246 ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ ΧΙΧ. µίαν; 6. ὥστε οὐκέτι εἰσὶ δύο, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ µία: ὃ οὖν ὁ Θεὸς a here and ¢ συνέζευξεν, ἄνθρωπος μὴ xwptlérw.” 7. Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ, ‘Ti οὖν Wik. Χ. , A 8 S05 oe
ο Μωσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου, καὶ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν1;
e Mk. x. 518. Λέγει αὐτοῖς, “Ore Μωσῆς πρὸς τὴν ᾿ σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέ-
Xvi. 14.
(Deut'x. τρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολῦσαι τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν: ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν
ται ος | dives xvi. 10,) OUTG. f John xviii.
λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν, Stu? ὃς ἂν ἀπολύ ἣν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, ei M4 µ ση την Y
14 (accus. μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ,ὸ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην, μοιχᾶται ’ καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην
and inf.). ‘
2 Cor. xii. Ὑαμήσας μοιχᾶται. * 1ο. Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ot μαθηταὶ avTod,> “ Ei
1 (inf. as here).
‘SSDLZ omit αντην.
οὕτως ἐστὶν aitia τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὗ * συμφέρει
2 BDZ old Lat. verss. omit οτι.
* um for εν µη in most uncials. The explanatory ει (T. R.) is only in minus. BD have παρεκτος λογου πορνειας, followed by ποιει αυτην µοιχευθηναι in B.
4 The clause και ο απολ. yapnoas µοιχαται is omitted in SDL but found in BCAZ. The true reading is doubtful and the passage has puzzled editors.
5 KSB omit αυτον, found in the greater number of uncials.
fleshly unity. But flesh in Hebrew thought represents the entire man, and the ideal unity of marriage covers the whole nature. Itis a unity of soul as well as of body: of sympathy, interest, purpose.—Ver. 6,“ ὥστε with indicative, expressing actual result as Christ views the matter. /They ave no longer two, but one flesh, one spirit, one person.— 8 οὖν: inference from God’s will to man’s duty.| The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation. Let the Divine Syzygy be held sacred! How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teach- ing, which soars above the partisan views of contemporary controversialists nto the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth! ; Vv. 7-9. τί οὖν, etc.: such doctrine could not be directly gainsaid, but a difficulty might be raised by an appeal to Moses and his enactment about a bill of divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1): The Pharisees seem to have regarded Moses as a patron of the practice of putting away, rather than as one bent on mitigating its evil results. Jesus corrects this false impression.—Ver. 8. πρὸς τ., with reference to.—oxKAnpokapdSiay: a word found here and in several places in O. T. (Sept.), not in profane writers; points to a state of heart which cannot submit to the restraints of a high and holy law, literally uncircumcisedness of heart (Deut. x. 16; Jer. iv. 4).—éwérpewev, permitted, not enjoined. Moses is re- spectfully spoken of as one who would
gladly have welcomed a better state of things; no blame imputed except to the people who compelled or welcomed such imperfect legislation (ὑμῶν twice in ver 8).—am’ ἀρχῆς, etc. : the state of things which made the Mosaic rule necessary was a declension from the primitive ideal.—Ver. 9, vide notes on Mt. v. 31, 32. Vv. 10-12. Subsequent conversation with the disciples.—Christ’s doctrine on marriage not only separated Him toto celo from Pharisaic opinions of ali shades, but was too high even for the Twelve. It was indeed far in advance of all previous or contemporary theory and practice in Israel. Probably no one before Him had found as much in what is said on the subject in Gen. It was a new reading of old texts by one who brought to them a new view of man’s worth, and still more of woman’s. The Jews had very low views of woman, and therefore of marriage. A wife was bought, regarded as property, used as a household drudge, and dismissed at’ pleasure—vide Benzinger, Heb. Arch., pp- 138-146.—Ver. το. αἰτία: a vague word. We should say: if such be the state of matters as between husband and wife, and that is doubtless what is meant. So interpreted, αἰτία would = res, conditio. (So Grotius.) Fritzsche regards the phrase 4 αἶτία τ. a. p. τ. y- as in a negligent way expressing the idea: if the reason compelling a man to live with a wife be so stringent (no separation save for adultery). If we inter- pret αἰτία in the light of ver. 3 (κατὰ 7. αἰτίαν) the word will mean cause of separation. The sense is the same, but