Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church1

Willy Rordorf

doi:10.1017/S0022046900054646

Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church1

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2011

Willy Rordorf

Show author details

Willy Rordorf: Affiliation:
Professor of Patristics and Early Church History in the Theological Faculty of the University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Christian ethics is not a matter of fixed and unchangeable laws. If we are to study its history we must follow a story of development and trace the evidence of an evolution. This is not something that should shock us as though its development were something that puts in question its changeless value. On the contrary, its value is confirmed by its evolution, because Christian ethics is essentially dynamic. From this intrinsic dynamism we are constantly pushed forward. As Christians we live under one commandment, the commandment of love given by Jesus himself which is the centre of the dynamism. If Christian ethics becomes static, it contradicts its very nature. Far from being a tradition that is to be upheld from age to age, Christian ethics is the means of criticising the traditions of every age and a means of searching lines of development for the future.

Type: Articles
Information: The Journal of Ecclesiastical History , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , October 1969 , pp. 193 - 210

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022046900054646 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 193 note 2} There are, of course, a great number of studies on marriage in the New Testament. See the bibliographies in Baltensweiler, H., Die Ehe im Neuen Testament. Exegetische Untersuchung über Ehe, Ehelosigkeit und Ehescheidung, Zürich 1967Google Scholar; Schillebeeckx, E., Le mariage, Paris 1966, IGoogle Scholar; Christliche Ehe und getrennte Kirchen (Oekumenische Beihefte, 1), Freiburg/ Switzerland 1968, 96 f.; Greeven, H., Rattinger, J., Schnackenburg, R., Wendland, R. D., Theologie der Ehe, Göttingen 1969Google Scholar.

^{page 194 note 1} Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch, x.

^{page 194 note 2} Cf. Lk. xiv. 20; xx. 34–36; Mt. viii. 22 par.

^{page 194 note 3} Mt. xiii. 44 f.

^{page 194 note 4} Cf. H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 107.

^{page 194 note 5} Cf. Braun, H., Qumran und das Neue Testament, Tübingen 1966, ii. 292Google Scholar where the same difference is stated between Qumran and Paul: at Qumran, celibacy was required, for Jesus and Paul it was not obligatory.

^{page 194 note 6} Mk. ii. 19 par.; cf. Jn. ii. 1 ff.; xix. 34 ff.

^{page 195 note 1} Mt. xxii. 1–14 par.; xxv. 1–12; and especially Rev. xix. 7–9; xxi. 2, 9; xxii. 17; also xiv. 4.

^{page 195 note 2} Jn. iii. 29; II Cor. ii. 2.

^{page 195 note 3} See for instance Preisker, H., Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Berlin 1927, 123 ff.Google Scholar; Delling, G., Paulus' Stellung zu Frau und Ehe, Stuttgart 1931Google Scholar. Cf. the critique by H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 150 ff. and especially 167 ff.

^{page 195 note 4} H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 265 makes the following remark in this respect: ‘Es scheint, dass die Einschatzung der ehelos lebenden Gemeindeglieder in den protestantischen Kirchen einen untrüglichen Gradmesser darstellt für die Rolle, welche die Endzeit in unserm Glauben spielt’. Cf. also Thurian, M., Manage et célibat, Neuchâtel 1964Google Scholar.

^{page 195 note 5} E. Stauffer, in Theologisches Worterbuch zum Neuen Testament, i. 649 says justly: ‘Er (Jesus) weiss um das Recht, um den Sinn, um die Herrlichkeit der Ehe, wie er um die Herrlichkeit der Blumen weiss, die doch morgen vergehen’.

^{page 195 note 6} Mk. x. 6 ff.

^{page 196 note 1} There are Jewish parallels to this radical attitude: cf. H. Preisker, op. cit., 80; H. Braun, op. cit., 292.

^{page 196 note 2} A similar position is taken by Bornkamm, G., Geschichte und Glaube, Munich 1968, i. 56 ff.Google Scholar; Greeven, H., in Zeitschrift für evangelische Ethik, i (1957), 117Google Scholar.

^{page 196 note 3} Note that here the woman is placed on the same level as the man.

^{page 196 note 4} E. Schillebeeckx (op. cit., 151 ff.) gives a good summary of the different interpretations.

^{page 196 note 5} This is especially the case in the interpretation of porneia as meaning illicit marriages according to Lev. xviii (thus J. Bonsirven, H. Baltensweiler, P. Bonnard). But Mt. xix. reflects rather the discussion between Hillel and Shammai where porneia means ‘adultery’ in the traditional sense.

^{page 197 note 1} Cf. Dupont, J., Manage et divorce dans l'Evangile, Bruges 1959, 161–220Google Scholar; E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 159; Schnackenburg, R., Die sittliche Botsckqft des Neuen Testaments, 2nd ed.Munich 1962, 103 ffGoogle Scholar. See now also Leenhardt, F.J., in Revue de théol. et de philos, ci (1969), 31–40Google Scholar.

^{page 197 note 2} For the following, see H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 153 ff.; 191 ff.; also 197 ff.

^{page 197 note 3} I Cor. vii. 2, 5, 9; cf. vii. 36 ff.

^{page 197 note 4} I Cor. vii. 5 f.

^{page 197 note 5} I Cor. vii. 12 ff. St. Paul is, then, much more optimistic with regard to mixed marriage than post-exilic Judaism was: see especially the interpretation of I Cor. vii. 16 given by Jeremias, J., in Neutestamentliche Studien für Rudolf Bultmann, Tübingen 1954, 255–260Google Scholar. Cf. also I Peter iii. 1 f.

^{page 197 note 6} A similar, but extreme case, is described in I Cor. vi. 15 ff.: a Christian could marry a prostitute; but he has no right to have intercourse with her if she does not want to marry him. Cf. the interdiction of fornication in I Thess. iv. 3, 7.

^{page 197 note 7} Cf. Lk. xviii. 29 f. See H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 193.

^{page 198 note 1} I Cor. vii. 39 f.; vii. 8 f.; Rom. vii. 2–3. Remarriage is excluded for bishops, deacons and widows: I Tim. iii. 2, 12; v. 9; Titus i. 6.

^{page 198 note 2} I Cor. vii. 39; cf. II Cor. vi. 14 ff.

^{page 198 note 3} Cf. Weidinger, K., Die Haustafeln. Ein Stück urchristlicher Pardnese, Leipzig 1928Google Scholar, and Schroeder, D., Die Haustafeln des Neuen Testaments, Hamburg 1959Google Scholar.

^{page 198 note 4} Cf. Titus ii. 3–5; I Tim. ii. 9–10; I Clem. xxi. 7.

^{page 198 note 5} Col. iii. 18; Eph. v. 22, 24, 33; Titus ii, 5; I Tim. ii, 11; I Peter iii. 1, 5–6; I Clem. i. 3.

^{page 199 note 1} I Tim. ii. 11 ff. goes even further in saying that because the fall of man was caused by his wife, she must be submissive to her husband. This position is already taken by Jesus ben Sirach, xxv. 24, and Philo, De officiis mundi, § 165.

^{page 199 note 2} In his book Gospel and Law, 6th ed. Cambridge 1965.

^{page 199 note 3} There are, of course, few to say it frankly; one of them is E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 173 ff., especially 191.

^{page 200 note 1} I find that I cannot completely agree with the provocative interpretation of I Cor. vii. 39. given by von Allmen, J.-J., Maris et femmes d'aprh saint Paul, Neuchâtel 1951, 18 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 200 note 2} The same thing is to be said against the conception which tries to found the sacramentality of marriage on the task of mutual sanctification (Eph. v. 26 f.; I Cor. vii. 14, 16; cf. Reicke, B., in Novum Testamentum, i (1956), 21–34CrossRef Google Scholar; E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 163), as if this were a privilege of the Christian couple.

^{page 201 note 1} E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 191 says rightly: ‘La suprématie de l'homme ne doit pas être considérée ici comme une sorte de conclusion théologique tirée du mystère du Christ; cʼest plutôt cette suprématie, donnée à l'avance et généralement reçue dans les moeurs du temps, qui est mise en relation avec le Seigneur. La différence est énorme!’.

^{page 201 note 2} This maxim has no parallel in Jewish or pagan ethics; cf. Schrage, W., Die konkreten Einzelgebote in der paulinischen Paränese, Gütersloh 1961, 206 ff.Google Scholar; Greeven, H., in Z.E.E, i (1957), 122Google Scholar.

^{page 201 note 3} Cf., for instance, E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 129.

^{page 201 note 4} There are few monographs on marriage in the Early Church; see Preisker, H., Christentum und Ehe in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Berlin 1927Google Scholar; L. Godefroy, in Dictionnaire de thiologie catholique, ix. 2, 2077–2123. Some more specialised studies will be mentioned in the following pages.

^{page 201 note 5} See Kretschmar, G., ‘Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach dem Ursprung frühchristlicher Askese’, Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche, lxi (1964) 27–67Google Scholar; von Campenhausen, H., ‘Die Askese im Urchristentum’, in Tradition und Leben, Tübingen 1960, 114–56Google Scholar; Chadwick, H., art. ‘Encrateia’, in Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, v, 343–65Google Scholar; Vööbus, A., Celibacy a Requirement for Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church, Stockholm 1951Google Scholar.

^{page 202 note 1} Polycarp, Letter, v. 2; cf. I Clem, xxxv, 2.

^{page 202 note 2} Visio, ii. 2, 3; Mandatum, i. 2; Similitudo), v. 7, 1 ff.

^{page 202 note 3} viii. 4–5; xii; xiv–xv. 1; Eph. v is now used in order to prohibit marriage!

^{page 202 note 4} For instance Acta Pauli, v; xi.

^{page 202 note 5} For instance Acta Petri, xxxiii-xxxiv.

^{page 202 note 6} Acta Thomae, xiv f.

^{page 202 note 7} xiv; cxxiv; cf. Acta Joh., cxiii.

^{page 202 note 8} But see also Tatian, Acta Andreae, etc.

^{page 202 note 9} Cf. the hieros gamos of the disciples of the gnostic Marcus.

^{page 202 note 10} Cf. Carpocrates. There were Gnostic schools between those extremes: cf. Basilides and his disciples.

^{page 202 note 11} Already I Tim. iv. 3 f.; Dionysius of Corinth apud Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., iv. 23.7; Iren., Adv. Haer., i, 28; Clement of Alexandria, Strom., iii who gives us many details on the Christian Gnostics.

^{page 203 note 1} Clement, as we shall see, has a positive conception of marriage; but nevertheless he prefers celibacy.

^{page 203 note 2} On the celibate priesthood which develops slowly and in the West in a different way than in the East, see Hefele, C.-J.-Leclercq, H., Histoire des Conciles, ii. 2, Paris 1908, 1321–48Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 3} Hom., iii. 26, 68; v. 25; Epist. Clem, ad Jac., vii; Epiphanius, Adv. haer., xxx. 18. Cf. Schoeps, H., ‘Ehebewertung und Sexualmoral der späteren Judenchristen’, Studia Theologica, ii (1949–50), 99–101Google Scholar.

^{page 203 note 4} According to Epiphanius, Adv. Haer., xix. 1 f.

^{page 203 note 5} Ed. Funk, vi. 10. It is not possible to speak here of the special form of celibacy which is the ‘spiritual marriage’ and which flourished in the Early Church. See the bibliography in Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 3rd ed. vi. 361, and H. Baltensweiler, op. cit., 175 ff.

^{page 204 note 1} For instance Shepherd of Hennas, Mand., viii. 3; Aristides, Apol., xv. 4; Theophilus, Ad Autol., ii. 34; already I Cor. vi. 9; Mk. vii. 22 par.; Didache, ii, 2; iii. 3; Barnabas, xix. 4; Pliny, Ep., x. 96. Further texts where adultery is condemned: Hebr. xiii. 4; Justin Martyr, Apol., i. 15; Hippolytus, Ap. Trad., xv; Clement Alex., Strom., ii. 147; Lactantius, Div. Inst., vi. 23, 32 ff.

^{page 204 note 2} Cf. Pseudo-Clementine, Epist. ad Jac., vii. 8; Hom., iii. 68; Shepherd of Hermas, Mand., iv. 1.2; Origen, De orat., xxviii. 10; Tertullian, De pud., xii. 4 ff. (speaking on the Apostolic Decree; on the question of the ethical interpretation of the Apostolic Decree see Resch, G., Das Aposteldecret, Leipzig 1905Google Scholar).

^{page 204 note 3} Tertullian, De pud.; Hippolytus, Ref., x. 12; cf. Origen, De orat., xxviii. 10.

^{page 204 note 4} Cf. John viii, 1 ff.; Shepherd of Hermas, Mand., iv. 1.7–8; Callixtus, according to Tertullian and Hippolytus, loc. cit.; Clement of Alex., Strom., ii. 147.

^{page 204 note 5} Mand., iv. i, 4–8.

^{page 204 note 6} Apol., i. 15.5.

^{page 204 note 7} Suppl., xxxiii.

^{page 204 note 8} Strom., ii. 145.3; cf. iii. 47.2.

^{page 204 note 9} Lactantius, Div. Inst., vi. 23, 30 ff.

^{page 204 note 10} Can., 9–10.

^{page 204 note 11} Can., 10. Cf. Council of Carthage A.D. 407, Can. 8.

^{page 204 note 12} Cf. Origen, Comm. Matth., xiv. 23 f. (Origen is against remarriage); Basil, Ep. ad Amphiloc., i. 9 (but cf. ii. 48; Moralia, lxxiii); Epiphanius, Adv. haer., lix; John Chrysostom, Comm. Matth., Hom., xvii; and even in the West: Lactantius, Epitome, lxi; Jerome, Ep., lxxvii, 3 ff.; Pollentius, the adversary in Augustine, De conjugiis adulterinis (cf. De fide et operibus, xxxv); Ambrosiaster, Comm. in I Cor., vii. 10. See Rousseau, O., ‘Divorce et remariage. Orient et Occident’, Concilium, xxiv (1967), 107–25Google Scholar; Harrell, Pat E., Divorce and Remarriage in the Early Church, Austin, Texas 1967Google Scholar; Moingt, J., ‘Le divorce pour motif d'impudicité (Matthieu 5, 32; 19, 9)’, Recherches de science religieuse, lvi (1968), 337–84Google Scholar.

^{page 205 note 1} Cf. Shepherd of Hermas, Mand., iv. 4. 1–2; Clement of Alex., Strom., iii. 12.82.4–5; Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat., iv. 26; John Chrysostom, Ad viduam juniorem and Peri monandrias; etc.

^{page 205 note 2} But cf. Athenagoras, Suppl., xxxiii.

^{page 205 note 3} Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De monogamia.

^{page 205 note 4} Chap. xiv.

^{page 205 note 5} Chap. x.

^{page 205 note 6} Cf. Socrates Schol., Hist. Eccl., v. 22; Council of Nicaea, Can. 8.

^{page 205 note 7} Tertullian, De exhort, cast., vii; De monog., xi; Didascalia, ed. Funk, ii. 2; Augustine, De bono conjugali, xviii; Apostolic Church Order, xvi; xviii.

^{page 205 note 8} Especially Tertullian, Ad uxorem, ii; Cyprian, Testimonia, iii. 62; cf. Council of Elvira, Can., xvi-xviii. See Köhne, J., Die Ehen zwischen Christen und Heiden in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Paderborn 1931Google Scholar.

^{page 206 note 1} A good summary of marriage ethics in the ancient world is given by H. Preisker, op. cit., 13–99.

^{page 206 note 2} Athenagoras, Suppl., xxxiii; Aristides, Apol., xv; Justin Martyr, Apol., i. 14–15; Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Polycarp., v. a.

^{page 206 note 3} Paed., ii. 83, 90, 95, 105; Strom., ii. 137, 143.

^{page 206 note 4} Paed., ii. 99.2.

^{page 207 note 1} Strom., ii. 143.1–3.

^{page 207 note 2} Strom., ii. 102.1.

^{page 207 note 3} Strom., iii. 72.

^{page 207 note 4} Strom., iii. 79.5–7, especially vii. 70.7–8.

^{page 207 note 5} Strom., iii. 88.2, 108.1, iv. 126.1–2. Cf. Tertullian, Ad uxorem, ii. 8.6 ff.

^{page 207 note 6} Strom., iii. 68.1.

^{page 207 note 7} Paed., iii. chap. 11, et passim; cf. Tertullian, De cultu feminarum.

^{page 207 note 8} Paed., i. 4.

^{page 207 note 9} Strom., ii. 137.4, 140.2.

^{page 207 note 10} Paed., iii. 57.3–4.

^{page 208 note 1} Strom., iii. 108.1.

^{page 208 note 2} Cf. Leipoldt, J., Die Frau in der antiken Welt und im Urchristentum, Leipzig 1954Google Scholar.

^{page 208 note 3} For instance Musonius, Plutarch.

^{page 208 note 4} Cf. Casti comubii (Denzinger, 31st ed., 2228 ff.), and De finibus matrimonii (ibid. 2295).

^{page 208 note 5} Fortunately, there is a general consensus among protestants: see Grimm, R., Amour et Sexualité, Neuchâtel 1962Google Scholar; Th. Bovet, Ehekunde, Bern 1961–2; Barczay, G., Revolution der Moral?, Zürich 1967Google Scholar; Sex and Morality: a report presented to the British Council of Churches, London 1966Google Scholar; What the Bishops have said about Marriage, London 1968Google Scholar; etc.

^{page 208 note 6} See Gerest, R.-G., ‘Quand les Chrétiens ne se mariaient pas à l'Eglise’, Lumière et Vie, lxxxii (1967), 3–32Google Scholar; E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 207–331; Ritzer, K., Formen, Riten und religiöses Brauchtum der Eheschliessung in den christlichen Kirchen des ersten Jahrtausends, Münster 1962Google Scholar.

^{page 209 note 1} R.-C. Gerest, op. cit., 10.

^{page 209 note 2} Ad Polycarp., v. a.

^{page 209 note 3} Ad uxorem, ii. 8.

^{page 209 note 4} K. Ritzer, op. cit., 29 ff.; E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 219 ff.; R.-C. Gerest, op. cit., 29 ff.; J. Koehne, op. cit., 68 ff.

^{page 209 note 5} Clement of Alex., Paed., iii. 63.1 cannot be quoted here.

^{page 209 note 6} Sermo, 332.4.

^{page 209 note 7} P.G., li. 210; liv. 443.

^{page 209 note 8} P.L., xvii. 238.

^{page 209 note 9} Ambrose, Ep., xix; cf. Paulinus of Nola, Carmen, xxv; Pope Siricius, P.L., xiii. 1136.

^{page 209 note 10} Ed. Mohlberg, 1105 ff.; 1442 ff.

^{page 209 note 11} Gregory of Nazianzus, Epp., cxciii and ccxxxii; John Chrysostom, P.G., lxii. 546.

^{page 209 note 12} Cf. note 10, above; Nicolas I, P.L., cxix. 978.

^{page 209 note 13} Procheiros Norms, tit. 4.

^{page 209 note 14} In one domain, however, the Church was going farther than the civil laws: the Church recognised the validity of slave marriages; see R.-C. Gerest, op. cit., 24 ff.

^{page 210 note 1} Father Gerest, in his conclusion, arrives at this statement: ‘On étonnerait bien des gens en leur disant quʼun jour peut-être l'Eglise catholique déclarera que le “oui” de ses fidèles devant Monsieur le Maire suffit pour quʼils soient manés et sacramentellement manriés. Théologiquement, il nʼy a là rien d'impossible’.

^{page 210 note 2} Cf. Pereira, B. A., La doctrine du manage selon saint Augustin, Paris 1930Google Scholar; E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 249 ff.

^{page 210 note 3} Codex Justiniani, Dig. xvii. 30.

^{page 210 note 4} Cf. Ambrose, De inst. virg., vi; Basil, Ep., cxcix.

^{page 210 note 5} Cf. E. Schillebeeckx, op. cit., 253 ff, 266 ff. On the Eastern conception of the sacramentality of marriage see M. Jugie, in Dictionnaire de thiologie catholique, ix. 2.2317–31; Evdokimov, P., ‘Le sacerdoce conjugal’, Le manage, Tours 1966, 75–125Google Scholar.

^{page 210 note 6} It is to be noticed that Roman Catholic research after Vatican II is calling in question the traditional conception of the sacrament of marriage: cf. Duquoc, C., ‘Le sacrement de l'amour’, Le mariage, Tours 1966, 129–84Google Scholar. A report of the World Council of Churches proposes to found marriage rather on the Biblical conception of ‘covenant’: cf. Istina, xii (1967), 207–29.

Article contents

Marriage in the New Testament and in the Early Church1

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests