know. It has to do with embracing GOD'S written words as the rule in the norming of disputed dogmas among us; it is rejected by the RCC (and also LDS) because both of those denominations reject any and all accountability in the dogmas of it itself alone since each has declared that there is ONE individual denomination that CANNOT be wrong when it comes to official dogma, and each claims that ONE is (hold on to your hat): itself (alone, uniquely, individually, denominationally) - thus Scripture must not be used as a rule (or at least such is a total waste of time); or as one of my Catholic teachers put the RCC's rejection of this praxis, "Scripture MUST agree with the Catholic Church or God would be wrong - and that's just not possible."


2. I am at a loss.... a complete loss.... why Catholics are SO obsessed with the personal opinions of Luther. Maybe they think Protestants hold him to be a Pope - infallible, unaccountable, and all his words ergo must be the literal words of God? Luther said ALL KINDS OF THINGS (and it all seems to have gotten written down!) and Catholics have had 500 years to perfect the snipping out of context and "translating" as they wish. Who cares? Luther was a mere mortal who put his pants on one leg at the time. Like all except Jesus, he could be wrong (and sometimes was). Protestants do NOT follow the lead of the RCC and LDS in insisting that SELF is uniquely and individually infallible and that the words of self ergo are the very words of God; Protestants do NOT follow the lead of the RCC and LDS in insisting there is some mortal man who speaks in the stead of God (IF and ONLY if the self-same denomination agrees with such).


3. I honestly believe that critics don't care what Luther said or believed or wrote, so these "discussions" are worthless. But here's a response: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Personally I do not see that Luther is promoting polygamy here, he is simply stating the biblical truth, that polygamy is not seen as wrong in the bible, indeed if you read the narrative polygamy is commonly practised by the Patriarchs and their peoples and indeed must have been common amongst societies during the time when Paul wrote his epistles, otherwise why would he choose to state that leaders and elders of the church should have just one wife.

I agree with your points about the entire narrative. I'd need to read a bit further to see the point made about the Patriarchs - there was a lot there to ingest. Luther did, though, advise that it should not be practiced amongst Christians, and essentially left the matter to local clergy, although he could find no prohibition against it biblically. The response appears to be written to a head of State who wrote to Luther about whether it would be permissible for the head of State to give the "green light" to this.

It is interesting that Paul never condemns anyone for polygamy, that is left until a much later era in Christian history and if I am honest I am not convinced the ruling was necessary or correct, but as I am not in any position to say or do anything about it and the laws of my country outlaws polygamy, the issue is moot in any case.
Pete from Peterborough UK

A case might be made from the instructions to husbands and wives in Ephesians that appears to support monogamous marriage.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

3. I honestly believe that critics don't care what Luther said or believed or wrote, so these "discussions" are worthless. But here's a response: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html
- Josiah

What I see in the response (among many other things, so, yes, I did read it) is this snippet:

Polygamy, this is the firm conviction of Luther, could only be sanctioned if there were a plain command of God to that effect.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.ca/2006/03/persepctives-of-luther-luther.html

This really says (as did a lot of the article) the same thing as the OP - Luther was relying on a "plain command of God" either way, and could not (or did not) find it.Therefore, he drew no real conclusive statement. Luther's comment that "...if anyone thereafter should practice bigamy, let the Devil give him a bath in the abyss of hell" appears to be not so much a condemnation of the act, but a response to being exposed for permitting such a union.

But, at the end of the day:

With Luther’s attitude on Bigamy, and his involvement with Phillip of Hesse, we see one of the warts of Luther. Luther had to learn the hard way with his attitude on Bigamy.

Warts. We've all got 'em.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

When reading Luther we have to determine 1) the context of what was written, 2) the time period of when it was written and 3) to whom it was written to have a full understanding. Luther changed his mind on things throughout his lifetime. He said vulgar things. He said things that make Lutherans cringe. Which is why we do not worship Luther or believe in every little thing he wrote or said

I always understood that quote to come out of the Philip of Hesse bigamy situation but the link the OP gave says that's not true. I'll have to research it again.

The link that Josiah gave was a bit more informative. I was rather amused by the statements, myself, and it did appear to cause a bit of a kerfuffle

 

[atpollard]

I am always amused when people point to the Patriarchs as support for polygamy. Can someone point me to the patriarch where that worked out well for them?

Let's see, Abram/Abraham was married to just Sarah, but slept with her handmaiden to help God along with his plan. So let's count that as support for polygamy. How did that work out for him?

Isaac had one wife.

Jacob had two wives, one who was devoted to him, but unloved and one who was loved, but never satisfied. Then they used their handmaidens and children to wage a war for Jacob's affection. In the end, some of his children plotted to murder their half brother. So yeah, let's have polygamy because we need more families like that.

King David and Solomon had multiple wives, how did that turn out for them?

So where are these successful polygamy patriarchs in the Bible? Why on Earth would anyone want what they had?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am always amused when people point to the Patriarchs as support for polygamy. Can someone point me to the patriarch where that worked out well for them?

Let's see, Abram/Abraham was married to just Sarah, but slept with her handmaiden to help God along with his plan. So let's count that as support for polygamy. How did that work out for him?

Isaac had one wife.

Jacob had two wives, one who was devoted to him, but unloved and one who was loved, but never satisfied. Then they used their handmaidens and children to wage a war for Jacob's affection. In the end, some of his children plotted to murder their half brother. So yeah, let's have polygamy because we need more families like that.

King David and Solomon had multiple wives, how did that turn out for them?

So where are these successful polygamy patriarchs in the Bible? Why on Earth would anyone want what they had?

Given what Jesus said about marriage (the two shall be one flesh etcetera) the Catholic Church teaches monogamy and always has.

 

[faramir.pete]

I am always amused when people point to the Patriarchs as support for polygamy. Can someone point me to the patriarch where that worked out well for them?

Let's see, Abram/Abraham was married to just Sarah, but slept with her handmaiden to help God along with his plan. So let's count that as support for polygamy. How did that work out for him?

Isaac had one wife.

Jacob had two wives, one who was devoted to him, but unloved and one who was loved, but never satisfied. Then they used their handmaidens and children to wage a war for Jacob's affection. In the end, some of his children plotted to murder their half brother. So yeah, let's have polygamy because we need more families like that.

King David and Solomon had multiple wives, how did that turn out for them?

So where are these successful polygamy patriarchs in the Bible? Why on Earth would anyone want what they had?

You are right, I have only pointed out that the bible does not teach that polygamy is wrong. I have to agree that the practice is not presented as a happy life and quite frankly having been married to the same woman now for over 40 years I can imagine that the stress of more than one wife is likely to bring serious unhappiness to everyone involved.


Pete from Peterborough UK