03.13. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CHURCH’S STANCE ON DIVORCE
HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CHURCH’S STANCE ON DIVORCE
We have examined what God teaches us in Scripture concerning the permanence of marriage. The principle of Scripture is that husband and wife are to cleave to one another for as many years as God gives them life; God has built into marriage no escape hatch. Only the God who joined a couple in marriage can dissolve the bond of marriage, and He does so by death. This is the principle understood by the early churches and upheld for many centuries. With rare exception, the church fathers of the early years of church history upheld the principle that marriage was for life, and hence there was no room for divorce. Despite more liberal practices in the world around them, the early Christian church upheld God’s ordinance.
During the thirteenth century, the Roman Catholic Church made marriage a sacrament. In so doing, the church also made divorce effectively impossible even in situations of adultery. During the fifteenth century there arose a man by the name of Desiderius Erasmus, a Dutch Humanist. Within the context of his time, he believed that though people are sinful they must be respected as rational, emotional beings who are capable of working things out in their own minds and hearts and coming to sound conclusions. With regards to marriage therefore, he claimed that because it would be too hard on people in a bad marriage to have to remain married, allowance ought to be made for divorce. Further, the person who has opted out of a bad marriage should be permitted to marry again. Erasmus claimed that he too could support his arguments on the basis of what is written in Matthew and Mark. The way in which Erasmus reasoned about marriage, i.e. from the perspective of people’s human and pastoral needs, became the way that some reformers also worked with marriage. Luther believed that divorce was wrong except in cases where there was adultery, desertion, or a withholding of conjugal rights. More reformers came up with a list of reasons that made divorce lawful. Though Calvin mentioned that adultery was the one legitimate ground for divorce, he in fact also came up with multiple reasons why one could divorce. At the time of the Reformation the whole matter was discussed at length; All frivolous grounds were discarded and just two were kept. These two reasons found their way into Article 24 of the Westminster Confession:
WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, Article 24
V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce, to marry another, as if the offending party were dead
VIAlthough 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 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. The Westminster Confession permits two, grounds for divorce: adultery and wilful desertion, the latter being based, incorrectly on 1 Corinthians 7:15. In Matthew and Mark we do read of divorce being permissible, but only on the grounds of adultery; adultery is the only ground Scripture gives. The Westminster Confession then goes a step further and confesses that it is lawful for the innocent party to remarry.
We can be thankful that such statements do not appear in our Confessions. In fact, there is no unanimous view or practice regarding the whole matter of divorce and remarriage in the history of our churches. This calls, firstly, for continual, prayerful study of what it is that God teaches in His Word in relation to marriage. Secondly, it calls for the due desire and humility to translate this into obedient action. The crucial point we do well to remember is that how we feel about things is not of primary importance - despite Erasmus’ example.