Vows
This week's verses are Matthew 5:31-37:
These verses are linked together and say a bit about how we are supposed to relate to each other. Jesus was hanging out with his disciples talking about different ways that the law given to them was actually too weak. He talks about divorce, which is basically the breaking of a lifelong vow, and continues on to the topic of breaking other vows.
You might wonder why only wives and women are mentioned. I've heard some pretty batty explanations, implying that God only loves men, or that only women need protection. The most likely reason for the one-sidedness is that things were very different back in Roman times. Women were not allowed to initiate divorce. Consent wasn't even required for marriage in a lot of places in those days! Making the verses gender inclusive would have made about as much sense from the Roman perspective as talking about how the property should get divided up if a seven year old child evicts his parents. In other words, it didn't even enter into their worldview.
In a modern sense, we should read it as gender inclusive. If a woman divorces a man, it's just as much of an injustice and breach of faith as the man divorcing the woman. Both parties assent to a marriage now, so either party is to blame if they breach the contract.
The law at the time was pretty progressive. If a man divorced his wife, he had to provide her with a document to revoke his claim on her, so that he couldn't then accuse her of adultery if she went off with someone else later. A divorced woman was free, and couldn't be drafted back into service later if her ex-husband changed his mind.
But it still wasn't exactly fair, because a man could just keep divorcing his wives as he met younger richer women, leaving a trail of poverty and broken families behind him. It was basically a serial form of polygamy, which wasn't respectful of the women who were pushed aside or the society affected by the aftermath. And it was a contract, which means breaking it without consequences weakens the integrity of the society as a whole.
Jesus says that marriage shouldn't be broken at all. There is no acceptable form of divorce, except in cases where the contract has already been broken by the other party by them being unfaithful. Being unfaithful here is defined as being involved sexually with someone who is not the person listed in the contract. It doesn't mean forgetting to buy gifts for birthdays and anniversaries, not cooking well, gaining weight, getting old, not performing repairs, being messy, being mean, etc.
He seems to imply that while divorce may be legal in a civil sense, in the sense of being married in God's eyes the divorced parties seem to still be married, hence the label of adultery. He's saying that when you break the contract, this is the damage you're causing. You're causing people to sin, which means you are sinning in one of the worst possible ways.
He then goes on to talk about swearing oaths. Oaths are how people made agreements back in Jesus' time. In order to keep someone from breaking a contract you would make them swear an oath, kind of like what we do when someone becomes the American president. The advice from the teachers of the law was pretty good: People were told they needed to keep their oaths.
But Jesus says that if you swear oaths, the implication is that your word isn't any good outside of the oath. That's basically a license to be a liar the rest of the time. Instead of focusing on just keeping our word for the things we swear oaths to, we should keep our word all of the time.
Whether it's breaking a marriage contract or breaking a promise to come over and help your friend move on a day that turns out to be hot outside, we are weakening the web of trust society is built on. We also wrong others who depended on that contract, written or verbal, that we had made with them.
If we are supposed to love others the way Jesus loves them, that means the promises we make to others matter. We produce impossible situations for those whose trust we betray. Is it love to throw the mother of your children out on the street in order to bed the younger, prettier, funnier secretary? Is it love to throw the father of your children out on the street and take half of his life's savings, just because the guy at the coffee shop plays a mean guitar and seems to really understand you? Is it love to deny your children the chance to grow up with both parents as a part of their daily lives?
Is it love to leave someone to toil outside alone because you didn't feel like going out that day? Is it love to not give someone the loan you promised, because you want a new computer? Is it love to cancel meeting a friend in need, because you're tired after work?
Love of self, maybe, but not love in any Christlike sense. And that's what Jesus is pointing out here. A big settlement, or soft words, or a progressive contract doesn't change the fact that you have no love. And love is the currency grace is paid in. God's word is good, and if we want to demonstrate God's love, our word needs to be good too. We should be careful what we promise to others and careful to honor the promises we've made.
“It was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
“Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’ But I say to you, do not take oaths at all—not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King. Do not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’ More than this is from the evil one.
These verses are linked together and say a bit about how we are supposed to relate to each other. Jesus was hanging out with his disciples talking about different ways that the law given to them was actually too weak. He talks about divorce, which is basically the breaking of a lifelong vow, and continues on to the topic of breaking other vows.
You might wonder why only wives and women are mentioned. I've heard some pretty batty explanations, implying that God only loves men, or that only women need protection. The most likely reason for the one-sidedness is that things were very different back in Roman times. Women were not allowed to initiate divorce. Consent wasn't even required for marriage in a lot of places in those days! Making the verses gender inclusive would have made about as much sense from the Roman perspective as talking about how the property should get divided up if a seven year old child evicts his parents. In other words, it didn't even enter into their worldview.
In a modern sense, we should read it as gender inclusive. If a woman divorces a man, it's just as much of an injustice and breach of faith as the man divorcing the woman. Both parties assent to a marriage now, so either party is to blame if they breach the contract.
The law at the time was pretty progressive. If a man divorced his wife, he had to provide her with a document to revoke his claim on her, so that he couldn't then accuse her of adultery if she went off with someone else later. A divorced woman was free, and couldn't be drafted back into service later if her ex-husband changed his mind.
But it still wasn't exactly fair, because a man could just keep divorcing his wives as he met younger richer women, leaving a trail of poverty and broken families behind him. It was basically a serial form of polygamy, which wasn't respectful of the women who were pushed aside or the society affected by the aftermath. And it was a contract, which means breaking it without consequences weakens the integrity of the society as a whole.
Jesus says that marriage shouldn't be broken at all. There is no acceptable form of divorce, except in cases where the contract has already been broken by the other party by them being unfaithful. Being unfaithful here is defined as being involved sexually with someone who is not the person listed in the contract. It doesn't mean forgetting to buy gifts for birthdays and anniversaries, not cooking well, gaining weight, getting old, not performing repairs, being messy, being mean, etc.
He seems to imply that while divorce may be legal in a civil sense, in the sense of being married in God's eyes the divorced parties seem to still be married, hence the label of adultery. He's saying that when you break the contract, this is the damage you're causing. You're causing people to sin, which means you are sinning in one of the worst possible ways.
He then goes on to talk about swearing oaths. Oaths are how people made agreements back in Jesus' time. In order to keep someone from breaking a contract you would make them swear an oath, kind of like what we do when someone becomes the American president. The advice from the teachers of the law was pretty good: People were told they needed to keep their oaths.
But Jesus says that if you swear oaths, the implication is that your word isn't any good outside of the oath. That's basically a license to be a liar the rest of the time. Instead of focusing on just keeping our word for the things we swear oaths to, we should keep our word all of the time.
Whether it's breaking a marriage contract or breaking a promise to come over and help your friend move on a day that turns out to be hot outside, we are weakening the web of trust society is built on. We also wrong others who depended on that contract, written or verbal, that we had made with them.
If we are supposed to love others the way Jesus loves them, that means the promises we make to others matter. We produce impossible situations for those whose trust we betray. Is it love to throw the mother of your children out on the street in order to bed the younger, prettier, funnier secretary? Is it love to throw the father of your children out on the street and take half of his life's savings, just because the guy at the coffee shop plays a mean guitar and seems to really understand you? Is it love to deny your children the chance to grow up with both parents as a part of their daily lives?
Is it love to leave someone to toil outside alone because you didn't feel like going out that day? Is it love to not give someone the loan you promised, because you want a new computer? Is it love to cancel meeting a friend in need, because you're tired after work?
Love of self, maybe, but not love in any Christlike sense. And that's what Jesus is pointing out here. A big settlement, or soft words, or a progressive contract doesn't change the fact that you have no love. And love is the currency grace is paid in. God's word is good, and if we want to demonstrate God's love, our word needs to be good too. We should be careful what we promise to others and careful to honor the promises we've made.
Comments
Post a Comment