Marriage – Marriage

Marriage

1. Forms of Marriage.— There are two forms of marriage among primitive races: (1) where the husband becomes part of his wife’s tribe, (2) where the wife becomes part of her husband’s tribe.

(1) W. R. Smith (Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia) gives to this form the name sadika, from the sadac or ‘gift’ given to the wife, (a) The union may be confined to an occasional visit to the wife in her home imota marriage). This is distinguished frorh mere prostitution, in that no disgrace is attached, and the children are recognized by the tribe; cf. Samson’s marriage.(6) The husband may be definitely incorporated into his wife’s tribe (fieena marriage). The wife meets her husband on equal terms; children belong to her tribe, and descent is reckoned on the mother’s side. Women could inherit in Arabia under this system (op. dt. p. 94). Possible traces in OT are the marriages of Jacob (Laban claims wives and children as his own, Genesis 31:31, 43). Moses (Exodus 2:21 4:18). Samson (Judges 14. IS. 16:4; there is no hint that he meant to take his wife home; his kid seems to be the sadac or customary present). So the Shechemites must be circumcised (Genesis 34:15) Joseph’s sons born in Egypt are adopted by Jacob (48) ; Abimelech, the son of Gideon’s Shechemite concubine (Judges 8:31). is a Shechemite (.9^-^). The words of Genesis 2 may have originally referred to this custom, though they are evidently not intended to do so by the narrator, since beena marriages were already out of date when they were written. Many of the instances quoted can be explained as due to special circumstances, but the admitted existence of such marriages in Arabia makes it probable that we should find traces of them among the Semites in general. They make it easier to understand the existence of the primitive custom of the ‘matriarchate,’ or reckoning of descent through females. In addition to the cases already quoted, we may add the closeness of maternal as compared with paternal relationships, evidenced in bars of marriage (see below, § 3), and the special responsibility of the maternal uncle or brother (Genesis 24:29 34:25, 2 Samuel 13:22). It la evident that the influence of polygamy would be in the same direction, subdividing the family into smaller groups connected with each wife.

(2) The normal type is where the wife becomes the property of her husband, who is her ‘Baal’ or possessor (Hosea 2:16). she herself being ‘Beulah’ (Isaiah 62:4). She and her children belong to his tribe, and he alone has right of divorce, (o) In unsettled times the wife will be acquired by war (Judges 5:30). She is not merely a temporary means of pleasure, or even a future mother, but a slave and an addition to a man’s wealth. Deuteronomy 21:10–14 regulates the procedure in cases of capture; in Jg 19-21 we have an instance of the custom. Traces may remain in later marriage procedure, e.g. in the band of the bridegroom’s friends escorting, i.e. ‘capturing,’ the bride, and in her feigned resistance, as among the Bedouin (W. R. Smith, op. dt. p. 81). (6) Capture gives place to purchase and ultimately to contract. The daughter is valuable to the clan as a possible mother of warriors, and cannot be parted with except for a consideration. Hence the ‘dowry’ (see below, § 6) paid to the bride’s parents.

2. Polygamy among the Hebrews was confined to a plurality of wives (polygyny). There is no certain trace in OT of a plurality of husbands (polyandry), though the Levirate marriage is sometimes supposed to be a survival. The chief causes of polygyny were — (a) the desire for a numerous offspring, or the barrenness of first wife (Abraham’s case is directly ascribed to tills, and among many peoples it is permitted on this ground alone) ; (6) the position and importance offered by numerous alliances (e.g. Solomon) ; (c) the existence of slavery, which almost implies it. It can obviously be prevalent only where there is a disproportionate number of females, and, except in a state of war, is possible only to those wealthy enough to provide the necessary ‘dowry.’ A further limitation is implied in the fact that in more advanced stages, when the harem is established, the wife when secured is a source, not of wealth, but of expense.

Polygamy meets us as a fact: e.g. Abraham, Jacob, the Judges, David, Solomon; 1 Chronicles 7:4 is evidence of its prevalence in Issachar; Elkanah (1 Samuel 1:1 f.) is significant as belonging to the middle class; Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:3) as a priest. But it is always treated with suspicion; it is incompatible with the ideal of Genesis 2:24. and its origin is ascribed to Lamech, the Cainite (4:19). In Deuteronomy 17:17 the king is warned not to multiply wives; later regulations fixed the number at eighteen for a king and four for an ordinary man. The quarrels and jealousies of such a narrative as Genesis 29:31) are clearly intended to illustrate its evils, and it is in part the cause of the troubles of the reigns of David and Solomon. Legislation (see below, § 6) safeguarded the rights of various wives, slave or free; and according to the Rabbinic interpretation of Leviticus 21:13 the high priest was not allowed to be a bigamist. Noah, Isaac, and Joseph had only one wife, and domestic happiness in the Bible is always connected with monogamy (2 Kings 4, Psalms 128, Proverbs 31, Sirach 25:1, 8 26:1, 13). The marriage figure applied to the union of God and Israel (§ 10) implied monogamy as the ideal state. Polygamy is, in fact, always an unnatural development from the point of view both of religion and of anthropology;’ monogamy is by tar the most common form of human marriage; it was so also amongst the ancient peoples of whom we have any direct knowledge ‘(Westermarck. Hum. Marr. p. 459). Being, however, apparently legalized, and having the advantage of precedent, it was long before polygamy was formally forbidden in Hebrew society, though practically it fell into disuse; the feeling of the Rabbis was strongly against it. Herod had nine wives at once (Jos. Ant. xvii. i. 3, cf. 2). Its possibility is implied by the technical continuance of the’ Levirate law, and is proved by the early interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:2. whether correct or not (§ 8). Justin (Dial. 134, 141) reproaches the Jews of his day with having ‘four or even five wives,’ and marrying ‘as they wish, or as many as they wish.’ The evidence of the Talmud shows that in this case at least the reproach had some foundation. Polygamy was not definitely forbidden among the Jews till the time of R. Gfirshom (c. a.d. 1000) , and then at first only for France and Germany. In Spain, Italy, and the East it persisted for some time longer, as it does still among the Jews in Mohammedan countries.

3. Bars to Marriage. — (1) Prohibited degrees. — Their range varies extraordinarily among different peoples, but on the whole it is wider among uncivilized than among civilized races (Westermarok, op. cit. p. 297), often embracing the whole tribe. The instinctive impulse was not against marriage with a near relative qua relative, but against marriage where there was early familiarity. ‘Whatever is the origin of bars to marriage, they are certainly early associated with the feeling that it is indecent for housemates to intermarry’ (W. R. Smith, op. cit. p. 170). The origin of the instinct is natural selection, consanguineous marriages being on the whole unfavourable to the species, in man as among animals. This, of course, was not consciously realized; the instinct took the form of a repulsion to union with those among whom one had lived ; as these would usually be blood relations, that which we recognize as horror of incest was naturally developed (Westermarck, p. 352). We find in OT no trace of dislike to marriage within the tribe (i.e. endogamy), though, judging by Arab analogies, it may have originally existed; on the contrary, the Hebrews were strongly endogamous, marrying within the nation. The objection, however, to incestuous marriages was strong, though in early times there was laxity with regard to intermarriage with relatives on the father’s side, a natural result of the ‘matriarchate’ and of polygamy, where each wife with her family formed a separate group in her own tent. Abram married his half-sister (Genesis 20:12) 2 Samuel 13:13. Ezekiel 22:11 imply the continuance of the practice. Nahor married his niece (Genesis 11:29), and Amram his paternal aunt (Exodus 6:20). On.’ marriage with a stepmother see below, § 6. Jacob married two sisters (cf. Judges 15:2). Legislation is found In Leviticus 18:7–17 20:11 (ct. Deuteronomy 27:20, 22, 23, for details see the commentaries. We note the omission of prohibition of marriage with a niece, and with widow of maternal uncle. Leviticus 18:18 forbids marriage not with a deceased but with a living wife’s sister, i.e. a special form of polygamy. The ‘bastard’ of Deuteronomy 23:2 is probably the offspring of an incestuous marriage. An heiress was not allowed to marry outside her tribe (Numbers 36:6; ct. 27:4. Tobit 6:12 7:12). For restrictions on priests see Leviticus 21:7, 14. There were no caste restrictions, though difference in rank would naturally be an objection (1 Samuel 18:18, 23). Outside the prohibited degrees consanguineous marriages were common (Genesis 24:4. Tobit 4:12) in Judges 14:3 the best marriage is ‘from thy brethren.’ Jubilees 4 maintains that all the patriarchs from Adam to Noah married near relatives. Cousin marriages among the Jews are said to occur now three times more often than among other civilized peoples (Westermarck, p. 481).

(2) Racial bars arose from religious and historical causes. Genesis 24. 28. 34, Numbers 12:1, Judges 14:3 illustrate the objection to foreign marriages; Esau’s Hittite wives are a grief to his parents (Genesis 26:34 27:46) cf. Leviticus 24:10. The marriage of Joseph (Genesis 41:45) ig due to stress of circumstances, but David (2 Samuel 3:3) and Solomon (1 Kings 3:1 11:1) set a deliberate example which was readily imitated (16:31). Among the common people there must have been other cases similar to Naomi’s (Ruth 1:4) Bathsheba (2 Samuel 11:3). Hiram (1 Kings 7:14). Amasa (1 Chronicles 2:17). Jehozabad (2 Chronicles 24:26) are the children of mixed marriages. They are forbidden with the inhabitants of Canaan (Exodus 34:16, Deuteronomy 7:3). but tolerated with Moabites and Egyptians (23:7). Their prevalence was a trouble to Ezra (9. 10) and to Nehemiah (10 13). Tobit 4:12 e’‘. 1 Mao 1 renew the protest against them. In the Diaspora they were permitted on condition of proselytism, but Jubilees 30 forbids them absolutely; they are’ fornication.’ Jewish strictness in this respect was notorious (Tac. Hist. v. 5; cf. Acts 10:28). The case of Timothy’s parents (Acts 16:1–3) is an example of the greater laxity which prevailed in central Asia Minor. It is said that now the proportion of mixed to pure marriages among the Jews is about 1 to 500 (Westermarck, p. 375), though it varies greatly in different countries. 1 Corinthians 7:39 probably discourages marriage with a heathen (cf. v. 12 ff. gs), but the general teaching of the Epp. would remove any religious bar to intermarriage between Christians of different race, though it does not touch the social or physiological advisabihty.

4. Levirate Marriage (Lat. Zewir, ‘a brother-in-law’). — In Deuteronomy 25 (no in other codes of OT) it is enacted that if a man die leaving no son (‘child’ LXX, Josephus, Matthew 22). his brother, if he lives on the same estate, is to take his widow, and the eldest child is to succeed to the name and inheritance of the deceased (cf. Genesis 38:9). If the survivor refuses, a formal declaration is to be made before the elders of the city, and the widow is to express her contempt by loosing his sandal and spitting in his face. The law is a codification, possibly a restriction, of an existing custom, (a) It is presupposed for the patriarchal age in Genesis 38, the object of this narrative being to insist on the duty of the survivor; (6) Heb. has a special word = ‘to perform the duty of a husband’s brother’; (c) the custom is found with variations in different parts of the world — India, Tibet, Madagascar, etc. In India it is confined to the case where there is no child, and lasts only till an heir is born; sometimes it is only permissive. In other cases it operates without restriction, and may be connected with the form of polyandry where the wife is the common property of all the brothers. But it does not necessarily imply polyandry, of which indeed there is no trace in OT. Among the Indians, Persians, and Afghans it is connected with ancestor worship, the object being to ensure that there shall be some one to perform the sacrificial rites; the supposed indications of this among the Hebrews are very doubtful. In OT it is more probably connected with the desire to preserve the family name (a man lived through his children), and to prevent a division or alienation of property. On the other hand, the story of Ruth 4 seems to belong to the circle of ideas according to which the wife is inherited as part of a man’s property. Boaz marries Ruth as goel, not as levir, and the marriage is legally only a subordinate element in the redemption of the property. There is no stigma attached to the refusal of the nearer kinsman, and the son ranks as belonging to Boaz. The prohibited degrees in Leviticus 18 (P) make no exception in favour of the Levirate marriage, whether repealing or presupposing it is uncertain. In later times we have the Sadducees’ question in Mark 12:19)). It does not imply the continuance of the practice. It had fallen into disuse, and the Mishna invents many limitations to avoid the necessity of compliance. It was agreed that the woman must have no child (Dt. ‘son’), and the school both of Shammai and of the Sadducees apparently confined the law to the case of a betrothed, not a wedded, wife. If so, the difficulty was twofold, striking at the Levirate custom as well as at the belief in the Resurrection (Edersheim, LT ii. 400).

6. Marriage Customs. — (l) Thearranging of a marriage was normally in the hands of the parents (Genesis 21:21 24:3 28:1 34:4. Judges 14:2. 2 Esdras 9:47) there are, in fact, few nations or periods where the children have a free choice. But (a) infant or child marriages were unknown; (ft) the consent of the parties was, sometimes at least, sought (Genesis 24:8) (c) the rule was not absolute; it might be broken wilfully (26:34). or under stress of circumstances (Exodus 2:21) (d) natural feeling will always make itself felt in spite of the restrictions of custom; the sexes met freely, and romantic attachments were not unknown (Genesis 29:10 34:3, Judges 14:1, 1 Samuel 18:20) in these cases the initiative was talsen by the parties. One view of Canticles is that it is a drama celebrating the victory of a village maiden’s faithfulness to her shepherd lover, in face of the attractions of a royal rival. It was a disgrace if a daughter remained unmarried (Sirach 42:9) this fact is the key to 1 Corinthians 7:25 ff.: (2) The betrothal was of a more formal and binding nature than our ‘engagement’ ; among the Arabs it is the only legal ceremony connected with a marriage. Genesis 24 may preserve an ancient formula and blessing. Its central feature was the dowry (mohar) paid to the parents or representatives of the bride, the daughter being a valuable possession. Deuteronomy 22:29 (cf. Exodus 22:16) orders its payment in a case of seduction, and 50 shekels is named as the average. In Genesis 34:12 Hamor offers ‘never so much dowry’; cf. the presents of ch. 24. It might take the form of service (Genesis 29, Jacob; 1 Samuel 18:25. David). Dowry, in our sense of provision tor the wife, arose in two ways, (a) The parents provided for her, perhaps originally giving her a portion of the purchase money (Genesis 24:61 29:24). Caleb gives his daughter a field (Joshua 15:19 = Jg ; Solomon’s princess brings a dowry of a city (1 Kings 9:16) ; Raguel gives his daughter half his goods (Tobit 8:21 10:10). Tills dowry was retained by the wife if divorced, except in case of adultery. (6) The husband naturally signified his generosity and affection by gifts to his bride (Genesis 24:53 34:12 [where gift is distinct from ‘dowry’]. Esther 2:9). According to the Mishna, the later ceremony of betrothal consisted in payment of a piece of money, or a gift, or the conveyance of a writing, in presence of two witnesses. A third method (by cohabitation) was strongly discountenanced. After betrothal the parties were legally in the position of a married couple. Unfaithfulness was adultery (Deuteronomy 22:23. Matthew 1:19). The bridegroom was exempt from military service (Deuteronomy 20:7). Non-fulfilment of the marriage was a serious slight (1 Samuel 18:19, Judges 14:19). but conceivable under certain circumstances (Genesis 29:27).

(2) Wedding ceremonies. — Great uncertainty attaches to the proceedings In Biblical times. We have to construct our picture from passing notices, combined with what we know of Arabic and later Jewish customs. In some cases there seems to have been nothing beyond the betrothal (Genesis 24) or the wedding festivities followed it at once; but in later times there was a distinct interval, not exceeding a year in case of a virgin. Tobit (7:14) mentions a ‘contract’ (cf. Mai 2:14). which became a universal feature. The first ceremony was the wedding procession (Psalms 45:15, 1 Maccabees 9:37). which may be a relic of ‘marriage by capture,’ the bridegroom’s friends (Matthew 9. John 3:29; cf. ‘60 mighty men’ of Song of Songs 3:7) going, often by night, to fetch the bride and her attendants; in Judges 14 Samson’s comrades are necessarily taken from the bride’s people. The rejoicings are evidenced by the proverbial ‘voice of the bridegroom,’ etc. (Jeremiah 7:34 etc.. Revelation 18). Genesis 24:53. ps 45:13–15. Jeremiah 2:32. Revelation 19:8 21:2 speak of the magnificence of the bridal attire; Isaiah 61:10, of the garland of the bridegroom and jewels of the bride (cf. 49:18) ; the veil is mentioned in Genesis 24:65 29:23; the supposed allusions to the lustral bath of the Greeks (Ruth 3:3. Ezekiel 23:40, Ephesians 5) are very doubtful. The situation in Matthew 25:1 is not clear. Are the ‘virgins’ friends of the bridegroom waiting for his return with his bride, or friends of the bride waiting with her for him? All that it is possible to say is that the general conception is that of the wedding procession by night in which lights and torches have always played a large part. Another feature was the scattering of flowers and nuts; all who met the procession were expected to join in it or to salute it.

The marriage supper followed, usually in the home of the bridegroom (2 Esdras 9:47) Genesis 29:22. Judges 14:10. Tobit 8:19 are easily explained exceptions. Hospitality was a sacred duty; ‘he who does not invite me to his marriage will not have me to his funeral.’ To refuse the invitation was a grave insult (Matthew 22). Nothing is known of the custom, apparently implied in this passage, of providing a wedding garment for guests. John 2 gives us a picture of the feast in a middle-class home, where the resources are strained to the uttermost. It is doubtful whether the ‘ruler of the feast’ (cf. Sirach 32:1, 2) is ‘the best man’ (3:29, Judges 14:20). the office being unusual in the simple life of Galilee (Edersheim, ir i. 356). There is nowhere any iiint of a religious ceremony, though marriage was regarded with great reverence as symbolizing the union of God with Israel (id. 353). The feast was no doubt guasi-sacramental (cf. the Latin ‘confarreatio’), and the marriage was consummated by the entry into the ‘chamber’ Qiuppah). W. R. Smith (op. cit. p. 168) finds in this a relic of ‘beena’ marriage (see above, § 1), the huppah or canopy (Joel 2:16) being originally the wife’s tent (Genesis 24:67, Judges 4:17) cf. the tent pitched for Absalom (2 Samuel 16:22). i^ Arab., Syr., and Heb. the bridegroom is said to ‘go in’ to the bride. Psalms 19 speaks of his exultant ‘coming forth’ on the following morning; ‘the chamber’ can hardly refer there to the ‘canopy’ under which in modern weddings the pair stand during the ceremony, though this has no doubt been evolved from the old tent.

The wedding festivities were not confined tothe’ supper’ of the first night, at any rate in OT times. As now in Syria, the feast lasted for 7 days (Genesis 29:27. xo 11:19 8 [a fortnight]). The best picture is in Judges 14, with its eating and drinking and not very refined merriment. Canticles is generally supposed to contain songs sung during these festivities; those now sung in Syria show a remarkable similarity. 7:1–7 in particular would seem to be the chorus in praise of the bride’s beauty, such as is now chanted, while she herself in a sword dance displays the charms of her person by the flashing firelight. During the week the pair are ‘king and queen,’ enthroned on the threshing-board of the village. It is suggested that ‘Solomon’ (3:7) had become the nickname for this village king. Deuteronomy 24:5 exempts the bridegroom from military service for a year (cf. 20:7).

6. Position of the wife. — The practically universal form of marriage was the ‘Baal’ type, where the wife passed under the dominion of her ‘lord’ (Genesis 3:16, Tenth Com.). Side by side with this was the ideal principle, according to which she was a ‘help meet for him’ (Genesis 2:18). and the legal theory was always modified in practice by the affection of the husband or the strong personality of the wife; cf. the position of the patriarchs’ wives, of women in Jg. or in Pr. (esp. 31); cf. 1 Samuel 25:18. 2 Kings 4:8. But her value was largely that of a mother of children, and the position of a childless wife was unpleasant(Gn 16:4 30, 1 s 1:6. 2 Esdras 9:43). Polygamy led to favouritism; the fellow-wife is a ‘rival’ (1 Samuel 1:6) — a technical term. Deuteronomy 21:15 ff. safeguards the right of the flrstborn of a ‘hated’ wife; Exodus 21:10 provides for the rendering of the duties of marriage to a flrst wife, even if a purchased concubine; if they are withheld she is to go free (cf. Deuteronomy 21:14 of a captive). The difference between a wife and a concubine depended on the wife’s higher position and birth, usually backed by relatives ready to defend her. She might claim the inheritance tor her children (Genesis 21:10) her slave could not be taken as concubine without her consent (16:2). as part of a man’s chattels his wives were in certain cases inherited by his heir, with the limitation that a man could not take his own mother. The custom lasted in Arabia till forbidden by the Koran (ch. iv.). In OT there is the case of Reuben and Bilhah (Genesis 35:22 49:4), perhaps implying the continuance of the custom in the tribe of Reuben, after it had been proscribed elsewhere (Driver, ad loc). It is presupposed in 2 Samuel 3:7, where Ishbosheth reproaches Abner for encroactiing on his birthright, and in 6:22. where Absalom thus publishes his claim to the kingdom. In 1 Kings 2:22 Adonijah, in asking for Abishag, is claiming the eldest brother’s inheritance. Ezekiel 22:10 finds it still necessary to condemn the practice; cf. Deuteronomy 22. Leviticus 18:8. Ru i shows how the wife is regarded as part of the inheritance. A widow normally remained unmarried. If poor, her position was bad; ct. the injunctions in Dt., the prophets, and the Pastoral Epp. In royal houses her influence might be greater than that of the wife; e.g. the difference in the attitude of Bathsheba in 1 Kings 1:16 and in 2:19. and the power of the queen-mother (1 Kings 15:13. 2 Kings 11). There was a strong prejudice in later times against her re-marrying (Luke 2:36; Jos. Ant. xvn. xiii. 4, xvm. vi. 6). There is no instance of a corresponding dislike to the marriage of a widower, but the wife was regarded as a man’s property even after his death. St. Paul, however, permits re-marriage (1 Corinthians 7:39). and even enjoins it for younger widows (1 Timothy 5:14).

7. Adultery. — If a bride was found not to be a virgin, she was to be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:13–21). A man who violated an unmarried girl was compelled to marry her with payment of ‘dowry’ (v. 29, cf. Exodus 22:16). A priest’s daughter playing the harlot was to be burnt (Leviticus 21:9). Adultery holds a prominent place among social sins (Seventh and Tenth Com., Ezekiel 18:11). If committed with a married or betrothed woman, the penalty was stoning for both parties, a betrothed damsel being spared if forced (Deuteronomy 22:22–27. Leviticus 20:10. Ezekiel 16:40 23:45). The earher penalty was burning, as in Egypt (Genesis 38:24; Tamar is virtually betrothed). In Numbers 5:11–31 the fact of adultery is to be established by ordeal, a custom found in many nations. It is to be noted that the test is not poison, but holy water; i.e. the chances are in favour of the accused. The general point of view is that adultery with a married woman is an offence against a neighbour’s property; the adultery of a wife is an offence against her husband, but she has no concern with his fldeUty. It is not probable that the extreme penalty was ever carried out (2 Samuel 1 1 , Hosea 3). The frequent denunciations in the prophets and Pr. (2:18 fis QX) show the prevalence of the crime; the usual penalty was divorce with loss of dowry (cf. Matthew 5:31). In the ‘pericope’ of John 8, part of the test is whether Christ will set Himself against Moses by sanctioning the abrogation of the Law; it is not implied that the punishment was ever actually inflicted; in fact, no instance of it is known. The answer (v. 11) pardons the sinner, but by no means condones the sin: ‘damnavit, sed peccatum non hominem’ (Aug.); cf. the treatment of ‘the woman who was a sinner’ (Luke 7:47). The NT is uncompromising in its attitude towards this sin, including in its view all acts of unchastity as offences against God and the true self, as sanctified by His indwelhng, no less than against one’s neighbour (Matthew 5:27. Acts 15:29. 1 Corinthians 5:11 6:9, 13–20. Galatians 5:19. 1 Thessalonians 4:3). The blessing on the ‘virgins’ of Revelation 14:4 probably refers to chastity, not celibacy; cf. ‘the bed undeflled’ of Hebrews 13:4. The laxity of the age made it necessary to insist on purity as a primary Christian virtue (see Swete, ad loc).

8. Divorce is taken for granted in OT (Leviticus 21:7, 14 22:13. Numbers 30:9), it being the traditional right of the husband, as in Arabia, to ‘put away his wife’ (Genesis 21:14). The story of Hosea probably embodies the older procedure, which is regulated by the law of Deuteronomy 24:1. There must be a bill of divorcement (Isaiah 50:1. Jeremiah 3:8), prepared on a definite charge, and therefore presumably before some public ofhcial, and formally given to the woman. (But cf. Matthew 1:19. where possibihty of private divorce is contemplated[or repudiation of betrothal?].) The time and expense thus i nvol ved would act as a check. Further, if the divorcee re-marries, she may not return to her former husband — a deterrent on hasty divorce, also on re-marriage — , if there is any prospect of reconciliation. The right of divorce is withheld in two cases (Deuteronomy 22:19, 29). There was great divergence of opinion as regards the ground ‘if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found in her the nakedness of a thing.’ The school of Hillel emphasized the first clause, and interpreted it of the most trivial things, practically ‘for any cause’ (Matthew 19:3) that of Shammai laid stress rightly on the second clause, and confined it to unchastity. But the vague nature of the expression (cf. Deuteronomy 23:14). and the fact that 22:22 enacts death for unchastity, show that something wider must be meant, probably ‘immodest or indecent behaviour’ (Driver, ad loc.). In spite of the prohibition of Mai 2:13–16 and the stern attitude qf many Rabbis, divorce continued to be frequent; Ezra 9. 10 encouraged it. The Mishna allows it for violation of the Law or of Jewish customs, e.g. breaking a vow, appearing in public with dishevelled hair, or conversing indiscriminately with men. Practically the freedom was almost unlimited; the question was not what was lawful, but on what grounds a man ought to exercise the right the Law gave him. It was, of course, confined to the husband (1 8 25 is simply an outrage on the part of Saul). Women of rank such as Salome (Jos. Ant. XV. vii. 10) or Herodias (xviii. v. 4) might arrogate it, but it is condemned as a breach of Jewish law. Christ contemplates its possibihty in Mark 10:12. perhaps having in view the Greek and Roman world, where it was legal. But the words caused a difficulty to the early versions, which substitute desertion for divorce, and may be a later insertion, added for the sake of completeness. In a later period the Talmud allowed a wife to claim a divorce in certain’ cases, e.g. if her husband had a loathsome disease.

In the NT divorce seems to be forbidden absolutely (Mark 10:11. Luke 16:8. 1 Corinthians 7:10, 39). Our Lord teaches that the OT permission was a concession to a low moral standard, and was opposed to the ideal of marriage as an inseparable union of body and soul (Genesis 2). But in Matthew 5:32 19:9 He seems to allow it for ‘fornication,’ an exception which finds no place in the parallels (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:15. winch allows re-marriage where a Christian partner is deserted by a heathen) . (a) Fornication cannot here be sin before marriage ; the sense of the passage demands that the word shall be taken in its wider sense (cf. Hosea 2:5. Amos 7:17. 1 Corinthians 5:1) it defines the ‘uncleanness’ of Deuteronomy 24:1 as illicit sexual intercourse. (6) Divorce cannot be limited to separation ‘from bed and board,’ as by R.C. commentators (1 Corinthians 7 uses quite different words). To a Jew it always carried with it the right of re-marriage, and the words ‘causeth her to commit adultery’ (Matthew 5:32) show that our Lord assumed that the divorcee would marry again. Hence if He allowed divorce under certain conditions. He allowed re-marriage, (c) It follows that Matthew 19:9. asit stands, gives to aninjured husband the right of divorce, and therefore of re-marriage, even if it be supposed that the words ‘except for fornication’ qualify only the first clause, or if ‘shall marry another’ be omitted with B. A right given to an injured husband must on Christian principles be allowed to an injured wife. Further, re-marriage, if permitted to either party, is logically permitted both to innocent and to guilty, so far as the dissolution of the marriage bond is concerned, though it may well be forbidden to the latter as a matter of discipline and penalty. Matthew 5:32 apparently allows the re-marriage of the justifiably divorced, i.e. guilty wife, though the interpretation of this verse is more doubtful than that of 19:9. (d) The view implied by the exception is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to re-marriage. But re-marriage also closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible ; cf . the teaching of Hosea and Jeremiah 3 ; Hermas (.Mand. lv. 1) allows no re-marriage, and lays great stress on the taking back of a repentant wife, (e) Hence much is to be said for the view which is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Mt. is an editorial addition from the Judaic standpoint, or under the pressure of practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard. (For the authorities, see Hastings’ DB, Ext. Vol. p. 27:5. and add Wright’s Synopsis and Allen’s ;S(. Mat.) It is true that though the textual variations in both passages of Mt. are numerous, there is no MS authority for the entire omission of the words. But there is no hint of the exception in Mk., Lk., or 1 Cor.; Matthew 19:3 alters the question of Mark 10:2, adding the qualification ‘for every cause,’ which thus prepares the way for the qualified answer of v. 9. This answer really admits]the validity of the law of Deuteronomy 24:1, with its stricter interpretation (see p. 586), whilst the language of v. 8 leads us to expect its abrogation. The introduction of the exception upsets the argument, which in Mk. is clear and logical. Again, is it not contrary to Christ’s method that He should legislate in detail? He rather lays down universal principles, the practical application of which He left to His Church (see below, § 11).

(/) The requirement in 1 Timothy 3:2, 12, Titus 1:6, that the ‘bishop’ and ‘deacon’ shall be the ‘husband of one wife,’ is probably to be understood as a prohibition of divorce and other sins against the chastity of marriage (cf . Hebrews 13:4), made necessary by the low standard of the age. Of course, no greater laxity is allowed to the layman, any more than he is allowed to be ‘a brawler or striker’ ; but sins of this type are mentioned as peculiarly inconsistent with the ministry. Other views of the passage are that it forbids polygamy (a prohibition which could hardly be necessary in Christian circles) or a second marriage. But there was no feeling against the re-marriage of men (see above, § 6), and St. Paul himself saw in a second marriage nothing per se inconsistent with the Christian ideal (1 Timothy 5:14), so that it is hard to see on what grounds the supposed prohibition could rest.