Where does church history stand on this issue?
Understanding the historical development of these perspectives can shed light on the diverse interpretations and practices that have emerged over time. During the formative years of the early church, a consensus emerged among influential figures regarding the sanctity of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. Their collective message emphasized a unified stance. They asserted that Christian matrimony was an unbreakable union meant to endure for a lifetime. Divorce, which carried with it the presumption of the right to remarry, was deemed incompatible with the principles of Christian couples. Remarriage after separation was viewed as a serious transgression, classified as punishable adultery or bigamy, with women often facing harsher consequences than men. These early church teachings sought to uphold the enduring commitment and fidelity expected within Christian marriages, reflecting a deep commitment to preserving the sacred institution.
Early Church Period (1st to 3rd Century):
During the early years of Christianity, the prevailing view on divorce and remarriage aligned closely with Jesus' teachings in the Gospels. The indissolubility of marriage was emphasized, with divorce being seen as contrary to God's ideal. Early Christian writings, such as the Epistles of Paul and the Didache, emphasized the permanence of marriage and discouraged divorce. This is seen in the following quotes from the earliest Christians and councils.
Hermas:
“What then shall the husband do if the wife continues in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorces his wife and marries another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).
Justin Martyr:
“Regarding chastity, [Jesus] has this to say: ‘If anyone looks 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 is 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 [A.D. 151]).
Clement of Alexandria:
“That Scripture counsels marriage, however, and never allows any release from the union, is expressly contained in the law: ‘You shall not divorce a wife, except for reason of immorality.’ It regards adultery as the marriage of a spouse while the one from whom a separation was made is still alive. ‘Whoever takes a divorced woman as wife commits adultery,’ it says, for ‘if anyone divorces his wife, he debauches her’; that is, he compels her to commit adultery. And not only does he that divorces her become the cause of this, but also he that takes the woman and gives her the opportunity of sinning; for if he did not take her, she would return to her husband” (Miscellanies 2:23:145:3 [A.D. 208]).
Origen:
“Just as a woman is an adulteress, even though she seems to be married to a man, while a former husband yet lives, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been divorced does not marry her, but according to the declaration of our Savior, he commits adultery with her” (Commentaries on Matthew 14:24 [A.D. 248]).
Council of Elvira:
“Likewise, women who have left their husbands for no prior cause and have joined themselves with others may not even at death receive Communion” (Canon 8 [A.D. 300].
“Likewise, a woman of the faith [i.e., a baptized person] 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 receive Communion—unless he that she has left has since departed from this world” (Canon 9).
“If she whom a catechumen [an unbaptized person studying the faith] has left shall have married a husband, she is able to be admitted to the fountain of baptism. This shall also be observed in the instance where it is the woman who is the catechumen. But if a woman of the faithful is taken in marriage by a man who left an innocent wife, and if she knew that he had a wife whom he had left without cause, it is determined that Communion is not to be given to her even at death” (Canon 10).
Ambrose of Milan:
“No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given to 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” (Abraham 1:7:59 [A.D. 387]).
“You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing, and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: ‘What God has joined together let no man put asunder’” (Commentary on Luke 8:5 [A.D. 389]).
Jerome:
“Do not tell me about the violence of the ravisher, about the persuasiveness of a mother, about the authority of a father, about the influence of relatives, about the intrigues and insolence of servants, or about household [financial] losses. So long as a husband lives, be he adulterer, be he sodomite, be he addicted to every kind of vice, if she left him on account of his crimes, he is her husband still, and she may not take another” (Letters 55:3 [A.D. 396]).
Patristic Era (4th to 8th Century):
In the Patristic era, theologians such as Augustine of Hippo and John Chrysostom emphasized marriage's indissolubility.
John Chrysostom
“‘What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.’ See a teacher’s wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument, He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself to the commandment of His Father and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her.” John Chrysostom, On Matthew 62:1 (A.D. 370).
Augustine:
“Undoubtedly, the substance of the sacrament is of this bond is so that when man and woman have been joined in marriage, they must continue inseparably as long as they live… For this is preserved in the case of Christ and the Church, so that, as a living one with a living one, there is no divorce, no separation forever” (Marriage and Concupiscence 1:10:11 [A.D. 419]).
“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 adultery, the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19).
Medieval Period (9th to 13th Century):
During the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church significantly influenced views and practices regarding divorce and remarriage. The Church's position aligned with the permanence view, considering marriage an indissoluble sacrament. The Church emphasized strict control over marriage and imposed various regulations and annulment processes to address cases of invalid marriages. Remarriage after divorce was generally prohibited.
Thomas Aquinas
In his Summa Theologica he set forth systematically what has become the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on marriage and divorce. Marriage, he declared, "was instituted in the New Law in so far as it represents the mystery of Christ's union with the Church, and in this respect, it is a sacrament of the New Law."Nothing—not even adultery—can dissolve the marriage of two communicants.[1]
The Renaissance Period (14th to 15th)
It was during this time that the Roman Catholic Church began to change its thinking on the issue of divorce and remarriage.
Saint Thomas More
As products of the Renaissance, the Christian humanists attempted to cast off the tradition of the Church and return to the teaching of Scripture. Thomas More, for example, though he lived and died a Roman Catholic and was even canonized by his church, nonetheless held views on marriage and divorce that were contrary to its tradition. (He may have been motivated by having left a life of monkish asceticism to be married!) In his Utopia, he suggested that marriage is intended for the pleasure of male and female. He stressed the importance of the marriage bond but held that if a husband and wife could not live in harmony, by mutual consent of both, they should be allowed to divorce and marry someone else. He also believed that unfaithfulness or intolerable behavior by either spouse breaks the marriage bond. At the same time, "breakers of wedlock are punished by the severest grade of slavery" in his Utopia and, for a subsequent offense, should be put to death.[2]
Desiderius Erasmus
A contemporary and fellow spirit of Thomas More also held views on marriage and divorce, which were quite radical for his day. He cast scorn on the prohibition of divorce and the idea of an indissoluble marriage bond. Commenting on the Gospel of Matthew, he pointed out that the Church interprets Christ's teachings more narrowly than he did and that such inflexibility is contrary to the general interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. In treating Paul's teaching on divorce, he noted a need to allow for remarriage after divorce for sound causes other than adultery, such as cruelty or mutual hatred. Erasmus maintained, though, that he was not seeking to encourage unnecessary divorces but only to remedy unhappy marriages when all other means had failed.
Protestant Reformation (14th to 16th Century):
The Protestant Reformation brought about significant changes in the understanding of marriage, divorce, and remarriage. While reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin sought to maintain the permanence view, documents such as the Westminster Confession of Faith recognized additional grounds for divorce.
Luther:
Those who want to be Christians are not to be divorced, but each to retain his or her spouse and bear and experience good and evil with the same, although he or she may be strange, peculiar, and faulty; or, if there be a divorce, that the parties remain unmarried; and that it will not do to make a free thing out of marriage, as if it were in our power to do with it, changing and exchanging, as we please; but it is just as Jesus says: " What God has joined together let not man put asunder."[3]
Calvin
Although what relates to divorce was granted in indulgence to the Jews, Christ pronounces that it was never in accordance with the Law because it is directly repugnant to the first institution of God, from whence a perpetual and inviolable rule is to be sought. It is proverbially said that the laws of nature are indissoluble, and God has declared once and for all that, the bond of union between husband and wife is closer than that of parent and child; wherefore, if a son cannot shake off the paternal yoke, no cause can permit the dissolution of the connection which a man has with his wife. Hence it appears how great was the perverseness of that nation, which could not be restrained from dissolving a most sacred and inviolable tie.[4]
Westminster Confession of 1646.
Chapter XXIV. Marriage and Divorce
1. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract, (Mat 1:18-20). In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, (Mat 5:31-32): and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead, (Mat 19:9; Rom 7:2-3).
2. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such wilful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage, (Mat 19:8-9; 1Co 7:15; Mat 19:6): wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills, and discretion, in their own case, (Deu 24:1-4).[5]
Post-Reformation Era (17th to 19th Century):
As we examine the historical development of the permanence view of marriage, it is important to acknowledge that, over time, certain branches of Christianity have allowed for greater permissiveness regarding divorce and remarriage. One notable example is the Roman Catholic Church, which experienced a shift in its stance on divorce and remarriage.
The Roman Catholic Church has traditionally held a strict interpretation of the permanence view, affirming the indissolubility of marriage. This position was deeply rooted in the teachings of Jesus and reinforced by the early church fathers. However, historical factors and theological developments led to a gradual evolution in the Church's approach.
One significant turning point occurred during the Middle Ages, particularly with the rise of the sacramental understanding of marriage. The Catholic Church increasingly viewed marriage as a sacred institution and elevated it to the status of a sacrament, but in other ways, weakened marriage when annulments were introduced. Unlike a divorce, an annulment declares that a marriage was invalid from its inception, thus rendering it null and void. This allowed for remarriage in cases where the original marriage was deemed invalid.
In subsequent centuries, the Roman Catholic Church further developed its understanding of the grounds for annulment, acknowledging factors such as lack of consent, incapacity, or deception at the time of marriage. The Church established specific procedures and tribunals to examine and declare the nullity of marriages. While this allowed for remarriage in cases of annulment, the Church maintained its stance against divorce as the dissolution of a valid marriage.
Modern Era (20th to 21st Century):
Over the past century, there has been a noticeable shift in societal attitudes towards divorce and remarriage, with a gradual rise in the acceptance of more permissive views. This shift has challenged the traditionally held belief in the permanence of marriage, leading to significant changes in legal frameworks and cultural norms.
The early 20th century witnessed a prevailing emphasis on the sanctity and indissolubility of marriage. Divorce was generally stigmatized and discouraged, and obtaining legal separation was often a complex and arduous process. The prevailing view held that marriage was a lifelong commitment, and divorce was considered a moral and social failure.
However, as societal values and expectations began to evolve, so did attitudes towards divorce and remarriage. Throughout the mid to late 20th century, a combination of factors, such as women's rights movements, economic shifts, and changing cultural norms, contributed to a more permissive view. Legal reforms were enacted in many countries, making divorce more accessible and less stigmatized.
The permissive view of divorce and remarriage gained momentum as concepts such as individual happiness, personal fulfillment, and the right to self-determination became increasingly prioritized. The notion of an unhappy or incompatible marriage being dissolved to allow individuals to pursue greater personal satisfaction gained traction.
This shift in societal attitudes has had a significant impact on divorce rates, which have risen steadily over the last century. Divorce became more socially acceptable and, in many cases, easier to obtain through streamlined legal processes. Remarriage after divorce also became more common, with society recognizing and acknowledging second chances at love and companionship.
[1] https://theologicalstudies.org.uk/article_divorce_snuth.html
[2] Ibid
[3] https://teleiosministries.com/martin-luther-on-marriage-divorce.html
[4] https://biblehub.com/commentaries/calvin/deuteronomy/24.htm
[5] https://www.blueletterbible.org/study/ccc/westminster/Of_Marriage_And_Divorce.cfm
