Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:31

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

31. a writing of divorcement ] See note on ch. Mat 1:19. The greatest abuses had arisen in regard to divorce, which was permitted on very trivial grounds. One Rabbinical saying was “If any man hate his wife, let him put her away.” Copies of these bills of divorce are still preserved. The formula may be seen in Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc. The same facility of divorce prevails in Mohammedan countries.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

It hath been said … – That is, by Moses, Deu 24:1-2. The husband was directed, if he put his wife away, to give her a bill of divorce, that is a certificate of the fact she had been his wife, and that he had dissolved the marriage. There was considerable difference of opinion among the Jews for what causes the husband was permitted to do this. One of their famous schools maintained that it might be done for any cause, however trivial. The other maintained that adultery only could justify it. The truth was, however, that the husband exercised this right at pleasure; that he was judge in the case, and dismissed his wife when and for what cause he chose. And this seems to be agreeable to the law in Deuteronomy. Our Saviour in Mar 10:1-12, says that this was permitted on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that in the beginning it was not so. God made a single pair, and ordained marriage for life. But Moses found the people so much hardened; so long accustomed to the practice, and so rebellious, that, as a matter of civil appointment, he thought it best not to attempt any change. Our Saviour brought marriage back to its original intention, and declared that whosoever put away his wife henceforward, except for one offence, should be guilty of adultery. This is now the law of God. This was the original institution. This is the only law that is productive of peace and good morals, and that secures the respect due to a wife, and the good of children. Nor has any man or set of men – any legislature or any court, civil or ecclesiastical – a right to interfere, and declare that divorces may be granted for any other cause. They, therefore, whoever they may be, who are divorced for any cause except the single one of adultery, if they marry again, are, according to the Scriptures, living in adultery. No earthly laws can trample down the laws of God, or make that right which he has solemnly pronounced wrong.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Verse 31. Whosoever shall put away his wife] The Jewish doctors gave great license in the matter of divorce. Among them, a man might divorce his wife if she displeased him even in the dressing of his victuals!

Rabbi Akiba said, “If any man saw a woman handsomer than his own wife, he might put his wife away; because it is said in the law, If she find not favour in his eyes.” De 24:1.

Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, in his Life, tells us, with the utmost coolness and indifference, “About this time I put away my wife, who had borne me three children, not being pleased with her manners.”

These two cases are sufficient to show to what a scandalous and criminal excess this matter was carried among the Jews. However, it was allowed by the school of Shammai, that no man was to put away his wife unless for adultery. The school of Hillel gave much greater license.

A writing of divorcement] The following is the common form of such a writing. See Maimonides and Lightfoot.

“On the day of the week A. in the month B. in the year C. from the beginning of the world, according to the common computation in the province of D., I, N. the son of N. by whatever name I am called, of the city E. with entire consent of mind, and without any compulsion, have divorced, dismissed, and expelled thee-thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. who wast heretofore my wife: but now I have dismissed thee-thee, I say, M. the daughter of M. by whatever name thou art called, of the city E. so as to be free, and at thine own disposal, to marry whomsoever thou pleasest, without hinderance from any one, from this day for ever. Thou art therefore free for any man. Let this be thy bill of divorce from me, a writing of separation and expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

REUBEN, son of Jacob, Witness.

ELIEZAR, son of Gilead, Witness.”

God permitted this evil to prevent a greater; and, perhaps, to typify his repudiating the Jews, who were his first spouse.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

The law to which our Saviour refers here, or rather the indulgence and toleration, (for none was obliged to put away their wives in case of uncleanness), is that Deu 24:1, where we have it in these words: When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her; then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it her in her hand, and send her out of his house. The Pharisees had extended this toleration which God gave husbands amongst the Jews to other cases, besides that of uncleanness or adultery; so as they put away their wives upon every slight occasion, interpreting those words, that she find no favour in his eyes, separately from the following words, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, and gave a liberty for men upon any dislike of their wives to put them away, provided that they first gave them a bill of divorcement; and that in these cases it was lawful for the parties, thus separated from each other, to marry to whom either of them pleased; and this is expressed in terms in their form of those writings of divorcement, in Josephus and other writers. This indeed is a case properly relating to the judicial law; but all the judicial laws are either appendices to the moral or to the ceremonial law. This particular indulgence was an appendix to the moral law, by the seventh commandment, to which our Saviour is now speaking, and giving the true sense of it. He here opposeth the Pharisees in two points.

1. Asserting that all divorces are unlawful except in case of adultery.

2. Asserting that whosoever married her that was put away committed adultery.

It hath been a great question, not so much amongst divines as amongst lawyers, whether it be not lawful in any case to put away a wife, unless for adultery? The canonists have found out many cases in which they affirm it lawful. And the Council of Trent (from whom we may learn the sense of the popish divines) anathematize those who deny the church a power of determining other causes of divorce. But their blasphemous curse falleth upon him, who is above them, God over all blessed for ever, who in this text hath determined that point. Nor indeed did Moses give a toleration in any other cases. There may indeed be a parting between man and wife upon other accounts, either wholly or in part: in case one of them will part from the other, which the apostle determines, 1Co 7:11,15; in which case the person departing is only guilty if he or she marry again. In case of an error, through ignorance or inadvertency, upon the marriage, that it appeareth that the persons married were such as by the law of nature and of God ought not to have married, &c. But if we take divorce for the voluntary act of the husband putting away of his wife, it is unlawful in any case but that of adultery, which dissolves the marriage knot and covenant. A second question is also here determined by our Saviour, viz. that it is unlawful for her, that is justly put away, to marry to any other, or for any other to marry her wittingly.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

31. It hath been saidThisshortened form was perhaps intentional, to mark a transition from thecommandments of the Decalogue to a civil enactment on the subject ofdivorce, quoted from De 24:1.The law of divorceaccording to its strictness or laxityhas sointimate a bearing upon purity in the married life, that nothingcould be more natural than to pass from the seventh commandment tothe loose views on that subject then current.

Whosoever shall put away hiswife, let him give her a writing of divorcementa legal checkupon reckless and tyrannical separation. The one legitimate ground ofdivorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was “someuncleanness”in other words, conjugal infidelity. But whileone school of interpreters (that of SHAMMAI)explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every casesave that of adultery, another school (that of HILLEL)stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wifeoffensive or disagreeable to the husbanda view of the law too wellfitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to findextensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces onthe most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lorduttered what follows:

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

It hath been said,…. It is not added here, as in the former instances, “by them of old time”; nor prefaced with these words, “ye have heard”; because the case of divorce was not any law of Moses, or of God by him; but only a permission, because of the hardness of the hearts of the Jews: and as to the controversy, about the causes of divorce, this was not debated by them of old time, but was a new thing, just started in the time of Christ; and was a controversy then agitating, between the schools of Hillell and Shammai: the one allowing it upon any frivolous cause; the other, only on account of adultery.

Whosoever shall put away his wife, dissolve the marriage bond, dismiss her from his bed, and send her from his house, see

De 24:1 “let him give her a writing of divorcement”, , “a bill of divorcement”, or “a book of cutting off”. For though a wife was obtained by several ways, there was but one way of dismissing her, as the Jews observe f, and that was, by giving her a bill. The form of a writing of divorcement, as given by Maimonides g, is as follows:

“On such a day of the week, in such a month, of such a year, either from the creation, or the epocha of contracts, according to the usual way of computation, which we observe in such a place; I such an one, the son of such an one, of such a place; or if I have any other name, or surname, or my parents, or my place, or the place of my parents; by my own will, without any force, I put away, dismiss, and divorce thee. Thee, I say, who art such an one, the daughter of such an one, of such a place; or if thou hast any other name, or surname, or thy parents, or thy place, or the place of thy parents; who wast my wife heretofore, but now I put thee away, dismiss and divorce thee; so that thou art in thine own hand, and hast power over thyself, to go, and marry any other man, whom thou pleasest; and let no man hinder thee in my name, from this day forward and for ever; and lo! thou art free to any man: and let this be unto thee, from me, a bill of divorce, an instrument of dismission, and a letter of forsaking, according to the law of Moses and Israel.”

“Such an one, the son of such an one, witness. Such an one, the son of such an one, witness.”

Would you choose to have one of these bills, filled up in proper form, take it in manner h following.

“On the fourth day of the week, on the eleventh day of the month Cisleu, in the year five thousand four hundred and fifty four, from the creation of the world; according to the computation which we follow here, in the city of Amsterdam, which is called Amstelredam; situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; I Abraham, the son of Benjamin, surnamed Wolphius, the priest; and at this time dwelling in the city of Amsterdam, which is called Amstelredam, which is situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; or if I have any other name, or surname, or my parents, or my place, or the place of my parents; by my own free will, without any compulsion, I put away, dismiss, and divorce thee, my wife Rebecca, the daughter of Jonas the Levite; who at this time abides in the city of Amsterdam, called Amstelredam, situated by the sea side, called Taya, and by the river Amstel; or if thou hast any other name, or surname, or thy parents, or thy place, or the place of thy parents, who wast heretofore my wife; but now I put thee away, dismiss, and divorce thee; so that thou art in thine own hands, and hast power over thyself, to go and marry any other man, whom thou pleasest: and let no man hinder thee in my name, from this day forward, and for ever; and lo! thou art free to any man. Let this be to thee, from me, a bill of divorce, an instrument of dismission, and a letter of forsaking, according to the law of Moses and Israel.”

“Sealtiel, the son of Paltiel, witness. Calonymus, the son of Gabriel, witness.”

This bill being written in twelve lines, neither more nor less, and being sealed by the husband, and signed by the witnesses, was delivered, either by him, or by a messenger, or deputy of his or hers, into her hand, lap, or bosom, in the presence of two persons; after which, she might, if she would, enrol it in the public records, and marry whom she pleased.

f Baal Hatturim in Deut. xxiv. 1. Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 1. sect. 2, 3. g Hilchot Gerushin, c. 4. sect. 12. h In Surenhusii Misna, Vol. III. p. 324. Vid. Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora pr. affirm. 50.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

A writing of divorcement (), “a divorce certificate” (Moffatt), “a written notice of divorce” (Weymouth). The Greek is an abbreviation of (Mal 19:7; Mark 10:4). Vulgate has here libellum repudii. The papyri use in commercial transactions as “a bond of release” (see Moulton and Milligan’s Vocabulary, etc.) The written notice () was a protection to the wife against an angry whim of the husband who might send her away with no paper to show for it.

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “It hath been said,” (errethe de) “Then it was said,” under the Mosaic law administration, yet, as amended from God’s first, original order.

2) “Whosoever shall put away his wife,” (hos an apoluse ten. gunaika autou) “Whoever dismisses, releases, or puts away his wife,” whom he has taken for life, according to Divine order, Mr 10:2-9. Because marriage is of Divine order, and a most sacred bond of covenant pledge as a basis of family life, Release from such should be only for a most grave or serious cause. Primary in the will of God regarding marriage is “What God hath joined together let not man put asunder,” without the specific Bible reason, Mr 10:8,9; Mat 19:9.

3) “Let him give her a writing of divorcement:” (doto aute apostasion) “Let him furnish her (without charge) a document of permanent separation,” or final and full divorce; This is a legal check or restriction against reckless and tyrannical separation of two married persons. The only specified ground for such a divorcement was “some uncleanness,” (Gk. aschemon pragma) which means conjugal infidelity of sexual intercourse with another or a third party, Deu 24:1; Jer 3:1; 1Co 7:12-15.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

Mat 5:31

. Whosoever shall put away his wife. As a more suitable occasion for discussing and explaining this doctrine at greater length will afterwards occur, (Mat 19:9,) I shall now state briefly what Christ says in this passage. As the Jews falsely imagined that they discharged their whole duty toward God, when they kept the law in a national manner, so whatever the national law did not forbid, they foolishly supposed to be lawful. Divorces, which husbands were wont to give to their wives, had not been prohibited by Moses as to external order, but only, for the sake of restraining lewdness, he had ordered that “a bill of divorcement” should be given to the wives who were put away, (Deu 24:1.) It was a sort of testimonial of freedom, so that the woman was afterwards free from the yoke and power of the husband; while the husband at the same time acknowledged, that he did not send her away on account of any crime, but because she did not please him. Hence proceeded the error, that there was nothing wrong in such putting away, provided that the forms of law were observed. (409)

But they did wrong in viewing as a matter of civil law, the rule which had been given them for a devout and holy life. For national laws are sometimes accommodated to the manners of men but God, in prescribing a spiritual law, looked not at what men can do, but at what they ought to do. It contains a perfect and entire righteousness, though we want ability to fulfill it. Christ, therefore, admonishes us not to conclude, that what is allowed by the national law of Moses is, on that account, lawful in the sight of God. That man, (says he,) who puts away his wife, and gives her a bill of divorcement, shelters himself under the pretense of the law: but the bond of marriage is too sacred to be dissolved at the will, or rather at the licentious pleasure, of men. Though the husband and the wife are united by mutual consent, yet God binds them by an indissoluble tie, so that they are not afterwards at liberty to separate. An exception is added, except on account of fornication: for the woman, who has basely violated the marriage-vow, is justly cast off; because it was by her fault that the tie was broken, and the husband set at liberty.

(409) “ Pourveu qu’on observast ce que la Loy commandoit en tel cas;”— “provided that what the Law commanded in such a case were observed.”

Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary

(31) It hath been said.The better MSS. give, But it was said, as though stating an implied objection to the previous teaching. Men might think that they could avoid the sin of adultery by taking the easy course of divorcing one wife before marrying another.

Whosoever shall put away . . .The quotation is given as the popular Rabbinic explanation of Deu. 24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Mat. 19:8, was given, on account of the hardness of mens hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The words of the precept were vagueIf she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her, and the two school of casuists took opposite views of its meaning. The stricter party of Shammai held that the uncleanness meant simply unchastity before or after marriage. The followers of Hillel held, on the other hand (as Milton among Christian teachers), that anything that made the company of the wife distasteful was a sufficient ground for repudiation. Even a moralist generally so pure and noble as the son of Sirach, took in this matter the laxer viewIf she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh, and give her a bill of divorce, and let her go (Sir. 25:26). It is noteworthy that our Lord, whose teaching, especially as regards the Sabbath question, might have been, for the most part, claimed by the school of Hillel, on this matter of divorce stamps the impress of His approval on the teaching of his rival.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

31. A writing of divorcement The Mosaic law (Deu 24:1) was, that if “uncleanness” were found in a wife, the husband might “write a bill of divorcement, and put it into her hand, and send her out of his house.” On the meaning of the word “uncleanness,” the schools of the two Rabbies Shammai and Hillel differed. The former taught that the law allowed divorce for adultery alone; the latter interpreted it to mean any defect of person or character. Divorces thereby had become shamefully common, and the marriage tie of little force. As a consequence, all the laws of morality were loose, and all the best affections of our nature but slightly existed. The family is the true school of the purer virtues and noblest feelings. Where it exists in its full excellence, and its well managed government, the young character is rightly shaped, and men go forth into the world trained to maintain a well ordered society. Where this institution is in ruins, or but loosely maintained, childhood and youth are but poorly formed, and maturer years are lawless and unprincipled. Family disorganization is the forerunner of social disorganization, anarchy, and final despotism.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

A further illustration;

v. 31. It hath been said,. Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement.

v. 32. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery; and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.

The form in which Jesus here speaks indicates that He disapproves of their literal interpretation of the permission granted by Moses, Deu 24:1. The Mosaic law was given in the interest of the woman, to give her at least some show of right. But the Jewish doctors, concerned only about the outward form and about getting the bill of separation into due legal shape, permitted a license which was soon carried to scandalous and criminal excesses. Pouncing upon the phrase: “She find no favor in his eyes,” they permitted divorces when a man found a handsomer woman, when he was displeased with his wife’s cooking, when he did not find her manners agreeable. Only the bill or letter of separation must be made out, that formality was insisted upon. But such a deliberate breaking of the marriage-tie, though it be sanctioned by the civil courts, has no validity before God. The Lord recognizes only one reason for divorce, when there is a plain case of unfaithfulness, of adultery, of any unlawful intercourse of a married person with any other person but the lawful spouse. In this case a divorce may be secured, but is not commanded. “We neither command nor hinder such divorce, but leave it to the government to act… But to give advice to such as want to be Christians, it would be far better to admonish and urge both parties to stay together, and that the innocent spouse be reconciled to the guilty one (if this one were humble and willing to amend) and forgive in Christian love. ” If any other reason is alleged and the divorce brought about, adultery is committed, both by the complainant, in severing the marriage-tie, and by the accused that permits the frivolous dissolution. In the same way he that marries a woman divorced from her lawful husband, to whom she still belongs before God, is an adulterer in the eyes of the Lord.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

Mat 5:31-32. It hath been said, &c. The doctors of the school of Sammai affirmed, that in the law concerning divorce, Deu 24:1 the words some uncleanness were to be understood of adultery only; whereas they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any manner of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, ch. Mat 19:3 if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears both from their practice and their writings. Thus Mal 2:16 the clause which in our translation runs, The Lord says he hateth putting away, that is to say, divorces on frivolous pretences, is by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX rendered, If thou hatest, thou shouldst put her away. Also the son of Sirach, Eccl’us, Ecclisasticus 25:26. If she go not as thou wouldst have her, cut her off from thy flesh; and and Josephus, Antiq. l. 4. c. 8. “He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce.” Nay, one of their doctors delivered it as his opinion, “That a man may put away his wife, if he likes any other woman better.” As therefore they had perverted the law of divorce, that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning; assuring them, that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, layeth her under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God: and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committeth adultery also. See Macknight, Calmet, and 1Co 7:15

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

Mat 5:31 f. [410] In Deu 24:1 there is stated as a reason for the dismissal which is to be carried out, , something hateful , loathsome (see Ewald, Alterthum . p. 272; Keil, Archol . II. p. 74 f.; Gesenius, Thes . II. p. 1068). This was explained by the strict Rabbi Sammai and his adherents as referring to adultery and other unchaste behaviour; but the gentle Rabbi Hillel and his school as referring to everything in general that displeased the husband (Josephus, Antt . iv. 8. 23; Vita , 76). Lightfoot, p. 273 ff.; Ewald, Jahrb . X. p. 56 ff., 81. Rabbi Abika went still further, who allowed dismissal if the husband found a more beautiful woman; see Wetstein. To these and other (see Othonis, Lex. Rabb . p. 504) ill-considered principles for Hillel’s doctrine had become the prevalent one

Christ opposes Himself, and draws out from the original and inmost nature of marriage (comp. Mat 19:4 ff.) a firm rule, preserving the sanctity of the idea, and admitting only that as a ground of separation by which the nature of marriage and its obligations is, as a matter of fact , directly and immediately destroyed. [411]

] not repudiare constituerit (Fritzsche after Grotius), but will have dismissed . In this is implied the oral declaration of dismissal, the accomplishment of which as a fact is to take place by means of a letter of divorce. The command to give the letter of divorce, moreover, the use of which was already in existence before the law, is only indirectly implied in Deu 24:1 ; comp. on Mat 19:7 . The Greek expression for the dismissal of the woman is , Bekker, Anecd . p. 421; Bremi, ad Dem. adv. Onetor . iv. p. 92. On the wanton practice of the Greeks in this matter, see Hermann, Privatalterth . 30.

] departure , that is, by means of a , Deu 24:1 ; Mat 19:7 ; Mar 10:4 ; Jer 3:8 . In Demosthenes, 790. 2, 940. 15, it is the desertion of his master, contrary to duty, by a manumitted slave; Hermann, l.c. , 57. 17.

The formula of the letter of divorce, see in Alphes. in Gittin , f. 600; in Lightfoot, p. 277. The object of the same was to prove that the marriage had been legally dissolved, and that it was competent to enter into a second marriage with another man (Ewald, l.c. ). Observe, moreover, how the saying of the scribes, which has been quoted, is a mutilation of the legal precept, which had become traditional in the service of their lax principles, as if it, beside the arbitrary act of the man, were merely a question of the formality of the letter of divorce .

[410] The assertion that, if Jesus had delivered this declaration here , the discussion regarding divorce in ch. 19 could not have taken place (Kstlin, p. 47; Holtzmann, p. 176 f.), has no foundation, especially as in Mat 19:3 , Mar 10:2 , the discussion is called forth by the Pharisees; comp. Weiss. Olshausen and Bleek also find in ch. 19 the historical position for the declaration, which Hilgenfeld regards as a non-original appendix to what precedes; which is also substantially the judgment of Ritschl, who regards the metabatic in ver. 31 as introducing an objection to vv. 29, 30.

[411] Comp. Harless, Ehescheidungsfrage , p. 17 ff.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

DISCOURSE: 1305
DIVORCES FORBIDDEN

Mat 5:31-32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: hut I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery.

THE laws of men cannot always proceed to the extent that might be wished in the support of truth and virtue. They must sometimes bend to circumstances, and tolerate evils which they cannot totally prevent. Even under the Theocracy itself this necessity was felt and admitted. The laws of Moses, as far as they were purely moral, were perfect and inflexible; but, as far as they were political, they yielded in a measure to the state and character of the people for whom they were made. The Jews were a hardhearted and stiffnecked people, and extremely licentious in their manners. They would multiply their wives to any extent that they chose, and put them away on the most frivolous occasions. Moses knew that an absolute prohibition of such practices would only render the men more ferocious, and the women more miserable: and therefore he contented himself with laying some restrictions on the men, that if divorces could not be prevented, they might at least be rendered less frequent, by being made more solemn, more deliberate, more manifest. He limited the permission to those instances wherein there was in the woman some moral, natural, or acquired defect, which was the ground of her husbands alienation from her. He then ordered that a writing of divorcement should be drawn up, and in the presence of two witnesses be given to her; that so, if she were afterwards married to another man, she might be able to prove that she was not living in adultery, because her former marriage had been annulled [Note: Deu 24:1.]. This restriction, which was only a permission granted on account of the hardness of their hearts, was by the Scribes and Pharisees construed into a command to put away their wives, as soon as ever they ceased to love them: and, under cover of this law, the most licentious and cruel practices almost universally obtained. Our blessed Lord, who came to put all his followers under the authority of the moral law, and to reduce the world to its primeval sanctity, declared, that this license was contrary to the original institution of marriage; and that henceforth, as Adam and Eve were formed for each other, and united in marriage, without any latitude allowed to either of them to dissolve the connexion, or to admit any other to a participation of their mutual rights, so should every man and woman, when united in wedlock, have an inalienable right in each other, a right that should never be cancelled, but by a violation of the marriage vows [Note: Mat 19:3-9.]. To this subject our Lord was led by his exposition of the seventh commandment. He had shewn, that that commandment was no less violated by an impure look than by the act of adultery itself: and now he proceeds to shew, that those practices, which were supposed to be sanctioned by the Mosaic law, were never to be tolerated amongst his followers, since they were directly contrary to the spirit of that commandment. There was one, and only one reason, which should henceforth be admitted as a proper ground of divorce: and if any one in future should put away his wife in defiance of this restriction, he should be dealt with as an adulterer in the day of judgment.

The restriction itself being so clear and simple, we shall not attempt any further elucidation of it, but shall rather point out the importance of the restriction to the welfare of mankind.

I.

It raises the female sex from the lowest state of degradation

[Whilst men were at liberty to take, and to repudiate, as many wives as they pleased, the female sex were viewed in no other light than as females are regarded by the brute creation. Their moral and intellectual qualities were overlooked. Whatever distinguished them as a higher order of beings, was disregarded: their beauty only was deemed of any essential consequence; and they were valued only as means and instruments of licentious gratification. Consider the state of those whom Solomon and Rehoboam selected as ministers to their pleasures. Rehoboam had eighteen wives and sixty concubines [Note: 2Ch 11:21.]. Solomon had seven hundred wives, and three hundred concubines [Note: 1Ki 11:3.]. What can be conceived more humiliating than the state of all those women? all cut off from converse with men; all precluded from a possibility of filling that station in life, to which, in common with other females, they had been ordained. View those also who are selected for the choice of king Ahasuerus. Officers were appointed to gather together all the most beautiful young virgins throughout the one hundred and twenty-seven provinces of his empire: these were all to be purified with oil of myrrh and sweet odours for the space of a whole year; and then in succession to be admitted to the king for one night, and never afterwards to see him, unless called for by name [Note: Est 2:3; Est 2:12-14.]. Four years had the succession continued, before Esthers turn for admission to him arrived; and she, pleasing him beyond all the rest, was appointed Queen [Note: Est 2:15-17.]. How incredible does all this appear; that such a state of things should ever exist; that the parents should ever suffer it; and that the females should ever endure it! Were it reported in any other history than that which we know to be divine, we should never believe that the whole female sex would ever be reduced to such a state of horrible degradation as this.

But from this the Gospel raises them. By the restriction in our text, they are again elevated to the rank which the first woman sustained in Paradise. Though still inferior to the man in power and dignity [Note: 1Co 11:3; 1Co 11:7-10.], they possess equal rights with him. He has no more power to repudiate them, than they him. The wife has now the same property in her husband as he has in her [Note: 1Co 7:2-4.]: nor can any thing but a wilful alienation of it by infidelity on her part deprive her of it. If in one single instance he transfer to another those regards which by his nuptial vows were exclusively assigned to her, he shall be condemned for it by God, as certainly as she would be, if she were guilty of a similar transgression.]

II.

It moderates the tempers and passions of men

[Every one knows that power is a snare; and that it is difficult to possess unlimited authority without being sometimes led to exercise it in an unbecoming manner. Suppose a man at liberty to put away his wife whenever he chose, and to take whomsoever he would to fill her place; is it not probable that he would presume upon that power to tyrannize over her and oppress her? Is it not to be expected also that he would he easily captivated by youth and beauty, as soon as ever sickness or age should have robbed his wife of her former attractions? Under such circumstances, little could be hoped for, but inconstancy in affection, irritability in temper, licentiousness in manners, and cruelty in conduct. But by the restriction in our text all occasion for these things is cut off; and a necessity is imposed of cultivating dispositions directly opposite. A man when first he plights his troth to a virgin, knows that he takes her for better and for worse. He is aware that the knot can never be untied; and that his connexion with her forbids even a desire after any other. Hence then he sees the necessity of patience and forbearance towards her: he ieels the importance of gaining her affections by kind usage: and he determines, by contributing to her happiness as much as possible, to ensure his own. If any man think that the restriction operates unfavourably on him, let him compare the tumultuous passions of a lawless libertine with the chaste enjoyments of conjugal fidelity: and he will soon see the one is like the crackling of thorns under a pot, whilst the other is a source of steady and increasing comfort to the latest hour of his life.]

III.

It provides for the happiness of the rising generation

[What must be the effect of that licentious intercourse of which we have spoken? Would men feel much regard for children whose mothers they had ignominiously dismissed? Would even the mothers themselves feel that regard for their children, which they would have done, if they had still retained the affections of their cruel father? The women, reduced to great extremities, would doubtless in many instances leave their children to perish with cold and hunger, if not put a period to their existence with their own hands.
But how different the condition of children under the present system! Now both the parents become their guardians, and equally exert themselves to make provision for them. They look upon their children as their dearest treasure; and expect from them their richest comforts. Hence they feel interested in imbuing their minds with Christian knowledge, and in regulating their conduct according to the Christian code. In short, their happiness being bound up in their offspring, they, for their own comforts sake, instruct them in whatever is necessary to make them good members of society at least, if not also members of the Church above. We say not indeed that this effect is universally produced: but we do say, that the restriction in our text, if duly considered, has a direct tendency to produce it.]

From this view of our subject we may see,
2.

How great are our obligations to Christianity!

[God, even under the law, bore strong testimony against the licentious cruelty of his people [Note: Mal 2:13-16.]: but our Saviour has decided the point for ever. None can henceforth inflict, or suffer, such injuries as the Jews inflicted on their wives. Even those who have no regard whatever for religion, are partakers of these benefits, in common with the whole Church. Christianity has raised the tone of morals, and made those things infamous, which are approved and applauded where the light of the Gospel is not known But if the ungodly and unbelieving are thus benefited by the Gospel, how much more are they who feel its influence on all their conduct and conversation! They, knowing that the marriage union is indissoluble, set themselves to fulfil its duties; and in fulfilling them, are made truly happy. Behold a Christian family conducting themselves after this manner, and then you will see what Christianity has done for an ungodly world.]

2.

How studious we should be to adorn its doctrines!

[In nothing is Christianity more seen than in the deportment of its votaries in relative and social life. It is easy for men to be on their guard when they are in company, and to demean themselves reverently in the house of God: but it is not easy for persons to be consistent in all their conduct amidst the various occurrences of domestic life. Here the tempers, if not restrained by grace, will break out: the husband will be imperious and harsh; or the wife will be fretful, querulous, and disobedient. Feeling a confidence that their respective weaknesses will be hid from public view, they shew them to each other without restraint. Beloved brethren, inquire whether this be not the case with you; and, if it be, learn to mortify these unhallowed tempers. The true way to adorn religion, is to propose to yourselves that image by which the marriage state is represented in the Gospel. It is compared to that union which subsists between the Lord Jesus Christ and his Church. The Church renders unto him all grateful obedience; whilst he exercises towards it the most self-denying and endearing affection. Thus should the wife be cheerfully obedient to her husband, even as to the Lord Jesus Christ himself, in every thing which is not contrary to the will of God: and the husband should account it his joy to manifest towards her all possible love, never exercising authority over her but with a view to her best interests and her truest happiness. Only let this be the pattern for your imitation, and you will never wish for a relaxation of that law whereby you are united to each other in an indissoluble bond. You will rather bless God that he has made the bond so strict; and you will avail yourselves of your mutual influence to advance in each other your spiritual and eternal interest, that, as fellow-heirs of the grace of life, you may dwell together in heaven for evermore.]

Fuente: Charles Simeon’s Horae Homileticae (Old and New Testaments)

The law made a provision for the putting away a wife in cases of adultery, Deu 24:1 etc. But the LORD Jesus saith that this was permitted only in consequence of the hardness of their hearts; for from the beginning of the creation of God it was not so. Mar 10 ; Mar 10:5-7 , etc. And what a sweet thought is it to the souls of GOD’S people married to Jesus, that notwithstanding all their adultery and spiritual fornication, our gracious Husband never put his wife away. See those blessed Scriptures in confirmation. Isa 54:5 , etc.. Jer 3:1 ; Hos 2:19-20 , And though the LORD in several scriptures speaks of the justice of the deed, Jer 3:8 ; Hos 2:2 . yet the LORD demands where is the bill of divorce, and to which of his creditors did he sell her. Isa 1:1 . So that there never was a divorce, for the LORD God of Israel saith, that he hateth putting away. Mal 2:11-16 ; Hos 2:7 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

Ver. 31. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, &c. ] This Moses permitted, as a law maker, not as a prophet; as a civil magistrate, not as a man of God; merely for the hardness of the men’s hearts, and for the relief of the women, who else might have been misused and mischiefed by their unmannerly and unnatural husbands, Mal 2:13 . Those hard hearted Jews caused their wives, when they should have been cheerful in God’s service, to cover the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, so that he regarded not the offering any more. A number of such Nabals there are today, that tyrannize over and trample upon their wives, as if they were not their fellows, but their footstools, not their companions and co-mates, but their slaves and vassals. “Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them,” Col 3:16 . He saith not (as it might seem he should with respect to the former verse), Rule over them, and show your authority over those that are bound to submit unto you; but, love them, that their subjection may be free and ingenuous. Live not, as Lamech, like lions in your houses, quarrelsome, austere, discourteous, violent, with high words and hard blows, such are fitter to live in Bedlam than in a civil society. The apostle requires “that all bitterness be put away,” all, and in all persons; how much more in married couples! The heathens, when they sacrificed at their marriage feasts, used to cast the gall of the beast sacrificed out of doors. . (Plutarch.) Vipera virus ob venerationem nuptiarum evomit; et tu duritiem animi, tu feritatem, tu crudelitatem ob unionis reverentiam non deponis? saith Basil. I confess it were better be married to a quartan ague than to a bad wife (so saith Simonides), for there be two good days for one bad with the one, not one with the other; febris hectica uxor mala, et non nisi morte avellenda. (Scalig.) But that should have been looked to beforehand. A hard adventure it is to yoke one’s self with any untamed heifer, that beareth not the yoke of Christ. And as grace, so good nature, a courteous disposition, is a thing to be especially looked at in a wife, which Eleazar, Abraham’s servant, understood, and therefore singled out as a token of a meet mate for his son. “Let her offer me drink, and my camels also,” saith he, Gen 24:14 . But what if it prove otherwise, and men by leaping unadvisedly into the marriage estate, have drawn much misery upon themselves? Quid si pro coniugio coniurgium contraxerint? Varro answereth, Uxoris vitium aut tollendum aut tolerandum est. A wife’s faults must be either cured or covered; mended, if we can; made the best of, if we cannot. If the first, she is made better; if the second, we. Qui tollit hanc sibi commodiorem praestat: qui tolerat, ipse se meliorem reddit. (Gellius.) Aurelii vox est, uxor admonenda persaepe, reprehendenda raro, verberanda nunquam.

” Coniugium humanae divina Academia vitae est. “

And hence it cometh to pass, that,

” Quae modo pugnarant, iungant sua rostra columbae:

Quarum blanditias verbaque, murmur habet. “

As on the other side, where this meekness of wisdom is not made use of by married folk, they are together in the house no otherwise than as two poisons in the stomach, as live eels in the pot, as two spaniels in a chain; their houses are more like kennels of hounds than families of Christians: or as so many fencing schools, wherein the two sexes seem to have met together for nothing but to play their prizes and to try masteries. Job was not more weary of his boils than they are of their bed fellows, cursing their wedding day as much as he did his birthday; and thirsting after a divorce as he did after death; which, because it cannot be had, their lives prove like the sojourning of Israel in Marah, where almost nothing could be heard but murmuring, mourning, conjuring, and complaining. Leo cassibus irretitus dixit, si praescivissem.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

31, 32. ] THIRD EXAMPLE. The law of divorce . See note on ch. Mat 19:7-9 . Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., gives a form of the , which was a divorcement a vinculo matrimonii , and placed the woman absolutely in her own power, to marry whom she pleased, unless the husband inserted a special clause to bar this. In Deu 24:1 , the allowable reason of divorce is ‘some uncleanness.’ This the disciples of Shammai interpreted only of adultery; those of Hillel of any thing which amounted to uncleanness in the eyes of the husband.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Mat 5:31-32 . Third illustration , subordinate to the previous one, connected with the same general topic, sex relations, therefore introduced less formally with a simple . This instance is certainly directed against the scribes rather than Moses. The law (Deu 24:1 ) was meant to mitigate an existing usage, regarded as evil, in woman’s interest. The scribes busied themselves solely about getting the bill of separation into due legal form. They did nothing to restrain the unjust caprice of husbands; they rather opened a wider door to licence. The law contemplated as the ground of separation a strong loathing, probably of sexual origin. The Rabbis (the school of Shammai excepted) recognised whimsical dislikes, even a fancy for another fairer woman, as sufficient reasons. But they were zealous to have the bill in due form that the woman might be able to show she was free to marry again, and they probably flattered themselves they were defending the rights of women. Brave men! Jesus raised the previous question, and asserted a more radical right of woman not to be put away , except when she put herself away by unfaithfulness. He raised anew the prophetic cry (Mal 2:16 ), I hate putting away . It was an act of humanity of immense significance for civilisation, and of rare courage; for He was fighting single-handed against widely prevalent, long established opinion and custom. : the corresponding word in Greek authors is . = in Deu 24 . The husband is to give her her dismissal, with a bill stating that she is no longer his wife. The singular form in is to be noted. The tendency in later Greek was to substitute for , the plural ending. Vide Lobeck, Phryn. , p. 517. . . : a most important exception which has given rise to much controversy that will probably last till the world’s end. The first question is: Did Christ really say this, or is it not rather an explanatory gloss due to the evangelist, or to the tradition he followed? De Wette, Weiss, Holtzmann (H. C.) take the latter view. It would certainly be in accordance with Christ’s manner of teaching, using strong, brief, unqualified assertions to drive home unfamiliar or unwelcome truths, if the word as He spoke it took the form given in Luk 16:18 : “Every one putting away his wife and marrying another committeth adultery”. This was the fitting word to be spoken by one who hated putting away, in a time when it was common and sanctioned by the authorities. A second question is: What does mean? Schanz, a master, as becomes a Catholic, in this class of questions, enumerates five senses, but decides that it means adultery committed by a married woman. Some, including Dllinger ( Christenthum und Kirche: The First Age of Christianity and the Church , vol. ii., app. iii.), think it means fornication committed before marriage. The predominant opinion, both ancient and modern, is that adopted by Schanz. A third question is: Does Christ, assuming the words to have been spoken by Him, recognise adultery as a ground of absolute divorce, or only, as Catholics teach, of separation a toro et mensa ? Is it possible to be quite sure as to this point? One thing is certain. Christ did not come to be a new legislator making laws for social life. He came to set up a high ethical ideal, and leave that to work on men’s minds. The tendency of His teaching is to create deep aversion to rupture of married relations. That aversion might even go the length of shrinking from severance of the tie even in the case of one who had forfeited all claims. The last clause is bracketed by W. H [27] as of doubtful genuineness. It states unqualifiedly that to marry a dismissed wife is adultery. Meyer thinks that the qualification “unjustly dismissed,” i.e. , not for adultery, is understood. Weiss (Meyer) denies this.

[27] Westcott and Hort.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 5:31-32

31″It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’;32 but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

Mat 5:31 “sends his wife away” Mat 5:27-32 and Mat 19:3-12 deal with the same issue. Be careful not to read your preconceived cultural notions into these passages! In context, Jesus was showing the ways that one commits adultery other than those taught by the Scribes: (1) mental lust and (2) putting away one’s spouse except for sexual unfaithfulness (cf. Deu 24:1). Jesus shows Himself to be Scripture’s proper interpreter (i.e., Mat 5:17-19; Mat 5:21-48).

NASB, NKJV,

NRSV”a certificate of divorce”

TEV”notice of divorce”

NJB”a writ of dismissal”

This is a quote from Deu 24:1-4. Moses did this to protect the wife who had no rights or resources at all in that day and culture. Remarriage was assumed. However, Jesus asserted that was a concession to their fallenness, not God’s ideal. Divorce is not the unpardonable sin, but it is a failure which affects societal stability.

Mat 5:32

NASB, NRSV”except for the reason of unchastity”

NKJV”for any reason except sexual immorality”

TEV”she has not been unfaithful”

NJB”except for the cause of an illicit marriage”

This “exception clause” is unique to Matthew’s Gospel. Probably because it related to Jewish views of inheritance rights given by God which Gentiles would not comprehend.

“Unchastity” is the term porneia, as in Mat 5:27. This referred to any kind of sexual misconduct. This was often interpreted as “fornication” or ” unfaithfulness.” There were two rabbinical schools of interpretation: (1) Shammai, who allowed divorce for inappropriate sexual activity only (” some indecency,” Deu 24:1) and (2) Hillel, who allowed divorce for any reason (i.e., ” she finds no favor in his eyes,” Deu 24:1). Divorce had become a major problem within Judaism. Some scholars see this term related not to sexual intercourse, but to incest (cf. Leviticus 18; 1Co 5:1). Still others think it relates to the issue of virginity discussed in Deu 22:13-21. In the OT adultery affected family inheritance, which was sacred and given by God (Joshua 12-24). The “Year of Jubilee” is an illustration of this concern.

“makes her commit adultery” This is an aorist passive infinitive. The passive voice is crucial in a proper interpretation of “causes her to commit adultery.” The very act of divorcing a wife caused the woman to be stigmatized by the community as an adulteress whether or not she was guilty. The one remarrying her also became stigmatized. This is not a dogmatic statement referring to remarriage as being adultery (cf. A. T. Robertson in his Word Pictures in the New Testament, vol. 1 p. 155).

It needs to be stated that this difficult subject of divorce must be dealt with in context. Here it is a message to disciples while in Mat 19:1-9 and Mar 10:2-12 the setting is Pharisaic trick questions. We must guard against forming our theology on divorce by merging these contexts and claiming to have Jesus’ neutral theological views on the subject.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

It hath been said. It was said. See Deu 24:1.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

31, 32.] THIRD EXAMPLE. The law of divorce. See note on ch. Mat 19:7-9. Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr., gives a form of the , which was a divorcement a vinculo matrimonii, and placed the woman absolutely in her own power, to marry whom she pleased, unless the husband inserted a special clause to bar this. In Deu 24:1, the allowable reason of divorce is some uncleanness. This the disciples of Shammai interpreted only of adultery; those of Hillel of any thing which amounted to uncleanness in the eyes of the husband.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Mat 5:31-32. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto to you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

This time our King quotes and condemns a permissive enactment of the Jewish state. Men were wont to bid their wives begone, and a hasty word was thought sufficient as an act of divorce. Moses insisted upon a writing of divorcement, that angry passions might have time to cool and that the separation, if it must come, might be performed with deliberation and legal formality. The requirement of a writing was to a certain degree a check upon an evil habit, which was so engrained in the people that to refuse it altogether would have been useless, and would only have created another crime. The law of Moses went as far as it could practically be enforced; it was because of the hardness of their hearts that divorce was tolerated; it was never approved. But our Lord is more heroic in his legislation. He forbids divorce except for the one crime of infidelity to the marriage-vow. She who commits adultery does by that act and deed in effect sunder the marriage-bond, and it ought then to be formally recognized by the State as being sundered; but for nothing else should a man be divorced from his wife. Marriage is for life, and cannot be loosed, except by the one great crime which severs its bond, whichever of the two is guilty of it. Our Lord would never have tolerated the wicked laws of certain of the American States, which allow married men and women to separate on the merest pretext. A woman divorced for any cause but adultery, and marrying again, is committing adultery before God, whatever the laws of man may call it. This is very plain and positive; and thus a sanctity is given to marriage which human legislation ought not to violate. Let us not be among those who take up novel ideas of wedlock, and seek to deform the marriage laws under the pretense of reforming them. Our Lord knows better than our modern social reformers. We had better let the laws of God alone, for we shall never discover any better.

Mat 5:33-37. Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither of heaven; for it is Gods throne: nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

False swearing was forbidden of old, but every kind of swearing is forbidden now by the word of our Lord Jesus. He mentions several forms of oath, and forbids them all, and then prescribes simple forms of affirmation or denial, as all that his followers should employ. Notwithstanding much that may be advanced to the contrary, there is no evading the plain sense of this passage, that every sort of oath, however solemn or true, is forbidden to a follower of Jesus. Whether in court of law, or out of it the rule is, Swear not at all. Yet, in this Christian country we have swearing everywhere, and especially among law-makers. Our legislators begin their official existence by swearing. By those who obey the law of the Saviours kingdom, all swearing is set aside, that the simple word of affirmation or denial, calmly repeated, may remain as a sufficient bond of truth. A bad man cannot be believed on his oath, and a good man speaks the truth without an oath; to what purpose is the superfluous custom of legal swearing preserved? Christians should not yield to an evil custom, however great the pressure put upon them; but they should abide by the plain and unmistakable command of their Lord and King.

Mat 5:38. Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

The law of an eye for an eye, as administered in the proper courts of law was founded in justice, and worked far more equitably than the more modern system of fines; for that method allows rich men to offend with comparative impunity, but when the lex talionis came to be the rule of daily life, it fostered revenge, and our Saviour would not tolerate it as a principle carried out by individuals. Good law in court may be very bad custom in common society. He spoke against what had become a proverb and was heard and said among the people, Ye have heard that it hath been said. Our loving King would have private dealings ruled by the spirit of love and not by the rule of law.

Mat 5:39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Non-resistance and forbearance are to be the rule among Christians. They are to endure personal ill-usage without coming to blows. They are to be as the anvil when bad men are the hammers, and thus they are to overcome by patient forgiveness. The rule of the judgment seat is not for common life; but the rule of the cross and the all-enduring Sufferer is for us all. Yet how many regard all this as fanatical, utopian, and even cowardly! The Lord, our King, would have us bear and forbear, and conquer by mighty patience. Can we do it? How are we the servants of Christ if we have not his spirit?

Mat 5:40. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

Let him have all he asks, and more. Better lose a suit of cloth than be drawn into a suit in law. The courts of our Lords day were vicious, and his disciples were advised to suffer wrong sooner than appeal to them. Our own courts often furnish the surest method of solving a difficulty by authority, and we have known them resorted to with the view of preventing strife. Yet even in a country where justice can be had, We are not to resort to law for every personal wrong. We should rather endure to be put upon than be for ever crying out, Ill bring an action. At times this very rule of self-sacrifice may require us to take steps in the way of legal appeal, to stop injuries which would fall heavily upon others; but we ought often to forego our own advantage, yea, always when the main motive would be a proud desire for self-vindication. Lord, give me a patient spirit, so that I may not seek to avenge myself, even when I might righteously do so!

Mat 5:41. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Governments in those days demanded forced service through their petty officers. Christians were to be of a yielding temper, and bear a double exaction rather than provoke ill words and anger. We ought not to evade taxation, but stand ready to render to Caesar his due. Yield is our watchword. To stand up against force is not exactly our part; we may leave that to others. How few believe the long-suffering, non-resistant doctrines of our King!

Mat 5:42. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Be generous. A miser is no follower of Jesus. Discretion is to be used in our giving, lest we encourage idleness and beggary; but the general rule is, Give to him that asketh thee. Sometimes a loan may be more useful than a gift, do not refuse it to those who will make right use of it. These precepts are not meant for fools, they are set before us as our general rule; but each rule is balanced by other Scriptural commands, and there is the teaching of a philanthropic common-sense to guide us. Our spirit is to be one of readiness to help the needy by gift or loan, and we are not exceedingly likely to err by excess in this direction; hence the boldness of the command.

Fuente: Spurgeon’s Verse Expositions of the Bible

Mat 5:31. , whosoever shall put away) They held divorce to be an arbitrary matter.[211]-, a divorce) i.e. a writing of divorcement. A metonymy which occurs in ch. Mat 19:7, and is also employed by the LXX.

[211] does not indicate a command but a permission. [He may give.] They seemed to think Moses had nothing in view save the observance of certain formalities.-Vers. Germ.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

whosoever: Mat 19:3, Mat 19:7, Deu 24:1-4, Jer 3:1, Mar 10:2-9

Reciprocal: Mal 2:16 – the Lord Mar 10:4 – General Mar 10:11 – Whosoever

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

5:31

The law referred to is in Deu 24:1 which required a man to give his wife a writing that showed she had not deserted him, but that he had compelled her to go away. We know that was the purpose of that law, for the next verse says she may become another man’s wife. If she did not have the writing no man would risk marrying her for fear she was a deserter. If the writing had been done the husband was considered as having done full justice to his wife. But Jesus is going to show this to be another instance where his law will be stricter than the old.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

[Whosoever putteth away his wife, let him giver her a bill of divorcement] notice is to be taken how our Saviour passeth into these words, namely, by using the particle but. “But it hath been said.” This particle hath this emphasis in this place, that it whispers a silent objection, which is answered in the following verse Mat 5:32. Christ had said, “Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery already”: but the Jewish lawyers said, “If any one sees a woman which he is delighted withal above his wife, let him dismiss his wife and marry her.”

Among the chapters of Talmudical doctrine, we meet with none concerning which it is treated more largely, and more to a punctilio, than of divorces: and yet there the chief care is not so much of a just cause of it as of the manner and form of doing it. To him that turns over the book Gittin (as also, indeed, the whole Seder Nashim; that part of the Talmud that treats of women), the diligence of the Masters about this matter will appear such that they seem to have dwelt, not without some complacency, upon this article above all others.

God, indeed, granted to that nation a law concerning divorces, Deu 24:1; permitted only “for the hardness of their hearts,” Mat 19:8; in which permission, nevertheless, they boast, as though it were indulged them by mere privilege. When God had established that fatal law of punishing adultery by death (Deuteronomy_22), for the terror of the people, and for their avoiding of that sin; the same merciful God foreseeing also how hard (occasion being taken from this law) the issue of this might be to the women, by reason of the roughness of the men; lusting, perhaps, after other women, and loathing their own wives; he more graciously provided against such kind of wife-killing by a law, mitigating the former, and allowed the putting away a wife in the same case, concerning which that fatal law was given; namely, in the case of adultery. So that that law of divorce, in the exhibition of it, implied their hearts to be hard; and, in the use of it, they shewed them to be carnal. And yet hear them thus boasting of that law: “The Lord of Israel saith, That he hateth putting away; Mal 2:16. Through the whole chapter, saith R. Chananiah in the name of R. Phineas, he is called the Lord of Hosts; but here, of Israel; that it might appear that God subscribed not his name to divorces, but only among the Israelites. As if he should say, ‘To the Israelites I have granted the putting way of wives; to the Gentiles I have not granted it.’ R. Chaijah Rabbah saith, Divorces are not granted to the nations of the world.”

Some of them interpreted this law of Moses (as by right they ought to interpret it), of the case of adultery only. “The school of Shamaai said, A wife is not to be divorced, unless for filthiness [that is, adultery] only, because it is said, Because he hath found filthy nakedness in her;” that is, adultery.

“Rabh Papa said, If he find not adultery in her, what then? Rabba answered, When the merciful God revealed concerning him that corrupted a maid, that it was not lawful for him to put her away in his whole life (Deu 22:29), you are thence taught concerning the matter propounded, that it is not lawful to put her away, if he shall not find filthiness in his wife.”

With the like honesty have some commented upon those words cited out of the prophet, For he hateth putting away. “R. Jochanan saith, The putting away of a wife is odious.” Which others also have granted, indeed, of the first wife, but not of those that a man took to himself over and above. For this is approved among them for a canon, “Let no man put away his first wife unless for adultery.” And “R. Eliezer saith, For the divorcing of the first wife, even the altar itself sheds tears.” Which Gloss they fetch from thence, where it is said, “Let no man deal treacherously towards the wife of his youth”; Mal 2:15.

The Jews used polygamy, and the divorcing of their wives, with one and the same license: and this, that they might have change, and all for the sake of lust. “It is lawful (say they) to have many wives together, even as many as you will: but our wise men have decreed, That no man have above four wives.” But they restrained this, not so much out of some principles of chastity, as that lest a man, being burdened with many wives, might not be able to afford them food and clothing, and due benevolence: for thus they comment concerning this bridle of polygamy.

For what causes they put away their wives there is no need to inquire; for this they did for any cause of their own free will.

I. “It is commanded to divorce a wife that is not of good behavior, and who is not modest as becomes a daughter of Israel.” So they speak in Maimonides and Gittin in the place above specified: where this also is added in the Gemarists: “R. Meir saith, As men have their pleasures concerning their meat and their drink, so also concerning their wives. This man takes out a fly found in his cup, and yet will not drink: after such a manner did Papus Ben Judah carry himself: who, as often as he went forth, bolted the doors and shut in his wife. Another takes out a fly found in his cup, and drinks up his cup; that he doth, who sees his wife talking freely with her neighbours and kinsfolk, and yet allows of it. And there is another, who, if he find a fly in his basket, eats it: and this is the part of an evil man, who sees his wife going out, without a veil upon her head, and with a bare neck, and sees her washing in the baths, where men are wont to wash, and yet cares not for it; whereas by the law he is bound to put her away.”

II. “If any man hate his wife, let him put her away”: excepting only that wife that he first married. In like manner, R. Judah thus interprets that of the prophet, If he hate her, let him put her away. Which sense some versions, dangerously enough, have followed. R. Solomon expresses the sense of that place thus: “It is commanded to put away one’s wife, if she obtain not favour in the eyes of her husband.”

III. “The school of Hillel saith, If the wife cook her husband’s food illy, by over-salting or over-roasting it, she is to be put away.”

IV. Yea, “If, by any stroke from the hand of God, she become dumb or sottish,” etc.

V. But not to relate all the things for which they pronounce a wife to be divorced (among which they produce some things that modesty allows not to be repeated), let it be enough to mention that of R. Akibah instead of all: “R. Akibah said, If any man sees a woman handsomer than his own wife, he may put her away; because it is said, ‘If she find not favour in his eyes.’ ”

[Bill of divorce.] And, A bill of divorce; Mat 19:7; and in the Septuagint, Deu 24:1. Of which Beza thus; “This bill may seem to be called a bill of divorce [as much as, departing away], not in respect of the wife put away, as of the husband departing away form his wife.” Something hard, and diametrically contrary to the canonical doctrine of the Jews: for thus they write, “It is written in the bill, Behold, thou art put away; Behold, thou art thrust away, etc. But if he writes, I am not thy husband, or, I am not thy spouse, etc.; it is not a just bill: for it is said, He shall put her away, not, He shall put himself away.”

This bill is called by the Jews a bill of cutting off; and a bill of expulsion; and an instrument; and an instrument of dismission; and letters of forsaking; etc.

I. A wife might not be put away, unless a bill of divorce were given. “Therefore it is called (saith Baal Turim) A bill of cutting off; because there is nothing else that cuts her off from the husband. For although a wife were obtained three ways” [of which see the Talmud], “yet there was no other way of dismissing her, besides a bill of divorce.”

II. “A wife was not put away, unless the husband were freely willing; for if he were unwilling, it was not a divorce: but whether the wife were willing or unwilling, she was to be divorced, if her husband would.”

III. “A bill of divorce was written in twelve lines, neither more nor less.” R. Mordecai gives the reason of this number, in these words; “Let him that writes a bill of divorce comprise it in twelve lines, according to the value of the number of the letters in the word Get. But Rabh Saadias interprets, that the bill of divorce should be written with the same number of lines wherein the books of the law are separated. For four lines come between the Book of Genesis and the Book of Exodus; four between the Book of Exodus and the Book of Leviticus; four between the Book of Leviticus and the Book of Numbers. But the four between the Book of Numbers and Deuteronomy are not reckoned, because that book is only a repetition of the law,” etc.

IV. You have the copy of a bill of divorce in Alphesius upon Gittin; in this form:

A Bill of Divorce

“On the day of the week N., of the month of N., of the year of the world’s creation N., according to the computation by which we are wont to reckon in the province N.; I, N., the son of N., and by what name soever I am called, of the city N., with the greatest consent of my mind, and without any compulsion urging me, have put away, dismissed, and expelled thee; thee, I say, N., the daughter of N., by what name soever thou art called, of the city N., who heretofore wert my wife. But now I have dismissed thee, — thee, I say, N., the daughter of N., by what name soever thou art called, of the city N. So that thou art free, and in thine own power to marry whosoever shall please thee; and let no man hinder thee, from this day forward even for ever. Thou art free, therefore, for any man. And let this be to thee a bill of rejection from me, letters of divorce, and a schedule of expulsion, according to the law of Moses and Israel.

REUBEN the son of Jacob witness.

ELIEZER the son of Gilead witness.”

See also this form varied in some few words in Maimonides (Gerushin).

V. This bill, being confirmed with the husband’s seal, and the subscription of witnesses, was to be delivered into the hand of the wife, either by the husband himself, or by some other deputed by him for this office: or the wife might deput somebody to receive it in her stead.

VI. It was not to be delivered to the wife, but in the presence of two, who might read the bill both before it was given into the hand of the wife and after: and when it was given, the husband, if present, said thus, “Behold, this is a bill of divorce to you.”

VII. The wife, thus dismissed, might, if she pleased, bring this bill to the Sanhedrim, where it was enrolled among the records, if she desired it, in memory of the thing. The dismissed person likewise might marry whom she would: if the husband had not put some stop in the bill, by some clause forbidding it.

Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels

Mat 5:31. The teaching in regard to divorce belongs properly under the exposition of the seventh commandment. Loose notions about divorce indicate and increase unchastity.

It was said also. Hath been said (here and Mat 5:33; Mat 5:38; Mat 5:43), is an unnecessary variation.Quotation from Deuteronomy 24. Our Lord says elsewhere (chap. Mat 19:8; Mar 10:5), that even this precept was owing to the hardness of their hearts.

The writing of divorcement, designed not to encourage divorce, but to render it more difficult, was in effect a protection of the repudiated wife. Our Lords explicit teaching opposed the perversion of this provision of the Mosaic law. Some of the Rabbins allowed divorce in a great variety of cases, one going so far as to make the discovery of a more pleasing woman a sufficient ground.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

Our blessed Saviour still proceeds in vindicating and clearing the seventh commandment from the corrupt glosses of the Pharisees. Almighty God had tolerated the Jews, in case of uncleanness, to put away their wives by a bill of divorce, Deu 24:1

Hereupon the Pharisees maintained it lawful to put away the wife upon every slight occasion. This abuse Christ corrects; and shows that divorce, except in case of adultery, is a certain breach of the seventh commandment.

Learn, 1. That so indissoluble is the marriage-covenant betwixt two persons, that nothing but adultery, which violates the bands of marriage, can dissolve or disannul it.

Learn, 2. When persons are unjustly put away, it is unlawful for them to marry to any other, or for others knowingly to marry to them.

Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament

Mat 5:31-32. Let him give her a writing of divorcement The doctors of the school of Sammai affirmed, that, in the law concerning divorce, Deu 24:1, the words some uncleanness, were to be understood of adultery only; whereas, they of the school of Hillel interpreted them of any matter of dislike whatever. Hence the Pharisees asked Jesus, Mat 19:3, if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? The opinion of Hillel was generally espoused by the Jews, as appears from both their practice and their writings. Thus, Mal 2:16, the clause which in our translation runs, The Lord says, He hateth putting away, that is, divorces on frivolous pretences, is, by the Chaldee paraphrast and the LXX., turned thus, ( ,) if thou hatest thou shouldest put her away. Also, the son of Sirach says, Mat 25:26 : If she go not as thou wouldest have her, cut her off from thy flesh. And Josephus, Ant. lib. 4. cap. 8, He that would be disjoined from his wife, for any cause whatever, as many such causes there may be among men, let him give her a bill of divorce. Nay, one of their doctors, R. Akiba by name, delivered it as his opinion, that a man may put his wife away, if he likes any other woman better. As, therefore, they had perverted the law of divorce that they might give full scope to their lusts, Jesus thought fit to reduce it to its primitive meaning, assuring them, that he who divorces his wife for any of the causes allowed by the doctors, whoredom excepted, lays her under a strong temptation to commit adultery; unjust divorce being no divorce in the sight of God; and that since such marriages still subsisted, he who married the woman unjustly divorced, committed adultery also. Saving for the cause of fornication, &c. Fornication here, as elsewhere, is often used for adultery: in general it denotes the exercise of all the different species of unlawful lusts. Although in these words only one just cause of divorce is acknowledged, namely, adultery; yet the apostle, 1Co 7:15, plainly allows another, viz., malicious and obstinate desertion in either of the parties; and that because it is wholly inconsistent with the purposes of marriage. We must therefore suppose, that our Lord here speaks of the causes of divorce commonly said to be comprehended under the term uncleanness, in the law; and declares, that none of them will justify a mans divorcing his wife, except fornication. Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery Here we learn, that if the cause of a divorce be just, the innocent party is freed from the bond of marriage, so as to be at liberty to marry again. But if the divorce be made without a just cause, the marriage still subsists, and consequently both parties, the innocent as well as the guilty, thus divorced, commit adultery if they marry, as do the persons likewise whom they marry. Macknight.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

God’s will concerning divorce 5:31-32

Not only is lust the moral equivalent of adultery, but so is divorce. The connective de ("and," NASB) that begins Mat 5:31 ties this section in very closely with the one that precedes (Mat 5:27-30). In Israel a man divorced his wife simply by giving her a written statement indicating that he divorced her (cf. Deu 24:1-4). It was a domestic matter, not something that went through the courts, and it was quite common. In most cases a divorced woman would remarry another husband, often for her own security. Jesus said that divorcing a woman virtually amounted to causing her to commit adultery since she would normally remarry. Likewise any man who married a divorced woman committed adultery with her because in God’s eyes she was still married to her first husband. Jesus’ explanation would have helped his hearers realize the ramifications of a decision that many of them viewed as insignificant, namely, divorcing one’s wife. Women did not have the right to divorce their husbands in ancient Israel.

We could also add the exception clause in the last part of Mat 5:32 since that seems to have been Jesus’ intention (cf. Mar 10:12). He probably did not repeat it because He did not want to stress the exceptional case but to focus on the seriousness of the husband’s decision to divorce his wife. Jesus had more to say about divorce in Mat 19:3-9 (cf. Mar 10:11-12; Luk 16:18).

". . . Jesus introduces the new and shocking idea that even properly divorced people who marry a second time may be thought of as committing adultery. The OT, allowing divorce, does not regard those who remarry as committing adultery. . . . Marriage was meant to establish a permanent relationship between a man and a woman, and divorce should therefore not be considered an option for the disciples of the kingdom." [Note: Hagner, p. 125.]

Some interpreters limit fornication ("unchastity," "immorality," Gr. porneia) to unfaithfulness during the betrothal period, the year between a Jewish couple’s engagement and the consummation of their marriage. [Note: For discussion of this view, see David W. Jones, "The Betrothal View of Divorce and Remarriage," Bibliotheca Sacra 165:657 (January-March 2008):68-85.] The problem with this view is that porneia has a broader range of meaning than this.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)