tice of divorcing their wives I.-- umIuioh .
according to every man's foolish ,,v iiaiiLhi\ \mII ' (Lightfoot, Hm: Heb. et Talm^nl. ,,,/ .\li 12--'). it is not necessary, however, in the ini irinctation of His teaching in this and similar plar. ,~ lo insist on such .-i view of His words. Thf ciitiic liody of till' rcconled teaching of Jesus betrays the most iniiniatr ac([uaiutance with the literature and i-lhir.al tendencies of the OT.
That exceedingly lax and immoral views of this
sin were held generally by the generation in which
Jesus lived, becomes evident not only from His
casual references to the .subject, but also from His
> Cf. Wis.' 71.
30
ADULTERY
ADULTERY
positive teaching in answer to hostile questions addressed to Him about adultery and the kindred subject of divorce. We are also confronted with the same phenomenon in the writings, cf)., of Josephus (cf. Ant. IV. viii. 23; Vita, §76), Sir 7^ 25=« 42=, and in the Talmud. Tlie result of the teaching of Hillel was of the worst description, reducing as it did the crime of adultery to the level of an ordinary or minor fault. This Rabbi actually went the len^tli, in his interpretation of the Deuteronomic law of divorce as stated in Dt 24^, of laying down the rule that a man might ])ut away his wife 'if she cook her husband's food badly by salting or roasting it too much' (see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. ct Talmud, ad Mt S^'), and R. 'A^iba, improving on this instruction, inter- preted the words ' if she find no favour in his eyes ' as giving permission to a man to divorce his wife ' if he sees a woman fairer than her.'
On the other hand, R. Shammai refused to take a view so loose and immoral, and in his exposi- tion of the Deuteronomic permission confined the legality of divorce to cases of proved unchastity on the part of the wife. Other celebrated Rabbins took a similarly rigid view of this question, while all, of every school, were agreed that the crime of adultery demanded divorce as its punishment. The form of the question addressed to Jesus by the Pharisees {Kara iraaav aWlav) in Mt 19^ shows the nature of the controversy between the rival Rabbinical schools, and also lets us see how far the j)ernicious teacliing of the school of Hillel had permeated the social fabric. Men's ideas about this sin were also debased by the polygamous habits then prevalent. Of Herod the Great we read that he had ten wives ; which, according to Jose- phus, was not only permissible, but had actually be- come a common occurrence amongst the Jews, ' it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives' {BJ I. xxiv. 2). In another place the .same historian remarks, in connexion with the story of the Herodian family, that ' it is the ancient prac- tice among us to have many wives at the same time ' (Ant. XVII. i. 2). There seems to have been no hard and fast rule limiting the number of wives permissible to each man, but their teachers advised them to restrict themselves to four or five (cf. Schiirer, HJP i. i. 455, note 125).
From these observations we see what an im- portant bearing the teaching of Jesus had on the current conceptions of sexual morality obtaining amongst His countrymen. It is quite in harmony with His method of instruction to reduce the overt commission of a sin to the element out of which it originates and takes its shape. ' A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit (Mt 7'"-, cf. 12^ and Lk 6'^'-), and the heart corrupted by evil desire fructifies, just as surely, by an inexorable law of nature. 1 here exists within the man whose inner life is thus tainted not merely latent or gelminal sin, .such as may or may not yet issue in deeds of wrong. The lustful eye gazing with sinful longing is the consummation, — the fruit of the corrupt tree, — and so far as the man's will is concerned, the sinful act is completed (Mt 5^). The note of stern- ness which characterizes this teaching is not alto- gether original, as will be seen if we refer to such commands as are found, e.g., in Ex 20", Pr 6", Sir 9* etc. , and to such interpretative sayings in the Talmud as forbade the gazing upon 'a woman's heel ' or even upon her ' little finger' (cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talmud, ad Mt a^). The ethical foundation, however, upon which Jesu.s based His doctrine strikes the reader as being the deepest and the firmest of any that had as yet been re- vealed on the subject ; and this miist have seemed to His hearers to be not the least remarkable of those luminous addres.'se.s by wliich He contra-
C^
dieted the laboriously minute guidance of their moral and religious guides. We are not concerned here to inquire whether Jesus put no difference between the guilt of the man who, though he has lustful desires, abstains from carrying them into practice, and that of the man who completes them by the sinful act. Common sense forbids us to suppose that Jesus put out of sight the social asi)ects of the question when He discussed it. What is of importance is to note the lofty tone assumed by Him when engaged in inculcating the absolute necessity of sexual purity. Nor is it pos- sible to infer that Jesus confined His remarks to the case of those who were married. The general terms into which He casts His instruction (ttos 6 ffKiwuv) forbids us to assume that ywaiKa and i/iolxeva-ey are to be limited to the post-nuptial sin with a married woman. It gives a much more fitting as well as a truer meaning to Jesus' words if we think of Him as giving directions for the guidance of the entire social and ethical life to all members of society whether married or otherwise.;