Jesus addresses divorce in Matthew 5 and 19, but there are other equally reverent passages on divorce that might go unnoticed amidst the anti-theonomist focus on the mostly incomplete, ambiguous moral teachings of the New Testament. What of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which only allows divorce for indecency, a term which would naturally refer to unspecified genuinely sinful habits as defined by Mosaic Law, rather than any circumstances at all as some might think? Just what indecency might be in this context is partially clarified by other verses. For example, what of Exodus 21:10-11, where wives (and by logical extension and egalitarian consistency, husbands as well) are owed, at least in some circumstances, sexual affection and material provision? What of 1 Corinthians 7:12-15, where Paul says an abandoned spouse is free from their marriage bond if they wish? Paul's allowance of marital dissolution for abandonment is even found in the New Testament, contradicting the idea that the New Testament forbids marriage except for adultery.
Abuse, neglect, abandonment, and sexual infidelity are all Biblical grounds for divorce, despite only the last of these three (and the second to a far lesser extent) getting recognized in the church at large. Since the Bible and the deity is describes are not said to despise divorce itself, but casual or unjustified divorce, the hatred and shock surrounding divorce that the modern church tends to have is a great overreaction based on misunderstandings of the Biblical text. If only more people would read the actual places in the Bible where divorce is mentioned, especially the places giving moral prescriptions, the overreaction and misunderstandings could be avoided entirely. Yahweh's allowances for divorce are meant to protect victims of predatory or noncommittal wives and husbands.
Divorce is in no way evil by default on the Christian worldview. It needs to be pursued only in situations that involve a genuine offense against a spouse--hence every example of a Biblically justifiable divorce serving as a reaction to genuine abuse or something else that violates the most important obligations a wife and husband have to each other--but it is far from a "necessary evil." There are no necessary evils in Christian morality. The very concept itself is a contradiction: moral obligations are what one should do no matter the circumstances or personal desire, and nothing that is evil needs to be done except in very rare cases where a person sins no matter what they do or do not do. This is not the nature of divorce.
In the right context, divorce liberates men and women from abusive or unfaithful spouses. Like anything, it could be misused out of selfishness or pettiness and sought for utterly trivial or irrational reasons, yet it is a perfectly valid option for victimized husbands and wives. Marriage, like close or deeply sincere non-marital, non-romantic friendship, is one of the only kinds of relationships that merit more than a casual dismissal when they become difficult, and divorce, Biblically speaking, should not be sought over minor miscommunications, smaller expressions of stupidity, and relatively miniscule hurtful words or attitudes. The Biblical grounds for divorce are the opposite. They are the gravest, most damaging or selfish kinds of treatment a spouse could show to their partner.
Divorce is the permissible escape route for those in a relationship consumed by the worst kinds of marital betrayals, like adultery, rape, attempted murder, patterns of neglect and physical abuse, and total abandonment without warning or just cause. Remaining with a partner who has engaged in these things is at best a personal choice that is merciful, and thus a supererogatory commitment, or one that has elements of moral goodness but that no one is obligated to do. Staying can put the victim in danger of more exploitation and give the false perception to the abuser that their spouse will always remain with them regardless of how severe the abuse becomes. A deity concerned with justice and that condemns all rape, adultery, and spousal neglect as unjust in Mosaic Law (but ironically not the often vague New Testament moral commands) would not force someone to keep themselves in such dangerous situations.
No comments:
Post a Comment