(6) Mixed mnrriiiges. — The Israelites in the OT had frequently been urged not to intermarry with the heathen nations, especiallj' with the Canaan- ites(Dt7^ ; cf. Nu '25'''-,etc.) ; and mixed marriages were one of the great troubles of I'^zra and Nehemiah in restoring the captivity of the people (Ezr 9'"'-, Neh IS-""-, etc.). The strict Jew would, like St. Peter, think it unlawful ' to join himself or come unto one of another nation' (.Ac lU-^). Yet there were, both in OT and in NT times, many cases of mixed marriages, of which that of Timothy's parents is a later example (Ac 16'; there seems to be a reference to it in Gal '2", where St. Paul says that Titus, being a Greek, was not compelled to be circumcised — he was d<mbtless thinking of Timothy's circumcision, Ac 10^). For OT mixed marriages in practice see Ru 1', 1 K 7''', 2 Ch 24-", etc., besides the alliances of the kings. In dealing with Christian marriage, St. Paul tolerates the union of Christians with heathen (or Jews?) only when it has been entered into before conversion ; in such a case the parties should con- tinue to live together if the unbelieving partner is willing (1 Co 7'--"i ; see below, 7) ; the reason given is not only the well-being of the non-Christian spouse, but also that of the children (v. '^) — 'now are they holy,' words which perhaps refer to the probability that the children of one Christian parent, if not separated from the other spouse, will be brought u[i in the faith. Marriage between one already a Christian and an unbeliever is for- bidden : ' Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers ' (2 Co 6''' — though these words have a wider appli- cation than marriage). If a widow re-marries, it must be ' in the Lord,' i.e. the second husband must be a Christian (1 Co 7^"). St. Peter's reference to mixed marriages (1 P 3') probably deals with a marriage before conversion and is parallel with 1 Co 7'-"^'. The prohibition of mixed marriages among the Jews extended to those of free men and women with slaves (Joseplius, A7it. IV. viii. 23). There is nothing on this head in the NT.
7. Divorce. — Whatever view we take of some controverted texts, there can be no doubt that our Lord completely revolutionized men's ideas on this subject. With the heathen divorce was the easiest possible thing ; it was open to a husband or to a wife to terminate the marriage at will. The Roman satirist scott's at the woman who had eight husbands in five autumns (Juvenal, Sat. vi. 2'24tl'.). Things were not much better with the Jews, though there was a dillerence of opinion among the Rabbis. Some held that a man could ' put away his wife for every cause,' interpreting the 'unseemly thing' of Dt 24' as anything for which he may dislike her. The great Hillel is said to have held this view, and Josephus so understood the matter {Ant. iv. viii. 23); this is probably what our Lord refers to in speaking of the bill of divorcement (Mt S^"-)- Others held that the husband could give his wife a bill of divorcement only if she were guilty of adultery, interjireting the 'unseemly thing' in this stricter sense (Edersheim, ii. 332 ff.).
Divorce was forbidden by our Lord, with at most one exception (Mt 5"- 19«- », Mk K^- "'-, Lk
16
MARRIAGE
MARRIAGE
16") : ' wliat God hath joined together let not man put asunder.' St. Paul gives charge {'yet not I, but the l^iird' — it is a Divine ordinance, not his private opinion) tliat a wife is not to depart from her liusband ; hut that if she depart, she is to remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband ; and ' let not the liusband put away his wife' (1 Co 7'°'-). And, later, he repeats that 'a wife is bound for so long time as her husband liveth ' (v.s").
Postponing for the moment the exceptive clauses of Mto'- 19', and therefore the signification of iropffla, let us consider in detail our Lord's teach- ing about divorce. One who puts away his wife makes her an adulteress (5*-) and becomes an adul- terer if he marries again (19", Mk 10", Lk 16>«) ; and a woman who puts away her husband and marries again commits adultery (Mk.) ; the second husband of a divorced wife commits adultery (Mt. twice, Lk.). All this is clear except the first saying. How does a wife, presumably innocent, become an adulteress because her husband divorces her ? One reply (W. C. Allen, ICC, ' St. Matthew,' Edinburgh, 1907, p. 52 ; so Bengel, Alford) is that she is placed in a position in which she is likely to marry again, and a second marriage would be adultery. Lyttelton, however, suggests {Sermon on the Mount, p. 178) that ' adulteress ' here means that the woman is placed in a different position in the eye of the law from that which she holds in the sight of God. ' According to the one she is a freed woman, not a wife ; according to the other she is still a wife, still bound to her husband.'
We may now take the exceptive clauses found in both the Matthsean passages, but not in Mk., Lk., or 1 Cor., or indeed anywhere else in the NT. In Mt 5*^ the Evangelist adds, ' saving for the cause of fornication ' (irap^nrbs \6yov iropveia^), and in 19' 'except for fornication ' (el iii) 4irl Topvelq.), though i^ some MSS the text of 19' is brought nearer to 5^. In the first place, are these words an authentic utterance of our Lord 1 Are they really part of the First Gospel ? (these are two quite distinct ques- tions). The view that they are not authentic is upheld by Votaw in UDB v. p. 27'' ; for the view- that they are an integral part of Mt. see Plunimer, St. Matthew, London, 1909, pp. 81, 259, and J. R. Willis in DOG i. 31. Votaw upholds his view by the arguments that ' the account in Mt. is second- ary,' that there is a divergence between Mt. and the other Synoptists and St. Paul, that the exceptive clauses are of a statutory nature while Jesus enunciates principles rather than legislative enact- ments, and that in our Lord's general teaching adultery is not enough in itself for divorce — the Gospel urges mercy rather than justice, and leaves time for repentance (cf. the story of the woman taken in adultery, Jn 8'*-). Of these arguments the divergence between the Evangelists seems to the present writer to be the only important one ; there is no real reason for saying that the excep- tive clauses do not enunciate a principle just as much as the general teaching about divorce ; and with regard to the last statement, it is to be noticed that the exceptive clauses do not state that adultery in itself dissolves marriage, but that it is a legiti- mate cause for dissolving it. On the other hand, every known authority for the Matthrean text attests these clauses — the assimilating of the two passages in some MSS is a very natural thing for a scribe to do, and does not show that the archetype of any of our MSS lacked the clauses ; and the tendency found in some writers to reject words on purely a priori grounds, against all MSS and VSS, IS one which is justlj^ deprecated by scholars in this country. The evidence, then, is enough to bring us to the conclusion that the words were written by the First Evangelist. But were they