§ On the Jewish marriage laws and practice see Josephus, Ant. 1v. viii. 23; Vita, § 76. Also cf. Wiinsche, Eridéuterung der Evangelien, pp. 52-57; Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, i. 352-364, ii. 332-834 ; Tholuck, Bergrede®, pp. 227- 234 [Eng. tr. pp. 217-221]; and art. MARRIAGE in vol. iil.
|| Tholuck, Bergrede®, p. 239 [Eng. tr. p. 225], thus states the biblical idea of marriage: ‘Marriage is a Divine institution, having for its aim to bring man and woman to an indissoluble unity of body and spirit, that they may thus mutually com- plement each other, and lay the foundation of a family.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT
27
conception of marriage. Jesus now solemnly re- affirms and promulgates as His own teaching. According to Mk 10”-!2 (cf. Mt 199-22) Jesus subsequently spoke further on the subject in private to His disciples, forbidding remarriage after divorce. This would be a corollary of His previous statement, for separation might not pre- vent ultimate realization of the marriage ideal be- tween the husband and the wife, while remarriage would effectually prevent such a realization. Much uncertainty, however, exists as to just what Jesus said about remarriage.* The parallel passages to Mk 10”, which appear in Mt 5* 19°, Lk 16, are in serious disagreement, and there is also difficulty in determining the best textual reading in some places. These variations indicate an agitation of the subject of divorce among the primitive Chris- tians, and an attempt to formulate Jesus’ ideal of marriage into practical rules of conduct for specific cases. The words of Jesus on remarriage, so vari- ously reported, reflect the different views on the subject which were current among the Christians while our Gospels were in process of formation. The fact seems to be, that Jesus in His teaching concerning marriage is dealing with the principle and the ideal of marriage, rather than enacting legal statutes in regard to it. The whole treat- ment of His words as marriage legislation, which began with His disciples and has continued to the present day, is a mistake, and has led to confusion, hardship, contradiction, and strife. Jesus here, as always, was setting forth the will of God for men in revealing the purpose and the Divine con- ception of the institution of marriage. He there- fore establishes the ideal of marriage as a perfect, permanent union in body and spirit, and enjoins
* In Mt 582 199 there is a striking addition to the words of Jesus as recorded in Mk 104, Lk 1618 ; cf. also 1 Co 710.11, Thig exceptive phrase rapexros Adyou ropvelas OY (om tx} ropyele is taken to mean that in the case of adultery Jesus explicitly permitted the divorce and remarriage of the innocent party. But this Matthzan addition falls under suspicion for four reasons : (1) the Matthean account 193-9, with which 521.82 js probably to be associated, is distinctly secondary and divergent from that of Mk 101-12 ; (2) this exceptive phrase is significantly absent from the accounts in Mark, Luke, and Paul ; (3) the exception is of a statutory nature, while Jesus is establishing the principle and the ideal of marriage ; (4) in accordance with Jesus’ general teaching, adultery is not in itsedfa sufficient ground for divorce. Consequently, the opinion is becoming strongly supported that these words of the Matthew passages are a mollifying interpre- tation put upon Jesus’ teaching by a generation or group of Christians who took His words as a new marriage legislation, and regarded the statute as intolerably severe (so Bleek, de Wette, Schneckenburger, Bruce, Heinrici, H. Weiss, H. Holtzmann, Wendt, Schmiedel, Bacon). In this case Mark and Luke unite in preserving Jesus’ actual words, which laid down a principle and not a statute, leaving the application of this principle, as of others, to be worked out according to the possibilities of the circumstances in any given instance (cf. Mal 21416), Similarly Bacon (Sermon on the Mount, pp. 117, 177 f.). Other scholars hold that the exceptive phrase in Matthew is an interpolation, but only states explicitly what was already im- plied as true in the nature of the case, that the act of adultery actually destroys the marriage union and is the divorce, instead of being merely a proper ground of divorce (so Meyer, Tholuck, E. Haupt, B. Weiss), But adultery cannot be in itself a proper ground for divorce on Gospel principles. In a case of adultery, divorce might be necessary if the offending party persisted in this evil conduct, wilfully regardless of all moral sense and duty. Suppose, however, that after the wrong had been done, the guilty party became truly repentant, and re- solved upon a right life henceforth? The Gospel requires mercy rather than justice, love rather than revenge; forgiveness, patience, and long-suffering. The prophet Hosea, in his trying marriage relation, had discovered the Divine principle involved in such cases, and had recognized that in dealing lovingly and forgivingly with a wayward wife he was following God’s own method with His wayward children; cf. also Jer 31-15, Jesus most impressively taught that love, gentleness, and forgiveness were to characterize the true Christian, even in a case of adultery ; for He said to the adulteress: ‘Neither do I condemn thee; go, sinno more.’ Such teaching seemed to the early Church quite too lenient, so that this incident with its teaching failed to find a place in the Gospels until the 2nd cent., and then not a suitable one. Jesus’ treatment of this woman has been lost sight of in the interpretation of His words concerning divorce. The hard spirit of vengeance has ruled men’s thoughts rather than the forgiving spirit of love.