Martin Luther: If Your Spouse is Sick... Take a New Wife?

Here's an old character defaming Roman Catholic analysis of Martin Luther from the nineteenth century:

At the end of the second part of the famous sermon on matrimony Luther has some words of comfort for those, whose husbands or wives are ill. He will not allow such illness to be considered as a legitimate cause of divorce. „Blessed art thou, if thou acknowledgest such a grace, and servest thy sick partner willingly in the name of God. If thou sayest, thou canst not contain thyself, I answer: thou liest." But alas! Words! Words! We are used to see the „Reformer" change his opinion and contradict himself. In 1527 a case is brought before him, of a certain Hans Behem, whose wife is suffering from leprosy. Luther decides, that, if the wife consents, the husband may consider her as dead and proceed to a new marriage. Car tel est notre plaisir. (17)

(17) De Wette III. 194. This decision will also be found Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S.

According to this nineteenth century Roman Catholic author, Martin Luther first stated that if a spouse is ill, that illness does not provide legitimate grounds for divorce. Then the author posits Luther is grossly inconsistent because later Luther approved of a man abandoning his sick wife and remarrying! This Roman Catholic author seals his interpretation with the French phrase, Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever whimsically pleasures him, like swapping wives out when the first one breaks. 

Let's take a closer look and see if Luther was inconsistent and was suggesting licentious wife changing. 

Documentation
The quote above comes from a book by J. Verres, Luther an Historical Portrait, p. 211-212.  The 1884 version I utilized does not contain the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. This book was quoted more frequently in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries than it is today. I've not uncovered much about this author other than he was a nineteenth century German Roman Catholic (as per his admission). There are a number of old reviews of Luther: An Historical Portrait.  Of the extant ones, most are favorable from Roman Catholic sources. Here though is a negative review. What's useful about this negative review is that it seems his contemporaries didn't know much about him either. Th review states, "Dr. Verres, we believe, a Catholic priest whom the vexatious Maigesetze compelled to find a second home in England." His book is best classified as belonging to the Roman Catholic period of destructive criticism of Martin Luther.

Two references are provided. The first is "De Wette III. 194." This refers to Dr. Martin Luthers Briefe. This is a collection of Luther's letters edited by Dr. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette in the nineteenth century. This exact reference can be found here. It is a letter from Luther to Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf, August 23, 1527.To my knowledge, this letter has not been officially translated into English.  

The second reference is "Tischr. II. c. 20. § 10S." Verres includes a key to the abbreviations he used.  In his book, "Tischr" refers to the Tischreden, or Table Talk. He says the exact edition he used was: "Dr. M. Luther's sinnreiche Tischreden. 2 voll. Stuttgart und Leipzig 1836."  What Verres is citing is a second-hand source of comments Luther is alleged to have made, written down by his collogues and friends published after his death. These second-hand statements can be helpful as corroborating evidence for something Luther is known to have written or said while alive. The version / edition of Tischreden Volume 2 as cited by Verres does not appear to be available online as of the writing of this entry.  However, what Verres may be referring to is this Tischreden entry, WA Tr 6:267,6915. This text also provides some extra information.

Context

De Wette III. 194

English Translation from Google A.I.:

Grace and peace in Christ. Your Grace. I have received your letter concerning H. B., and at your request, this is my reply. Since the same H. B. neither knows nor is able, as he indicates, to manage his household without a wife, I neither know nor can prevent him from taking another wife to accept; he too is well excused by God, because a previous body willingly departed from him in this way, eternally forfeiting itself, thereby (justly) being considered dead and he himself being free to judge by her. But if she had not so completely consented, it would be another matter; for otherwise so much malice is undertaken everywhere in matters of God that it is not easy to admit so many offenses. With this, God be with you.") 1527

Alternate English A.I. Translation (DeepL):

I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my answer: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Moreover, he is well excused before God because his previous wife willingly divorced him and eternally forgives him, so that she is justly considered dead and he himself is free from her judgment. If, however, she had not so completely consented, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much wantonness is practiced in marital matters that it is not easy to acknowledge so much offense. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

 

WA Tr 6:267,6915. 

 

 English Translation from Google A.I.

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the excommunication the marriage, D. M. L. objections to Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus settled. (A.449; St.564; p. Append. 15) A woman had become exile, and willingly and without coercion entered the hospital and permitted her husband to take another. Thereupon, D. M. L. raised objections, as follows:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, firm, dear Lord and Friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: Since Hans Behem, as he indicates, neither knows nor is able to provide for his household without a wife, I cannot prevent or forbid him from taking another wife. Furthermore, I believe he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him and has forgiven him, since she is rightfully considered dead and he himself is free from judgment. If, however, she had not so completely forgiven him, it would be a different matter. For otherwise, so much willful intent is taken in marital matters that it is not easy to accept so much wrongdoing. With this, God bless you. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527.

DeepL English Rendering:

6915. (FB. 4, 101 (43,108)) b the divorce, D. M. L. Concerns about Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf; and this case was thus dealt with. (A.449; St.564; S. Append. 15) A woman had been divorced and had willingly and voluntarily entered the hospital and allowed her husband to take another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. raised the following concerns:

Grace and peace in Christ. Strict, steadfast, dear sir and friend! I have received your letter concerning Hans Behem, and at your request, this is my reply: If Hans Behem does not know how to manage his household, as he states, without a wife, then I do not know how to prevent or forbid him from taking another wife, and also, he is well excused before God, because his previous wife willingly divorced him, and he has forgiven her, since she is rightly to be considered dead and he himself is free from her. But if she had not been so completely lost, it would be another matter. For otherwise, so much arbitrariness is committed in matrimonial matters that it is not easy to grant so much forgiveness. With this, I commend you to God. Given at Wittenberg on the eve of St. Bartholomew's Day, 1527."

Additional Information

Google A.I.  English Translation

The woman who had been expelled willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and allowed the man to woo another. Thereupon, D. M. L. sent a letter to Joachim von Weispach of Reyuersdorf, which was:

DeepL English Translation

The woman who was sent away willingly, without being forced by her husband, went to the hospital in Begaiv and told her husband to find another wife. Upon this, D. M. L. had the following thoughts about Joachim von Weispach zu Reyuersdorff:

Conclusion
While these are clunky A.I. English translations, there are easily discernable facts: On August 23, 1527, Luther received a letter from Joachim von Weiszbach of Reinersdorf on behalf of Hans Behem. Behem's wife was stricken by a disease and taken (or went willingly) to the hospital. At some point during this illness, the husband (Hans Behem) asked his wife for a divorce and permission to marry another since he could not care of his household on his own. The wife completely consented. Luther says, if this severely ill woman had not consented, he would have given different answer, implying a negative answer. 

Here is what's not easily discernable. I could locate no specific information about either Joachim von Weißbach zu Reinersdorf or Hans Behem. The text is unclear whether or not the woman had died at this point in the writing of the response of Luther's letter.

What then of the charge of Luther's charges leveled by Verres? First, the charge of Luther's gross inconsistency. Verres is contrasting this 1527 private letter with Luther's earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage. Beggars All provides a detailed look at exactly what Verres was referring to. In that treatise, Luther symbiotically joined marriage and family together. In Luther's thinking, you cannot consider one without the other. Luther saw the goal of family as more than a direct command from God: it is "a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore"(LW 45:18). Hence when Behem presented the hardship of caring for his household alone, Luther viewed a two-parent household over a single-parent household. Because of the symbiotic relationship between marriage and family, Luther's allowance is consistent. True, Luther did write in 1522 that one is not free to divorce a sick spouse, but that again is symbiotically related to family. If a spouse is sick and unable to bear children, the other spouse is not free to divorce but to accept the situation he has been placed in by God. In Behem's complicated situation, it appears by managing a household, children were involved, and the wife willingly granted permission to her husband to divorce her. But what the charge by Verres that Luther's view is Car tel est notre plaisir (Because it is our will/pleasure) indicating that the husband could do whatever pleasures him? This is not found in the letter at all, nor the earlier 1522 treatise, The Estate of Marriage.

Luther: "Let Vashti Go and Take an Esther, as did the King Ahasuerus"... a Blueprint for Polygamy and Divorce?

Here's a shocking obscure Martin Luther quote utilized in Father Patrick O'Hare's book, The Facts About Luther: 

According to his new teaching any man who is tired of his wife can leave her for any reason whatsoever and, forthwith, the marriage is dissolved and both free to marry again. "The husband may drive away his wife; God cares not. Let Vashti go and take an Esther, as did the king Ahasuerus." Does not such a permission open the gates to successive polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution?

 It surprises me this quote doesn't get more usage online. I vaguely recall it appearing more in the early 2000's. 

Father O'Hare's version of Luther embraces no-fault divorce and deregulated Christian remarriage. This will lead to societal "successive polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution." 

From around the same historical period, Roman Catholic historian Heinrich Denifle references the same quote and chastises Luther at length: 

The new teachers likewise carried on as madly as possible — did it in their very sermons. In one of these, the spokesman instructs his hearers on the married life as follows: "One easily finds a stiff-necked woman, who carries her head high, and though her husband should ten times fall into unchastity, she raises no question about it. Then it is time for the husband to say to her: 'If you don't want to, another does;' if the wife is unwilling, let the servant-girl come. If the wife is then still unwilling, have done with her; let an Esther be given you and Vashti go her way" (Erl. 20,72). Quite logical: marriage under some conditions demands continency no less than does the religious state. The underlying Epicurean principle of this tendency was, that continency was an impossible requirement, that there is no resisting the instinct of passion, and that resistance is even a kind of revolt against the disposition of God...From such a state of affairs, it was only a step farther to polygamy. Several of these apostles of the flesh did go to that length, inasmuch as, faithful to their principles, they allowed, at times, two and three wives. Some, indeed, of these fallen priests and monks themselves had several women at the same time... After these apostles of the flesh had wallowed to their satisfaction in the slime of sensuality, then it was that they seemed to themselves to be the worthiest of forgiveness of sins (Denifle's original German text found here).

A celibate priest himself, Denifle's severe polemic was certainly provoked by Luther's attack on monastic vows. According to Denifle, if monastic vows were abandoned it would put "the indissolubility of marriage to the test and that adultery would no longer be considered a sin and a shame." Father Denifle determined this was exactly what happened historically, :

 ...[T]he entire concubinage of the fifteenth century and its congeneric continuation in the sixteenth, with all its abominations, pale before the doings and the teachings of the fallen priests and monks who, in the third decade of the sixteenth century, had branched off from the old movement. 

I see little reason to doubt the conclusions of both of these priests were heavily motivated by their own vocations as priests. But... the quote from Luther is indeed shocking, even if you're not a priest: if a spouse refuses sexual intercourse, she is to be flippantly done away with, divorced. Now that's a version of Martin Luther that doesn't make the rounds in Protestant memorializing! Let's take a closer look at this quote to see what Luther actually said and if the implications actually were wife jettisoning, no-fault divorce, lawless remarriage, polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution. Spoiler alert: they were not!

Documentation
Father O'Hare's 1916 edition (with the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur!) does not provide a reference. Cursory online searches seem to only offer "Wittenb. V, 123" and "Wittenb. 1, 123." Though incorrect as we'll see, the later reference is interesting. It's found in a Roman Catholic periodical entitled The Observer Edition of Our Sunday Visitor, August 22,1948:

Did this article take the quote from O'Hare? I'm not sure, but I've not found any older English renderings of the quote that predate and coincide with O'Hare's version. Nor do I know where O'Hare's English rendering came from. Is it O'Hare's rendering? I doubt it came from him translating from primary sources. As I've looked into the quotes he's utilized, the majority come from secondary hostile Roman Catholic sources. He was a flagrant copy-and-paster. It could very well be though he's summarizing the quote from a secondary source.

 

The reference from this 1948 news article is also a mystery. It does not appear in O'Hare's book but the volume 5 reference does find its way into the Roman Catholic assault Luther an Historical Portrait from the nineteenth century which predates O'Hare. There are other nineteenth century hits as well (here and here) and a twentieth century reference that predates O'Hare.

 The author of the article made a mistake citing :Wittenb. vol. 1." "Wittenb." refers to the Wittenberg edition of Luther's writings (1539-1558). When I checked the Wittenberg edition German volumes 1 and 5, the quote does not occur. In the Latin volumes, the quote does not occur at Wittenb. 1, 123, but... it does occur at Wittenb. 5, 123:

Helpfully, Father Denifle does provide a reference: "Erl. 20,72." "Erl." refers to the old Erlangen edition of Luther's writings, which can be abbreviated a number of ways (Erl, E, EA, Werke, etc.). Volume 20 page 72 can be found here. Denifle is citing the German text, not the Latin. The quote is on this page toward the bottom:

The quote is in the now standard primary German source (Weimar Edition) is located at WA 10.2.290. WA 10.2:290 reads,

This text in Latin is from: Martini Lutheri de matrimonio sermo, habitus Wittembergae anno 1522. In German, this text is from Uom Eelichen Lebe. In English, the title is rendered The Estate of Marriage. In English, the quote is located in Luther's Works at LW 45:33. Of the background writing details of The Estate of Marriage, LW 45 says, 

Unfortunately, the sources are virtually silent on the specific reasons which called forth the treatise here translated, as well as on the time of its composition and its appearance in print (LW 45:14).

In his introduction to the treatise Luther refers to it as a sermon, but says he dreads preaching on the subject. Luther’s introductory remarks are appropriate only to a treatise intended for the press, not to a sermon. If its original form was a sermon delivered from the pulpit, it must have been greatly expanded before publication. No corresponding sermon text is known to us, much less a particular Sunday or occasion for its delivery (LW 45:15).

Context
The immediate context of the quote is in regard to reasons Christian marriages are allowed the unfortunate possibility of divorce. Luther posits three main reasons. First, if either spouse is unable to perform conjugally to produce offspring. Second, adultery: "Here you see that in the case of adultery Christ permits the divorce of husband and wife, so that the innocent person may remarry" (LW 45:30-31). The third reason brings us to the context of the quote in question:

The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfil the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation. If she still refuses, get rid of her; take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did [Esther 1:12–2:17].

Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7[:4–5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage. For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another. We would certainly have to accept it if someone’s life were taken from him. Why then should we not also accept it if a wife steals herself away from her husband, or is stolen away by others? (LW 45:33-34).

A tedious detail worth mentioning arises in the context above. Notice the phrase "If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not" (Wiltu nicht, szo will eyn andere, wil fraw nicht, szo kum die magd) is placed between quotation marks (" "). This indicates the phrase did not originate with Luther. LW 45 states it was a popular proverbial expression [LW 45:33, fn. 34].

Conclusion
Something to notice immediately about the context above is to look beyond the shock value of the quote and understand the severity of the situation Luther is describing. First, it's not only adamant denial of conjugal duty, but a spouse that possibly refuses to live under one roof with her husband. Second, the spouse is described as someone that does not care if her husband has repeated extra-marital sex. Luther recommends the husband seek to first seek to keep this dysfunctional marriage intact by warning the wife of potential dissolution and also involving the church as a third-party arbiter. He also recommends the government be involved. Luther even allows that it could very well be possible to avoid divorce and maintain a marital relationship with an evil spouse:

Now if one of the parties were endowed with Christian fortitude and could endure the other’s ill behavior, that would doubtless be a wonderfully blessed cross and a right way to heaven. For an evil spouse, in a manner of speaking, fulfils the devil’s function and sweeps clean him who is able to recognize and bear it. If he cannot, however, let him divorce her before he does anything worse, and remain unmarried for the rest of his days. Should he try to say that the blame rests not upon him but upon his spouse, and therefore try to marry another, this will not do, for he is under obligation to endure evil, or to be released from his cross only by God, since the conjugal duty has not been denied him. Here the proverb applies, “He who wants a fire must endure the smoke” (LW 45:34-35).

While the shock quote seems to suggest simple abandonment of a spouse for the denial of sex, in the broad context of The Estate of Marriage Luther does not advocate no-fault divorce; he limited it to three main serious reasons. What's striking about these three reasons is that they are placed in a context in which marriage and family are symbiotically joined together. In Luther's thinking, you cannot consider one without the other. Luther saw the goal of family as more than a direct command from God. It is "a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore"(LW 45:18]:

... [A]fter God had made man and woman he blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply” [Gen. 1:28]. From this passage we may be assured that man and woman should and must come together in order to multiply. Now this [ordinance] is just as inflexible as the first [honoring the divine creation of man and woman], and no more to be despised and made fun of than the other, since God gives it his blessing and does something over and above the act of creation (LW 45:18].

Even sexuality itself is teleologically designed by God for the eventual creation of a family. The ultimate reason why there is human sex drive exists is for the creation of a family:

...[I]t is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice (LW 45:18).

But the greatest good in married life, that which makes all suffering and labor worth while, is that God grants offspring and commands that they be brought up to worship and serve him. In all the world this is the noblest and most precious work, because to God there can be nothing dearer than the salvation of souls. Now since we are all duty bound to suffer death, if need be, that we might bring a single soul to God, you can see how rich the estate of marriage is in good works. God has entrusted to its bosom souls begotten of its own body, on whom it can lavish all manner of Christian works. Most certainly father and mother are apostles, bishops, and priests to their children, for it is they who make them acquainted with the gospel. In short, there is no greater or nobler authority on earth than that of parents over their children, for this authority is both spiritual and temporal. Whoever teaches the gospel to another is truly his apostle and bishop. Mitre and staff and great estates indeed produce idols, but teaching the gospel produces apostles and bishops. See therefore how good and great is God’s work and ordinance! (LW 45:46).

Could Luther's theological reasoning lead to difficult hypotheticals? For instance, suppose a couple marries and a spouse becomes severely ill? The divine creation mandate to be fruitful and multiply cannot be fulfilled.  Should that person dispose of the sick spouse? Should the husband take an Esther and let Vashti go? No!:

What about a situation where one’s wife is an invalid and has therefore become incapable of fulfilling the conjugal duty? May he not take another to wife? By no means. Let him serve the Lord in the person of the invalid and await His good pleasure. Consider that in this invalid God has provided your household with a healing balm by which you are to gain heaven. Blessed and twice blessed are you when you recognize such a gift of grace and therefore serve your invalid wife for God’s sake (LW 45:35).

I think it's understandable that Luther's high regard for the creation of family comes off as extreme to modern Western ears. Also, the quote under scrutiny certainly does not emotionally provoke a reader to consider the broader context of Luther's theological underpinnings. It does the opposite: it distracts like a tray being dropped in a fine dining restaurant. Perhaps though in the sixteenth century Luther's shocking comments did not raise as many eyebrows as it would today? A cursory search of the period states there was a strong bond between having a family with physical and economic survival. For example: Children were utilized in working within the household. Widows and widowers relied on care from their children. A child was supposed to eventually care for their aging parents, etc. Well... some eyebrows were raised. Some sixteenth century readers ignored Luther's context and fixated on the shocking quote. LW 45 states, 

In a letter of January 1, 1523, to Dietrich von Werthern, [Luther's] representative at the Diet of Nürnberg, Duke George of Saxony cited this phrase [the maid will come if the wife will not] out of context to discredit Luther. He sarcastically suggested that Dietrich make sure his maidservants were comely. Gess, op. cit., I, 415 [LW 45:33, fn. 34].

Also from a close scrutiny of the context, I grasp Luther's theological reasoning about Vashti and Esther, but to me, this isn't the most shocking statement. I think this one is: 

For this reason the civil government must compel the wife, or put her to death. If the government fails to act, the husband must reason that his wife has been stolen away and slain by robbers; he must seek another (LW 45:34).

From my vantage point, this seems extreme and in in contradiction to what Luther stated in the beginning of this treatise:

But we are exactly as he created us: I a man and you a woman. Moreover, he wills to have his excellent handiwork honored as his divine creation, and not despised. The man is not to despise or scoff at the woman or her body, nor the woman the man. But each should honor the other’s image and body as a divine and good creation that is well-pleasing unto God himself [LW 45:17-18]. 

In conclusion, if you find yourself shocked by this obscure quote and subsequent context... and you claim the name "Christian," a meaningful response to Luther would best be to avoid secular pragmatism or arguing from potential modern societal results like O'Hare and Denifle. As I've investigated O'Hare and Denifle on this, neither of them touched Luther's reasoning as to why he said what he did in relation to the divine mandate of having a family or his high regard for marriage. They present him as a lawless lunatic whose fundamental error was rejecting monasticism. A closer look at this quote does not support the implications of flippant wife jettisoning, no-fault divorce, lawless remarriage, polygamy, free love and legalized prostitution. This charge against Luther is even recognized by him in The Estate of Marriage:

I once wrote down some advice concerning such persons for those who hear confession. It related to those cases where a husband or wife comes and wants to learn what he should do: his spouse is unable to fulfil the conjugal duty, yet he cannot get along without it because he finds that God’s ordinance to multiply is still in force within him. Here they have accused me of teaching that when a husband is unable to satisfy his wife’s sexual desire she should run to somebody else. Let the topsyturvy liars spread their lies. The words of Christ and his apostles were turned upside down; should they not also turn my words topsy-turvy? To whose detriment it will be they shall surely find out (LW 45:20).

Addendum #1: Previous Defenses of this Quote
There have been attempts from scholars to salvage this Luther quote. For instance, Lutheran theologian W.H.T. Dau sought to tackle the Roman Catholic criticism of divorce and polygamy. He does so by comparing Luther's view of divorce and polygamy with Luther's view that of the Turks. He states, 

Luther says: "Many divorces occur still among the Turks. If a wife does not yield to the husband, nor act according to his whim and fancy, he forthwith drives her out of the house, and takes one, two, three, or four additional wives, and defends his action by appealing to Moses. They have taken out of Moses such things as please them and pander to their lust. In Turkey they are very cruel to women; any woman that will not submit is cast aside. They toy with their women like a dog with a rag. When they are weary of one woman, they quickly put her beneath the turf and take another. Moses has said nothing to justify this practice. My opinion is that there is no real married life among the Turks; theirs is a whorish life. It is a terrible tyranny, all the more to be regretted because God does not withhold the common blessing from their intercourse: children are procreated thereby, and yet the mother is sent away by the husband. For this reason there is no true matrimony among the Turks. In my opinion, all the Turks at the present time are bastards." (7, 965.)

All this is plain enough and should suffice to secure Luther against the charge of favoring polygamy. The seeming admission that polygamy might be permissible relates to cases for which the laws of all civilized nations make provisions. How a Christian must conduct himself in such a case must be decided on the evidence in each case. Likewise, the reference to the Christian's liberty from the law does not mean that the Christian has the potential right to polygamy, but it means that he must maintain his monogamous relation from a free and willing choice to obey God's commandments in the power of God's grace. Polygamy, this is the firm conviction of Luther, could only be sanctioned if there were a plain command of God to that effect. Luther's remarks about matrimony among the Turks should be remembered when Catholics cite Luther's remarks about King Ahasuerus dismissing Vashti and summoning Esther, and the right of the husband to take to himself his maid-servant when his wife refuses him. By all divine and human laws the matter to which Luther refers is a just ground for divorce, and that is all that Luther declares."

Lutheran theologian Ewald Plass said of this shocking quote, “The words, ‘If the wife is not willing, bring on the maid’ have been notoriously misconstrued by having been quoted out of context. As the following words clearly show, Luther is thinking of a separation and a remarriage, not a sort of concubinage” [Ewald Plass, What Luther Says vol 2, p.901, fn. 20]. Plass then provides a number of statements from Luther on Luther's views on marriage and divorce.

A lengthy defense of the quote "If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not" is suggested by LW 45. It mentions that put forth by Lutheran theologian Wilhelm Walther:  

A charitable explanation of Luther’s use of the phrase is found in Wilhelm Walther, Für Luther wider Rom (Halle: Niemeyer, 1906), pp. 693–695. He suggests that Luther deliberately put these proverbial expressions into the mouth of the offended husband in order that the offending wife might know that her husband’s feelings in the matter were not peculiar to him but represented a generally accepted point of view [LW 45:33, fn. 34].

To my knowledge, this book is not available in English but can be found in its original German here. Walther's refutation is excellent and thorough. 

The following is the lengthy argument from Wilhelm Walther, pages 693-695 along with a cursory A.I. English translation.

Google A.I. English translation:

The [Roman Catholics] most sharply accuse him of his advice concerning the refusal of marital duty.

This refusal is also a grave sin according to Roman law. But what is to happen if one deprives and withdraws from the other? According to Luther, a woman who refuses to pay her marital duty or remain with her husband "tears apart" the marriage. She thereby effectively annuls the marriage. Then, however, "the secular authorities must compel or kill the woman. If they do not do so, the husband must think that his wife has been taken from him by robbers and killed and seek another." He therefore advises such a man to threaten his wife with the prospect of divorce and remarriage, and should she persist in her "stubbornness," to carry out this threat. Naturally, the Roman Catholics, with their erroneous understanding of the indissolubility of marriages recognized by their church, must consider this false. But they should allow Luther to say nothing other than what he wants to say. They interpret his words as if the husband should then go to another woman, perhaps his maid, as if he himself had given advice and permission for adultery." And yet Luther says quite clearly that such a man should "get" another wife, and has just written beforehand how this should happen: "Divorce publicly, so that one may change (remarry), this must be done through secular investigation and force, so that the adultery is evident to everyone; or where the [authorities] will not do so, divorce with the knowledge of the community." Accordingly, he continues in our passage: "However, the husband should tell her this two or three times beforehand and warn her and let it happen before other people, so that her obstinacy is publicly known and punished before the community. If she still does not want to, then let her leave you and let her give you an Esther and the Vashti go, as King Assyrian did (Esther 2:17)." Denifle continues all this and quotes only the words: "One can find a stubborn woman who sets her mind on it, and should the man fall into insolence ten times, she still doesn't ask. Then it's time for the man to say to her: "If you don't want it, another will; if the wife doesn't want it, then the maid will come." Janssen quotes a little more. He excuses his omission of the entire passage with the words: "The whole passage cannot be published because of its obscenity." However, he later forgot this excuse himself; for in his second word to his critics, he prints it in its entirety.

Even Protestants, when presented with only the few words that Denifle quotes, have taken offense. This is because Luther also writes: "If you don't want it, another will; if the wife doesn't want it, then the maid will come." It was assumed that Luther was thereby expressing his advice, as if the man were permitted to go to his maid in such a case. This, however, is completely ruled out by what he said before and after about the path a man should take to arrange a marriage elsewhere. That sentence, however, was not even coined by Luther. He merely quotes two old proverbs. But when I express a thought using a proverb, only the intended thought comes into consideration, not the accidental form given to it by popular wisdom; here, therefore, only the thought that a woman who refuses her husband her marital duty forfeits her right to him. The husband should point this out to his wife, using the proverb, to make it clear to her that this is a general view, not an idea of ​​his own. Anyone who wants to force the accidental wording of the proverb must also read in Luther that every man in the situation in question may desire no one other than his maid as a wife. Because, however, a misinterpretation of his words is conceivable due to the use of the proverb, Luther specifically adds: "However, in such a way that the man first warns the woman several times, then brings in others, tries to bring her to her senses before the community, and only then, if all is in vain, lets himself be taken by another." 

Finally, what motivates Luther to give this advice to a man in such a situation? Why doesn't he demand that he abstain from marital relations altogether, even under such difficult circumstances? Denifle claims that his advice follows quite consistently from his Epicurean principle that abstinence is an impossible demand, that one cannot resist the natural urge. Is this correct? Or is Luther driven by righteous anger at what he believes to be the "disintegration" of the marriage by this woman? This question can be answered very definitively For in the same sermon in which the words in question are found, Luther also considered cases where, through divine providence and without any fault on the part of the woman, the man is unable to satisfy his natural drive within marriage, for example, if the woman is ill for an extended period. If Denifle is correct, then Luther must have permitted the man, even in such a case, to find other ways to satisfy his needs. But he writes: “What if someone has a sick spouse who has been of no use to him in his marital duties? Should he not take another? By no means! But if you say: Yes, I cannot abstain; you are mistaken… God is far too faithful to deprive you of your spouse in this way through illness, and not also to deprive you of the flesh’s desires when you otherwise faithfully serve your sick husband.” After that, all the talk of Denifle and his predecessors regarding Luther’s assertion of the irresistibility of the sexual drive, in the sense they intend, is pure slander. Rather: As soon as God imposes abstinence on us, we can and should practice it. However, it is not God who has imposed abstinence on priests, monks, and nuns, but their own will, and God clearly shows some of them that this was against his will. This is Luther’s irrefutable view. 

Addendum #2 “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come"

Sometimes this quote is put forth: “If the husband is unwilling, there is another who is; if the wife is unwilling, then let the maid come." It's from the same cntext of the quote in question. Popularly, this quote has a home on the propaganda filled webpage, Luther, Exposing the Myth. With slight variation, the quote can be found in the English translation of Hartmann Grisar, Luther, vol. 3, p.253. Grisar is worth citing at length. He's a hostile source but admits Luther is often wrongly understood on this quote. He writes, 

He declares, first, that if one or other of the married parties should be convicted of obstinately refusing “to render the conjugal due, or to remain with the other,” then ‘‘the marriage was annulled”; the husband might then say: ‘‘If you are unwilling, some other will consent; if the wife refuse, then let the maid come’’; he had the full right to take an Esther and dismiss Vasthi, as King Assucrus had done (Esther ii. 17).1_ To the remonstrances of his wife he would be justified in replying: ‘‘ Go, you prostitute, go to the devil if you please”; the injured party was at liberty to contract a fresh union, though only with the sanction of the authorities or of the congregation, while the offending party incurred the penalty of the law and might or might not be permitted to marry again.

The words: "If you won’t ... then let the maid come" were destined to become famous. Not Catholics only, but Protestants too, found in them a stone of offence. As they stand they give sufficient ground for scandal. Was it, however, Luther’s intention thereby to sanction relations with the maid outside the marriage bond? In fairness the question must be answered in the negative. Both before and after the critical passage the text speaks merely of the dissolution of the marriage and the contracting of another union; apart from this, as is clear from other passages, Luther never sanctioned sexual commerce outside matrimony. Thus, strictly speaking, according to him, the husband would only have the right to threaten the obstinate wife to put her away and contract a fresh union with the maid. At the same time the allusion to the maid was unfortunate, as it naturally suggested something different from marriage. In all probability it was the writer’s inveterate habit of clothing his thought in the most drastic language at his command that here led him astray. It may be that the sentence ‘‘Then let the maid come” belonged to a rude proverb which Luther used without fully adverting to its actual meaning, but it has yet to be proved that such a proverb existed before Luther’s day; at any rate, examples can be quoted of the words having been used subsequently as a proverb, on the strength of his example.

 Addendum #3 The Latin Text of the Quote from Martini Lutheri de matrimonio sermo, habitus Wittembergae anno 1522

Tertia ratio est, ubi alter alteri sese subduxerit, ut debitam benevolentiam persolvere nolit, aut habitare cum renuerit. Reperiuntur enim interdum adeo pertinaces uxores, quae, etiamsi decies in libidinem prolaberetur maritus, pro sua duritia non curarent. Hic opportunum est, ut maritus dicat: Si tu nolueris, alia volet, si domina nolit, adveniat ancilla, ita tamen ut antea iterum et tertio uxorem admoneat maritus, et coram aliis ejus etiam pertinaciam detegat, ut publice et ante conspectum Ecclesiae duritia ejus et agnoscatur et reprehendatur. Si tum renuat, repudia eam, et in vicem Vasti Ester surroga, Assueri regis exemplo.

 Addendum #4 Luther on Marriage by Scott Hendrix

Here's a helpful article from Lutheran Quarterly by Scott Hendrix. The article touches on Luther's view of women and its relationship to marriage.

Addendum #5 Luther's View of the Canonicity of the Book of Esther

A secondary related issue arises with this obscure quote, that being Luther's view of the canonicity of the book of Esther. There have been many voices saying Luther denied the canonicity of the book of Esther. Here though with this obscure quote, we find Luther positively referring to content in the book of Esther, saying, "take an Esther and let Vashti go, as King Ahasuerus did." Such a method of citation of the book of Esther can be found scattered throughout his written corpus. Here is a list of Luther's mentioning the book of Esther in his writings as compiled by Hans Bardtke, Luther und das Buch Esther, p. 88-90. Except for a few occurrences on this list, Luther's mentioning of the book of Esther lacks criticism. The book is referenced similarly as it in The Estate of Marriage.In a future blog entry, I'll be going though the references compiled by Bardtke. 

The definitive answer on Luther's view of the canonicity of the Book of Esther may reside in his translation of the Bible into German. Luther translated Esther and allowed it in his Bible without offering any negative criticism as to its non-canonicity in his delineated Bible prefaces. He translated it, not with the Apocryphal books, but rather with the canonical books. If he considered it Apocryphal, why didn't he translate it with Apocrypha? Why didn't he place it with the Apocrypha when he placed the Biblical books in order? In fact, in one place in his Bible prefaces, Luther distinguishes the particular noncanonical parts of Esther, and places them with the other apocryphal writings:

"Preface to Parts of Esther and Daniel (1534). Here follow several pieces which we did not wish to translate [and include] in the prophet Daniel and in the book of Esther. We have uprooted such cornflowers (because they do not appear in the Hebrew versions of Daniel and Esther)" [LW 35:353].

Calvin's Own Step-Daughter and Son-in-Law Were Among Those Condemned for Adultery and Executed in Geneva

A person going by the moniker "Clement Li" contends John Calvin was "a serial killer, mass murderer and a terrorist." Here's an example of one of the facts entered as supporting evidence:

* CALVIN’S OWN STEP-DAUGHTER AND SON-IN-LAW WERE AMONG THOSE CONDEMNED FOR ADULTERY AND EXECUTED.

This is but one fact among many (part of a cumulative case line of reasoning). The assumption appears to be that John Calvin's presence in Geneva was so ruthlessly despotic, it resulted in his own family members being executed for adultery. This little John Calvin tidbit has traveled around cyberspace, for instance, see this link, this link,  this link, etc.

"Clement Li" thinks facts like these demonstrate John Calvin was "a psychopath." Subsequently, "Calvinist followers" should "pick up a book and do a little research on their spiritual leader they would know that they’re following the beliefs of a serial killer, mass murderer and a terrorist." Those "Calvinist followers" may be "decent people," but, says Li,  "I don’t think Calvinists are Christian."

I did not locate any information as to exactly who this person is. Ironically, the phrase "Clement Li" has an entry in the online Urban Dictionary,  "Clement Li: One who exaggerates all things to the highest degree. Exaggeration cannot pass this point, because it is at max." I mention this at the outset because perhaps this person's written corpus is intended to be farcical (if so, the spirit of Andy Kaufman lives on).

Well then, let's pick up the book this fact is said to come from and do a little research as directed. Yes, there was an adultery scandal in Calvin's family, but we'll see that John Calvin didn't have a son-in-law, nor were any of his family members executed.

Documentation
Documentation for this information is provided via a book: Will Durant, The Reformation, pp. 472-476  (a few links are also provided, but are not relevant to this specific quote). There's a blatant irony to this documentation. "Clement Li" didn't actually put this documentation together, but rather plagiarized it word-for-word from another web-page (a page no longer extant, but I can prove it, if need be). In fact, every historical tidbit (in the exact order) that "Clement Li" put forth in the blog entry was plagiarized from another web page. The blatant irony, therefore, is that Calvinists are being directed to pick up a book and do a little research by someone who didn't bother to pick up a book and do a little research!

The purported information is found in Will Durant's book on page 476. Durant says:

The extant records of the Council for this period do not quite agree with this report: they reveal a high percentage of illegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death. (47) Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdaughter were among those condemned for adultery.(48)

(47) Beard, The Reformation, 252; Muir, John Knox, 108.
(48) Smith, Reformation, 174-

The first part of this segment is evaluated here. One thing to notice immediately: Durant does not say John Calvin's relatives were executed, but were rather, "condemned for adultery." It appears, someone, at some point, simply made the assumption that "condemned" means "executed." This does not necessarily follow. Durant is not saying the extant records prove these people were executed.

Second, Durant is actually not citing the "extant records." Rather, he is citing another secondary source, yet another secondary presentation of Reformation history: Preserved Smith, The Age of the Reformation, page 174. In that context, Preserved Smith explains how there were some who viewed Geneva during Calvin's era most favorably. He counters this in part by saying,

But if we turn from these personal impressions to an examination of the acts of the Consistory, we get a very different impression. The records of Geneva show more cases of vice after the Reformation than before. The continually increasing severity of the penalties enacted against vice and frivolity seem to prove that the government was helpless to suppress them. Among those convicted of adultery were two of Calvin's own female relatives, his brother's wife and his step-daughter Judith.

This source does not say what Durant says it does. Durant says, "Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdaughter were among those condemned for adultery." Preserved Smith though says it was "his brother's wife and his step-daughter Judith." There is no mention of a "son-in-law." Durant appears to have done some factual blundering (again!) when extracting the information from his sources.

One other thing to mention is that previous to the records of the consistory during Calvin's era, there were not any records of the consistory. Preserved Smith's comparison therefore, may be unjustified. There were no factual  records of "before" to make a comparison to, if Smith has the Consistory's actions in mind. If Smith simply means the extant records of Geneva, the Consistory put forth a myriad of new punishable offenses when it came into relevance as a societal governing body, and these offenses were at times forwarded to the secular governing authorities in Geneva. Of course there would be "more cases of vice" simply because there were now more rules against particular vices and an effort to enforce those rules because of the Consistory. The way Smith presents the facts, one gets the impression that Geneva was more sanitized previous to Calvin and the Consistory. This does not necessarily follow.

The Adultery Case of John Calvin's Brother's Wife, Anne Le Fert
Calvin's brother Antoine lived in John Calvin's house in Geneva along with his wife Anne. Reading in-between the lines of what is known about this brother and his wife Anne, it doesn't appear they were a happy couple. Calvin's brother wanted out of the relationship (and it may be Anne also wanted out). As the events unfolded, it appears John Calvin used his position to try and secure a legal divorce for his brother.

Anne was charged twice with adultery. The first occurred in 1548. The evidence does suggest that something peculiar was going on between Anne and Jean Chautempts. The two were interrogated and held for a short period of time, but nothing was ever conclusively proven. It does not appear these people were tortured (as was legally customary during this time period), but they were subjected to intense questioning. Anne never admitted to the charges against her.

Because the adultery charge was not proven, Antoine was not granted a divorce. Rather, the Small Council of Geneva gave orders to the Consistory that Antoine was to go through a ceremony of reconciliation with Anne. In the ceremony, Anne, on her knees, begged for forgiveness from both brothers (John Calvin's name had been slandered due to the scandal). The forgiveness was for the appearance of an inappropriate relationship. She was forgiven by both. For a detailed account of this incident, see: Robert Kingdon, Adultery and Divorce in Calvin's Geneva, pp. 71-79. It is certainly odd (actually, blatantly odd from our contemporary standards!), that a person not proven guilty still had to beg forgiveness. Kingdon contends that during this incident, John Calvin attempted to secure a divorce for his brother, but was not successful (p.79)... so much for John Calvin's despotic authority in Geneva! Kingdon states,

...[T]he leaders of the government of Geneva had demonstrated that they still clung to the traditional belief that marriage should ordinarily be an irrevocable lifetime contract. They did not wish to consider a divorce except in the most extreme circumstances, accompanied with truly decisive proof of serious misconduct.(Klingdon, p.78). 

Fast forward eight years, and Anne found herself in trouble again. She had taken up responsibility running the entire Calvin household. Klingdon states, "...she had displayed far too much familiarity with one of the servants employed for her husband's business" (Klingdon, p. 79). The servant was named Pierre Daguet. According to Klingdon, the Calvin brothers were the suspicious parties and were those who brought complaint against Anne, which landed her in prison. Once again, the Calvin brothers appear to have been looking for grounds for divorce. The trial was not done by the Consistory, but was forwarded to the Genevan secular authorities. This time, Anne was tortured as part of her interrogation,  but again she did not confess. Despite her lack of confession,  the divorce was granted, and Anne was banished from Geneva. Both Antoine and Anne eventually remarried.

While the facts of the scandal in no way prove John Calvin was a "psychopath" or despotically ruling Geneva, a little extra research on the part of Calvin's detractors would've given them a few lesser tidbits to accurately disparage Calvin's character. Anne appears to have been railroaded by the Calvin brothers and unjustly convicted of adultery with circumstantial evidence at best. Klingdon states:

It is hard for a modern reader going through this dossier to feel confident that justice was actually done in this case. Clearly Anne Le Fert had been imprudent in her friendship with other men. Clearly she and her husband had come to dislike each other and wanted to escape from this marriage. Clearly her husband's powerful brother found her offensive and wanted her thrown out of his house. But the evidence in both of these cases for actual adultery is very thin. And Anne's persistent denial of the charges, even under two rounds of torture, make one very uneasy. If she was not innocent, she was physically far more courageous and resilient than most people of her period. Torture could make even the innocent confess. The Calvin brothers, however, were determined to avoid even the hint of impropriety in their household, even the possibility of malicious gossip about anyone under their roof. So Anne Le Fert had to go (Klingdon, 87-88).

The Adultery Case of John Calvin's Step-Daughter, Judith
Calvin's step-daughter Judith was one the two children of Idelette Stordeur brought into the Calvin household. I found very little information about Judith's adultery case.  This source simply states, "In 1562, his step-daughter, Judith, fell into similar disgrace,—a matter which Calvin felt so keenly that he left the city to seek the solitude of the country for a few days after the misdeed became public knowledge." This source states, "Calvin's step-daughter, who had lived with Calvin and his wife in Geneva prior to her marriage, was also found guilty of adultery." This source states, "Idelette's premature death in 1549 devastated Calvin. His pain was doubled by Idelette's premature death and his stepdaughter Judith's 'lustful rush' into marriage and divorce a few years later on account of her adultery."

One of the main sources of proof used above for these assertions is a letter Calvin wrote to Bullinger (March 12, 1562). The text can be found in Opera XIX, 327 (PDF).  Calvin opens the letter saying,

Translated, this text states in part:

When I wrote lately to our friend Blaurer I was prevented from doing so to you, because, before I was quite recovered from an attack of fever, a domestic sorrow, occasioned by the dishonour of my step-daughter, compelled me to seek the privacy of solitude for a few days. When I was in my rustic cottage your letter was presented to me, with the contents of which many rumours from other quarters perfectly agree. We have, then, good reason to be afraid. But how to take measures of precaution is difficult. How great the confusion is in France, you will learn partly from a letter of our brother Beza, of which I send you a copy, and I will myself partly briefly allude to it.

Here we see the source for Calvin's emotional state over Judith that historians have pulled from. The "lustful rush" comment appears to come from Richard Stauffer, L'humanité de Calvin (I have this book on order, and will revise this entry when it arrives). I could find no verifiable information proving Judith was executed for adultery. This source (p.159) states,

Judith was married docilely to a good man of her father's choice. Guillaume Farel wrote a note of congratulation to his friend about the girl of whom he, too, was very fond, "I congratulate her and because of her, her husband."

Geneva was aghast when seven years later the stepdaughter of Jean, Judith, had to be banished for adultery. The laws of Calvin knew no exception to the rule. Her father, who had always loved her, was crushed by her sin. 

Conclusion
The facts do not support the entire assertion, "Calvin's own step-daughter and son-in-law were among those condemned for adultery and executed." Calvin did not have a son-in-law, nor were Calvin's relatives executed for adultery. True, I did not locate conclusive proof  as to the exact fate of Judith, but I find it unlikely that she was executed. Had she been, I find it unlikely that Calvin's detractors throughout the centuries simply ignored it.  Anne Le Fert's legal troubles demonstrate that Calvin was far from being Geneva's ruthless dictator. Rather, Calvin had to jump through hoops over a long period of time to finally secure a divorce for his brother.

John Calvin though is not completely vindicated, particularly from a contemporary perspective.  His "evil" (for lack of a better word), was using his influence to a secure a divorce for his brother, from a woman (it appears) that he didn't like and wanted out of his household. Anne Le Fert was not convicted by facts, but rather insinuation, insinuation that John Calvin approved of and used to his advantage. This conviction included torture and banishment. While these atrocities were typical of sixteenth century society, what makes them all the worse is that Anne suffered them without actually being proven absolutely guilty.

The "Myth" of the Divorce Rate For Christians?

I'm doing a little research today and came across this US Today article from last year:

Christians question divorce rates of faithful

"It's been proclaimed from pulpits and blogs for years — Christians divorce as much as everyone else in America. But some scholars and family activists are questioning the oft-cited statistics, saying Christians who attend church regularly are more likely to remain wed. "It's a useful myth," said Bradley Wright, a University of Connecticut sociologist who recently wrote "Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites ... and Other Lies You've Been Told." "Because if a pastor wants to preach about how Christians should take their marriages more seriously, he or she can trot out this statistic to get them to listen to him or her."

Divorce and Remarriage in the United Reformed Church?

If you're not a regular blog reader, chances are you arrived here by trying to find out what the United Reformed Churches of North America  position on divorce and remarriage is. Some will say that since the URC has never issued a synodical statement, the church has no position. On the other hand, one needs to strongly consider the fact that many (if not most) of the URC churches were formally Christian Reformed Churches. The CRC indeed worked through divorce and remarriage for over one hundred years.  It's true that the URC doesn't have an explicit statement outlining her view. I would argue though that this doesn't mean collectively the URC doesn't have strong remnants of her former CRC doctrinal statements influencing her. If you want to understand the URC on divorce and remarriage, you need to familiarize yourself with the CRC on divorce and remarriage.






DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE IN THE CHRISTIAN REFORMED CHURCH, 1860 - 1983
by James Swan [URC, Pompton Plains New Jersey]


I. Introduction
Article 48 of the Church Order of the United Reformed Churches in North America states,

Scripture teaches that marriage is designed to be a lifelong, monogamous covenantal union between one man and one woman. Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care who are considering marriage to marry in the Lord. Christian marriages shall be solemnized with appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, under the regulation of the Consistory, with the use of the appropriate liturgical form. Ministers shall not solemnize marriages that conflict with the Word of God.

Article 69 of the Church Order of The Christian Reformed Church states,

Consistories shall instruct and admonish those under their spiritual care to marry only in the Lord. Christian marriages should be solemnized with appropriate admonitions, promises, and prayers, as provided for in the official form. Marriages may be solemnized either in a worship service, or in private gatherings of relatives and friends. Ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of God.

The similarities of these two declarations are more than coincidence. Their relationship can be attributed to the historical connection the United Reformed Churches have to the Christian Reformed Church. The following is a brief historical picture of the issues surrounding divorce and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church [1]. While the seemingly youthful United Reformed Church lacks the rich historical denominational heritage of her predecessor, the battles waged over these issues nevertheless still hold a place in her formative history. By familiarizing herself with the history of divorce and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church, the United Reformed Church stands to benefit in any future synodical declarations.

II. 1860 - 1890
The records of the early assemblies of the Christian Reformed Church touch sparsely on issues related to marriage, divorce, and remarriage. The Classical Assembly held February 1860 considered the length of time a person should wait after the death of their spouse before marrying again. After much discussion it was decided that it was “not prudent to give further regulations concerning the waiting period, since Scripture says nothing concerning this” [2].

The Assembly of 1866 considered the more controversial issue of a man marrying his deceased brother’s wife (with subsequent children of that union). This particular couple had been forbidden membership to the Dutch Reformed Church, but were accepted by the Scotch [Presbyterian] Church, “under the condition that they live separated by bed and board, as brother and sister.” The couple requested the same dispensation in the Graafschap congregation. “The Classis decides that these people must separate from each other regarding cohabitation before they can be accepted as members of the congregation; they must also publicly demonstrate that they truly are separated” [3]. The Grand Rapids church raised a similar concern about a couple in which the same situation occurred. A minister within the denomination had remarried this couple. The church council had already accepted the second wife as a member of the congregation. “This is a matter of too close a blood relationship, as well as being against civil law.” “The Classis decides that these members must be instructed about their error and admonished, and after lengthy effort they should be placed outside the community of the church, however, this is to be done outside the normal rules of excommunication” [4] The General Assembly of 1876 revisited these issues declaring,

[T]hat such people are not to be admitted into the congregation, but if they are already in the congregation we should deal with them in this delicate matter and according to the circumstances, and if offence should arise, they should not be allowed to participate in Holy Communion and in no case should they be elected to church offices. In one area, a concern is raised in this matter, to wit that under the same circumstances, one must remain outside the congregation and others being [already] inside, will not be expelled [5].

The General Assembly of 1877 briefly revisited these concerns again, but decided to remain with that decided by the Assembly of 1876 [6]. The General Assembly of 1878 referred to a case in Rochester, New York in which “a man married to the sister of his first wife, [wished] to join the congregation.” The council of that church asked for advice and was instructed, “The assembly decides to leave this to their own judgment” [7]

The Acts of the Synod of 1890 issued the first meaningful declaration about divorce and remarriage: “A man who, because he committed adultery, is divorced legitimately by his wife, may not remain a member of the church if he remarries while his first wife is living” [8] Further, “The question is raised whether or not a man who has married another woman on the grounds that his first wife has deserted him can be either a full member or a baptized member of the church. The answer of Synod is: ‘No, for no other reason than adultery’” [9]. The Acts of Synod 1908 issued the second specific declaration: “Such a person by his act of adultery freed his wife but not himself; before God he is still bound to his first wife, and his second marriage is, moreover, a living in adultery” [10]. These statements would play significant roles in determining church decisions over the next decades.

Except for a period of two years (1894-1896) the early Christian Reformed Church recognized adultery as the only ground for a biblical divorce. In 1894 Synod allowed divorce for the willful desertion of a spouse based on 1 Corinthians 7:15. This lasted until 1896 when Synod declared, “Willful desertion cannot be a ground for divorce, since the Committee finds no basis for it in the Holy Scriptures” [11] Synod 1898 reconfirmed the decision of 1896. In 1906, Synod declared that 1 Corinthians 7:15 “can only be to what we call ‘separation of bed and board’… It is the judgment of this Committee: that 1 Cor. 7:15 cannot serve as Biblical proof for the legality of divorce” [12].

III. Acts of Synod 1936 - 1945
The Synod of 1936 brought to light the inherent difficulties of such rigid statements as those put forth in 1890 and 1908. An unconverted man had been divorced by his wife. He remarried another divorcée. He was “subsequently converted and declared and manifested sincere repentance as to his sins pertaining to this divorce and his adulterous marriage” [13]. The decisions of 1890 and 1908 could not adequately be applied to such a situation. The Synod advised that this man be deemed admissible to church membership. But the reports issued as part of the Synod presented conflicting conclusions on several issues, including whether a guilty party in a legitimate or illegitimate divorce had the right to remarry, and whether the second marriage of a divorced person always remains adultery.

The 1944 Synod evaluated a divorce case in which adultery was clearly involved and if such guilty people should be allowed church membership. They decided, “in this concrete case the parties guilty of divorce and adulterous remarriage may not be admitted as members of one of our churches” [14]. The Synod of 1946 noted this confusion between 1944 and 1945. A committee had already been formed by a declaration of the 1945 Synod to investigate these issues.

IV. Acts of Synod 1947
The findings of that committee were reported to the Synod of 1947 in a document entitled Supplement 21, “Report of the Committee to Re-examine the Decisions of 1890 and 1908 Dealing with Church-membership of Unbiblically Divorced and Remarried Persons Who Come to Repentance of Their Sins.” When this report was presented “a lively discussion followed” [15]. The report found that the statements of 1890 and 1908 were too inflexible and failed to incorporate satisfactory scriptural evidence. Supplement 21 concluded those partaking in unbiblical divorce and remarriage could be admitted (or readmitted) to church membership by confessing their sin and being subsequently placed in a probationary period to show the church manifest godliness. Those who fall into divorce and remarriage while unconverted and in ignorance should be treated leniently. The question of abrogating a second marriage or abstinence for remarried divorced persons could not be settled decisively. The Synod adhered to some of the findings of the report, but determined that an unbiblically divorced and remarried person cannot be a member of the church while the former spouse lives. To obtain membership, one must repent and return to the former spouse. If this is not possible, one must cease to live “in the ordinary marriage-relationship” with his present spouse [16]. Those who were divorced and remarried in ignorance of the teaching of the word of God are not obliged to abrogate either their present marriage or marital relations.

V. Acts of Synod 1952 - 1956
These decisions were challenged. The majority opinion included in the Acts of Synod of 1952 determined that the church had no legal jurisdiction to dissolve second marriages, or force a return to a former spouse. The state was set up by God to regulate such things. Scriptural support for the loophole allowing those “completely ignorant” in their divorce and remarriage to obtain church membership was lacking. The Synod therefore amended the 1947 ruling to reflect marriage as regulated by the state, but that marriage and divorce also fall under the jurisdiction of the church. The article pertaining to the “complete ignorance” of a remarried divorced person was removed. As it stood in 1952, people remarried after an unbiblical divorce were still viewed as living in continual adultery by the Christian Reformed Church. A committee on divorce and remarriage was again set in motion.

The Study Committee on Divorce and Remarriage included its finding in the Acts of Synod 1956. It maintained “the marriage of any person who has obtained an unbiblical divorce (or who was divorced as the result of his own adultery) is a living in continual adultery” [17]. Another committee entitled the Ecumenical Synod on Marital Relations concluded “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 continuous adultery” [18]. They also concluded no biblical evidence supports that a divorced person must cease living with a second spouse to prove repentance. Clearly, the Synod was divided, and discussion included the notion that perhaps the issue could not be decided biblically one way or the other. The synod eventually rejected the following recommendation, “Those who have been divorced and remarried contrary to Scriptural requirements have entered an adulterous relationship which is sinful in its continuation as well as its inception” [19]. Synod affirmed that no conclusive scriptural evidence was produced to prove remarried divorced persons must cease living with their presentral evidence was produced to prove remarried divorced persons must cease living with their present spouse to prove repentance, or that they are currently living in adultery. It thus simply stated,

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 reentrance into the Church, shall be expected to show their sorrow and genuine repentance during an adequate period of probation. Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis [20].


VI. Acts of Synod 1957
In 1957, requests were made that Synod rescind the declaration of 1956 [21]. Arguments suggested the decisions of the previous year failed to furnish Scriptural support, that “no conclusive evidence is given by any Study Committee of Synod that our old stand, the stand prior to 1956, was not Scriptural,” and Synod had acted too hastily in its ruling. The detractors further argued that according to Article 31 of the Church Order, decisions are binding unless they are proved to conflict with Scripture. In essence, the Synod of 1952 reversed this by placing the burden of proof on a study committee in regard to the church’s previous position. Rather, the burden of Scriptural proof should fall on those who protest it [22]. A new study committee was requested. Others asked that Synod clarify the 1956 decision with particular attention to the following questions: First, is the remarriage of a party unbiblically divorced merely a sinful act or does it constitute a sinful relationship? Second, if it constitutes a sinful relationship, just when and how can this sinful relationship be terminated? [23]

The 1957 Synod decided to not accede to requests to rescind or reverse the 1956 decision [24]. They stated they were “merely asked to judge whether substantial and conclusive Scriptural evidence had been produced to support the then existing decisions and therefore Art. 31 of the Church Order was not directly applicable in 1956” [25]. “Substantial and conclusive evidence for the former position had not been produced” so “marital problems in question fell under the general Scriptural instructions regarding repentance and forgiveness, and deemed it unnecessary to cite specific passages” [26]. They rejected the motion to clarify the Church’s position and the two clarifying questions. The Synod then appointed a committee of three men “as to further procedure in this matter” [27].

A report was also included as to whether desertion by a spouse is a second ground for a biblical divorce (according to 1 Corinthians 7). The report denied a “general” desertion, but allowed for “a special kind of desertion.” 1 Corinthians 7:15 only applies to Christians whose unbelieving marriage partner departs for deeply-seated religious reasons [28]. It does not provide the Christian with a second ground for divorce, generally. “On no account does Paul… permit divorce in all cases of desertion” [29]. “It absolves the Christian from the obligation to preserve a marriage broken or about to be broken by the divorce-proceedings of an unbelieving spouse acting from deeply-seated religious motives” [30]. This committee advised “That if a Christian husband or wife is deserted by his or her spouse for such a length of time as indicates an irrevocable decision not to resume married relations, the deserted party should not be regarded as transgressing the law of Christ in seeking divorce” [31].

VII. Acts of Synod 1968 - 1973
The 1956 decision on admitting unbiblically divorced persons into church membership stated, “Such cases shall not be settled without the advice of Classis.” This was challenged in 1968. Church order held that a consistory has jurisdiction of matters of discipline. It was therefore adopted that synod “declare that admitting or readmitting to membership in the church persons who have been divorced on unbiblical grounds, and have remarried, or who are divorced as the result of their own adultery and have remarried, is the task of the consistory and is the responsibility of classis only in case of appeal” [32].

In 1971 Classis Toronto requested a new study committee be drawn up to study marriage, divorce, remarriage, and marital difficulties. They objected to the terms “biblical” and “non-biblical” for grounds of divorce, and further argued marriage may end in divorce as the result of living in a sinful world and “remarriage of divorce persons need not be wrong” [33]. Acts of Synod 1971 granted this request and stated, “it would be difficult to establish a universally acceptable statement on marriage” like that put forth in 1956. It decided studies on this topic “should first deal with such a question itself, and then report its findings to the Reformed Ecumenical Synod” [34]. The goal of the committee was to establish guidelines for pastors and consistories on these issues.

That report was submitted to Synod 1973. It argued “adultery” had a broad meaning of “marital infidelity,” and that marriage was a “relationship of fidelity” rather than contractual and covenantal. It isn’t simply adultery that breaks the marriage bond. The word “porneia” has a general meaning, covering “all the ways in which infidelity in marriage can take place” [35]. Since we live in a “broken world,” divorce is a result of the complete breakdown of a marriage relationship. Divorced and remarried people should not be barred from church membership. The terms “biblical” and “unbiblical” divorce should be dropped. These guidelines were rejected because Synod was not convinced it “was entirely in accord with the biblical teaching on marriage” [36]. Marriage as a “relationship to fidelity” amounts to an undefined personal commitment to each marriage partner. The disputed terms “biblical and “non-biblical” were reaffirmed.

VII. Acts of Synod 1975 - 1979
Another study was thus authorized by Synod 1973. Its contents were included as supplement 38 of Synod 1975. That report argued “Marriage at its heart is the bond of fidelity to which a man and a woman commit themselves before God. But it is not a purely private matter between two individuals” [37]. Porneia refers primarily to adultery, but includes “such sexual infidelity as incest and homosexualism” [38]. The term “biblical ground” for divorce should be avoided, as it fosters the false impression that the Bible “encourages unchastity as the approved means to that end” [39]. As to a second ground for divorce, “Willful desertion, while not in itself a so-called second ground for divorce, may be judged to be tantamount to physical infidelity and therefore also indicates that the marriage relationship cannot function in any meaningful way” [40]. “If the consistory judges that it is prolonged and unrepentant adultery or a situation equivalent to it (such as prolonged and unrepentant willful desertion), then one may, albeit with mourning and repentance, legitimately seek a divorce” [41]. These people are permitted to remarry. Those divorced for unbiblical reasons, the church should exhibit “a true forgiving spirit after the fashion of Jesus’ treatment of the woman taken in adultery” [42].

This report was revised, and included as Supplement 35 in Acts of Synod 1976. That report added that an innocent party in a divorce is free to marry without thereby committing adultery after there is no reasonable hope for reconciliation with the former spouse. For those involved in an unbiblical divorce, a sincerely repentant individual should be forgiven, restored to full fellowship of the church, and may legitimately consider remarriage [43].

1977’s Synod adopted aspects of Supplement 35. It adopted the positive section on “Biblical Teachings Regarding Marriage.” It rejected though its exegesis on porneia, and also stated, “The so-called exceptive clauses serve only as a qualification of Jesus’ emphatic and well-attested teaching that a remarriage after divorce constitutes adultery.” “Jesus does not address himself to the question of a possible legitimate reason for divorce.” “Believers who are separated are instructed to be reconciled or remain single.” “The believing partner is said to be bound and not free to remarry as long as her husband lives.” “Remarriage after divorce is not clearly sanctioned in Scripture” [44]. In summary, the synodical advisory committee decided the Bible provides guidelines for marriage, not provisions for divorce and remarriage. Therefore, divorce cannot be given general sanction. Forgiveness and restoration occur when a guilty party recognizes their sin, after the instances of sin, not in anticipation of a failed marriage ending in divorce.

Another study committee was then appointed “to reexamine and set forth the biblical teachings on divorce and remarriage, evaluating critically the traditional exegesis of the relevant passages.” And “to formulate pastoral guidelines with respect to the problems of divorce and remarriage as they appear in our society…” [45]. That committee reported to Synod in 1979 it needed more time to complete its work [46].


VIII. Acts of Synod 1980 - 1983
Report 29 entitled “Marriage Guidelines” was presented to Synod in 1980. In the first section, it argued marriage is an institution created by God, and covenantal relationship between a man and a woman. God is party to the covenant and unites husband and wife. It is a permanent relationship. The second section addressed divorce and remarriage. The exceptive clause from Jesus allowing for divorce is not a ground for divorce. Rather, Jesus is “acknowledging the effect of sin in breaking norms established by God.” “It does indicate that it is possible for such persistent sinful conduct to dissolve a marriage established by God.” “Marriage should not be dissolved, for that is contrary to God’s will; but by persistent and unrepentant unchastity people can put asunder what God has joined together” [47]. In regard to desertion as another ground for divorce and remarriage (1 Cor. 7) the report noted differences in interpretation, and took no definite stance. Part three presented guidelines for the ministry of the church, including counseling and sensitivity to those going through a divorce. Included are guidelines “to those contemplating remarriage.” Stressing permanence, “the basic declaration of Scripture is that divorce and remarriage while one’s spouse is alive constitutes adultery” [48]. However, “The Bible also indicates that there can be circumstances involving unchastity (porneia) where the judgment of adultery does not fall upon a person who remarries after a divorce” [49]. “1 Corinthians 7:12-16 allows for divorce under certain circumstances.” However, “it is impossible to prove conclusively that remarriage is either forbidden or permitted under the circumstances mentioned” [50]. This three-section report was adopted by Synod.

Acts of Synod 1981 records a protest from the Sussex Consistory over the third section of Report 28, but was dismissed [51]. Acts of Synod 1983 includes a rejected personal appeal as well [52].

IX. Conclusion
This historical inquiry demonstrates the emotion, care, and passion surrounding the issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the Christian Reformed Church that ensued for over one hundred years. Each historical chapter demonstrates a struggle to interpret the Scriptures and understand their relevance and relation to the church and the world. The United Reformed Church would benefit from a fresh look into these documents. As she develops her own exegetical positions in the future, these documents can be used to avoid the pitfalls the Christian Reformed Church succumbed to at times, and also to glean insight from their struggles.

NOTES
1. The official website of the Christian Reformed Church presents two specific entries pertaining to this topic, Beliefs on Marriage available from: http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_marriage.cfm and Beliefs on Divorce available from: http://www.crcna.org/pages/positions_divorce.cfm. Each entry ends with an almost identical set of references to CRC synodical statements, documenting their position extensively from 1908 - 1983. The Agenda and Acts of Synod 1994 are referenced, but provide no significant information to this topic.

The Agenda and Acts of Synod 2000 are referenced in Beliefs on Marriage. Synod 2000 was asked to endorse the Resolution of the Southern Baptist Convention on Marriage and Family, which Synod denied. They referred to the very reports covered in this paper but also stated, “The CRC has already adequately stated its position on marriage and family as well as on singles in Our World Belongs to God, paragraphs 45- 49, approved by Synod 1986” (Acts of Synod, 2000 [Grand rapids: Christian Reformed Church in North America], 711). This document likewise presents no pertinent content to that which ensued in the CRC from 1860 – 1983.

Synod 2006 likewise refers back to the documents addressed in this paper: “Over the years, our denomination has produced a number of reports to guide our churches as they address the subject of marriage. Synod 1980 adopted a number of guidelines for the ministry of the church in matters of marriage, divorce, and remarriage that have been reproduced on pages 383-87 of the 2001 edition of the Manual of Christian Reformed Church Government (Acts of Synod, 2006 [Grand rapids: Christian Reformed Church in North America], 643).”

2. Classis 1860 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4895.

3. Classis 1866 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4903.

4. Ibid.

5. General Assembly of 1876 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4916.

6. General Assembly of 1877 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4919.

7. General Assembly of 1878 of the Christian Reformed Church, available from: http://library.calvin.edu/content/downloads/4917.

8. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1947). 239, referencing Acts of Synod 1890.

9. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1957), 336, referencing Acts of Synod 1890, Art. 65, 24.

10. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church, 240, referencing Acts of Synod 1908.

11. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church, 337, referencing Acts of Synod 1896, Art. 62, 37.

12. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church , 338, referencing Acts of Synod 1906, Bijlage X, 111.

13. Acts of Synod 1936 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1936), 145.

14. Acts of Synod 1944 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1944), 59.

15. Acts of Synod 1947 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1947), 17.

16. Ibid., 66.

17. Acts of Synod 1956 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1956), 56.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., 58.

20. Ibid., 118.

21. Acts of Synod 1957 of the Christian Reformed Church), 87.

22. Ibid., 87, 95.

23. Ibid., 89.

24. Ibid., 94-95.

25. Ibid., 94.

26. Ibid., 95.

27. Ibid., 90.

28. Ibid., 106.

29. Ibid., 335.

30. Ibid., 106.

31. Ibid., 335-336.

32. Acts of Synod 1968 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Publishing House, 1968), 61.

33. Acts of Synod 1971 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1971), 638-639.

34. Ibid., 112.

35. Acts of Synod 1973 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1973), 598.

36. Ibid., 59.

37. Acts of Synod 1975 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1975), 497.

38. Ibid., 502.

39. Ibid., 505.

40. Ibid., 506.

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid., 508.

43. Acts of Synod 1976 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1976), 480.

44. Acts of Synod 1977 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1977), 136.

45. Ibid., 135.

46. Acts of Synod 1979 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1979), 467.

47. Acts of Synod 1980 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1980), 477.

48. Ibid., 483.

49. Ibid., 483-484.

50. Ibid., 484.

51. Acts of Synod 1981 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1981), 62, 614-617.

52. Acts of Synod 1983 of the Christian Reformed Church (Grand Rapids: Board of Publications of the Christian Reformed Church, 1983), 671-672.