The right of the wife to divorce her husband, which was conceded at least under later Greek and Roman law, was an idea repugnant to Hebrew custom and enactment. The only trace of such an idea is the legal provision that 1f a bondwoman hecome a wife, and if she be denied conjugal rislits, she shall go out free without money (Ex 217"), This, however, was not a concession to the woman of power to divorce; in any such case the theory was that the husband was called upon, in the exercise of his exclusive prerogative, to put away his wife (Amram, op. cit. p. 60). Under the influence of alien customs, and with the support of Roman law, the practice came into vogue in NT times, whereby the wife directly repudiated the husband by sending him a ‘ bill of divorce.’ The innovation was opposed by Jos. (Ant. Xv. vii. 11, ΧΥΊΠ. ν. 5), and was expressly condemned by our Lord in the words, ‘if a woman shall put away her husband and marry another, she committeth adultery’ (Mk 1013. The Tal- mudists upheld the old theory, allowing the wife to demand divorce in certain cases—e.g. leprosy, apostasy, cruelty, impotence (Amram, op. cit. c. 5).
The writing or bill of divorcement (np > 150, Talm. 58, Gr. βιβλίον ἀποστασίου), which figures so largely in this subject, was of great antiquity (Dt 24', Is 50', Jer 38). In earlier times no great cereniony was used (Gn 214), and the form of words would doubtless be similar to those in use among the Arabs.* While necessary to make a divorce legal, it would co ioe that in the time of our Lord the ‘bill’ could be granted without bringing the matter under the cognizance of the authorities (Mt 113). From the Mishna, a treatise of which takes its name from the ‘bill’ (Gitdin), it appears that most elaborate regulations were enforced in regard to the judiciary, clerk, witnesses, time ard place, and also the medium and mode of the delivery of the document. The following is given bd Maimonides as an ancient and mode form of the get or bill: ‘On the —— day of the week and —— day of the month of in the year —— since the creation of the world (or of the era of the Seleucidz), the era accord- ing to which we are accustomed to reckon in this Bess, to wit, the town of —— do I —— the son 0: of the town of —— (and by whatever
*Two formulw are given by W. R. Smith (Kinship, pp. 94,
163: ‘Begone, for I will no longer drive thy flocks to the
ture.’ ‘Thou art to me as the back of my mother’; cf. the tin formula: ‘Tuas res tibi habeto, tuas res tibi agito.’
MARRIAGE
other name or surname I or my father may he known, and my town and his town), thus determine, being of sound mind and under no constraint ; and I do release and send away and put aside thee —— daughter of —— of the town of —— (and by whatever other name or surname thou and thy father are known and thy town and his town), who hast been my wife from time past hitherto, and hereby I do release thee and send thee away and put thee aside that thon mayest have per- mission and control over thyself to go to be married to any man whom thou desirest, and no man shall hinder thee (in my name) from this day forever. And thou art permitted (to he married) to any man. And these presents shall be unto thee from me a bill of dismissal, a docu- ment of release and a letter of freedom, according to the law of Moses and Israel.
—— the son of —— a witness. the son of —— a witness.’ (Amram, pp. 157-158, with which ef. original text and Latin rendering in Surenhusius, Mishnah, iii. p. 323, and commentary, ib. p. 325).
vi. MARRIAGE AS A SYMBOL OF SPIRITUAL TruTHS.—Although modern exegesis has given up the idea that in Canticles divine love is set forth under the image of human love, it is a familiar biblical thought that the marriage rela- tionship is typical of the union and communion of God. with His people. After Hosea, whose domestic life is reasonably supposed to have im-
ressed him with the suitableness of the imagery, it became a commonplace of prophecy that God was to Israel as a husband, and Israel to God as a bride (Hos 2, Jer 3! 315%, Is 54°).* The con- ception passed over into NT, but with modifica- tions agreeable to the nature of Christianity—the bridegroom being now God in Christ (Mt 9%, Jn 3°), the bride the spiritual Israel elect out of every nation (2 Co 113, Rev 197).
Now, this conception of God as the husband, though it has been little utilized in theology, cannot be said to be less apt or important than the two other conceptions of God which have been made the basis of systems. These are the idea of God as King, which lays the main stress on the divine sovereignty, and the idea of God as Father, which lays the main stress on the divine love. And as the weakness of the system built upon the principle of the divine sovereignty has been widely felt to be that it does less than justice to the ethical being of God; and as, on the other hand, the theology based on the divine fatherhood has been in danger of obscuring the divine might and majesty, there is certainly something to be said for putting in the forefront the thought of Hosea, which, representing God as husband, equally emphasizes to our minds His sovereignty and His goodness.