The Bible and Abuse – A Christian Perspective on Domestic Violence Part II
The Influence of Teachings on Women’s Inferiority on Divorce
From its earliest centuries, Christianity’s teachings portrayed women as inferior, spiritually weak, and morally susceptible. These beliefs framed marriage not as an equal partnership but as a hierarchical institution, solidifying male dominance and severely limiting women’s ability to seek relief from harmful or abusive marriages.
1. Marriage as Hierarchical Institution
Early Christian theology explicitly cast marriage in hierarchical terms, emphasizing male authority and female submission. For instance, the Apostle Paul’s words provided foundational justification:
• Ephesians 5:22–23: “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands… For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church.”
Because men were seen as rational, authoritative figures, and women as subordinate and weaker, marital relationships were interpreted as a reflection of this supposed divinely mandated hierarchy. As a result, the marriage bond was regarded as permanent and indissoluble, discouraging women from leaving abusive relationships, as enduring suffering was viewed as a spiritual virtue.
2. Women’s Marital Suffering as Punishment
Christian theology attributed blame to women for humanity’s fall through Eve, connecting female suffering to divine punishment. Early church fathers reinforced this:
• Tertullian (c.155–240 CE): “You are the devil’s gateway… the first deserter of divine law.”
• Augustine (354–430 CE): “It is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of.”
This “Eve’s guilt” narrative justified marital hardships as redemptive suffering for women. John Chrysostom (349–407 CE) explicitly taught women to endure even abusive marriages:
“A woman must submit… Even if he is harsh or cruel, she must bear her cross as Christ bore his.”
Such teachings stripped abused women of theological and moral justification for divorce, forcing them to view marital suffering as deserved or spiritually beneficial.
3. Gendered Double Standards and Divorce
Christian leaders codified legal double standards regarding divorce, influenced heavily by their views of female inferiority:
• Tertullian: “It is not lawful for a woman to divorce her husband, but for a man it is sometimes lawful to put away a wife for adultery.”
• Augustine: Defined marriage as lifelong subjugation, severely restricting a woman’s right to seek divorce under any circumstance.
These views systematically trapped women in dangerous marriages, while granting men broader liberties and legal protections.
4. Medieval Codification of Indissolubility
Throughout the Middle Ages, the Church reinforced marital indissolubility and women’s submission through canon law and theology:
• Gratian (12th Century): “A woman… may not separate from her husband for any cause.”
• Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274 CE): Affirmed marriage as a lifelong hierarchical bond, explicitly denying women’s autonomy in marital decisions.
These teachings effectively erased domestic violence from Church recognition and allowed widespread cruelty toward wives under the theological guise of obedience.
5. Limited Reformation Changes
The Protestant Reformation modestly loosened some restrictions, yet continued emphasizing male dominance:
• Martin Luther: Allowed divorce in limited cases like adultery or abandonment but explicitly supported male authority, even advocating discipline of wives.
• John Calvin: Stressed women’s submission even to “unkind” husbands, allowing only rare exceptions such as abandonment.
While these shifts provided minimal relief, they perpetuated the underlying assumption of female subordination.
6. Modern Church Teachings and Persistent Legacy
Even into recent centuries, conservative Christian traditions maintained strict opposition to divorce, influenced by earlier theological assumptions about women’s inferiority and spiritual weakness:
• Pope Pius XI (1930): “No reason, however grave, can make marriage dissoluble,” reinforcing absolute marital permanence.
• Pat Robertson (Contemporary Evangelical Leader): Advised abused women not to seek divorce, but to remain and pray for change, continuing harmful theological legacies.
The Church’s Evolving Views on Divorce: A Historical Overview
Early Christianity (1st–5th Century) strictly forbade divorce, adhering to a literal interpretation of Jesus’ teachings (Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-12). Marriage was viewed as a lifelong covenant, with divorce permitted only for adultery, and remarriage was typically disallowed.
The Medieval Church (5th–15th Century) maintained the impossibility of divorce but introduced annulments as a loophole, declaring marriages invalid under specific conditions like non-consummation, forced marriage, or incest. Pope Innocent III’s formalization of marriage as a sacrament further tightened these restrictions.
The Protestant Reformation (16th Century) significantly shifted views on marriage. Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin rejected marriage as a sacrament, permitting divorce for adultery, desertion, and severe cruelty, explicitly including abuse.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, divorce evolved further, becoming a civil matter. England’s Divorce Act (1857) and America’s introduction of no-fault divorce (1969) legally recognized divorce without proving wrongdoing. Many modern churches have since reconsidered biblical interpretations regarding abuse and divorce, seeking greater alignment with biblical justice.
Direct Impact on Domestic Violence
Historical Christian teachings not only limited women’s rights but also directly facilitated conditions in which domestic violence was justified or ignored. Because male dominance was believed divinely mandated, abuse could be rationalized as corrective discipline. Churches often advised women experiencing abuse to remain obedient, forgiving, and prayerful rather than seek escape, counseling submission over safety.
Thus, theologically-rooted female subordination actively silenced victims, minimized abuse, and protected abusers, perpetuating cycles of violence and institutional neglect.
Conclusion: Evaluating Objectivity in Church Teachings
Given the extensive history of explicit theological misogyny—women portrayed as inferior, spiritually defective, and morally responsible for humanity’s fall—early Christian teachings on divorce and marriage cannot reasonably be considered objective or impartial. These biases significantly compromised the Church’s ability to interpret biblical teachings fairly, compassionately, or ethically regarding women’s marital rights and safety.
Recognizing these problematic historical teachings is critical today for Christian communities striving to reshape doctrines around marriage, divorce, and domestic violence, ensuring justice, safety, and dignity for all women within their traditions.