Here, I continue pointing out flaws of William Luck's theological position on divorce in the article linked at the bottom of the post [1].
Beyond failing to realize the logical and Biblical mutuality of any obligations spouses have towards each other, Luck stupidly concludes that only very specific things are obligatory towards a person's marriage partner anyway. He ignores that all sorts of moral duties pertain to marriage although they are not primarily related to it! Because the page linked at the bottom of this post is supposed to focus on Exodus 20 and 21 as they overtly or more subtly relate to marriage, I will use an example from Exodus 20. The Bible never specifically says that a husband and wife should not steal from each other, but this is already encompassed within what it does say.
Exodus 20:15—"'You shall not steal.'"
As a sinful act, theft should not be committed against one's husband or wife. But this is not because theft is strictly relevant to marriage, as with the sin condemned in the very verse before Exodus 20:15. All stealing is wicked. Thus, stealing from one's marital partner is one possible expression of a universally immoral behavior. There are ramifications of verses like Exodus 20:15 and the obligations described therein for marriage, though they are not limited to marriage. Indeed, this is exactly the case with Exodus 21:26-27 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 as already addressed.
These verses about the evil of abusing slaves/servants and a slave's human right to flee if not released are not about marriage, but it logically follows from the doctrine of a slave's freedom for mistreatment that wives and husbands are also permitted to go free for abuse regardless of any other factors (children, personal promises to always stay with each other, and so on). There are far more obligations that both husbands and wives have towards each other than the ones Luck brings up as if they were exhaustive; even then, he treats some of the obligations he lists as gender-specific when they have nothing to do with anatomy.
The Bible does not say they are gender-specific, with other verses sometimes outright teaching the opposite. This sexism would make his philosophy of marriage ethics inconsistent with reason itself, which in turn makes it automatically false. Then, the issue is whether the Bible contradicts objective logical truths (not scientific contingencies, probabilities, or hearsay) about morality and gender egalitarianism. The Bible, in fact, does directly highlight that an obligation brought up using the particular example of a man or woman still goes both ways, unless a person's anatomy and physiology exclude this. For instance, a man could not be obligated to ceremonially cleanse himself from childbirth (Leviticus 12) because he does not give birth. Love for one's spouse is an important example of an obligation mentioned in one place as directed towards spouses of a particular gender and elsewhere articulated as being a mutual obligation, having no connection to anatomy. Paul does say husbands should love their wives in Ephesians 5 (and in Colossians 3:19), but he also holds that wives should love their husbands as expressed in Titus 2:
Ephesians 5:25, 28—"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her . . . In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself."
Titus 2:3-5—"Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God."
Obviously, Paul does not actually think only husbands should love only wives. The fact that he separately instructs both to love each other already reflects egalitarian mutuality. He alludes to Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:28, moreover, before outright citing it in verse 31 to point out that a husband and wife are to become one flesh. This is the egalitarian basis of husbands loving their wives as themselves—it does not only go in one direction! Genesis 2:24 is very direct with its anti-complementarian philosophy, something paralleled in Song of Songs 6:3. To revisit an idea of Luck's I refuted logically and Biblically from certain angles in part one of this series, a husband is not unilaterally like a master to his wife, and his wife is not unilaterally like a slave to him. Husbands and wives mutually belong to each other as equal partners:
Genesis 2:24—"That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh."
Song of Songs 6:3—"I am my beloved's and my beloved is mine . . ."
Both of the verses above are from the Old Testament! They alone clarify that Exodus 20:17 does not regard men as the literal, uni-directional owners of their wives, aside from the other errors of such a concept being supposedly Biblical. In true egalitarian fashion, Paul accordingly does also claim that husbands should submit to wives as contained within the scope of Ephesians 5:21 and expressly addressed in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 (which deals with a submission that is clearly said to go in both directions), in addition to wives submitting to their husbands, which is singled out elsewhere (Ephesians 5:22-24, Colossians 3:18).
Short of an actual statement on submission not being mutual, mentioning submission of wives to husbands in one place does not exclude egalitarian submission, which Paul obviously assents to. And as pertains to divorce, since failing to love or submit to one's spouse in the ways genuinely required by morality is mistreatment of one's spouse, this wrong would surely release someone from the obligation to remain married if they no longer wish to be. Love and submission are marital duties (including submission of husbands to wives as taught in Deuteronomy 24:5), so falling short of rightly holding to and practicing them is a violation of the marriage covenant. Various examples of neglect (Exodus 21:10-11) and general displeasure over wrongdoing (Deuteronomy 24:1-4) are already specified as allowed reasons for divorce anyway! Luck would completely deny the total equivalence of the obligations to love and submit within marriage, with, of course, no one being obligated to submit to an abusive partner (Exodus 21:10-11, 26-27, and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 independently proclaim or necessitate this). The latter, he agrees with, but he does not think the same things always constitute abuse for husbands and wives.
Also, both 1) the mutuality of marital rights and obligations between husbands and wives—aka, gender equality—and 2) the right to divorce for forms of abuse besides abandonment are addressed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:15. In the context of a chapter where he frequently emphasizes mutual obligation within marriage, he expressly acknowledges that abandoning one's partner is only one of multiple "such circumstances" that entitle the offended husband or wife to pursue divorce. Whether or not it is a non-Christian guilty of the abandonment as in the direct example makes no logical difference as to the core nature of the sin. Certain translations besides the NIV (featured below) say that the abandoned or otherwise abused spouse is no longer enslaved or under bondage, perhaps an intentional allusion to tangentially but crucially relevant verses like Exodus 21:26-27 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16.
Moreover, it is vital that Paul, who champions the strict universality and rigidness of the Law (Romans 3:10-31, 7:7, 12, 1 Timothy 1:8-11) does not insist that men (or women) must remain trapped in abusive marriages even in the circumstances of Deuteronomy 22:17-19 and 28-29. His stance on divorce is perfectly consistent with Yahweh's Torah laws while still being so simple he can summarize it in one single verse: abandonment and other forms of mistreatment always validate divorce, and this is true of both husbands and wives, who are mutually obligated to each other in all the same ways. Remarriage is permitted for both parties, who are not bound to each other if one of them pursues divorce for legitimate reasons:
1 Corinthians 7:15—"But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace."
First, sheer gender equality is affirmed yet again. Second, while a particular example of mistreatment is held up as warranting divorce, Paul's literal wording allows for divorce for additional reasons, as indicated by the phrase "such cases". This is consistent with what Exodus and Deuteronomy respectively teach by permitting divorce for specific offenses and by adding that, except for in very particular scenarios, a spouse can divorce their partner over any wrong they commit, even if it is directed outside the marriage. Note that even if Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was absent from the Bible, the baseline criteria for divorce would then be if someone simply wishes to no longer be married to their partner (Deuteronomy 21:10-14). As long as there was no malicious reason for the divorce, such as financially harming one's former partner without cause, subjective willingness to abolish the marriage would justify it as permissible. And if Deuteronomy 21:10-14 was also absent, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy would still never condemn divorce in any case of a spouse's actual moral failure, with Exodus still providing key examples of sins warranting divorce and with remarriage afterward never being declared evil.
There is neither an all-encompassing set of reasons or a very limited number of morally valid reasons for divorce. The entire category of ideological/moral error by one's spouse is the baseline standard for permissible divorce. Non-moral actions, those with no actual error (such as reading a certain book series or wearing green clothing), never legitimize divorce. Ordinarily, any moral failure of your husband or wife entitles you to end the marriage if their actions displease you so much that you lose interest in remaining married to them; in the situations addressed in Deuteronomy 22, only direct abuse within the marriage entitles a spouse to leave, for although Deuteronomy 22 does say an offender may never divorce a spouse in these two situations, Exodus 21:26-27 and Deuteronomy 23:15-16 are incredibly clear on how no social status, relational standing, or vow of commitment obligates a man or woman to stay in an abusive situation, not even if they are a slave.
The relevance of Exodus to many particular points focused on in this post and the truth of those points goes unrecognized by William Luck. His philosophy of marriage and divorce is thoroughly inconsistent with both logic's objective truths and genuine Biblical doctrines. He ignores some instrumental passages connected to marriage, distorts the conveyed meaning of many verses he does acknowledge, and, most grievously of all, disregards logical necessities left and right, such as the sheer equivalence of an act when done by or to a man or woman. Ostensibly, the series of posts which the linked page is but one out of is meant to exegetically illuminate what the Bible really teaches about marriage, obligations within marriage, and the criteria for divorce. Luck fails miserably in fulfilling such a goal at almost every turn. As right as it is to point out that wives can abuse husbands, including physically, and that this is sinful by Biblical standards (and not in a lesser sense than the other way around), even the reasons he thinks this is correct are woefully erroneous.
Men and women are equals, something that cuts both ways. And there is no egalitarian uplifting or protection of women without that of men and vice versa. Additionally, the number of obligations husbands and wives Biblically have towards each other far exceeds the measly number that Luck proposes, with none of them being gender-specific. His is a terribly illogical and unbiblical stance on divorce!
No comments:
Post a Comment