Page images


If the case of the man be fo with his wife, it is not
good to marry--i. e. “If a man cannot get rid
« of his wife when he pleases, he had better
not marry at all.”. This conclusion must
have been made from their understanding
CHRisT to speak of divorce, for it is totally
foreign from the matter of polygamy; -How
could they possibly mean that a man had bet-
ter have no wife at all, if he could not have
more than one at once? It must likewise be
fupposed, that they did not misunderstand
their Master, for if they had, He would
doubtless' have fet them right in his reply
(Matt. xix. 11, 12) and not have there faid,
what clearly shews them to have understood
Him aright.
Now let us confider Matt. xix.


still more closely, taking it in connection with his subsequent explanation of it to the disciples in the house. Mark x. 10, 11, 12.

I say unto you-Whosoever shall put away his wife-mail youyon anayy-and shall marry another; dragu must here have a reference to the preceding yuvaine, which we render by the word wife -- therefore yuvalina must be understood as following the word daayu, and this may

be conftrued in the fenfe of αλλοτριαν yurasud-another man's wife, i. e. a divorced

We find the word anams, so used, 1 Cor. x. 29. ÚTo dans ouveld90ws—which we rightly translate another man's conscience. . The learned Wetstein takes onay in this sense, in his note on Matt. xix. 9.--His words are "Αλλην] 1. 2. 'Αλλοτριαν ab alio itidem viro.


[ocr errors]


repudiatam-vel ab illo divertentem, ut Hee rodias * & Salome." Another] that isanother man's wife, who has been repudiated

by him, or who has left her husband; as “ did Herodias and Salome." He mentions

* Salome was sister to Herod the Great. She is said to have been the first woman who repudiated her husband. Herodias left her husband Philip, and married the faid Philip's brother, Herod Antipas; for which John the Baptist severely reproved him, saying-it is not lawful for thee to have her. Matt. xiv. 4. For faying this, he had a double authority. First, as to the incest, Lev. xviii. 16. Secondly, with regard to her being another man's wife, Lev. xx. 10. Herod's situation was just what our LORD condemns in the passage of Mark x. II, 12.

He had put away his first wife, who was the daughter of Aretas, king of Arabia, that he might take his brother Philip's wife, with whom he had fallen in love ; and he did this at the request of Herodias herself. This was putting a wayhis wife, and marrying árany, i.e. carolprav, another's, which was adultery; as was Herodias's leaving her husband, and marrying Herod. All this (except the incest) fell directly under the condemnation of the divine law, as explained by CHRIST to the disciples, and doubtless was meant by what he said before, in the presence of the multitude, to the Pharisees; and may serve as a proper illustration of the doctrine of the divine law, as set forth by our LORD, with respect to unlawful divorces, taking άλλην in the fenfe of αλλοτριαν. .

See also the case of Drusilla, a daughter of Herod Agrippa, who forsook Azizus, king of Emesa, and married Felix-(see Aets xxiv. 24.) also of her two sisters.-Berenice, the eldeft, left her husband Polemon, king of Pontus, to go to others-and Mariamne, the youngest, was married to Archelaus, and forsook him to marry Demetrius, an Alexandrian few. Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. x. p. 643, and note E.

The above-mentioned women were of high rank and dignity; but doubtless others practised the same, who were of too low a degree to be subjects of the historian's pen.


afterwards a difficulty he was under from this interpretation of anyumas it seems to make the text say the same thing * twice over ; and on en dutuu, Mark x. 11. he has the following note, which I will lay before the reader in English, referring the learned to the original.- Against her.] « There are some “ who interpret this to relate to the second or latter wife, on whom the husband might “ commit aduitery, properly so called; which “ he cannot be said to commit if he should

marry a virgin, or a widow, but only by marrying a woman who had been in like

manner (i.e. unjustly) divorced by another man. But there is an f objection to this

interpretation, * This objection is at an end, if the latter clause is to be left out, as in the Cambridge, and many other copies. See Mills and Wetstein on Matt. xix. 9.

+ Since the first edition of this book, I have considered very deeply this objection of Wetstein's, as well as the ground on which it stands. He certainly, when writing on Mark x. 11, 12. had the clause of Matt. xix. 9. in his mind, insomuch as to confound it with Mark x. 12; but, on the most attentive confideration, I cannot think, with St. Auffin and others, that the latter clause of Mato. xix.


viz. He that marrieth her that is put away, como mitteth adultery, has the least tautology, even taking the αλλην in the former claufe in the fenfe of αλλότριαν-because the whole verse, taken together, is no other than a complete refutation of the Jews doctrine of divorce for every cause, and a full establishment of the truth whích CHRIST is contending for-viz.-that no cause, but that of adultery in the wife, is any ground of divorce from the bond of marriage, so as to exempt the man who Thould marry her, living her husband, from the crime of adultery. In this view the whole will stand thus-viz.

Whosoever shall put away his wife (except for fornisation, which is the only thing which can dissolve the


interpretation, which is, that by this “ method of interpreting the passage, the

« fame

contract) and Mall marry another (yuvarxa, wife or woman unjustly divorced) committeth adultery (upon such woman - aulny-Mark x. 11.) no unjust divorce diffolving her contract with the man who put her

away. Thus far the first clause-on which it might be supposed, that, as the first man had not only put away his wife by a bill of divorcement, but also married another divorced woman, and by that committed adultery, such an act released the first woman entirely from him, and therefore any other man might innocently take her to wife, as a woman divorced justly and entirely, the bond being vacated by the husband's adultery. But our LORD declares it to be otherwise settled by the law; nothing but adultery in the wife could dissolve the bond of marriage, therefore, the act of the husband above mentioned, did not bring the wife into the state of a single woman, fo as that she might marry again, living her husband-wherefore Christ adds--that whojo married a woman under such circumstances of unjust and invalid divorce (anonsau pernthat had been put away in this manner) committed adultery, no act of the husband's setting her free from him.

This latter clause seems therefore as necessary as the former-in order to elucidate the whole doctrine of divorce, and to prove, that no one real cause or ground of it, so as to diffolve a marriage, existed on the footing of the divine law, but fornication or adultery in the wife; which appears also to be clearly laid down Matt. v. 32. with the spirit and fense of which scripture, this passage of Matt. xix. 9. exactly harmonizes.

In this view of the matter, this scripture, fo far from condemning polygamy, rather establishes it; otherwise a man's taking a second woman, if such taking was adultery against the first wife, would set her free, and if so, a man who married her would not fin, for adultery is certainly a release, a vinculo matrimonii, with respect to the party against whom it is committed. It

may also be observed, that no possible case can be put of a man's actually committing adultery, but by in


[ocr errors]

* same thing would be said twice over, once “ at this ver. 11, and again at ver. 12.”

Here I cannot help dissenting from this learned and judicious man ; for surely a man's putting away his wife, and marrying another divorced woman, and a woman's putting away ber husband, and marrying another man, are very

different ideas. In both cases adultery is committed, whether the woman be unjustly put away from her husband, or she put herself away; but when we consider, as in the case of Herodias and Salome, that this last was growing into a custom--for Salome's example was soon followed by others, as Josephus * writes—it was natural for CHRIST to condemn this in as express terms in one case as in the other, both being equally opposite to the law of God.

The Jews at this time had much intercourse with the Romans, Judea having been long reduced to the situation of a Roman province, and no doubt, in the very corrupt ftate in which the Jews universally were, the Roman manners ealily insinuated themselves among the Jewish women. See before, p. 364, n. Divorces, though allowed very early in Rome,

tercourse with the wife of another; for which reason it is a solecism to talk of his committing adultery upon or against his own wife, in any other sense, than by causing, tempting, or prevailing on her to commit it, which is the case put Matt. v. 32.

* See Ant. Univ. Hift. vol. iii. p. 149, at the bottom of the note.


« PreviousContinue »