(4) On the problem of Christ's rcrson for modern thon;;lit lon-
in Modern Theology, and Philosciphii if thi- CiirislHi,: ll.li.iidii ; Adams Brown's Essence of Christianifi/ ; Lnsinskv's M'ar Jrsits Gott, Mensch, Oder tfbcrmensch]; KMhoil'sDasChristu.ijiroUem; Dykes in ExpT, Oct. 1906-Jan. 1900. A. S. MARTIN.
DIYOKCE.— The teaching of Christ on this sub-
484
DIVORCE
DIVORCE
ject in the earliest Gosijel, that of St. Mark, is clear and decisive. It is given in lO'"". The Pharisees came to Hini with the question, Is it lawful for a husband to divorce a wife ? The Pharisees tliemselves could have had no doubt upon the point thus broadly stated. Divorce was, as they believed, sanctioned and legalized by Dt 24'- -. But they debated about the scope and limits of divorce (cf. Bab. GUti7i, 90a, where the views of the Schools of Hillel and of Shammai are given. The former allowed divorce for trivial offences, the latter only for immoral conduct). In putting the question to Christ, the Pharisees there- fore had an ulterior object. They came, says St. Mark, ' tempting him,' knowing probably from previous utterances of His that He would reply in words which would seem directly to challenge the Mosaic Law (cf. His criticism of the distinctions between ' clean ' and ' unclean ' meats, Mk 7''''-*). Christ answers with the expected reference to the Law, ' What did Moses command ? ' Tliey state the OT position : Moses sanctioned divorce. Notice how nothing is said as to grounds or reasons for divorce. Christ at once makes His position clear. The law upon this point was an accommodation to a rude state of society. But a prior and higher law is to be found in the Creation narrative, ' Male and female he created them' (Gn 1" LXX), i.e. God created the tirst pair of human beings of dif- ferent sexes that they might be united in the mar- riage bond. Further, it was afterwards said that a man should leave his father and mother and cleave to his -wife, and that he and his wife should be one Hesh. In other words, married couples were in respect of unity, as the first pair created by God, destined for one another. The marriage bond, therefore, which may be said to have been insti- tuted by God Himself, must be from an ideal standpoint indissoluble. ' What God joined, let not man sunder.'
In answer to a further question of His disciples, the Lord enforces this solemn pronouncement. A man who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery. A woman who puts away her husband and marries another commits adultery. Upon this point Christ's teaching passes beyond the ordinary conditions of Jewish society. No woman could divorce her husband by Jewish law. But that is no reason why the Lord should not ha^•e expressed Himself as Mk. records. There were exceptional cases of divorce by women in Palestine (cf. Salome, Jos. A nt. xv. \'ii. 10 : ' She sent him [Costobar] a bill of divorce, and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was against the Jewish l;iw., ■). And thrri- i. no reason why He m:iv iKii Ikim' Imtii :i'-i|u;iiincil w it!i the possibility .,f ,li^,„rr l,v «,.„„.„ in tlir WrM, or why, even if H.- h.ul not thi- ill vi.'w, H,. „my uot haVe \Wshed to emphasize His point by stating the >vrongfulness of divorce, on either side, of the marriage bond.
With this earliest record of Christ's teaching the fragment in the Third Gospel (Lk 16") is in agree- ment : ' Every one who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.' Tliat is to say, the marriage Ijond is imlissoluble. The husband who divor<«s his wife :irnl remarries commits adultery. And the nun wlio m.irries a divorced wife commits adultery. l>ee:ius<' she is ideally the wife of her still living (lir.si) Imsband.
In the First Gospel, however, we find this plain and unambiguous teaching, that divorce is incon- ceivable from an ideal standpoint, modified in a very remarkable way. In Mt .5^^ occurs a saying parallel in substance to Lk 16'*, but with the notable addition of the words, ' except for the sake of unchastity ' (irapeKTis X670U iro/ji/elos). Tlius modi- fied, the Lord's teaching becomes similar to that of
the stricter school of Jewish interpreters. The supposed sanction of divorce in Dt 24'- '^ is practi- cally reaffirmed, the clause n?i nnj;, which formed tlie point at issue in the Jewish schools, being inter- preted or paraphrased as TrapexT-is X670U iropfdas, by wliich is probably meant any act of illicit .sexual intercourse. In other words, Christ here assumes that divorce must follow adultery, and what He is here prohibiting is not such divorce, which He assumes as necessary, but divorce and conse- quent remarriage on any other grounds. It might further be argued that the words irapeKToi \^ov TTopvdas att'ect only the first clause, and that re- marriage after divorce even on the ground of adultery is here prohibited. But if this were in- tended, it would surelj' have been explicitly ex- pressed and not left to be inferred. And such teaching would seem to be illogical. Because, if adultery be held to have broken the marriage tie so effectually as to justify divorce, it must surely be held to leave the ott'ended husband free to con- tract a new tie.