Matthew 5:31–34

The Lord Jesus is not pointing to a commandment from the Old Testament. He is pointing to a habit of the Jews — the writing of a letter of divorce — which had probably existed before God gave the law at Sinai.

This bill of divorce was meant to stop a man from treating his wife cruelly — throwing her out and yet leaving her unable to marry anyone else.

A bill of divorce had to be given to the woman. Drawing it up and having it witnessed put at least a small check on a man's hasty temper.

Here the woman is protected against hard-hearted man. Only actual sin that breaks the marriage bond calls for divorce. Men abused the permission beyond all measure, as if it were a command; any annoyance was enough. But the LORD hates divorce, as the last prophet told the Jews in their evil day.

One school of Jewish teachers said the "uncleanness" of Deuteronomy 24:1 meant adultery or some other immoral behaviour. Other teachers accepted anything a husband disliked about his wife as a reason for divorce.

The law contained certain concessions that did not express God's mind at all. In the law God was dealing with a people in their natural state. The law does not think of a man as born of God; Christianity does… the law itself drew no line between those born again and those not born again. It spoke to all Israel, not to believers only. So it allowed certain things because of the hardness of their hearts.

He sets His own word down with divine authority, so that what He laid down stands in contrast to the law and goes far beyond its claims… And what could be plainer than what He does later, in Matthew 19? He goes back to the beginning, long before the law, to the order and the word God set up in Genesis 2. There again His own word is full and final authority.

According to God's will, marriage cannot be dissolved. The Lord Jesus makes this plain in Matthew 19:6: "What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." This not only applies to marriages made "in the Lord," but to every marriage. Already in the Old Testament God had spoken to Jews who had divorced their wives: "For the LORD, the God of Israel, says that He hates putting away" (Malachi 2:16).

In connection with the light of heaven on the lusts of the heart, the Lord adds His word on the permission of divorce in Deuteronomy 24. Here the law protects the woman against hard-hearted man. Only actual sin that breaks the marriage tie calls for divorce. Men abused this permission beyond measure, as if it were a command; and any annoyance was enough. But the Lord hates putting away, as the last prophet testified to the Jews in their evil day.

One school of rabbis taught that "uncleanness" in Deuteronomy 24:1 meant adultery or some other immoral behaviour. Other rabbis accepted anything a husband did not like about his wife as a reason for divorce.

Whatever the wife's faults and weaknesses may be, the man who divorces her puts her in danger. She may be bound to another husband afterwards. The Lord here calls such a relationship adultery. This implies that the first marriage is still valid before God. A marriage is entered into before God and man. A divorce carried out before men, that is, in a court, does not break it. What breaks it is sexual union with another partner afterwards — even when that union takes place in a new marriage. It hardly needs to be said that this also applies to the spouse who puts away, that is, divorces, the other.

The one exception is allowed here because the marriage bond has been so violated that it is already broken in fact. If one party is guilty of sexual immorality, then it would not be adultery for the other party to divorce the first and marry another.

Here the Lord Jesus makes room for one exception, and it clearly rules out any other. This exception is missing in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, and Paul does not mention it in 1 Corinthians 7. The Lord does not say that divorce is unavoidable when one partner commits sexual immorality. He says only that in such a case, if the other partner divorces and remarries, that is not adultery.

In God's thoughts, the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. He breaks into a marriage that still exists before Him. These words of the Lord agree with what the apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians: "the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife."

So our Lord shows that serious difficulties may arise, yet God's own ordinance still stands strongly behind this human relationship. It belongs to this earth, but the light of heaven falls on it. Christ holds up the holiness of marriage. He shuts out every possibility that anything may interfere with it. One case stands apart: where something had already interrupted the marriage in the sight of God. There the act of separation only declares that it was broken already.

Here we see again what the Lord Jesus asks in His kingdom. He does not demand the literal keeping of the law given at Sinai. He seeks instead that His own should follow Him honestly and with a whole heart. For that reason He does not speak about the death penalty for the woman who had committed adultery. He warns His disciples about divorce and the sins caused by it. At the same time, in His grace, He makes room for the possible exception... We should not forget that the sin of adultery can and should be forgiven when the guilty one confesses it honestly. It does not have to lead to divorce.

The moral basis for the command not to swear falsely — that is, not to commit perjury — lay in two commandments. The third says, "You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain." The ninth says, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor." But other passages in the Old Testament warn the people of Israel about thoughtless swearing. Leviticus 19:12 says: "You shall not swear by my name falsely, and so profane the name of your God."

On the other hand, the law required an oath on several occasions. In such cases God asked His people to swear by His name. The oath then did more than confirm the truth. It was also a solemn vow, made in the knowledge that Jehovah was present — the Jehovah who had once Himself taken an oath before Abraham.

There had been great abuse of vowing, as Israel's history makes clear. Men did not hesitate to vow recklessly to God at the prompting of their pride and passion and self-will. Then they found themselves trapped by what now seemed their duty. Careless profanity followed close behind, and people profaned God's name with casual appeals to it on every occasion.

So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be Yes, yes, or No, no. Anything more than these has no sanction from God... All the strong affirmations the Lord illustrates from Jewish habit arose from men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they resorted to such means of guaranteeing the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. A reliable Jewish writer from New Testament times tells us that oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars and the whole universe were not counted binding. Only oaths that used God's name outright bound the conscience. Others could be broken.

The question here is not in the least a judicial oath. The Lord is dealing with how His disciples behave as individuals, not with their relation to the governing authorities. It is a matter of ordinary conversation, not an oath before the magistrate. Heaven, earth, Jerusalem, and a man's own head were ways of swearing in the everyday talk of Jews. They were not the kind of oath used when someone brings in God's authority to bring out the truth in matters of fact. That is why the Lord Himself, though silent before, answered when the high priest put Him under oath by the living God.

The same principle that stops me swearing on my own makes me take an oath before a magistrate. In one case I bring in God lightly. In the other I own Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he does not take the oath a magistrate imposes. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.

Whatever is uncalled for gives no strength to an assertion, but is simply a fruit and proof of weakness. Where there is simple truth, nothing is needed but the quiet statement of the fact.

To bring the vow into Christianity is out of place, and worse. Talk of covenant-vows or baptismal vows goes against the simplicity of Christ's arrangements for us, and against the grace which we know is our only strength. The vow has wholly passed away, but it has gone to make room for Christ's strength to rest on us, and for our very weaknesses to be gloried in for that reason. God's oath is sworn to us, that His abundant grace shall be our sufficiency.

So the Lord goes far beyond perjury or breaking a vow. He forbids swearing altogether in the dealings of daily life. Our word there is to be, Yes, yes, or No, no... The Lord draws His examples from Jewish habit. All such strong assertion grew out of men's constant experience of deceiving and evading. So they used these means to guarantee the truth. But these efforts defeated themselves. We know from a reliable Jewish writer of New Testament times that no one counted oaths by earth, heaven, sun, stars, or the whole universe as binding. Only an oath that named God outright bound the conscience. Men might even break the rest.

It was wrong to think a man could freely use these substitute phrases, as long as he did not mention the name of God. Heaven is God's throne, the earth is God's footstool (Isa. 66:1) and Jerusalem is the city of God and of His King (Psa. 48:1-2). A man who swore by his head was offering his own life as security for the oath. He should remember well that God alone is Lord over life and death. He does not even have the power to change the colour of one hair of his head.

Man cannot even change the colour of a hair. That shows his utter weakness fully and simply, and it forms (at least in part) the basis of the prohibition. God might swear, for He could carry it out, and He knew all the consequences of what He pledged Himself to. We see Him do this beautifully when He wants to reassure His creature, who is so quick to doubt even the perfect faithfulness of his God.

It is quite enough that in our dealings with fellow believers or with other people, our yes should be yes and our no, no. "Anything more than this comes from evil." The believer is as responsible to speak as to act as in the presence of God. This is his regular privilege and safeguard... The evil one is a liar and the father of lies. He would gain a real opening if the Christian were not always watchful to speak truly, and needed such extra words before people believed him.

The same principle that stops me swearing on my own account makes me take what is called an oath before a magistrate. In the one case I bring God in lightly; in the other I acknowledge Him in the magistrate, as I am bound to do. The Lord and James speak only of voluntary oaths — what comes from self... When a magistrate imposes an oath, he is putting me under oath by his authority. I judge a man to be wholly at fault if he refuses that oath. He disowns God's authority in the magistrate.

Notice how our Lord acted before the high priest. It is practical proof of the distinction drawn here. He was silent until the high priest put the oath to Him; then at once He answers. Who can doubt that He shows us the right pattern there?