Center for Biblical Theology and Eschatology

Unbiblical Divorce and Remarriage

by Herman Hoeksema (H.H.)

Editorial 1

The last synod of the Christian Reformed Church passed certain resolutions in regard to the question of unbiblical divorce and remarriage. They took the stand—or perhaps I should say: they suggested the stand, for they really took no stand at all—that persons divorced on unbiblical grounds or because of their own adultery and that are remarried, may be admitted into the church merely on their own repentance, without dissolving the adulterous relation with their present spouses.

Let me quote the resolutions:

“1. No substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence has been produced to establish the thesis that parties remarried after being divorced on the ground of their own adultery, or divorced on non-biblical grounds, are living in continual adultery.

“2. No substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence has been produced to warrant the demand that a person remarried after being divorced on the ground of his own adultery, or divorced on non-Biblical grounds, must, in order to prove the sincerity of his repentance, cease living, in the ordinary marriage relationship with his present spouse.

“3. The consistories are urged most earnestly to guard the sanctity of marriage, and warn unceasingly against every violation of the marriage bond through unbiblical divorce or through adultery, keeping in mind the need for true repentance on the part of all who seek admission to the Church.

“4. The consistories are advised that people who are guilty of unbiblical divorce or who are divorced as the result of their own adultery and, having remarried, seek entrance or re-entrance into the Church shall show their sorrow and genuine repentance during an adequate period of probation. Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis.

“5. These declarations are referred to the consistories for their guidance so that they may deal with the concrete cases which come before them in accordance with the given situations, the demonstrable teaching of Scripture on marriage, divorce, repentance, and forgiveness, and the general provisions of, the Church Order.”

The first two of the above propositions were the original resolutions, the last three were added at a later session of synod.

Synod added to the above still two other resolutions which, although they do not concern us here, we, nevertheless, also quote:

“1. Synod declares that the decisions just reached in this matter constitute a satisfactory answer to the Board of Foreign Missions for light on the subject of divorce and remarriage, with respect to which there are vexing problems on the Indian Mission Field.

“2. Synod continues the present committee on Marital Problems; for a twofold task which it was not able to complete in time for the Synod of 1956. This twofold task is the consideration of the Ecumenical Synod’s report on other possible grounds for divorce and the question of polygamy on the mission fields. A report, covering this study should be presented to the Synod of 1957.

The above was taken from The Banner of July 13, 1956.

It appears that the committee that was assigned by the former synod to study this matter and advise the present synod, did not feel itself quite ready, and they requested synod, therefore, that they be given time till 1957 to review the whole matter. This request was rejected. An advisory committee was appointed to consider the issue. This committee, in its reports to synod, after reviewing the case and presenting the conflicting opinions on the matter, came to the conclusion “that it is futile to expect conclusive Scriptural evidence for either position,” that is, that remarriage of a divorced person, who is divorced either on non-biblical grounds or because of his own adultery is or is not living in continual adultery. They then presented in their report substantially the advice that was adopted by synod in the above quoted propositions.

Considerable discussion followed on the floor of the synod. The original committee on Divorce and Remarriage that had asked for time till 1957 to reconsider their report, had in their report the recommendation to express that “those who have been divorced and remarried contrary to Scriptural requirements have entered into an adulterous relationship which is sinful in its continuation as well as in its inception.” Someone made a motion to adopt this recommendation. Later, however, this was defeated with a large majority.

There seems to have been considerable discussion on the floor of the synod, both pro and con the original recommendation of the committee on Divorce and Remarriage.

Dr. Herman Kuiper emphasized that we must not regard lightly the historic stand of the church on this matter as formulated by our fathers. He also referred to the similar position taken by some English theologians, as well as to the stand taken by the Missouri Synod, Lutheran Church, and the Southern Presbyterians. He referred to Matt. 19:9 and Rom. 7:1-3. He rejected the position of those who hold that remarriage of unscripturally divorced persons becomes holy wedlock the moment they are married again. To him this is a sinful relation. And thus there were others. But there were also those, and they were, evidently, far in the majority at synod, that took the opposite stand. As a typical example of their argumentation I may refer to the reasoning of the Rev. G. Hoeksema as quoted in The Banner:

“I would like first of all to wipe away some mists. First, in the circle of the Reformed Churches we would stand virtually alone, if not completely alone, if we retain, our present position. We should dare to stand alone if Scripture requires it; but we must be sure our position is Scriptural. The fundamental problem is one of misunderstanding. The problem: If anything is sin in its inception, is it not also sin in its continuation? But there is nothing in what Jesus says about a relationship. He speaks of an act when He says ‘committed adultery.’ The act of which Jesus speaks is not continued. Giving or making a vow is not continued. The problem is self-created, as we see if we just read what Jesus says. The old position rests on the assumption that the first marriage is still in force. That is an impossible position.

“Those who hold to this position dare not follow it to its logical conclusion. We must then say to the guilty parties to break up that whole new relationship. You must tell such people: ‘you are on the road to hell.’ If we do not dare to say that, let’s know that we are on the wrong road. We have no gospel for such persons when such people come and say they love the Christian Reformed Church and they are willing to undergo investigation. I would rather say to such people: ‘Go and sin no more’.”

At present I am not discussing the stand which the synod of the Christian Reformed Church took in the re-marriage of divorced persons. I hope to do this later. But I cannot refrain to make a few comments, even now, on the argumentation of the Rev. G. Hoeksema which, in my opinion, is sheer sophistry.

The problem, according to him, is expressed in the question: is sin in its inception also sin in its continuation? This he would deny.

In order to sustain his position, he refers to the supposed fact that Jesus, when He says “committed adultery” does not refer to a relationship but to an act. And, so he says, that act is not continued. Is this true? Emphatically not. I suppose that the Rev. Hoeksema refers to Matt. 19:9: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committed adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” I ask: what, according to these words of our Lord Jesus, is the adultery of which He speaks? Is it the act of having illegal intercourse with a woman, or is it the entering into the marriage relationship with her? Anyone, even the Rev. Hoeksema himself must admit that it is the latter. The adultery of which the Lord speaks is exactly that the man enters into an illegal marriage relationship. This is the literal meaning of the text.

Hoeksema says: “The act of which Jesus speaks is not continued.” If he means, as one would almost surmise, that the man who thus enters into an illegal marriage does not live in continuous sexual intercourse with the woman he thus married, he speaks a very obvious truth. But if he means by “continued” the same as “repeated,” it is just as obvious that he speaks an untruth. In this sense, it is certainly true that sin in its inception is the same as sin in its continuation. I expect to refer to this again. But it would have been much clearer to all if the question of which Hoeksema speaks, had been put in a slightly different form, namely, in this: is the first act of sin the same as its frequent repetition?

“Giving or making a vow,” Hoeksema says, “is not continued.” I suppose that, in this case, he has in mind the marriage vow. But although the vow itself may not be continued or even repeated, to remain under a vow is also an act, and this is certainly continued. And the giving of the vow (the sin in its inception) is certainly not less a sin than the remaining under the vow (then sin in its continuation).

The last paragraph of Hoeksema’s quotation is rather an appeal to sentiment than to sound and Scriptural reasoning. Why one would not dare to say to anyone: “you are on the road to hell” if he walks in the way of sin is impossible to understand. In fact, it is the only thing one may say to such a one according to the gospel.

But, at any rate, such was the tenor of the discussion on the floor of the synod.

As has been already stated, the motion to accept the original advice of the study committee on divorce and remarriage was rejected, and the motion quoted in the beginning of this article was adopted.

Someone now made the following motion, which in my opinion was perfectly consistent: “Synod judges that no conclusive evidence has been produced to establish conclusively the thesis that persons un-biblically divorced and remarried are not living in continual adultery.” Also this evoked some discussion on the floor of the synod. But as might be expected, this found no favor in the eyes of the synod and was rejected.

Editorial 2

We will, first of all, analyze and criticize the different propositions about divorce and remarriage adopted by the synod of the Christian Reformed Church last summer.

The first two, propositions are the original ones, the others were added later. We quote them here once more:

“1. No substantial and conclusive evidence has been produced to establish the thesis that parties remarried after being divorced on the ground of their own adultery, or divorced on non-biblical grounds are living in continual adultery.

“2. No substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence has been produced to warrant the demand that a person remarried after being divorced on the ground of his own adultery, or divorced on non-biblical grounds, must, in order to prove the sincerity of his repentance, cease living in ordinary marriage relationship with his present spouse.”

These are, in my opinion, very strange propositions, wholly unworthy of a synod. I say this without regard to the truth or falsity of these propositions themselves. The reason for this my opinion is that these propositions are entirely and only negative. And besides, they are negative only with regard to the attempted proof, attempted by other synods, perhaps, and by committees of synod that labored with this question before and came to the conclusion that persons; that were divorced on the ground of their own adultery or on non-biblical grounds and that remarried, lived in continual adultery and, in order to prove their true repentance, must separate from their present spouse and thus cease to live in adultery.

The result is that, in these two propositions, the synod declared absolutely nothing, at least, nothing positive.

They only declared what thus far others had not done.

Did the synod declare, in these propositions, that, on the basis of Scriptural evidence, persons that remarried after such non-biblical divorce lived in legal and proper intercourse with their present spouse? It did not declare anything of the kind.

Did the synod declare that such a remarriage, after a divorce on the ground of their own adultery or on nonbiblical grounds, made the former marriage null and void? Again we say, it did nothing of the kind.

Did the synod even declare that those that had expressed themselves on the question before this had not furnished any Scriptural proof for their position that persons, thus remarried, after a divorce on the ground of their own adultery or on other non-biblical grounds, lived in continual adultery and, in order to prove the sincerity of their repentance? They did not even do this. Synod merely expressed that the evidence produced was not “substantial and conclusive.”

Such negative propositions declare absolutely nothing: They are unworthy of any ecclesiastical assembly. No church can live by them.

Moreover, they are very dangerous.

For, although they declare exactly nothing, they, nevertheless leave the impression that they express something definite and positive: that Scripture justifies such nonbiblical remarriages.

This impression was left even open and by the very synod that adopted these negative propositions. For, one of the later propositions that were added to the above two, the consistories are advised as follows:

“4. The consistories are advised that people who are guilty of unbiblical divorce or who are divorced as the result of their own adultery and, having remarried, seek entrance or re-entrance into the church shall show their sorrow and genuine repentance during an adequate period of probation. Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis.”

Is this fourth proposition based on the two propositionsquoted above? Of course not. For the latter are negative and the former is quite positive, and you cannot possibly base a positive advice on a merely negative declaration. But the trouble is that synod either knowingly played hocus pocus or was itself not aware that the first two propositions were negative and that, therefore, they could not base positive advice upon them.

The only proper advice synod could have given to the consistories on the basis of the first two propositions is the following, negative advice:

“The consistories are advised that people are guilty of unbiblical divorce or hw are divorced as the result of their own adultery and, having remarried, seek entrance or re-entrance into the church, cannot be admitted as long as not Scriptural proof is furnished that such a remarriage is, on the basis of Scripture, justifiable.”

It is evident, however, that, in this fourth proposition, synod merely proceeds from the presupposition that such proof has been furnished and such entrance or re-entrance into the church is justifiable.

Such is the danger of mere negative propositions. They declare nothing but they leave the impression that they, nevertheless, announce Scriptural principles on the basis of which the church may act: a positive action on a purely negative basis!

Let us ask a moment: how often may this principle (for a principle it is after all, though its basis is negative) be applied? How often may a person commit the sin of unbiblical divorce and the further sin of unbiblical remarriage, commit this sin, confess, and be maintained as a member of the church, or be admitted as a member? Only once? But then there is something wrong with the principle. A principle must be capable of application whenever the circumstances of conditions call for its application. Besides, this is surely contrary to Scripture. For the Word of God plainly teaches that a sinner may commit a certain sin an unlimited number of times, seventy times seven, and if he repents and confesses his sin he must be forgiven and received again into the communion of saints. Hence, a person may be divorced on unbiblical grounds or on the basis of his own adultery, not only once or even twice, but an unlimited number of times, and just as often remarry, and if he repents and confesses he must be accepted, for, mark you well, he never lives in continual adultery no matter how often he is divorced and remarried. That would throw the church wide open for all kinds of adultery and even for “free love.”

And all this follows from the fact that the synod based its positive advice and principle on two negative propositions.

I would, therefore, advise the Christian Reformed Church to come to its next Synod with the following positive proposition:

“The Synod declares that the Word of God, in the Scriptures, clearly teaches that the remarriage of persons that are divorced on the ground of their own adultery or on unbiblical grounds is perfectly proper and legal in the sight of God, rendering all previous marriages null and void, so that their sexual intercourse is perfectly holy in the sight of God. Hence, synod declares that, if such persons only confess the sin of their former adultery and divorce they must be admitted or re-admitted into the church.”

You understand, of course, that I do not agree with this advice. But it is a positive proposition, and I wonder whether the synod would adopt such a proposition.

Editorial 3

The first two conclusions on the question of the remarriage of divorced persons are, to say the least, very strange and unworthy of the broadest gathering of any church.

They are, as we remarked before, wholly negative and, therefore, declare exactly nothing.

Besides, they do not say that no substantial and conclusive evidence can be produced from Scripture that parties remarried after an unbiblical divorce or on the ground of their own adultery are living in continual adultery, or that such persons, in order to show the sincerity of their repentance, must break off the relationship with their present spouse; but simply that no such evidence has been produced.

We would say that, on the basis of, this negative declaration, the only proper decision the synod could have reached is to refer the matter back to the committee or to appoint a new committee for further study.

In a way, however, we can understand that the synod expressed itself thus and simply declared that no substantial and conclusive evidence has beenproduced. This refers, of course, to the history of the case. In, the past, for many years, the matter of remarriage of divorced persons, was discussed at the synods of the Christian Reformed Churches, and no final conclusions were reached. Nevertheless, in the light of the fact that no contrary evidence was produced, so that synod did not express that, on the basis of Scripture, such unbiblically divorced persons might remarry, all that the synod could possibly have done is to refer the problem back to a committee for further study, and report to the next synod.

During the history of the case, one of the committees appointed by synod to study the case and to report to the synod, took the stand that, through a divorce, a marriage bond, is always completely dissolved, whether the divorce was biblical or unbiblical, and that, therefore, the divorced parties were allowed to remarry. This was, if I remember well, in 1932. At that time, however, the report of the committee could not find favor in the eyes of the synod. Virtually, however, in spite of the fact that its first two conclusions were negative, this is the stand taken by the synod of 1956. It may be fruitful, therefore, to analyze for a moment the report of that committee of 1932 and see in what way they reached their conclusions.

That committee attempted to base its conclusions on Scripture, particularly on Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9.

In the first passage we read the well-known words: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

And the second passage reads as follows: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away do& commit adultery.”

Now, it is very strange that the committee mentioned above thus explained these words of the Saviour that they came to mean the very opposite of what the Lord said or intended to say. By a strange hocus pocusthey are so twisted and distorted that the Lord really teaches here that all three parties which are mentioned in the text, the man that forsakes his wife, the woman that is forsaken; and the second man that marries the forsaken woman, all may marry and commit no adultery when they do so. In spite of the fact that the Lord very definitely declares that they commit adultery when they marry or remarry, the committee explains that the Lord teaches the very opposite and that all the parties are allowed to remarry or to marry.

In which way did the committee reach this strange conclusion?

They argued as follows,

1. The first man forsakes his wife. But by the mere fact that he has left her, without anything further, he has, of course, not yet become guilty of fornication. But if, immediately after forsaking his wife, he marries another, he becomes, at the same time guilty of the sin of fornication. But there is also another possibility. Instead of marrying another as soon as he has forsaken his wife, he can wait, until the woman he has forsaken marries another man. And only after this the man also marries again. In that case, thus is the argument, the man does not commit adultery, for he is free to marry again because his first wife has committed adultery by marrying another.

2. The second man marry the woman that is forsaken by her husband immediately, without waiting whether the first husband will marry again. In that case he is, of course, guilty of adultery, for the woman is still legally united in marriage with her first husband. But, of course, he can also wait until the first man is married again. In that case, the woman is free and the second man does not commit adultery when he marries her. The committee thought that they could base this view on the translation of the text in Matt. 19:9 that renders: “Whoso marrieth her when she is forsaken” which they then explain as meaning: “immediately after she has been forsaken, and before the first husband has married another.”

3. From all this follows, naturally, the possibility of the woman that is forsaken by her first husband to marry again, without committing adultery. Her husband has forsaken her. And, of course, according to the philosophy of the committee, if she heads off her husband and marries again before he remarries, she commits adultery. But if the man is first in marrying another, she has the right, too, to remarry, and when she does so the marriage is perfectly legal before the Lord and she does not commit adultery.

Thus is the reasoning of the committee that reported to the synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1932.

A strange reasoning it is, indeed, even on the very face of it.

It leaves the impression of being nothing else than a piece of pure sophistry.

Or is it not strange that one, in the way of reasoning, can come to the very opposite conclusion of what the text literally teaches? The text, no doubt, speaks of three parties that commit adultery when they marry or remarry. But the committee so distorts the text that now their remarriage or marriage becomes perfectly proper and legal before the face of God.

But although this reasoning is sophistry on the very face of it, we will, nevertheless, examine it a little more closely, especially since we are convinced that the decisions of the last synod must rest upon the same underlying basis.

This, however, must wait till our next issue, the Lord willing.

Editorial 4

We were discussing a report on the question concerning unbiblical divorce and remarriage delivered to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1932. In that report the words of the Lord concerning divorce and remarriage were so distorted that all the parties concerned, the husband that forsakes his wife apart from adultery, the woman that is forsaken, and the man that marries the forsaken woman, commit no sin when they remarry or marry, although the Lord emphatically declares the very opposite in the texts quoted.

We promised to examine the arguments in the way of which this strange conclusion is reached. But in doing so we may as well, at the same time, present our own view of the matter and our interpretation of the texts concerned.

First of all, then, let us consider the two texts in Matthew that have reference to this matter.

In Matt. 5:32 we read: “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her a that is divorced committeth adultery.”

And in Matt. 19:9: “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whose marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Now, about the first party, the man that puts away his wife that did not commit the sin of fornication, the contention of the committee above mentioned that he is free to marry again is certainly contrary to the text as well as to the context. As far as the context is concerned, in Matt. 5:31 we read: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.” According to this, no one might leave his wife except in the legal way. This idea the Lord opposes and condemns in verse: 32. Nothing, not even a legal divorce, can break the marriage bond. Fornication is, indeed, a violation of marriage, and if the wife commits this sin, the husband my (does not have to) leave her, but even this is not the same as the dissolution of the marriage bond by way of a legal divorce; At any rate, the man that thus leaves his wife is not free’ to marry again.

This is even stronger in Matthew. 19. In the context of this passage, we read: “The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to leave his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read; that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement and to put her away? He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.” And then follow the well-known words: “But I say unto you, Whosoever shall put, away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Notice: 1. That, according to the Lord, Moses catered to wicked Israel, for the hardness of their heart, when he enjoined them to give their wives a divorce. 2. That the Lord, however, even in opposition to Moses, refers to the beginning and emphasizes that marriage, the joining of one man to one woman, is rooted in creation. It is a creation ordinance, which may not and, in fact, cannot be broken by any man. 3. That the organic relation in marriage, of one man to one woman, is even firmer than that of parents and children. This is the reason why a man will forsake his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife. 4. That a man and his wife are not two after marriage, but they are one flesh. It is on the basis of all this that the Lord enjoins His people never to divorce, and never to leave their proper spouses except for the cause of fornication.

Now the committee, with respect to the first party, the man that leaves his wife for any cause, invented the subterfuge of inserting in the text of Matt. 19:9 the word “immediately.” The text, then, reads thus: “If a man leaves his wife for any reason, not for fornication, and immediately, even before the forsaken wife has married another man, marries another woman, commits adultery, but if he waits until she is married again, he is free also to marry.” But this is nothing but a subterfuge, as has been said. There is absolutely nothing in the text that even suggests such an interpretation. And I would like to know what right the committee has to insert words and phrases into any passage of Scripture and that, too, for the purpose of distorting the text that it supports their own notions.

Besides, the text in Matthew 5, certainly condemns this “interpretation” of the committee. There we read not only that when a man leaves his wife except for the cause of fornication he commits adultery, but that he causes his wife to commit adultery. How strange the reasoning of the committee becomes in this light. Notice: 1. He forsakes his wife. 2. By doing so, he not only becomes guilty of adultery when he marries another, but he is also the cause of his wife’s adultery. He is, therefore, doubly guilty. 3. And now, according to the committee, that man, that is doubly guilty, is free, because of his own sinful actions, to marry another!

Editorial 5

We must now call attention to the woman that is forsaken by her husband or divorced, not on the ground of adultery May she remarry?

According to the committee that reported to the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church in 1932, she may only after her first husband has remarried, for then he committed adultery and the woman is free to marry again. She commits no adultery when she does so.

This really touches the heart of the matter.

For this concerns the question whether the innocent part may remarry.

This was not the question as long as the man that had forsaken his wife that was not guilty of adultery was the object of the discussion. He was guilty of an unbiblical divorce to begin with. And the committee of 1932 advised, that he could not remarry unless the wife that was thus divorced would remarry first. For then, according to the committee, she committed adultery, and by this act the first husband, even though he was the original guilty party, became free to marry again. This, therefore, did not raise the, question in its pure form whether the innocent party may marry again, for the man was guilty in the first place of an unbiblical divorce, whether or not he married again.

But in the case of the divorced woman this is different.

She did not commit the sin of adultery. She did not commit the sin of unbiblical divorce; her husband did. She is, therefore, wholly innocent as far as the divorce is concerned. May she, then, not remarry?

According, to the committee mentioned above, she may not remarry as long as her first husband did not marry again. Only when he is married again may the innocent woman also remarry for, in that case, he added the sin of adultery to that of merely forsaking his wife.

There is one good element in this proposition of the committee regarding the remarriage of the innocent party or, at least of the innocent woman. It is this, that, evidently, they proceed from the standpoint that only adultery can break the marriage tie. In this respect, the Synod of the Christian Reformed Church of 1956 proceeded far beyond the committee of 1932. They simply threw the doors wide open. Any divorced party, guilty of adultery or not, that is remarried, is legally married, not only before the laws of the state, but also before the face of God. Any legal divorce, according to the last synod, breaks the marriage tie before God so that, if the party divorced remarries, he or she does not commit adultery. But this, evidently, was not the stand of the committee of 1932. They proceeded on the basis of the principle that adultery, and this only, can and does break the marriage tie.

The question now is whether this is true.

Can we say, on the basis of Scripture, that the bond of marriage can ever be broken and that, in fact, it is broken by the act of adultery by either or by both the parties in marriage?

This is the position taken by the majority, I think, in the church, also in the Christian Reformed Church, that do not agree with the stand taken by its last synod. Adultery is the breaking of the marriage tie and, therefore, the innocent party may marry again.

Formerly, this was my stand also.

However, further study of Holy Writ convinced me that this is not true. Scripture, to my opinion, teaches rather plainly that the marriage tie can never be broken, not even by the act of adultery. Separation, even before the civil law: may be possible and allowable in the case of adultery. But even if before the civil law the marriage bond is broken so that the divorced parties may marry again, before God this can never be the case. Adultery is certainly a violation of the sacred bond of marriage, but it is not the breaking of the tie, according to Scripture.

This is my conviction.

Editorial 6

As has been said, it is my conviction that divorce and adultery never can break the marriage-tie. Only death can do this. It is true that, according to Scripture, fornication or adultery gives the innocent party the right to leave the guilty party, although this even does not always have to take place for forgiveness and reconciliation is always the first obligation of the Christian. But even when the man leaves his adulterous wife or the woman leaves her adulterous husband, this does not imply that the tie of marriage is broken so that the innocent party has the right to remarry.

This is my conviction.

And this conviction is based on the Word of God.

First of all, there is the general ground that marriage is a reflection of the covenant-relation between God and His people and this covenant can never be broken: God never breaks His covenant. The people may violate the covenant, commit spiritual adultery, yet God’s covenant stands fast on His part. The marriage-tie between Him and His people is never broken. It is established forever in His eternal counsel of election and sealed in the blood of the cross. Thus we read inJeremiah 3: “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” vs. 1. And again: “Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will take you to Zion.” vs. 14. And once more: “Surely as a wife treacherously departeth from her husband, so have ye dealt treacherously with me, O house of Israel, saith the Lord . . . Return, ye backsliding children, and I will heal your backsliding.” vss. 20, 22. These verses, and many others, show plainly: 1. That earthly marriage is a picture or reflection of God’s covenant with His people. 2. That this covenant can never be broken, even though, on the part of the people it is violated by idolatry or spiritual adultery. We conclude that, if this is true of the eternal reality of God’s marriage-tie with His people, it certainly must be true of the reflection in our earthly marriage: it can be violated, but it can never be broken.

This is also the teaching of Rom. 7:1-4: “Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath a husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him that is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

Notice: 1. That also in these verses human marriage is presented as a reflection of another, spiritual and heavenly marriage, this time of the Lamb and His bride. 2. That this marriage of the Lamb and the Church could not be confirmed except through death. For by nature we belong to the first Adam, to sin and death and devil, but through the death of the Lamb we are liberated from the law of sin and death and, therefore, have the right to belong to Christ. 3. That, therefore, this is also applicable to human marriage: only death can break the tie of holy wedlock, nothing else. This is literally expressed in the text. The woman is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives; only through the death of her husband does she become free from that law. Hence, while her husband still lives she may not be married to another. If she, nevertheless, marries another man, she is an adulteress.

And this is also very clearly the teaching of the Lord Jesus in the verses we quoted before. For the convenience of the reader we will quote them here once more:

Matt. 5:31, 32: “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

This text, taken by itself, says nothing about the remarriage of a woman who committed adultery before she was divorced by her husband. Nor does it say that her husband, after, he had divorced his first wife, married another woman. The woman and her husband, therefore, may both be innocent of the sin of adultery. The Lord simply presents a case of a man that leaves his wife “saving for the cause of fornication.” In the abstract, therefore, it might be possible to explain the text as meaning that, if a man marries another man’s wife, who did not commit adultery, whose husband divorced her while he does not marry another woman, that man commits adultery by marrying the innocent woman. In that case, neither husband nor wife committed adultery. She, therefore, still belongs to her first husband, even though he has divorced her. In other words, the text offers no proof for the proposition that the marriage-tie can never be broken except by the death of the one of the parties and that even the innocent woman may never marry again.

I say that in the abstract this explanation might be possible. In the concrete it is not very probable. It is most probable that a man leaves his wife for the very purpose of marrying another, and that, therefore, the man that marries the innocent woman commits adultery in spite of the fact that her first husband is already-married to another woman.

Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the text does not say this in so many words.

Similar words of the Lord Jesus, however, state this very plainly.

Editorial 7

The text in Mark 10:11, 12 does not bear directly on the subject we are now discussing. It reads: “And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another; she committeth adultery.” I say that this passage is not directly related to the subject under discussion, because it does not refer to the woman that is forsaken by her husband and her remarriage, or, for that matter, to the husband that is forsaken by his wife and marries another woman. Yet, on the other hand, this can also be understood as a very strong passage in favor of the position that the divorced may never remarry not even if the divorce was granted on the ground of adultery of the guilty party. In fact, it is most probable, in the light of the context, as well as on the basis of the text itself, and in the light of other passages of Scripture that have reference to this question, that this is the meaning.

As to the context, it is as follows. The Pharisees approached Jesus with the question whether it is lawful for a man to put away his wife. The Lord first responds by an appeal to Moses: “What did Moses command you?” They answer that Moses allowed a man to give his wife a bill of divorcement and to put her away. In reply to this the Lord answered: 1. That Moses gave them this precept because of the hardness of their hearts, not because it was the law of God. 2. Next the Lord answered by pointing to the ordinance of creation: “from the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh: so that they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This judgment of the Lord is without any restrictions. Man and wife are inseparably bound together by God Himself according to the fundamental creation ordinance. Either party may, indeed, violate this ordinance of God by committing adultery, and when this is repeated it may become impossible for a man to live with his wife or for a woman to live with her husband. This, indeed, is a very serious sin. Nevertheless, they are still one flesh. The tie of marriage can, according to Romans 7, be broken only by death.

Now, if in the light of this context we read vss. 11 and 12 of the same chapter, it seems to me that they rather emphatically condemn the remarriage of divorced parties. Notice that in these verses the Lord speaks: 1. Of a man putting away his wife, and of a wife putting away her husband. In itself this is no adultery. Such a separation of man and wife may very well be allowed and legal as, for instance, in the case of adultery on the part of either party. 2. But the Lord adds: “and shall marry another” and “be married to another.” Then, indeed, they commit adultery. The supposition is, of course, that the man that has thus forsaken his wife, and the woman that has thus put away her husband, are still one flesh together and that, the marriage tie can never be broken, even though it may be and often is violated by the sin of adultery. In this light, the text certainly teaches that the marriage tie can never be broken and that he or she that forsakes the other party in marriage commits adultery when he or she marries another.

But we proceeded from the supposition that this text implied that the husband put away his wife for the sake of fornication and likewise that the woman forsakes her husband for the same reason. This, however, although it is very possible, is not expressed in the text. We will, therefore, still have to refer to other passages of Holy Writ in which this is clearly expressed.

Editorial 8

We were still going to call your attention to the texts concerning divorce and remarriage in Matt. 19:9 and Luke 16:18.

Notice, first of all, that in these verses taken together, there is mention of three different parties that commit adultery.

First of all, there is the man that, without the cause of adultery on the part of his wife, forsakes her and marries another woman. He commits adultery by marrying another woman, before God, he is still considered to be the legal husband of his first wife. Hence, by living in the marriage relation with the other woman he lives in continual adultery.

Secondly, there is the other man that marries the woman that is forsaken by her first husband. He, too, commits adultery and lives in continual adultery after he has married the forsaken and innocent woman because, in the eyes of God, she still belongs to the man that has forsaken her.

Thirdly, there is the originally innocent woman that is forsaken by her husband and now marries the other man. By concluding this second marriage she, too, commits adultery and by living with that second man, lives in continual adultery because, before the law of God, she is still the wife of her first husband that has forsaken her and married another woman.

We are well aware of the fact that the last synod of the Christian Reformed Church denies this. Even though the first two propositions adopted by that synod are entirely negative and, therefore, unworthy of a synod; and even though these propositions occur in the Acts of Synod without a single item of proof (how can one offer positive Scriptural proof for mere negative propositions?) which again make them unworthy of a synod; nevertheless, if we give a positive form to these negative propositions, they express:

1. That parties may remarry after they are divorced on the ground of their own adultery or on unbiblical grounds.

2. That parties thus remarried may continue their membership in the Christian Reformed Church without first severing their relationship in that illegal marriage.

But, although the synod of the Christian Reformed Church offered no proof for their position in the matter, we must, nevertheless, prove from the Word of God that our position in the matter is right. This we have already done in preceding numbers of our magazine. But now we will still show that the passages from Luke 16:18 and from Matthew 19:9 indeed do teach what, in the first part of this article, we claim they teach on the question of divorce and remarriage.

First of all, then, Matthew 19:9.

I do not have to quote the text again since I have done so more than once. Besides, you can easily look it up in your own Bible.

Let me take my starting point in the last part of this verse. There we read the well-known words: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Let us have clearly before our mind what is the import, not only of these last words of the text, but of the whole passage in the light of this last sentence. What is the situation?

1. A man puts away his wife, forsakes her. In the light of the rest of the text, it is clear that he does not merely leave her but that, somehow, he obtains a legal divorce, something that can easily be done, especially in our own country, as we all know. But this could also be done among the Jews of Jesus’ time.

2. The woman that is thus forsaken by her husband gave him no legal ground for a divorce by committing adultery before her husband forsook her. She is the innocent party.

3. Nevertheless, the man that put away his wife marries another woman, according to the text. We may well assume that this was his purpose in the first place: by putting away his wife he wanted to open the way for marrying another woman.

4. By marrying the other woman he, according to the text, commits adultery. And, of course, the woman he marries also commits adultery. Hence, as we mentioned above, the man and that second wife live in continued adultery. What is the clear implication? It is, evidently, that even after his marriage with the other woman, his first wife, whom he put away, is still his only legal wife before God and His law.

5. But now notice the last part of the text: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” What does this mean?

a. The woman that is put away did not commit adultery. If she had committed adultery, the man would have had grounds before God and His law to put her away. For the Lord adds “except it be for fornication.”

b. Many conclude from this that, if a man puts away his wife for the cause of fornication, he may marry another woman. This used to be my position several years back. Of course, this is still a far cry from the position of the last Christian Reformed Synod. Nevertheless, I have abandoned this position, partly on grounds I mentioned before, but also partly on the basis of the last part of Matthew 19:9.

c. Is the innocent woman that did not commit adultery, that is put away from her husband and whose husband married another women, now entitled before God to marry another man? Not according to the Word of God in the text we are now examining. For the Lord says: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Why is this the case? There can be only one answer to this: the innocent woman that did not commit fornication but that was put away by her husband, is still considered to be the legal wife before God and His law of her first husband even though he has already married another woman.

Editorial 9

In our last issue we discussed the text from Matt. 19:9.

We did so especially in the light of the last part of this verse: “and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

It ought to be very evident from this passage of Scripture that marriage is an unbreakable bond and that any married man or woman who has sexual intercourse with another man or woman, before the married man or woman dies, commits adultery. If for any reason at all the married man or woman puts away his wife or her husband, divorces’ him or her, he or she cannot, before God, even though it is possible and legal before the law of the land, marry another man or woman. If he does so, he lives in continued adultery with her whom he so marries; and if she does so, she also lives in continued, adultery with him whom she thus marries. The reason is that, before God, he is still married to his first wife, and she is still married to her first husband, or, if you please, only death can break the marriage bond.

This, we claim, is very evident from Matt. 19:9, especially from the last part.

It is clear from this text that the woman is innocent: she did not commit adultery. However, the man that put away the innocent woman did commit adultery when he married another woman. The question is: may that woman now marry another man or, as the text has it, may another man marry the innocent woman after her first husband married another and committed adultery? The text we are discussing denies this: he that marrieth her which is put away, and whose husband committed adultery by marrying another woman, also commits adultery.

The marriage bond, therefore, is inviolable. Only death can break it.

This is also the teaching of Luke 16:18. There we read: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

This text is very similar to the one in Matthew. The only difference is the limiting clause “except it be for fornication,” which occurs in Matthew but is not found in Luke.

This, however, corroborates what we wrote in explanation of the passage in Matthew 19.

The latter passage teaches, as we explained, that a man may only leave his wife in case she committed adultery. Even then, although he may put away his wife and obtain a divorce, he may not marry another woman. If he does so, he commits adultery.

For this reason it was not necessary to put the limiting clause “except it be for fornication,” which is found in Matthew, in the text in Luke. The latter passage does not mean to emphasize the fact that a man puts away his wife, but rather the sin that he marries another. It, evidently, means to say that the marrying of another woman is always sin on the part of a man as long as his first wife is still living. Whether he put away his wife because she committed fornication or not, he may not marry another. And what is true of the man is also true of the woman. For also in the passage of Luke the Lord adds: “and whosoever marrieth that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”

Also here, therefore, there are three that commit adultery:

1. The man that marries another while his wife is still living, whether she committed fornication or not. And also the woman that marries him.

2. The man that .marries the forsaken woman while her first husband is still alive.

3. The woman that marries the second man while her first husband is still living.

The fundamental principle involved is, of course, that the marriage bond is inviolable. Only death can break it.

It stands to reason that, before one of the three parties can ever become members again in good standing in the church of Christ on earth, they must sever their false marriage relationship with the man or woman with whom they are living. They cannot simply confess the sin of having married another party and then continue to live with that other party. For fact is that, as long they live in that false marriage relationship, they live in continued adultery. Before therefore, they can even sincerely make confession of their sin before the church, they must break off their false marriage relationship.

And now we close this discussion. Let me briefly recapitulate what I have written on this subject of Unbiblical Divorce and Remarriage.

First of all, I made plain that the Christian Reformed synod of 1956, in their decisions in regard to divorce and remarriage, erred grievously when they virtually took the stand that, according to the Scriptures, remarriage of divorced persons is perfectly proper in the sight of God and that if they only confess their sin of their former divorce, they may be admitted as members in good standing in the church on earth.

Secondly, I showed that the reasoning of the committee on divorce and remarriage that reported to the synod of the. Christian Reformed Church in 1932 was nothing but sophistry.

Finally, I showed from the Word of God that the marriage tie can never be broken except by death. This I proved:

1. From the biblical teaching that marriage is an image of God’s eternal covenant that can never be broken.

2. From several passages of Scripture such asRom. 7:1-4; Matt. 5:31, 32; Matt. 19:9; Luke 16:18.

Now, for the time being, I close this series.

This article was originally posted on "The Standard Bearer" as a series of editorials by Herman Hoeksema. Herman was born on March 12, 1886 from Johanna Bakema and Tiele Hoeksema in Hoogezand, in the province of Groningen, the Netherlands. After studying at Calvin Theological Seminary in Grand Rapids/Michigan, he began his ministerial career in the Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church of Grand Rapids, one of the largest Reformed congregations in the United States at the time. In 1924 he refused to accept the three points of common grace, which became official church dogma of the CRC. The result of this controversy was that he and some other ministers with their congregations were put out of the Christian Reformed Church. These men then established the Protestant Reformed Churches. Hoeksema served as a long time pastor of the First Protestant Reformed Church of Grand Rapids. He also was professor of theology at the Protestant Reformed Theological School in Grandville, Michigan for 40 years. Herman Hoeksema was also the first editor of the Standard Bearer. Herman Hoeksema died in September 1965 at Grand Rapids.