2. In the teaching of Christ, although the word ' family ' does not occur, yet the institution is everywhere presupposed and its laws emphasized, as it is also connected with the first miracle re- corded in the Fourth Gospel, (a) The pivot on which family life turns is marriage, and this sub- ject holds a unique place in the teaching of Christ. On all other social topics He left no particular detailed instructions, but only general rules. On marriage His words are distinct and aflbrd specific guidance about details. He lays it down that monogamy is not the result of any code of law, but a primal fact instituted ' in the beginning ' (Mt 19*). True marriage rests ultimately upon a spiritual basis, the physical aspect is but an accident. This is implied in the answer to the Sadducees (Mk 1218-='). No human law, not even though it have the sanction of the name of Moses, can alter this. The possibility of ground for divorce is con- fined to the case of one oflence (or even abolished altogether, if we regard the exceptive clauses in Mt 19^ and 5'- as later glosses on the Lord's words ; see Wright, Synopsis of Gospels, on Mk 10'°, and cf. artt. Adultery, Divorce, and Marriage).
(b) The attitude of Jesus towards marriage was necessarily reflected in His treatment of women. In spite of all that can be urged to the contrary, it is clear that contemporary Judaism assigned to women a position far inferior to that of men. The tendency was rather to fall away from than to advance upon the standpoint of the OT. There woman is often found in a prominent and honour- able place {e.g. Miriam, Nu 12= ; Deborah, Jg 4* ; Bathsheba, 1 K 1), but the days were now approach- ing when it could be said that he who talked with a woman was qualifying for Gehenna (Pirkx Aboth,
FAMILY
ed. Taylor, i). 29), an expression in wliicU Judaism contrasted unfavourably even -with the low estimate of women current among the Greeks (cf. Aristotle, Poetics, 15 ; Nic. Eth. vii. 7). In the treatment which Christ accorded to women is found the very antithesis of this harshness. This is sometimes (e.g. Jn 2^) obscured in the EV by the employment of ' woman ' as a rendering of yvvai, a translation which is far from reproducing the respectful tone of the Greek. Jesus readily accepted the help of women, an aspect of the Ministry on which St. Luke seems to desire to lay special stress (cf. Plummer, Internat. Crit. Com,, on ' St. Luke,' Introd. p. xlii). He gave them equal rights with their husbands, implying that as far as divorce was lawful at all, a wife might p»it away a hus- band as much as a husband a wife, a doctrine tolerated rather than accepted Ijy His countrymen. A like care to secure justice for "women appears in the narrative preser\'ed in Jn 8'". This storj', whether Apostolic or not, certainly reflects the teaching of Jesus by inferring that in such moral downfaUs the crime is not always to be imputed to the woman alone.
(c) In another region of family ethics— the sphere oi filial duty—ovLX Lord again attacked contem- porary Jewish conventions. Nominally, filial obedi- ence was exalted to a high place by the teachers of the day, but in practice it might "be reduced to a mere sliadow by such vows as those alluded to in Mk 7". By sw'eeping away the sophistries with which these vows were defended, Jesus made parental claims absolute and in\-iolable.
(d) The family and the Kingdom of God.— 'Hot only is life in a family the normal life of a disciple, as pictured in the Gospels, but the family supplies the analogy by which men are led to the better understanding of the Kingdom of God. In the First Gospel especially we constantly see on the throne of the Kingdom the ' Fathe'r who is in tlie heavens,' wliile the ideal of the citizens is to be His true 'sons.' This aspect of tlie Kingdom is made famUiar to all Christians by the Lord's Prajer. In its clauses are represented successively all the integral elements in the relations of a father to liis children, the reverence and obedience which lie expects fi'om them, the support, for- bearance, and protection which he extends to tliera (cf. Robinson, Church Catechism Explained, ch. ii.). The exclusion from the Kingdom, which results when they are lost, is exhibited in the parable of the Prodigal Son.
■ abolitic
This fundamental conceptk between the teaching of .1^.:.
obligation. 'An asso< ki party' (Morris and Ba\, > ' ' the Gospel doctrine. Cl.ri.>i....i the \%-ill of Christ, must \\orlv fi.r but of those forces which are ir ment. But this does not make i
insuperable barrier irieties of Socialism njriu of the family.
■ opposed 1
seem to shri: which are tr. here and el-. I.kl4»). Tl any danger iii;i comes to pass v but also these
... u it is to 1
ii>\,tl, not of the family,
to its perfect develop-
;sible for circumstances
-ti.ular individuals which demand the
I .;...c; .., those of the Kinfrdom of God.
Twelve had put the following
!in-, and tlte reply which the
niiikes it clear that the Chris-
: Mi this if his own S]>ecial call