According to the laws of the ancients, those "of adultery were to be put to death, whether burning (Gn SS--") or by stoning (Jn 8^, cf. Dt 22=3"'-, Lv 20'", Ezk IS"'^-). This punishment was not, however, universally prescribed; for where the woman was a slave, and consequently not the owner of her own person, the man was exonerated by presenting a guilt-ottering (Lv IQ"*"). It is doubtful, indeed, if ever cajiital punishment was insisted on. Lightfoot, for example, says : ' I do not remember that I have anywhere in the Jewish pandect read any example of a wife punished with death for adultery' (Horm Heb. et Talmud, ad Mt 19'). This statement is borne out by such incidental references as we have in Mt 1'', where Joseph receives the praise of his contemporaries {dUaws iiv) for his merciful intention ; and if the story of Hosea's wife is to be taken literally, we have an OT example of mercy towards the guilty being recommended, and even of divorce not being suggested as a punislnnent. Jesus Himself also leaned to the side of mercy ; and nowhere does the tenderness of His solicitude for the guUty sinner appear so deep as in the traditional, yet doubtless genuine, narrative incorporated in the Fourth Gospel ( Jn 7"-8"). For a discussion of the ' peri- cope adulterae ' see Blass, Ev. sec. Liccam, Pref. p. xlvii, and his Philolotiy of the Gospels, pp. 155-163.
A closer examination than we have as yet attempted in this place, of the words and teaching of Jesus Christ will reveal some startling results, and furnish obvious reasons to explain the diffi- culties which have been always felt on the re- lations of adultery, divorce, and remarriage, by Christian thinkers and legislators. A compara- tive examination of t)ie pnssaces in the Synoptic writers (Mt &- W. Mk In'"., \,\ le") discloses a peculiar addition tn ih,. \\.,i,N ;liii1 teaching in the first of these plac-. A, ,oi.liii,u' to Mt 5*=, Jesus asserts thnt tlic \\\\i- who is wrongfully divorced is involvf.l ( inii].ulM,iily in tlie guilt of her hus- band. Ill' i- ii'i "Illy M\ adulterer himself (Lk 16'*), b\it III- (;uiM> iiir to be an adulteress,' or rather 'he makes lier to commit adultery' (jroici a.vTT]v juoixei'SJji'ot). The interpretation which would explain tliese words as if they meant that the divorced wife is placed in such a position that she probably wUl commit adultery by marrying another man, is manifestly unsatisfactory. The statement is unqualified even if we are absolutely convinced of the genuineness of the succeeding words, ' k-ai 5? . . . ^otxarai.' [They are omitted by Dll, see WH, New Test, in Greek]. It is as if Jesus said : 'The wife who is divorced is, in virtue of her false posi- tion, an adulteress though .she be innocent, and tlie man who marries her ^\hile she occupies that
ADULTERY
ADULTERY
31
a willing partner in her guilt.' \t is not too much to say that, in this jilace, we liavo a jilinijisc of the profound depth which Jesus was afoistimicd to sound in His ethical teaching. Marriage is a Divine institution, and has its roots in the eternal order of tilings (cf. Mt 19^""). It results in a mystical union so close that the married pair are no longer two ; they have become ' one flesh.' With this wo may compare the teaching which St. Paul embodies in a few luminous words based on his Christological doctrine (Eph 5-"^, especially vv.^ and "'), and of which he says ' this mystery is great.'
We have thus a clue to the meaning of the diffi- cult expression iroui txvTTjv fioix^vBiivai. Any mode of conduct or action which tends to mar or set at nought the mysterious relationship of marriage is of the essence of adultery. Perhaps we shall not be considered to be importing more meaning into words than they were originally intended to con- vey, if we press the Markan addition iirl avTT\v into our service here. Jesus, according to St. Mark, seems to teach His hearers that the husband in wrongfully divorcing his wife is guilty of the aggravated sin of dragging her into tl'ie slough wliere he is himself already wallowing. On him falls the woe pronounced in another connexion by Jesus (Mt 18^' ') ; for he compels his wife to occupy a position which is a living contradiction of the Divine law. A course of action tending to the dissolution of that which in the Divine intention is indissoluble, Jesus places in the (category of adulteroiis acts. He mentions nothing as to His view of the case of the remarriage of a woman justifiably divorced, but to the present writer He appears plainly to assert that the man who marries an innocent divorced woman is guilty of adultery, n of these passaj^es we are confronted ■S3 ri'markahlc variety. St. Matthew yii.ijiti^iu l.\- .jiv i,i._r a place in Jesus'
liffers from the other two S, teaching to an implied ^i alone includes the
(live
(532) le records of Ity, doctrinal
urse, without that fonr
Jesus' words which h.as intnn li and legislative, into the quchtii of divorced persons. We are n of conjectural criticism which would delete these clauses mere glosses or unsuitahle interpolations (see Bacon, The Ser- tnon on the Mounts ad loc.). In the ahsence, however, of external or textual evidence we are not entitled to invent textual emendations in the interests of a preconceived theory (cf. Wright, Sj/nopsil of the Gonpels in Greek, p. 98 f.). It is but fair to add that the Codex Vatican us (B) and some less im- V^nAUt authorities manifest a strong desire to make Mt 199 CCnform If terally to Mt S32, and thereby create some uncertainty asto t>v^ tl itual purity of these passages. The evidential value, hovever, f i these variations is too slight to be of any avail agoinst tl^e unanimity of all our other witnesses; they are traisparflint and later attemi>ts at assimilation or harmony. IhearaMmenttim e silentio is in this case too strong to admit the vufidity of conjecture. A forcible statement of the other Bide of the case may be found in the art. 'Sermon on the Mount' (Votaw) in the Extra Vol of Hastings' DB p. 27.