The Evolution of Divorce: From Jewish Law to Christian Doctrine

During a recent discussion with some non-Chrsistian friends we begun a conversation regarding divorce. Below I summarise, as best I can in a blog, the issue.

The Christian perspective on marriage and divorce, deeply rooted in its Jewish origins, is a complex interplay of social, religious, and legal factors. In the Judaic context, marriage was primarily a social contract that could be dissolved under certain conditions. This understanding of marriage significantly influenced early Christian views, which underwent a substantial evolution. As Christianity forged its own identity and doctrine, it began to diverge from Jewish traditions, particularly in its understanding of marriage as a sacrament and in its stance on the permissibility of divorce. This comprehensive essay delves into the evolution of divorce from its Jewish legal context into a central doctrinal issue within Christianity, examining the nuanced interpretations of biblical texts and their implications for Christian practice.

1. Marriage and Divorce in the Jewish context
In ancient Jewish law, marriage was viewed as a contractual agreement rather than a sacramental or purely religious institution. The Torah provided clear guidelines for the dissolution of marriage, permitting divorce under specific conditions. The critical biblical passage that addresses divorce is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which states:
"If a man marries a woman who becomes displeased with him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house…"
The Hebrew phrase translated as "something indecent" is עֶרְוַת דָּבָר ("ervat davar), which means ""the nakedness of a thing."" This ambiguous phrasing has been the subject of much debate in rabbinic literature, with different interpretations emerging from various rabbinic schools.

• School of Shammai: This conservative school of thought interpreted "ervat davar " narrowly to mean serious sexual misconduct or infidelity. According to the School of Shammai, divorce was permissible only in cases of grave moral failures such as adultery.
• School of Hillel: The more liberal School of Hillel interpreted "ervat davar " much more broadly, allowing divorce for almost any reason, even something as trivial as a wife burning her husband's meal. This interpretation effectively gave men greater freedom to initiate divorce.

Divorce was relatively common in Jewish society by the first century CE, particularly among men who could initiate the process unilaterally. Women, however, were more constrained, as they could not initiate divorce themselves. This legal framework set the stage for Jesus Jesus' teachings on divorce, which aimed to address and critique the prevailing practices of his time.

2. Jesus' Teachings in the Context of Jewish Divorce Law
Jesus' teachings on divorce, as recorded in the Gospels, are best understood as a response to the liberal interpretations of divorce law by the School of Hillel. His statements, such as those in Matthew 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12, appear to take a more restrictive stance, aligning more closely with the stricter view of the School of Shammai. However, Jesus' rationale went beyond legalism, appealing to the original divine intent for marriage as established in Genesis.
In Matthew 19:4-6, Jesus refers to the creation narrative: "...at the beginning, the Creator "made them male and female"... and the two will become one flesh... Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate." This appeal to Genesis indicates that Jesus viewed marriage as a permanent union ordained by God, not merely a contractual arrangement that could be dissolved at will.
Jesus' apparent restriction of divorce to cases of porneia (πορνεία) reflects a desire to elevate the sanctity of marriage above the prevailing social norms. His teaching challenged the lenient divorce practices of the time and sought to protect the vulnerable—particularly women—from being unjustly abandoned.

3. The Transition from Jewish to Early Christian Understanding of Marriage
Marriage was not initially viewed as a sacrament in the early Christian Church—the concept of marriage as a sacrament developed gradually over several centuries. In the earliest Christian communities, marriage retained many Jewish characteristics, primarily seen as a social institution with religious significance but not necessarily sacramental status.

• Apostolic and Patristic Era (1st to 4th Century CE): The early Church Fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, and Tertullian, wrote about marriage as a union blessed by God. They upheld the indissolubility of marriage but did not define it as a sacrament. Marriage was understood as reflecting the relationship between Christ and the Church, but it was not yet considered a means of conferring divine grace.
• Augustine of Hippo (4th Century CE): Augustine's writings marked a significant shift in the understanding of marriage. He introduced the idea that marriage, like other sacraments, was a visible sign of an invisible grace. Augustine's views laid the foundation for the sacramental understanding of marriage, which the Catholic Church would later formalise.
• Medieval Development and the Council of Trent (16th Century CE): In the Middle Ages, the sacramental nature of marriage was fully developed in theological and ecclesiastical terms. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Trent (1545-1563) codified marriage as one of the Church's seven sacraments. The Council of Trent's pronouncements on marriage were partly a response to Protestant critiques and sought to solidify the Church's teaching on the indissolubility of marriage.

Thus, marriage transitioned from being a social and religious contract in early Christianity, akin to its Jewish counterpart, to a sacrament reflecting divine grace and the mystical union of Christ and the Church.

4. Linguistic and Contextual Analysis of the Term Porneia (πορνεία)
The Greek term porneia (πορνεία) used in the New Testament is pivotal to understanding the Christian perspective on divorce. Porneia is often translated as ""sexual immorality"" or ""fornication,"" but its exact meaning can vary depending on the context. The term is derived from the root porne, which originally referred to prostitution, and it evolved to denote a range of sexual behaviours deemed unacceptable by Jewish and early Christian moral standards.

• Broader Meaning of Porneia: In its broader sense, porneia can include adultery, prostitution, incest, homosexuality, and other forms of sexual misconduct. It encompasses any illicit sexual activity that violates the sanctity of the marriage bond or contravenes the moral law.
• Porneia in Jewish Context: The Hebrew equivalent of porneia is זְנוּת (zenut), which is used in the Old Testament to describe various forms of sexual sin, including idolatry (metaphorically). The Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, frequently uses porneia to translate zenut, indicating that the term had a wide semantic range.
• Distinction from adultery (μοιχεία, moicheia): While moicheia refers explicitly to marital infidelity or adultery, porneia is a broader term that can include premarital sex, prostitution, or other forms of sexual immorality. This distinction is important because when Jesus uses the term porneia as grounds for divorce, he may be referring to any severe violation of the sexual exclusivity of the marriage relationship.
• Interpretative Variations: Some scholars argue that porneia in Matthew 19:9 could refer to unlawful marriages, such as incestuous unions, which would have been considered invalid under Jewish law. Others suggest that porneia includes not only adultery but also severe breaches of the marriage covenant, such as abuse or abandonment.

5. Emotional and Physical Unavailability: Expanding Grounds for Dissolution
The issue of emotional and physical unavailability within marriage has led to theological debates about whether such conditions should justify divorce or annulment. While the New Testament does not explicitly address emotional or physical unavailability, their impact on the integrity of the marital bond has led theologians to consider whether persistent emotional neglect or physical denial constitutes a breach of the marriage covenant.

• 1 Corinthians 7:3-5: The Apostle Paul writes, "The husband should fulfil his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband... Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time." This passage underscores the importance of mutual physical availability within marriage. If not agreed upon mutually, a persistent refusal to engage in physical intimacy could be seen as a violation of this marital duty.
• Catholic Perspective on Psychological Incapacity: In the Catholic Church, lack of emotional or physical intimacy is not typically grounds for divorce, but it may be grounds for annulment if it is determined that one spouse had no intention of fulfilling these aspects of the marital covenant from the outset. If a spouse enters into marriage with a pre-existing condition that prevents them from expressing affection or intimacy, the marriage may be declared null due to psychological incapacity.
• Protestant Interpretation of Covenant Breach: Many Protestant denominations interpret marriage as a covenant that includes emotional, spiritual, and physical support. Thus, severe emotional neglect or consistent refusal of physical intimacy can be seen as a violation of the marriage covenant, justifying divorce. In these cases, remarriage is often permitted, as the first marriage is viewed as effectively broken.

6. Evolution of Christian Teachings on Divorce and Remarriage
As Christianity developed distinct doctrinal positions, the interpretation of porneia and other biblical terms became more rigid in Catholicism and more flexible in Protestantism. The Catholic Church's stance on the indissolubility of marriage led to the view that remarriage after divorce, without an annulment, constitutes adultery. Protestantism, emphasising sola scriptura and covenantal theology, adopted a broader interpretation, allowing for divorce and remarriage under specific conditions.
Pope Francis' recent writings in Amoris Laetitia indicate a shift towards a more compassionate approach to divorce and remarriage, suggesting that the Church may need to consider the individual circumstances of each case. This evolving view seeks to balance doctrinal fidelity with pastoral care, reflecting the ongoing complexity of applying ancient texts to contemporary issues.

Closing Thoughts
The evolution of Christian teachings on divorce is a testament to the dynamic interplay between scripture, tradition, and historical context. While early Christianity inherited a Jewish legal framework for marriage and divorce, it gradually developed its distinct doctrines, culminating in the sacramental view of marriage in Catholicism and the covenantal perspective in Protestantism. The interpretation of key terms such as porneia and moicheia has shaped these divergent views, highlighting the profound influence of linguistic nuances and cultural contexts on theological development. Understanding this history provides crucial insight into why the issue of divorce remains one of the most debated topics within Christianity today.


キリスト教における離婚の歴史と教義の進化

キリスト教の結婚と離婚の考え方は、ユダヤ教の伝統に深く根ざしています。古代ユダヤ教では、結婚は主に社会的な契約とされ、特定の条件のもとで解消することが認められていました。この考え方は初期キリスト教における結婚観にも影響を与え、キリスト教が独自の教義を発展させる過程で、ユダヤ教の伝統から離れ、結婚を聖礼典（サクラメント）として捉えるようになりました。

1. ユダヤ教における結婚と離婚の文脈

旧約聖書の申命記（24:1-4）では、離婚の規定が示され、「何らかの不適切なこと」（עֶרְוַת דָּבָר, *'ervat davar*）が理由で離婚証書を与えることができるとされています。この表現は曖昧であり、ラビ派の間で解釈が分かれていました。

- **シャマイ学派**は、「不適切なこと」を重大な性的逸脱や不貞と解釈し、離婚をこれらの重大な道徳的失敗に限定しました。
- **ヒレル学派**は、より広範な解釈を採用し、離婚をほぼあらゆる理由で認め、妻が夫の食事を焦がしたというような些細な理由でも離婚を許可しました。

このような離婚の慣習は、特に男性に大きな自由を与えましたが、女性は離婚を求める権利が制限されていました。イエス・キリストの教えは、こうした当時の離婚慣習に対する批判として理解されるべきです。

2. イエスの教えとユダヤ教の離婚法の対比

イエスは、当時の離婚に関する自由な解釈に対して、より厳格な立場を取っており、「創世記」の創造物語に基づいて結婚の不解消性を強調しました（マタイ19:4-6）。彼は結婚を神聖かつ永続的なものと見なし、結婚の絆を軽視する当時の社会規範に挑戦しました。

3. ユダヤ教から初期キリスト教における結婚観の変遷

初期キリスト教においては、結婚はまだ聖礼典とは見なされておらず、徐々に発展していきました。アウグスティヌス（4世紀）は、結婚を「見えない恩恵の目に見えるしるし」とし、聖礼典としての結婚観の基礎を築きました。中世になると、第四ラテラン公会議（1215年）およびトリエント公会議（1545-1563年）を通じて、結婚はカトリック教会において7つの聖礼典の1つとして正式に認められました。

4. 「ポルネイア（πορνεία）」という用語の解釈と文脈

新約聖書で使われるギリシャ語の「ポルネイア（πορνεία）」は、離婚に関するキリスト教の見解を理解する上で重要な用語です。この語はしばしば「性的逸脱」や「淫行」と訳されますが、その意味は文脈によって異なります。広義には、不貞や売春、近親相姦、同性愛など、あらゆる結婚の神聖さを汚す行為を含むとされています。

5. 感情的および身体的な不可用性：離婚の拡張的解釈

キリスト教における離婚の解釈は、時代とともに変化しており、感情的および身体的な不可用性が結婚の本質的な破綻と見なされる場合があります。カトリック教会ではこれらの理由で離婚を認めることはありませんが、婚姻の無効を宣言する（婚姻の無効、アニュルメント）際の理由となり得ます。

一方、プロテスタント教会では、感情的な支えや身体的な親密さが結婚契約の一部と見なされ、これらが著しく欠如している場合には、離婚が正当化されることがあります。

6. 離婚と再婚に関するキリスト教教義の進化

カトリック教会は、離婚後の再婚を不倫と見なしますが、プロテスタント教会は「聖書のみ（*sola scriptura*）」と契約神学に基づき、離婚および再婚をより広く許容する傾向にあります。近年、フランシスコ教皇の『アモリス・ラエティティア』では、離婚と再婚に対してより慈悲深く柔軟な対応が求められ、教会の教義が変わりつつあることを示唆しています。

結論

キリスト教における離婚の教義の進化は、聖書、伝統、および歴史的背景の相互作用によるものであり、文化的および神学的発展の影響を強く受けています。この歴史を理解することは、離婚に対するキリスト教の立場がなぜ今日でも重要な議論の対象となっているのかを考える上で不可欠です。

​

---