One
Flesh: A Book About Divorce & Remarriage
Chapter 4
Church History
The determinant of any doctrine is neither
its newness nor antiquity. Scripture is the final
rule on all matters of faith and practice. Nevertheless,
a historical understanding may help one think through the
issues. In the first centuries after Christ, Greek
and Latin were used extensively by early Christian
writers. Though not infallible, these men had a
built-in understanding of Greek grammar and Roman culture
that may have given them insights into the New Testament
which we may not possess. They lived in the social
context in which the divorce and remarriage teachings of
the New Testament were expounded. We can learn
something from their cultural and linguistic
understanding of Scripture. In all, twenty-five out
of twenty-six early church writers and two early church
councils prohibited remarriage after divorce for any
reason. Though their writings are not
authoritative, one must take their conclusions into
consideration. In an age of debate over some of the
most basic doctrines, their virtual unanimity on
divorce and remarriage is amazing. The early
Christian writers who taught that remarriage after
divorce for any reason was adultery include Hermas,
Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Athanasius, Theophilus of
Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen,
Tertullian, Basil of Ancyra, Basil of Caesarea, Gregory
Nazianzus, Apollinaris of Laodicea, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Theodoret, Epiphanius,
Ambrose, Innocent I, Pelagius, Jerome, Leo the Great,
Gregory the Great, and Augustine. The Council of
Elvira (A.D. 306) and the Council of Arles (A.D. 314)
declare the same. The lone patristic dissenter was a Latin
bishop named Ambrosiaster. He wrote commentaries on
Pauline epistles between A.D. 366 and 383. Little
else is known about him. He is the only writer we
have that allowed remarriage after divorce in limited
circumstances. He allowed both partners to remarry
if deserted by a pagan spouse. He did not allow
remarriage if a spouse was deserted by a person who
claimed to be a Christian. He allowed only the man
to remarry in cases of adultery. Some attempt to dismiss the consensus of the
early church by claiming that these writers came to their
conclusions by using only the gospels of Mark and Luke
which teach only a prohibition of divorce and remarriage
and do not include the ‘exception clause’.
This is not true. The gospel of Matthew was probably the
most widely used book of the New Testament in the early
church. Many of the early Christian writers
specifically mention the Matthean ‘exception
clause’ when coming to their conclusions. Certain
writers, such as Origen, Chrysostom, and Augustine
specifically mention this subject in the context of
commentaries on Matthew or the Sermon on the Mount. Another attempt at dismissal is made by
claiming that Jesus would have spoken to the Pharisees in
Hebrew and since the early Christians writers did not
know Hebrew they were confused as to the correct
interpretation of the ‘exception clause’.
It is uncertain whether Jesus would have spoken to the
Pharisees in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Hebrew was
the scholarly language of the Jews but many Jews by this
time used the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old
Testament. Aramaic was the native language of
Palestine but we do not know when Jesus spoke Aramaic
outside of the instances recorded in the gospels. The
New Testament is written in Greek and although it has
been theorized that the Gospel of Matthew was first
composed in Hebrew or Aramaic this is only a theory and
the only manuscripts we possess are in Greek. The
point being that it is uncertain what language Jesus used
to speak to the Pharisees. If He did speak to them
in Hebrew or Aramaic, Matthew was inspired by the Holy
Spirit to record the conversation in Greek. Although most of the early Christian writers
were Gentiles they were not ignorant of Jewish divorce
practices. Some of the early Christian authors also
knew Hebrew. Origen compiled the Hexapla in
which eight Hebrew and Greek versions of the Old
Testament were arranged in parallel columns. Jerome
was a Hebrew teacher and translated the Latin Vulgate
directly from the Hebrew by-passing the Greek Septuagint.
Theodoret also knew Hebrew. Space does not permit going into detail of
the writings of every early church writer. Some of
the early writings are given as evidence of patristic
interpretation concerning divorce and remarriage. Probably the earliest writing we possess is
from Hermas. He wrote The Shepherd of Hermas
circa A.D. 160. The writings of the Shepherd
are important as they were held in the highest regard by
early Christians. These writings were seen as
quasi-canonical and were often bound together with other
portions of Scripture, specifically whatever gospels the
congregation had. In his second book, Commandments,
Hermas speaks about putting away one’s wife for
adultery. He writes: If any one has a wife who trusts in the
Lord, and if he detects her in adultery, does the man sin
if he continues to live with her?” And he said
to me, “As long as he remains ignorant of her sin,
the husband commits no transgression in living with her.
But if the husband knows that his wife has gone astray,
and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her
fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with
her, he is also guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her
adultery.” And I said to him, “What then,
sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continues in her
vicious practices? And he said, the husband should
put her away, and remain by himself. But if he puts
his wife away and marries another, he also commits
adultery.” And I said to him, “What if
the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to
her husband: Shall she not be taken back by her
husband?” And he said to me, “Assuredly.
If the husband does not take her back, he sins, and
brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take
back the sinner who has repented. But not
frequently. Hermas believed that the man who continued
to live with an adulteress wife, in a sense, shared in
her adultery. This was compulsory under Roman as
well as Jewish law. The Lex Iulia de adulteriis
(Roman Law of Adultery) required that a husband must send
away his wife within sixty days if she was guilty of
adultery. If the husband failed to do so he was
guilty of lenocinium, a procurer or promoter of
her adultery. It also was a logical application of 1 Cor.
6:15-17 which teaches that Christians should never have
sexual relations with a prostitute (pornes). Though allowing for divorce, Hermas saw the
marriage as still intact. Because the one flesh
bond still existed, Hermas did not allow a person to
remarry after their spouse was divorced. This was
his interpretation of the ‘exception clause’ in
Matthew’s Gospel. He required the husband to
cease living with an adulterous wife. If the
husband did not leave room for repentance and acceptance
of his wife, after repentance, it was also a sin. He
adds the term “but not frequently” to show that
true repentance will change the actions of one’s
life. Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) wrote his First
Apology circa A.D. 150. Chapters 15-17 are a
Christian catechism based on the Sermon on the Mount and
other Gospel portions. Chapter 15 is subtitled,
“What Christ Himself Taught.” Justin
Martyr quotes Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:12. He
gives no exceptions for remarriage. He lists lust
and remarriage as sinning against Christ: Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced
from another husband, commits adultery. And, there
are some who have been born eunuchs of men, and some who
have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
heaven’s sake; but all cannot receive this saying.
So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in
the eyes of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a
woman to lust after her. One should notice how Justin equates the
eunuch saying of Matthew 19:12 with the subject of
abstaining from a second remarriage after divorce. Justin also shows that he believed
Christians should separate from an adulterous spouse but
that does not give them the right to remarry. Second Apology, chapter 2 reads: But when her husband had gone into
Alexandria, and was reported to be conducting himself
worse than ever, she – that she might not, by
continuing in matrimonial connection with him, and by
sharing his table and his bed, become a partaker also in
wickedness and impieties – gave him what you call a
bill of divorce, and was separated from him. Athenagoras wrote his Plea for Christians
around A.D. 177: For we bestow our attention, not on the
study of words, but on the exhibition and teaching of
actions, that a person should either remain as he was
born, or be content with one marriage; for a second
marriage is only a specious adultery. For whosoever
puts away his wife, says He and marries another, commits
adultery; not permitting a man to send her away whose
virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again.
For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even
though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the
hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man
and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of
flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.
Athenagoras was writing this letter to the
Emperors Marcus Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius
Commodus. The purpose of it was to defend the
rationality of the Christian faith and the superiority of
its morals. Athenagoras uses marriage as one example of
Christianity’s higher standards. Pagans
divorce their wives and marry again, Christians do not.
Athenagoras’ interpretation of Matthew 19 is that a
second marriage equals adultery. He appears to be
influenced by Phrygian Montanism for not allowing
remarriage after either spouse’s death. This
does not nullify the fact that he saw divorce and
remarriage to be a form of adultery. Clement of Alexandria (ca. A.D. 153-217) was
the headmaster of the Christian school in Alexandria,
Egypt from A.D. 190-202. Book II of the Stromata
or Miscellanies was written to show that Christian
morality was superior to paganism. Book III is an
exposition on Christian marriage. Clement has this to say regarding the
biblical understanding of marriage: Now that the Scripture counsels marriage,
and allows no release from the union, is expressly
contained in the law, “Thou shall 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...“He that takes a woman
that has been put away,” it is said, “commits
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. Clement appears to quote Matthew 5:32 and
19:9. He sees the exception clause as allowing only
separation or divorce. It does not allow for
remarriage. A complete reading of Clement’s
works tells us the purpose for the divorce is to allow
the believer to separate from that which is unclean,
namely a fornicating spouse. If the spouse repents
of their sin, they become clean and are to be received
back unto conjugal relations. The reason for
divorce is not to permit remarriage. He claims
remarriage after divorce is adultery in every instance
while the other spouse lives. Theophilus (A.D. 115-181 or 188). Little
is known about Theophilus. It appears that he was
born into a pagan household but came to Christ through
reading the Scriptures. Eusebius writes that he was sixth
in succession of elders following Barnabas in Antioch in
Syria. These were Eros, Cornelius, Hero, Ignatius,
and Euodius. Theophilus became an elder in Antioch
the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, A.D.
168. The works of Theophilus were written as an
apologetic to his friend Autolycus an idolater and
scorner of Christians. In book 3, chapter 13 Theophilus writes: And the voice of the Gospel teaches still
more concerning chastity, saying: “Whosoever looks
on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her has
committed adultery already with her in his heart.”
“And he that marries,” say the Gospel,
“her that is divorced from her husband, commits
adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, except for
the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
adultery”. Theophilus uses these verses from
Matthew 5 in relation to Proverbs 6:27-29. It
appears that he believed that remarriage after divorce
was to be equated with being burned with fire and the man
that remarries, “goes into a married woman shall not
be innocent”. Irenaeus (A.D. 120-202) was born in Asia
Minor and raised in Smyrna. He claims to have known
Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John. In Against
Heresies Irenaeus quotes Genesis 2:24 and Matthew
19:7-8 to show God’s original intent for the
permanence of marriage. He shows that the Mosaic
Law was enacted only because of the hardness of
men’s hearts: And not only so, but the Lord also showed
that certain precepts were enacted for them by Moses, on
account of their hardness of heart, and because of their
unwillingness to be obedient, when, on their saying to
Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a writing
of divorcement, and to send away a wife?” He
said to them, “Because of the hardness of their
hearts he permitted these things to you; but from the
beginning it was not so;” thus exculpating
Moses as a faithful servant, but acknowledging one God,
who from the beginning made male and female, and
reproving them as hard hearted and disobedient. Tertullain (A.D. 145-220) was an elder in
Carthage. He wrote in Latin and was a voluminous
theologian. He was born into a pagan household and
seems to have been educated in Rome. Tertullian
transitions from an orthodox Christian period to
semi-Montantist and Montanist periods. His
Montanist beliefs led him astray in certain areas. Nevertheless,
his writings concerning the permanence of marriage
reflect the general consensus of the early church. In
Against Marcion book 4 chapter 24
Tertullian’s writings are quite lengthy. The
reader is encouraged to obtain a copy and read it in
context. Chapter 24 includes these statements: But Christ prohibits divorce, saying,
“whosoever puts away his wife and marries another,
commits adultery; and whosoever marries her that is put
away from her husband also commits adultery”. In
order to forbid divorce, he makes it unlawful to marry a
woman that has been put away… For in the Gospel of
Matthew he says, “whosoever shall put away his wife,
except for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
adultery”. He also is deemed equally guilty of
adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. Origen (A.D. 185-254) wrote extensive
commentaries on the Scriptures. He writes this in
his Commentary on Matthew: But as a woman is an adulteress, even though
she seems to be married to a man, while the former
husband is still living, so also the man who seems to
marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry
her as commit adultery with her according to her
declaration of our Savior. The Council of Arles (A.D. 314) Canon
10 states: As regards those who find their wives to be
guilty of adultery, and who being Christians are, though
young men, forbidden to marry, we decree that, so far as
may be, counsel be given them not to take other wives,
while their own, though guilty of adultery, are yet
living. Basil of Caesarea (A.D. 329-379) is also
known as Basil “The Great”. His brother
was Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzus was his good
friend. He was born into a wealthy Christian family
in Cappadocia. He was trained in rhetoric at
Constantinople and Athens. He left this to devote
himself to a simple life of scholarship. With his
friend Gregory Nazianzus he compiled the works of Origen.
In one of his numerous letters Basil writes: The woman who has been abandoned by her
husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is.
The Lord said “If anyone leaves his wife, saving for
the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit
adultery;” thus by calling her an adulteress, He
excludes her from intercourse with another man. For
how can the man being guilty, having caused adultery, and
the woman, go without blame, when she is called an
adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with
another man? Gregory Nazianzus (ca. A.D. 325-391) is also
known as “The Theologian”. He was a
friend of Basil the Great and a defender of the doctrine
of the Trinity. Contrary to modern interpreters who
claim that the early Christian writers were deficient in
their knowledge of Jewish Law Gregory writes: Now the Law grants divorce for every cause;
but Christ not for every cause; but He allows only
separation from the whore; and in all other things
commands patience. He allows to put away the
fornicatress, because she corrupts the offspring; but in
all other matters let us be patient, as many as have
receive the yoke of matrimony. Jerome (ca. A.D. 347-407) was a native of
Venetia and was baptized in A.D. 360. For several
years after that he was a wandering student in Rome and
Gaul. In A.D. 386 Jerome went to Palestine, and
there through the financial assistance of Paula, a
wealthy Roman lady whom he had taught Hebrew, he lived in
a monastic retreat at Bethlehem. He led this
retreat for thirty five years. Jerome is most
famous for his Latin translation of the Bible, Biblia
Sacra Vulgata. Being an accomplished teacher of
Hebrew he went beyond the use of the Greek Septuagint in
translating the Old Testament. This is important to
note as modern defenders of the Erasmian interpretation
often claim that since some of the early Christian
writers did not know Hebrew they were led astray in their
interpretation of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and
remarriage. In A.D. 394 Jerome wrote a letter to
Amandus in which he included a reply to a question
posed to him by a sister regarding whether a woman who is
divorced because of sexual sins by her husband can
fellowship with the saints without first repenting.
Jerome writes: I find joined to your letter of inquiries a
short paper containing the following words: “ask
him, whether a woman who has left her husband on the
grounds that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has
found herself compelled to take another may in the
lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with
the church without repenting for her fault”. As
I read the case put I recall the verse “they make
excuses for their sins”. We are all human and
all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will
leads us to do we attribute to the necessity of nature.
It is as though a young man were to say, “I am
overcome by my body, the glow of nature kindles my
passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive
organs call for sexual intercourse”. Or again
a murderer might say, “I was in want, I stood in
need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed
the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of
cold and hunger”. Tell the sister, therefore, who thus
enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence
but that of the apostle. “Know ye not, brethren (for
I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has
dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the
woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her
husband as long as he lives; but if her husband is dead;
she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then
if while her husband lives, she is married to another,
she will be called an adulterer”…The apostle
has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared
that, if a woman marries again while her husband is
living, she is an adulteress…A husband may be an
adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every
crime and may have been left by his wife because of his
sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he
lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree
on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in
him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the
gospel: “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving
for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit
adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorce
commits adultery”. Mark what he says:
“whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits
adultery”. Whether she has put away her
husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is
still an adulterer. Therefore if your sister, who, as she says,
has been forced into a second union, wishes to receive
the body of Christ and not be counted an adulteress, let
her repent; so far at least from the time she begins to
repent to have no further intercourse with that second
husband who ought to be called not a husband but an
adulterer. John Chrysostom (ca. A.D. 347-407) lived a
pure and simple life. He was called
“Chrysostom” (golden mouthed) shortly after his
death for his skill as an expositor and orator. In
his Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew he has this
to say regarding the passages which include the
‘exception clause’: And observe Him everywhere addressing His
discourse to the man. Thus, “He that puts away
his wife,” says He, “causes her to commit
adultery, and he that marries a woman put away, commits
adultery.” That is, the former, though he take
not another wife, by that act alone hath made himself
liable to blame, having made the first an adulteress; the
later again is become an adulterer by taking her who is
another’s. For tell me not this, “the
other hath cast her out;” nay, for when cast out she
continued to be the wife of him that expelled her...And
not thus only, but in another way also He hath lightened
the enactment: forasmuch as even for him He leaves one
manner of dismissal, when He says, “Except for the
cause of fornication;” since the matter had else
come round again to the same issue. For if He had
commanded to keep her in the house, though defiling
herself with many, He would have made the matter end
again in adultery. 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 law giving, He showed that
one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never
break off from her. Chrysostom saw the marriage as remaining
intact even if a wife is divorced or expelled from the
home. He allows the man to separate from a
fornicating wife so that he is not defiled by his
wife’s adultery. He does not allow either the
man or the woman to remarry in such instances. Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was one of the most
prolific writers in the history of the church. Augustine
taught marriage was a divine mystery and an analogy of
the unity of the church. He wrote nine Moral
Treatises. On the Good of Marriage reads: “For whosoever puts away his wife,
except for the case of fornication, makes her to commit
adultery.” To such a degree is that marriage
compact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament,
that it is not void even by separation itself, since, so
long as her husband lives, even by whom she hath been
left, she commits adultery, in case she be married to
another: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this
evil. But I marvel, if, as it is allowed to put
away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed,
having put her away, to marry another. For holy
Scripture causes a hard knot in this matter, in that the
Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, the wife
ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she
shall have departed, to remain unmarried, or to be
reconciled to her husband; whereas surely she ought not
to depart and remain unmarried, save from an husband that
is an adulterer, lest by withdrawing from him, who is not
an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. But
I see not how the man can have permission to marry
another, in case he have left an adulteress, when a woman
has not to be married to another, in case she have left
an adulterer. And, this being the case, so strong
is that bond of fellowship in married persons, that,
although it is tied for the sake of begetting children,
not even for the sake of begetting children is it loosed.
For it is in a man’s power to put away a wife that
is barren, and marry one of whom to have children. And
yet it is not allowed; and now indeed, in our times, and
after the usage of Rome, neither to marry in addition, so
as to have more than one wife living: and surely, in case
of an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be
possible that more men should be born, if either the
woman were married to another, or the man should marry
another. And yet, if to prescribe, who is there but
it must make him attentive to learn what is the meaning
of this so great strength of the marriage bond?...Seeing
that the compact of marriage is not done away by divorce
intervening; so that they continue wedded persons one to
another, even after separation; and commit adultery with
those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their
own divorce, either the woman with a man, or the man with
a woman. On Marriage and Concupiscence
states: So enduring, indeed, are the rights of
marriage between those who have contracted them, as long
as they both live, that even they are looked on as man
and wife still, who have separated from one another,
rather than they between a new connection has been
formed. For by this new connection they would not
be guilty of adultery, if the previous matrimonial
relation did not still continue. If the husband
dies, with whom a true marriage was made, a true marriage
is now possible by a connection which would before have
been adultery. Thus between the conjugal pair, as
long as they live, the nuptial bond has a permanent
obligation, and can be canceled neither by separation nor
by union with another. Augustine begins his argument by citing
Matthew 5:32. This passage contains the
‘exception clause’ which allows divorce when
fornication has been committed. He calls marriage a
sacrament but uses the word in a different sense than
later Roman Catholicism. Marriage is such a
“compact” that separation does not allow the
woman to remarry if her husband deserts her. If the
woman remarries she commits adultery. The deserting
husband is said to be the cause of this evil. Augustine
marvels that society allows a man to remarry after
putting away an adulterous wife. He recognizes this
“causes a hard knot” but realizes that
Paul’s command in I Corinthians 7:10-11 says the
woman is not to depart. If she does depart she is
to remain unmarried. Augustine synthesizes these
passages by allowing the woman to depart only in the case
of an adulterous husband. He does not allow the
woman to remarry. Since Scripture forbids the woman
to remarry after departing from an adulterous husband
Augustine does not see how a man could have permission to
remarry after leaving an adulterous wife. Men and
women are married for the purpose of procreation, this
purpose cannot loose them. Scripture forbids
remarriage after divorce even in cases of adultery.
If they remarry after divorce they commit adultery with
whom they are joined. Leo the Great (ca. A.D. 390-461) was born in
Tuscany. He became the bishop of Rome in A.D. 440.
He wrote a letter to Nicaetas, bishop of Aquileia,
regarding women who had remarried when their soldier
husbands had been taken prisoner. He believed that
the original marriage bond still existed and the women
who remarried should return to their original husbands.
Those who refused to return to their first husband were
not permitted fellowship. Leo writes: But because we know it is written that
“a woman is joined to a man by God,” and again,
we are aware of the precept that “what God hath
joined, man may not put asunder,” we are bound to
hold that the compact of the lawful marriage must be
renewed…And if any women are so possessed by love of
their later husbands as to prefer to remain with them
than to return to their lawful partners, they are
deservedly to be branded: so that they be even deprived
of the church’s communion. Gregory I is also known as Gregory “The
Great”. He became the bishop of Rome in A.D.
590. His rule finalized the division between the
Eastern and Western institutional church. His ascension
to power also marks the unofficial demarcation between
early and medieval church history. In a letter
to Adrian Gregory writes: For although mundane law declares that
marriage may be dissolved for the sake of conversion
against the will of either party, yet divine law does not
permit this to be done. For, save for the cause of
fornication, a man is on no account allowed to put away
his wife, seeing that after the husband and wife have
been made one body by the copulation of wedlock, it
cannot be in part converted, and in part remain in the
world. Although the final determinant of any
doctrine is Scripture, one must take these writings into
consideration. If Jesus did allow remarriage after
divorce, why do we have no record of it being taught or
practiced? Where did the no remarriage doctrine
come from? Modern detractors claim that the early
Christians did not understand Hebrew or use the Gospel of
Matthew to come to their interpretive conclusions. The
fact is that some of them did know Hebrew and most of
them directly quote the Matthean Gospel text. Some
of them interact with Jewish laws and traditions and show
how the teachings of Christ regarding divorce and
remarriage are superior. It cannot be that they
simply did not understand the Old Testament. Most
of them read Greek copies of the Old Testament and some
of them read the Hebrew. Some of them mention
Jewish divorce and remarriage practices. The early Christian writers had a first hand
linguistic and cultural understanding of the teachings of
Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. Many of them spoke
and wrote Greek as a primary or secondary language.
Although separated by centuries and various geographic
and cultural boundaries they had a virtual consensus in
their understanding of the permanence of marriage. This
consensus does not appear to come from reading one
another’s writings but from reading the New
Testament. Their view was the majority view of the
church in the East until the 6th century and
of the church in the West until the 16th
century. In the 13th century Aquinas
taught that marriage was a ‘sacrament’ that
conveys divine grace to the recipients. The Roman
Catholic Church adopted this view and further erred by
allowing divorce and remarriage in the form of
ecclesiastical annulments. These views were
canonized by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. In 1519 the Catholic-humanist Erasmus stated
that the innocent spouse in matters of adultery and
desertion had the right to remarry. Though
the idea did not originate with him it can be shown that
under his influence this view gained broad acceptance.
In Erasmus’ day salvation was said to come only
through the institutional Roman Catholic Church. Erasmus
saw injurious and unhappy marriages. He believed
that church courts could be established to grant people
divorces for serious reasons. The innocent party
would then be granted permission to remarry by
ecclesiastical authorities. Erasmus was aware of
the scriptural teaching of no remarriage after divorce.
He was a Greek scholar, yet his views were more
influenced by social concerns than careful exegesis of
relevant texts. Since Erasmus allowed people to see their
spouse as figuratively dead it is admitted that many
today do not strictly follow his exegesis but only his
conclusions. Most Christians today do not know this
interpretation follows the tradition of Erasmus. The
term “Erasmian” will be used to refer to those
who allow remarriage after divorce because of adultery or
desertion. It is not a derogatory term but one of
convenience. Martin Luther (1483-1546) sought reform of
indulgences in the Roman Catholic Church. When
Luther broke from the Church, Erasmus opposed this move.
Nevertheless, Erasmus’ ideas were latched onto by
the Reformers. Luther believed that the innocent
party of an adulterous situation could divorce and
remarry. He taught that since the Old Testament
legislated the death penalty for adultery, the adulterous
spouse should be looked upon as figuratively dead. This
type of legal fiction now allowed the
‘innocent’ spouse the right to remarry. Luther
also allowed divorce and remarriage for impotence,
refusal of conjugal rights, desertion, and ignorance of a
previously contracted marriage. Perhaps his true
views can be seen in how he actually applied the
doctrine. Philip of Hesse was a supporter of Martin
Luther. In 1540 Philip married Margaret Von Der
Saale. Philip of Hesse was already married and had
not even legally divorced his first wife. Luther
did not confront this situation but simply urged the
matter be kept secret. John Calvin (1509-64) took a more
conservative approach to divorce and remarriage while
still retaining some liberal conclusions. He
rightly understood Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to only be a
restraint upon a second remarriage. He did not see
this passage as teaching approval of divorce and
remarriage by God. Calvin did resort to legal
fiction in allowing the innocent partner in the case of
adultery to consider his or her spouse figuratively dead.
He allowed the deserted partner to remarry by way of
assumption that the deserter would enter into another
conjugal relationship. In 1643 John Milton taught that Christ did
not condemn divorce and remarriage, but only the injury
they caused. He believed a couple could divorce for
almost any reason, including mutual consent. He was
thought of as radical and heretical for this view. His
view comes closest to what is practiced by some
Evangelicals today. In 1648 the views of the Reformers were
canonized into Protestant law in the Westminster
Confession. One man who influenced the acceptance
of divorce and remarriage in the Westminster
Confession was most likely John Lightfoot, author of A
Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and
Hebraica. He mistakenly believed that
‘some indecency’ in Deuteronomy 24:1 referred
to adultery. This led him to the erroneous conclusion
that porneia in the Matthean exception clause was
a reference to adultery as justification for divorce and
remarriage. The Westminster Confession in Chapter
24 states: Section V - Adultery or
fornication committed after a contract, being detected
before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent
party to dissolve that contract [Matt. 1:18-20]. In
the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the
innocent party to sue out a divorce [Matt. 5:32], and
after the divorce to marry another, as if the
offending party were dead [Matt. 19:9; Rom. 7:2-3. italics
mine]. Section VI - 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 willful
desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church or
civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the
bond of marriage [Matt. 19:8-9; 1 Cor. 7:15; Matt. 19:6];
where in 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 [Deut.
24:1-4]. Although the leaders of the Reformation
sought to allow divorce and remarriage for cases of
adultery and desertion the acceptance of such teaching
was limited. Even among Lutherans and Presbyterians
divorce and remarriage was not widely practiced. The
Anglican Church and some eastern Christian groups held
firm and refused to accept the practice of divorce and
remarriage. Many Anabaptist groups rejected the
Erasmian interpretation altogether. In practice it was
not until the 1960’s that western evangelical
Christians began accepting divorce and remarriage in a
broad measure. In the 1960’s and 1970’s
numerous evangelical doctrinal statements began to change
to allow for remarriage after divorce. In the last
fifty years the evangelical church has become greatly
influenced by secular culture and accepted the widespread
practice of divorce and remarriage for almost any reason.
In many Eastern churches the practice of allowing divorce
and remarriage comes mainly from the influence of
missionaries from the West. In the western
Evangelical church the current majority position is that
a person may divorce and remarry once but any subsequent
divorces are considered suspect. This shows the
weakness of the position. If divorce and remarriage
is allowed (sometimes encouraged) it should not matter
how many marriages a person contracts. The
Scriptures teach that a person may abstain from marriage
or have one marriage during the life of their spouse.
Anything beyond this is considered adultery. Summary The early Christian writers had a virtual
consensus in saying that remarriage after divorce, for
any reason, was adultery. The western Church held
to a no remarriage view until the 16th
century. At this point Erasmus taught a divorced
person may remarry, not by exegesis of the
‘exception clause’ but by interpretive legal
fiction based on Old Testament law. The Reformers
latched onto this view and canonized it in the
Westminster Confession. It has held sway over much
of the Protestant Church ever since. The Reformation was an attempt to return the
church to first century beliefs and practices. The
Reformers held the early Christian writers in high
esteem. Calvin in his opening address to Francis,
the King of France, stated: So far are we from despising them, that if
this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble
to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now
hold are their suffrages.1 In some ways the Reformers returned to the
faith and practices of the first century church.
Concerning the issue of divorce and remarriage the
evidence shows the Reformers failed. Tony Lane, a
lecturer at London Bible College, shows how a historical
understanding may help one to think through the issues: If Jesus did allow remarriage, presumably it
happened. How did it cease to happen, despite the
fact that this teaching was known, leaving no trace
either of a period when it happened or any controversy.
Such a theory is no more plausible than a theory that the
“Lord’s day” was originally on a Friday
and that it changed to Sunday without leaving any trace
of the change and without any controversy over the
change.2 Those who allow for remarriage after divorce
should remember two things. First, the Reformers
allowed for remarriage based upon interpretive legal
fiction. Few seem to be willing to do this today.
Second, the arguments presented today concerning the
‘exception clause’ are recent and were
not used by early Christian writers or the Reformers. Modern day Erasmian interpreters believe
that the early church was out of touch with the teachings
of Jesus regarding divorce and remarriage. They
claim that the early Christians were unduly influenced by
asceticism which led them to incorrect conclusions
regarding the permanence of marriage. It is more
probable that both those who practice and those who
justify divorce and remarriage in the modern evangelical
church have come to incorrect conclusions regarding the
permanence of marriage because they are unduly influenced
by modern culture.
1 John Calvin,
Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 10. 2
Tony Lane, May a Divorced Person Remarry, p. 4. |