There are three fundamental problems here though.
First, your citation is about priests and the Hebrew nation and not marriage. God wasn't bashful about making laws about marriage yet the scriptures never make that rule for it.
Second, every divorced woman is going to claim the man was a bad husband. If she didn't, she wouldn't have left (which is a scattering and hence self-made proof of a bad shepherd). So in practice this is just a get out of jail free card that justifies all divorces and is the opposite of what Paul commanded in 1 Cor 7:10-11.
Third, that's not the solution God taught. Not only did He not teach that, but when dealing with the worst case (an unbeliever who does not the will of God), the advice is the opposite: stay (1 Cor 7) and set a good example by your behavior (1 Peter 3).
To the first point, I do agree that contextually the passage is about the Levites as shepherds and pastors and the sheep are the representing the nation or people of Israel. However, the metaphor is equally applicable to multiple types of relationships such as stewards or husbands or even kings. The shepherd/sheep metaphor is utilized by Nathan when he confronts David re: Uriah and Bathsheba.
Also to the last half of the first point, to say that the metaphor I used is a rule is probably setting the bar a bit high, however, the example of a covenant breaking man’s wife serving another as a result of that CB has existed pre Canon apparently (per Job 31) and I ran across a passage in Acts 1:20 that would indicate or support the same principle. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, (69:25) Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. (Judas, an apostate? Unbeliever? Definitely a covenant breaker. Also dead so maybe not applicable though the Psalms account seems to indicate this sentence before Judas’ death)
To the second point, I also agree with the assessment because if she thought she had a good husband she wouldn’t have left, however to categorize all woman initiated divorce under this heading is not accurate and indicates a bias that all husbands are good husbands, neither of which is accurate or reflect reality. There are good women who initiate divorce for IMO Scripturally justifiable reasons against bad husbands. IMO, it is their right to do so if he is a covenant breaker (adulterer) either by physical adultery with another mans wife or for the Exodus 21:11 covenant breaking. IMO the purpose of the Exodus 21 passage is not so that the woman can be “free” forever, as a woman without covering is an unenviable position, but so that she is free to covenant with someone who will perform those three duties and will provide covering.
To the third point, “thats not the solution God taught”, I’d have to disagree for multiple reasons and passages listed here and elsewhere through the thread. Regarding the Ezekiel 34 passage with Israel and their shepherds the Levites, God specifically “officiated” their covenant, but because of their abuse of their position, God specifically states that He will gather the scattered, wounded, lost, driven away, bind up the broken and strengthen or heal that which was sick. He will also place them under a different shepherd (verse 23) that will act according to God’s will and desire. Verse 27 says that they will know that I am the Lord,
when I have broken the bands of their yoke,
and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them. This passage is succinctly fulfilled in the person of Christ. The Levites weren’t dead at the time of Christ, they were still as abusive if not more so than at the time of Ezekiel’s writings. Because of their covenant breaking and their abuse of their “office”, God removed them from their position and supplied another Shepherd for His flock.
To Pauls “advice”, I’ll just point out that that is the extent of the authority of that “advice”. He doesnt claim any additional authority for his opinion, rather he gives good reasons for why he believes and advises that way. She still has the right to leave the unbelieving husband, it just may be better for the kingdom and her husband if she doesnt. To address the commandment of the Lord mentioned in verse 10 of the same passage, the commandment is regarding believing husbands as Paul differentiates between believing and unbelieving in verse 12, “to the rest speak I not the Lord” and deals with unbelieving spouses. A believing husband will be providing and protecting etc. Any husband who is not doing these cannot be considered to be a believing husband but rather worse than an infidel and as such has no right to claim this commandment of verse 10. If the wife chooses to stay with the covenant breaker anyway that’s her choice. Obviously a woman who divorces a covenant keeping husband (believer or not) is at fault and is not justified in the divorce. She should obviously be reconciled to her husband. A woman who divorces from a covenant breaking “professing” believer IMO should allow the opportunity for him to repent and change so that she can reconcile with him, but not forever (IMO). At some point, she will figure out that he’s not who he claims he is and will move on to find a true believing husband who will provide the covering.
I think that the example given in Ezra of the men putting away their ”unbelieving” wives is something to be considered in this discussion. Ezra interprets the marriage to non Jewish women to be unequally yoked and the cause of God’s judgement. Paul allows it to continue for the purpose of conversion while Ezra it seems has a much more rigid interpretation.
