The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 240

in e. dilemme.. Ir he took the popule.r Ju orete example of the way in which God view, they could deride hie claims e.e e. unites man and wife. Teacher of superior more.my; if he upheld Ver. 5.-And said, The words that follow the etrioter side, he would rouse the enmity are assigned to Ade.m in Gen. ii. 23, 24, bat. of the majority, e.nd possibly, like John the he epe.ke by inspiration of God, e.e he knew Baptist, involve himself in trouble with the nothing of "father e.ad mother" by persnne.l lioentious tetrarch. There was e. chance exp~rience, and therefore they ce.n be rightly e.leo tho.t the high tone which he he.d already e.ttnbu~ to the Crea.tor. It wa.e, in fact, a taken might prove to be e.t varie.nce with prophetic utterance of which Acla.m was the Moeaio enactments. The easiness with mouthpiece; as St. Augustine says, " Deas which divorce we.e obte.ined may be seen in utique per hominem dixit quod homo pro- Josephus, who thus writes: "He who for phete.ndo pre<l ixit." For this cause. Be- any ree.eon whe.teoever(e.ndme.ny such co.uses cause of this Divine appointment, aud espe- happen to men) wishes to be separated from e. cially of the peculiar creation of Eve. She wife who lives with him, must give it to her was not formed separately of the dost of the in writing that he will cohabit with her no earth, but directly from the substance of longer, and by this means she ehe.11 have Adam; so she we.a one with her husband, liberty to me.rry e.nother me.n ; but before nearer than e.ll other human relations, this is done it is not permitted her to do so" superior to the tenderest ties of nature and (' Ant.,' iv. 8. 23). Josephus himself re- birth. Shall oleave (1rpoa-KoAJ,:r18~0-n,11, or pudie.ted hie own wife because he was not 1<0M711h\o-ETa.1); literally, shall be glued to; pleased with her behaviour (' Vita,' § 76). adhmrebit. The word expresses the closes1 And Ben-Sire. gives the curl injunction, possible union, stronger e.nd higher than tha; "If she go not as thou wonldeet have her towe.rds parents. They two.in shall be one (1<1111"4 xeipcf a-ou), cut her off from thy fieeh, 11.eeh; the two shall become one flesh ( la-ov-ra, ... and let her go" (Ecclua. xxv. 26). ol a&o ••• a-ap1<a. µ.la.v). The Septuagint and Ver. 4.-Eee.nsweredandeaid. Our Lord Samaritan Pente.teuch insert " the two," does not directly reply in the negative, but which is not in the present Hebrew text. refers to the origi.ue.l institution of marriage. Our Lord adopts the adtlition a.a conveying All his auditors agreed in holding the legality the correct sense. In ma:rri.age there is a of divorce, though they differed in their more.I and physice.l union, so that two per- estimation of the causes that warranted sons become virtually one being. Originally, separe.tion. It was quite e. new idea. to find man contained wolll&l in himself before she the propriety of divorce questioned, and to was separated from him; she we.a a cor- he.ve their captious question met by e.n e.p- poreal unity with=; or, a.s others put it, pee.l to Scripture which they could not ge.in- man, e.e e. race, was created male and femo.le, ee.y, and e.n enunoie.tion of e. high ideal of the latter being implicitly contained in the matrimony which their glosses e.nd le.xity former; the previous unity is time asserted. had mieere.bly perverted or obscured. Ee In marriage this unity is acknowledged aud whioh made them. Manuscripts vary between continued. St. Paul quotes thia text in a ,ro,110-a.s and 6 1<.-la-a.s. The latter is ap- Eph. v. 31 ; and in 1 Cor. vi. 16 uses it as proved by Westcott and Hori-. It is best an argument e.gainet fornication, tranele.ted, t.h6 Creator. The Vulgate gives, Ver. 6.-Where!ore (.lo-.-,); so that. Thi& qui fecit hominem. At the begiDillllg (a.,r' follows from the quotation just given. Our dpx11s). These words should be joined to Lord explains e.ud confirms the original the following verb made ( i1rol-r10-•v), e.nd not dictum by an assertion of his own and a. with the preceding participle, as it is in- genera.l le.w. What Godhathjoined together. tended to show the primordial design in the The institution of marriage is God's o.ppoint- creation of man and wome.n. God made the ment. Christ says &, what, neuter singular, first members of the human family e. male not" those whom," pllll':ll and concrete, that and a fame.le, not e. me.le and females. The he may make it olee.r that he is here speak- lower e.nimale were created separately, mu.le ing in the abstract, not epeoially of Adam and female ; "mankind wo.s created iu one e.nd Eve. What ho enunciates is true of e.11 person in Ado.m, and when there we.a found wedlock, not simply of the case of our first no help meet for Adam, no companion in po.rents. Let not me.n put asunder. Me.n body, soul, or spirit, fit for him, then God, does thus infringe the primitive rule when instead of crea.ting a. wholly new thing, he divorces his wife. Herein he opposes made Eve out of Adam" (Sadler). Two God and e.ots against nature. He o.nd his individuals of opposite sexes were thus wife are one ; they can no more sepumte formed for each other; one was the comple- from one another the.n they can from them- ment of the other, e.nd the union WBB perfed ael ves. U we regard our Lord's language and le.eted as long e.s life. There was in in this passage without prejudice, and not this original institution no room for poly- reading into it modern notions, we must con• gamy, no room for divorce. It was a cou- aider tilat he licre decree~ the inclis110lubility  :!<i.! THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [oH. XIX, 1--30.