Dissolution of Church Marriage #

Marriage was established by God at the creation of the first humans, Adam and Eve, even before their fall into sin. In marriage, man and woman become “one flesh” (Gen. 2:24), and therefore, according to God’s design for humanity, the dissolution of marriage is impossible and the marital union is indissoluble. However, after the fall, its consequences affected all aspects of human life, including family life. Unfortunately, the dissolution of marriages became an inescapable part of sinful mankind’s life, and in order to lessen its harm, there arose the need for legal regulation of divorces.

The Ideal of Marriage in the Old Testament

Despite occurrences of polygamy, monogamy is regarded as the norm in the Old Testament. Only such marriages are presented in Scripture as examples of a happy family life (Prov. 12:4; 19:4; 31:10ff; Ps. 127). Monogamy was considered most pleasing to God; therefore, the Old Testament priest was forbidden to marry a divorced woman or a widow (Lev. 21:7; 21:14).

The prophets Solomon, Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah symbolically compared the one and indissoluble marriage to the covenant between God and the Old Testament Church (Song of Songs; Isa. 62:4–5; Jer. 2:2). The prophet Hosea cites marital unfaithfulness as an image of human unfaithfulness to God (Hos. 1:11; 2:1–23).

Dissolution of Marriage in the Old Testament

Old Testament marriage was not sanctified by a religious rite and was not a church sacrament in the New Testament sense, though it was accompanied by elaborate Eastern ceremonies, a festive celebration (Matt. 25:1–13), blessings from relatives (Gen. 24:60) and from the community (Ruth 4:11–12). Primarily, Old Testament marriage was considered a property-legal covenant or agreement between two families. Although the Lord considered the dissolution of marriage to be evil (Mal. 2:13–16), the Mosaic Law permitted divorces as a concession to the hardness of heart of Old Testament people (Mark 10:2–9).¹ Divorce was forbidden in two cases: when the couple had premarital relations (Deut. 22:29) and when a man falsely accused his wife of not being a virgin after the wedding night (Deut. 22:19).

According to Old Testament law, the right to initiate divorce was generally given to the man: “When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her [Slavonic: ‘hath found in her a shameful thing’], then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife” (Deut. 24:1–2). The reason for the loss of the woman’s “favor” in the husband’s eyes is not clearly defined, allowing for arbitrary interpretation. In the time of Jesus Christ, men would divorce their wives “for every cause” (Matt. 19:3), that is, for any reason.² Nonetheless, the woman’s rights were in some measure protected by law. Upon divorce, the wife was to receive an official document from her husband—a bill of divorcement—that granted her the right to remarry.

A wife who was divorced by her husband had the right to marry again, but even if she divorced her second husband or he died, her first husband was no longer permitted to take her back. To him, she was considered defiled, and taking her back was called an “abomination before the Lord” (Deut. 24:3–4). This was meant to caution husbands against rashly dissolving marriage.³ The husband had to formally explain in an open hearing “before the elders of that city” (Deut. 22:18; Ruth 4:1–2, 11), in the presence of “all the people” and witnesses, why his wife had lost his “favor.” The prophet Jeremiah allegorically describes such a divorce proceeding, in which the wife’s adultery is cited as the grounds for dissolution, as an image of Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord (Jer. 2:9; 3:8). At the same time, it should be remembered that adultery according to the Mosaic Law was punishable by death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22), though the offended party could, in place of capital punishment, agree to monetary compensation (Prov. 6:35) and a subsequent divorce.

The Woman’s Position and Grounds for Divorce in the Old Testament

The woman occupied a subordinate position, and the Old Testament permitted polygamy. However, unlike the man, a woman did not have the right to divorce her husband “for every cause.” Nevertheless, she did possess certain rights and “was not to be deprived of food, clothing, and marital relations” (Ex. 21:10)—that is, the essential provisions ordinarily stipulated in a marriage contract. If these were withheld, the woman had the right to leave her husband, i.e., to dissolve the marriage, “freely, without payment” (Ex. 21:11).

In summary, the Old Testament allowed four reasons for divorce between spouses, all constituting a breach of the marriage covenant: adultery (“a shameful thing”), deprivation of food, clothing, and marital relations.

The Teaching of Jesus Christ on the Dissolution of Marriage

In the time leading up to the preaching of Jesus Christ, debates on divorce were ongoing among the Jewish scribes. Two differing opinions existed. The school of Rabbi Shammai permitted divorce on the grounds of the wife’s immoral conduct or marital unfaithfulness, but it had few followers. Jewish men much preferred the teaching of Rabbi Hillel’s school, which interpreted the Mosaic law’s phrase allowing a man to divorce his wife for “some indecency” as license to divorce her for any reason whatsoever—even something trivial like overcooked food.

It was this understanding of divorce that the Pharisees had in mind when they sought to tempt the Savior, asking Him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matt. 19:3). In essence, they were asking for His judgment on the dispute between the disciples of Hillel and Shammai. The Lord Jesus Christ reminded the questioning scribes that from the beginning, from the creation of the world and mankind, marriage was established by God as a mystical and indissoluble union of man and woman, in which “they are no more twain, but one flesh” (Gen. 1:27; 2:24; Matt. 19:6). The indissolubility of marriage is God’s original design for humanity. And in His preaching, Jesus Christ stood against the widespread practice of easily dissolving marriages, common among men of His time.

Divorce was permitted under the Mosaic law “for the hardness of [their] hearts,” but “from the beginning it was not so” (Matt. 19:8). Therefore, the now-customary dissolution of marriage for “every cause” is displeasing to God: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:4–8). “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18).

Nevertheless, the Savior did not reject the possibility of divorce entirely.

The Gospel also says: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Jesus Christ, as Lawgiver, confirmed that this was indeed the legitimate ground for divorce under the Mosaic law.⁴ There is no contradiction in Christ’s words. Divorce is impermissible for “any” insignificant reason, as had become customary among the Jews, but it is permitted “for the cause of fornication,” which in fact destroys the marital union.

It is important to note that adultery—marital unfaithfulness—is a graver sin than fornication, which refers to unlawful relations between unmarried people, because adultery defiles the family.

The Exalted Teaching of the New Testament on Marriage

The New Testament confirms the teaching of the Old Testament prophets that marriage is a mystical image of the union between the Church and God (Matt. 9:15; John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2). In the Book of Revelation, the Church is called “the wife, the bride of the Lamb” (Rev. 21:9; 19:7; 22:17). The Apostle Paul exhorts Christian husbands to love their wives “as Christ also loved the Church,” and wives to submit to their husbands in all things “as the Church is subject unto Christ” (Eph. 5:24–25). Christian families, in which husband and wife have become, according to the Lord’s word, “two in one flesh,” through the Eucharist are mystically united into the Body and Flesh of Christ. Therefore, Paul concludes his teaching on marriage with a statement about the Church: “This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the Church” (Eph. 5:24–32).

The Apostle Paul also confirms—and even intensifies—the prophetic affirmation that fornication is a betrayal of God. “Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid! What? know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (1 Cor. 6:15–17).

The Church’s Attitude Toward Marriage in the Early Church

In the Church of the New Testament, the ascetic ideal of celibacy and total devotion to the Lord was widespread. These sentiments intensified during the era of persecution, when the early Christians were animated by strong eschatological expectations and awaited the imminent Second Coming and “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1). “But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none” (1 Cor. 7:29), wrote the Apostle Paul. “I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife” (1 Cor. 7:32–33).

Celibacy and virginity, beginning with the apostolic age and continuing to our own time, are regarded by the Church as the most exalted condition, the ideal of Christian life.⁵ However, the celibate path is not for all Christians, but for those chosen, who, in the words of the Lord, “are able to receive it” (Matt. 19:12). “The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak” (Matt. 26:41). “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given” (Matt. 19:11). Therefore, Christ sanctified marriage by His presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee (John 2:1–11).⁶

The Apostle Paul also approved of Christian marriage: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Cor. 7:1–2). “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4). Moreover, Paul called those who forbid marriage “liars having their conscience seared” (1 Tim. 4:2–3) and considered such views to be among the signs of the end times.

The canons of the Church excommunicate those who “depart from marriage not for the sake of ascetic labor, but out of contempt”.⁷

The Early Christian Church Opposed Arbitrary Divorce

From the beginning, the early Christian Church had a negative attitude toward divorce. “Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed” (1 Cor. 7:27), wrote the Apostle Paul.

The early Christian Church, which arose after the apostolic preaching, was composed largely of Gentile converts. In the first centuries of Christianity, marriage and its dissolution were regulated not by the Church, but by the state, under Roman law—which was often hostile to Christianity and allowed for the easy dissolution of marriage by both men and women. In that period of the Roman Empire, marriage among free citizens was typically entered into through a simple voluntary agreement. Its dissolution could take place at the will of either the husband or the wife, or by mutual agreement. Divorce required only a verbal declaration before witnesses, a written agreement, or the actual cessation of cohabitation.⁸ “The dissolution of marriage was entirely subject to the will of the spouses. As soon as a husband or wife, for personal reasons, wished to break the marital bond, they would send—a husband to his wife, or a wife to her husband—a written declaration… the husband saying, ‘Wife, do as you wish,’ or the wife saying, ‘Husband, do as you wish,’ and with that the marriage was considered dissolved”.⁹

Amid the general moral decline of Roman society, such baseless divorces became a public scourge. “Cicero divorced Terentia despite her virtue, in order to pay off his debts. The great moralist Seneca was not immune to the prevailing weakness of the age. Paulus Aemilius, when asked why he was divorcing the intelligent and beautiful Papiria, replied: ‘My shoes are new, well made, and yet I must change them. No one knows where they pinch.’ Divorces were granted for all manner of reasons: enmity with the wife’s relatives, her old age, illness, faded beauty, and so on. Women were no less immoral than men”.¹⁰ This clashed with the Church’s teaching on marriage and “shook and even destroyed the entire evangelical order” of family life among believers. “Naturally, in such conditions of marital undiscipline, legally sanctioned and without legal punishment, a broad and unrestrained path was opened—one dangerously enticing for frail human nature. It is therefore understandable that Church authority had to energetically and insistently emphasize the sacred indissolubility of marital bonds, to guard Christians from being swept away by the libertinism of the world”.¹¹

The holy hierarchs of the Church did everything possible to prevent the collapse of the Christian family. “I do not wish to become hateful by my hand and my word confirming a divorce; it is better to be a mediator of union and friendship than of discord and rupture of life’s bonds,” wrote St. Gregory the Theologian.¹²

The prohibition of entering a second marriage was also seen as a measure to deter divorce and preserve families. Therefore, the Apostle Paul instructed his flock: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife” (1 Cor. 7:10).

Hermas, one of the Seventy Apostles, wrote that even if a man puts away his wife for adultery, he is not to remarry but “remain alone”.¹³

The teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine, wrote: “For it is guarded by Christ and the Church that a man, while living, can never be separated from his wife by any divorce,” not even for reasons such as infertility.¹⁴

Jerome of Stridon interpreted the Lord’s prohibition on divorce “except for fornication” as follows: “Wives are a great burden if they cannot be dismissed for any reason other than adultery. But what if a wife becomes a drunkard, or quick-tempered, or is of a wicked nature, or gluttonous, or restless, or quarrelsome, or foul-mouthed—must such a wife be endured? Whether we like it or not, she must be borne; for we were free, and voluntarily submitted to this bondage”.¹⁵

St. John Chrysostom, contrasting the ease of divorce under Roman law with the Gospel command, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matt. 19:6), in some of his writings expressed the view that marriage is indissoluble during the lifetime of both spouses. “Slaves may change living masters, but a wife may not change husbands while her husband lives—for that is adultery. Show me not the laws established by outsiders, which permit issuing a bill of release and divorcing. It is not by those laws that God will judge you on that day, but by those which He Himself has established…”.¹⁶

However, from other writings of St. John Chrysostom, it is clear that he did allow for divorce in the case of adultery. “This deliberate emphasis on one doctrinal aspect (the indissolubility of marriage) was shaped by the times and should not obscure the possibility of exceptions”.¹⁷

The 48th Apostolic Canon prescribes: “If any layman puts away his wife and takes another, or marries one put away by another: let him be excommunicated.” “This essentially repeats Christ’s command in Matt. 5:32, but the absence of the clause ‘except for the cause of fornication’ shows that even this canon must not be interpreted absolutely. Indeed, Zonaras, Aristen, and Balsamon interpreted it as referring to unlawful abandonment—without just cause”.¹⁸

Grounds for Divorce in the Early Church

Based on a one-sided interpretation of Christ’s and the Apostle Paul’s teachings on the indissolubility of marriage in the case of “any” arbitrary cause, the Roman Catholic Church later formulated an erroneous doctrine that a church marriage cannot be dissolved during the lifetime of the spouses and is annulled only by the death of one of them.¹⁹ However, the ancient undivided Church—both in the West and the East—recognized that under certain circumstances, divorce was possible. This teaching was preserved in the Orthodox Church. It is based on the words of the Savior in the Gospels (Matt. 5:32 and 19:9), which allow for divorce in the case of adultery, as well as on the saying from the Old Testament book of Proverbs: “He who casts off a good wife casts off good things; but he who keeps an adulteress is foolish and impure” (Prov. 18:23).²⁰

Although the Apostle Paul did not speak directly of the possibility of divorce, he confirmed that Christian marriage implies the fulfillment of conditions already established in the Old Testament: that husbands are to feed, clothe, and share marital love with their wives. “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it…” (Eph. 5:28–29). “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency” (1 Cor. 7:4–5).

Understanding marriage as the eternal union of two persons, the Orthodox Church recognizes that this union is, in effect, annulled by sin—namely, by marital infidelity and adultery. “Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid!… He which is joined to a harlot is one body” (1 Cor. 6:15), wrote the Apostle Paul.

The Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church on Divorce for Adultery

Many holy fathers, teachers of the Church, and Christian writers recognized adultery as grounds for divorce. Among those who addressed this were: the Apostle Hermas, Tertullian, Blessed Augustine of Hippo, Blessed Jerome of Stridon, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus, St. Theodoret of Cyrus, St. Asterius of Amasea, St. Hilary of Poitiers, and Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria.²¹

The Apostle Hermas (one of the Seventy): “As long as a man is unaware of his wife’s sin, he does not sin by living with her. But if he learns of her sin and she does not repent of her adultery, then the husband sins by remaining with her and becomes a participant in her adultery… Let the husband put her away and remain alone”.²²

Tertullian, Christian writer: “He (the Lord) completely forbade [taking another wife] after the adultery of the first wife. What then, Marcion, does the husband do if his wife commits adultery? Does he keep her? But, as you know, the Apostle Paul also does not permit making the members of Christ part of a harlot (cf. 1 Cor. 6:15–16). Therefore, the legitimacy of divorce has Christ as its guarantor… Apart from the cause of adultery, God does not separate what He has joined together; but in this case, the marriage is fully dissolved”.²³

Blessed Jerome of Stridon: “Let only the adultery of the wife outweigh a man’s affection for her. And when the wife divides one flesh into two and separates herself from her husband through adultery, then she should not be retained, lest the husband fall under the condemnation of Scripture: ‘He that keepeth an adulteress is foolish and impure’ (cf. Prov. 6:32–33). Therefore, wherever adultery is found—or even strongly suspected—the wife is to be released freely”.²⁴

Blessed Augustine, father of Western theology, acknowledged the possibility of divorce after adultery: “A man and a woman, bound by marital ties, continue to live inseparably until death, and the marriage is not to be dissolved except for the cause of adultery (Matt. 5:32).” At the same time, Augustine believed that even in the case of adultery, reconciliation and the preservation of the marriage were possible: “Between spouses who are alive, the bonds of marriage remain, and these bonds cannot be destroyed by separation or even by the attachment of one spouse to another person. The bonds of marriage remain legitimate even when one party has committed the sin of adultery, if the formal structure of the marriage is preserved”.²⁵

St. John Chrysostom also permitted divorce for the cause of adultery: “If the wife has committed adultery, the husband who puts her away is not condemned, for the marriage is already destroyed, and the two, by remaining together, are corrupted. She who has once committed adultery is not clean; and if he who joins himself to a harlot becomes one body with her (1 Cor. 6:16) and himself unclean, then by this both are deprived of purity… After adultery, the husband is no longer a husband”.²⁶

“How cruel and unjust is the man who puts away a chaste wife; but how senseless and inexcusable is he who keeps an adulteress (Prov. 18:23), for the one who hides his wife’s crime is already a patron of her licentiousness”.²⁷

St. Asterius of Amasea, contemporary of Chrysostom: “If someone brings forth a charge of adultery and relies on it as grounds for divorce, I shall immediately defend the wronged party and, preparing an accusation against the adulteress, shall stand not as her opponent but as the husband’s defender—praising the one who flees from the treacherous woman and breaks the bond by which he was joined to a viper or asp. To such a man, the Creator of all gives permission first, as truly offended and lawfully casting out the plague from his house and hearth. Marriage is entered into for two reasons: for love and for the begetting of children. Neither of these remains with adultery—for there is no love where affection has turned elsewhere, and the blessing of children is annulled when the offspring are confused”.²⁸

St. Epiphanius of Cyprus wrote: “He who cannot be content with one wife, if she dies or is separated [from her husband] for some reason—such as fornication, adultery, or some grave fault—and marries another woman, or a woman marries a second husband, is not condemned by the Divine Word nor excluded from the Church and life, but is tolerated out of condescension to human weakness—provided that one does not have two wives simultaneously”.²⁹

Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria stated: “The Creator of nature… forbids the dissolution of marriage, but He pointed to one reason for its termination that destroys the union at its very root. For He says: ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery’ (Matt. 5:32). Therefore, one must endure in a wife all unpleasant traits—if, for example, she is talkative, a drunkard, or quarrelsome—but once she openly disregards the laws of marriage and seeks another union, then it is commanded to dissolve the marriage”.³⁰

Euthymius Zigabenus taught that the Savior “commanded to put away only the unchaste or adulterous wife… because any other fault may be healed, but this one is incurable”.³¹

The distinguished theologian, canonist, and scholar Professor N.N. Glubokovsky summarized the patristic teaching on the permissibility of dissolving a Church marriage as follows:

“From all the compiled evidence, it follows that the canonical tradition unequivocally allowed divorce in the case of adultery and even permitted a new marriage for the innocent party—even when the separation had occurred for less weighty reasons. This confirms the thesis we have reached through exegetical analysis: that in the case of adultery, the marital bond is fully severed, freeing the innocent party to remarry. The reason lies in the fact that this offense completely destroys the essential elements of marriage and undermines its very foundation—as a sacramental union, a ‘small Church’ of two persons in which Christ dwells and in which His mutual love with the faithful is reflected. Therefore, adultery strikes at and destroys the root of marriage.

However, for an irrevocable dissolution of the marital bond, the mere occurrence of adultery is not sufficient… What is required is the hardened persistence of the adulterer in sin, a willful clinging to vice, and a refusal to seek reconciliation with the wronged spouse. Thus, the wronged party bears the responsibility of striving for reconciliation and restoring proper order. …But when both the Church authorities and the offended party have exhausted every means of admonishment, the innocent person is fully released from the former marital obligations and may enter into a new union”.³²

Second Marriage in the Early Church

The possibility of divorce is inherently linked with the possibility of entering into a second marriage after divorce for the innocent, wronged party. Therefore, we must also consider the early Church’s attitude toward the very possibility of a second marriage for Christians.

The Eastern Church understood marriage as an eternal union that would not cease even in the age to come: “Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away” (1 Cor. 13:8). Thus, one single marriage for life was—and remains—the ideal of the Church.

Christian priests were to be examples for all the faithful, and therefore monogamy was a strict requirement for them.³³ Consequently, in the early Church, some held the opinion that even for laypeople, second marriages were impermissible—even in the case of a spouse’s death. The Apostle Paul expressed this in some of his letters: “Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.” “The wife… if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:39–40).

It should also be noted that in the pagan Greco-Roman world, there existed an ideal of marital fidelity and dedication that extended even beyond a spouse’s death.³⁴ St. John Chrysostom, in his homily To a Young Widow: On Abstaining from a Second Marriage, also urged widows not to remarry. He was inspired by the example of his own Christian mother, Anthousa, who was widowed at twenty and never remarried, devoting her life to raising her son.³⁵

However, even in the apostolic era, the Apostle Paul recognized that such asceticism was not possible for all. “But the younger widows refuse” (1 Tim. 5:11), he wrote, acknowledging the temptations of such a condition. “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Cor. 7:8–9). “The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).

In the collection dating from the late 3rd to early 4th centuries known as the Apostolic Constitutions, it is said regarding “young widows who have lived but a short time with their husband”:
“Let it be permitted for young women, after the death of their first husband, to enter a second marriage, lest they fall into the reproach of the devil, into many snares, and into irrational and soul-harming passions, which draw down punishment more than forgiveness”.³⁶

The above-cited words of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 7:39) became the basis for the Church’s attitude toward the second marriage of widows and widowers—and later, of those divorced persons who were innocent in the dissolution of the marriage.

source