SEV Biblia, Chapter 19:9
Y yo os digo que cualquiera que repudiare a su mujer, si no fuere por causa de fornicacin, y se casare con otra, adultera; y el que se casare con la repudiada, adultera.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Matthew 19:9
Verse 9. Except it be for fornication] See on chap. v. 32. The decision of our Lord must be very unpleasant to these men: the reason why they wished to put away their wives was, that they might take others whom they liked better; but our Lord here declares that they could not be remarried while the divorced person was alive, and that those who did marry, during the life of the divorced, were adulterers; and heavy judgments were, denounced, in their law, against such: and as the question was not settled by the schools of Shammai and Hillel, so as to ground national practice on it therefore they were obliged to abide by the positive declaration of the law, as it was popularly understood, till these eminent schools had proved the word had another meaning. The grand subject of dispute between the two schools, mentioned above, was the word in Deut. xxiv. 1, When a man hath taken a wife- and she find no grace in his sight, because of some UNCLEANNESS, twr[ eruath:-this the school of Shammai held to mean whoredom or adultery; but the school of Hillel maintained that it signified any corporeal defect, which rendered the person deformed, or any bad temper which made the husband's life uncomfortable. Any of the latter a good man might bear with; but it appears that Moses permitted the offended husband to put away the wife on these accounts, merely to save her from cruel usage. In this discourse, our Lord shows that marriage, (except in one case,) is indissoluble, and should be so:-1st, By Divine institution, ver. 4.
2dly, By express commandment, ver. 5.
3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, ver. 6.
4thly, By the example of the first pair, ver. 8; and 5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, ver. 9. The importance of this subject will, I hope, vindicate or excuse, the length of these notes.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 9. And I say unto you , etc.] To his disciples, when they were with him alone in the house, and asked him more particularly about the subject, concerning which he had been discoursing with the Pharisees, as Mark observes, ( Mark 10:10,11) when he said to them much the same things, he had delivered before in ( Matthew 5:32) whosoever shall put away in his wife ; separate her from his person, house and bed, and dismiss her as his wife, no more to be considered in that relation to him, except it be for fornication ; or whoredom, for defiling his bed: for this is not to be understood of fornication committed before, but of uncleanness after marriage, which destroys their being one flesh: and shall marry another woman, committeth adultery ; Marks adds, against her; which may be understood either of the woman he marries, which not being lawfully done, she lives in adultery with the husband of another woman; or of his former wife, and who is still his wife, and to whose injury he has married another; and he not only commits adultery himself, but, as in ( Matthew 5:32) causeth her to commit adultery also, by being the occasion of marrying another man, when she is still his lawful wife: and whoso marrieth her which is put away , for any other cause than adultery, doth commit adultery also; since he cohabits with the wife of another man; see Gill Matthew 5:32 Ver. 10. His disciples say unto him , etc.] Being surprised at this account of things, it being quite contrary to what they had been taught, and very different from the general practice and usage of their nation: if the case of a man be so with his wife ; if they are so closely joined together in marriage; if they are, as it were, one flesh, or one body, that a mans wife is himself: that the bond between them is so inviolable, that it is not to be dissolved, but in case of adultery; that if a separation be made by a bill of divorce, in any other case, and either party marry again, they are guilty of adultery; if a man cannot part with his wife lawfully, provided she be chaste, and is faithful to his bed, let her be what she will otherwise, though ever so disagreeable in her person, and troublesome in her behaviour; though she may be passionate, and a brawler; though she may be drunken, luxurious, and extravagant, and mind not the affairs of her family, yet if she is not an adulteress, must not be put away: it is not good to marry ; it would be more expedient and advisable for a man to live always a single life, than to run the risk of marrying a woman, that may prove very disagreeable and uncomfortable; to whom he must be bound all the days of his or her life, and, in such a case, not to be able to relieve and extricate himself. This they said under the prejudice of a national law and custom, which greatly prevailed, and under the influence of a carnal heart.
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
λεγω 3004 5719 V-PAI-1S δε 1161 CONJ υμιν 5213 P-2DP οτι 3754 CONJ ος 3739 R-NSM αν 302 PRT απολυση 630 5661 V-AAS-3S την 3588 T-ASF γυναικα 1135 N-ASF αυτου 846 P-GSM ει 1487 COND μη 3361 PRT-N επι 1909 PREP πορνεια 4202 N-DSF και 2532 CONJ γαμηση 1060 5661 V-AAS-3S αλλην 243 A-ASF μοιχαται 3429 5736 V-PNI-3S και 2532 CONJ ο 3588 T-NSM απολελυμενην 630 5772 V-RPP-ASF γαμησας 1060 5660 V-AAP-NSM μοιχαται 3429 5736 V-PNI-3S
Vincent's NT Word Studies
9. Except for fornication (mh epi porneia). Lit., not on account of fornication.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
19:9 {Except for fornication} (parektos logou porneias). this is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (poiei autn moicheuthnai) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (kai ho apolelumenn gamsas moichatai). There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in #5:32. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort (m epi porneiai, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (porneia) which is technically adultery (moiceia from moicha" or moiceuw). Here, as in #5:31f., a group of scholars deny the genuineness of the exception given by Matthew alone. McNeile holds that "the addition of the saving clause is, in fact, opposed to the spirit of the whole context, and must have been made at a time when the practice of divorce for adultery had already grown up." That in my opinion is gratuitous criticism which is unwilling to accept Matthew's report because it disagrees with one's views on the subject of divorce. He adds: "It cannot be supposed that Matthew wished to represent Jesus as siding with the school of Shammai." Why not, if Shammai on this point agreed with Jesus? Those who deny Matthew's report are those who are opposed to remarriage at all. Jesus by implication, as in #5:31, does allow remarriage of the innocent party, but not of the guilty one. Certainly Jesus has lifted the whole subject of marriage and divorce to a new level, far beyond the petty contentions of the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
