Immediately following a general summary of divorce allowances (with passages like Exodus 21:9-11 supplementing this), Deuteronomy 24 addresses marital happiness. Indeed, it is an obligation to seek this! Verse five says that a man who has recently married should not be sent off to war or have other duties given to him for a year, the reason being so that he can spend time at home and bring happiness to his new wife. This could encompass sexual and nonsexual happiness, for whatever is not sinful is what people are free to pursue. Anything that brings the couple delight and intimacy is permissible as long as it entails no false philosophical stance/motivation or actual sin (Deuteronomy 4:2). Wives and by extension women as a whole are certainly not regarded in Mosaic Law as less than full persons who do not have their own right to whatever joy or happiness they can find in life through anything outside of sin.
Women's happiness in general and that of wives in particular is not some neglected thing or afterthought to the happiness of men in Biblical ethics. As equal bearers of the divine image (Genesis 1:26-27) they are full persons, with their own desires and wills when it comes to sexuality (1 Corinthians 7:2-5) and otherwise. Exodus 21:9-11 says women (and by logical extension men) have marital rights, the neglect of which is grounds for divorce, and Paul describes marital duties as belonging to both husbands and wives in 1 Corinthians 7:3, as anyone who reads Genesis 1-2 and Mosaic Law without assumptions could realize well before the New Testament. The duty of seeking marital happiness for one's spouse is absolutely not for men towards their wives alone.
Men's fulfillment in this way would be vital as well. Eve was created as both an equal to Adam and to complete him (Genesis 2:18). Pseudo-egalitarians in the church often prioritize women over men by endorsing stereotypes of the latter but not the former or by ignoring the humanity of or discrimination against men in contemporary times or throughout recorded history. Men, as people who bear God's image (Genesis 5:1-2), would be no less capable or deserving of happiness than women in marriage, as long as that happiness is not derived from assumptions, emotionalism, egoism, or other errors or sins. Moreover, women can also be assigned the same community or military responsibilities as men and this is not denied by the Bible, either in the sense of it being called immoral or logically impossible. There is logical equivalence that is not scripturally denied. The Bible directly and indirectly says a great deal about the obvious freedom women have for these matters alongside men.
Women are allowed to work outside of the home (Proverbs 31:14-18, 24 and Deuteronomy 4:2 yet again), so it is not true whatsoever that they could not be tasked with professional milestones or public services. They are of course permitted to be soldiers themselves or to lead soldiers of either gender, such as with Deborah the prophetess in Judges 4 (and again, as is so often the case, Deuteronomy 4:2 and Genesis 1:26-27 are relevant as well). Since they have the same status as men before God as fellow image-bearers and in light of logical necessity, and they are metaphysically capable of the same attentiveness to fostering marital flourishing as men, new wives would have the same obligation of Deuteronomy 24:5. Their marriage is likewise to take priority over public/military service for at least a year after its commencement so that they can bring happiness to their husbands as their husbands do the same for them. After all, the noble wife of Proverbs 31:12 is commended for bringing food to her husband rather than harm.
Happiness of a sort is certainly a goal of Biblical marriage--happiness in the truth, in one's standing before God, and in one's relationship which should be founded on such things. To be satisfied, fulfilled, and enamored with one's spouse is a grand thing when there is no irrationalism present. Emotionalistic happiness, on the contrary, is asinine and potentially fleeting. Not only is it invalid by default because it is irrational, but it could also fluctuate from moment to moment or day to day. A romantic relationship, marital or not, between emotionalistic participants could disintegrate, lacking the qualities needed for even a pragmatically successful marriage, much less a rationalistic one devoted to mutual submission to reason and righteousness. Besides the ideological and moral validity of the proper kind of marital happiness, a rationalistic couple is able to enjoy a deeper unity, bliss, and fulfillment than those unlike them.
No comments:
Post a Comment