Deuteronomy 21:11. In regard to marriages for wealth, we are to learn a lesson from the

sons of Eli, who sought to enrich themselves in such manner, but of whose posterity it

was said (1 Sam 2:36) that they should "crouch for a piece of silver and a morsel of

bread." Of marriages for the sake of connection, honour, and influence, King Jehoram

offered a warning, who became King Ahab's son-in-law, because that monarch had

seventy sons, whereas upon his death his widow Athaliah "arose and destroyed all the

seed royal" (2 Kings 11:1). But far otherwise is it in case of marriage "in the name of

heaven." The issue of such will be children who "preserve Israel." In fact, the Rabbinical

references to marrying "in the name of heaven," or "for the name of God," --in God and

for God--are so frequent and so emphatic, that the expressions used by St. Paul must

have come familiarly to him. Again, much that is said in 1 Corinthians 7 about the

married estate, finds striking parallels in Talmudical writings. One may here be

mentioned, as explaining the expression (v 14): "Else were your children unclean; but

now are they holy." Precisely the same distinction was made by the Rabbis in regard to

proselytes, whose children, if begotten before their conversion to Judaism, were said to

be "unclean"; if after that event to have been born "in holiness," only that, among the

Jews, both parents required to profess Judaism, while St. Paul argues in the contrary

direction, and concerning a far different holines s than that which could be obtained

through any mere outward ceremony.

Some further details, gathered almost at random, will give glimpses of Jewish home life

and of current views. It was by a not uncommon, though irreverent, mode of witticism,

that two forms of the same verb, sounding almost alike, were made to express opposite

experiences of marriage. It was common to ask a newly -married husband: "Maza or

Moze?"--"findeth" or "found"; the first expression occurring in Proverbs 18:22, the

second in Eccles iastes 7:26. A different sentiment is the following from the Talmud (Yeb.

62 b; Sanh. 76 b), the similarity of which to Ephesians 5:28 will be immediately

recognised: "He that loveth his wife as his own body, honoureth her more than his own

body, brings up his children in the right way, and leads them in it to full age--of him the

Scripture saith: 'Thou shalt know that thy tabernacle shall be in peace' (Job 5:24)." Of all

qualities those most desired in woman were meekness, modesty, and shamefacedness.

Indeed, brawling, gossip in the streets, and immodest behaviour in public were sufficient

grounds for divorce. Of course, Jewish women would never have attempted "teaching"

in the synagogue, where they occupied a place separate from the men--for Rabbinical

study, however valued for the male sex, was disapproved of in the case of women. Yet

this direction of St. Paul (1 Tim 2:12): "I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the

man" findeth some kind of parallel in the Rabbinical saying: "Whoever allows himself to

be ruled by his wife, shall call out, and no one will make answer to him."

It is on similar grounds that the Rabbis argue, that man must seek after woman, and not

a woman after a man; only the reason which they assign for it sounds strange. Man,

they say, was formed from the ground--woman from man's rib; hence, in trying to find a

wife man only looks after what he had lost! This formation of man from soft clay, and of

woman from a hard bone, also illustrated why man was so much more easily reconcilable

than woman. Similarly, it was observed, that God had not formed woman out of the head,

lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye, lest she should lust; nor out of the

ear, lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth, lest she should be talkative; nor

out of the heart, lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand, lest she should be

covetous; nor out of the foot, lest she be a busybody; but out of the rib, which was

always covered. Modesty was, therefore, a prime quality. It was no doubt chiefly in

jealous regard for this, that women were interdicted engaging in Rabbinical studies; and

a story is related to show how even the wisest of women, Beruria, was thereby brought

to the brink of extreme danger. It is not so easy to explain why women were dispensed

from all positive obligations (commands, but not prohibitions) that were not general in

their bearing (Kidd. 1. 7,8), but fixed to certain periods of time (such as wearing the

phylacteries, etc.), and from that of certain prayers, unless it be that woman was

considered not her own mistress but subject to others, or else that husband and wife

were regarded as one, so that his merits and prayers applied to her as well. Indeed, this