The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 241

of the msrriltge tie. Hie hearers plsinly un- could interfere. However novel this view derstood him eo to speak, ss we see from the might seem, it was God's own design from objection whioh they nrged. the first. The first iustsnoe of polygamy Ver. 7.-Why did Moaea then comma.nd 1 oocurs in Gen. iv. 19, and is connected with If, es you assert, God ordained that marriage murder and revenge. el..tould be indissoluble, how comes it that Ver. 9.-And I 10.y unto you. Our Lord Moses commanded ( lv...-,(11.r,..-o) us to prac- here enuuciates the law which was to obtain tise divorce, and prescribed rules BS to its in his kingdom, whioh, indeed, wlM! simply conduct? 'fhey are referring to Deut. xxiv. the reintroduction and enforcement of the 1, 2. Jesus had escaped the trap whioh was primitive e.nd DBture.l ordinonce. Except laid for him, and foiled them by the very 1t be for fornication; ,1 pJ/1 /,rl ,ropvElff : niBi words of Scripture and the plain intention ob fornfoationem (Vulgate). This 1s the of the first institution. But they seo their received reading. Tregelles, Tisohendorf, way to opposing the authority of the great Westcott nnd Hort omit .;. The parnllel lawgiver to the dictum and interpretation passage in St. Mork (where Obrist is stated of this new Teacher. It cannot be supposed, to have made the remo.rk to hiB disciples they argue, that Moees would enjoin a prac- "in the house") omits the clnuse altogether. tice condemned by the Word of God: there- Lachmann, following some few manuscripts, fore, if you abide by your exposition, you has introduced ,rr,.p,,,..bs 11.o-you ,rop11•lru, contradict Moses. A writing of divoroement. "saving for the cause of fomiootion," from 'l'he man who desired to divorce his wife eh. v. 32. The interpretation of this verse -could not effeot this separation by mere has given occaaion to acute controversy. word of month or by violent ejcotment; he There are some questions that have to be must have a written document formally pre- considered in expounding this matter. (I) pared and witnessed, necessitating certain What is here mee.nt by 1ropvEfa? Does it delay and publicity. In regulating the beo.r its usual meaning, or is it equivalent method of divorce and giving rules which to p.a,x.Ca, "adultery"? Those who affirm prevented it from being undertaken rashly that the sin of mo.rried persons is never ex- and lightly, Moses could not justly be said pressed by the word porneia, hold that it to hs ve commanded it. There were also two here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which ~ases in which he absolutely forbade divorce would me.ke the me.rrie.ge void ab initio ; -(see Dent. xxii. 13-19; x.xii. 28, 29). po,t.nuptial transgression would be punished Ver. 8.-Mcses because of (1rpbs, tcith a by dee.th, not by divorce. In this view, our "'iew to, to meet) the hardness of your Lord would say that no divorce is allowable .hearts; your obstinacy, perverseness. You except where the wife is proved to have were not honest and pure enough to obey been unchnste before marringe. In such a the primitive law. There was danger that case, the union being void from the first, you would ill treat your wives in order to g"et the me.n is free to marry ago.in. But there rid of them, or even murder them. 'l'he are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, leaser evil was regular divorce. But the at the end of the verse, is it called adultery enactment is realJy a shame and reproach to marry the divorced woman, if she was to you, and was occasioned by grave defects never really and lawfully married? Again, in your character and conduct. And it is it is not correct to say tbst porneia denotes not true to BRY tbe.t Mo.ea commanded; he solely the sin of unmnrried people. All only &dared you to put away your wives. illicit connection is described by this term, ThiB was e. temporary permission to meet and it cannot be limited to one particule.r your then circumstances. Divorce had been kind of traosgreesion. In Ecol us. xxiii. 23 practised commonly e.nd long: it was tra- it is used expre~sly of the sin of sn adul- ditional: it was seen e.mong e.U other teress. We may also remark that meta- Oriental peoples. Moses could not hope at phorioolly idolatry is often called by this once to eradicate the inveterate evil; he name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to <JOuld only modify, mitigate, and regulate be married to the Lord, the breaking of this its practice. The rules which he introduced bond by the worship of false gods might were intended, not to facilitate divorce, but more strictly be named adultery. And yet to lead men better to realize the proper idea age.in, there ia no proof tho.t the discovery of marriage. And Christ was introducing of previous immorality in B wife did tp8o a better law, e. higher morality, for which facto vitiate the marriage (see Hoe. i. 2, eto.). Mosaic legiBle.tion pa vt.-d the we.y(comp. Rom. The passages that are thought to bear on v. 20; viiL 3; Heh. ix. 10). From the begin- tbis matter are Dent. :uii. 13-21 and ning. The original institution of marriage x.xiv. 1-4. In the former there is no oonto.intd no idea of divorce: it was no question of- divorce,-the offender is to be mere civil contract, me.de by man and dis- stoned : in the second pasaage the ground eoluble by me.n, but a union of God's own of divorce is "some uuclennness," or some forme.tion, with which no human power unseemly thing, whether immorality or on. xu. 1-30.] TlIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTIIEW. 245