VI. OnieamvaL MARRIAGE LAW. The Saviour argues the indissoluble nature of the marriage law from the original unity of male and female, from the extreme closeness of the marriage bond taking precedence of every other union even parental and filial ; above all, from its Divine origin. Marriage was thus an ordinance of God; it was instituted in Paradise in those bright and sunny bowers before sin had marred the freshness and the loveliness of the new-created world. Kven then God saw that it was net good for man to be alone, and accordingly he gave him a help meet for him—one that was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. “ Therefore shall a man leave his fathe: and his mother, and shall cleave unto [literally, be glued unto] his wife: and they shall be one fiesh.” It was an ordinance of God himself, an ordinance nearly coeval with the creation, an ordinance made for man even in his unfallen state of innocence, an ordi- aance which our blessed Redeemer himself, whea in sinless humanity he trod our
96 THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. [onm. x. 1—52.
EE
earth and tabernacled among our race, honoured with his presence, and at the celebra- tion of which he was graciously pleased to work his first miracle. In Cana of Galilee, at the marriage at which Jesus and his disciples and his mother were present, Jesus made the beginning of his miracles by turning water into wine, manifesting forth his glory, “and his disciples believed on him.”
* Living, he own’d no nuptial vow, No bower to Fancy dear: Love’s very self—for him no need To nurse, on earth, the heavenly seed? Yet comfort in his eye we For bridal joy and fear.”
The conclusion a$ which he arrives is in keeping with ali this—that an Institution created by God at first, coeval with our race, and confirmed by so many sanctions, can neither be nullified nor modified by any human enactment, nor set aside by any authority other than his who created it. ‘ What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
VII. ONE EXCEPTION TAKEN FOR GRANTED. Conjugal infidelity, as i¢ {s a violation of the marriage vow, is a virtual dissolution of the marriage relation. This is implied or taken for granted in the passage before us, though it is expressly stated, in the parallel passage of St. Matthew, where it is written, “ Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.” With respect to marriage with the divorced wife, there is a great and important diversity of sentiment. This diversity is in a certain way and to some extent connected with the. right rendering of the word &weAeAuvuévyy in Matt. xix. 9. 1. Some translate it as if it were preceded by ry, and go equivalent to “her which is put away,” or “ the divorced woman.” ‘Thus it stands in the common English Version, and reference to the woman lawfully divorced, that is, for fornication, is presumed. 2. Others, more accurately, render it “‘ her when she is put away,” as it is translated in the Revised Version, the reference being thus to her who is unlawfully divorced, that is, divorced not on the ground of adultery. This view is maintained by Stier and Meyer, the latter confirming it by the fact that ‘under the Law the punishment of death was attached to adultery,
. and consequently, under the Law, the marrying of a woman divorced for adultery could never happen.” 8, There is, however, another rendering, namely, “s divorced woman,” that is, any divorced woman. This is the rendering advocated by Wordsworth, who says, “In no case does our Lord permit a person to marry 2 woman who has been divorced.” This is the view of the matter taken by the Latin Church, which declares marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances unlawful. The Oriental and most Reformed Churches, on the contrary, hold that, in the excepted case, both husband and wife may contract a fresh marriage. These are the two extreme views; but what of the case of unlawful divorce, that is to say, where the wife has been divorced for some other and less offence than that of adultery, or ropveia, which is of widest extent, comprehending ante-nuptial as well as post-nuptial unchastity (ocxela) ? This is the case to which the guilt of subsequent marriage attaches, for it is that in which the marriage bond has not been really ruptured. The delay connected with getting a divorce or after its being granted might give time for better counsels te prevail; second thoughts might be found preferable; angry passion might in the mean time cool down, and reconciliation and reunion be effected.—J. J. G.
Vers, 18—16. Parallel passages: Matt. xix. 18—15; Luke xviii. 15—17.— {. CHILDREN BROUGHT AND BLESSED, 1. Our Lord’s love of childrem. Our Lord, when on earth, had no greater favourites than children. He set them in the midst; he laid his hands on them; he blessed them; he invited them to his presence ; he welcomed them to his person; he folded them lovingly in his arms. He calls them the lambe of his flock ; he provides them suitable spiritual food, and with it he bids ua feed them. He tepresents by them his faithful followers; he reproves his disciples when they would have prevented their access to him, He reminds us all that they are precious in our heavenly Father’s sight, preserved by his providence and protected by his power. He assures us, a8 we have seen, that “ their angels do always behold the face of my Father
ox. x, 1—52.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST, MARK. 97 eS ——,
which is in heaven.” 2. Individual features of the three narratives, The request of those who brought the little children, as reported by St. Matthew, is not only that the Saviour should touch them, as in St. Mark and St. Luke; but “put his hands on them, and pray.” In St. Mark, we are told that Jesus not only touched the little children, as requested, but “took them up in his arms.” They thus got more than they asked. This is usually the way with Christ; he does more for us than we ask or think. An additional feature of the narrative, as supplied by St. Luke, is that some of these children were of very tender age—mere infants (Spépm).