Biblical slavery is not a cruel system; the man or woman actually has the option of staying a willing slave for life because of economic gain, comfort with their present lifestyle, or love of their master or mistress and their family; otherwise, they go free in the seventh year (Exodus 21:2-6, Deuteronomy 15:12-18). Exodus 21:3-6 also addresses how this permanent slavery could be desired because it puts them in closer proximity to their family, such as a spouse who is a slave. This person has pledged themself as a voluntary life servant. Even so, Exodus 21:26-27 provides two clear examples from the broader category of physical mistreatment (and anything worse would also be applicable) that require the immediate freedom of a slave: striking them so that their eye is destroyed or a tooth is dislodged. They personally committed to serve someone for the rest of their life, and yet the Bible very explicitly says they are to go free if certain treatment is given to them. There are distinct parallels between this sort of slavery and marriage.
Crucially, the obligations behind Exodus 21:26-27 free a male or female slave even if he or she, out of love for their master or mistress and whatever comforts or stability this life otherwise offers them, freely chose to live with and serve them for a lifetime. If one instance of mistreatment like this entitles a slave to leave their master or mistress no matter what promises or declarations of intent had been exclaimed before in either direction, it could only be the case that divorce for the same or worse treatment would be a Biblical right of all people. Yet evangelical philosophy holds that under supposedly "imperfect" laws that are called righteous and just (Romans 7:7, 12, Hebrews 2:2), slaves go free for mistreatment even if they still owe money (Exodus 22:3) or have already pledged themselves as willing slaves for life, while a person is almost inescapably bound for life to their spouse no matter their behavior under the allegedly "improved", "fully" revealed principles of the New Testament. This is even more pathetic since the New Testament itself says over and over Yahweh's Torah laws are just and righteous and enduring (Matthew 5:17-19, 1 Timothy 1:8-11).
A marriage unspoiled by sin should indeed last for life, for it is only sin of some kind that frees a partner to divorce licitly (as in Deuteronomy 24:1-4). This is what the Bible teaches beyond Matthew 19 or Mark 10. It does not say that Jesus arbitrarily thought Yahweh's laws tyrannical and incomplete (as if that would make it so!) or that God changed his moral nature during inter-testament silence. It also does not say that the Torah, revealed before Christ's incarnation, allows for divorce over amoral reasons, and that God only tolerated this temporarily due to human stubbornness when he could have easily told the Israelites the "actual" truth of the matter if there was a differing Biblical stance on the subject to begin with. The real ramifications of evangelical ethical stances, if they hold to consistent ideas and those that actually follow from the others, are that the release of slaves for abuse no matter promises of permanent servitude has been superceded by something "better" that is said to reflect God's loving nature: obligatory, lifelong slavery of relational shackles to one's spouse and marriage unless they commit physical adultery. No matter how irrational, selfish, verbally cruel, physically abusive, or otherwise sinful the partner is is, they, by typical evangelical standards, have to stay married unless adultery occurs.
Remarriage to and sex with a new partner are also supposedly universally sinful otherwise, although God never condemned remarriage after legitimate divorce (for reasons far broader than adultery, which deserves execution and not divorce as described in Leviticus 20:10), instead condemning the sequence of divorcing someone, marrying a new partner, and then remarrying the former spouse (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). However, it could not possibly be an ethical step "forward" for husbands and wives to suddenly not have a moral right that even the lowest on the social hierarchy are said to have by the Bible, as if what is good and evil changed in the time of Jesus anyway. Just as a liberated slave does not err in seeking out a new master or mistress, a person liberated from a validly annulled marriage does not err in seeking a new husband or wife. It is not that God lied about morality or compelled people to sin with the Torah's laws (James 1:13-15), or himself changed (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17) in between testaments. The laws in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy are blatantly said to be from God in the text, such as in Exodus 21:1 with the prior context of 20:22 (God started speaking to Moses and has not stopped at any point in Exodus 21). There is no such thing as it being "Biblical" that Moses was introducing erroneous human constructs in the Pentateuch that Jesus had to reject. If Jesus or Paul or any other New Testament figure denied this, they would by logical necessity be a heretic according to the very books the New Testament relies on.
There can be no such thing, ironically, as the New Testament philosophically requiring the validity of Mosaic Law only to overturn it if the New Testament is true. The Old Testament can be true independent of the New Testament's veracity. The New Testament has to be consistent with the Old Testament to be true, both chronologically and in the sense of moral philosophy, among other things, including because it direct affirms Yahweh's laws as morally perfect. Jesus acknowledged that the Torah is from God, that to obey its revealed obligations is righteousness, and that to disregard or disobey it is wickedness (Matthew 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-13). He would not have been against anything about Exodus 21:26-27 or its logically necessarily ramifications for marriage and divorce. No, Exodus 21:26-27 is not about divorce in the exact content of its wording, but it follows logically that the same moral rights and obligations related to the treatment of literal slaves/servants would be possessed by husbands and wives by virtue of being humans. It is not far before this, however, that divorce is directly addressed in Exodus 21:10-11.
Jesus in Matthew 5:31-32, 19:1-9, Mark 10:1-12, and Luke 16:18 would have to be talking about a very limited situation that obviously does not amount to every divorce scenario--either every possible situation in itself or every situation that the Bible explicitly permits divorce in. Exodus 21:10-11 addresses one of those latter circumstances. If depriving a spouse of food, clothing, and love (or sex) by either passive neglect or active intentionality frees what would otherwise be a servant woman from both servitude and marriage, then of course the same treatment or anything equal or worse would free any husband or wife to divorce. Thus, by necessity, Exodus 21:10-11 is not strictly authorizing divorce for deprivation of food and clothing and love, of a sexual and nonsexual kind (1 Corinthians 7:2-5, Romans 13:8-10). It would by extension allow divorce for all sorts of things that entail not treating one's spouse as their human rights deserve. Alongside this, verses 26-27 of Exodus 21 indirectly touch on another category of behavior that liberates any willing partner ahead of Deuteronomy 24's allowance of divorce for nonspecific sin, or ultimately for any kind, for we are not to be partners with the unrepentant except out of optional mercy (Ephesians 5:3-7).
No comments:
Post a Comment