“[H]e [Jesus] met with an adulterous woman . . . But what does that have to do with the random woman at the well?”

From the rest of the Gospel of John, it seems that the woman at the well was perhaps also adulterous, or was at least “unchaste” and frivolous regarding marriage; she was not just a random woman. When Jesus speaks with her, he tells her to call her husband, but she responds that she has no husband. He then says, “Thou hast said well: I have no husband. For thou hast had five husbands: and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” (John 4:17-18). So she has at least one man now who is not her husband, whom she was presumably with outside of wedlock; the early Church (or St. Augustine, at least, in his commentary on John) believed precisely that (Augstine calls him a paramour). The connection between the three women thus seems to be that they were all involved in some sort of extra-marital or non-marital sexual affairs, which could be broadly classified as adulterous relations. That seems to be why they’re mentioned together.

The suggestions made and conclusions drawn by “this Aardvark fellow” with regard to Luther are not nearly as flimsy as your post would seem to suggest. In fact, his comments line up almost exactly with the “suggestions made and conclusions drawn” regarding this very same issue in contemporary Luther scholarship. The editors of Luther’s Works, for example (whom I assume to be first-rate Luther scholars; I know that at least one of them is), say of this very text — i.e., the text from Luther’s “Table Talk,” wherein he seems to suggest that Christ was an adulterer — that “what Luther meant might have been made clearer if John Schlaginhaufen had indicated the context of the Reformer’s remarks. The probable context is suggested in a sermon of 1536 (WA 41, 647), in which Luther asserted that Christ was reproached by the world as a glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer” (Luther’s Works, vol. 54, p. 154, emphasis added). That seems to be exactly what this Aardvark fellow is saying (albeit without providing the “probable context” of Luther’s later sermon; now that we have that probable context, the assertion that Luther was not being serious and/or literal here has a bit more support).

Of course, more should be said on the issue beyond that. There are additional reasons for thinking that this text from Luther is anything but clear or damning evidence that he believed that Christ “did a little bump and grind,” as you say. In fact, the evidence leans heavily in favor of the thesis that Luther did not think this. First, there is the fact that this quote came from Luther’s “Table Talk,” which means that it was a quote written down by a student of Luther, recording something that he heard Luther say at the table (perhaps over dinner, or over beer) in the spur of the moment, without providing the context. Scholars know that reading into these remarks is a risky business: “it must not be overlooked that the Table Talks are ephemeral — ‘children of the moment’ . . . [T]hey contain frequent exaggerations and betray a lack of moderation. The lightning-like flashes which they emit are not always true . . . Frequently humorous statements were received as serious declarations” (that’s from Hartmann Grisar’s biography on Luther, p. 481). Even so, that doesn’t allow us to dismiss this remark outright. What does allow us to go on and further question its seriousness (beyond the suggestion by the editors of Luther’s Works that it is explained by Luther’s sermon of 1536) is the fact that Luther, throughout his life and his other works, maintains two theses: first, that adultery is sinful, and second, that Christ was sinless. The latter thesis, in fact, is a central element of Luther’s entire theological system, and his entire system would collapse were he to reject it. Thus, another theologian, writing on this same issue, says, “One of his [Luther's] basic assertions is that . . . Christ’s perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith” (see here: http://www.christiancentury.org/article.lasso?id=2045; emphasis added). Were we to insist that this context-less comment from Luther’s Table Talk was meant in all seriousness, we would effectively be insisting that Luther ultimately contradicted his entire body of work, which is a less than charitable interpretation (not to mention questionable in light of the above scholarship). This is why that same theologian (in the aforementioned text) goes on to offer another possible context for this remark:

“A more probable context is Luther’s account of the atonement. One of his basic assertions is that our sins become Christ’s and Christ’s perfect righteousness becomes ours by faith. This idea of ‘the happy exchange’ is found in many Luther texts. Given his central soteriological and christological concern, the theological irony in Schlagenhaufen’s remembered notation becomes clearer: The ‘godly’ Christ becomes or is made a sinner through his solidarity with sinners, even to the point of dying as a God-forsaken criminal on the cross. This is how Luther understood Paul’s statement, ‘God made him who knew no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21).

“So Christ ‘becomes’ an adulterer, though he does not actually commit adultery with Mary or anyone else . . . Luther could also remark that God made Jesus ‘the worst sinner of the whole world,’ even though he acknowledged that the sinless, righteous Christ actually committed no sin himself.”

Ultimately, then, the situation is as follows. We have one comment from Luther which seems to suggest that Christ was an adulterer, but the quote is without context, was written by a student based on what he heard, and was made during Table Talk sessions which are acknowledged to be less than serious. On the other hand, we have Luther’s entire body of work, wherein he is actually writing for himself, and wherein he consistently maintains that Christ is sinless and also that adultery is a sin. Furthermore, we have at least two options for the probable context of Luther’s remark, one being his account of the atonement and the other being his sermon of 1536. Indeed, the sermon of 1536 itself is independent evidence, for it says that Christ was reproached by the world for being a “glutton, a winebibber, and even an adulterer” though he was not such; Luther does not there seem to think that Christ was an adulterer at all. Given all of that, it seems clear that we ought not to conclude that we have powerful evidence that Luther thought Christ was an adulterer; in fact, the charitable interpretation — the one that allows Luther to be most consistent with himself, and that allows the rest of what Luther actually said to be relevant — is that he didn’t think this at all, but rather meant it in the sense described in the sermon of 1536 or in his account of the atonement. This also leads one to question whether Gleiberman rightly read the passage from Luther; he may have read the words rightly, but he does not seem to delve into their actual meaning in any substantive way.

All of that said, there’s an extent to which I agree with you that the argument is stupid, because it wouldn’t be a matter of huge historical significance if it turned out that Luther did actually think what the Table Talk might initially seem to suggest he did. However, I thought it might be worth saying all of this in the interest of fairness to “this Aardvark fellow” and to Luther, and also in the general interest of reliable information. Take it for what it’s worth.

(Also, it can be exhausting to be a Christian, whether evangelical or not. Forgive us; we sometimes get so exhausted that we fall short of our ideals, sometimes even consistently and for quite a long while. For my part, I’m sorry for that. I suppose that what keeps us going is that we know that we have rest in Christ, who knows our exhaustion and so comes to do what we cannot do on our behalf, telling us, “Come to me, all ye that labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest” (Matt. 11:28).

Then again, somehow I suspect you knew that I would say that. )

Then again, Luther did say “one cannot be unmarried without sin,” referring to Andrew Cory’s point, so maybe I’m reading it wrong too.

“So, ML, when you say adulterer, do you mean [thrusting hips motion] or more of the [googly eyes motion]?”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 5:27-30;&version=31;