{"id":2655,"date":"2009-05-01T14:42:28","date_gmt":"2009-05-01T14:42:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?p=2655"},"modified":"2020-10-28T20:02:30","modified_gmt":"2020-10-28T20:02:30","slug":"luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"

What follows is an excerpt from my forthcoming Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom (Eerdmans, Spring, 2010). Since I have elsewhere made my sharp and fundamental critique<\/a> of the draft Social Statement and its accompanying Recommendations on Rostered Ministry. I am thankful to Kaari Reierson for the invitation to submit some words on Luther\u2019s doctrine of marriage, i.e. the confessional source from which the draft Social Statement should have taken its bearings. \u2013 PRH]<\/em><\/p>\n

[1] The theological grounding of marriage in the divine mandate spoken in Genesis 1:26-28 is universal in Christian tradition. Within this wide tradition, as Heiko Obermann once remarked, Luther\u2019s particular iteration of it had wide, indeed world-historical influence. For complex historical reasons that need not detain us,[1] it entailed culturally a new conception of the human and its good which overthrew the antecedent cultural-religious idealization of virginity. Opponents among the monks \u201cargue that chastity is a thing of incomparable worth and its equal is nowhere to be found.\u201d[2] But Luther, himself still living as a monk, replies, \u201cif anyone is unable to keep his vow of chastity and takes a wife, confident of God\u2019s mercy, as he grows in this faith he will discover a merciful and understanding Father… that is what God\u2019s mercy is like. In no sense does God attribute sin to the conjugal rights of married people\u2026\u201d[3] Whatever other problems the Wittenberg professor of Old Testament notoriously had with rabbinic Judaism and its exegesis of the same Scriptures on which he too labored, Luther recovered and reasserted the Hebrew Bible\u2019s celebration of the monogamous heterosexual union which, in the words of the conservative Jewish cultural commentator Dennis Prager, had worked through the centuries to force \u201cthe sexual genie into the marital bottle. [The Torah\u2019s original sexual revolution] ensured that sex no longer dominated society, heightened male-female love (and thereby almost alone created the possibility of love and eroticism within marriage), and began the arduous task of elevating the status of women.\u201d[4] Prima facie, Luther\u2019s affinity with the Torah\u2019s reformatory program in world history is obvious[5] as should also be his sourcing of it in the same Bible shared with Judaism.<\/p>\n

[2] Significantly, he concluded the scripture readings in his reformed liturgy for the wedding service with this blessing pronounced by the pastor, based upon the imago Dei text of the first creation story: \u201c[T]his is your comfort that you may know and believe that your estate is pleasing to God and blessed by him, For it is written: \u2018God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he them; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion\u2026 And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good\u2019 [Gen. 1:27-28].\u201d[6] Luther\u2019s purpose in reiterating this text in the marriage liturgy is not merely polemical, i.e., to attack the reign of the antecedent ideal of virginity in the conscience of people. It is also performative: the pastoral repetition of the blessing from Genesis evokes and informs faith in the newlyweds that their marriage is a work of God under His blessing and command. So the liturgically climactic pronouncement of God\u2019s blessing upon the new couple reveals and puts into effect the true good of their sexual union by promising God\u2019s approbation and care; thus they may believe with Christian faith in their marriage in this specific way and conduct themselves accordingly.<\/p>\n

[3] But what is that true good for Luther? It is always, in part, a negative good, a \u201cremedy against sin,\u201d a wall against polymorphous perverse. But as early as 1519, Luther\u2019s preaching about marriage identified its \u201creal fruit as children, whose rearing was the special responsibility of the married estate\u2026 In the raising of children one obtains the greatest indulgence. Children brought up correctly are the good works\u2026 which one leaves behind, and which shine in one\u2019s death and thereafter.\u201d[7] This good of marriage in children is a leading motif in Luther, from which he never departs. Sammeli Juntunen advances the following definition of marriage from his study of the Luther texts: \u201cMarriage is a divine and legitimate union (coniunctio) of a husband and wife in the hope of children, and in order to avoid fornication and sin, to the glory of God. The ultimate goal is to obey God, to avoid sin, to call on God for help, to ask for children, to love and raise them to God\u2019s glory, to live with the wife in fear of God and to carry the cross.\u201d[8] This fuller and more complex definition of marriage and its true goods reflects the larger story of Genesis 1-3, i.e. taking into account the dissonance introduced by the disobedience of the first couple and the sinful concupiscence which now fills the vacated place of love of God in forming the chaotic desires of the human heart. The new situation of life in exile from paradise makes marriage necessary, not only as divine mandate or as command (Genesis 1:26-28) spontaneously assented (Genesis 2:23), but now also as social institution and legal demand, as duty imposed with its legal constraints and threats (Genesis 3:16-19). Now married life is also the duty to procreate and the wall against sinful fornication. Luther therefore also included readings from Genesis 3 in his reformed wedding liturgy to tell about \u201cthe cross laid upon this estate\u201d and realistically to indicate this post-paradisiacal marital community in suffering as well as in joy.<\/p>\n

[4] As duty to procreate and remedy against sin, the institution of marriage after Eden does double duty. It defends externally by erecting a legal wall of separation against wayward desire as well as internally through that cross-bearing, which according to Luther\u2019s theologia crucis, is a tool of the Spirit for our redemption from the power of sin: \u201cit is a precious and noble work\u2026 to endure much misfortune and many difficulties in the person of wife, children, servants and others\u2026 he who believes it and rightly understands it, sees how good it is for the soul, although it is an evil for the flesh and its lusts.\u201d[9] Luther\u2019s meaning here, so offensive to William James\u2019 \u2018healthy-minded religion\u2019 of progressive Protestantism, is that community in suffering as also in joy morally purifies and so sanctifies desire. It does this by giving each partner to care for the other in the inevitable troubles that their united form of life entails. Marriage takes such a form in the frustrated creation, fallen and groaning under the power of sin.[10] But this is its true good for human beings who learn in this \u201creal religious order\u201d[11] compassion, patience and trust in God.<\/p>\n

The Christological Reading of Genesis 1-3<\/p>\n

[5] But obviously, in one sense, a married person can just walk away, tear asunder, disregard or repudiate what God has given in the life\u2019s partner. The story of the fall already indicates this possibility in principle: \u201cThe woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit from the tree and I ate.\u201d Luther comments: Adam \u201cdoes not say, \u2018Lord, I have sinned; forgive me, my debt; be merciful;\u2019 but he passes on the guilt to the woman.\u201d[12] In spirit, Adam walks away from her. His desperate act of self-justification before God is at the same time refusal of the community he assuredly has with Eve in guilt and in suffering the threatened punishment. Their community of love has in fact become a community of guilt and a community in suffering. But Adam does not want that for himself. So he breaks faith with Eve. Before God he divorces himself from her. So according to Luther, it is not until after the conclusion of the \u201ctrial\u201d before God in Paradise with the promise of the coming Redeemer from Eve\u2019s seed, that the couple is spiritually reconciled and reunited. This happens when Adam names Eve \u201cmother of all living,\u201d indicating the restoration of communion with her. This reconciliation can only happen now, for \u201cunless grace comes, it is impossible for a man to act otherwise than to excuse his sin and to want it considered as righteousness.\u201d[13]<\/p>\n

[6] What has intervened between Adam\u2019s recrimination of Eve (and of God who gave Eve to him) and his new embrace of Eve as \u201cmother of all living\u201d is the promise of the \u201cforgiveness of sins by the Seed of Eve.\u201d Luther writes: \u201cHe calls her Eve to remind himself of the promise through which he himself also received new life, and to pass on the hope of eternal life to his descendents. This hope and faith he writes on his wife\u2019s forehead by means of this name, as with colors\u2026\u201d[14] The renewed marriage is thus, in Luther\u2019s reading, an act of Christological hope. To answer the question posed above then: 1) they do not walk away from each other because of the divine promise of forgiveness; 2) they cannot divorce before God because in fact they share inseparably in a common guilt; 3) they receive one another anew as the spouse whom God has given \u2013even in face of moral betrayal– in an act of messianic hope for their descendents. Their renewed community in suffering as in joy is a form which the Beloved Community assumes under the post-paradisiacal conditions of exile and hope.<\/p>\n

[7] What is the alternative? Sexual desire which wants to be infinite, that will not yield time and place to the new generation, becomes a demonic desire that devours finally also the devourer. Indeed, I write these words in a \u2018sexually liberated\u2019 nation which is not accidentally casting upon future generation a crushing, catastrophic load of debt because it will not make the sacrifices needed today for justice in society and peace in the world, beginning with the sacrifice of infantile polymorphous perverse sexuality in order to grow up to that and creative love for the definite spouse and the definite children whom God gives. The difficult argument I am making here with Luther as resource is written in anticipation of the painful encounter with the white hot wrath of God in store for this wicked and adulterous generation, when the coming generation who will pick up the pieces from its sins will have to learn this community in joy as in suffering, if only to survive.<\/p>\n

Community in Suffering as in Joy<\/p>\n

[8] The linkage between sex and children is not for Luther the typical bow nowadays to the sheer biological fact of heterosexual fertility, since that relation between sex and babies can be rationally managed by abstinence, contraception and other technologies, other formations of family (polygamy, serial monogamy), or the treatment of children as chattel (our property, clay in our hands, an artistic project). In these ways and others, the linkage is managed quite apart from marriage as Luther has defined this holy union of human partnership in God\u2019s creative work, i.e., not only to make babies but above all to raise them to the glory of God and for public service to humanity in its dire situation of exile and hope after Adam\u2019s fall. The reflection is surely true so far as it goes that biologically \u201cthe presupposition of the history in which human nature is enacted is the provision of new humans in succession\u201d and that by dint of \u201csheer plumbing\u2026 the vagina and the penis are made for each other.\u201d[15] But neither of these undeniable facts as such entails the community of marriage. There are other ways to manage fertility, including unholy ways, as in the abortion industry with its cohort of shameless theological apologists, just as there are other ways to deploy vagina and penis.<\/p>\n

[9] But what kind of linkage is this community in suffering as in joy to be? Suffering isolates and destroys, we might object; there is nothing creative or redemptive about it. Pain cannot link anything, least of all sexual love and children; it merely isolates. Yes, pain can do that. That is exactly why for Luther, unbelief perceives and experiences the cross as the bitter end of the story of Jesus, something at all costs to be avoided and never to be undertaken. Yet such flight from physical and historical reality is not, for Luther, how the God who spared not His own Son faces suffering. Luther\u2019s unbribable, nonmanipulable God afflicts, yes, but as faith in the risen Christ perceives, in order to heal, casts down in order to exalt, kills in order to make alive, destroys the concupiscientia carnis in order to redeem and fulfill the concupiscientia nuptiarum. Take away this purpose clause, and you have taken away the risen Christ and the faith which after Him and in the power of His Spirit takes up one\u2019s own cross to follow him.<\/p>\n

[10] So Luther\u2019s own words of pastoral counsel in this connection attest: \u201cthat even married people have mostly unhappiness and misery is no wonder, because they have no knowledge from God\u2019s word about their estate of marriage. That is why they are just as unhappy as monks and nuns. On both sides people live without trust and consolation about God\u2019s being pleased with them. Therefore it is impossible that they could bear external unhappiness and trouble\u2026 If they don\u2019t know their estate internally, that it is pleasing to God, then there is already unhappiness\u2026 God\u2019s order and way of working has to be taken from his Word. Trust must be put in God\u2019s Word, or the estates will be harmed and become unbearable.\u201d[16] It is faith\u2019s knowledge of God\u2019s good pleasure that makes the marital community in suffering as in joy into a hospice of compassion, where joy can be renewed. But apart from this, marriage is \u2013as frequently we see around us today\u2014\u201cunbearable.\u201d<\/p>\n

[11] But why? Why suffering as an integral key to the marital link of sexual love and children? It might be maudlin, though not untrue, to invoke here the grateful sense of self-giving sacrifice that children honor in good parents (as also painfully suffer the absence of in bad parents). We can take a more scientific clue from evolutionary biology. Human reproduction is remarkable for the extraordinarily long dependency of children on parents, which in evolutionary terms provided time and space for development of their equally extraordinary brain capacity.[17] Already in the pre-historical state of nature, it is the infant-nursing, child-nurturing family, in its community in suffering as in joy, covenant between the generations and school of compassion, for which and out of which marriage as the human form of sexual order emerged and evolves until it fulfills the promise of the image of God in human dominion here \u2018below\u2019 on this earth. The natural presupposition of the history of salvation and the role in it of marriage is therefore not \u2018sheer plumbing,\u2019 but the pre-historical form of human family, as socio-biologists have rightly pointed out. The state of nature is not to be imagined as alpha males fighting for gain and glory, from which violence and anarchy we emerge by social contract, beasts arising from the jungle to civilized life.[18] This Hobbsean narrative reverses the canonical story of the sinful Fall from Paradise into anti-social forms of society, the Augustinian civitas terrena. Locke was surely right to attack this Hobbesian inversion of the biblical narrative of creation and fall and in his political philosophy to insist that the state of nature involves community from the beginning, especially the primal form of the family.[19]<\/p>\n

[12] Theologically, the command to be fruitful and multiply is scripted biologically in all living creatures. But the command to marry, i.e. to form the partnership of male and female as the human image of God in dominion over the earth comes from above, as it must, if it is to join sexual love and care of children together in human consciousness as faith\u2019s embrace of community in suffering as in joy. That marriage does so emerge in history, therefore, is no foregone conclusion, any more than in any other respect that we attain to the Beloved Community, \u201cshar[ing] one another\u2019s burdens and so fulfill[ing] the law of Christ\u201d (Gal. 6:2). The matter is controverted. The battle for the gospel is not only over proper proclamation in and by the church, but also on behalf of the groaning creation and its liberation from the anti-divine powers of sin and death. Disobedience and unbelief are possible here in the realm of nature as also there in the realm of grace. Fallen nature is wracked with uncertainty about God\u2019s will and so it can rationalize anything. Unfaithfulness may destroy what was well begun.[20] The community in suffering as in joy which married love with its care of children entails has from the dawn of time waxed and waned, as the cultural history of sexuality amply demonstrates. It is through the Word concerning crucified and risen Jesus that this aversion to marriage is met and overcome, even as his death and resurrection is the secret vindication and guarantee of all fragmentary and ambiguous experience of human community in the world, which remains in hope God\u2019s creation on the way to fulfillment in the Beloved Community, in spite of, rather in defiance of sin and death. This is what Bonhoeffer meant when he spoke of Christ the center, albeit hidden, of all of life, also, indeed preeminently of married life.[21] Unveiled by the gospel and appropriated in faith, the suffering love of Jesus who makes the unworthy His own heals and sanctifies every spouse who lives for the sake of its other, however ambivalently. <\/p>\n

[1]Peter Brown identifies a deep ambivalence in the doctrine of desire, concupiscientia nuptiarum and concupiscientia carnis, behind the Christian tradition of sexual renunciation: \u201cThe fatal flaw of concupiscience would not have seemed so tragic to Augustine, if he had not become ever more deeply convinced [from the Bible] that human beings had been created to embrace the material world. The body was a problem to him precisely because it was to be loved and cherished.\u201d The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (NY: Columbia University Press, 1988) 425.<\/p>\n

[2] \u201cThe Judgment of Martin Luther on Monastic Vows,\u201d (1521) LW 44:346.<\/p>\n

[3] Monastic Vows,\u201d (1521) LW 44:376. The sentence continues: \u201c\u2026which is due solely to his mercy, although Psalm 51 refers to it as sin and iniquity in no way differing from adultery and whoredom, because it springs from passion and impure lust.\u201d I take up this ambivalence in Luther\u2019s evaluation of sexual love \u2013 in itself apparently sinful, yet mercifully forgiven\u2014 in sections of the chapter not here excerpted.<\/p>\n

[4] Dennis Prager, \u201cJudaism\u2019s Sexual Revolution: Why Judaism (and then Christianity) Rejected Homosexuality,\u201d Crisis 11, No. 8 (September, 1993).<\/p>\n

[5] Paul R. Hinlicky, “Luther Against the Contempt of Women,” Lutheran Quarterly (Winter 1989: 2\/4) 515-530.<\/p>\n

[6] \u201cThe Order of Marriage\u201d (1529) LW:53:110ff.<\/p>\n

[7] Martin Brecht, Martin Luther: His Road to Reformation 1483-1521 trans. J.L. Schaf (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993) 355-6.<\/p>\n

[8] Sammeli Juntunen, \u201cError! Main Document Only.Luther on Sex,\u201d unpublished lecture delivered at Roanoke College (2002).<\/p>\n

[9] Cited by, William H. Lazareth, Christians in Society: Luther, the Bible and Social Ethics (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) 265.<\/p>\n

[10] At the beginning of his discussion of the \u201ccurses\u201d pronounced in Genesis 3, Luther writes thematically: \u201cBut he heals sin, like a wound, with a health-giving plaster, that is, with the promise concerning Christ, while He also applies the harsh cautery which the devil had brought on. Just as health-giving plasters also damage the flesh while their effect their cure, so the curative promise is put to Adam in such a way that at the same time it includes a threat, to serve as a cure for the lust of the flesh. But by \u2018lust\u2019 I mean not only the hideous prurience of the flesh, but also that filthiness of spirit\u2026 There was need of this harsh cautery to keep this depravity of our nature in check.\u201d \u201cCommentary on Genesis,\u201d LW 1:183.<\/p>\n

[11] \u201cLuther on Marriage,\u201d Lutheran Quarterly Vol. XIV, No.3 (2000 ) 338.<\/p>\n

[12] Luther, \u201cCommentary on Genesis\u201d LW 1:177.<\/p>\n

[13] Luther, \u201cCommentary on Genesis\u201d LW 1:181.<\/p>\n

[14] Luther, \u201cCommentary on Genesis\u201d LW 1:220.<\/p>\n

[15] Jenson, Robert W., Systematic Theology, 2 volumes, The Triune God (NY & Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997) II, 89.<\/p>\n

[16] Cited by Juntunen, \u201cSex in Luther,\u201d from WA 10\/II, 298:9-21.<\/p>\n

[17] Matt Ridley, The Origins of Virtue (Penguin Books, 1997); Antonia R. Damasio, Descartes\u2019 Error: Emotion, Reason and the Human Brain (Papermac, 1996).<\/p>\n

[18] Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan with selected variants from the Latin edition of 1668 ed. E. Curley (Hackett, 1994) 129.<\/p>\n

[19] John Locke, Second Treatise of Government ed. C. B. Macpherson (Hackett, 1980). 88-9. See Paul R. Hinlicky, \u201cLuther and Liberalism,\u201d in A Report from the Front Lines: Conversations on Public Theology. A Festschrift in Honor of Robert Benne ed. Michael Shahan (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009) 89-104.<\/p>\n

[20] John Witte, Jr. From Sacrament to Contract: Marriage, Religion and Law in the Western Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Know, 1997) emphasizes that among other reforms of law, the early Lutherans permitted divorce, beginning with Luther who wrote: \u201cSince people are as evil as they are, any other way of governing is impossible. Frequently something must be tolerated even though it is not a good thing to do, to prevent something even worse from happening\u201d [cited from LW 21:94 ]. Likewise Bugenhagen: \u201cThe reality is that some households become broken beyond repair\u201d [cited from Vom ehebruch und weglauffen, folios miii-oiii] (67). Witte summarizes: \u201cBy conjoining these arguments from scripture, utility, and history, the reformers concluded that (1) divorce in the modern sense had been instituted by Moses and Christ; (2) the expansion of divorce was a result of sin and a remedy against greater sin; and (3) God had revealed the expanded grounds for divorce from history.\u201d (68) I apply this reasoning to the possibility of church recognition \u2013not celebration nor blessing\u2014of same-sex unions.<\/p>\n

[21] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics, ed. E. Bethge (NY: MacMillan, 1978) 207. This means that marriage is not only a matter of producing children, but also of educating them to be obedient to Jesus Christ (210).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

What follows is an excerpt from my forthcoming Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom (Eerdmans, Spring, 2010). Since I have elsewhere made my sharp and fundamental critique of the draft Social Statement and its accompanying Recommendations on Rostered Ministry. I am thankful to Kaari Reierson for the invitation to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[24,32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2655","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-social-teachings","category-sexuality"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nLuther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"What follows is an excerpt from my forthcoming Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom (Eerdmans, Spring, 2010). Since I have elsewhere made my sharp and fundamental critique of the draft Social Statement and its accompanying Recommendations on Rostered Ministry. I am thankful to Kaari Reierson for the invitation to […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"250\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Denise Rector\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Denise Rector\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Denise Rector\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c\"},\"headline\":\"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\"},\"wordCount\":3677,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"ELCA Social Teachings\",\"Sexuality\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\",\"name\":\"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"name\":\"Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c\",\"name\":\"Denise Rector\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Denise Rector\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/drector\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","og_description":"What follows is an excerpt from my forthcoming Luther and the Beloved Community: A Path for Christian Theology after Christendom (Eerdmans, Spring, 2010). Since I have elsewhere made my sharp and fundamental critique of the draft Social Statement and its accompanying Recommendations on Rostered Ministry. I am thankful to Kaari Reierson for the invitation to […]","og_url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/","og_site_name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","article_published_time":"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00","article_modified_time":"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":250,"height":250,"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Denise Rector","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Denise Rector","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/"},"author":{"name":"Denise Rector","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c"},"headline":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage","datePublished":"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/"},"wordCount":3677,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"articleSection":["ELCA Social Teachings","Sexuality"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/","name":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-05-01T14:42:28+00:00","dateModified":"2020-10-28T20:02:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/luthers-christocentric-and-biblical-theology-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Luther\u2019s Christocentric and Biblical Theology of Marriage"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#website","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","name":"Journal of Lutheran Ethics","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#organization","name":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2021\/01\/Journal_of_Lutheran_Ethics_Logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"ELCA - Journal of Lutheran Ethics"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/#\/schema\/person\/1d1a38a7727af6291bbff14ba363351c","name":"Denise Rector","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/1cd6b17eb57a1d89f3baef8305d701c7443492f28eb7b50b711980b582f26385?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Denise Rector"},"url":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/author\/drector\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2655","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2655"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2655\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2656,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2655\/revisions\/2656"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2655"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2655"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/learn.elca.org\/jle\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2655"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}