Jesus on Divorce and Remarriage

[eduardo89]

In this post I want to discuss the most often referred to Biblical texts that supposedly give justification for divorce, which are found in Matt. 5:32 and Matt. 19:9. These Biblical texts supposedly justify divorcing and remarrying due to adultery of the spouse. Before I get into that, though, what is most often missed, is the realization that Matthew is not the only place where Jesus speaks about marriage, divorce, and adultery. Those who seek to justify divorce and remarriage, most often refer to Jesus' teaching in Matthew, but will not often refer to passages on the issue in Mark and Luke. As a Catholic I do not need to rely on the Bible alone as my guide, and I can trust the infallible teaching of the Church on the issue, but here I will deal with divorce justifying Protestants (in addition to many Catholics who do not adhere to the Church teaching on the matter as well) on the terms of the Bible itself.

Jesus spoke quite clearly on the issue of divorce and remarriage in two other places besides the gospel of Matthew.

1) In Luke 16:18 Jesus says:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

No outs, no exception. Luke apparently thought that he omitted nothing central to the issue when he quoted Jesus on the issue of divorce. If he thought that Jesus taught that adultery was an exception, why would Luke leave that out? In Luke Jesus is quite clear in teaching that whoever marries someone divorced is an adulterer.

2) Mark also records Jesus thoughts on the issue, Mark 10:2-12:

Some Pharisees came, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” He answered them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses allowed a man to write a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her.” But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment for you. But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

Jesus, when speaking in Mark, is more elaborate than in Luke, but is just as condemnatory of divorce and remarriage as he was in Luke. Notice that he gives absolutely no exceptions. In fact in the gospel of Mark, more elaboration is given to why divorce and remarriage is unacceptable in God’s eyes (This elaboration of Jesus we will examine when we examine Matthew 19). He says in neither Luke nor Mark that it would be OK to remarry if someone commits adultery. Or that it is Ok to remarry even if you get abandoned. The question here is not law, per se, but what did Jesus command. As followers of Christ, we are commanded to keep his commandments (Jn. 14:15). Apparently, neither Mark or Luke, who were speaking to both Jewish and Gentile audiences felt that they were leaving anything important out when they recorded these sayings of Jesus. If they thought there were the outs that people will use to justify divorcing and remarrying, Mark and Luke would have been deliberately distorting Jesus teaching on the issue. In fact neither writer distorted Jesus teaching, as he taught the absolute indissolubility of marriage. Jesus’ teachings in Mark and Luke are consistent and true, that there are no exceptions for divorce of a marriage.

People ignore the passages in Mark and Luke, and then think they can come up with an exception as found in Matthew 19:9 or Mat. 5:32. First, if there is indeed an exception for adultery, it would deliberately contradict Jesus’ clear teaching in Mark and Luke, where there are absolutely no grounds given for divorce and remarriage. People will often ignore these very relevant passages and focus on some supposed exception. This would show Scripture to be contradictory.

When we get into the book of Matthew, we must remember that Matthew’s core audience is Jews. This would be something specific that Jews would know. Now, with that in the background let us examine what Jesus teaches in Matthew 19:3-10 (the critical text, v. 9, here is similar to that which is found in Matt. 5:32):

Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” He said to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”

His disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

It is clear that the Pharisees were trying to bait Jesus, to get him to take sides in a dispute. The school of Rabbi Shammai regarded adultery and moral misconduct as the only acceptable grounds for divorce (similar to some who say divorce and remarriage is OK if there is adultery) but the school of Rabbi Hillel held that all kinds of reasons, even quite trivial ones, were sufficient grounds for legal divorce (like someone spending too much time on the computer and ignoring the spouse, as has been advanced elsewhere on this board) and it was this second interpretation of the law which was in fact practiced.

Next it is equally clear from Mt. 19:10 that his disciples were surprised to learn that Jesus had not sided with either school of thought. Note that for anyone to say today that sexual immorality on the part of one spouse is moral grounds for divorce and remarriage is to side with Rabbi Shammai, and that is precisely what Jesus did not do.

A very important point is that Jesus specifically cites Genesis 2:24 in relation to his condemnation of divorce. From the very beginning of man, marriage was meant to be permananent, with the two becoming one flesh. This reference to Genesis would have become quite meaningless if Matthew had included this adultery exception in the verse that followed his condemnation of divorce. What is more, if Mt. 19:9 is taken to mean that Jesus was siding with the followers of the school of Shammai, who permitted divorce on grounds of adultery, then the astonishment expressed in the apostles’ answer would be incomprehensible-“then it is not expedient to marry” (19:10). Their astonishment is only explicable if Christ in fact rejected all possibility of the dissolution of marriage…Christ not only expressly condemned divorce (showing, in other words, that the indissolubility of marriage is a moral imperative); he also said that any divorce which might possibly take place had no effect whatever on the bond of marriage itself (pointing out, in other words, that the indissolubility of marriage is an objective bond)

In fact the word for immorality (used in Mt. 5:32 and 19:9), porneia, does not automatically mean adultery. Notice if Jesus wanted to say that there is an exception for adultery, he would have used the word adultery (mocheuo). In fact, he did not. Instead, he used the word porneia. I do not know Greek, but I understand that the word porneia can have varying meanings, but it is obvious it must be looked at in its Jewish context. If he wanted to make an exception for adultery, he could have used that very word (mocheuo). He did not. Within the Jewish context, immorality (porneia), could be a marriage with someone who has blood relations that are too close.

In Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:32 the Greek words (mocicheia-noun, mocheuo-verb) for adultery is used twice in Matthew 5:32 and once in 19:9, to describe the sin of adultery. But as noted, adultery is not the word used as the grounds for divorce. Rather, the Greek word porneia, is the basis for the exception. Porneia can be used in varying ways. Some times it can be used in a narrow way, and in a narrow sense to denote a particular type of sexual sin, namely incestuous “marriage” among close relatives. Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 are shown to be using porneia in this narrow sense of unlawful marriages.

More evidence of this interpretation is given at The Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. This deals with a decision of the Council not to make the ceremonial laws binding for Gentile converts, except for 4 requirements:

19 Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, 20 but should write to them to abstain from the 1)pollution of idols and from 2) unchastity (porneia) and from what is 3) strangled and from 4) blood.

All four exceptions come from Leviticus. To understand the meaning of porneia in Acts 15 we should draw upon the context provided by Leviticus 17 and 18, which condemns incestuous unions and marriages among close relatives. These incestuous “marriages” were universally forbidden to the Jews (Leviticus 18:6-18) as well as to the Gentiles from the time of Noah. Porneia in Acts 15 is thus used specifically to forbid incestuous “marriages.” In 1 Cor. 5:1 when talking about immorality that is going on between a son with his mother, Paul calls it porneia.

Thus, this is what the apostles themselves understood Jesus to mean in relation to marriage: porneia meant an unlawful, incestuous marriage. That is the only grounds for breaking up a marriage. It was never a valid marriage in the first place. Thus, it does not mean that one can get remarried because of the unfaithfulness of a spouse. (Steve Woods, Christian Fatherhood, Family Life Center Publications, p. 152). Thus, for a valid marriage there is absolutely no grounds for divorce, exactly as Jesus said in Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Another simple way of determining what Jesus meant is by examining all the Greek Church Fathers interpretation of Matthew 19:9 and 5:32. They obviously understood Greek and would understand the exception clause. Not one Church Father who spoke Greek agreed with the modern Protestant interpretation of Matthew 5 and 19 for allowance of divorce and remarriage if one committed adultery.

Defenders of Divorce and remarriage may also charge that those defending Jesus’ teaching are going back to mere law, and I have seen it stated that the Mosaic Law is the basis for those who condemn along with Jesus, remarriage after divorce. And since we supposedly don’t go by mere law, it is OK to divorce and remarry. Quite the contrary Christ’s teaching is based on the creation of men and women, from the foundation of mankind, as his quotation from Genesis shows. An examination of Jesus in both Mark 10 and Matthew 19:9 shows that he is calling marriage back to the original purpose of man and woman. The basis was not the Mosaic Law, something that Moses wrote, but this original purpose. He quotes Gen. 2:24, where he says the two will become one flesh. They will be united together based on God’s design for marriage of two people. Even if there is a separation, they are still bonded (as elaborated in 1 Cor. 7:10-12 and Rom. 7:2-3) till they die. As such, there can be no grounds for divorce and remarriage at all. In God’s eyes, there can be no exception, based on this original purpose, well before the Mosaic Law was even thought of.

Were there people who ran out on husbands and wives over the last 2000 years? Yes, of course throughout history men and women have done awful things to each other. Have people been abandoned for other people? Yes; Nevertheless, throughout the ages, Christians have understood one was connected to the person till death do us part. To make exceptions because of whatever circumstances is not what Jesus said, nor what the Church has taught for 2000 years. To make exceptions based on our feelings is to say that we know better than God. This assumes that when Jesus proclaimed marriage as indissoluble he did not know the situation of those who have been abandoned. Of course he did, and for any follower of Jesus, we have all varying crosses to bear. Jesus said if any one would want to be his follower, we must take up the cross and follow him (Luke 9:23-26); That includes following him in the matters of divorce and remarriage, which Jesus forbade.

Further Biblical proof that divorce and remarriage are not permitted to Christians:

Rom. 7:2-3 - Paul reiterates Jesus' teaching that sacramental marriage followed by a divorce and remarriage is adultery. He who commits adultery destroys himself. (Prov. 6:23). Many Protestant denominations have rejected this teaching of Jesus and His Church.

For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.

1 Cor. 7:10-11 - once again, Paul gives Christ's teaching that married couples cannot divorce and remarry. This violates God's divine plan for the husband and wife.

To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

So how can a "Bible only" Protestant claim that divorce and remarriage are permitted, when the book they claim is their sole spiritual authority explicitly says otherwise?

------- Quotes from the Church Father on divorce and remarriage -------

What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery

The Shepherd 4:1:6, (circa 80 AD)

In regard to chastity, [Jesus] has-this to say: 'If anyone look with lust at a woman, he has already before God committed adultery in his heart.' And, 'Whoever marries a woman who has been divorced from another husband, commits adultery.' According to our Teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it be in accord with human law, so also are they sinners who look with lustful desire at a woman. He repudiates not only one who actually commits adultery, but even one who wishes to do so; for not only our actions are manifest to God, but even our thoughts

First Apology 15, (151 AD)

Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, 'Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;' and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion. while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. 'He that taketh a woman that has been put away,' it is said, 'committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress,' that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband.

Stromata, 2:24, (202 AD)

No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another.

To Vigilius, Letter 19 (385 AD)

Likewise, a woman of the faith who has left an adulterous husband of the faith and marries another, her marrying in this manner is prohibited. If she has so married, she may not at any more receive communion--unless he that she has left has since departed from this world

Concilium Eliberritanum (305 AD)

 

[eduardo89]

Some more writings of Church Fathers on divorce and remarriage:

A woman begins to be the wife of no later husband unless she has ceased to be the wife of a former one. She will cease to be the wife of a former one, however, if that husband should die, not if he commit fornication. A spouse, therefore, is lawfully dismissed for cause of fornication; but the bond of chastity remains. That is why a man is guilty of adultery if he marries a woman who has been dismissed even for this very reason of fornication

Adulterous Marriages (419 AD)

In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the -spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously.

On Marriage and Concupiscence (420 AD)

Wherever there is fornication and a suspicion of fornication a wife is freely dismissed. Because it is always possible that someone may calumniate the innocent and, for the sake of a second joining in marriage, act in criminal fashion against the first, it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives

Commentaries on Matthew 3:19:9 (398 AD)

If there were two Christs, there would be two husbands, or two wives; since Christ is one--the one head of the Church--there is one flesh also; the second should be rejected. And if you forbid a second marriage, would you allow a third? The first is legal, the second is condoned, the third is illegitimate, and that which is beyond is swine-like...

 

[Napolitanic Wars]

Before that debate starts, one needs to define "marriage." Does it have to be a legal contract? Is it whoever you declare to be your wife? Is it whoever you sleep with? It can get very fuzzy at that point.

 

[matt0611]

Matthew 19:19 seems pretty clear to me. If your spouse commits adultery (or however you interpret the word) you can divorce him/her and marry another and that's not adultery. Either way there is some type of exception in there.

You can quote whatever else you want but if Jesus really spoke those words then I don't see how you can get around that there is some type of exception in which divorce is acceptable.

 

[V4Vendetta]

Ummm... sorry bud.... but common sense... If a mans wife sleeps with every man in town, while hes at work trying to provide for his family, that is grounds for divorce.
If a man beats his wife to near death, that is grounds for divorce.

I don't care what you say the bible says, Jesus would not expect someone to live in those conditions.

 

[angelatc]

Ummm... sorry bud.... but common sense... If a mans wife sleeps with every man in town, while hes at work trying to provide for his family, that is grounds for divorce.
If a man beats his wife to near death, that is grounds for divorce.

I don't care what you say the bible says, Jesus would not expect someone to live in those conditions.

If you don't care what the Bible says, then you're not discussing religion from a Christian perspective.

I think that Jesus would indeed expect you to honor your marriage vows. I've known couples that split up over such things but either didn't divorce, or at least where one of them never remarried because the law allowed one spouse to break the contract while the other believed in a higher law.

 

[V4Vendetta]

If you don't care what the Bible says, then you're not discussing religion from a Christian perspective.

I never discuss Religion... I discuss The Word Of God.
And I strongly disagree.
If I married a bitch that turned into a whore and slept with everyone in town, I would divorce here in a second.
Even if she had just one affair... I would divorce her.
Not only does that put the husband in misery, it also creates a potentially violent and homicidal situation.

 

[TER]

A long but excellent synopsis of the understanding of marriage in the Orthodox Christiain Church. Found here.

1. INTRODUCTION

The question is often asked what the Orthodox position is on marriage. The answer to this question should be sought in the Orthodox teaching on the “mystery or the sacrament” of marriage. We also know that the Roman Catholic Church considers marriage as a sacrament. There is however a very important difference which should be clarified here. In the first place, the Roman Catholic Church holds that the bride and bridegroom execute the marriage themselves, in their vows to each other. In the Orthodox Church it is the priest or the bishop who consecrates the marriage, who calls upon God in the name of the community, and asks that the Holy Spirit be sent down (epiclesis) on the man and woman and in this way make them “into one flesh”. In addition marriage is for the Orthodox Church rather a spiritual path, a seeking after God, the mystery of oneness and love, the preparatory portrayal of the Kingdom of God, than a necessity for reproduction.

2. THE CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE: MYSTERY — SACRAMENT[2]

Marriage is a mystery or sacrament that has been instituted with God’s blessing during creation. The chosen people saw it then as a mystery that had its beginnings at the divine creation. This is confirmed by Christ who says: “But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female’. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and two will become one flesh”. (Mark 10, 6-8).

According to the Holy Scriptures marriage is built on:

1. the distinction, at the first creation of man, between man and woman (“Also God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them”, Gen. 1:27)
2. the creation of the woman out of Adam’s rib (Gen 2:21-24);
3. the blessing of God on the first created with the words: “be fruitful and increase in number” (Gen. 1:27-28).

These three elements make marriage a spiritual praxis par excellence, not only due to the simple covenant between two people, but especially due to the fact that it is an expression of God’s will. The natural covenant of marriage becomes as it were also a divine covenant, hence also its fully mystical character which the church emphasizes. The principal and therefore the most essential element of marriage is the joining of each person with one single person of the opposite sex. This element of one single person in marriage is maintained even after the fall of the first created creatures in the Old Testament, although this may not always have been adhered to in practise.[3] This element of marriage assumes a resemblance to the relationship between God and the chosen people. This element of one single person in marriage is confirmed by Christ’s teaching on marriage.

Paul is the first to understand the essence of Christ’s teaching on marriage and its sanctity. He describes it as “a great mystery in Christ and in the Church” (Eph. 5, 32) The definition “in Christ and in the Church” means, according to Paul, that the spiritual bond of love, of commitment, and of the reciprocal submission of the partners — which is the bond of their complete oneness — only exists when it conforms to the love of Christ for His Church (Eph. 5, 22-33). The relationship of the partners that grows out of marriage is, in other words, so essential, so intense and so spiritual, as the existing relationship between Christ and the Church.[4] The oneness of the Church — as community of the baptised — with Christ, and its maintenance, takes place through the sacrament of the Divine Eucharist. This is the centre of all the sacraments and puts mankind in an eschatological perspective. In this way marriage also “transfigures” the oneness of man and wife into a new reality, namely, seen in the perspective of life in Christ.[5] This is why the apostle Paul does not hesitate to call this decisive step in human existence “mystery” (or … sacrament) in the image of Christ and His Church. This is the only reason why a truly Christian marriage can be unique, “because it is a Mystery of God’s Kingdom, that introduces mankind to eternal joy and eternal love”.[6] This oneness — brought about with the sacrament of marriage — is no one-sided action of the Church. Man is not called after all to participate passively in the grace of God, but as God’s co-worker. And even when man becomes a co-worker, he remains subject to the weakness and sinfulness of human existence.

In this light even reproduction (1 Tim. 2, 15) is seen as man’s co-operation with creation. The mystery or sacrament of marriage becomes immediately related to the mystery of life, of the birth of human souls, of immortality and of their death.

3. THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Here it becomes evident that the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church differ in their understanding of the purpose of marriage. In orthodox theological thinking this is firstly the reciprocal love, the relationship and the help between the marriage partners with view to their completion in Christ. Only subsequently comes the restraining of their sexual passion[7] and the reproduction of the human race.[8] It is remarkable that in the New Testament we find no reference relating marriage to reproduction. In the Roman Catholic Church it is evident that the ultimate purpose of marriage is “procreation” or reproduction. To see reproduction as the principal purpose of marriage is a narrow perspective on the conjugal life of man and wife. What value does sexual intercourse have between man and wife in the case of sterility or after the menopause, or if the wife is medically unable to have any more children? It is certain that the married couple have precedence above the family, however praiseworthy the purpose of family is.[9] The story of the establishing of marriage is found in the second chapter of the book Genesis, which deals with the fact that “a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh” (Gen. 2, 24), without mention of reproduction. The Holy John Chrysostom refers to this: “There are two reasons for which marriage was established …to cause the man to be satisfied with one single wife and to give him children, but it is the first which is the most important…As for reproduction, marriage does not necessarily include this…the proof is to be found in the many marriages for which having children is not possible. This is why the primary reason for marriage is to regulate the sexual life, especially now that the human race has already populated the whole world". [10]

4. MARRIAGE AS THE HOUSE CHURCH

The Church Fathers say it characteristically: “Where Christ is, there is the Church”, which demonstrates that the marriage relationship has a church character. This is why Paul speaks of “the church that meets at their house” Rom. 16, 5) and John Chrysostom of the “small Church”.[11] At Cana in Galilee Jesus “revealed his glory” (John 2, 11) in the womb of a “house church”. Paul Evdokimov suggests, “this marriage, as it were, is the marriage of the bridal couple with Christ. He is the one who leads and – according to the Church Fathers does so in all Christian marriages".[12] The reciprocal love of man and wife is a communal love for God. Every moment of their lives becomes a glorifying of God. John Chrysostom says it this way: “Marriage is a mystical icon of the Church”.[13]

5. HOLINESS AND INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE

We have already said that marriage in its purest form is a natural order according to divine intention. It is the basis of the family, which is the community where man’s noblest feelings are able to develop. Marriage is in its essence a holy institution and its holiness has been sealed through the Church, which views marriage as a divine institution and mystery.[14] It is not therefore the agreement and free will of the marriage partners that establishes the marriage, but it is the grace of God in particular which is essential, and this is given through the approval of the Church, in the person of the bishop.[15]

Doctrine regarding the indissolubility of marriage is based on its holiness. The holiness and indissolubility of marriage exalt monogamy. References are often made to the Old Testament in this regard (Mal. 2, 14).

But as mystery or sacrament the Christian marriage is undoubtedly confronted with the “fallen” state of mankind. It is presented as the unachievable ideal. But there is a distinct difference between a “sacrament” and an “ideal”, for the first is “an experience involving not only man, but one in which he acts in communion with God”, in this he becomes a partner of the Holy Spirit while remaining human with his weaknesses and faults.[16]

The theory of the indissolubility of marriage has a strong pedagogical significance. The motivation Christ gives is a command. Those who commit themselves to the covenant of marriage should do all they can not to separate, as they have God to thank for their oneness. But the additional motivation: “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.” (Mark 10, 9; Math. 19, 6) does not signify a magical adherence. In every mystery or sacrament, excluding baptism, the exertion of man’s free will is required. The “not separate” is a divine request, as is “do not kill”. But man is free and can dissolve his marriage and kill his fellow man. In both cases he commits grievous sin.[17]

The Church has been faithful throughout the centuries to the principle referred to by Paul, that a second marriage is an aberration of the Christian statute. In this sense the orthodox doctrine confirms not only the “indissolubility” of marriage, but also its uniqueness. Every true marriage can be uniquely the “only” one.

6. DIVORCE

The problem of divorce is a very delicate question as it often touches on a painful human reality.

The tradition of the Church of the first centuries — which continues to have authority for the Orthodox Church — put the emphasis very strongly on two related points:

1. the “uniqueness” of the authentic Christian marriage,
2. the permanence of married conjugal life.

We may recall here the analogy that Paul makes between the unity of Christ and his Church and that of the bride and bridegroom. This analogy that is as it were at the root of the mystery assumes the real and continuing unity of the married couple, which therefore totally excludes a simultaneous polygamy and views one single marriage as the ideal.

Divorce does not heal the diseased marriage but kills it. It is not a positive action or intervention. It is about dissolving the “mini-Church” that has been formed through the marriage relationship.[18] The Holy Scripture attributes divorce to the callousness of man.[19] This is seen as a fall and sin. And yet the Orthodox Church can however permit divorce and remarriage on the grounds of interpretation of what the Lord says in Matt. 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.” According to Bishop Kallistos Ware divorce is an action of “economia” and “expression of compassion” of the Church toward sinful man. “Since Christ, according to the Matthaean account, allowed an exception to His general ruling about the indissolubility of marriage, the Orthodox Church also is willing to allow an exception”.[20]

A question we can ask ourselves is whether Christ considered marriage as being indissoluble? We need to be very clear in this as when Christ teaches that marriage may not be dissolved that does not mean that He is stating that it cannot occur. The completeness of the marriage relationship can be tainted by erroneous behaviour. In other words, it is the offence that breaks the bond. The divorce is ultimately a result of this break. This is also the teaching of the Eastern Church fathers. A quotation from the testimony of Cyril of Alexandria will be sufficient to make our point here: “It is not the letters of divorce that dissolve the marriage in relation God but the errant behaviour”.[21]

The violation of a marriage relationship is divided into two groups:

1. those resulting from adultery (unfaithfulness and immoral behaviour)
2. those proceeding from the absence of one of the partners (this absence must however have certain distinctives).

According to the spirit of Orthodoxy the unity of the married couple cannot be maintained through the virtue of juridical obligation alone; the formal unity must be consistent with an internal symphony.[22] The problem arises when it is no longer possible to salvage anything of this symphony, for “then the bond that was originally considered indissoluble is already dissolved and the law can offer nothing to replace grace and can neither heal nor resurrect, nor say: ‘Stand up and go’”.[23]

The Church recognizes that there are cases in which marriage life has no content or may even lead to loss of the soul. The Holy John Chrysostom says in this regard that: “better to break the covenant than to lose one’s soul”.[24] Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church sees divorce as a tragedy due to human weakness and sin.

7. REMARRIAGE

Despite the fact that the Church condemns sin, she also desires to be an aid to those who suffer and for whom she may allow a second marriage. This is certainly the case when the marriage has ceased to be a reality. A possible second marriage is therefore only permitted because of “human weakness”. As the apostle Paul says concerning the unmarried and widows: “If they can not control themselves, they should marry” (1 Cor. 7, 9). It is permitted as a pastoral concession in the context of “economia,” to the human weakness and the corrupt world in which we live.

There is in other words a close relationship in every dimension between divorce and the possibility of remarriage. It is important here to explain a fundamental element of the Orthodox Church’s doctrine, namely that the dissolving of a marriage relationship does not ipso facto grant the right to enter into another marriage. As we look back to the time of the primitive Church, the Church of the first centuries, then we will have to agree that the Church did not have any juridical authority with regard to marriage, and did not therefore, make any statement concerning their validity. The Holy Basil the Great, for example, referred not to a rule but to usage, as far as this problem was concerned.[25] Speaking concerning the man who had been cheated by his wife, he declares that the man is “pardonable” (to be excused) should he remarry. It is good to remember that the Orthodox Church has in general always had a sense of reluctance regarding second marriages. It would subsequently be completely wrong to assert that orthodox Christians may marry two or three times!

Orthodox canon law can permit a second and even a third marriage “in economia”, but strictly forbids a fourth. In theory divorce is only recognized in the case of adultery, but in practise is also recognised in light of other reasons. There is a list of causes of divorce acceptable to the Orthodox Church. In practise the bishops sometimes apply “economia” in a liberal way. By the way, divorce and remarriage are only permitted in the context of “economia”, that is, out of pastoral care, out of understanding for weakness. A second or third marriage will always be a deviation from the “ideal and unique marriage”, but often a fresh opportunity[26] to correct a mistake”.[27]

8. ECONOMIA

The question arises here, what is this “economia”[28] exactly? In a theological, scholarly contribution, the present Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos, while still the Metropolitan of Philadelphia, explained in a clear and concise way what “economia” is. He suggests that it is generally accepted that the ecclesiastical economia is an image of the divine economia and love and kindness. That the economia is as old as the Church itself is evident from a reading of the New Testament. This is very clear for example in Acts 16, 3 “so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek”. However the economia in the Orthodox Church has never been systematically or officially defined. “It concerns a characteristic, a true privilege and precious treasure of the Church”.[29] In the pan orthodox meetings of the 20th Century there have been attempts to give a definition to economia, but in the end this has been abandoned, “because economia is something that is rather experienced than described and defined…in the Orthodox Church, in which it is a characteristic and ancient privilege".[30]

But now the question remains, what is “economia”? Well, according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church economia is “the suspension of the absolute and strict applications of canon and church regulations in the governing and the life of the Church, without subsequently compromising the dogmatic limitations. The application of economia only takes place through the official church authorities and is only applicable for a particular case.”[31] This is allowed for exceptional and severe reasons, but creates no precedent. The Church, which continues to extend Christ’s redeeming work in the world, has on the basis of the Lord’s commandments, and of the apostles, determined a number of canons. Through these the Church helps the believers to come to salvation. But it should be noticed that these rules are not applied on a juridical basis, for the Church always holds in mind what the Lord Himself has said: “The Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath” (Mark 2, 27).

A canon is a “rule” or “guide” for the service of worship, the sacraments, and the governing of the Church. There are canons determined by the apostles, the Church Fathers, the local, regional and the general or ecumenical councils. Only the bishop, as head of the local Church, enforces them. He can enforce them rigidly (“akrivia”), or flexibly (“economia”), but “precision” is the norm. Once the particular circumstance has past - that demanded a conceding and accommodating judgement – “akrivia” assumes once again her full force. It cannot be that the “economia”, which was necessary in a specific situation, should become an example and should be later be retained as the rule.[32] The “economia” is for the Orthodox Church a notion that cannot be compared to “dispensation” in the Roman Catholic Church. Dispensation is an anticipated exception, which provides a juridical norm parallel to the official regulation.

Economia is based on Christ’s command to his apostles: “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven” (John 20, 22-23). This is the case when the human marriage experience becomes impossible, due to the spiritual death of love. It is then that the Church – as the Body of Christ – with understanding and compassion and out of personal concern, can apply the “economia” “by accepting the divorce and not rejecting the sinful humanly weak believers, or depriving them from God’s mercy and further grace.”[33] It is the precise goal of economia that the weak person not be irrevocably banned from the church communion, according to Christ’s example, who came, after all, to save the lost.

9. PASTORAL COUNSELING

Before the church authorities acknowledge the divorce in the context of economia, pastoral counselling should be given in each and every case, through which attempt is made to reconcile the married partners. Only when this is no longer possible should permission for remarriage be referred to, provided a form of penance can be imposed, in light of each individual case. In this way the Orthodox Church should take a clear point of view regarding this problem, and priests should be more motivated to take a greater role regarding explanation, counselling and psychological healing.[34]

a. Preparation for marriage

In his book “Marriage: an orthodox perspective” Father John Meyendorff points out the danger of enforced marriages, where the couple themselves have no desire for a positive commitment. It may have been desired as a social happening or whatever. This, and many others, are problems that the priest needs to discuss when he meets the couple to help them prepare for their marriage. He has the responsibility of helping them to understand the meaning and significance of Christian marriage. This meeting may by no means be, or seem to be, an exclusively administrative matter, in which many documents are collected together with the intention of ascertaining the approval of the bishop for the marriage celebration. He also must be on the alert to ensure that no marriages are consecrated where the married couple does not accept its true significance. This is a problem that one frequently encounters with mixed marriages. Strictly speaking, the responsibility for the preparation of marriage lies not only with the priest, but also with the teachers, the parents, and certainly, first and foremost, with the young engaged couple themselves.[35]

For marriage to live, and possibly also to survive, there is need of spiritual life. This spirituality is experienced firstly in the school of the Church itself, where we can participate par excellence in the gifts of grace of the Holy Spirit in the celebration of the sacraments. It is by the way in one of these sacraments, that man and wife become one, or “house-Church”, through the grace of the Holy Spirit. “In the ecclesiological and spiritual perspective which we just referred to, marriage enters into a dynamic action”.[36] The path taken is determined in particular by the married couple themselves, any yet they find themselves in a world “of surprises and miracles”. The path becomes narrower and narrower as it is walked side-by-side, with 2 or 3 children following behind. The path of orthodox spiritual life is “a path of liturgy, mystique, asceticism, and eschatology”.[37] It is the life of and in the Church and this life gives to the married couple and the whole family, another dimension, and another approach to life and to the problems one has to face.

It is very important that the Church provides the correct reflection of everything related to marriage and the family, and their value from the perspective of faith, especially to the youth and future bridal couples and their parents. There are for example, in many diocese of the Orthodox Church in Greece, “schools for parents”, where attention is given specifically to the preparation of their children for marriage. This is also possible through a lecture on this subject.[38]

b. What is the best way to respond to those who are living together and are not yet married?

This problem was cited in a discussion that Metropolitan Stephanos of Tallinn and all Estonia had with Olivier Clément concerning this subject, which has been published in the book “Office and charismas in the Orthodox Church”: “it is true that many young people no longer have this Christian identity to be able to say: “We love each other, therefore we will marry”. They have not as yet committed themselves completely enough to say: “We are going to get married because we as a couple, as a future family, will be a core-group of the Church, and will give an example of evangelical commitment. (…) It happens that young people in this sense experience something worthwhile, something that prepares them for lasting love. For a true love demands that one does not compromise. Each needs to be able to retain his own identity, have his own structure, to be able to truly meet the other. Whatever is at hand, it happens that young people who find themselves in a similar situation, convert and in the end seek a closer relationship with the Church”, so speaks Olivier Clément. And the renown French orthodox theologian continues, saying that the role of the priest is of infinite importance here, immensely in explaining the meaning of love and marriage, immensely in explaining that love is possible, immensely in explaining that the sacrament of marriage can give them great strength, “this will be a strength in receiving the other, in forgiving the other, and therefore of permanence with the other.”[39] What is certain is that one should not be moralising or too severe in these situations with regard to the youth, otherwise one will certainly not be heard.

c. Pastoral approach to the problem of divorce

The church community needs to be vigilant and give sufficient attention to married couples and families that have been affected and disabled by divorce. The married partner who has been abandoned by the other partner finds themself subsequently in a situation of discouragement and loneliness. The fate of the children is often much worse. From pastoral experience we know that the social and psychological assistance is insufficient. They especially need strengthening through a “spiritual and pastoral” approach, which will hopefully again give meaning and significance to their lives.

The Church, as community, can continue to involve them in the liturgical gatherings. It is clear that a discrete commission of love[40] is reserved for every Christian towards those who are divorced. This too is consistent with what the Holy John Chrysostom has called “the sacrament of the brother”. One must certainly avoid judging or condemning one’s brother or sister.


10. CONCLUSION

From what has been said, we bear in mind that marriage is a sacrament or mystery, because it is a living experience of the Kingdom of God. It is an entry into a new life, a communal growth in the Holy Spirit. This new life enters as a gift, not as an obligation. Man is free to enter into this new life through this door or not. But this new life only has meaning if it actually leads to entry into the sacramental life of the Church. Marriage gains perfection when the married couple regularly share in the Eucharist, in the Body of Christ. In this way marriage gains a sanctifying character. This holiness of marriage should however be protected by certain canons, not because this is the spirit of the Church, but in order to demonstrate the ideal for Christians. The Christian doctrine of marriage is a “joyful responsibility”.[41] It demonstrates what it means to be truly human, through which one receives the joy of giving life, in the image of the Creator.

Concerning on the other hand the orthodox perspective on the subtle problem area of divorce and possible remarriage, one needs to say that this is steeped in wisdom. It confirms the primary value of the steadfast and unique Christian marriage, which does not mean that this steadfastness should be seen, in all of life’s circumstances, as the downright irrevocable preservation of a juridical affirmation. The Orthodox Church does not want to shut the door of mercy inexorably, but holds still, to the teaching of the New Testament.[42]

 

[Sola_Fide]

Before that debate starts, one needs to define "marriage." Does it have to be a legal contract? Is it whoever you declare to be your wife? Is it whoever you sleep with? It can get very fuzzy at that point.

The Bible is very clear that sex=marriage.

 

[angelatc]

I never discuss Religion....

Well, since this is the Religion subforum, the rest of your statement is not really relevant.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Bible is very clear that sex=marriage.

Wait: where?

 

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

Divorce is one the most heart breaking things anyone will ever endure. It saps you of your very will to live and destroys families and some people just never fully recover from it. What a terrible thing and I find it so sad that our culture celebrates it.

 

[Nobexliberty]

Divorce is one the most heart breaking things anyone will ever endure. It saps you of your very will to live and destroys families and some people just never fully recover from it. What a terrible thing and I find it so sad that our culture celebrates it.

Agree, I am going to rep you despite being a Baltimore fan.

 

[angelatc]

Divorce is one the most heart breaking things anyone will ever endure. It saps you of your very will to live and destroys families and some people just never fully recover from it. What a terrible thing and I find it so sad that our culture celebrates it.

You and me both, especially when there are children involved. Nobody can ever convince me that "staying together for the children" is a mistake.

My great grandmother was a young wife during WWII. Her husband, and father to her 4 kids, wasn't drafted because he suffered from what we now know was a psychotic break due to schizophrenia. He was hospitalized permanently. Because things were different back then one day he walked away and came back home. They had 4 more kids before he had to be locked up again.

She never went to visit him, but she never divorced him.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Wait: where?

What Constitutes Marriage?
http://www.outsidethecamp.org/marriage.htm

 

[eduardo89]

Matthew 19:19 seems pretty clear to me. If your spouse commits adultery (or however you interpret the word) you can divorce him/her and marry another and that's not adultery. Either way there is some type of exception in there.

You can quote whatever else you want but if Jesus really spoke those words then I don't see how you can get around that there is some type of exception in which divorce is acceptable.

I suggest you read the OP. The original Greek never uses the world "adultery," it uses the word pornea. Then read Acts 15, Leviticus 18 and 19 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 to understand what is meant by that word in this context.

Also, if you claim that Jesus made an exception to the rule in cases of adultery, why is that explicitly contradicted by Mark and Luke? Why does Jesus say that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts? It is extremely clear by Jesus's words that he did not condone divorce.

Furthermore, read all the Church Fathers who spoke about divorce. None of them condoned it. Why, then, would we throw out not only what is clearly said in Scripture, but also the words of our forefathers, who undoubtedly knew the faith and teachings of Christ much better than we do?

 

[matt0611]

I suggest you read the OP. The original Greek never uses the world "adultery," it uses the word pornea. Then read Acts 15, Leviticus 18 and 19 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 to understand what is meant by that word in this context.

Also, if you claim that Jesus made an exception to the rule in cases of adultery, why is that explicitly contradicted by Mark and Luke? Why does Jesus say that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts? It is extremely clear by Jesus's words that he did not condone divorce.

Furthermore, read all the Church Fathers who spoke about divorce. None of them condoned it. Why, then, would we throw out not only what is clearly said in Scripture, but also the words of our forefathers, who undoubtedly knew the faith and teachings of Christ much better than we do?

I read the OP. I said there was SOME type of exception, clearly, from Jesus' own words recorded by Matthew.

It seems to me what Jesus' was saying in the time of Moses you could have divorce EVEN in circumstances when your spouse did not commit adultery. But now it shall be allowed ONLY in that case.

 

[Nobexliberty]

I suggest you read the OP. The original Greek never uses the world "adultery," it uses the word pornea. Then read Acts 15, Leviticus 18 and 19 and 1 Corinthians 5:1 to understand what is meant by that word in this context.

Also, if you claim that Jesus made an exception to the rule in cases of adultery, why is that explicitly contradicted by Mark and Luke? Why does Jesus say that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of the Jews' hearts? It is extremely clear by Jesus's words that he did not condone divorce.

Furthermore, read all the Church Fathers who spoke about divorce. None of them condoned it. Why, then, would we throw out not only what is clearly said in Scripture, but also the words of our forefathers, who undoubtedly knew the faith and teachings of Christ much better than we do?

With the exeption of the Church Fathers it is some of the best arguements I have heard in a while. I have to read some old testament books again before I study it on the other hand.

 

[TER]

Eduardo, the quotes you posted from the Church Fathers were about remarriage and not divorce. Divorce is a sad and tragic reality and has been so from the beginning of Church history. What you are arguing about is REMARRIAGE, but divorce in and of itself has always been accepted as a sad condition by the Church Fathers.

 

[TER]

I read the OP. I said there was SOME type of exception, clearly, from Jesus' own words recorded by Matthew.

It seems to me what Jesus' was saying in the time of Moses you could have divorce EVEN in circumstances when your spouse did not commit adultery. But now it shall be allowed ONLY in that case.

You are correct in your understanding.