On the issue of marital divorce. [Rec. on:] Glubokovsky N.N. Divorce due to adultery and its consequences according to the teachings of Christ the Savior

The named study published this year by Prof. The St. Petersburg Theological Academy of N. N. Glubokovsky represents, in addition to theological and scientific, a deep vital interest, establishing a solid foundation for judgment on one of the confusing and complex, one might say “damned questions" of the day's anger. The thinking of modern humanity is hardly subject to such painful torment in any other area of life-troubling issues, as specifically on the issue of marriage bonds. To what extent are these bonds holy, strong, indissoluble? Is there any solid, undeniable reason for a spouse who has suffered a family shipwreck to break the bonds that bind him in order to experience happiness again in another marriage, or is there only one thing left for him - to give up on misfortune and live out his bitter life without a ray of hope for happiness? In response to these questions, the modern press and public opinion give answers and advice so sharply opposite that a person who decided to follow them would be faced with an endless process of wandering from opinion to opinion and one endlessly long torment of doubts...... An irreconcilable split of opinions arises already on the question of whether marriage is exclusively a phenomenon of the personal life of the spouses and, therefore, its fate depends only on their good will and circumstances, or whether it is a social institution and therefore the spouses, once they have entered into it, are already bound by the prescribed norms, against their will? And of course, to a certain extent, the speeches of those thinkers who stand up for personal freedom and, in the name of this freedom, demand that a person - a man and a woman - have complete freedom to have their likes and dislikes are right and very convincing. But no less, if not more right and convincing are the speeches of thinkers of the opposite camp, emphasizing the deepest significance of marriage as the foundation of a family, society, and state. Driven only by their sensual urge, fornicators and adulterers undermine the very roots of civilized society and, together with prostitution, which they breed, constitute such a terrifying social evil against which all means of struggle are permissible, inspired by the instinct of private self-defense and public protection. The opinions of lawyers and publicists of both camps are not so authoritative and influential that a person practically interested in the said issue can take to heart the discordant opinions they preach: for everyone practically interested in this issue there is another angle of view that is more understandable to him, namely the moral one - the voice of his own conscience, especially illuminated by the pure moral teaching of the Gospel. The Gospel contains the true teaching about marriage and no matter what the world says, shaken by the various changing teachings of its sages, a true Christian, relying on the divine commandment, remains firm, calm and unshakable, as if standing on an indestructible rock... Unfortunately, at the present time, in this regard, the matter is not without difficulties and the very Gospel commandments can be interpreted differently and, as reality shows, differently to the point of opposites. So, to answer the questions: can an innocent spouse whose previous marriage was destroyed by the infidelity of the other half enter into a new marriage or not? In well-known passages of the Gospel (Matthew 5:32 and 19:9), are we talking about formal divorce and its consequences, or only about arbitrary abandonment by one of the spouses of the other - on a whim, or with an adulterous purpose? – To these questions, which are the main points in the doctrine of divorce, one can currently hear answers that are different to the contrary. The study in question by Prof. N.N. Glubokovsky’s work is important because he comprehensively examines these issues with scientific thoroughness and gives a positive, categorical solution to them. Thus, having carefully reviewed the exegetical data, considerations and conclusions of the author regarding the Gospel expression: is the word adulterous (παρεχτὸς λογον πορνείας; μὴ ἐ πὶ πορνε ίᾳ; εί μ ὴ ἐ πὶ πορνε ίᾳ) 1, the reader, perhaps greatly alarmed by the misinterpretation of this expression by Count L. Tolstoy, makes a clear, firm and distinct conviction regarding the correctness of the following theses: 1. “According to the teachings of Christ the Savior, a fundamentally indissoluble marriage union can be broken by a husband through the fault of his wife’s adultery. 2. Divorce is complete and leaves the spouse free to enter into a new marriage, since he commits adultery in it only if there is a previous marital relationship, which is completely broken. 3. Given the perfect equality of men and women in Christianity, this restriction applies equally to both spouses” (p. 33). The author then confirms these main theses of his research with the authority of church tradition - patristic testimonies. He does not, however, undertake the task of collecting relevant evidence, but only presents a few experiences of the correct interpretation of patristic teaching on this issue and the elimination of exaggerations of Catholic interpretation. With all his attention he dwells on the sayings of St. Justin the Martyr, St. Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, St. John Chrysostom, Acterius of Amasia, etc., as well as the Western fathers: Jerome and Augustine, carefully notes the deviations from the correct exegesis of these testimonies, allowed by tendentious Catholic theologians, who found their place through imprudence and in our literature (pp. 34, 35, 37) on the subject of marriage. The general conclusion is that “with a noticeable disapproval of second marriages, the exegetical tradition of patristic authorities is silent about the further fate of the one who released and the one who released legally. However, here it is necessary to understand that she considers the new marriage shameful only because of the adultery that accompanies it, when the old one (i.e., the marriage) has not yet been destroyed and continues to be exclusively legal. This means that now everything depends on whether the divorce is complete, freeing the victim from any obligations to the traitor. But on this score, it is undeniable that - according to the paternal decision - πορνε ίᾳ severed the marriage bond completely, and did not simply weaken it." (p. 48). The author finally confirms his conclusion by reviewing the canonical decrees of the Eastern Church. So, adultery is the destruction of marriage and the basis for legal divorce, decisively and forever breaking the marriage bond. This provision logically leads to the legality of the innocent half entering into a new marriage. Hitherto the author has followed a mainly positive path, revealing the teachings of the saints. Scriptures and patristics. The second half of the study, under the heading: “criticisms and practical considerations,” is primarily polemical in nature: the author examines here the book of the Lichfield Dean G. M. Lukecock: the history of Jewish and Christian marriage in its relation to divorce and certain prohibited degrees of kinship “2. The named book of the English theologian solves the question considered by our author in a diametrically opposite way and, of course, the more interesting is his judgment about it. Paying a debt of respect to the completeness of the study and the solidity of the argumentation of his opponent, the author does not, however, find in it anything new and original in comparison with what has hitherto been preached in Protestant and Catholic exegetical literature on this issue. The center of gravity of Lukecock's book is the reconciliation of the differences between the sayings of the Lord in Matthew. 5:32; 19:9 and Mark. 10:11–12 and Luke. 16:18. Slavishly following Dallinger, Lucock accepts the theory of accommodation, according to which not only the doctrine of marriage as expounded by Matthew, but also the entire Sermon on the Mount of Christ is only a “faithful disclosure of the code of Moses.” “In the very expression one can hear the language of rabbinical casuistry, which decisively sanctioned the legality of divorce, as long as all the complex formalities regarding the “dissolute book” were strictly observed. The Savior actually notes that the law does not allow such licentiousness at all and allows termination solely because of a “disgraceful matter” (Deut. 24:1), but everything else is irrevocably dismissed as a human invention, morally intolerable. It is not surprising now that Mark and Luke did not convey this section in view of its uselessness for the pagans, and Matthew kept it because it was deeply significant for every Jew. After this, all difficulties are easily eliminated with a brief reference that the Discourse on the Mount was neither spoken nor written for Christians, since it was not with them” (p. 59). What exactly does this matter lead to in understanding the question that interests us? But here's what: "A Catholic Anglican claims - Gov. Prof. Glubokovsky - that in this place the restriction of Deut. 24:1, o debar ervach, is reproduced in its entirety. In his opinion, these terms indicate the impurity of a wife during her girlhood, when the marriage itself is fictitious. From this side, it is very pleasant for him that Matthew 5:32 is used πορνεία, and not μοιχεία, for it makes known carnal unchastity before marriage, and not during it, where the married woman enters into an illicit relationship with others. If so, concludes Luke, then we discover the explanation in a strictly Jewish custom, according to which the husband’s discovery of her premarital sin destroys the marriage. In general, the teaching of Christ rests on. ideal view of the primary marital union, which was undoubtedly indissoluble. As the true Restorer, He could only return to the ultimate source of all morality; It is natural that, having encountered the perverted practice of the Jews, He reveals that once the unity concluded by the marriage bond is not eliminated, and that, however, only separation is allowed under the condition that there was simply an outward appearance of marriage. This is where the betrothed woman, after the marriage ceremony, will find herself having lost her virginity even before. In this case, in the eyes of the Jews, strictly speaking, there was not so much a divorce as a declaration of the invalidity of marriage... This custom was based on a high and praiseworthy principle, and our Lord refers to it without any hesitation, at least before the people who adhered to it and attached value to it, because this single exception in no way subverts the original intention of God in establishing marriage. Thus, this is a feature of the “local color” of the Gospel of Matthew, and he alone carefully preserved it because of its purely Jewish coloring. But it had no application for other nations and did not find a place for itself in the pages of St. Mark and St. Luke." So, according to Lukecock, in the Gospel there is no thought about divorce due to the wife’s adultery: marriage, once properly consummated, is indissoluble. Having confirmed this thought in St.’s own exegesis. Scripture, Luke tries to justify it with patristic teaching (mainly of the Western Church) and subsequent church practice. But in itself, the interesting, even fascinating theory of Lucock, after the research of our author that precedes it and accompanied by the subtle and apt critical remarks of the latter, in reality turns out to be “a web not cunning and simple, woven more with the help of imagination” than an accurate presentation of the Gospel teaching (p. 62). In general, from reading the study in question, a very clear idea emerges of the extreme artificiality of the latest Catholic dogmatization. At times, the reader is even overcome by a sad mood from the thought that broad erudition and remarkable creative ability are sacrificed here not to the search for pure theological truth, but only to the justification of a very outdated confessional tradition. The sacrifice is sometimes quite heavy: deep linguistic research and considerations, minute and sometimes subtle analysis of texts not only of St. Scriptures, but the works of the Holy Fathers, witty constructions and combinations, and along with this, silencing of major historical facts is allowed; ignoring fairly well-known evidence... a very bold deletion of entire phrases (supposedly later glosses) from the original text... What is the result? Extensive scientific research is certain, but... requiring a very attentive, distrustful attitude towards oneself. A small study by Prof. N. N. Glubokovsky arouses special interest not only for its positive side, as it completely objectively illuminates the principles of the New Testament and the teaching of the Orthodox Church on marriage, but also for its polemical part, in which the author does not verbosely, but aptly and strongly points out the tendentious falsity in the studies of the latest Western theologians 3 on a subject of paramount vital importance. The names of Western scientists have not lost their charm for us to this day: the field of Theology is no exception. But if anywhere, then it is here that we should not be slaves, and sometimes be considered, and seriously at that. Why is this very clear and even understandable to many people: who doesn’t talk about this now? But how to do this and what is required for this? – A deep study of St. is required. Scripture and patristic literature in its best editions. Only a writer so armed can replant onto his native spiritual soil the works of Western science, cleared of thorns and thistles, of which quite a few grow, just as everywhere else. In the work under review, Prof. N.I. Glubokovsky, we meet an Orthodox theologian who introduces us to the latest word in Western theological science and at the same time, with all precision, points out the mistakes and shortcomings that were the result not of a lack of knowledge, but of a stubborn attachment to an old dogma. We sincerely welcome the present work of a talented Russian scientist with an expression of pleasant hope for the continuation of further works of his kind. “The History of Marriage Jewich and Christianity in relation to divorce and certain forbidden degrees” by Herbert Mortimer Luckock, Dean of Lichfield, London 1894. In addition to Lucock, the author introduces in his study an even more recent work on this subject by the Catholic scholar A. Cigoi: Die Unauflösbarkeit der christlichen Ehe und die Ehescheidung nach Schrift und Tradition. Eine historisch-kritische Erörterung von der apostolischen Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart von Dr. Aloys Cigoi, Professor der Theologie in Klagenfnrt. Paderborn. 1895. You might be interested in: