Today is a New Day

One of my favorite lines from Anne of Green Gables is when Anne's teacher, Miss Stacey, counsels Anne that "Today is a new day, with no mistakes in it." So, I'll forgive myself for not getting to the blog yesterday and move on ahead with today: no guilt, no recriminations.

I hope, if (when!) you get behind in your reading, you don't beat yourself up but instead of just think of today as a new day and start reading again!

Here's the question and answer from yesterday:
Thurs, Mar 26: How does God demonstrate his own love for us? (Rom 5)
Romans 5:8 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

And here's the question of the day:
Fri, Mar 27: Jesus died and rose again. Is it possible that he could die again? (Rom 6)


And here's the reflection of the day:
There are some curious "laws" included in our reading from Deuteronomy 25 today, so I thought I'd do a little extra reading and share the interesting stuff I found with you.

These laws concern what is called "levirate marriage." But it doesn't have anything to do with the Levites; "levir" is Latin for "husband's brother." So, this set of laws (25:5-10) "gives formal approval to measures aimed at coping with a situation in which a woman was widowed without having a son to assume the male role within the household" (Clements, NIB Commentary).

Clements believes that this idea of a brother marrying his brother's widow was practiced on an ad hoc basis and probably wasn't a well-established practice, or even legally enforceable.

The requirement is that a widow could not marry outside the family, and it was intended "to ensure that the property of the deceased husband remained within his family's control" (Clements). Its purpose to provide the possibility of a male heir, named for the deceased brother, who would eventually take control of the family's estate and keep the father's line going. (You can go back and read a narrative illustrating this law in Gen 38:12-30.)

Now, remember what Leviticus 18:16 said: "16 You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness." It is generally understood that this holiness code law (which seems to forbid levirate marriage) was probably written much later than Deuteronomy 25 and reflects the fact that the practice of levirate marriage was never widely adopted (Clements).

Perhaps the most interesting part of this clump of verses is the husband's brother's ability (sort 0f) to opt out of levirate marriage. Now, what reasons could a husband's brother have to NOT marry his brother's widow? It seems there are two: 1) the husband's brother might be in the position to acquire the estate himself and add it to his own property, instead of letting it stand in his brother's name. And 2) if he married his s-i-l, "the value of his own property might be diminished and his status in the community lessened if a major entitlement remained in the name of his dead brother" (Clements).

The brother can opt out of this levirate marriage, but he must endure a ceremony that bears a strong resemblance to a public shaming. The removal of the sandal and the spitting in the face is meant to symbolize the brother's failure to uphold the integrity of family and its estate. "The sandal was the token of 'walking over' a piece of land as a sign of ownership. Its removal signified that the owner of the sandal had not shown proper regard for his (extended) family's property" (Clements, again!).

This ceremonial act of shaming had a power influence on social behavior. But this is clearly a social matter and not a judicial matter that requires the court's interference.

Though the OT emphasizes the need for the husband's family to care for the widows and orphans among them, the NT emphasizes the role of the church/faith community in the care of widows and orphans. It's interesting to watch as society changes and the varied approaches to handling problems that, like the poor, are always with us.

In our contemporary world, single-parent families are common. Whether as a result of divorce or death or a myriad of other reasons, many individuals in our world create a life for their children on their own, sometimes with financial help from the the extended family, sometimes not.

We like to think of marriage as a sacred institution and family given to us by God. But it's interesting to note that, at least in biblical times, economics was just as important as the creation mandate.

Being one who is not married, I cannot give my own first hand impressions of this idea. What do you think? How much is marriage today a matter of economics? a matter of affinity and love? Maybe a better question is how much a matter of staying married or marrying again quickly or not divorcing a matter of economics?

Tell me what you think!
Allison