SEV Biblia, Chapter 19:3
¶ Entonces se llegaron a l los fariseos, tentndolo, y dicindole: ¿Es lícito al hombre repudiar a su mujer por cualquier causa?
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Matthew 19:3
Verse 3. Tempting him] Trying what answer he would give to a question, which, however decided by him, would expose him to censure. Is it lawful-for every cause?] Instead of aitian, fault, cause, reason, three MSS. and the Coptic version read amartian, sin or transgression: this was probably the original reading-the first syllable being lost, artian alone would remain, which a subsequent transcriber would suppose to be a mistake for aitian, and so wrote it; hence this various reading. What made our Lord's situation at present so critical in respect to this question was: At this time there were two famous divinity and philosophical schools among the Jews, that of SHAMMAI, and that of HILLEL. On the question of divorce, the school of Shammai maintained, that a man could not legally put away his wife, except for whoredom. The school of Hillel taught that a man might put away his wife for a multitude of other causes, and when she did not find grace in his sight; i.e. when he saw any other woman that pleased him better. See the case of Josephus, mentioned in the note on chap. v. 31, and Calmet's Comment, vol. i. part ii. p. 379. By answering the question, not from Shammai or Hillel, but from Moses, our blessed Lord defeated their malice, and confounded their devices.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 3. The Pharisees also came unto him , etc.] Either from the places round about, or from Jerusalem: these came unto him, not for the sake of learning, or to be instructed by him; but as spies upon him, to observe what he said and did, and watch every opportunity to expose him to the contempt and hatred of the people; tempting him with a question about divorces, in order to ensnare him: and saying to him, is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause ? be it ever so trivial, as said the school of Hillell: for there was a difference between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillell about this matter; the former insisted that a man might not put away his wife but in case of uncleanness; but the latter allowed putting away for very trifling things; as if she spoiled her husbands food by over roasting, or over salting it; and, as one of the doctors say, if he found another woman that was more beautiful than her; see Gill Matthew 5:32 . This question being now agitated in the schools, they artfully put to Christ; not for information, but with a view to reproach him in some way or other; and that he might incur the resentment of one party or another, as he should answer. They might argue thus with themselves, and hope to succeed in this manner; should he be on the side of the school of Shammai, which was the weakest side, and less popular, as they had reason to believe he would, he would then expose himself to the resentment of the school of Hillell, and all on that side the question; should he take the part of Hillell, he would make the school of Shammai his enemies; should he forbid putting away of wives, which Moses allowed, they would then traduce him as contrary to Moses, and his law, which could not fail of setting the people against him; and should he consent to it, they would charge him with contradicting himself, or with inconstancy in his doctrine, since he had before asserted the unlawfulness of it, but in case of adultery; and should he abide by this, they might hope to irritate the men against him, who would think their liberty granted by Moses was entrenched on; as, on the other hand, should he, according to the question, admit of putting away for every cause, the women would be provoked at him, who would be left to the uncertain humour and caprice of their husbands; so that either way they hoped to get an advantage of him.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 3-12 - The Pharisees were desirous of drawing something from Jesus which the might represent as contrary to the law of Moses. Cases about marriag have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by askin whether they had not read the account of the creation, and the firs example of marriage; thus pointing out that every departure therefro was wrong. That condition is best for us, and to be chosen and kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls, and tends most to prepare u for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven. When the gospel i really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful friends; i teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities of those with whom they are connected, to consider their peace an happiness more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper tha they should be restrained by laws, from breaking the peace of society And we learn that the married state should be entered upon with grea seriousness and earnest prayer.
Greek Textus Receptus
και 2532 CONJ προσηλθον 4334 5656 V-AAI-3P αυτω 846 P-DSM οι 3588 T-NPM φαρισαιοι 5330 N-NPM πειραζοντες 3985 5723 V-PAP-NPM αυτον 846 P-ASM και 2532 CONJ λεγοντες 3004 5723 V-PAP-NPM αυτω 846 P-DSM ει 1487 COND εξεστιν 1832 5904 V-PQI-3S ανθρωπω 444 N-DSM απολυσαι 630 5658 V-AAN την 3588 T-ASF γυναικα 1135 N-ASF αυτου 846 P-GSM κατα 2596 PREP πασαν 3956 A-ASF αιτιαν 156 N-ASF
Vincent's NT Word Studies
3. Tempting. See on Matt. vi. 13.For every cause. The temptation turned upon the dispute dividing the two great Rabbinical schools, the one of which (that of Hillel) held that a man might divorce his wife for any reason which rendered her distasteful to him; and the other (that of Shammai) that divorce was allowable only in case of unchastity. The querists would be anxious to know which side Jesus espoused.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
19:3 {Pharisees tempting him} (Farisaioi peirazontes auton). They "could not ask a question of Jesus without sinister motives" (Bruce). See #4:1 for the word (peirazw). {For every cause} (kata pasan aitian). this clause is an allusion to the dispute between the two theological schools over the meaning of #De 24:1. The school of Shammai took the strict and unpopular view of divorce for unchastity alone while the school of Hillel took the liberal and popular view of easy divorce for any passing whim if the husband saw a prettier woman (modern enough surely) or burnt his biscuits for breakfast. It was a pretty dilemma and meant to do Jesus harm with the people. There is no real trouble about the use of kata here in the sense of propter or because of (Robertson, _Grammar_, p. 509).
