How Adultery is Disguised as ''Remarriage'' Part Two
Contents:
I. Introduction:
II. Church Fathers on ''Remarriage''
III. Medieval Theologians on ''Remarriage''
IV. The Reformation and ''Remarriage''
V. The Modern Church and ''Remarriage
I. Introduction
In the previous post, I demonstrated that Scripture condemns those living in ''remarriage'' as adulterers (unless they remarry after the true spouse dies). In this post, I will further prove my point by appealing to church history. Indeed, it is my intent here to show that the ancient church did not recognize ''remarriage'' as a valid marriage in the centuries following the composition of the New Testament. Additionally, near the end of this post, I will discuss how historically, Evangelicalism has come to embrace the sin of adultery.
The previous post was written first to simply argue against ''remarriage'' from Scripture alone. I appealed only to Scripture so as to prove that the Evangelical view is not simply wrong because the Roman Catholic Church says so...and to give them no reason to argue at all. Now, though, I am to demonstrate that everything I argued Scripturally was the historical teaching of the church for most of church history.
II. Church Fathers and ''Remarriage''
The church fathers were clear about their disapproval and rejection of ''remarriage.'' I am not going to make an exhaustive list of quotes from them to prove this. Below, are several quotations from the ancient fathers:
''What then shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this disposition [adultery]? Let him divorce her, and let the husband remain single. But if he divorce his wife and marry another, he too commits adultery” (The Shepherd 4:1:6 [A.D. 80]).''
-Hermas
''No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife but do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another.''
-Ambrose of Milan, Abraham 1: 7: 59 [A. D. 387].
“In marriage, however, let the blessings of marriage be loved: offspring, fidelity, and the sacramental bond. Offspring, not so much because it may be born, but because it can be reborn; for it is born to punishment unless it be reborn to life. Fidelity, but not such as even the unbelievers have among themselves, ardent as they are for the flesh. . . . The sacramental bond, which they lose neither through separation nor through adultery, this the spouses should guard chastely and harmoniously” (ibid., 1:17:19). -Augustine of Hippo
There are no examples of prominent church fathers (if any at all) who believed that a Christian can ''remarry'' and live in the sin of adultery and still go to Heaven. Is one so arrogant to assert that all of these fathers, who lived closest to the compiling of the New Testament canon, were wrong?
III. Medieval Theologians and ''Remarriage''
The Medieval Roman Catholic Church was faithful to the teachings of Scripture in condemning both divorce and ''remarriage.'' Aquinas (thirteenth century) and others, understood marriage to be lifelong between one man and one woman.
Specifically on the issue of divorce, Aquinas believed that the faithful spouse could divorce the other guilty of adultery, but he believed that neither could remarry*5. His view was widely accepted by many in the Catholic Church.
After the so-called Great Schism of 1054 (a date of much dispute), the Orthodox Church continued to have a very conservative view on the issue of marriage. The legality of divorce and ''remarriage'' were still rare. According to Roman Catholic theologian, Taylor Marshall, after 1054, the Orthodox Church only allowed the wife to remarry if her husband committed adultery on her*2. He, however, was forbidden from ''remarriage'' as he was sinful as the one condemned by Christ in Matthew 19. Thus, only the spouse who was done wrong had the right to ''remarry'' (which was forbidden in Roman Catholicism).
While some Roman Catholics have criticized the Orthodox Church's canonical change on the issue at this time, the Orthodox Church never embraced the idea that one can live in divorce and ''remarriage'' as essentially the majority of American Evangelicals do.
IV. The Reformation and ''Remarriage''
Martin Luther and John Calvin supported the right of divorce in the cases of abandonment of the unbeliever and the sin of adultery. However, they did not believe that people for any reason, are suddenly forgiven by God even if they live in ''remarriage'' (with the previously mentioned cases as exceptions to the rule).
In general, the Protestant Reformation was far more conservative on the issue of divorce and ''remarriage'' than many modern Evangelicals would perceive these topics in the middle of the twentieth century and later.
Historically, the Anglican Church was also very conservative on the issue. The Church of England, for instance, rarely granted annulments and it was hard for a married person to receive one. Henry VIII was exceptionally unusual for his time and did not represent the views of Edward VI and the English monarch who followed him. History also confirms that Henry claimed repentance on his deathbed and was reverent to the Mass*3*4. But regardless of Henry VIII's morality, the church leaders in England were under the king and had no authority to stop him. This does not mean that the Church of England ever approved of divorce and ''remarriage at this time, though in later years, they, along with Mainline Protestants and Evangelicals, would give into the pressures of culture and start redefining marriage as one ''marrying'' who has been divorced multiple times.
Ironically, while it makes sense that Roman Catholic critics of the Church of England claim that it was built as a denomination of Henry VIII, a major problem arises when Baptists criticize of Anglicanism make the same claim. If a Baptist truly believes that Anglicanism is built alone on Henry's desire for an annulment (a perspective that I don't agree with for too many reasons to mention in this post), then a Baptist would find problems with their own church, for the Baptists were a seventeenth movement out of the Church of England. Making this claim about the Anglican Church from a Baptist perspective would also imply that their church is built on adultery as the English Church was in communion with the Church of Rome until 1534 and the Baptist only became separated from Rome through the Anglican Church. This doesn't make either Henry VIII or the Anglican Church necessarily right, but it means the only reason that Baptists today are not Roman Catholic is because their Anglican ancestors broke from Rome. If the Baptists truly believe that the Anglican Church was built on divorce, then they should return to communion with Rome.
V. The Modern Church and ''Remarriage''
After the Protestant Reformation, most Protestants followed Luther and Calvin's thoughts about divorce and ''remarriage.'' Certainly, up until 1800, only the innocent party was allowed to divorce and remarry, according to most churches and Christian traditions*5. Everyone else was seen as living in adultery even if they said that they were now ''remarried'' after divorce. Eighteenth-century evangelist, John Wesley, dealt with the hard situation of his own wife leaving him, and yet, he never ''remarried'' but lived a committed life to preaching the gospel to others.
After the Enlightenment (1688-1789), however, modern society was increasingly moving away from Biblical Christianity. In France, many now saw the state as replacing the old role of the church (and even God Himself). England was greatly impacted by the growing popularity of Darwinianism in the mid-nineteenth century. All of these movements contributed to Western Civilization becoming greatly secular. Later, in the 1950s and 1960s, things only got worse. The sexual revolution contributed to the mass divorce and ''remarriage'' in many American Churches. Before 1900, there were no such as certificates of ''marriage'' from the government. Historically, one's rights for marriage and annulments came through the church itself. By 2015, homosexual marriage became legalized across the United States by the decision of several liberal judicial activists on the Supreme Court.
Sin, in this case, the sin of adultery, serves as a domino effect. When society accepted divorce and ''remarriage'', fornication between straight people, and eventually, homosexuality among gays became embraced by many in the Western world. The historical domino effect of divorce and ''remarriage'' leading to homosexuality, is further evidence that if one wants to see homosexuality end, one should conclude that churches need to instruct all that divorce and ''remarriage'' run contrary to God's design, are the beginning of many great spiritual plagues, and have robbed churches of holiness.
VI. Conclusion
Today, the Anglican Church of England accepts both divorce and ''remarriage.'' So do many in the Southern Baptist denomination. Eastern Orthodox disprove of divorce and ''remarriage'' but still allow cases for one person or so up to three times. Mainline Protestants, meanwhile, typically bless homosexual ''marriage'' now as well.
Of all the major Christian traditions, the Roman Catholic Church has so far been the most consistent with both Scripture and history on this issue. While it is hard to say what the future will hold, two thousand years of orthodoxy on marriage, is something to respect.
But even if the Roman Catholic Church suddenly changed tomorrow, Jesus's teachings on this subject are clear and that is enough.
If one is to simply appeal to their Evangelical leaders as their authority in morals, they need to examine more of the history of their denominations.
The same Southern Baptist Convention that defended abortion in the 1970s is the same denomination full of adulters calling their current ''marriage'' ''remarriage.''
And it was just abortion which many Southern Baptists defended in the 1970s. Until at least the 1990s, many Southern Baptist theologians (such as those at Southern Seminary) denied Biblical inerrancy.
If one is to build their faith on the choice of Southern Baptists' acceptance of divorce and ''remarriage'', one may as well embrace abortion and the questioning of Biblical inerrancy, as these were the positions of many Southern Baptist theologians in the recent past.
Biblical theology, though, can't be based on what is popular in Evangelical circles (or any circles for that matter). Saying that you embrace divorce and ''remarriage'' because John Macarthur or somebody else does, means that you have now taken that person's opinion over Scripture and have made them your pope. I do find it ironic that many of the same Evangelicals who claim that the pope is not infallible, will follow their evangelical leaders like sheep (even if those evangelical leaders openly contradict the Scriptures).
Many Evangelicals claim to be conservative, but what is a conservative? Is one conservative who says that marriage can end if a secular court says that it can end? Is one truly conservative if one openly embraces those living in adultery? One has no right to claim to be conservative if the individual condemns fornication and homosexuality but embraces the sin of adultery.
Just as many Southern Baptists now oppose abortion, many of them need to awaken to the sin of adultery that is in many of their congregations. I pray that this post illuminates the Evangelical Christian to seeing the historical teaching of the Christian church on the sin of adultery.
Notes:
*1-https://taylormarshall.com/2017/01/eastern-orthodox-divorce-remarriage.html
*3-https://www.mentalfloss.com/posts/did-henry-viii-regret-executing-anne-boleyn
*4-https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/1933/07/catholic-annulment-vs.-protestant-divorce-ii
It is sad how liberal the churches have become on this issue. Excellent article.
ReplyDelete