The Church Fathers had high regard for the sanctity of marriage because of its symbolic correlation to Christ’s relationship with the Church. Today the Orthodox Church combines the ideal of a high view of marriage with a sensitivity to the unique situations individuals and couples find themselves in.
Their devotion to marriage
Two votes at the Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) underscored the Church Fathers’ devotion to marriage. The first vote maintained clerical marriage relationships(1), and the second defended surviving spouses’ remarriage. Though the latter was a clear indication of their esteem for the institution, in that they provided for widows and widowers who yearned for a new mate, it was actually a moderating vote. So high was the Church’s regard for a couple’s original vows that such prominent figures as Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras argued that the bond outlasted death itself(2). In the end, their structure was not adopted(3), but the very fact of its consideration showed the group was quite serious about marital vows. As one patristic scholar, Willy Rordorf, put it, “Concerning the conception of marriage as a total union of the couple implying a fidelity without reserve, there is unanimous agreement between the New Testament and the Early Church.”(4)
It may seem strange that the Council of Nicaea, known for affirming the divinity of Christ, also dealt with such matters. But, this is not so surprising given the context. According to Roman law (which applied throughout the empire) marriage was a private contract like any other contract - dissolvable by one or both parties. “Consequently, divorce was not difficult to obtain.”(5) So Church leaders took a counter-culture stance, at odds even with practice within their congregations. When Chrysostom preached on divorce, he noted that some members of his congregation “hung their heads in shame,” and Ambrose found it necessary to instruct his readers not to make use of the government’s divorce laws(6). In fact (and likely with the empire’s toleration in mind), the Fathers were steadfast in their defence of marriage, which they saw both as a sacrament (symbolic of Christ’s relationship with the Church) and as a means of witnessing to God’s steadfast love for humanity.
To remarry or not to remarry
The Fathers did disagree on the implications of adultery for remarriage and wrestled over interpretation of Matthew 19:9—“whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (ESV). Some, such as Augustine, prohibited remarriage under any circumstances, and others, such as Chrysostom, allowed for it when a spouse was the victim of adultery(7). The Shepherd of Hermas took the stricter stance: If a husband finds that his wife has committed adultery and she is unrepentant, he must “dismiss her” and not remarry(8). But Tertullian claimed exceptions: “Permanent is the marriage which is not rightly dissolved; to marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery... Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.”(9) In granting the marriage bond could be “rightly dissolved,” Tertullian suggested “the correlative right to remarry.”(10)
Of course, this disagreement mirrors contemporary debates within some parts of the Christian Church. Not surprisingly, those who reject remarriage—without exception—will point to the early Church’s strong defense of marriage(11). But defenders of a biblical permission to remarry—under certain circumstances—caution us that the Fathers did not speak with one voice on this issue(12).
How then are the Fathers to be understood? At the very least, they were staunch advocates of marriage in a civil society and culture in which the covenant of marriage could sometimes be seen as a little more than another legal contract—not unlike today. The early Church grappled with the biblical text, applying it to every aspect of their lives—from their doctrine of Christ to their doctrine of marriage. Since we live in a culture willing to throw out marriage, embrace divorce, and assume remarriage—in all circumstances—the Fathers may be worth another look.
The Orthodox Position
The Orthodox Church does allow divorce and remarriage in some circumstances. It is an acknowledgement and allowance for human weakness and not something that the Church accepts lightly, because of it’s high view of the sanctity of marriage.
1 Socrates, Church History from A.D. 305 – 439, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 2, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983), 18. In other translations see Church History from A.D. 305 – 439, Book 1, Chapter 11. 2 As Athenagoras expressed his conviction, “For whosoever separates himself from his first wife, even though she be dead, is a somewhat disguised adulterer.” Quoted by J. P. Arendzen, “Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce,” The Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919), 231-232. 3 Pat Edwin Harrell, Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church: A History of Divorce and Remarriage in the Ante-Nicene Church (Austin, TX: R. B. Sweet Company, 1967), 170-171. 4 Willy Rordorf, “Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 20, no. 2 (October, 1969), 203. 5 Harrell, 173. The proscriptions against singleness, of course, were seen in light of the “sacred duty” of both Roman men and women to procreate, producing citizens for the empire. 6 Ibid., 174. Harrell noted that though Chrysostom and Ambrose ministered after Nicaea, what was true for them was likely true before their time as well. 7 Rodorf, 204. Rordorf also points to Augustine as objecting to remarriage under all circumstances. For those Fathers who allowed remarriage in the case of adultery, Rordorf cites Origen, Basil, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Lactantius, Jerome, Pollentius (adversary of Augustine), and Ambrosiaster. 8 Quoted by J. P. Arendzen, “Ante-Nicene Interpretations of the Sayings on Divorce,” The Journal of Theological Studies 20 (1919), 230. 9 Tertullian, Anti- Marcion, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986), 405. In other translations, see Against Marcion, Book 4, Chapter 34. Italics added. 10 Harrell, 179. Harrell quotes from the same text of Tertullian. Though Harrell never explicitly states that Tertullian never mentions remarriage, Harrell is right to argue that “[t]he entire tenor of this passage is to suggest that divorce and remarriage are possible under proper conditions. These words of Tertullian provide an extreme difficulty for those who are committed to maintaining the impossibility of divorce with the correlative right to remarry.” Ibid. 11 For example, see William A. Heth, “The Changing Basis for Permitting Remarriage after Divorce for Adultery: The Influence of R. H. Charles,” Trinity Journal 11 (1990), 147: “For the first five centuries of the church the early Christian writers did not interpret the ‘divorce’ for immorality found in Matt 19:9 as one that dissolved the marriage.” 12 Craig L. Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19:3-12,” Trinity Journal 11 (1990), 180.