Didn't the law under the Sinai Covenant allow divorce for any cause?/es

⮜ Preguntas Respondidas

Respuesta rápida: No. Esta afirmación suele basarse en un malentendido del propósito del Deut. 24:1-4.

La función de la "orden de divorcio" en la ley bíblica

La ley en cuestión dice lo siguiente:

1 When a man takes a wife and marries her, then it shall be, if she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he shall write her a certificate of divorce, put it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 When she has departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 If the latter husband hates her, and write her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband dies, who took her to be his wife; 4 her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife after she is defiled; for that would be an abomination to YHWH. You shall not cause the land to sin, which YHWH your God gives you for an inheritance. Deuteronomy 24:1-4WEB

Hay algunas cosas importantes que hay que entender sobre el matrimonio y el divorcio bíblicos, que son diferentes del matrimonio y el divorcio modernos.

1. El matrimonio bíblico es un pacto de por vida, no un contrato. No puede romperse, excepto por un acto pecaminoso (como el adulterio) que a menudo es lo suficientemente grave como para merecer la pena de muerte (si es atestiguado y probado) según la ley bíblica.
2. La ley bíblica no requiere en ningún lugar que un cónyuge que tiene su pacto matrimonial roto [por la fornicación de su cónyuge] busque la separación de ese cónyuge. Puede haber perdón y reconciliación con un cónyuge arrepentido, y el pacto matrimonial roto puede ser restaurado.
3. El acto de dar una "orden de divorcio" (mencionado en Deut. 24:1) no rompió el pacto matrimonial. Simplemente documentó (legalmente) la afirmación del marido de que se había producido un acto de ruptura de pacto. Esto protegió a la esposa de futuras acusaciones de adulterio por parte de antiguos maridos de corazón duro.
4. El acto de dar una "orden de divorcio" no requería la participación de un juez civil. Podía hacerse en privado (por ejemplo, Mateo 1:19).

Malinterpretar el documento de divorcio

La creencia de que el Pacto del Sinaí permitía el divorcio por "cualquier causa" probablemente deriva de una mala interpretación de una (o más) de las siguientes tres cosas:

1. El Pacto del Sinaí (implícitamente) requería que el marido que quisiera divorciarse de su esposa por alguna "desnudez" le diera un documento de divorcio. A diferencia del divorcio moderno, este documento de divorcio bíblico no fue emitido por un juez civil, y no requirió una audiencia pública frente a los funcionarios del gobierno civil. Obsérvese en Mateo 1:19, que si una acción de divorcio fuera requerida por la ley Bíblica para ser pública, entonces José (siendo un hombre justo) habría tenido la intención de hacerlo públicamente, no "privadamente" (λάθρᾳ). El documento de divorcio fue creado por el marido, o un escriba que él había contratado, y simplemente registraba una afirmación legal del marido de que el pacto matrimonial se había roto debido a alguna "desnudez" (que probablemente se especificaba en el documento). Según Christopher Wright:

Un hombre no tenía que "ir a la corte" para divorciarse. Las leyes que se refieren al divorcio se refieren a las circunstancias en las que se prohíbe el divorcio o a la regulación de las relaciones después de que el divorcio ya ha ocurrido. En ambos casos, la protección de la mujer parece ser el punto principal de la ley. ... Lo que [Deut. 24:1-4] exige es que el hombre que se divorcie de su mujer debe entregarle una "carta de divorcio". Esto habría sido para la protección de la mujer. Era la prueba documental de que se había divorciado, por lo que ni ella ni ningún futuro marido podría ser acusado de adulterio si se casaba de nuevo.

Este escrito no disolvió o "rompió" el pacto matrimonial. El pacto matrimonial ya estaba roto (si es que realmente lo estaba), por la acción previa de la esposa ("fornicación" según Jesús en Mateo 19:9). Según R. T. France:

La enseñanza de Jesús comienza... desde la "una sola carne" de Génesis 2:24, de modo que sólo porque la "infidelidad sexual" ya ha violado la unidad de la única carne, el matrimonio debe ser considerado como ya no intacto. Shamai se preocupaba por el derecho del hombre a iniciar el divorcio, Jesús con el reconocimiento formal de que el matrimonio ya ha sido roto por la acción de la esposa.

Since there is no obvious way for a civil government to prevent a husband from divorcing his wife for "any cause," some interpreters wrongly assume that God's law allowed for "any cause" divorce. This was the error of the some of the rabbis (see below), which Jesus corrected in Matt. 19.

It's important to consider what the alternative might have been to this Biblical allowance for private divorce. If God had wanted every spousal separation to proceed only from a legal cause proven before a civil judge, then He could have specified this in His law (and He did not). The husband would have been required to bring at least two witnesses (Deut. 19:15) to a public proceeding before civil judges (most likely at the city gates), just as required by every other legal case. Because:

1. "from the beginning" fornication was the only ground for divorce (according to Jesus)
2. most types of fornication (such as adultery or bestiality) would have been death penalty offenses, requiring two or more witnesses
3. most cases of fornication would not be known about by anyone but the husband and the participants (who could not themselves be witnesses against others, having participated in the crime)

thus, the civil judges would either be adjudicating a death penalty case with eyewitnesses, or the husband would not have enough witnesses even to bring a case.

God's law, as usual, makes the best of a bad situation: keeping the evidential requirements for fornication cases (most of which result in a mandatory death penalty) high enough that innocent people don't get punished, while allowing a husband (and by extension, a wife) to exit a marriage where he knows his unrepentant spouse has broken the covenant.

2. In the first century, the divorce law in Deut. 24:1 had been thoroughly discussed by rabbinic interpreters, who split over the intended meaning of the term "matter of nakedness." The Hillel school believed that it allowed for a husband to divorce his wife for "any cause." This is why the Pharisees chose the phrase "πᾶσαν αἰτίαν" in Matt. 19:3. The Shammai school believed that divorce was only allowed for some public indecency, such as a wife going around in public with her head uncovered. Even though Jesus contradicted both of these rabbinic schools, some Christians still claim that Jesus was actually changing the Deut. 24 divorce law, rather than asserting the original meaning of "nakedness" as "fornication." But as Peter Craigie writes: "in Jesus' response to the Pharisee (Mark 10:4), he is not so much changing the law of Deut. 24:1-4, as bringing out its true meaning...."

3. Jesus said that the Deut. 24:1 divorce writ was allowed "because of the hard-heartedness of [the Israelites]" (Matt. 19:8). Some interpreters conclude, erroneously, that Jesus is saying that Deut. 24:1 allowed the divorce writ itself to break a marriage covenant -- as a concession to the Israelites' sinfulness. They typically follow up this erroneous interpretation by asserting that Jesus "tightened up" these restrictions with his pronouncement in Matt. 19:9 that the only allowance for divorce is fornication. Again, this is a misunderstanding of the "power" of the husband's divorce certificate: the writ of divorcement in Deut. 24:1 did not break the covenant, it merely recorded the covenant as "already broken" by some sin or crime (in the category of "fornication").

In fact, the allowance of the divorce and writ, plus the legal prohibition on remarriage in the following verses (Deut. 24:2-4) was the complete law to which Jesus was referring. Deut. 24:1-4 is actually a unified case law which:

1. assumes the right of the husband to put away a wife who has broken the marriage covenant
2. protects the woman from future accusations by her former husband
3. prevents a divorced wife from remarrying her original husband if she had married someone else in the interim

This law helped to prevent women from being passed around like prostitutes between hard-hearted men.