Unpublished Letter to the English Churchman on Divorce and Remarriage
"What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder' ...
Dear Sir,
Re: Divorce and Remarriage in Holy Scripture and Tradition
This letter is not a condemnation of those who differ from the views of Mr. J. F. Burrows on divorce and remarriage but a humble and sincere plea that the Word of God on the issue be considered afresh.
The teaching of the Early (i.e. the first four centuries, incl. Eastern) and Medieval (i.e. pre-Reformation) Western Church are reflected in the consensus patri (viz. Church fathers) whereby marriage was regarded as an unbreakable or indissoluble bond (vinculum) which was broken or dissolved only upon the death of one spouse. The Early Church was virtually unanimous on this issue (with very few exceptions, contrary to the Catholic understanding of the teaching of Christ as handed down by the Apostles).
The Church of England maintained the 'indissolubist' view of marriage which was enshrined in canon 107 (The Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1603) and in that respect differed from the continental Reformed Churches and the majority of the Protestant Reformers; and legal separation a thoro et mensa (i.e. a 'divorce' NOT amounting to a right to remarry) remained its OFFICIAL position until only recently (i.e. 1970s). In response to Mr. Alan Bartley: Cases of nobility and the wealthy seeking full divorce (which is usually brought about by an Act of Parliament, e.g. the Lord Ross case, 1669) and opinions expressed by the laity do not alter that fact. Also, the apostate Roman Church did not depart from the Catholic view but reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent (1563), canon VII (24th session).
I would urge that the classical evangelical exegesis of Matthew 19 (i.e. the Christic as opposed to the rabbinical exposition) be re-examined. It is clear that DIVORCE (i.e. putting away) is only permitted on grounds of adultery (i.e. sexual sin on the part of the guilty spouse) in response to the Pharisaical (trap) question; and Christ immediately adds - in typical proleptic and terse manner in verse 9 - that REMARRIAGE on the part of the innocent spouse constitutes adultery and not just the person who marries the guilty spouse who has been divorced! The force of logic implicit in the 'exception clause' (of Matt. 19:9) is that the marriage bond is still intact. Cf. Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39 on the absolute prohibition of REMARRIAGE during the lifetime of the other spouse.
For Christians, marriage is mirrored in the love of Christ (the divine Bridegroom) for the Church, His Bride (Ephesians 5:23-33) which is ultimately grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations of the Being of God (i.e. the perichoresis or mutual indwelling between Father and Son with the Holy Spirit as the vinculum amoris, i.e. BOND of love as the 'archetypal' Covenant relationship.
Dear Sir,
Re: Divorce and Remarriage in Holy Scripture and Tradition
This letter is not a condemnation of those who differ from the views of Mr. J. F. Burrows on divorce and remarriage but a humble and sincere plea that the Word of God on the issue be considered afresh.
The teaching of the Early (i.e. the first four centuries, incl. Eastern) and Medieval (i.e. pre-Reformation) Western Church are reflected in the consensus patri (viz. Church fathers) whereby marriage was regarded as an unbreakable or indissoluble bond (vinculum) which was broken or dissolved only upon the death of one spouse. The Early Church was virtually unanimous on this issue (with very few exceptions, contrary to the Catholic understanding of the teaching of Christ as handed down by the Apostles).
The Church of England maintained the 'indissolubist' view of marriage which was enshrined in canon 107 (The Constitution and Canons Ecclesiastical, 1603) and in that respect differed from the continental Reformed Churches and the majority of the Protestant Reformers; and legal separation a thoro et mensa (i.e. a 'divorce' NOT amounting to a right to remarry) remained its OFFICIAL position until only recently (i.e. 1970s). In response to Mr. Alan Bartley: Cases of nobility and the wealthy seeking full divorce (which is usually brought about by an Act of Parliament, e.g. the Lord Ross case, 1669) and opinions expressed by the laity do not alter that fact. Also, the apostate Roman Church did not depart from the Catholic view but reaffirmed it at the Council of Trent (1563), canon VII (24th session).
I would urge that the classical evangelical exegesis of Matthew 19 (i.e. the Christic as opposed to the rabbinical exposition) be re-examined. It is clear that DIVORCE (i.e. putting away) is only permitted on grounds of adultery (i.e. sexual sin on the part of the guilty spouse) in response to the Pharisaical (trap) question; and Christ immediately adds - in typical proleptic and terse manner in verse 9 - that REMARRIAGE on the part of the innocent spouse constitutes adultery and not just the person who marries the guilty spouse who has been divorced! The force of logic implicit in the 'exception clause' (of Matt. 19:9) is that the marriage bond is still intact. Cf. Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, 1 Corinthians 7:39 on the absolute prohibition of REMARRIAGE during the lifetime of the other spouse.
For Christians, marriage is mirrored in the love of Christ (the divine Bridegroom) for the Church, His Bride (Ephesians 5:23-33) which is ultimately grounded in the intra-Trinitarian relations of the Being of God (i.e. the perichoresis or mutual indwelling between Father and Son with the Holy Spirit as the vinculum amoris, i.e. BOND of love as the 'archetypal' Covenant relationship.
Labels: Ecclesiology, Liturgical Theology, Sacramental Theology, Soteriology
posted by Augustinian Successor at
7:16 PM
5 Comments:
Fine article, Jason. Keep up the good work!
In Christ,
Rev. Angus Stewart
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church, Ballymena, N. Ireland
www.cprc.co.uk
For some time I've wondered if divorce is allowed only on the grounds of fornication (defined as sex when unmarried) rather than adultery (extra-marital sex). That is, if during the betrothal period, one of the promised partners is unfaithful (fornication in this case as differentiated from adultery), then the proposed union may be broken off and another spouse sought, much as Joseph at first assumed Mary had been unfaithful and intended to put her away before they had consummated their marriage.
Yes, I would agree with that view too. Porneia would be inclusive of pre-marital as well as post-marital sexual sins.
@Augustinian: what do you mean? Divorce (and/ or re-marriage) is then allowed? Let me know your thoughts, please sir.
Bryan,
Divorce is permissible if after the soleminisation of marriage has taken place, it was found that one of the spouses had actually fornicated before. I'm of the view, though, that remarriage is prohibited in this instance since the "exchange of vows" or the mutual consent or the betrothal conduct suffices to constitute the state of marriage itself. Whereas sexual intercourse is the consummation of marriage - an act which is considered the "highest" or rather the most intimate act *of* marriage.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home