Matthew 5:31

31 . a writing of divorcement ] See note on ch. Matthew 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.

Matthew 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, Deuteronomy 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, Matthew 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, Malachi 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, ( εαν μισησας εξαποστειλης ,) if thou hatest thou shouldest put her away. Also, the son of Sirach says, Matthew 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, 1 Corinthians 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.

Matthew 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 ἐρρέθη δὲ . This instance is certainly directed against the scribes rather than Moses. The law ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Malachi 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.— ἀπολύσῃ : the corresponding word in Greek authors is ἀποπέμπειν .— ἀποστάσιον = βιβλίον ἀποστασίου in Deuteronomy 24. The husband is to give her her dismissal, with a bill stating that she is no longer his wife. The singular form in ιον is to be noted. The tendency in later Greek was to substitute ιον for ια , the plural ending. Vide Lobeck, Phryn. , p. 517.— παρ . λ . πορνείας : 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 Luke 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 πορνεία mean?

(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 Deuteronomy 24:1, which, as our Lord teaches in Matthew 19:8, was given, on account of the hardness of men’s hearts, to prevent yet greater evils. The words of the precept were vague—“If 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 view—“If 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” (Ecclesiasticus 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.

31. It hath been said—This shortened form was perhaps intentional, to mark a transition from the commandments of the Decalogue to a civil enactment on the subject of divorce, quoted from De 24:1. The law of divorce—according to its strictness or laxity—has so intimate a bearing upon purity in the married life, that nothing could be more natural than to pass from the seventh commandment to the loose views on that subject then current. Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement—a legal check upon reckless and tyrannical separation. The one legitimate ground of divorce allowed by the enactment just quoted was "some uncleanness"—in other words, conjugal infidelity. But while one school of interpreters (that of Shammai) explained this quite correctly, as prohibiting divorce in every case save that of adultery, another school (that of Hillel) stretched the expression so far as to include everything in the wife offensive or disagreeable to the husband—a view of the law too well fitted to minister to caprice and depraved inclination not to find extensive favor. And, indeed, to this day the Jews allow divorces on the most frivolous pretexts. It was to meet this that our Lord uttered what follows:

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