Personal Status – Proving the Law of One Wife in Christianity
Personal Status – Proving the Law of One Wife in Christianity (1)
General Consensus
1- Introduction:
The unity of marriage in Christianity is a matter acknowledged by all Christians throughout the whole world, regardless of their different denominations—from Orthodox to Catholics to Protestants. They differed in many theological and exegetical subjects, and they differed in numerous details within the very subject of personal status. But this particular point—“one wife”—was never at any time a point of disagreement. Rather, all accepted it and believed in it as a firmly fixed, self-evident pillar of Christian marriage.
So what does this agreement, which continued among all these denominations throughout twenty centuries from the beginning of the spread of Christianity until now, indicate? It is clear that it indicates that this matter is a solid doctrine not subject to dispute by anyone.
And the principle of “one wife,” just as it was acknowledged by the clergy, was also acknowledged by the judiciary. And just as it was taught in ecclesiastical books, so also it appeared in the legislations issued by Christian governments throughout the whole world.
Time does not allow us to treat the Christian countries one by one and detail their legislations regarding personal status. But we point whoever wishes to know these details to read the book “Personal Status of Foreigners in Egypt,” which was issued in Cairo in 1950 by its author Mr. Jamil Khanki, lawyer and former Deputy Public Prosecutor at the Mixed Courts. And in this brief study we shall be content to mention examples from this work which include some countries belonging to each of the main Christian denominations.
B – Consensus from the standpoint of civil legislations:
As an example of Orthodox countries:
1- Copts of Egypt:
The Personal Status Law issued by the General Coptic Community Council in 1938 states in Chapter Three “On the Legal Impediments to Marriage” that: “Neither spouse may take a second spouse as long as the marriage remains in existence” (Article 25). And in Chapter Six concerning the nullity of marriage, Article 41 states that every contract made contrary to the previous article “shall be considered null and void even if the spouses consent to it or the guardian of the minor approves it, and the spouses and every party concerned have the right to contest it.”
And as an example of the (Orthodox) Chalcedonian countries:
1- Greece:
Among the impediments to marriage, Article 1354 of the Greek Civil Code issued on 30/1/1941 states that marriage is prohibited “if one of the spouses has previously been married and the bond has not yet been dissolved,” and concerning the nullity of marriage, Article 1372 rules that it is null “the marriage of one who is still bound by a previous marriage,” and in the causes of divorce, Article 1439 states divorce is granted in the case “if one of the spouses commits adultery or has multiple wives.”
2- Russia:
Although marriage there is considered nothing but a consensual contract between two persons, still, according to the civil law of the Soviet Socialist Republics issued in 1927, it is stated that among the impediments to registering the marriage document is “that one of the spouses is bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.”
And as an example of Catholic countries:
1- Italy:
The Italian Civil Code issued on 16/3/1942 states in the substantive conditions for the validity of marriage that “neither spouse shall be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved” (Article 86). And Article 117 states that it is null “the marriage of one who was bound by a previous marriage whose bond had not been dissolved.”
2- France:
According to its Civil Code in the rulings issued on 12/4/1945, Article 147 states in the substantive conditions for the validity of marriage that “neither spouse shall be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.” And Article 184 rules the nullity of the marriage of one who was bound by a previous marriage.
3- Spain:
Paragraph Five of Article 83 of the Spanish Civil Code issued on 24/7/1889 states that among the substantive conditions for the validity of marriage is “that neither spouse be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.” And Paragraph Two of Article 3 rules for divorce in the case of “multiplicity of husbands or wives.”
And as an example of Protestant countries:
1- The United States:
According to Common Law, among the conditions for the validity of marriage is “that neither spouse be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.”
2- Germany:
Article Five of Law No. 16 issued by the Allies on 20/2/1946 states among the substantive conditions for the validity of marriage “that neither spouse be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.”
3- Austria:
Article 8 of the Austrian Civil Code issued in 1810 states in the substantive conditions for the validity of marriage that “neither spouse shall be bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.” While Article 24 rules the nullity of marriage “if one of the spouses is still bound by a previous valid marriage.”
And as an example of countries belonging to the Episcopal denomination:
Britain:
And although it has no written law, nevertheless, according to tradition, marriage is ruled null if one of the spouses is bound by a previous marriage whose bond has not yet been dissolved.
And this Christian principle “monogamy,” as it is practiced in the previously mentioned countries whose laws we cited as mere examples, is also practiced in the rest of the Christian countries such as Argentina, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Holland… etc.
Therefore, Mr. Tadros Mikha’il Tadros in his book (Comparative Law in Personal Status of Foreigners in Egypt), which he issued in 1954 while he was Deputy of the Alexandria Court and President of the Personal Status Chamber for Foreigners therein, had in Chapter Two concerning the substantive conditions of marriage expressed himself briefly on this matter, saying:
“This, and European and American laws, and indeed the laws of non-Islamic countries, do not accept the principle of polygamy, but consider it contrary to public order. For this reason all these laws state that the binding of a person to a previous marriage not yet dissolved and not yet severed is considered an impediment to his marrying another. And the ‘impediment’ becomes confused with lack of capacity; thus, if for example a British man who is married converts to Islam, then leaves his wife and children to marry a Muslim woman in Britain, his second marriage is null. And it remains null, in our view, even if the second marriage is concluded in an Islamic country such as Egypt or Turkey, because the standard is the nationality law of the marriage.” (Paragraph 181, p. 125).
The author also says in Paragraph 182:
“On this basis the Mixed Courts ruled the nullity of the second marriage of a person who was still bound by a previous marriage, applying French law (case no. 1679 of year 70) on 17 March 1947, and Italian law (case no. 2048 of year 73) on 28 February 1949.”
And the author also says in Paragraph 189, p. 129, under the title “Putative Marriage”:
“It often happens that one of the spouses was ignorant of the causes of nullity of the marriage he contracted with the other spouse. An example is: a man married in one country hides his civil status from another lady in another country and marries her as a bachelor, then the truth appears afterwards and the marriage is ruled null. So what is the solution? Shall every right of the second wife, who was in good faith, be lost, or shall she be recognized as having rights? And His Honor discusses the matter of compensation in the event that this second wife, whose marriage was ruled null because of the existence of the first marriage, deserves compensation or not…”
C – Consensus from the ecclesiastical standpoint:
This general consensus from the civil legal standpoint rests upon ecclesiastical teaching that states the unity of the wife. And we shall also present examples of this teaching from the various Christian denominations.
1- Catholics:
In the section “The Sacrament of Matrimony” in the Roman Catechism Catechismus Romanus, printed in 1786 in Rome “by order of the Supreme Pontiff Pope Pius V,” the following appears:
“If we contemplate the law of nature after sin or the Law of Moses, we easily discover and know that matrimony had lost and lacked its original first beauty and goodness, because in the time of the law of nature we have verified and learned that many of the ancient fathers were married to many wives together. But later, in the Law of Moses, this was allowed, and if there was a compelling reason and necessity called for the divorce of the woman, a bill of divorce would be written for her. So these two mentioned matters have been lifted and removed from the matrimony of the evangelical law, and matrimony has returned to its first state, because marriage with multiple women was something foreign to the nature of matrimony. And although the ancient fathers were not blamed for their marriage to many women because they did not do that without God’s permission and allowance, blessed be He.
Our Lord Jesus Christ clarified the invalidity of marriage to many women in those words which He said: ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall be one flesh’ (Matt 19:5–6). And the holy Council of Trent confirmed this in the second canon of the twenty-fourth session concerning the sacrament of matrimony. So the Savior in these words clarified plainly that matrimony was ordained by God thus: that it be a union between only two, no more. This is what He also taught and clarified well in another place where He said: ‘Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. And if the woman departs from her husband and marries another, she commits adultery’ (Mark 10:11, Luke 16:17). For if it were permissible for a man by the sin of adultery to join—besides his wife who is with him in the house—another woman…”
“And likewise in the case of the woman the matter proceeds in this way.
For this reason we must know that if anyone of the unbelievers married many women according to the custom of his nation and its rite, then when he converts to the true and genuine religion, the Church commands him to leave all the other women and take the woman whom he took first before all of them. ‘She alone shall be his wife lawfully and justly.’”
2- Protestants:
The same principle “one wife” is believed by the Protestants, as appears in “The Book of the System of Instruction in the Doctrine of Sound Theology,” which “clarifies the belief of the Evangelical Christian Church.” For it appears on p. 396 in the explanation of the seventh commandment:
“The Scripture in both Testaments highly honors marriage and considers it a divine ordinance which divine wisdom established for a good purpose, and it is an excellent blessing for our kind.
And the original perpetual law in it is that there be one man and one woman. And it is a union that is not permitted to be dissolved except by death or for another reason which Christ mentioned. And what appears in Scripture to be a deviation from this law, such as the taking of many wives in the Old Testament, is only by God’s forbearance for temporary reasons, and it is contrary to what even the Hebrews themselves were accustomed to in all ages. But Christ confirmed the law without any ambiguity (Matt 19:3–9, Mark 10:4–9, Luke 16:18, Matt 5:32). And He does not permit complete divorce, which allows a person another marriage, except in the case of adultery according to Christ’s teaching (Matt 5:31–32; 19:3–9).”
And this Protestant view is also expressed in the Dictionary of the Bible by Dr. James Hastings, as appears in it:
“The first change introduced by Christianity is the unity of marriage and the prohibition of its plurality.”
And the book also mentioned that verses 4 and 5 of Matthew 19 prevent the existence of a second wife.
3- As for the Episcopalians:
Their view is explicit concerning the unity of marriage, expressed by Dr. Cheetham, Archdeacon and Professor of Pastoral Theology at King’s College in London, in his book Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, where it appears:
“The modifications which our Lord introduced in the Hebrew law of marriage and divorce as it stood in His days are two:
That He restored the rule of one marriage (Monogamy).
And He did not permit divorce except on the basis of the wife’s adultery…”
As for our view as Orthodox:
It is clear from Article 25 of the Personal Status Law issued in May 1938, and nevertheless we shall explain it with the evidences included in this entire book. But we suffice in this summary chapter with what appears on p. 119 of the book Al-Tamyiz—which is one of the parts of an ancient manuscript in the Monastery of the Syrians in Wadi El-Natroun—that “It is not permissible for a man, as long as his wife is alive, to take another over her.”
D – Conclusion:
We have presented numerous examples indicating that the principle of “one wife” is a fundamental pillar of Christian marriage, believed by all the Christian denominations which have accepted it despite their differences in some other matters.
And now we must say: “Either this general consensus means that the matter is a solid doctrine that has not been shaken throughout twenty centuries of time—and this is what is logically and practically established—or it means that Christians throughout the entire world—clergy, scholars, and people—from their beginning until now have been mistaken in understanding their religion, and this no one can say.
And those who oppose this matter must search history well and ask it: When was it heard of a Christian that he combined two wives in a lawful marriage approved by the Church?! And from the beginning of Christianity until now, when did the Church permit such a matter and conduct its rites?! If no answer is found to this question—and no answer will be found—we progress to another point in the upcoming issues, which is the explanation and clarification of the reasons for which Christians believed in this doctrine…”
E – The remaining proofs of the Law of One Wife:
2- Its proof from “that it was so from the beginning.”
3- Its proof from examining polygamy in the Old Testament.
4- Its proof from Christian legislation regarding divorce.
5- Its proof from the idea of “one flesh.”
6- Its proof from the relationship of Christ to the Church.
7- Its proof from other verses.
8- Its proof from explicit ecclesiastical canons.
9- Its proof from ecclesiastical canons regarding adultery and concubinage.
10- Its proof from Christianity’s view of marriage after widowhood.
11- Its proof from the chastity of Christian marriage.
12- Its proof from Christianity’s glorification of virginity.
13- Its proof from the sayings of the Fathers.
So until we meet in the upcoming issues to complete this study.
An article by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III – in Al-Keraza Magazine – Third Year – Issue 1 and 2, January and February 1967
Section Two: Chapter Eight:19, from p. 950–952.
Hastings: Dictionary of the Bible, vol. III, p. 265.
Ibid., p. 266.
Vol. II, p. 1092
No. 145 Theology, Monastery of the Syrians.
For better translation support, please contact the center.
