←
Explanation for:
Matthew
5
:
31
And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce.
14
more explanations
& daily audio-books
spoken by
– enjoy in Theosis App –
Start your
Bible-journey
with explanations
& daily audio-books
only 4$* per month
{"arr":[{"author-name":"Jerome of Stridon","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88dcd3432c6dd41375498_Jerome%20of%20Stridon.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"In a subsequent discussion, the Savior elaborates on this matter, stating that Moses permitted divorce due to the stubbornness of the partners. This was not intended to endorse conflict but rather to avert violence. Truly, it is preferable to experience, even if in unhappy disagreement, separation than to resort to bloodshed driven by animosity."},{"author-name":"John Chrysostom","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ea76859f9f8e2ffd3ee_John%20Chrysostom.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"The Saviour transitions to a different topic only after fully expounding upon the previous one. In this instance, He presents us with a different form of infidelity. What is it? The Old Testament contains a statute that prohibited any man who did not love his wife for any reason from dismissing her to marry another woman. However, the law mandated that a formal divorce be granted, ensuring that the wife could not return to her husband, thereby maintaining at least the semblance of marriage. Without such a requirement, if it were acceptable to send away one wife to take another and then revert to the first, it would lead to chaos; everyone would be exchanging wives perpetually, which would clearly constitute adultery. The lawgiver demonstrated considerable mercy by permitting divorce, but this was done to prevent a far greater wrongdoing. If the law had enforced the retention of both a beloved and a despised wife, the one who loathed her might resort to murder. History shows that the Jewish people had the capacity for such actions. If they were willing to sacrifice their children, kill the prophets, and shed blood indiscriminately, they would certainly show no mercy towards their wives. Therefore, the Lawgiver allowed for a lesser harm to mitigate a more significant threat. To illustrate that this command was not among the original statutes, consider Christ's declaration: ‘Moses, because of your hard-heartedness, wrote this’ (Matthew 19:8), meaning that rather than killing their wives, they should send them away. Since the Saviour prohibited all forms of anger, forbidding not only murder but also unwarranted wrath, it was natural for Him to address the topic of divorce. By consistently referencing the Old Testament, He clarifies that His teachings do not oppose those texts but rather align with them, reinforcing and refining the ancient truths without abolishing them. Observe how He consistently directs His discourse towards the husband."},{"author-name":"Anonymous Commentary (Opus Imperfectum)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":4,"exegesis-text":"When the Lord addressed the one who harbors anger without reason and covets desire, He rightfully instructed that he should not dismiss his wife. Indeed, if anyone who harbors unjust anger toward a brother is subject to judgment, how much more so will he be held accountable if, without any cause of infidelity, he despises his wife to the point of seeking a divorce? You may respond, \\"My wife has done many wrongs.\\" But I ask, are you free from sin? If we are called to carry one another’s burdens, as the apostle states: Bear one another's burdens, and thus fulfil the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2), how much greater is our responsibility to bear the faults of our wives? If a man who gazes at a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart, should he not be considered guilty of adultery as well when he divorces his wife, thereby prompting her to commit adultery with another, and so forth? A Christian is not only called to maintain personal purity but also to avoid causing others to stumble into sin. If he does not, then the transgression is equally the sin of the one who entices others. Therefore, when someone issues a decree of divorce, motivated by the law, he brings upon himself four injustices. First, he acts as a destroyer of life in the sight of God; second, he fails to address the one committing adultery; third, he leads her to commit adultery; and fourth, the one who takes her as a wife also falls into adultery. However, if we adhere to the command of Christ, none of these wrongdoings will occur."},{"author-name":"Basil the Great","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c889927158e4af30595484_Basil%20the%20Great.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":4,"exegesis-text":"The pronouncement by the Lord that divorce is forbidden except on grounds of infidelity (Matthew 5:32) applies justly to both spouses. However, customs often diverge from this principle, especially regarding women. The apostle remarks, \\"As one who cleaves to a reprobate woman is one body\\" (1 Corinthians 6:16), and Jeremiah states that if a woman belongs to another man, she cannot return to her original husband without being deemed impure (Jeremiah 3:1). Likewise, it is noted that engaging with an adulteress is both unwise and sinful (Proverbs 18:23). Despite this, societal norms dictate that a wife must remain with her husband, even if he engages in adultery or is unfaithful.\\n\\nThus, one might question whether a woman who cohabits with her husband, yet is abandoned by her spouse, can be classified as an adulteress. The blame seems to lie with the spouse who forsakes the marriage for unjust reasons. If she leaves because of abuse, her duty would be to endure rather than separate. Should her reason be the loss of possessions, such reasoning lacks merit. Even if her husband lives immorally, the Church does not require separation; rather, she is encouraged to remain with him, as the future is uncertain (1 Corinthians 7:16).\\n\\nTherefore, a wife who departs to remarry becomes an adulteress, while a husband who leaves remains deserving of compassion, permitting cohabitation with another without condemnation. Conversely, if a husband abandons his wife for another, he commits adultery, and the woman he takes as his partner shares in this sin as well, because she joins herself to another's spouse.\\n\\nAccording to the Interpretation of the 9th Rule, the Lord's message condemns both a husband who leaves his wife and a wife who departs, except in cases of unfaithfulness. Yet, church tradition dictates otherwise: a husband guilty of fornication is not commanded to abandon his wife, whereas a wife engaging with another man must be released from her marriage. Thus, if a wife chooses to part from her husband due to his infidelity, she bears the guilt for leaving, and should remain, even if he is unfaithful, as husbands can legitimately take another wife. A wife who marries another man after leaving her husband becomes an adulteress, lacking valid justification. If a husband discards his wife without grounds of infidelity but takes another, he incurs the title of adulterer, as does the woman he has taken for herself.\\n\\nIt is my belief that a woman deserted by her husband ought to remain unmarried. The Lord's words, \\"If any man let his wife go, except by the word of an adulterer, he shall commit adultery\\" (Matthew 5:32), indicate that calling her an adulteress inherently prohibits her from being with another man. It raises a fundamental question of justice: how can a husband be guilty of adultery while the wife, whom the Lord labels as an adulteress for joining with another, remains virtuous?\\n\\nFurthermore, a husband and wife should not separate unless either is guilty of unfaithfulness or impeded from righteousness (Matthew 5:31-32). The Lord provides teaching on divorce, emphasizing that a man who dismisses his wife, barring her infidelity, merely enables her to commit adultery, and marrying someone else who has been divorced constitutes adultery as well. In addition, the Lord states, \\"If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple” (Luke 14:26). Likewise, He declares that anyone who divorces his wife for reasons other than adultery and remarries will commit adultery against her (Matthew 19:9), and instructs that a wife must not depart from her husband; if she does, she must remain single or seek reconciliation (1 Corinthians 7:10-11)."},{"author-name":"Chromatius of Aquileia","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88a3df6d7a747a33b4f4a_Chromatius%20of%20Aquileia.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":5,"exegesis-text":"Our Lord and Redeemer transforms the commandments of the old covenant in every aspect for the better. Moses, however, had once permitted the people of Israel, who acted without restraint and sought pleasure, to dissolve their marriages for any reason. This was not because the essence of the law demanded it, but rather because the uncontrolled desires of the people could not adhere to the profound truths of the law's teaching. As a result, this provision was made, which the Lord later addresses when responding to the Sadducees’ inquiry. When they question why Moses permitted divorce, the Lord replies, \\"Moses, because of your hardness of heart, allowed you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it was not so\\" (Matt. 19:8). Therefore, it is no coincidence that our Lord and Redeemer, by abolishing this allowance, restores the commandments of the ancient covenant. He thus commands that the sanctity of a pure marital union be maintained, affirming that the institution of marriage was established by Him. He declares, \\"Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate\\" (Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9)."},{"author-name":"Theophylact of Bulgaria","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c8989296bafed9104677d7_Theophylact%20of%20Bulgaria.png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":11,"exegesis-text":"Moses instructed that if a man bore hatred toward his wife, he was to give her a certificate of divorce to prevent dire consequences, for the one despised could potentially be harmed. This certificate, referred to as a letter of separation, ensured that the divorced woman would not return to her husband, thus avoiding conflict when the husband chose to be with another."},{"author-name":"Euthymios Zigabenos","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":11,"exegesis-text":"Another form of infidelity is highlighted here. The ancient commandments stipulated that a husband who bore animosity towards his wife for any reason should not retain her, but rather release her by providing a certificate of divorce to prevent the potential for murder. The attitude of the Jews was often unforgiving, not only towards their spouses but also towards their offspring. Consequently, Christ remarked, ‘Moses, because of your hardened hearts, permitted you to send away your wives (Matthew 19:8).’ He instructed that a letter of divorce should be issued so that if the man who had divorced her subsequently took another, he would not be permitted to reclaim his former wife, thus maintaining order and preventing discord."},{"author-name":"Ignatij (Briantchaninow)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c88ce37597540c9caa5df5_Ignatij%20(Briantchaninow).png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Lord prohibited divorce, which had been allowed under the Mosaic law, except in cases where one spouse had engaged in adultery, resulting in an unlawful separation (see Matthew 5:31, 32). The breakdown of marriage was permitted due to the fall that brought humiliation to human nature. However, following the restoration of humanity, the divine law that corresponds to nature in its original purity was reestablished by the God-Man (Matthew 19:4-9)."},{"author-name":"Michail (Lusin)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c89550c567e172d15b3055_Michail%20(Lusin).png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"According to the regulations outlined in the Law of Moses (Deuteronomy 24:1-2), if a man wished to end his marriage, he was required to provide his wife with a certificate of divorce. This document served as written proof that he was releasing her from their union for specified reasons. Although there were various interpretations regarding legitimate grounds for divorce, in practice, the husband had broad discretionary power, allowing him to dismiss his wife for nearly any reason, regardless of how trivial, without contravening the Law. Consequently, the woman found herself in a precarious situation. The Lord later points out that this provision was introduced due to the people's hardened hearts (Mk. 10:2-12). God, who designed the bond between husband and wife as a lifelong commitment, sanctified marriage. However, during Moses’ time, the moral fabric of the Israelites had deteriorated to such an extent that, to avoid placing a woman in an unbearable situation with a hard-hearted spouse, Moses permitted divorce as long as a certificate was issued."},{"author-name":"Abbot Panteleimon about the Trinity","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"It is also stated, IF ANYONE DIVORCES HIS WIFE, desiring to marry another, THEN LET HIM GIVE HER A WRITING OF DIVORCE. In ancient times, this decree was necessary, for a harsh husband could treat his wife as a mere possession, leaving her vulnerable to death. During the era of Jesus Christ, the Jewish people had fallen into moral decay, allowing themselves to dismiss their wives on a whim for trivial reasons, merely providing them with a piece of paper to signify divorce. In doing so, they disregarded the divine institution of marriage, while simultaneously justifying their actions by invoking the Law of Moses. There were instances of men casting away multiple wives, subsequently leading to the separation of children, leaving many sorrowful women homeless and countless children without the security of a family."},{"author-name":"Philaret (Amphiteatrov)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c896e9b7a2ebaf99e4620a_Philaret%20(Amphiteatrov).png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The distinction between the Old and New Laws is striking. In the Old Covenant, a husband could release his wife if she became displeasing to him, providing her with a document of divorce. However, under the New Covenant, divorce is prohibited except in cases of recognized infidelity by one partner. This shift is clarified by the Savior in His response to the Pharisees' inquiry: “Because of your hard-heartedness, He answered them, Moses commanded you to let your wives go. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and the two shall become one flesh. For God has joined them together, let not man separate them” (Matthew 19:8, 4-6). Through these words, it is clear that God did not endorse divorce in the Old Testament; rather, He allowed it to prevent the hard-hearted from committing even greater sins. Jesus Christ, the initiator of the New Covenant, came to restore His Church to the purity and innocence lost through Adam's fall, thereby sanctifying Christian marriage and making it indivisible. The original purpose of marriage, established by God in paradise during our forebears' innocent state, was to nurture innocent children. Similarly, Christian marriage aims to bring forth children for the Church of Christ, blessed by the grace of the sacrament of Baptism. This is why St. Paul refers to Christian marriage as a profound mystery, reflecting the union between Christ and the Church. He instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, giving Himself for her salvation and remaining with her in infinite mercy through all her weaknesses. He also instructs wives to submit to their husbands as the Church submits to Christ, in all virtue and holiness, so that from this sacred and mutual union, children may be born holy, destined for the eternal inheritance of life (Eph. 5:22-33)."},{"author-name":"Kochomski S.W.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c96d263b8c22d9c467bdab_no-pic-theosis.png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The core of the marital covenant, as presented in the Old Testament, is rooted in the joy and fulfillment found within the bonds of marriage, embodying the happiness of the husband and father. Consequently, the Old Testament law permitted divorce in situations where disdain replaced marital love, which is essential for the happiness of the union. Deuteronomy states, “If a man takes a wife and becomes her husband, and she does not find favor in his eyes because he has found something indecent about her, then he must write her a certificate of divorce and give it to her, sending her away from his house... he may not take her back again as his wife” (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). \\n\\nIn contrast, the New Testament Lawgiver does not dwell on the obligation of a husband to provide a certificate of divorce or the implications of a divorce that has already occurred but rather emphasizes the reasons for divorce and the very concept of divorce itself. He highlights the foundational responsibilities that the Creator of marriage has established for the spouses (Matthew 19:4-5), responsibilities that lead to heavenly rewards and thus should be prioritized over any temporal joys. Therefore, spouses are unable to sever their union, paralleling how no individual should disregard the obligations placed upon them by divine law. \\n\\n“But I say unto you, that whosoever letteth his wife go, except for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery” (Matthew 19:9). The primary intent of the marital union, and thus the foremost duty of the spouses, is to avoid immorality and to protect one another from temptation. When a husband sends away his wife, what transgression does he commit according to the Lord's teaching? He is guilty of adultery because he not only fails to safeguard his wife from immorality but also leads her into it. He carries significant responsibility as the one causing temptation. \\n\\nIf such a wife enters into another marriage, that union is considered adulterous, as the transition between spouses signifies the distinction the Jews made between adultery and lawful relationships (John 4:16-18). However, the husband who dismisses his wife is only accountable for her infidelity if it occurs after the divorce as a direct outcome of it. If the adultery or immorality surfaced during the marriage, the husband is not at fault. Hence, the phrase “except for the cause of fornication” serves to limit the husband's liability for the actions of the divorced wife and allows for divorce in cases where the husband's responsibility for an unfaithful wife is ended. This provision in Matthew 19:9 elucidates the husband’s innocence when he not only allows an unfaithful wife to depart but also goes on to marry another."},{"author-name":"Nicodemus (Milash)","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c895f1d0fc7ffcd1788940_Nicodemus%20(Milash).png","category":"Holy Fathers and Teachers","century":19,"exegesis-text":"The Orthodox Church's teachings on divorce are outlined in the interpretation of Trullian Rule 87. In this context, the Trullian Fathers reference the established principles of Basil the Great and the Scripture passages he cites. When posed with the question by Amphilochius regarding a wife's entitlement to divorce her husband in cases of his adultery, St. Basil quotes Jesus Christ, affirming that the commandment applies equally to both spouses (εξ ίσου καί άνδράσι, καί γυναιξίν αρμόζει, ex aequo et viris et mulieribus convenit). Consequently, a husband may seek a divorce due to his wife's adultery, and conversely, a wife may pursue divorce if her husband is unfaithful. St. Basil’s interpretation, rooted in Scripture, aligns with other biblical texts. When the Pharisees sought to trap Christ by questioning Him about divorce, He directed them to Moses’ law, which allowed a husband to dismiss his wife due to their hardness of heart. However, Christ clarified that this was not the divine intention from the beginning, stating that whoever weds a divorced woman (και ό άπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχάται) commits adultery (Matt. 19:3-9), thereby equating the acts of adultery of both husband and wife (cf. Mk. 10:11-12). \\n\\nNonetheless, the Church's teaching concerning the equal conjugal rights of spouses, grounded in divine law and initially posited by St. Basil, faced longstanding challenges in Christian society, where pre-Christian customs lingered. These customs dictated that only husbands could dissolve a marriage upon their wives' infidelity, leaving wives to endure their husbands' unfaithfulness. St. Basil acknowledges these traditions in his rule, noting that they were still prevalent in his time. \\n\\nThe prevailing Roman laws prior to Christianity rendered the wife a submissive entity, entirely dependent on her husband. This legal framework prioritized the husband's rights, often disregarding those of the wife. Consequently, in the marriage relationship, the husband's rights were legally protected, and the wife’s unfaithfulness was labeled adultery and punished, while a husband’s unfaithfulness often went unaddressed, leaving wives to endure the excesses of their husband’s infidelity. A shift in perspective began in the era of Augustus, as the lex Julia de adulteriis coercendis challenged numerous previous regulations, invalidating the husband’s freedom to engage with women outside his marriage. This law sought to punish all extramarital relationships. In theory, it could have instigated greater fidelity and equality in marriage as mandated by divine and natural law, conditions essential for the family’s well-being. Yet, the pervasive immorality remained impervious to Augustus' legislation and its penalties; this decay infiltrated Christian society from Roman-Pagan converts. Consequently, although all forms of marital infidelity were condemned within Christianity, there remained a tradition that punished the husband's adultery less severely than that of the wife. As a result, husbands were labeled mere fornicators, while the wives were deemed adulteresses (Basil the Great 21).\\n\\nThe Church Fathers fervently denounced this inaccurate perception of marital rights. In the 3rd century, Tertullian spoke against this injustice, asserting that anyone who cohabits with another flesh, apart from their spouse, is guilty of adultery (qui aliam carnem sibi immiscet super illam pristinam, quam Deus aut conjunxit in duos, aut conjunctam deprehendit). Subsequently, civil laws aligned with the Church's moral vision, as Emperor Constantine the Great instituted the death penalty for those found guilty of adultery. The Church Fathers consistently advocated for the marital rights of both spouses in their teachings. Defending the wife's right to address her husband's infidelity, Athanasius the Great stated that the sin of adultery (μοιχεία) occurs whether the husband engages in fornication (πορνεύση) with another woman or the wife with another man. \\n\\nJohn Chrysostom reinforced this perspective with conviction, asserting that adultery exists not only when a man fornicates with a married woman but also when a husband engages with an unmarried woman (άφετήν καί λελυμένην, liberam et solutam). St. Basil, along with other esteemed fathers and teachers, acknowledges that an adulteress (μοιχαλις, adultera) refers to any unfaithful wife, and an adulterer (μοιχαλίς, adulter) refers to any unfaithful husband. This understanding is also reiterated in Basil the Great's 77th rule, where anyone who betrays their spouse is condemned for adultery (τψ της μοιχείας κρίματι), with a clear reference to the Scriptures (Matt. 19:9).\\n\\nThus, according to St. Basil's teachings, which mirror the convictions of the Church Fathers, adultery serves as grounds for divorce for both spouses. The Roman customs prevailing in St. Basil's time, which conferred exclusive marital rights upon husbands, were not endorsed by him; he merely referenced them to acknowledge their existence, indicative of the hesitance with which he discussed the matter (ούκ οίδα). This sentiment is similarly echoed in the interpretation of the 21st rule of Basil the Great."},{"author-name":"Lopuchin A.P.","author-image":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6864003fdf3714da6ff0b33a/68c891400ee1341634d2276d_Lopuchin%20A.P..png","category":"Christian Authors","century":19,"exegesis-text":"It has been remarked that if a man were to divorce his wife, he must provide her with a certificate of divorce. The Pharisees applied this directive with extreme libertinism to indulge the desires of the flesh, permitting divorce under the most lenient circumstances. The scribes taught that a man may dismiss his wife if he finds another woman who is more attractive, basing this interpretation on the Mosaic law itself. Even an esteemed scholar like Shammai believed that a wife could be divorced if she left her home without the customary face covering. The school of Hillel took this to an outrageous extent, suggesting that a man could seek a divorce if his wife inadequately prepared his meal, whether by excessive seasoning or overcooking, treating her as if she were afflicted with a serious ailment.\\n\\nAs a result, divorce became so commonplace among the Jews that it caused embarrassment and disdain among neighboring Gentile nations, while the rabbis wrongly boasted that this practice was a unique privilege granted to Israel. When a woman was divorced, she was immediately entitled to remarry, a right clearly indicated in the divorce decree, which was validated by the signatures of witnesses present at the marriage's dissolution. Such a fleshly dominance is unfit for the new kingdom, and Christ redefined the Mosaic law with profound insight: \\"But I say unto you, Whosoever shall divorce his wife, except it be for the guilt of adultery, committeth her to adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.\\""}]}
Support this project and get full access for only 4$/month
Commentarie text can’t be scrolled on PC at the moment. Please use your phone. We’re working on a fix.
