question
of
Mk
10^
adding
the
qualification
'for
every
cause,'
which
thus
prepares
the
way
for
the
qualified
answer
of
v.°.
This
answer
really
admits]the
validity
of
the
law
of
Dt
24',
with
its
stricter
interpretation
(see
p.
5861"),
whilst
the
language
of
v.'
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
Ti
S^-
>!,
Tit
1«,
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
.
He
13'),
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
incon-sistent
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
Ti
5"),
so
that
it
is
hard
to
see
on
what
grounds
the
supposed
prohibition
could
rest.
9.
The
Teaching
of
KT.
—
(1)
Marriage
and
celibacy.
The
prevalent
Jewish
conception
was
that
marriage
was
the
proper
and
honourable
estate
for
all
men.
'Any
Jew
who
has
not
a
vrife
is
no
man'
(Talmud).
The
Essene,
on
the
other
hand,
avoided
it
as
unclean
and
a
degradation.
Of
this
view
there
is
no
sign
in
NT
(1
Ti
4').
Christ
does,
however,
emphasize
the
propriety
of
the
un-married
state
in
certain
circumstances
(Mt
19'^
[7
Rev
14*]).
The
views
of
St.
Paul
undoubtedly
changed.
In
1
Th
4*
he
regards
marriage
merely
as
a
safeguard
against
Immorality.
The
subject
is
prominent
in
1
Cor.
In
71.7.S.3S
lie
prefers
the
unmarried
state,
allowing
marriage
for
the
same
reason
as
in
1
Th.
(1
Co
T-
'■
*«).
He
gives
three
reasons
for
his
attitude,
the
one
purely
temporary,
the
others
valid
under
certain
conditions,
(o)
It
is
connected
with
the
view
he
afterwards
abandoned,
of
the
nearness
of
the
Parousia
(v.'')
;
there
would
be
no
need
to
provide
for
the
continuance
of
the
race,
(ft)
It
was
a
time
of
'distress,'
i.e.
hardship
and
persecution
(v.™).
(c)
Marriage
brings
distractions
and
cares
(v.'^).
The
one-sidedness
of
this
view
may
be
corrected
by
his
later
teaching
as
to
(2)
the
sanctity
of
the
marriage
state.
The
keynote
is
struck
by
our
Lord's
action.
The
significance
of
the
Cana
miracle
can
hardly
be
exaggerated
(Jn
2).
It
corresponds
with
His
teaching
that
marriage
is
a
Divine
institution
(Mt
19«).
So
Eph
S",
Col
3",
and
the
Pastoral
Epp.
assume
the
married
state
as
normal
in
the
Christian
Church.
It
is
raised
to
the
highest
pinnacle
as
the
type
of
'
the
union
betwixt
Christ
and
His
Church.'
This
conception
em-phasizes
both
the
honourableness
of
the
estate
and
the
heinousness
of
all
sins
against
it;
husband
and
wife
are
one
flesh
(Eph
5;
cf.
He
13*).
(3)
As
regards
relations
between
husband
and
wife,
it
cannot
be
said
that
St.
Paul
has
entirely
shaken
himself
free
from
the
influences
of
his
Jewish
training
(§
6).
The
duty
of
the
husband
is
love
(Eph
S"),
of
the
wife
obedience
and
fear,
or
reverence
(v.22.
a3_
Col
318),
the
husband
being
the
head
of
the
wife
(v.",
1
Co
11'-
'-");
she
is
saved
'through
her
childbearing'
(1
Ti
2"-").
The
view
of
1
P
3'-'
is
similar.
It
adds
the
idea
that
each
must
help
the
other
as
'joint
heirs
of
the
grace
of
life,'
their
common
prayers
being
hindered
by
any
misunderstanding.
Whether
the
subordination
of
the
wife
can
be
main-tained
as
ultimate
may
be
questioned
in
view
of
such
passages
as
Gal
3^8.
10.
Spiritual
applications
of
the
Marriage
Figure.
—
In
OT
the
god
was
regarded
as
baal,
'husband'
or
'owner,'
of
his
land,
which
was
the
'mother'
of
its
inhabitants.
Hence
'
it
lay
very
near
to
think
of
thegod
as
the
husband
of
the
worshipping
nationality,
or
mother
land
'
(W.
R.
Smith,
Prophets,
171);
the
idea
was
probably
not
peculiar
to
Israel.
Its
most
striking
development
is
found
in
Hosea.
Led,
as
it
seems,
by
the
experience
of
his
own
married
Mfe,
he
emphasizes
the
following
points.
(1)
Israel's
idolatry
is
whoredom,
adultery,
the
following
of
strange
lovers
(note
the
connexion
of
idolatry
with
literal
fornication).
(2)
J"
still
loves
her,
as
Hosea
has
loved
his
erring
wife,
and
redeems
her
from
slavery.
(3)
Hosea's
own
unquenchable
love
is
but
a
faint
shadow
of
J"'s.
A
similar
idea
is
found
in
Is
54<;
in
spite
of
her
unfaith-fulness,
Israel
has
not
been
irrevocably
divorced
(SO').
Cf.
Jer
3.
3132,
Ezk
16,
Mai
2n.
The
direct
spiritual
or
mystical
application
of
Ca.
is
now
generally
abandoned.
In
NT,
Christ
is
the
bridegroom
(Mk
2",
Jn
3"),
the
Church
His
bride.
His
love
is
emphasized,
as
in
OT
(Eph
52»),
and
His
bride
too
must
be
holy
and
without
blemish
(v.",
2
Co
ll^).
In
OT
the
stress
is
laid
on
the
ingratitude
and
misery
of
sin
as
'adultery,'
in
NT
on
the
need
of
positive
holiness
and
purity.
Rev
19'
develops
the
figure,
the
dazzling
white
of
the
bride's
array
being
contrasted
with
the
harlot's
scarlet.
In
2V-
'
she
is
further
identified
with
the
New
Jerusalem,
two
OT
figures
being
combined,
as
in
2
Es
7^.
For
the
coming
of
her
Bridegroom
she
is
now
waiting
(Rev
22",
cf.
Mt
25'),
and
the
final
joy
is
represented
under
the
symbol
of
the
marriage
feast
(22^,
Rev
19').
11.
A
general
survey
of
the
marriage
laws
and
customs
of
the
Jews
shows
that
they
cannot
be
regarded
as
a
peculiar
creation,
apart
from
those
of
other
nations.
As
already
appears,
they
possess
a
remarkable
affinity
to
those
of
other
branches
of
the
Semitic
race;
we
may
add
the
striking
parallels
found
in
the
Code
of
Hammurabi,
e.g.
with
regard
to
betrothal,
dowry,
and
divorce.
An-thropological
researches
have
disclosed
a
wide
general
resemblance
to
the
customs
of
more
distant
races.
They
have
also
emphasized
the
relative
purity
of
OT
sexual
morality;
in
this,
as
in
other
respects,
the
Jews
had
their
message
for
the
world.
But,
of
course,
we
shall
not
expect
to
find
there
the
Christian
standard.
'In
the
beginning'
represents
not
the
historical
fact,
but
the
ideal
purpose.
Gn
2
is
an
allegory
of
what
marriage
was
intended
to
be,
and
of
what
it
was
understood
to
be
in
the
best
thought
of
the
nation.
This
ideal
was,
however,
seldom
realized.
Hence
we
cannot
apply
the
letter
of
the
Bible,
or
go
to
it
for
detailed
rules.
Where
its
rules
are
not
obviously
unsuited
to
modern
conditions,
or
below
the
Christian
level,
a
strange
uncertainty
obscures
their
exact
interpretation,
e.g.
with
regard
to
the
pro-hibited
degrees,
divorce,
or
'the
husband
of
one
wife';
there
is
even
no
direct
condemnation
of
polygamy.
On
the
other
hand,
the
principle
as
expanded
in
NT
is
clear.
It
is
the
duty
of
the
Christian
to
keep
it
steadily
before
him
as
the
ideal
of
his
own
life.
How
far
that
ideal
can
be
embodied
in
legislation
and
applied
to
the
community
as
a
whole
must
depend
upon
social
conditions,
and
the
general
moral
environment.
C.
W.
Emmet.
MARSENA.
—
One
of
the
seven
princes
who
had
the
right
of
access
to
the
royal
presence
(Est
l'<).
MARSHAL.—
1.
For
AV
'scribe'
RV
of
Jg
5»
has
'
marshal.'
It
was
the
duty
of
this
officer
to
muster
the
men
available
for
a
campaign.
In
later
times
he
kept
a
register
of
their
names
(2
K
25",
Jer
52^,
2
Ch
26",
where
the
same
Heb.
word
is
used;
see
also
1
Mac
5").
The
staff
(not
'pen')
in
his
hand
was
an
emblem
of
authority
(Jg
5»;
cf.
Nu
21'8).
2.
The
Heb.
tiphsar
is
identified
with
the
Assyx.
dupsarru,
'tablet-
writer,'
'scribe.'
In
Jer
51"
and
Nah
3"
it
denotes
a
military
officer
of
high
rank
(AV
'captain,'
RV
'marshal.'
[The
alteration
was
not
imperatively
necessary]).
J.
Taylob.
MARS'
HILL.
—
AV
for
Areopagus
(wh.
see).
MART.
—
See
Mabket.
