The criteria for permitting divorce according to the laws that Jesus and other New Testament figures/authors affirm as righteous and reflecting everlasting obligations (Matthew 5:17-19, Romans 7:7, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, Hebrews 2:2, and so on) are far broader than many would have you think. It is not just adultery that justifies divorce, not even according to some translations of Matthew 19 in isolation (sexual immorality is not limited to adultery). In fact, adultery deserves execution according to God's revelation (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22), so for this reason alone and not the others, divorce could not possibly be limited to cases of adultery if the Old Testament is true.
Death would be justice and still this would end the marriage if divorce had not taken place already. Aside from how Jesus, the same person from Matthew 19, over and over affirms Mosaic Law rather than reject it (Matthew 5:17-19 once again, as well as 15:1-20), that is not even to mention how Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and 1 Corinthians 7:15 very clearly allow for divorce in a variety of situations that have nothing to do with adultery [1]. Mosaic Law is from a deity whose nature does not change on the real Christian worldview (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17). This means it is heretical to think as many evangelicals do that Christianity entails that the grounds for permissible divorce changed with time or culture. I will focus here for a time on a passage that is connected with the issue of divorce which I have not previously concentrated on in my writing: Deuteronomy 21:10-14.
First of all, the humanity of captives of war is affirmed here. They would no less be bearers of God's image than the Israelites themselves or anyone else (Genesis 1:26-27). In these verses from the Torah, marriage is allowed between soldiers, in the example given a man, and captives, in this case a woman. Divorce only becomes referenced at the end of this passage. A captive who marries a soldier will shave their head, forgo the clothes they were wearing when captured, live in their new house, and mourn their father and mother for at least a full month before the marriage can be formalized. A month appears to have been a somewhat standard period of time for mourning in Israel, as this is the duration for which Israel lamented the death of Aaron according to Numbers 20:28-29.
After this, again, the Israelite man could marry her. If either party wished otherwise, they were free to leave each other by means of separation or divorce (Deuteronomy 21:14a). If the husband was not pleased with her (the reason for which is not specified), he could divorce, and she was allowed to go wherever she wanted. The Israelite could not mistreat the captive woman by regarding her as a slave because she has been dishonored (21:14b); this is not about rape. Captivity and sometimes divorce are painful or humiliating, with rape being separately condemned in a more direct way as a capital sin in Deuteronomy 22:25-27--against or by both men and women, of course [2]. If the captive woman was actually abused in the marriage by her spouse in a non-capital manner (or the husband by the wife), she was already entitled to divorce (Exodus 21:9-11).
Any married woman or man who is abused, neglected (by lack of provision or by unjust/unloving disregard), or otherwise mistreated is free to leave their marriage. Ultimately, practically any sin is justification for someone to no longer be partners with someone in the words of Ephesians 5:3-7 [3], much less marriage partners, but especially sins against one's partner. One instance of malicious treatment, irrationalistic jealousy, verbal or physical or sexual abuse, legalistic demands, false accusations, or material neglect is enough to warrant divorce for a willing party. Divorcing someone for illicit reasons, marrying a different person, and having sex with them is adultery (Matthew 19:9). Divorcing and remarrying the same man or women after they married someone else who died or divorced them in the meantime is sinful (Deuteronomy 24:2-4).
Ending a marriage for reasons much more commonplace or morally trivial than adultery are entirely permissible, whether or not children are present and regardless of how good the rest of the relationship is. Remember, adultery deserves death anyway: the adulterous husband or wife should be put to death and not allowed to live outside of the marriage they trampled upon. There must of course be no malice or exploitation or sexism or any other sin in the motivation or execution of the divorce, for these things are Biblically immoral even independent of this context. One cannot legitimately divorce one's husband or wife for an amoral reason. Deuteronomy 24 says there is some moral indecency involved but does not condemn divorce and does not specify the nature of the indecency or restrict it to anything adulterous or more broadly sexual. Actually, this would be impossible, since sexual sins already receive separate punishments, often death.
The sin does not have to be particularly grievous among sins or be a capital offense according to God to make divorce valid. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 does not say what made the husband displeased with his wife. What it does permit is divorce in this scenario. In light of Deuteronomy 24, this is not the kind of displeasure with someone that comes from thinking of them as subhuman or being displeased with something such as sickness on their part or fading physical beauty. These things are not sins. Still, if a marriage truly is not working out or husbands and wives decide they are now unwilling to tolerate past offenses, or perhaps they come to recognize them as offenses for the first time, they are free to leave their marriages. The Bible's doctrine of divorce is in reality much closer to the notion of no fault divorce than it is to the evangelical abomination of divorce only being permissible for adultery.
No comments:
Post a Comment