Acts like withholding clothing and food, specific cases of neglect, make divorce a morally legitimate option according to the Bible (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4). The reason why withholding clothing and food would be worthy of divorce (comfort and survival being predominant factors) would also apply to withholding water, for instance, and then there are other things like withholding sex that can be weaponized for further emotional abuse against a victimized wife or husband (Paul also specifically addresses how abstaining from sex in marriage can be a thing of mutual consent in non-neglectful circumstances in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5). It is asinine to not only ignore how the Bible plainly allows divorce for neglect and abuse, including emotional abuse, which is clearly intertwined with many kinds of neglect, but also to think that adultery is an entirely separate category of sin that alone merits divorce (as misunderstandings of Matthew 19:9 entail).
Adultery can be a type of abuse and neglect. I say can be because it is not abusive to anyone involved in itself, nor is it inherently neglectful in the way some might think. Aside from moral and other explicitly philosophical reasons, there is absolutely no reason to oppose one's spouse having sex with other people, as the only other basis for this is emotion and emotion is irrelevant to reason and obligation. Moreover, it is possible for someone to openly commit adultery and still have a thriving relationship with their husband or wife, as not everyone shares the same preferences or is a slave to emotionalism, and thus the only reason to care about adultery at all is far beyond petty personal feelings. This does not make adultery morally permissible or mean it is not a capital sin (Deuteronomy 22:22), but it is logically blatant to any willing person that adultery is not inherently cruel or selfish in the way that trying to starve a spouse, sexually assault them, or isolate them from quality friendships is.
These things are cruel or oppressive even if morality does not exist. Adultery, on the utter contrary, is not. However, a spouse who deceptively disregards a pledge of monogamy (and Biblical morality does not require monogamy for either men or women, no matter how stupid most Christians are on this) and seeks out extramarital sex to hurt their spouse is distinctively neglecting their obligations to the relationship, engaging in emotional abuse, and pursuing irrationalistic self-centeredness. Biblically, yes, adultery is evil and deserving of execution even if these malicious motives are not present, and short of capital punishment, divorce is a way for the betrayed spouse to be free according to Jesus in Matthew 19. Even so, adultery can itself be an instance of abuse and neglect, so it is not even wholly separated from the other specific and implied reasons for divorce authorized by the Torah and Paul (1 Corinthians 7:15).
It is thus erroneous to believe that adultery could deserve divorce and that nothing else would ever justify it for similar or practically identical reasons. The context and expression of abuse and neglect would differ from the exact examples of Exodus 21:9-11 to to a case of defiant, malicious adultery, yet at the heart of all of them is a refusal to love one's spouse by Biblical standards and treat them justly. If it is not done out of sheer, knowing mercy or while trying to come up with a plan for financial independence, staying with an abusive or neglectful spouse just because they have not committed adultery is a very stupid thing to do. It is not something demanded by the doctrines of Mosaic Law, the teachings of Jesus (which are in unison with Mosaic Law, as Matthew 5:17-19 directly states), or any other part of the Bible. If anything, such a marriage will probably get worse rather than better, and if the offending spouse does not conform to reason and morality, they lose all right to a relationship with their husband or wife.
No comments:
Post a Comment