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
K
1«
and
in
2",
and
the
power
of
the
queen-mother
(1
K
15'^,
2
K
11).
There
was
a
strong
prejudice
in
later
times
against
her
re-marrying
(Lk
2*';
Jos.
Ant.
xvn.
xiii.
4,
xvm.
vi.
6).
There
is
no
instance
of
a
corresponding
disUke
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
Co
7"),
and
even
enjoins
it
for
younger
widows
(1
Ti
5").
7.
Adultery.
—
If
a
bride
was
found
not
to
be
a
virgin,
she
was
to
be
stoned
(Dt
22"-2i).
A
man
who
violated
an
unmarried
girl
was
compelled
to
marry
her
with
payment
of
'dowry'
(v.^',
cf.
Ex
22i6).
A
priest's
daughter
playing
the
harlot
was
to
be
burnt
(Lv
21').
Adultery
holds
a
prominent
place
among
social
sins
(Seventh
and
Tenth
Com.,
Ezk
18").
If
committed
with
a
married
or
betrothed
woman,
the
penalty
was
stoning
for
both
parties,
a
betrothed
damsel
being
spared
if
forced
(Dt
22k-",
Lv
20"',
Ezk
16"
23«).
The
earher
penalty
was
burning,
as
in
Egypt
(Gn
38^;
Tamar
is
virtually
betrothed).
In
Nu
5"-"
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
S
1
1
,
Hos
3).
The
frequent
denunciations
in
the
prophets
and
Pr.
(2'8
fis
QX)
show
the
prevalence
of
the
crime;
the
usual
penalty
was
divorce
with
loss
of
dowry
(cf.
Mt
6").
In
the
'pericope'
of
Jn
8,
part
of
the
test
is
whether
Christ
will
set
Himself
against
Moses
by
sanctioning
the
abrogation
of
the
Law;
it
is
not
impUed
that
the
punishment
was
ever
actually
inflicted;
in
fact,
no
instance
of
it
is
known.
The
answer
(v.")
pardons
the
sinner,
but
by
no
means
con-dones
the
sin:
'damnavit,
sed
peccatum
non
hominem'
(Aug.);
cf.
the
treatment
of
'the
woman
who
was
a
sinner'
(Lk
7*').
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
(Mt
5",
Ac
15",
1
Co
5"
6'-
"-2»,
Gal
5",
1
Th
43).
The
blessing
on
the
'virgins'
of
Rev
14*
probably
refers
to
chastity,
not
celibacy;
cf.
'the
bed
undeflled'
of
He
IS*.
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
(Lv
21'-
"
22",
Nu
30»),
it
being
the
traditional
right
of
the
husband,
as
in
Arabia,
to
'put
away
his
wife'
(Gn
21").
The
story
of
Hosea
probably
embodies
the
older
procedure,
which
is
regulated
by
the
law
of
Dt
24i.
There
must
be
a
bill
of
divorcement
(Is
50',
Jer
3*),
prepared
on
a
definite
charge,
and
therefore
presumably
before
some
pubUc
ofhcial,
and
formally
given
to
the
woman.
(But
cf.
Mt
1",
where
possibihty
of
private
divorce
is
con-templated
[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
(Dt
22i9'
").
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
inter-preted
it
of
the
most
trivial
things,
practically
'for
any
cause'
(Mt
19=);
that
of
Shammai
laid
stress
rightly
on
the
second
clause,
and
confined
it
to
unchastity.
But
the
vague
nature
of
the
expression
(cf.
Dt
23"),
and
the
fact
that
22^2
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"-"
and
the
stern
attitude
qf
many
Rabbis,
divorce
continued
to
be
frequent;
Ezr
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
Mk
10'^,
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
(Mk
10",
Lk
168,
1
Co
7"-
").
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
(Gn
2^).
But
in
Mt
5=2
199
He
seems
to
allow
it
for
'
fornication,'
an
exception
which
finds
no
place
in
the
parallels
(cf.
1
Co
7'',
winch
allows
re-marriage
where
a
Christian
partner
is
deserted
by
a
heathen)
.
(a)
Fornication
can-not
here
be
sin
before
marriage
;
the
sense
of
the
passage
demands
that
the
word
shall
be
taken
in
its
wider
sense
(cf.
Hos
26,
Am
7",
1
Co
5');
it
defines
the
'unclean-ness
'
of
Dt
24'
as
ilUcit
sexual
intercourse.
(6)
Divorce
cannot
be
limited
to
separation
'from
bed
and
board,'
as
by
R.C.
commentators
(1
Co
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'
(Mt
5'^)
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
Mt
19',
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
forni-cation'
quaUfy
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.
Mt
5'^
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'.
(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
Jer
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.
27i>,
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.;
Mt
19^
alters
the
