The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 2 — Section 242

porsonal defect is meRnt ce.nnot be de- cause justifies this, in fa.et, nothing but cided, the rival schools to.king different fornicl\tion, and that this modi.tied divorce sides. But it is quite certain that adultery does not free the man so that he may marry is not intended, and ante-nuptial un- again; he ie bound by the Law as long as ohoetity is not even hinted. 'l'he inter- hie wife lives. Our Lord seems to have pretation, therefore, given obove cannot be introduced the exceptional clause in order mainte.ined. (2) Omitting for the moment to answer what were virtually two questions tho limiting clause, may we ee.y the.t the of the Pharisees, viz. whether it was lawful general tee.ohing of Christ makes for the to •• put away a wife for every co.use," e.nd indieeolubility of tbe m1mie.ge bond? The whether, when a man had legally divorced majority of the Fe.there from Hermae e.nd hie wife, he might many a.gain. To tho Justin M1L?tyrdownwnrde 11,ffirm this. Those former Christ replies that separation was who admit that divorce is permissible in allowable only in the caee of fornication ; the case of the wife's adultery are unanimous in response to the second, he rules that in asserting that, by Ohrist'e ordinance, _re- even in that case remarriage we.a wholly marriage is prohibited to the husband dunng barred. And whosoever marrieth her which the culprit's life; eo that, practically, if is put away (tl1roA,l\vµ,117w, without the divorce a mensa et toro is allowed, divorce article); her, taken she is put aiaay (Revised a tnnculo is refused. All Christ's utte1-ancee Version); or, a dfr,arcedu:oman. The clause on the subject, saving the apparently re- ie wholly omitted by I( and some othe1 stricti ve ole.nse ( cb. v. 82) e.nd here, abso- manuscripts, and some modern editors, as lutely and plainly forbid divorce, on the Westcott and Hort. But it hae very high ground of law and nature. The words in authority in its favour. Alford renders, Mark x. 11 nnd Luke xvi. 18 are given "her, when divorced," and restricts the ap- without any limitation whatever. St. Paul plication to a woman unlawfully divorced, draws from such his conclusion of the indis- not extending it to one separated for po'Tneia. solubility of the marriage tie, e.e may be But the language is too indefinite to admit eecn in 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11, 89; Rom. vii 2, 8. of this interpretation ae certain (see Luke There could never have been a. doubt about xvi 18, and the note on eh. v. 32, where, this subject had it not been for the difficulty the popular view is expressed). The clause, in interpreting the parenthetical clause. (8) pondered without regard to foregone con- Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those olueions, surely contBins an argument for the words, modifies hie general statement, and indissolubility of the marriage tie, as we allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife's have se,jd above. MBrriage with a di.creed misconduct? Buch ie the view taken by wife can be rightly termed adultery only in m1my theologians, and practically endorsed consideration of the continnBnre of the vin- by the civil law of many countries. Neither culum. Doth commit adultery. The bind- the Roman nor the Anglican Churches sup- ing nature of marriage does not depend on port this laxity. Ecolesiastical and civil the will or the acts of the persons, but on laws are here e.nte.gouietio. It is se.id that its primal character and institution. By Christ allows the wronged party to marry the repeal of the Moeaio relaxation and the again. If so, if the oneness cf the parties restoration of marriage to its original prin- is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, ciple, Christ not only enforces the high why is it not permitted to a man to marry dignity of this ordinance, but obviates many e. divorced woman? This cannot be called opportunities of wickedness, such, for adultery unless she is still one flesh with instance, as collusion between husband and her husband, although separated. We must wife with a view to obtain freedom for mar- argue from this that divorce in such a case riage with others. does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, Ver. 10.-Hie dieoiplee say unto him. the marriage bond, and if not under this Our Lord appears to have repeated privately circumstance, surely under no other; for to the disciples what he hnd said publicly any other ground must be always lees serious to the Pharisees. If the case ( ~ al-ria) of than adultery. If the cl1mee in question the man be so with hie wife. Some com- enunciated an exception to the absolute mentators take cuTCa to signify guilt : "if rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to such guilt appertains to the married elate." 1tultify himself, to give two opposite deci- But the meaning is pie.in enough anyway, sions, and to introdnce uncertainty in a and the word, as here used, corresponds to most important verdict. The principle on the Latin causa, and the Hebrew dibTah, which he based his dictum would be over- which may denote "case," "condition," etc. thrown, and hie hearers might have accused The disciples reflect the feeling of their day. him of inconsistency. The solution offered Marriage without any possibility of essential for this difficulty ie this-that Christ is con- release (for they see that this is Christ'& templating merely what we c111I judicial law) seems to them a severe and unbee.rabl-, 10pare.tion; he considers that no trivial connection. It were better never to marry 2:16 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. [ou. xu::. 1-30,