Argument regarding two issues: a) Whether marriage must always precede ordination; and b) Whether
Before we start extending discussion about above two above mentioned issues, we shall spend few paragraphs about biblical marriage or about the marriage in biblical times.
In Biblical times, marriages were commonly arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. The parents sometimes allowed their children to have a say in the choice, but frequently they did not (Genesis 21:21, 24:1-4, 38:6, Judges 14:1-2). Dating and courtship did not precede marriage. The negotiations by the parents resulted in a betrothal, a binding agreement pledging the bride and groom to marriage. Once the groom took the bride into his home, they were considered married. Typically, girls were betrothed shortly after puberty, and the marriage was consummated one year later.
Various ceremonies and feasts accompanied the wedding day at different times in history, but the wedding was not performed, sanctioned or blessed by religious officials. As far as is known, there was no exchange of marriage vows, and our commonly used marriage vows do not come from the Bible. The marriage was neither a civil nor a religious matter, but numerous religious obligations came as a result.
Marriage was instituted by God as a lifelong commitment (Genesis 2:23-24). In this passage we see that because Eve was taken out of Adam - and thus she is bone of his bones and flesh of his flesh - a man is to therefore leave his father and mother and to cleave to his woman. The result of this "cleaving" is that they "shall become one flesh." Being one flesh is an explanation of what cleaving is. What is this "cleaving" that makes a man and a woman one flesh? To cleave in a one-flesh union means to have sexual intercourse with. This is the passage in God's Word that defines marriage. This is God's Law - His explicit prescription for marriage. Its place as the definitive passage regarding the constitution of marriage is shown to be certain by the New Testament passages that refer to this passage (see Matthew 19:5; Matthew 19:3-9, 1 Timothy 4:1-5 1 Corinthians 6:16). There are so many examples of marriage in historical time, such as in
Genesis 16:2-4, Genesis 24:64-67, Genesis 29:16-30, Genesis 30:3-4, Genesis 30:9-10, Genesis 38:8, Malachi 2:13-16, Malachi 2:14 and etc. In Old Testament times, everyone was expected to be married and have children (Proverbs 18:22, Jeremiah 29:6).
Let us now look at what the New Testament says about what constitutes marriage.
"And the Pharisees came near to Him, tempting Him, and saying to Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife {lit. Woman} for every reason? But answering, He said to them, Have you not read that He who created [them] from the beginning created them male and female? And He said, For this reason a man shall leave father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife {lit. woman], and the two shall become one flesh. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate. They said to Him, Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away? He said to them, In view of your hardheartedness, Moses allowed you to put away your wives {lit. women}. But from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife {lit. woman}, if not for fornication, and shall marry another, [that one] commits adultery. And the one who marries her [who] was put away commits adultery" (Matthew 19:4-9).
The Pharisees asked Jesus if a man is allowed to put away his wife (literally, his woman) for every reason. Jesus then referred them to the definition of marriage in Genesis, prefaced by "have you not read," which is a rhetorical question meaning that it was obvious from the Old Testament. He then used the Greek word that is translated "cleave" in Genesis 2:24, stating that this cleaving, this joining, makes them "no longer two, but one flesh." He concluded that what God joined together in sexual intercourse (one flesh), a man is not to separate. After the question from the Pharisees about Moses's command to give a bill of divorce, Jesus said that any divorced person who marries (joins to, becomes one flesh with, has sexual intercourse with) another commits adultery, and any who marry (join to, become one flesh with, have sexual intercourse with) the divorced person commits adultery.
However, Jesus was unmarried and said remaining unmarried (celibacy) was a good choice for those who could accept that life and devote themselves to God (Matthew 19:10-12). The apostle Paul was also unmarried. He said remaining unmarried was a good and holy alternative, but it is better to marry than to be tempted into immorality by passion (1 Corinthians 7:8-9). Peter and many of the other apostles were married (Matthew 8:14, 1 Corinthians 9:5), so marriage is compatible with committed service to God.
The sin of divorce and remarriage can be forgiven, even if the former spouse is still alive. If the former spouse is still living, every effort should be made to reconcile the marriage before a second remarriage is in order. Yet sometimes marriages are irreconcilable because one spouse is rebellious against God and His Word.
When one spouse becomes rebellious against the Word of God and the marriage covenant then that spouse becomes as an unbeliever. God does not hold the believing spouse in bondage when the unbelieving spouse wishes to depart out of the relationship. If a spouse is physically abusive or displays violent and aggressive behavior against the other spouse then the couple must separate for a season. If the abusive spouse refuses to change his or her violent and aggressive behavior then a divorce may be in order.
God does hate divorce, yet sometimes people have no alternative. Sometimes the unbelieving spouse either wants a divorce or the unbelieving spouse is a false believer. Some who claim to be Christian are emotionally and physically abusive to their spouses. When a believing spouse is having marital difficulties he or she must get godly counsel. Each situation is different and must be counseled differently.
If the relationship is not glorifying God and there is no hope of change in site then the couple should separate for a season and seek counsel to reconcile the relationship. Much prayer and godly counsel must always precede divorce.
Although God hates divorce sometimes it is necessary: Both Ezra and Nehemiah commanded the Jews who had married pagan wives to divorce them (Ezra 10:2,3/Nehemiah 13:23-27).
Even God Himself divorced Israel:
“Then I (Jehovah God) saw that for all the causes for which backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce . . .“ (Jeremiah 3:8)
Although God hates divorce, He sometimes allows it. If the unbelieving spouse stands in the way of the believing spouse’s relationship with God it is usually best to let the unbeliever depart to live the sinful life he or she desires. If a believing spouse backslides then he or she also becomes as an unbeliever. A brother or sister is not under bondage to stay in a relationship which stands in the way of God’s will. If all efforts fail to bring peace between the two different lifestyles then “let the unbeliever depart.”
Some of God’s people can easily live by themselves for the rest of their lives but the great majority of Christians find it extremely difficult to live in a single and celibate state. Consider the words of the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:9:
“But if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” And again, “But if the unbeliever (the unbelieving husband or wife) departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.”
Now we can ask: is remarriage after divorce perpetual adultery?
“Whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery: and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)
The use of the Greek word “moicheia” for adultery rather than “porneia” brings light to this difficult passage. The use of the word “moicheia” for adultery focuses on the breaking of the marriage covenant rather than on the sexual immorality itself. When a formerly married man and woman come together in the sexual union of another marriage, they break the former marriage covenant and start a new one. The initial sin of adultery does not have to be a continuing state. If a person has repented of his or her past adultery the sin is completely forgiven. Like other sins, this sin can be washed away by the blood of Christ.
Jesus Himself recognized the Samaritan woman as having five husbands prior to her living in sin with a man outside of marriage. Yet Jesus also called this man a husband even though they were not legally married (in the eyes of the State). Hence, it is clear that sexual union makes a man and a woman “one flesh.”
“Jesus said to her, (the Samaritan woman) Go, call your husband, and come here. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said to her, You have well said, I have no husband, for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” (John 4:16-18)
It is highly unlikely that the Samaritan woman had been widowed five times. From this passage of scripture we can be certain that Jesus recognized each man she had married as a husband. Jesus also recognized the man she was living with as a husband even though they were not legally married in the eyes of the community. Wherefore, it is certain that God can recognize marriages after divorces. If not, Jesus would not have called these men “husbands.”
“For Herod himself had sent and laid hold of John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife; for he had married her. Because John had said to Herod, ‘It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.’” (Mark 6:17,18)
If remarriages could be forgiven then why did John the Baptist rebuke King Herod for divorcing his wife and marrying his brother Philip‘s wife? John rebuked Herod because of his complete disregard for the holy covenant of marriage. It appears that Herod divorced his wife and married his Brother Philip’s wife without ever seeking godly counsel and without ever trying to reconcile both his marriage and his Brother Philip’s marriage.
It is obvious that Herod used his position as King to do whatever he wanted with complete disregard to God’s Word. That is why John rebuked King Herod! Herod was sinful and unrepentant for his actions.
So now the debate is should all this apply to deacons and priests?
According to our faith, the blood of Jesus Christ has the power to cleanse from all sins except one - The Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. When we rightly divide the Word of Truth and balance the severity of God with His goodness, grace, and mercy, we all can have the opportunity to come boldly before the Throne of Grace to have all of our sins washed away by the blood of Christ.
How could our Loving Heavenly Father mandate that His people be tormented with passions for the rest of their lives that they cannot legally fulfill? For, “it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” When we put all of the scriptures together we find that God can and will allow divorced people to eventually remarry but each situation must be basked in much prayer and godly counsel. God can and does forgive the sin of divorce and will allow remarriage as long as the Christian believer is God fearing and it is certain that reconciliation with the former spouse is unlikely to ever occur.
In the Orthodox Church, Marriage and the goal to which it aspires are indissoluble until the end of the lives of the spouses. The indissolubility of the Mystery of Marriage was further sanctioned and strengthened by the Church, which considered it a great mystery of nature which, through Christianity, also acquired a religious character, symbolizing the union between Christ and the Church. Furthermore, legitimate Marriage, therefore, is dissolved only through death (Romans 7:1-3, 1 Corinthians 7:8-9, 7:39, 1 Timothy 5:14), or through an event which revokes the ecclesiastical significance of marriage, refutes its religious and moral foundation, and is in other words religious or moral death. In other words, Divorce is a simple recognition that the bond between married persons has already been broken. Then, married love and life loses its sacramental substance. Christ Himself taught in the New Testament about the indissolubility of Marriage and He prohibited divorce except in the case of adultery, as I mentioned earlier.
Nonetheless, the principle lying behind the attitude of the Church was to preserve the norm of a single Christian marriage. However, this principle was applied uncompromisingly only in the case of the clergy: ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood was strictly reserved to either celibates or men married once to a woman who had not been married before. Remarriage of widowed priests was excluded.
This legislation concerning the clergy is found in the Apostolic Canons, which originated as part of the Apostolic Constitutions, a large disciplinary collection adopted by the Church of Antioch in the 4th century. The Apostolic Canons (but not the Apostolic Constitutions as a whole) officially became a part of the Byzantine canonical corpus through a decision of the Council in Trullo (692).
"The man who has been married twice after baptism, or has had a concubine, cannot become a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or a member of the clergy altogether" (Apostolic canon 17).
So far I mentioned that divorce and second marriage was only tolerated for laymen and mentioned canon above excludes clergy from this toleration. But why? Why that is the deacon and/or priest are different men; (and in addition this extends to the clergy wife –Apostolic canon 18).
First of all, our Church does not recognize second marriages nor it is blessed. According to our Church teaching all above cannot relate to men who is going to be in charge of human souls, and who supposed be devoted only to bring them into the Kingdom of God. Therefore, only a firm and final decision for their married life (or celibacy) are admitted to the diaconate and the priesthood.
Apostolic canon 26 for example, restricted clergy in major orders to marry after ordination, which did not apply to minor orders. Few centuries later, in Council of Ancyra we find that deacons were allowed to marry (canon 10).
Why so much debate?
The answer is stability, which is the essential requirement for the clergy and this stability can be reached as husband and wife.
Is it possible, that just because I am seeking to have wife will make me unstable? Or perhaps, I will not devote all my energy to Church and souls that I am leading? My answer is no. In my case, there were so many times where I went far and beyond my family, so that I can accomplish Church task or activity; but certainly I could not do that without the help of my wife.
Being a wife of Subdeacon, she knows how serious and important vocation of marriage she is in. So many times I hear her saying to other clergy wives: I believe that the quality of the marriage directly affects the ability of the man to be a good priest, and I must say that I agree. As we all know every marriage takes work and nurturing, and a clergy marriage is no exception and majority of “presviteras” already have extremely high level of stress in their life, because of their public life and frequent demands of the church community on their husbands (in my case traveling with Bishop and Sunday school activities). What more to say, except for that, I could not accomplish many things without her in my ministry vocation. No matter what she is always by my side, just in case I need something? But if I chose celibacy, then I have no business in local parish, except to substitute the local parish priest while he is on vacation, or he is ill and etc., on Bishop’s order. Therefore, my life is at monastery.
Now imagine, me young widowed priest, with parish and two small children, dilemma is: leave the ministry and re-marry and/or try to convince my Bishop to allow me to get re-married and continue my ministry as priest.
As priest I know that our Church, as norm recognizes only one eternal union, so how can I even think to ask the Bishop for blessings for second marriage, when it is my duty to preach to others this norm? By having one marriage I am protecting scriptural, doctrinal and sacramental teaching, which I do agree 100%, but I believe that in personal tragedy, especially for young clergy man this should be re-visited, definitely. Is it better to marry then to burn (I Cor. 7:9); and furthermore in I Tim. 5:14 says that it is recommended for young widows to be married. All this led that Apostle was talking to those becoming the priest to have one wife. If my wife is deceased and I re-marry do I in the eyes of the Church have two wives? Not in my opinion. Therefore, I do agree with Holy Synod proposal to permit second marriage for widowed clergy, for the sake of the children, promoting family life, benefit of the Church, economy, burning and etc. This second marriage is not contrary at all to the spirit of the Church’s teaching.
In introduction and Analysis part of the book, we find the following statement:
“In both cases, the Congress decided that the ecclesiastical law in question did not involve a dogmatic teaching and that the Church had the authority to change its canonical regulations.”
And further:
“A consensus of opinion could permit a local autocephalous church acting on the advice of the competent bishop to take appropriate action in allowing such clerical marriage according to consideration of the circumstances involved, especially with regard to the harm or the benefit of the Church.”
Not allowing the second marriage, for divorced clergy is well explained by my Serbian Bishop Nikodim (Milas) from Dalmatia, prior to World War I, where in conclusion he finds that prohibition of clerical marriage is based on discipline and not dogma of the Church. Therefore, in my opinion discipline (canonical regulation) can be changed, “especially with regard to the harm or the benefit of the Church” and dogma (dogmatic teachings) not.