The Fossilised Catholic Dogma of 'No Divorce'

"Why did Jesus apparently forbid divorce?

One imagines that in the patriarchal society of first century Palestine, the fate of a divorced wife would have been dire: ejected from the family house and left destitute, possibly with her children as well. So Jesus's strong prohibition may have been a specific case of his general highlighting of asabya, social solidarity, as the prerequisite for the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God?

In any case, what was the fate of divorced women amongst the poor strata of society frequented by Jesus?"

---

1. A rabbinic spat, not a timeless moral absolute

When the Pharisees ask, “May a man divorce his wife for any cause?” (Matt 19:3), they are baiting Jesus into the dispute between the schools of Shammai and Hillel over the cryptic phrase ʾervat dābār in Deut 24:1.

Shammai restricted divorce to proven sexual misconduct; Hillel allowed a man to discard his wife for burning the soup or for being eclipsed by a prettier neighbour. Jesus rejects both and appeals to Genesis: what God welds together must not be torn apart (Mark 10:6‑9).

2. Why the blanket ban? – three overlapping motives

• In a culture where property and male patronage were life‑support, casual divorce created a class of women one step from destitution. By shutting the “any‑cause” loophole, Jesus sides with the casualties of patriarchy.
• Jesus’s programme is to forge an alternative household in which the least are honoured and kinship is re‑imagined (“Whoever does the will of my Father is my mother and sister and brother”). Stabilising families among the poor enacts that social glue.
• Like his similar teachings on oaths and retaliation, the 'divorce saying' intensifies the Torah to expose hearts: if lust is adultery and divorce is adultery, every man in earshot stands indicted and must seek the Kingdom’s radical mercy.

3. The fate of a divorced woman in the Galilean under‑class

The legal fig‑leaf – a ketubah of 200 zuz (≈ 200 denarii). Rabbinic law guaranteed this settlement, but among peasants it was often notional, unpaid, or swallowed by creditors.

No further obligation. Once the get was handed over the husband’s duties ended; the break was absolute.

Economic cliff‑edge. A Galilean family could scrape subsistence on roughly 70 denarii of grain per year; 200 denarii therefore equalled little more than two‑and‑a‑half years of flour and oil—hardly plush once shared with children.

Fallbacks that often failed:

• Natal family – many parents were already below subsistence (estimates place 90 % near or under the poverty line).
• Remarriage – theoretically possible, but stigma and lack of dowry made prospects bleak.
• Patronage or almsgiving – communities kept divorced women on the poverty rolls—a polite euphemism for charity cases.
• Informal labour or sex‑work – hinted at in Roman provincial complaints about “women of the market‑place”.

4. Was Jesus unique?

Not entirely. The Dead Sea Scrolls forbid polygamy and “second marriages”, and some Roman Stoics praised lifelong monogamy. Jesus is unique, however, in fusing an Edenic ideal, a polemic against male frivolity, and an eschatological horizon: a coming reign of God that demands a community where the strong no longer discard the weak.

5. So, was it really about social solidarity?

Jesus naturally can't quote the fourteenth century Islamic scholar, Ibn Khaldūn, yet the instinct is sound: his Kingdom ethics aim to thicken bonds of mutual obligation, beginning with the micro‑cell of the household. In Mediterranean antiquity the family was the nearest equivalent to a social‑security system; sabotage that and the poor fall off the ledger. By outlawing “any‑cause” divorce Jesus effectively tightens the social lattice so that, when the Kingdom dawns, the vulnerable are still alive to greet it.

6. Take‑away

• Jesus’ prohibition is less a universal moral edict and more a strategic strike against a practice that weaponised male privilege against female survival.
• The saying fits the pattern of his other hyperbolic commands—deliberately severe to expose heart‑hardness and protect “the least of these”.
• Among Galilean poor, a divorce certificate could, and often did, translate into homelessness, hunger, or worse. The “good news to the poor” starts here: you will not be thrown away.

---