Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

BOOK

IV

with uncovered head, of spinning in the public streets, or entering into talk with men, to which others add, that of brawling, or of disrespectfully speaking of her husband's parents in his presence. A * Erub. 416 troublesome,a or quarrelsome wife might certainly be sent away; and Yebam.636 ill repute, or childlessness (during ten years) were also regarded as valid grounds of divorce."

e Gitt. iv. 7,8

d Used in the

same sense,

for example,

Baba B. 8 b

11

Incomparably as these principles differ from the teaching of Christ, it must again be repeated, that no real comparison is possible between Christ and even the strictest of the Rabbis, since none of them actually prohibited divorce, except on the ground of adultery, nor yet laid down those high eternal principles which Jesus enunciated. But we can understand how, from the Jewish point of view, 'tempting Him,' they would put the question, whether it was lawful to divorce a wife for every cause.' Avoiding their cavils, the Lord appealed straight to the highest authority-God's institution of marriage. He, Who at the beginning2 [from the first, originally, w]a had made them male and female, had in the marriage-relation 'joined them together,' to the breaking of every other, even the nearest, relationship, to be 'one flesh--that is, to a union which was unity. Such was the fact of God's ordering. It followed, that they were one-and what God had willed to be one, man might not put asunder. Then followed the natural Rabbinic objection, why Moses had commanded a bill of divorcement. Our Lord replied by pointing out that Moses had not commanded divorce, only tolerated it on account of their hardness of heart, and, in such case, commanded to give a bill of divorce for the protection of the wife. And this argument would appeal the more forcibly to them, that the Rabbis themselves taught that a somewhat similar concession had Deut. xxi. been made by Moses in regard to female captives of war-as the Talmud has it,' on account of the evil impulse.' But such a separation, our Lord continued, had not been provided for in the original institution, which was a union to unity. Only one thing could put an end to that unity-its absolute breach. Hence, to divorce one's wife (or husband) while this unity lasted, and to marry another, was adultery, because, as the divorce was null before God, the original marriage still subsisted-and, in such case, the Rabbinic Law would also have forbidden it. The next part of the Lord's inference, that

f Kidd. 21 b

1 These words are omitted by St. Mark in his condensed account. But so far from regarding, with Meyer, the briefer account of St. Mark as the original one, we look on that of St. Matthew as more

fully reproducing what had taken place.

2 The clause, St. Matt. xix. 4, should, I think, be thus pointed: 'He Who made them, at the beginning made them, &c.'

335

CHAP.

XXII

THE HARD SAYING OF CHRIST AND THAT OF THE DISCIPLES. 'whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery,' is more difficult of interpretation. Generally, it is understood as implying that a woman divorced for adultery might not be married. But it has been argued,' that, as the literal rendering is, 'whoso marrieth her when put away,' it applies to the woman whose divorce had just before been prohibited, and not, as is sometimes thought, to a woman divorced [under any circumstances].' Be this as it may, the Jewish Law, which regarded marriage with a woman divorced under any circumstances as unadvisable," absolutely forbade that of the adulterer Pes. 112 @ with the adulteress.b

6

b Sot, v. 1

10

xix. 10-12

a

Whatever, therefore, may be pleaded, on account of the hardness of heart' in modern society, in favour of the lawfulness of relaxing Christ's law of divorce, which confines dissolution of marriage to the one ground (of adultery), because then the unity of God's making has been broken by sin-such a retrocession was at least not in the mind of Christ, nor can it be considered lawful, either by the Church or for individual disciples. But, that the Pharisees had rightly judged when tempting Him,' what the popular feeling would be on the subject, appears even from what 'His disciples' [not necessarily the Apostles] afterwards said to Him. They waited to express their dissent till they were alone with Him in the house,' and then St. Mark x. urged that, if it were as Christ had taught, it would be better not to marry at all. To which the Lord replied,a that this saying' of the st. Matt. disciples: 2 it is not good to marry,' could not be received by all men, but only by those to whom it was 'given.' For, there were three cases in which abstinence from marriage might lawfully be contemplated. In two of these it was, of course, natural; and, where it was not so, a man might, for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake'--that is, for the service of God and of Christ-have all his thoughts, feelings, and impulses so engaged that others were no longer existent. For, we must here beware of a twofold misunderstanding. It is not a bare abstinence from marriage, together with, perhaps, what the German Reformers called immunda continentia (unchaste continency), which is here commended, but such inward preoccupation with the Kingdom of God as will remove all other thoughts and desires.3 It is this which must be 'given' of God; and which he that is able to receive it '— who has got the moral capacity for it-is called upon to receive. Again, it must not be imagined that this involves any command of

Canon Cook argues this with great ingenuity.

2 This is the general view. But the saying' may, without much difficulty, be

also applied to that of Christ.

For, it is not merely to practise outward continence, but to become in mind and heart a eunuch.

BOOK

IV

Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 1, 25-40

b St. Matt.

St. Mark x. 13-16; St. Luke xviii.

15-17

celibacy; it only speaks of such who in the active service of the Kingdom feel, that their every thought is so engrossed in the work, that wishes and impulses to marriage are no longer existent in them.al

4. The next incident is recorded by the three Evangelists. It xix. 1-15; probably occurred in the same house where the disciples had questioned Christ about His teaching on the Divinely sacred relationship of marriage. And the blessing of infants' and 'little children' by Him most aptly follows on the former teaching. It is a scene of unspeakable sweetness and tenderness, where all is in character-alas! even the conduct of the disciples,' as we remember their late inability to sympathise with the teaching of the Master. And it is all so utterly unlike what Jewish legend would have invented for its Messiah. We can understand how, when One Who so spake and wrought, rested in the house, Jewish mothers should have brought their 'little children,' and some their 'infants,' to Him, that He might touch,' 'put His Hands on them, and pray.' What power and holiness must these mothers have believed to be in His touch and prayer; what life to be in, and to come from Him; and what gentleness and tenderness must His have been, when they dared so to bring these little ones! For, how utterly contrary it was to all Jewish notions, and how incompatible with the supposed dignity of a Rabbi, appears from the rebuke of the disciples. It was an occasion and an act when, as the fuller and more pictorial account of St. Mark informs us, Jesus was much displeased '-the only time this strong word is used of our Lord 2—and said unto them: 'Suffer the little children to come to Me,3 hinder them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God.' Then He gently reminded His own disciples of their grave error, by repeating what they had apparently forgotten, that, in order to enter the Kingdom of God, it must be received as by a little child-that here there could be no question of intellectual qualification, nor of distinction due to a great Rabbi, but only of humility, receptiveness, meekness, and a simple application

St. Matt. xviii. 3

с

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

CHRIST BLESSING LITTLE CHILDREN.

to, and trust in, the Christ. And so He folded these little ones in
His Arms, put His Hands upon them, and blessed them,' and thus
for ever consecrated that child-life, which a parent's love and faith
brought to Him; blessed it also by the laying-on of His Hands-as
it were,
ordained it,' as we fully believe to all time, 'strength

because of His enemies.'

1 As Mr. Brown McClellan notes, in his learned work on the New Testament, the word is an intensitive com

pound form of blessing, especially of
dearest friends and relations at meeting
and parting.'

337

СНАР,

XXII

BOOK

IV

a St. Luke

b St. Mark

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER XXIII.

THE LAST INCIDENTS IN PEREA -THE YOUNG RULER WHO WENT AWAY
SORROWFUL-TO LEAVE ALL FOR CHRIST-PROPHECY OF HIS PASSION--
THE REQUEST OF SALOME, AND OF JAMES AND JOHN.

(St. Matt. xix. 16-22; St. Mark x. 17-22; St. Luke xviii. 18-23; St. Matt. xix. 2330; St. Mark x. 23-31; St. Luke xviii. 24-30; St. Matt. xx. 17-19; St. Mark x. 32-34; St. Luke xviii. 31-34; St. Matt. xx. 20-28; St. Mark x. 35–45.)

As we near the goal, the wondrous story seems to grow in tenderness and pathos. It is as if into these days were to be crowded all the loving condescension of the Master; all the pressing need, and the human weaknesses of His disciples. And with equal compassion He beholds the difficulties of them who truly seek to come to Him, and those which, springing from without, or even from self and sin, beset them who have already come. Let us try reverently to follow His steps, and learn of His words.

2

а

As He was going forth into the way '1. we owe this trait, as one and another in the same narrative, to St. Mark-probably at early morn, as He left the house where He had for ever folded into His Arms and blessed the children brought to Him by believing parentsHis progress was arrested. It was a young man,' 'a ruler,' a probably of the local Synagogue, who came with all haste, 'running,' and with lowliest gesture [kneeling], to ask what to him, nay to us all, is the most important question. Remembering that, while we owe to St. Mark the most graphic touches,3 St. Matthew most fully reports the words that had been spoken, we might feel inclined to St. Matt. adopt that reading of them in St. Matthew which is not only most strongly supported, but at first sight seems to remove some of the difficulties of exposition. This reading would omit in the address of the young ruler the word 'good' before Master, what good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?' and would make Christ's

xix. 16

This is the exact rendering.

2 Dean Plumptre needlessly supposes him to have been a member of the Great Sanhedrin, and by a series of conjectures

even identifies him with Lazarus of Bethany.

This is well pointed out by Canon Cook on St. Mark x. 19.

« VorigeDoorgaan »