It is very early in the Bible that the potential for husbands and wives to reach penetrating oneness is brought up in Genesis 2:24. The two really can become like "one flesh". Yes, divorce ends a "one flesh" relationship, though this does not necessitate the end of conversation or even friendship with a person's former spouse. Intentional deception, unjust betrayal, neglect, violence outside of self-defense, and legalistic pressures or demands (which are controlling and subjectivist because they treat an individual's preferences as dictating how someone else should live) also destroy or thwart the intimacy that could belong to spouses and that would have to be present for the full unity of Genesis 2:24 to be realized. This seems to be completely ignored by many evangelical anti-divorce traditionalists, who look to the New Testament in isolation and yet already have to hold to something contradicting the New Testament to think there is just one moral basis for divorce (allegedly found in Matthew 19:9 or 1 Corinthians 7:15).
Jesus and Paul already directly permit divorce for differing things in the New Testament, Paul later addresses not being partners with any wrongdoer in any context in Ephesians 5:3-7 without marriage being an exception, and the New Testament, including the words of Jesus and Paul, repeatedly affirms the Torah (such as in Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-9, Romans 7:7, and 1 Timothy 1:8-11) that already allows many reasons for divorce (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 21:10-14, 24:1-4). The standard evangelical position on divorce literally contradicts the Bible on numerous levels no matter the emphasis placed on Jesus, Paul, or the Old Testament! Jesus in particular draws attention to what is ideal for marriage in Matthew 19 without actually denying anything Yahweh reveals in the Old Testament. Nor does he deny reason itself here, and it is true by logical necessity that a marriage does not have to end in death or divorce for the unity of "one flesh" to be torn apart.
The husband or wife who is "commanded" by their partner to do or not do things contrary to what is Biblically obligatory and permissible (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32), who is physically struck outside of self-defense (note the parallel between servants going free for physical injury in Exodus 21:26-27 and spouses divorcing over this), or who is sexually neglected (Exodus 21:10) or objectified has not been treated as if they are one flesh with their spouse. They have been abused, which is independently addressed through the allowance of divorce for neglect in Exodus 21:10-11, neglect already being a form of abuse, with Exodus 21 also requiring that if divorce is valid for neglect, then it is permissible on Judeo-Christianity for at least anything equal or greater. Unjust violence certainly impairs the intimacy of being one flesh physically and psychologically, and if a male or female servant is to go free for such treatment as Exodus 21:26-27 says no matter their debt or remaining years of service (Exodus 22:3, Deuteronomy 15:12), then so too could a husband or wife go free when there is physical abuse. They would not be sinning. Divorce, in such circumstances and others, is just a different kind of ending for what was or could have been a true one flesh relationship.
It is also ideal that no one would ever have to be put to death for their evil, for it is a travesty that any evil ever was committed. However, the Bible mandates ongoing capital punishment for a handful of sins that go far beyond mere murder. The fact that, if morality exists, of course no one should do that which should not be done in order to deserve just punishment does not mean that it is never justice to end a man's or woman's life. To kill on a whim or without certain grounds is certainly Biblically evil (Exodus 20:13), but this does not mean killing is not sometimes permitted or required by morality. Illicit killing of a human itself is to be punished with execution (Numbers 35:30-31); to kill someone using the Biblically prescribed/permitted methods for sins like murder (Exodus 21:12-14, Deuteronomy 19:11-13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7), negligently allowing a dangerous animal to kill someone (Exodus 2:28-32), and rape (Deuteronomy 22:25-27) cannot possibly be unjust on the Christian worldview. That execution would ever be deserved is a tragedy, as with divorce, but it is not prescribed only for murder, just as divorce is not permitted for only adultery.
Of course, adultery itself deserves execution (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), so the offender should not be allowed to live long enough to be divorced and go about their life as it is. Jesus, again, says he did not come to abolish the Law in Matthew 5:17-19 and that whoever breaks the least of its commands and teaches others to do likewise will be least in the kingdom of God. For a society to simply enact divorce in cases of adultery as many pseudo-Christians think Matthew 19 allows is for it to act contrarily to Yahweh's laws, so Jesus could not be teaching otherwise unless the moral claims of the New Testament are simply fiction whether or not the Torah is true. Lifelong marriage and holistic, deep intimacy within it being ideal does not logically entail that divorce is always or even usually evil. I have not yet even addressed here how Deuteronomy 24:1-4 directly allows divorce for unspecified sin, which could not possibly be limited to sexual sins like the immorality mentioned in Matthew 19 since these acts already receive separate punishments. Thus, there is direct allowance in the same Torah Jesus affirms for divorce over any sin at all.
If someone marries and their partner becomes displeasing to them, as Deuteronomy 24:1-4 puts it, because of moral indecency, he or she does not err if they leave the marriage. Lest some fool draw non sequitur conclusions from the gendered reference in this text to a husband divorcing his wife, it is obvious that Deuteronomy 24 never says wives cannot do the same to their husbands, that Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 teach men and women are equal in an overarching sense later expressed in individual potions of the Torah's case laws, that the case law of Exodus 21:10-11 explicitly allows a woman to go free from a neglectful marriage, and that passages like the divorce-adjacent Exodus 21:26-27 directly mention both men and women. Divorce is not only for men or only for women, and it is also not permissible only for adultery. It is always a genuinely serious matter because a relationship that once was or that could have been life-giving has been fractured to the point that one party wants or needs to exit, and they would not be in the wrong for pursuing this. Many things popularly associated with the concept of a one flesh union nonetheless do not follow logically from this whatsoever and the Bible does not insist otherwise. It is sin to simply divorce over amoral reasons such as not liking a spouse's cooking or aesthetic style, but Jesus does not suddenly introduce this in Matthew 19 when he pushes back against the idea of pure no fault divorce: Deuteronomy 24:1-4 rather clearly teaches this on the other side of the Bible!
No comments:
Post a Comment