Our Lord greatly raised the conception of mar- riage, even as compared with that of the Jews of the time. It was a Divine institution, which made man and one wife to become one flesh, for God hud joined them together (Mk lO""', Mt lO-"-", quoting Gn '2-''). The primeval marriage, the idea of whicli was obscured by the hardness of man's heart, was revived, and the teaching about divorce (lielow, 7) was revolutionized. Nevertheless, marriage was intended only for this life, for there are no mar- riiiges in heaven (Mt 2-2™, Mk 12-», Lk 20»— these passages, it is needless to say, do not teach that loved ones will be parted hereafter). Jesus chose a marriage feast for His flrst miracle (Jn 2'"). Following the Master's teaching, St. P.tul insists on the holiness of marriage in Eph 5'-"-^ (cf . He IS'') ; the quotation from Genesis is repeated (v.'"), and marriage is said to symbolize the union between Christ and His Church (vv.^"''^) — a metaphor drawn out in the ancient homily known as 2 Clement (§ 14 : ' the male is Christ, and the female is the Church '). Hence St. Paul dwells on the love that ought to exist between husband and wife, even as Christ loved the Church (vv.^*' ^ "^ ; cf. Col 3'"). St. Peter in a corresponding passage (1 P 3") dwells rather on the honour due by the husband to his wife ; and both apostles, speaking of the duty of wives to husbands in these passages, rather dwell on their subjection to their consorts [see Family', § 2 (a)], tliough in Tit 2'"- the love of the wife to the husband is mentioned as well as her subjection. In 1 Co V^- St. Paul reminds married persons that they no longer are mere individuals, but belong to one another, and must not refuse cohabitation with one another except by consent for a season.
2. Christian conception of celibacy.— We must remember that celibacy was e.xtrcmcly uncommun both among the Jews and among the heathen in the first ages of the Church. It was not part of the Nazirite's vow (Nu 6^"°), though no doubt many Nazirites, like John Baptist (if indeed he was one of them), were celibtites. And there were some, but not all, of the E.ssenes who preached the duty of abstinence from marriage, and admitted members to their body only after a |jrobation of three years to test their continency (Josephus, BJ II. vi"ii. 2, 7). In them we see the germ of Gnostic dualism, which taught the inherent evil of m.atter (Light- foot, Colossians, ed. 1900, p. 85 ; see also his essay on this sect, p. 375 ti'. ). In this respect the Essenes were in direct antagonism with the Pharisees, ivho strongly supported marri.age ; but they had some influence in promoting Christian celibacy in the post-Apostolic Age. Among the heathen celibacy can hardly be said to have existed.
Our Lord, while teaching, as we have seen, the holiness of marriage, nevertheless commended celibacj' for those 'to whom it is given' and who are 'able to receive it' ; for so we must interpret the phrase 'which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake' (Mt 19'"-). As St.
12
MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE
Paul says (1 Co 7'), 'each man liatli his own {jift from (iod, one after this manner, and anotlier after tliat.' Nowhere in tlie NT is marriage re- ferred to as a state inferior to that of celihacy, liowever mucli tlie latter may be commended under certain circumstances to certain persons. And so,
f)robably, we are to interpret our Lord's words about eavinfc ' house, or wife, or brethren, or parents, or children, for the kingdom of God's sake ' (Lk 18^ ; in II Mt 19=^, Mk 10-'" tlie best MSS omit 'or wife'). He could not have counselled a man to desert his wife or children if he had thera. J. Wordsworth suggests {Ministrtj of Grace, London, 1901, p. 207) that the words may also include leaving an un- believing and unfaithful wife, or a temporary separation by agreement, when the husband has to go to a part of the world where lie cannot take a family (1 Co 7' is somewhat analogous).
In the teaching of St. Paul we notice a certain change of view between the earlier and later Epistles, (a) In the earlier Epistles the Apostle plainly expected that the Parousia was imminent (cf. 1 Th 4" :' we that are alive, that are left ' ; I Co 16-'^ and perhaps 15"). If that were the case, the increase of the race would not be of primary im- portance ; and therefore, while marriage was en- tirely lawful (1 Co 7^), and indeed imperative for those who had not the gift of continency (vv.^- "), celibacy was encouraged. ' It is good for a man not to touch a woman ' ; ' I would that all men were even as I myself ' ; 'it is good for them if they abide even as I' (vv.'*"-) ; 'it is good for a man to be as he is' — whether married or single (v.-*). Yet St. Paul does not say that celibacy is a higher state, but only that it is expedient by reason of the present distress (v.^^), because the time is shortened (v.='), and he would have Chris- tians free from cares (v."^). The lawfulness of marriage is further emphasized by the assertion of the right to marry by St. Paul himself, ' even as the rest of the apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas ' (9'). The meaning of these words is not quite plain ; Cephas certainly was married (Mt S'S Lk 4^*), but were all the other apostles and all our Lonl's four brethren in like case ? If so, why is Cephas mentioned separately ? To the last question there is no clear answer, but the whole verse seems to show, especially in view of Jewish customs (see above), that at least a majority of the apostles and of our Lord's brethren were married, and that the married state was not inconsistent witli the work of a travelling mission- ary. As a comment on this we have the fact that AquUa, a great Christian worker, travelled about with his wife Prisca (Ac 18=- -«, Ro 16^ 1 Co 16'", 2 Ti 4i»). (b) In the Epistlesof the Captivity mar- riage is mentioned as the normal state, and noth- ing is said in favour of celibacy (Eph 5^'"-, Col 3'^' ; cf. 1 P 3'-'), while we notice also that in these Epistles little is said of the nearness of Christ's coming (Ph 4^ stands alone), (c) In the Pastoral Epistles marriage is recommended, or as some think required, for the local clergy (1 Ti 3-- *'\ Tit 1*; see Home), and is also advised for young women (1 Ti S" AV, RVm) or for young widows (RV). Whatever may be the force of the phrase ' husband of one wife ' (/uias yvvaiKbi &vdpa) as exclud- ing certain persons from the ministry (see below, § S), the whole context would appear to show that St. Paul desired his local officials, the presbyters ('bishops') and deacons, to be, at least as a rule, married men, just as the Orthodox Eastern Church demands at the present day that her parish priests should be married, and that their wives should be alive. This does not depend on the untenable exegesis which makes /tias the indefinite article (' husband of a wife '), but on the word ' husband ' and the context. There might perhaps be excep-