teach 
 ANT Ss 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 0 « oe. ¥ 
 * Kyi ry : Sina hy 
 ? 17 jeg 
 ci | gn Mt 2 +, 
 5 Gises a 
 Ab) . 
 rally a , 
 i Rett a 
 - A 
 oi 
 eC : y x 
 LL alee 
 
 oe" SR ( ) AAA (> AR (> -ARAD ( ) CERN ( ) -ERRD-( SRD ( ) <A ( ) ERR (> ERNE: ) ARID ( ) CARER () <EERENID>+ eae (92% 
 
 Christianity and 
 Divorce 
 we 
 
 Frank H. Norcross 
 
 EE) RD  ) ED (1 () RR |) SRE (> SR 1) SE ( 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 a 
 ti : 
 i 
 - 
 “7 
 ¢ xj 4, 
 , 
 : a i 
 4 * 
 Lie an 
 ey 
 ma 
 a: 
 
 
 
 * 
 
 
 
 Fo) 0) 0 A NE) <a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 if 
 Shy 
 
 
 

 
 ~'NO V9 1926 
 B 3) 
 agian, gw 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a) i 
 
 i ig 
 
 
 
nee Vs 
 on Rae. 
 
 af 
 {i 4 
 ap ry) 
 
 q 
 sy A 
 ra M} 
 
 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 
 
Y pet estes ae 4 
 (piesan tly 
 
 
 
LOT nee g 
 
 rab OVI 1926 
 yj ocioar sew 
 
 Christianity and 
 Divorce 
 
 By 
 
 Frank PeeNercrose LED: 
 
 
 
 1926 
 THE STRATFORD COMPANY 
 Publishers 
 Boston, MAssACHUSETTS 
 

 
 
 
 Copyright, 1926 
 
 
 
 The STRATFORD CO., Publishers — 
 Boston, Mass. . ; 
 ig 
 vy 
 4. - 4 
 } , “4 
 ‘ { 4 f 
 i 
 fry. & hy 
 ae | Printed in the United States of America = 
 'Z r or ‘ 
 os ret bore t D " 1 doe 2 i ARE ch 
 
Christianity and Divorce 
 
 History presents no parallel of the effect 
 of misinterpretation of language to the one 
 in relation to divorce. For two thousand 
 years misconstructions of the language of 
 Moses and of Christ have very largely de- 
 termined the customs and laws of the most 
 highly civilized nations in respect to di- 
 
 a 
 
 vorce. Christ sought to correct a miscon-~ 
 
 struction of the law of Moses that was 
 productive of serious social evils. His 
 statements were in their turn misconstrued. 
 His remarks were so at variance with the 
 then accepted belief in respect to what the 
 law of Moses provided that they were 
 taken as the utterance of a new law in- 
 tended to displace the latter provisions. 
 Strangely, a potent cause in fastening 
 this misconstruction of his expressions 
 
 upon the minds of his followers appears to - 
 
 be certain expressions made during the per- 
 petration of one of a number of overt acts 
 
 [1] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Drvorcp 
 
 of the most wicked conspiracy ever evolved 
 in the disordered brains of men—the con- 
 spiracy of the Pharisees to accomplish the 
 destruction of Christ. It was sought to use 
 Christ’s remarks as a basis of accusation 
 that he was usurping authority to change 
 the law of Moses. A reply made to the 
 
 « conspirators has been erroneously accepted 
 as conclusive evidence that Christ did the 
 very thing the Pharisees charged him with 
 doing. 
 
 Christ did not oppose divorce authorized 
 by law. He placed no limitations upon the 
 grounds which the state may prescribe 
 therefor. All that he did was to construe 
 correctly the Mosaic law and, with an acu- 
 men of a profound lawyer, point out with 
 exactness the effect of a pretended divorce 
 not sanctioned by its provisions. The er- 
 roneous construction placed upon certain 
 of Christ’s expressions is largely respon- 
 sible for the restrictions to be found in the 
 laws of many Christian nations and states 
 upon the subject of divorce. 
 
 [2] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 
 
 The late William Graham Sumner, for 
 many years Professor of Political and 
 Social Science in Yale University, in his 
 article on ‘‘Modern Marriage,’’ took occa- 
 sion to say: ‘‘The man who introduced the 
 word ‘sacrament’ into the Vulgate version 
 created, with one drop of ink, a grievous 
 load for millions of men who were to come 
 after him.’’ However true this statement 
 may be, it may be said that another of 
 Yale’s great scholars and one time Presi- 
 dent—Dr. Theodore Dwight Woolsey—in 
 his ‘‘Hssay on Divorce,’’ written a half 
 century ago, added the weight of his high 
 position and great attainments to confirm- 
 ing a now demonstrable misconstruction of 
 _ the expressions of the Master in respect to 
 divorce, and was among the many respon- 
 sible for fastening on American states a 
 misconstruction of Christ’s sayings as 
 vicious as it is erroneous. 
 
 It is difficult at best to use language so 
 plain that its meaning may not be mis- 
 understood. When it is considered that 
 Christ’s sayings were not attempted to be 
 
 [3] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 
 
 recorded until years after they were ut-_ 
 tered, and then were translated into a 
 language different from that of the spoken 
 word, it is not surprising that expressions 
 so recorded may be the occasion for a mis- 
 conception of what the speaker actually 
 said or intended to say. When it is con- 
 ‘ sidered, also, that the early interpreters 
 of Christ’s sayings were not conversant 
 with the rules of construction which cen- 
 turies of experience of courts have found 
 to be most unerring in determining the true 
 meaning of language employed, it is not 
 surprising that material errors in inter- 
 pretation have been made. It is more sur- 
 - prising that the wrong construction of the 
 language of Christ in respect to divorce 
 should not have been discovered and ad- 
 mitted long ago, unless there was a mis- 
 guided purpose in adhering to the error. 
 
 If the generally accepted interpretation 
 were correct, strong and convincing should 
 be. the reasons therefor. Fortunately, for 
 society’s ultimate welfare, no sound reason 
 can be offered. However, with assurance, 
 
 [4] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcEe 
 
 born of a superficial consideration, say 
 those imbued with the false construction, 
 —‘‘*Christ said, ‘What, therefore, God hath 
 joined together let not man put asunder.’ ”’ 
 This expression is supposed to silence all 
 questioning. A distinguished churchman 
 recently wrote,—‘‘ There are no statements 
 in Seripture couched, in clearer ‘form, and 
 the words mean what they really do say.”’ 
 The difficulty is they do not say what he 
 thinks or says they say—‘‘a divine prohibi- 
 
 tion of divorce.’’ They do not say that the ,; 
 
 state may not do what Christ said the in- 
 dividual man had no right to do. Why give 
 the word ‘‘man’’ in the expression a 
 broader meaning than the word ordinarily 
 signifies? T’o do so requires interpretation 
 —interpretation must be based on reason. 
 No reason can be offered for so doing while 
 abundant is apparent for limiting the word 
 to its plain meaning. 
 
 At the time of Christ, the individual man 
 was assuming the right to put away his 
 wife for any cause that suited his fancy, 
 and he was claiming that in so doing he 
 
 [5] 
 
 Pat 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 
 
 was authorized by the law of Moses. At 
 the time Christ spoke, the law in respect 
 to divorce was as grossly misconstrued, 
 especially by the Pharisees, as some of 
 Christ’s expressions have been since his 
 time. 
 
 The law of Moses did not authorize a 
 . husband by his voluntary act ‘‘to put away 
 his wife for every cause,’’ as was the then 
 generally accepted construction of the 
 Mosaic code. Such construction, however, 
 was very popular with the male sex. His 
 own disciples even were so imbued with the 
 false teaching that when Christ declared 
 the true meaning of the law, they said: ‘‘If 
 it be so with a man and his wife, then it is 
 not good to marry’’ (Matt. XIX, 10). 
 Think of it—his own disciples holding to 
 the view that a wife’s position was of so 
 little moment in the general social order 
 that if the husband could not divorce her 
 by his independent and uncontrolled act, 
 at his own sweet will and for any cause that 
 suited his fancy, then a man had better 
 never marry. ,That Christ should anathe- 
 
 [6] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 
 
 matize such a wicked perversion, not only , 
 of the law of Moses but of sound morals, 
 was only natural and Christ-like. 
 
 The law of Moses, as will hereafter be 
 shown, authorized a husband to put away * 
 his wife by his own independent act for one 
 cause only. It did not say, however, that 
 for other causes he might not appeal to the 
 state. Under the theory of the Mosaic law 
 the judges spoke in the name of God. 
 Governments to this day are based on the 
 theory that they are so ordained. Both 
 sacred and profane history supports this 
 view. No more forceful expression relative 
 to the province of the state, as distin- 
 ‘guished from the individual, can be found 
 than in the instruction given by Moses to 
 the Judges: ‘‘Ye shall not respect persons 
 in judgment, but ye shall hear the small as 
 well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of 
 the face of man, for the judgment is God’s’’ 
 (Deut. I, 17; see also 2 Chr. XIX, 6). ‘‘By 
 me king's reign and princes decree justice,’’ 
 says Proverbs VIII, 15. ‘‘For there is no 
 
 [7] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 power but of God; the powers that be are 
 ordained of God’’ (Rom. XIII, 1). 
 
 There is precedent in the Scriptures for 
 divorce proceedings under the authority of 
 the state. In the Book of Ezra we find it 
 recorded: (Chap. X) ‘‘Now, therefore, let 
 us make a covenant with our God to put 
 away all the wives, and such as are born of 
 them . . . and let it be done according to 
 the law. And Ezra the priest, with certain 
 chiefs of the fathers, . . . sat down in the 
 first day of the tenth month to examine the 
 matter. And they made an end with all the 
 men that had taken strange wives by the 
 first day of the first month.’’ Here was the 
 greatest divorce trial of history. Months 
 were consumed in the hearings, and a 
 whole community was involved. The wishes 
 of the individuals affected were secondary 
 to the purpose of the state that the mar- 
 riages be dissolved and they were dissolved _ 
 ‘faccording to law.’’ 
 
 Because the beautiful Queen Vashti re- 
 fused to obey the command of King 
 Ahasuerus to appear before him and be- 
 
 [8] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 cause of the fear that her example of inde- 
 pendence, unless rebuked, would have a bad 
 effect on wives generally, ‘‘so that they 
 shall despise their husbands in their eyes,’’ 
 upon the advice of the seven princes of 
 Persia and Media she was divorced ‘‘ac- 
 cording to law.’’ Then went forth a public 
 proclamation that ‘‘all wives shall give to 
 their husbands honor both to great and 
 small’? (Esther I). 
 
 In attempting to support the ‘‘divine 
 prohibition’’ construction, the words 
 ‘what therefore’’ in the Master’s expres- 
 sion, have been taken to mean—whosoever 
 may be joined in what the state recognizes 
 as a legal marriage. The expression,— 
 ‘What therefore God hath joined together 
 let not man put asunder’’—must not only 
 be considered in connection with the entire 
 context of Christ’s remarks upon the sub- 
 ject, but also in view of the circumstances” 
 which occasioned it. It is a portion of a 
 reply made by Christ to a question pro- 
 pounded to him by the Pharisees. It is im- 
 portant also to note, as an aid to correct 
 
 [9] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvorRcE 
 
 interpretation, the ulterior purpose of the 
 inquiry which was well understood by 
 Christ, and which actounts largely, if not 
 entirely, for the character.of reply. 
 
 In the century immediately preceding the 
 advent of Christ, the correct construction 
 of the law of Moses in respect to divorce 
 had been in controversy. Rabbi Hillel, High 
 Priest and President of the Sanhedrim, the 
 supreme judicial tribunal of the Jews, had 
 given to certain words in the Mosaic code, 
 expressing the ground for divorce, an ultra 
 liberal construction and interpreted the 
 law to permit a husband to divorce his wife 
 for very trivial causes—‘‘every cause,’ as . 
 the Pharisees expressed it in propounding 
 the question to Christ hereinafter referred 
 to. While the Hillel construction was gen- 
 erally accepted as the correct one, doubt- 
 less both because of its liberality and the 
 great power of its proponent, it was contro- . 
 verted by another Rabbi named Shammai, 
 also a member of the Sanhedrim. Hillel 
 was of the Pharisee sect; Shammai was a 
 Scribe. While the influence and following 
 
 [10] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 of Shammai was slight in comparison with 
 that of Hillel, he was the better lawyer of 
 the two, and his construction of the Mosaic 
 code as limiting the right of a husband, by 
 his individual act and without appeal to a 
 court, to put away his wife only for an act 
 of marital impropriety akin to adultery, 
 was unquestionably correct. The law of 
 Moses, being a written code, there is no 
 difficulty in now determining its construc- 
 tion. The Hillel construction was not 
 merely ultra liberal, it was wholly unwar- 
 ranted. Its effect was to cause many hus- 
 bands to assume a power the law did not 
 give them and in its application permitted 
 the grossest of injustice and cruelty. 
 
 At the time of Christ, the Hillel construc- 
 tion was accepted as the law of Moses in 
 respect to divorce. Its extreme liberality 
 made it popular with the menfolk. Its 
 abuses and the cruelties it inflicted did not 
 disturb the public mind of that time until 
 Christ proclaimed the law as it was written 
 by Moses. 
 
 [11] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 
 
 Having in mind the accepted erroneous 
 construction of the Mosaic law, one other 
 circumstance is important to consider in 
 determining the all important question— 
 did Christ intend to utter a new law on 
 Divorce or simply correctly interpret the 
 existing law and point out the effect of its 
 violation? 
 
 One of the most wicked conspiracies of 
 all history is that which the Pharisees 
 entered into to accomplish the death of 
 Christ. One of the methods adopted to gain 
 their purpose was to accuse Christ of re- 
 pudiating both the Jewish and Roman laws 
 and setting up instead laws of his own. In 
 effect, to charge him with treason. They 
 ‘‘took counsel of the Herodians against 
 him, how they might destroy him’’ (Mark 
 Ill, 6). They sought to ‘‘provoke him to 
 speak of many things; lying wait for him 
 and seeking to catch something out of his 
 mouth, that they might accuse him’’ (Luke 
 XI, 53, 54; John VIII, 6), or ‘‘that so they 
 might deliver him into the power and 
 authority of the governor”’’ (Luke XX, 20), 
 
 [12] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 
 
 their purpose being ‘‘to destroy him”’ 
 (Matt. XII, 14; Mark XI, 18; Luke XIX, 
 47). 
 
 It was with this purpose in view that 
 they ‘‘brought unto him a woman’’ and said 
 —‘“This woman was taken in adultery— 
 Moses in the law commanded us that such 
 should be stoned; but what sayest thou?”’ 
 
 Here was a test of tests. Christ, however, - 
 
 did not answer—‘‘No, she shall not be 
 stoned, I bring a new law’’—but instead 
 replied: ‘‘He that is without sin among 
 you, let him first cast a stone at her’’ (John 
 VIII, 3). This statement did not deny the 
 law. The hypocritical Pharisees, not ex- 
 pecting a reply of this kind and disap- 
 pointed in their real purpose, suddenly lost 
 all interest in inflicting the punishment 
 upon the unfortunate woman and slunk 
 away. 
 
 With the same purpose in mind, the 
 Pharisees propounded the question—‘‘ Is it 
 lawful to give tribute unto Caesar or not?’’ 
 Note their cunning in asking this question. 
 If the answer were ‘‘yes’’ he could be ac- 
 
 [13] 
 
 oF 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 
 
 cused of disloyalty to Moses and the Jew- 
 ish people. If the answer were ‘‘no,’’ they 
 could make a similar charge before their 
 Roman conquerors. In their zeal, however, 
 they overlooked the fact that the money of 
 the realm was Roman. ‘‘But Jesus per- 
 ceived their wickedness and said: ‘Why 
 tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Show me the 
 tribute money.’ ’’ They admitted it bore the 
 image of Caesar. ‘‘Render, therefore, unto 
 Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and 
 unto God the things that are God’s’’ (Matt. 
 XXII, 21) was an answer which again de- 
 feated them in their purpose. Notwith- 
 standing this answer, however, they there- 
 after falsely accused Christ of ‘‘forbidding 
 to give tribute to Caesar’? (Luke XXIII, 
 2). 
 
 Doubtless it was because Christ knew of 
 the purpose of the Pharisees that he said 
 to his disciples: ‘‘Think not that I have 
 come to destroy the law or the prophets—I 
 , have not come to destroy but to fulfill’”’ 
 * (Matt. V,17). This statement is wholly in- 
 consistent with any idea that Christ was 
 
 [14] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 seeking to substitute laws of his own in 
 place of the existing code. To the Pharisees 
 Christ is recorded as saying: ‘‘Did not — 
 Moses give you the law, and yet none of you ~ 
 keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill 
 me?’’ (John VII, 19). Christ at no time _ 
 sought to substitute laws of his own in > 
 place of those of the Mosaic code. Had he 
 pursued that course we would expect to 
 find him changing the laws respecting slav- 
 ery, polygamy, concubinage and numerous 
 others. He knew that before statutes could , 
 be changed, a change would first have to 
 occur in the hearts and minds of men. He 
 knew that when the golden rule and his 
 commandment ‘‘that ye love one another’’ » 
 should be accepted, statutes would change 
 to conform. 
 
 ‘Ts it lawful for a man to put away his 
 wife for every cause?’’ (Matt. XIX, 3) was 
 the blunt question put by the Pharisees to 
 Christ. The Scriptures say they asked the 
 question ‘‘tempting him’’ (Mark V, 2). 
 Why did they wish to tempt him? Mani- 
 festly to have him make the same statement 
 
 [15] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 
 
 that they doubtless had heard he had made 
 to his disciples that they might ‘‘accuse 
 him’’ of repudiating the Mosaic law, as 
 they believed it to be. What chance, thought © 
 the Pharisees, would Christ have to answer 
 the charge of disloyalty when the great 
 Hillel was against him and popular male 
 sentiment was overwhelming for the liberal 
 construction? 
 
 Christ first replied to the Pharisees pre- 
 cisely in the same general way that he did 
 in other cases where their purpose in ques- 
 tioning him was the same. The Pharisees 
 “ eglaimed to be strict observers of the law 
 and believers in the writings and traditions 
 of the Old Testament. Instead of immedi- 
 ately giving a direct answer to these Phar- 
 isees, whom he had likened unto ‘‘ whitened 
 sepulchres,’’ he propounded the counter 
 question which he knew would put them to 
 confusion—‘‘Have ye not read that He 
 which made them at the beginning made 
 them male and female?’’ Christ immedi- 
 ately followed this question by quoting the 
 words attributed to Adam in the second 
 
 [16] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 chapter of Genesis, after Eve had been 
 made from his rib—‘‘For this cause shall 
 a man leave father and mother, and shall 
 cleave to his wife and they twain shall be 
 one flesh.’’ Then followed the statement: 
 ‘“Wherefore, they are no more twain but 
 one flesh. What therefore, God hath joined 
 together let not man put asunder’’ (Matt. 
 XIX, 5, 6)° 
 
 The tables were now turned on the Phar- 
 isees. Christ was the interrogator and no 
 matter how they answered the question 
 they were defeated. They could not deny 
 the Scriptures without stultifying their 
 professions of faith. They did the only 
 thing they could do—tried to reverse the 
 situation again by propounding the further 
 question to Christ—‘‘ Why did Moses then 
 command to give a writing of divorcement, 
 and to put her away?’’ (Id. 7). The answer, 
 according to St. Matthew, was: ‘‘ Moses, 
 because of the hardness of your hearts, suf- 
 fered you to put away your wives; but from 
 the beginning it was not so’’ (Id. 8). Ac- 
 cording to St. Mark, the answer was: ‘‘ For 
 
 [17] 
 
a) 
 
 CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorRoEk 
 
 the hardness of your hearts he wrote you 
 this precept’? (Mark X, 5). No reference 
 appears at all in St. Luke of an answer or 
 statement of this kind having been made 
 by Christ. It is very probable that on ac- 
 count of the lapse of years which occurred 
 before St. Matthew or St. Mark undertook 
 to record the sayings of Christ, they were 
 subject to the same defects of memory 
 which is common to all humans. 3 
 
 It will be observed that St. Matthew does 
 not quote Christ as saying that Moses 
 wrote such a law because of the hardness 
 of their hearts, but rather that he suffered 
 them to disregard it. There is convincing 
 evidence that neither St. Matthew nor St. 
 Mark remembered the precise language of 
 Christ in this particular case or else that 
 they confused it with some other expres- 
 sion. There were no Pharisees in the time 
 of Moses and hence neither could a law 
 have been written for their benefit nor could 
 they have been suffered to violate a written 
 statute. But more impressive than this is 
 the character of Moses himself. He was 
 
 [18] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 not the man to write a law for the con- 
 venience of any particular class nor to 
 temporize enforcement. The place of Moses 
 among the few really great of the earth is . 
 not dimmed by special favors to the hard 
 hearted. The man who had the courage to 
 slay the Egyptian oppressor of one of his 
 people would not temporize for the accom- 
 modation of the unworthy. It is, of course, 
 inconceivable that Christ so spoke as to put 
 Moses in such a wrong light. Upon the 
 contrary, Christ is recorded as fearlessly 
 closing his remarks to the Pharisees with 
 the same statement of what the law was 
 that he had previously made to his dise}- 
 ples (Matt. XIX, 9). The fact that St. 
 Luke, who wrote later than either St. 
 Matthew or St. Mark and had the benefit 
 of their gospels, omitted any reference to 
 this latter statement as having been made 
 by Christ, indicates that he may have no- 
 ticed the error. 
 
 The asserted ‘‘divine prohibition’’ con- 
 struction finds its basis in what the words 
 ‘‘What, therefore’’ relate to. They refer to 
 
 [19] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 
 
 - the allegorical legend of the creation as it 
 
 appears in the second chapter of Genesis— 
 ‘¢ And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall 
 upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one 
 _ of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead 
 
 thereof. And the rib which the Lord God 
 had taken from man made he a woman and 
 brought her unto the man. And Adam said, 
 this is now bone of my bone, and flesh of 
 my flesh... . Therefore shall a man leave 
 his father and his mother, and shall cleave 
 unto his wife and they shall be one flesh’’ 
 (Gen. II, 21-24). 
 
 It is no longer dangerous heresy to say 
 that the Biblical story of the creation is not 
 literally true. Science has unfolded the 
 true story which reveals the glory, power 
 and omnipotence of God to a degree in- 
 comparably greater than that attempted to 
 be portrayed by the poetical genius who 
 conceived the legend of the Garden of 
 
 Hiden. When it is considered that great. 
 
 solar systems exist hundreds of light years 
 distant from this little planet of ours, all 
 moving in perfect harmony pursuant to 
 
 [20] 
 
 BRP 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 natural law, how impotent is man even now 
 to pen an adequate description of the crea- 
 tion. Christ knew that the accounts of the 
 creation were merely allegorical. He was 
 particular not to say they were to be taken 
 as literal truth, but instead only asked the 
 Pharisees if they had not read them—they 
 professing at least to believe them. It can- 
 not be conceived that Christ intended to ” 
 base a fundamental law upon so unstable 
 a foundation. The unknown author of the 
 legend of the Garden of Eden and the crea- 
 tion of Adam and Eve was particular to 
 incorporate in his account conclusive evi- 
 dence of its legendary character. The na- 
 tions of Assyria and Ethiopia were in 
 existence when the legend was written and 
 are mentioned by name. The Kuphrates 
 River was known and the land of Havilah 
 is described ‘‘where there is gold, bedel- 
 lium and the onyx stone.”’ Unnumbered 
 centuries had elapsed from ‘‘the begin- 
 
 ning’’ before mankind had developed in the = _ » 
 slow progress towards civilization to the 
 
 stage when language had been perfected; 
 [21] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 appreciation acquired of the value of gold 
 for money or ornament; the onyx stone to 
 adorn man’s palaces and peoples to have 
 become organized into nations. The tran- 
 scriber of the legend, that of necessity had 
 its origin in imagination and had come 
 down through the centuries, did not assume 
 
 ¥ to say that God said that marriage made 
 
 the parties thereto ‘‘one flesh.’? At most 
 the expression is but imaginary words put 
 in the mouth of a mythical man by an un- 
 known author. 
 
 If we discard reason, accept fiction for 
 truth, and fetter our minds with literal 
 interpretation, what results? Because Hive 
 was made from Adam’s rib she became 
 bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh. 
 ‘‘Therefore, shall a man—cleave unto his 
 wife and they shall be one flesh.’’ To put 
 it more clearly: Because the legendary first 
 woman was made from the rib of the legen- 
 dary first man, all men and women who 
 thereafter marry become of one flesh. If, 
 
 / therefore, the rib story fails the ‘‘one 
 
 flesh’’ corollary, which is the basis of the 
 [22] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRoE 
 
 asserted ‘‘divine prohibition”’ fails with it. 
 
 If sanctity at all is to be given to the 
 legendary accounts of the creation, then 
 the account in the first chapter of Genesis 
 wherein man and woman were created at 
 the same time—‘‘male and female created 
 he them’’—is entitled to equal considera- 
 tion, and it has the added charm of what 
 we conceive of divinity—fairness and jus- 
 tice. ‘‘Clearly,’’ said the Rev. John White _ 
 Chadwick, ‘‘the legend of Hive, if not the ~ 
 Genesis narration, is dominated by a spirit 
 of hostility towards womankind.’’ This 
 _ *hostility’’ later appears in 1 Timothy II, 
 11-15, wherein it is written: ‘‘Let the 
 women learn in silence with all subjection 
 ... for Adam was first formed, then Eve, 
 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman 
 being deceived was in the transgression. ’’ 
 There is not a recorded expression of 
 
 Christ to the effect that he held woman to ~ 
 
 be an inferior being. 
 
 While the ‘‘one flesh’’ conception of 
 marriage rests only in an_ allegorical 
 legend, it may be accepted as true and that 
 
 [23] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 
 
 marriage constitutes a joining together by 
 God and that man may not put the same 
 asunder, yet that does not even imply that 
 ¥ the state may not dissolve the union with- 
 out violating divine command. The injunc- 
 tion applying to man specifically operates 
 to exclude the power of the state from the 
 inhibition. That is in accordance with a 
 fundamental rule of construction. 
 
 The construers of Christ’s expressions 
 upon divorce appear never to have taken 
 into account the law of Moses upon the 
 subject or else have accepted the Hillel 
 interpretation as expressing the Mosaic 
 law. For illustration, Dr. Theodore Dwight 
 Woolsey, in his ‘‘Hissay on Divorcee,’’ here- 
 tofore referred to, says that Christ ‘‘criti- 
 cises a provision of the Mosaic law, and 
 taxes it with imperfection.’’ Continuing, 
 the learned Doctor further says: ‘‘His in- 
 terest is moral, his views are general and 
 human, not Jewish and Mosaieal. 
 
 What then does he (Christ) lay down? 
 His rules may be all comprised in the fol- 
 lowing propositions: First: that the man 
 
 [24] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 who in conformity with the permission or 
 sufferance of the law puts away his wife 
 by a bill of divorcement—‘saving for the 
 cause of fornication’—and marries another 
 commits adultery. Second: that the man 
 who thus puts away his wife causes her to 
 commit adultery. Third: that the man who 
 marries her who has thus been put away 
 commits adultery. Fourth: that the woman 
 who puts away her husband and is married 
 to another commits adultery.”’ 
 
 Here we have one of the greatest schol- 
 
 ars of his time giving a perfectly correct _ 
 
 interpretation of the effect of the law of 
 Moses without knowing that he was so 
 doing; calling it a new law laid down by 
 Christ and saying that Christ criticised the 
 Mosaic law and taxed it with imperfection. 
 The only mistake he made in a correct con- 
 struction of the law of Moses was in his 
 expression ‘‘permission or sufferance of 
 the law.’’ There was no permission or suf- 
 
 ferance of the law except in the case of the ~ 
 
 one specific cause therein named. 
 [25] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 
 
 The following is the Mosaic law on the 
 subject of divorce as the translation from 
 the original Hebrew appears in modern 
 Bibles: 
 
 ‘‘When a man hath taken a wife and 
 married her and it come to pass that she 
 find no favor in his eyes, because he hath 
 found some uncleanness in her, then let him 
 write her,a bill of divorcement, and give it 
 in her hand, and send her out of his house. 
 And when she is departed out of his house 
 she may go and be another man’s wife”’ 
 (Deut. XXIV, 1). 
 
 The expressions of Christ, as they ap- 
 pear in St. Matthew’s Gospel, read: 
 
 ‘Tt hath been said, ‘Whosoever shall put 
 away his wife let him give her a writing of 
 divorcement.’ But I say unto you, that 
 whosoever shall put away his wife save for 
 the cause of fornication, causeth her to 
 commit adultery and whosoever shall 
 marry her that is divorced committeth 
 adultery. . . . Whosoever shall put away 
 his wife except for the cause of fornication 
 
 [26] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrIvoRcE 
 
 and shall marry another, committeth 
 adultery’’ (Matt. V, 31, 32; XIX, 9). 
 
 If, as will hereafter be shown, the words 
 used by Moses and translated ‘‘unclean- 
 ness’’ and the word or expression used by 
 
 Christ and translated ‘‘fornication’’ mean 
 
 the same thing, namely, some act or con- 
 duct akin to or indicating adultery,—then 
 it follows as a necessary conclusion that 
 Christ instead of promulgating a new 
 moral law simply correctly construed the 
 Mosaic code and precisely stated the effect 
 of its violation. The conclusion follows for 
 the reason that if a modern court were con- 
 struing a similar law, it would declare that 
 if a husband gave his wife a bill of divorce- 
 ment for any other cause than that pre- 
 scribed in the statute, and such husband 
 should thereafter marry another wife, and 
 such wife should thereafter marry another 
 husband, all the parties to such subsequent 
 marriages would commit adultery for the 
 reason the original divorce would be void. 
 
 Precisely the same result would now 
 
 [27] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 follow if a court of one of our states, New 
 York for example, which permits an abso- 
 lute divorce only for adultery, should nev- 
 ertheless assume to grant a divorce to 
 either of the spouses for a ground like 
 cruelty or desertion, and the parties to 
 such proceedings would thereafter marry 
 other persons. The decree of divorce being 
 void because the court was without juris- | 
 diction to enter it, the parties would re- 
 main married, notwithstanding the decree. 
 The subsequent marriages would likewise 
 be void and all the parties thereto would 
 commit adultery because there had been in 
 fact no valid divorce. 
 
 It becomes important then to determine 
 just what the Mosaic code provided. The 
 ~ word ‘‘uncleanness’’ used in the transla- 
 tion, is erroneous. If the word meaning 
 uncleanness, as that word appears fre- 
 quently throughout the Mosaic law, had 
 been used, then a husband could divorce his 
 wife for a great number of trivial but 
 innocent causes, even including that of 
 motherhood itself, for the wife was ‘‘un- 
 
 [28] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DivorcE 
 
 clean’’ for a certain period following child- 
 birth (Lev. XII). Such a law would be so 
 unjust that it is inconceivable that Moses‘ 
 would have ever become a party to it. 
 
 What is given as a more literal transla- 
 tion of the Hebrew words ‘‘erwath dabar”’ 
 used by Moses in the law in question is 
 ‘‘nakedness’’ or ‘‘matter of nakedness.’’ 
 The words are so translated in numerous 
 passages in the Old Testament where it is 
 clear that the meaning is conduct indicat- 
 ing incest or adultery (Lev. XVIII, 6-19; 
 XX, 12, 17-21; Hizek. XVI, 36). 
 
 For example, and an interesting illustra- 
 tion, it is written: 
 
 ‘<Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness 
 of thy brother’s wife—it is thy brother’s 
 nakedness’’ (Lev. XVIII, 16). 
 
 It was because John the Baptist, refer- 
 ring to this provision of the Mosaic law, 
 said to Herod: ‘‘It is not lawful for thee 
 to have her’’—meaning Herodias, ‘‘his 
 brother Philip’s wife,’’ that his head was 
 made the price of his fearless indiscretion 
 (Matt. XIV, 3, 4, 11). The late Rev. S. R. 
 
 [29] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DiIvorcE 
 
 ~ Driver in the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexi- 
 con says of these words: ‘‘chiefly euphe- 
 mistic for cohabitation; implying shameful 
 exposure.’’ 
 
 When we come to the word appearing in. 
 St. Matthew’s gospel as the exception to 
 the rule against allowing a husband to put 
 away his wife, usually translated ‘‘fornica- 
 tion,’’ we find almost as much controversy 
 / over its true meaning as in the case of the 
 
 words used by Moses. The difference of 
 opinion appears to be whether the word 
 should be deemed the equivalent of adul- 
 tery or deemed to include immoral conduct 
 of both a greater and less degree than usu- 
 ally comprehended in the word adultery. 
 
 In arriving at a proper construction of 
 the language of Christ it should be borne 
 in mind that Christ spoke in Aramaic and 
 not in Greek. St. Matthew writing in the 
 latter language had to find a word that 
 would as nearly as possible express the 
 meaning of the Aramaic word or words 
 used by Christ. This is a task not always 
 easy because of the varying shades of 
 
 [30] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvorcE 
 
 meaning which words take on. The choice 
 of the word ‘‘fornication’’ in the transla- 
 tion of Christ’s remarks is as unfortunate / 
 as the use of the word ‘‘uncleanness’’ in the 
 translation of the law of Moses. Fornica- 
 tion is an offense of an unmarried woman 
 only. It is manifest that a word meaning 
 fornication in its strict sense was not used 
 by Christ. 
 
 Harmonizing the expressions used by 
 Moses and by Christ, concerning the 
 ground for divorce, one is impressed by the 
 
 fact that neither used the word meaning , 
 
 adultery as expressing the ground for 
 divorce. Had the Mosaic code used a word 
 meaning adultery and Christ had done like- 
 wise, there could be no room for argument 
 that Christ in his address to his disciples 
 did nothing more than correctly construe 
 the Mosaic law. The fact remains, how- . 
 ever, that the words employed by both © 
 Moses and Christ expressed the same thing 
 —conduct akin to or indicating adultery. 
 
 There is an apparent and substantial 
 reason why the word ‘‘adultery’’ was not 
 
 [31] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRCE 
 
 used in the Mosaic law. Adultery was pun- 
 ishable by death. The death penalty, how- 
 ever, could only be inflicted upon the testi- 
 mony of two and preferably three wit- 
 nesses (Deut. XVII, 6; XIX, 15; John 
 WITT. 17.2: Cor. XI, 1). tis only?res= 
 sonable to assume that in the matter of 
 divorcee the law would not require so high 
 a degree of proof as in the case where the 
 death penalty was inflicted. The law, there- 
 fore, gave to the husband the power to 
 ‘out away’’ a wife for conduct indicating 
 to his satisfaction that adultery, possibly 
 or probably, had been committed. The 
 judgment of the husband was not deemed 
 conclusive, for the wife so put away was 
 permitted ‘‘to go and be another man’s 
 wife.’? Once having been put away, her 
 former husband could never remarry her. 
 The basis of this latter provision doubtless 
 was intended to deter action upon mere 
 suspicious circumstances. 
 
 Christ used the expression: ‘‘It hath 
 been said, whosoever shall put away his 
 wife, let him give her a writing of divoree- 
 
 [32] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 ment,’’ etc. It is important to bear in mind 
 
 that the Mosaic law made no such broad ° 
 
 statement. It is also worthy of note that 
 Christ did not say that such was the state- 
 ment ‘‘of them of old time’’ as he did when 
 he referred to the commandments—‘‘ Thou 
 shalt not kill’? and ‘‘ Thou shalt not commit 
 adultery’’ (Matt. V, 21, 27). It was not 
 ‘them of old time’’ who said a man could 
 
 put away his wife ‘‘for every cause,’’ but! 
 
 it was the followers of the Pharisee Hillel 
 who were so saying in the time of Christ 
 and teaching that such was the law of 
 Moses. 
 
 From a consideration of all the facts and 
 circumstances essential to be considered in 
 connection with the expressions of Christ 
 upon the subject of divorce, the conclusion 
 
 follows that Christ had no intention of _ 
 
 \ 
 
 making any expression in conflict with the ° 
 
 existing Mosaic Code. Upon the contrary, 
 his purpose was to declare the law as it 
 existed and point out the effect of its viola- 
 tion. Certain of his expressions to the 
 Pharisees clearly had in view the double 
 
 [33] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrIvorcB 
 
 purpose of defeating them in their en- 
 deavor to find a basis of accusation against 
 him, and at the same time making an ap- 
 peal to their intelligence that the construc- 
 tion of the law they contended for was 
 inconsistent with their own professions of 
 belief in respect to other portions of the 
 Scriptures. 
 
 That an erroneous construction of 
 Christ’s remarks upon divorce have been 
 generally accepted for so many centuries 
 is largely due to certain expressions ap- 
 pearing in the Epistles of St. Paul. In 
 First Corinthians VI, appears this expres- 
 sion: ‘‘ Know ye not that he which is joined 
 to a harlot is one body? For two, saith he, 
 shall be one flesh.’’ There is no recorded 
 expression of the Master that can be tor- 
 tured into any possible construction that 
 illicit intercourse of the sexes constituted 
 the guilty parties ‘‘one flesh.’’ St. Paul 
 failed to note that Christ only asked the 
 Pharisees if they had not read the lan- 
 guage attributed to Adam that marriage 
 constituted the parties thereto ‘‘one flesh’’ 
 
 [34] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DtIvorcEe 
 
 and did not himself confirm that statement 
 as a physical fact. Carried to its logical 
 conclusion this statement of St. Paul de- 
 stroys the beautiful symbolism of the ‘‘one 
 flesh’’ conception of true marriage. The 
 Mosaic code, as it existed and as inter- 
 preted by Christ, recognized that adultery 
 authorized the dissolution of the marital 
 
 relation. This statement of St. Paul re-> 
 
 solves the ‘‘one flesh’’ idea to a basis of ° 
 
 i 
 
 carnal knowledge that could multiply itself / 
 
 indefinitely. The great debt which the 
 world owes to St. Paul for his incompar- 
 able work in the spread of Christianity will 
 
 be the better paid if it is frankly admitted 7 
 that in his great zeal for a supreme cause — 
 
 he was still human and subject to error. * 
 In his Epistle to the Romans VII, 1-3, is 
 found this expression: ‘‘Know ye _ not 
 brethren (for I speak to them that know 
 the law) how that the law hath dominion 
 over a man as long as he liveth? For the 
 woman which hath a husband is bound by 
 the law to her husband so long as he liveth; 
 
 but if the husband be dead, she is loosed | 
 
 [35] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 from the law of her husband. So then, if 
 while her husband liveth she be married to 
 another man, she shall be called an adul- 
 teress; but if her husband be dead, she is 
 free from that law, so that she is no adul- 
 teress, though she be married to another 
 man.’’ 
 
 St. Paul is here assuming to speak of the 
 law. Later in the same Epistle he says: 
 ‘Moses described the righteousness which 
 is of the law.’’ Whether he was assuming 
 to give the law of Moses or interpreting the 
 expressions of Christ in respect to divoree, 
 his statement, without material modifica- 
 tion, is clearly erroneous. Both the law of 
 Moses and the statement of Christ ex- 
 pressed one cause for which a husband 
 could by his own act put away his wife and © 
 if she married again she would not become 
 an adulteress, though the very cause for 
 putting away comprehended the possible 
 or even probable commission of the offense 
 _ of adultery. St. Paul also failed to take 
 - into consideration the power of the state 
 
 [36] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIVORCE 
 
 speaking through its judges, which Moses 
 declared was the judgment of God. 
 
 The expressions of St. Paul in reference 
 to divorce not only reflect a misunderstand-_ 
 ing of Christ’s remarks upon the subject,” 
 but it would seem that they may also re- 
 flect somewhat the peculiar personal views 
 of the great evangelist in respect to mar- 
 riage and the place of women in society. 
 St. Paul was a Pharisee and his conversion 
 to Christianity did not change entirely his 
 prejudices in a number of particulars. 
 Concerning marriage he wrote: ‘‘I would 
 that all men were even as I myself... . 
 I say, therefore, to the unmarried and 
 widows, it is good for them if they abide 
 evenas lI... . He that giveth her in mar- 
 riage doeth well; but he that giveth her 
 not in marriage doeth better’? (1 Cor. 
 VII). Concerning his idea of the subor- 
 dination of woman to man, among other 
 similar expressions, he wrote: ‘‘Let your 
 women keep silence in the churches, for it 
 is not permitted unto them to speak; but 
 they are commanded to be under obedience 
 
 [37] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DrvorcE 
 
 as also saith the law. And if they will 
 learn anything, let them ask their husbands 
 at home, for it is a shame for women to 
 speak in the church.’’ It is needless to say 
 that these expressions are not in keeping 
 with modern Christian civilization. 
 
 The limitation of divorce to the one 
 ground of adultery, upon the mistaken as- 
 sumption that such was the teaching of 
 Christ, has been the cause of more misery 
 in the world than is possible for the human 
 mind to conceive. There is no cruelty more 
 lingering, nor slavery more galling, than 
 the consciousness that one is linked for life 
 in the closest of all human relationships to 
 another whom the mind can only contem- 
 plate with deepest abhorrence. 
 
 Such misinterpretation has placed innu- 
 merable thousands, who have had legally , 
 dissolved an unfortunate union for causes 
 other than the one erroneously said to be 
 alone sanctioned by Christ, and who there- 
 after have contracted a happy union, in 
 the position of living in adultery according 
 to asserted divine law. Worse than all, pos- 
 
 [38] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DtvorcE 
 
 sibly, it amounts to saying that marriages 
 which violate the laws of God written in 
 the eternal Book of Nature; which shock 
 the human conception of what the marital 
 relation should be, the issue of which, in ~ 
 some instances, can only be defective be- 
 ings, burdens to themselves and to society, 
 may not be dissolved without violating 
 divine command. Under a proper interpre- 
 tation of Christ’s words, it ought rather to 
 be regarded as blasphemy to say that God ° 
 joined together the parties to such unions. 
 Divorce may be abused as the rite or 
 right of marriage ofttimes has been and 
 doubtless will continue to be abused. To 
 say that many legal marriages are but 
 travesties is but to say what every one 
 knows to be true. To say that the dissolu- 
 tion of such misalliances is harmful to 
 society is like saying that the surgeon’s 
 knife is essentially a baneful instrument. 
  $§t. Paul gave the admonition: ‘‘Hus- 
 bands love your wives, and be not bitter 
 against them.’’ But what of the wives 
 whose husbands failed to regard that ad- 
 
 [39] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DIvoRcE 
 
 monition? In Proverbs it is written: ‘‘A 
 foolish son is the calamity of his father 
 and the contentions of a wife are a con- 
 tinual dropping. It is better to dwell in the 
 wilderness than with a contentious and 
 angry woman.’’ The father’s calamity oft- 
 times becomes an even greater cal Ay to 
 a good wife. 
 
 Christ did not declare a doctrine so un- 
 reasonable that a husband’s only alterna- 
 tive was the wilderness for relief from a 
 ‘‘continual dropping’’ that in time wears 
 out the spirit; nor that a wife must endure 
 the bitterness of a cruel husband with no 
 other hope of relief but the grave. St. Paul 
 also wrote: ‘‘He that loveth his wife loveth 
 himself, for no man ever yet hated his own 
 flesh’? (Eph. V, 28, 29). But men do some- 
 times grow to hate their wives, and, if that 
 be so, then it must be that they cease to be 
 of their own flesh. 
 
 Christ well knew the debasing position 
 that was the common lot of the women of 
 his time, due in part to the misinterpreta- 
 tion of the law respecting the power of the 
 
 [40] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND DiIvorcE 
 
 husband to put away his wife ‘‘for every 
 cause.’’ His statement of what the law was 
 and his effort to reach the mind of the 
 Pharisees who were not only its chief of- 
 fenders but were the main stumbling block 
 in the way of the spread of his new cove- 
 nant, ought not forever to be construed to 
 mean that one spouse must suffer barbar- 
 ous cruelties at the hands of the other with- 
 out hope of relief except in defiance of him 
 who was the embodiment of love, truth and 
 justice. 
 
 Christ made no utterance susceptible of 
 a construction to the effect that civilized 
 society, represented in the state and ac- 
 knowledging the supremacy of God, might ’ 
 not dissolve the union of a man and a 
 woman when such union by the action of 
 one or both of the spouses becomes intoler- 
 able, and its existence a travesty upon the 
 marital relation. To construe such an in- 
 tent into the words used by the Master not 
 only does violence to the rules of construc- 
 tion which the wisdom of centuries have 
 found most certain to determine the true 
 
 [41] 
 
CHRISTIANITY AND Divorce 
 
 intent of the law maker, but contravenes 
 the very spirit of Christ’s teachings gener- 
 ally. The basis of true marriage is love, 
 mutual respect, helpfulness and forbear- 
 ance. When a union becomes one of intol- 
 erable cruelties, neglect, debasing associa- 
 tion or a condition of master and slave, the 
 law may declare dissolved what has al- 
 ready ceased to exist, if it ever had exis- 
 tence, in fact, without violating the teach- 
 ings of Christ. 
 
 [42] 
 

 

 

 
DATE DUE 
 
 ; . 5 f 
 el 
 4 
 x j ” 
 = 
 
 
 
 PRINTEDINU.S.A. 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 ra wy ssp ax . 
 CMe he ee Me Sessa PY EHL ey * 
 ae Cy a Oe - ‘ + : 1 
 * P i we 
 » , ety ary 
 wie ae: alld 
 bey <p 
 
 
 
 <a 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library 
 
 eee NT 
 
 | 1 1012 01003 0700 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 7 niga gi! 
 dig. WOH ‘ PRN * 
 has ike =] 
 - ‘ Pure eis 
 \ x 
 Yy a ik " n 
 ev are tar ; 1 ak x : Ry 
 i i : hes ad 
 *, ‘ ‘ ¥ iy 
 ae why ; “ Re 
 ‘ “] 
 Pte i" - 
 ; j Woy 
 * ‘2 ' 
 2 b i : . bate >) t 
 han 
 \e . ‘ ] r \ PAgey Oe as 
 3 i i : Vin hey Utes Arey reine 
 ¢ < 
 & 
 . UA : 1 > 
 HR : st 
 ¢ Shed ar 
 eh ie 
 ‘ yt ‘ 
 4, 7 
 i ; . Fi ay is “yt 
 f . ‘ ee ey 
 ; 
 ake ‘ Mea rarer Poe bow 
 % t 
 ae tan y Sy 
 
 
 
 
 
 j i i + 23 
 - 
 t a3 : ’ 
 - dry Fee 
 . wt : 
 q pre 
 : ~y tg 
 ; y , : 
 
 ri we ¢ es 
 
 fe ;