The Orthodox concession of divorce
and remarriage is also rooted in the teachings of Paul, which express the wish
and intention of the early Church to interpret, adapt and qualify the words of
Jesus to the contemporary cultural Jewish or pagan contexts. Reflecting on the
Orthodox practice of divorce and remarriage, Morini and Gallaro write that Paul
was the first to make recourse to oikonomia regarding matrimonial
matters, and hence presented us with a <<dual position>> on
marriage (E. Morini, <<Il matrimonios>>, 37). Indeed, Paul felt
that he could personally interpret and qualify the teaching of Jesus, on the
basis of his own apostolic authority (cf. 1Cor 1, 1; 5, 12, 7, 25, 40),
and eventually he introduced three qualifications to the principle of absolute
indissolubility (L’Huiller adds that <<Paul is aware as well that the
Lord’s commandment does not cover all the possible causes of separation, and he
finds himself called to give his own opinion as is clear from the expression he
uses: “lego ego, oukh ho Kyrios”>>. P. L’Huiller, <<The
Indissolubility>>, 201). . . . a second Pauline qualification to the
principle of indissolubility regards the separation of a wife. Contrary to the
practice of the early Church, Paul acknowledged – and according to Stylianopoulos,
<<reluctantly accepts>>--that a wife can separate from her husband:
<<a wife must not separate from her husband, but if she does she must
remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husbands>> (1Cor 7,
11). This passage shows that in the case of divorce, Paul is ready to accept
and adjust his position (T. Stylianopoulos, <<The Indissolubility>>
341-342). The possibility of separation outlined in this passage corroborates
the Eastern interpretation of the abovementioned Matthean-Marcan maxim (cf. Mk
10, 9; Mt 19, 6), namely, that marriage can be dissolved even
though it should not be.
A third qualification by Paul to
the principle of indissolubility concerns the parting of an unbelieving spouse
(72). In the First Letter to the Corinthians, the Apostle wrote:
<<if the unbeliever [spouse] leaves, let it be so. The brother or the
sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in
peace>> (1Cor 7, 15). This verse shows that Paul realise that
there exists a hierarchy of Christian values wherein faith in Christ, salvation
of souls, and a life of peace were more important than the indissolubility of
marriage. Indeed, he felt that by his own apostolic authority he could give
precedence to the privilege of faith and adapt the prohibition of divorce to a
new situation that Christians were facing (J. Kamas, The Separation, 28;
R.M. Wall, <<Divorce>>, 218; T. Stylianopoulos, <<The
Indissolubility>>, 342). The text preceding this verse (cf. 1Cor 7,
12-14) confirms that this concession was truly an exceptional adaptation to the
teaching of Jesus because Paul ordered that the separation should not be
initiated by the Christian spouse:
To the rest I say this (I, not the
Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to
live with him, he must not divorce her. And if a woman has a husband who is not
a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. For
the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the
unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise
your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. (Kevin Schembri, Oikonomia,
Divorce and Remarriage in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition [Kanonika 23;
Valore, Italy: Pontificio Instituto Orientale, 2017], 180, 182-83)
