Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 5:32
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.
32. causeth her to commit adultery ] By adopting a slightly different reading in the original with Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, the idea of wilful sin on the woman’s part is removed.
that is divorced ] Lit. when she hath been divorced.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 32. Saving for the cause of fornication] , on account of whoredom. As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married. I have therefore translated , on account of whoredom. It does not appear that there is any other case in which Jesus Christ admits of divorce. A real Christian ought rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly the imperfections of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her. “But divorce was allowed by Moses;” yes, for the hardness of their hearts it was permitted: but what was permitted to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews, should not serve for a rule to a heart in which the love of God has been shed abroad by the Holy Spirit. Those who form a matrimonial connection in the fear and love of God, and under his direction, will never need a divorce. But those who marry as passion or money lead the way, may be justly considered adulterers and adulteresses as long as they live.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
32. But I say unto you, Thatwhosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause offornication, causeth her to commit adulterythat is, drives herinto it in case she marries again.
and whosoever shall marry herthat is divorcedfor anything short of conjugal infidelity.
committeth adulteryforif the commandment is broken by the one party, it must be by theother also. But see on Mt 19:4-9.Whether the innocent party, after a just divorce, may lawfully marryagain, is not treated of here. The Church of Rome says, No; but theGreek and Protestant Churches allow it.
Same Subject Illustrated fromthe Third Commandment (Mt5:33-37).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But I say unto you; that whosoever shall put away his wife,…. Christ does not infringe, or revoke the original grant, or permission of divorce; only frees it from the false interpretations, and ill use, the Pharisees made of it; and restores the ancient sense of it, in which only it was to be understood: for a divorce was allowable in no case,
saving for the cause of fornication; which must not be taken strictly for what is called fornication, but as including adultery, incest, or any unlawful copulation; and is opposed to the sense and practices of the Pharisees, who were on the side of Hillell: who admitted of divorce, upon the most foolish and frivolous pretences whatever; when Shammai and his followers insisted on it, that a man ought only to put away his wife for uncleanness; in which they agreed with Christ. For so it is written i,
“The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to
De 24:1 The house of Hillell say, if she should spoil his food, (that is, as Jarchi and Bartenora explain it, burns it either at the fire, or with salt, i.e. over roasts or over salts it,) who appeal also to De 24:1. R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, De 24:1 “and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes.””
The commentators k on this passage say that the determination of the matter is, according to the school of Millell; so that, according to them, a woman might be put away for a very trivial thing: some difference is made by some of the Jewish doctors, between a first and second wife; the first wife, they say l, might not be put away, but for adultery; but the second might be put away, if her husband hated her; or she was of ill behaviour, and impudent, and not modest, as the daughters of Israel. Now our Lord says, without any exception, that a man ought not to put away his wife, whether first or second, for any other reason than uncleanness; and that whoever does, upon any other account,
causeth her to commit adultery; that is, as much as in him lies: should she commit it, he is the cause of it, by exposing her, through a rejection of her, to the sinful embraces of others; and, indeed, should she marry another man, whilst he is alive, which her divorce allows her to do, she must be guilty of adultery; since she is his proper wife, the bond of marriage not being dissolved by such a divorce: and
whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery; because the divorced woman he marries, and takes to his bed; is legally the wife of another man; and it may be added, from Mt 19:9 that her husband, who has put her away, upon any other account than fornication, should he marry another woman, would be guilty of the same crime.
i Misn. Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10. Vid. T. Hieros. Gittin, fol. 49. 4. & Sota, fol. 16. 2. & Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 9. fol. 195. 2. k Maimon. & Bartenora in Gittin, c. 9. sect. 10. l T. Bab. Gittin, fol. 90. 2. Maimon. Hilch. Gerushin, c. 10. sect. 21, 22.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Saving for the cause of fornication ( ). An unusual phrase that perhaps means “except for a matter of unchastity.” “Except on the ground of unchastity” (Weymouth), “except unfaithfulness” (Goodspeed), and is equivalent to in Mt 19:9. McNeile denies that Jesus made this exception because Mark and Luke do not give it. He claims that the early Christians made the exception to meet a pressing need, but one fails to see the force of this charge against Matthew’s report of the words of Jesus. It looks like criticism to meet modern needs.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “But I say unto you,” (ego de lego humin) “Yet I tell you all directly, plainly,” on a higher moral plane than that now generally practiced among you. So loose are marriage vows among Arabs, even today, that to divorce a wife, the man need only to say “I divorce thee.”
2) “That whosoever shall put away his wife,” (hot! pas ho apoluon ten gunaika auto) “That everyone (and each one) dismissing or permanently and finally divorcing his wife,” putting her away or abandoning his marital vows to her.
3) “Saving for the cause of fornication,” (parektos logou porneias) “Apart from anything except fornication,” sexual or conjugal infidelity of relations she has engaged in with another party, Mat 19:9. This appears to be the only Divinely, now sanctioned basis of marital divorce.
4) “Causeth her to commit adultery:” (poiei auten moicheuthenai) “Makes her commit adultery,” contributes toward, incites, or causes her to commit adultery, Mat 19:10; Luk 16:18.
5) “And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced,” (kai hos ean apolelumenen gamese) “And whoever marries a woman thus dismissed (or put away),” because of fornication, moral uncleanness, Deu 24:1, or for any cause short of conjugal infidelity.
6) “Committeth adultery.” (moichatai) “That one commits adultery,” in the marital union with her, in inducing her to contract another marriage, 1Co 7:10-12; Mat 19:4-9.
Shammar one Hebrew school of interpreters held that moral infidelity of a wife was the exclusive basis for a divorce, Deu 24:1, while Hillel another school of Hebrew interpreters stretches the “unclean thing” of Deu 24:1, to mean almost anything disagreeable to the husband, called “incompatibility” today, still widely, erroneously practiced.
MORAL AND ETHICAL STANDARDS OF JESUS HIGHER THAN THOSE OF THE LAW
V. 33-48
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
32. Causeth her to commit adultery. As the bill of divorcement bore, that the woman had been loosed from her former husband, and might enter into a new marriage, the man who, unjustly and unlawfully, abandons the wife whom God had given him, is justly condemned for having prostituted his wife to others.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(32) Saving for the cause of fornication.The most generic term seems intentionally used to include ante-nuptial as well as post-nuptial sin, possibly, indeed, with reference to the former only, seeing that the strict letter of the Law of Moses made death the punishment of the latter, and so excluded the possibility of the adultery of a second marriage. The words causeth her to commit adultery imply that the putting away was legally a divorce vinculo, leaving the wife, and fortiori the husband, at liberty to marry again; for otherwise she could not have incurred the guilt of adultery by a second marriage: but it asserts that in such a case, when divorce was obtained on any other ground than the specific sin which violated the essence of the marriage contract, mans law (even that of Moses) was at variance with the true eternal law of God.
Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced.The Greek is less definite, and may be rendered either a woman who has been put away, or better, her when she has been put away. Those who take the former construction, infer from it the absolute unlawfulness of marriage with a divorced woman under any circumstances whatever; some holding that the husband is under the same restrictions, i.e., that the vinculum matrimonii is absolutely indissoluble; while others teach that in the excepted case, both the husband and the wife gain the right to contract a second marriage. The Romish Church, in theory, takes the former view, the Greek and most Reformed Churches the latter; while some codes, like those of some countries in modern Europe, go back to the looser interpretation of Deu. 24:1, and allow the divorce vinculo for many lesser causes than incontinence. Of these contending views, that which is intermediate between the two extremes seems to be most in harmony with the true meaning of our Lords words. The words put away would necessarily convey to His Jewish hearers the idea of an entire dissolution of the marriage union, leaving both parties free to contract a fresh marriage; and if it were not so, then the case in which He specially permits that dissolution would stand on the same level as the others. The injured husband would still be bound to the wife who had broken the vow which was of the essence of the marriage-contract. But if he was free to marry again, then the guilt of adultery could not possibly attach to her subsequent marriage with another. The context, therefore, requires us to restrict that guilt to the case of a wife divorced for other reasons, such as Jewish casuistry looked on as adequate. This, then, seems the true law of divorce for the Church of Christ as such to recognise. The question as to how far national legislation may permit divorce for other causes, such as cruelty or desertion, seems to stand on a different footing, and must be discussed on different grounds. In proportion as the hardness of heart which made the wider license the least of two evils prevails now, it may be not only expedient, but right and necessary, though it implies a standard of morals lower than the law of Christ, to meet it, as it was met of old, by a like reluctant permission.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
32. But I say unto you Our Lord has quoted the words of Moses, and seems to oppose them with this but. Yet it is not the law in its purity which he quotes and corrects. He does not oppose Moses. But what he does oppose and correct is that law as it is uttered by the mouth of those who quote it for licentious purposes, making it the means of all that dissoluteness described in our note on Mat 5:31. That licentiousness he corrects by limiting divorce to cases of adultery; or rather he restores this provision as the true intent of the law of Moses. Causeth her to commit adultery The dismissing a wife for other cause than unfaithfulness, did not dissolve the marriage. Yet, as by unlawful custom she could marry again, in such cases the husband dismissing her occasioned the adultery. Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced That is, thus unlawfully divorced, and so not divorced at all. Committeth adultery By marrying her who is still bound by an unbroken marriage tie to her former husband, who has unlawfully dismissed her.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Mat 5:32 . .] that is, except (see on 2Co 11:28 ) if an act of whoredom, committed by the woman during marriage (consequently adultery , Joh 8:41 ; Amo 7:17 ; Hos 3:3 ; Sir 26:9 ; Sir 14:12 ), is the motive ( , comp. Thuc. i. 102, iii. 6, lxi. 4; and see on Act 10:29 ). In spite of the point of controversy which lies at the foundation, Paulus and Gratz are of opinion most recently especially, Dllinger, Christenthum und Kirche , p. 392 ff., 460 ff., Exo 2 (comp. Baeumlein in the Stud. und Krit . 1857, p. 336) that by , which does not mean adultery, [412] whoredom before marriage is meant, so that the man, instead of a virgin, receives one who is no longer so. [413] The correct view is already to be found in Tertullian, and in the whole old exegetical tradition, where, however, on the Catholic side, the permission was limited only to separation a toro et mensa . On the subject, comp. the explanation which was specially called forth on a later occasion, Mat 19:3 ff. But in Mar 10:11 , Luk 16:18 (also 1Co 7:10 f.), this exception is not expressed, not as if Jesus had at the beginning made greater concessions to the pre-Christian Jewish marriages, and only at a later time completely denied the dissolubility of marriage (Hug, de conjugii christ. vinculo indissolub . 1816, who therefore declares, in Mat 19:9 , to be spurious), nor even as if that , . . . , were a later modification, and not originally spoken by Christ (Bleek, Wittichen, Weiss, Holtzmann, Schenkel, and others), but Mark and Luke regard this exception by itself, understanding it as a matter of course; and rightly so, [414] since adultery eo ipso destroys the essence of all marriage obligations; comp. Weiss in d. Zeitschr. f. christl. Wissensch . 1856, p, 261. But as the exception which Jesus here makes cannot become devoid of meaning by means of Lev 20:10 (in answer to Schegg, see Joh 8:3 ff.), so also it is not to be annulled on critical grounds, which in view of the witnesses is impossible (in answer to Keim here and on Mat 19:9 ). The second half of the verse also, , . . ., cannot be condemned with Keim on the authority of D and Codd. in Augustine.
] “per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium” (Bengel), although, according to that principle, she is still the wife of the first husband; therefore the man also, if he marries again, (Mat 19:9 ).
] not causal, but and , and on the other side.
] because he has intercourse with a person who, according to the divine law, is the wife of another. That by , a woman who is dismissed illegally , consequently not on account of adultery , is intended, was understood as a matter of course, according to the first half of the verse.
[412] It means in general every kind of whoredom (Dem. 403. 26, 433. 25, 612. 5). Where it specially refers to adultery ( ) this is clear from the context, as here and Mat 19:9 . Thus, for example, it means also the idolatry of the people of God, because that is adultery against Jehovah, , as in Hos 1:2 ; Eze 16:15 ; Eze 23:43 .
[413] How can one seriously suppose that Jesus could have laid down so slippery an exception! indelicate, uncertain, unwise, a welcome opening to all kinds of severity and chicanery, especially considering the jealousy of the Jews. And the exception would have to hold good also in the case of marriages with widows!
[414] But by the circumstance that Jesus here expressly quotes as an exception this actual ground of separation, which was understood as a matter of course, He excludes every other (comp. especially Calovius); and it is incorrect to say that, while He grants one actual ground of separation, He still allows several others (Grotius, de Wette, Bleek, and others; comp. also Werner in d. Stud. u. Krit . 1858, p. 702 ff.), which is quite opposed to the point of view of moral strictness , from which He excepts only that case in which the actual dissolution of the marriage in its innermost nature is directly given. That Christ bases His answer on the question of divorce purely upon the nature of the divine ordinance of marriage as it was already given at the creation ( una caro , Mat 9:5 ), not upon its object , is of decisive importance for the legislation in question, where we have also to observe that the altered form of divorce (the judicial ) can make no change in the principles laid down by Jesus. Otherwise the legislation relating to marriage is driven on and on, by way of supposed consistency, to the laxity of the Prussian law and that of other lands (comp. the concessions of Bleek). Moreover, as regards malicious desertion, the declarations of Christ admit of application only so far as that desertion quoad formam , consequently according to its essential nature, is fully equivalent to adultery, which, however, must always be a question in each individual case. It cannot be shown from 1Co 9:15 that malicious desertion was regarded as a reason for dissolving Christian marriage. See on the passage. Of that case of separation, where the man commits adultery, Christ does not speak, because the law, which does not know of any dismissal of the man on the part of the woman, presented no occasion to it. But the application of the principle in the case of adultery on the part of the woman to that of the man as a ground of divorce rightly follows in accordance with the moral spirit of Jesus; comp. Mar 10:12 ; Gal 3:28 ; 1Co 11:11 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 32. Saving for the cause of fornication ] Taken in the largest sense for adultery also. Adulteriam est quasi ad alterum, aut alterius locum. (Becman de Originibus.) This sill strikes at the very sinew, heart, and life of the marriage knot, and dissolves it. Further, it directly lights against human society, which the law mainly respects, and was therefore to be punished with death, as a most notorious theft. “Master,” say they, “this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.” In the very theft, saith the original ( , Joh 8:4 ), to intimate, belike, the great theft that is in adultery, while the child of a stranger carries away the goods or lands of the family. Neither may any conclude from our Saviour’s words to that woman, Joh 8:11 “Neither do I condemn thee,” that adultery is not to be punished; any more than he may, that inheritances are not to be divided, because Christ, who was no magistrate, would not divide them, Luk 12:14 . The marriage bed is honourable, and should be kept inviolable; society and the purity of posterity cannot otherwise continue among men; which is well observed by divines to be the reason why adultery is named in the commandment, under it all uncleanness being forbidden; when yet other violations are more heinous, as sodomy and bestiality.
Causeth her to commit adultery ] Because it is God that both maketh and keepeth the bonds of wedlock, which is therefore called, “the covenant of God,” Pro 2:17 . Covenants are either, 1. Religious, as when a man tieth himself by vow to God, to shun such a sin or do such a duty. 2. Civil, between man and man, as in our common contracts, bargains, and businesses. Or, 3. Mixed, that are made partly with God and partly with man. And of this sort is the marriage covenant, the parties thereby tie themselves first to God and then to one another. Hence it is that the knot is indissoluble, and cannot be undone or recalled at the pleasure of the parties that make it, because there is a third person engaged in the business, and that is God, to whom the bond is made; and if afterward they break, he will take the forfeiture. This David understood, and therefore upon his adultery cried out, “Against thee, thee only” (that is, chiefly) “have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight,” Psa 51:4 . A sin it is against the Father, whose covenant is broken; against the Son, whose members are made the members of a harlot; and against the Holy Ghost, whose temple is defiled, 1Co 6:19 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
32. ] must be taken to mean sin, not only before marriage, but after it also, in a wider sense, as including likewise. In the similar places, Mar 10:11 ; Luk 16:18 , this exception does not occur; see however our ch. Mat 19:9 . Chrysostom explains the connexion of this verse with the former to be, , , , , . Hom. xvii. 4, p. 228. The figurative senses of cannot be admissible here, as the law is one having reference to a definite point in actual life; and this its aim and end restricts the meaning to that kind of immediately applicable to the case. Otherwise this one strictly guarded exception would give indefinite and universal latitude.
. . ] ‘Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium.’ Bengel.
] How far the marriage of the innocent party after separation (on account of ) is forbidden by this or the similar passage ch. Mat 19:9 , is a weighty and difficult question. By the Roman Church such marriage is strictly forbidden , and the authority of Augustine much cited, who strongly upholds this view, but not without misgivings later in life. ‘Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, cupiens solvere difficillimam qustionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio; immo vero non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio.’ Retract. ii. 57, vol. i. On the other hand, the Protestant and Greek Churches allow such marriage. Certainly it would appear, from the literal meaning of our Lord’s words (if . be taken as perfectly general), that it should not be allowed: for if by such divorce the marriage be altogether dissolved, how can the woman be said by a second marriage? or how will St. Paul’s precept ( 1Co 7:11 ) find place, in which he says, , ? for stating this as St. Paul does, prefaced by the words , , it must be understood, and has been taken, as referring to this very verse , or rather (see note in loc.) to ch. Mat 19:6 ff., and consequently can only suppose as the cause. Besides which, the tenor of our Lord’s teaching in other places (see above) seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such , however he may sanction the expulsion a mens et thoro of an unfaithful wife. Those who defend the other view suppose the to mean, when unlawfully divorced, not for : and certainly this is not improbable (see below). We may well leave a matter in doubt, of which Augustine could write thus: ‘In ipsis divinis sententiis ita obscurum est utrum et iste, cui quidem sine dubio adulteram licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur.’ De Fide atq. Op [49] c. 19 (35), vol. vi. Meyer gives as a reason for believing . to refer only to the unlawfully divorced: “ . is not qualified (cf. ), because the punishment of death was attached to adultery (Lev 20:10 ; Michaelis, Mos. Recht 260 ff.), and consequently under the law the marrying a woman divorced for adultery could never happen.” Stier says in a note to his 2nd edn.: “We hold it clear that . can only refer to the woman unlawfully divorced, and then there is no prohibition of the second marriage of one divorced on account of adultery; we see here nothing at all ‘obscurum,’ as Augustine in the passage cited by Alford.” (I may remark, that is most naturally rendered, “ her, when divorced: ” not “ a divorced woman ,” as Wordsw. It is a secondary predicate, of which the subject is to be supplied out of above. Still less of course is it to be rendered “the divorced woman,” . And thus understood, the saying concerning marriage after divorce applies only, as far as this passage is concerned, to unlawful divorce, not to that after .)
[49] Opus Imperfectum in Matthum , cent y . xi.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
32.] must be taken to mean sin, not only before marriage, but after it also, in a wider sense, as including likewise. In the similar places, Mar 10:11; Luk 16:18, this exception does not occur; see however our ch. Mat 19:9. Chrysostom explains the connexion of this verse with the former to be, , , , , . Hom. xvii. 4, p. 228. The figurative senses of cannot be admissible here, as the law is one having reference to a definite point in actual life; and this its aim and end restricts the meaning to that kind of immediately applicable to the case. Otherwise this one strictly guarded exception would give indefinite and universal latitude.
. .] Per alias nuptias, quarum potestatem dat divortium. Bengel.
] How far the marriage of the innocent party after separation (on account of ) is forbidden by this or the similar passage ch. Mat 19:9, is a weighty and difficult question. By the Roman Church such marriage is strictly forbidden, and the authority of Augustine much cited, who strongly upholds this view, but not without misgivings later in life. Scripsi duos libros de conjugiis adulterinis, cupiens solvere difficillimam qustionem. Quod utrum enodatissime fecerim nescio; immo vero non me pervenisse ad hujus rei perfectionem sentio. Retract. ii. 57, vol. i. On the other hand, the Protestant and Greek Churches allow such marriage. Certainly it would appear, from the literal meaning of our Lords words (if . be taken as perfectly general), that it should not be allowed: for if by such divorce the marriage be altogether dissolved, how can the woman be said by a second marriage? or how will St. Pauls precept (1Co 7:11) find place, in which he says, , ? for stating this as St. Paul does, prefaced by the words , , it must be understood, and has been taken, as referring to this very verse, or rather (see note in loc.) to ch. Mat 19:6 ff., and consequently can only suppose as the cause. Besides which, the tenor of our Lords teaching in other places (see above) seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such, however he may sanction the expulsion a mens et thoro of an unfaithful wife. Those who defend the other view suppose the to mean, when unlawfully divorced, not for : and certainly this is not improbable (see below). We may well leave a matter in doubt, of which Augustine could write thus: In ipsis divinis sententiis ita obscurum est utrum et iste, cui quidem sine dubio adulteram licet dimittere, adulter tamen habeatur si alteram duxerit, ut, quantum existimo, venialiter ibi quisque fallatur. De Fide atq. Op[49] c. 19 (35), vol. vi. Meyer gives as a reason for believing . to refer only to the unlawfully divorced: . is not qualified (cf. ), because the punishment of death was attached to adultery (Lev 20:10; Michaelis, Mos. Recht 260 ff.), and consequently under the law the marrying a woman divorced for adultery could never happen. Stier says in a note to his 2nd edn.: We hold it clear that . can only refer to the woman unlawfully divorced, and then there is no prohibition of the second marriage of one divorced on account of adultery; we see here nothing at all obscurum, as Augustine in the passage cited by Alford. (I may remark, that is most naturally rendered, her, when divorced: not a divorced woman, as Wordsw. It is a secondary predicate, of which the subject is to be supplied out of above. Still less of course is it to be rendered the divorced woman, . And thus understood, the saying concerning marriage after divorce applies only, as far as this passage is concerned, to unlawful divorce, not to that after .)
[49] Opus Imperfectum in Matthum, centy. xi.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 5:32. , for the cause) The Hebrew corresponds to the Greek in the sense of a cause, why anything may be rightly done.[212]- , makes her to commit adultery) sc. by other nuptials into which the divorce permits her to enter.-, one that has been divorced).
[212] These words, , apply also to the following clause . , and are to be supplied in it.-Vers. Germ.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
I say: Mat 5:28, Luk 9:30, Luk 9:35
whosoever: Mat 19:8, Mat 19:9, Mal 2:14-16, Mar 10:5-12, Luk 16:18, Rom 7:3, 1Co 7:4, 1Co 7:10, 1Co 7:11
Reciprocal: Deu 24:1 – then let him Deu 24:2 – she may go Mal 2:16 – the Lord Mat 7:29 – having Mat 19:3 – Is it Mar 10:2 – Is it Mar 10:4 – General Mar 10:11 – Whosoever
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5:32
Jesus never taught anything at one time that disagreed with what he taught at another. This verse should be considered in connection with chapter 19:9 which is a fuller statement. The mere putting away of a wife does not constitute adultery, for there may be cases where a man would have to put his wife from him in order that he might live a Christian life. A woman might be guiltless as far as the intimate subject is concerned, and yet develop such a character and conduct herself in such a manner as to prevent a man from doing his full duty as a disciple of Christ; this idea is taught in chapter 10:34-39. But unless his wife also is guilty of immorality the husband is not permitted to marry another. Neither would the wife who is put away for some cause other than immorality have the right to marry another under the regulations of the kingdom of heaven that Jesus was soon to set up.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
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.
[Whosoever shall put away his wife, etc.] I. Our Saviour does not abrogate Moses’ permission of divorces, but tolerates it, yet keeping it within the Mosaic bounds, that is, in the case of adultery, condemning that liberty in the Jewish canons, which allowed it for any cause.
II. Divorce was not commanded in the case of adultery, but permitted. Israelites were compelled, sometimes even by whipping, to put away their wives, as appears in Maimonides (Gerushin). But our Saviour, even in the case of adultery, does not impose a compulsion to divorce, but indulgeth a license to do it.
III. “He that puts away his wife without the cause of fornication makes her commit adultery”: that is, if she commits adultery: or although she commit not adultery in act, yet he is guilty of all the lustful motions of her that is put away; for he that lustfully desires, is said “to commit adultery,” Mat 5:28.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Mat 5:32. Fornication, or unchastity.
Maketh her to commit adultery, not by the fact of her being divorced, but in view of the extremely probable case of another marriage.
When she is put away. The force of the original is best given thus. The Romanists claim that this includes one divorced for the sufficient cause just mentioned, but it is doubtful, since, grammatically, the reference is still to the one divorced on insufficient grounds. Besides, a woman divorced for adultery would be stoned, according to the law, and there is here no reference to infidelity on the part of the man. The application to the case of a man is not only required by the spirit of Christs teaching in general, but by the fact that He is here speaking of and condemning the sin of the man. This high ideal of the marriage union (comp. Eph 5:22-23) is the basis of social morality. To oppose it is not only unchristian, but to demoralize the family, and to make war against the welfare of humanity.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 32
Causeth her; tempts her, by placing her in a situation of exposure.