Erasmus:
His Disastrous Influence re: Marriage
On the one hand, Erasmus was plagued by the fear of being branded a heretic. On the other, he strongly wanted to expose superstition and error in the Church. His new friends, along with his parental memories and writing talent, gave him the boldness to express his new and revolutionary views on divorce and remarriage.
Erasmus' new ideas on divorce/remarriage caused him to be courted by rulers such as
Charles V and
Frances I of France, and
Henry VIII of England. Henry had special interest, since he wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon and then (re)marry
Ann Boleyn.
The vigorous work of Erasmus helped prepare the way for Luther's Reformation. But in spite of being a daring critic, Erasmus remained loyal to the Roman Catholic Church, rather than breaking with it, as Luther did.
The Church's View on Divorce and Remarriage
The Church had begun teaching that salvation was earned by observing the Seven Sacraments of:
- Baptism
- Confirmation
- Communion
- Confession
- Last Rites
- Holy Orders
- Marriage
In attacking the abuse of the doctrine of Sacramental Marriage, Erasmus also rejected the almost unanimous view of all the early Church fathers that there were no Scriptural grounds for divorce (and remarriage), and that if divorce should occur, there was postively no Scriptural basis for remarriage. (The only historical dissenter to this view was
Ambrosistar, a 4th cent. Latin writer.)
The Strict Church view on Divorce and Remarriage was very old.
Augustine (354-430 A.D.), believed in the absolute indissolubility of marriage. He emphasized that even an innocent party could not remarry if a divorce occurred because of adultery.
Augustine exalted marriage as a sacred institution, ordained by God and confirmed by Christ, which illustrated the unity of Christ with the Church as expressed by the Apostle Paul in
Eph. 5:31-32.
Thomas Aquinas (1222-1274) treated marriage as a church sacrament by which saving grace is transmitted to ones seeking salvation. Aquinas viewed marriage as equal to the other six sacraments, which he taught were instruments of God to dispense saving grace.
The
Council of Trent (1545-1563) confirmed this view as official Church doctrine. Both Erasmus and Luther reacted strongly to the idea that any sacrament could bring about salvation.
In spite of strong teaching on the permanence of marriage, many church goers in the days of Erasmus were dissolving their marriages through divorce. Church leaders differentiated between two types of divorce. The first type was a separation from bed and board. Augustine, Jerome, and other advocated this type.
The second type of divorce was an
Absolute Annulment of the marriage by insisting that the marriage had been unlawfully contracted at the outset. Those who wanted such an annulment would seek it from the Church and were obligated to pay whatever fee was demanded.
Erasmus' Changes to Divorce and Remarriage
The abuse of marriage together with the longing of many Church leaders and members for acceptance of divorce and remarriage prompted Erasmus to dilute the firm teachings of Scripture with humanistic philosophies.
Erasmus emphasized the idea that love should come before any law on marriage. He held the opinion that it was not a loving act to allow many thousands of couples to continue in an unhappy partnership. Thus he reasoned that if they could be allowed divorce and remarriage, many could be saved from unhappiness.
The humanistic premise of Erasmus was that love must at times be allowed to do what is legally forbidden, but seems justified in the situation. He argued that the Church should seek to deliver those in suffering marriages like Jesus sought the lost sheep.
The views of Erasmus on the
Sermon on the Mount are significant. He believed this Scripture (including
Matt. 5:31-32) was not spoken to the multitudes, but to the disciples, who were the purest part of Christ's Body.
THese were the ones whom he thought belonged to the Kingdom of Heaven, and thus, were able to live above the need to divorce.
Within the Church however, he thought there existed another group which
did have need of divorce, oath-taking, and the like. These, in his mind, were the imperfect ones who are found in large numbers and constitute the kingdom of the world. In this sphere, Erasmus concluded, it was not wrong to:
go to court (vs.
Matt. 18:15/
Luke 12:58),
take an oath (vs.
Matt. 5:34/
James 5:12), or
obtain a divorce (vs.
Matt. 19:9/
Mark 10:11).
Protestant Views
re: Divorce/Remarriage
The Reformers' View on Divorce and Remarriage
In their rush however, to free the people from the 'false doctrine' that sacraments (like marriage) provided grace for salvation, Luther and other Reformers also adopted Erasmus' views on divorce and remarriage!
Divorce for Adultery
Martin Luther based his reasoning on OT law which required adulterers to be stoned. He and other Reformers reasoned that even though the (current) civil government didn't carry out this sentence, the adulterer could still be considered 'dead' in the eyes of God. Hence, a spouse victimized by adultery would be free to remarry, as if their partner were dead!
Although a harsh judgment against the adulterer/adulteress, the net result was that more and more allowance was made to justify divorce and remarriage.
Divorce for Desertion
Again, if a man deserted his believing wife and children, he was to be considered no better than a Gentile (Barbarian) or unbeliever who deserved the same punishment as an adulterer.
Divorce for Disobediance
Finally, if a wife refused to submit to her husband, "then the husband should let a 'Vashti' go, and take an 'Esther', just like King Ahasuerus did." (see Story of Esther).
Divorce for Barrenness
Still another reason put forward (supposedly to protect the right of a Nobleman to heirs) was 'impotence'. A barren woman could then be put away, and another fertile woman put in her place.
Soon convenience and emotion had replaced reason and longstanding tradition regarding how to handle marriage difficulties.
Return to Top
Conclusion:
The Debasement of Marriage and Doctrine
As
Protestantism evolved further and further away from mainstream Christian values and principles, more and more reasons for divorce were added to the list. In the 1980s for instance, the list of legal reasons for divorce grew to this:
- Adultery
- Desertion
- Mental or extreme cruelty
- Physical Cruelty
- Impotence
- Nonsupport / Wilful Neglect
- Insanity
- Alcoholism
- Drug Addiction
- Conviction of a felony
- Living Apart
- transmission of a venereal disease
- Public Defamation
- Sodomy
- Child neglect or abuse
While all these reasons are severe, and each appears justified in proper circumstances, the fact is that many of these problems involve either gray areas or problems which could or should have a plausible (even if difficult) Christian solution beyond easy divorce. But this wide list itself was only a short stop-gap for a quickly deteriorating legal situation.
The question of who could petition for divorce, and whether it should be granted unilaterally, is also a difficult one. Prior to the 80s, the party petitioning had to be themselves innocent. by about 1985, most states in the USA allowed "no fault" divorce, with
no other reason needed than "irreconcilable differences". This effectively replaced the whole list above.
It can't be denied that with the new 'no fault' view of divorce/remarriage, it is much easier to disolve a marriage than at any previous time in Christian history. The net effect is to discourage partners from resolving differences, greatly increasing the number of divorces.
This sadly, is the final legacy of following
Erasmus and his humanistic philosophy down the path further and further away from the clear and plain teaching of
Jesus Himself.
Now Christians, living in a Sodom-like environment in their own countries, are quickly arriving at the foretold time in which a nation of adulterers and adulteresses (
James 4:4), will no longer endure sound doctrine (
2nd Tim. 4:3-4).
