SEV Biblia, Chapter 5:32
Mas yo os digo, que el que repudiare a su mujer, fuera de causa de fornicacin, hace que ella adultere; y el que se casare con la repudiada, comete adulterio.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Matthew 5:32
Verse 32. Saving for the cause of fornication] logou porneiav, 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 logou porneiav, 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.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 32. But I say unto you; that whosoever shall put away his wife , etc.] 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 f323 , The house of Shammai say, a man may not put away his wife, unless he finds some uncleanness in her, according to ( Deuteronomy 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 ( Deuteronomy 24:1). R. Akiba says, if he finds another more beautiful than her, as it is said, ( Deuteronomy 24:1) and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes. The commentators 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 f325 , 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 ( Matthew 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.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 27-32 - Victory over the desires of the heart, must be attended with painfu exertions. But it must be done. Every thing is bestowed to save us from our sins, not in them. All our senses and powers must be kept from those things which lead to transgression. Those who lead others int temptation to sin, by dress or in other ways, or leave them in it, or expose them to it, make themselves guilty of their sin, and will be accountable for it. If painful operations are submitted to, that ou lives may be saved, what ought our minds to shrink from, when the salvation of our souls is concerned? There is tender mercy under all the Divine requirements, and the grace and consolations of the Spiri will enable us to attend to them.
Greek Textus Receptus
εγω 1473 P-1NS δε 1161 CONJ λεγω 3004 5719 V-PAI-1S 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 παρεκτος 3924 ADV λογου 3056 N-GSM πορνειας 4202 N-GSF ποιει 4160 5719 V-PAI-3S αυτην 846 P-ASF μοιχασθαι 3429 5738 V-PNN και 2532 CONJ ος 3739 R-NSM εαν 1437 COND απολελυμενην 630 5772 V-RPP-ASF γαμηση 1060 5661 V-AAS-3S μοιχαται 3429 5736 V-PNI-3S
Robertson's NT Word Studies
5:32 {Saving for the cause of fornication} (parektos logou porneias). 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 m epi porneiai 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.
