Matthew Chapter 5 verse 31 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerses 31, 32. - Divorce. Verse 31. - Here only. It hath been said (ἐῥῤέθη δέ). This is the only one of the six examples to which our Lord does not prefix "ye have heard," and inserts δέ. Hence Lightfoot ('Hor. Hebr.') writes, "This particle hath this emphasis in this place, that it whispers a silent objection, which is answered in the following verse," i.e. Christ had said even a sinful look is too much; the lawyers said, "But the Law allows divorce, and therefore a married man can after all obtain the woman he desires." But this is strained. The shorter expression is here sufficient, because of the close connexion of this subject with the preceding. Hence, Revised Version, better, it was said also. It is, by the by, curious that the translators of the Authorized Version should have altered the rendering of ἐῥῤέθη, which they had given rightly in vers. 21, 27, and should have preferred the perfect here and in vers 33, 38, 43. Whosoever shall put away, etc. The substance of Deuteronomy 24:1, but leaving out all mention of cause for such putting away. This may be perhaps because our Lord is going to refer to this immediately, or because, in fact, the giving "a writing of divorcement" was now considered as alone of importance. Let him give her; Hebrew, into her hand; i.e. into her own possession (cf. Isaiah 1:1; Jeremiah 3:8). A writing of divorcement. See the translation of such a get in Lightfoot ('Hor. Hebr.').

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(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.