KJV: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
YLT: 'And it was said, That whoever may put away his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce;
Darby: It has been said too, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a letter of divorce.
ASV: It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
| Ἐρρέθη | It was said |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Indicative Passive, 3rd Person Singular Root: λέγω Sense: to utter, speak, say. |
|
| δέ | also |
|
Parse: Conjunction Root: δέ Sense: but, moreover, and, etc. |
|
| Ὃς | Whoever |
|
Parse: Personal / Relative Pronoun, Nominative Masculine Singular Root: ὅς Sense: who, which, what, that. |
|
| ἂν | - |
|
Parse: Particle Root: ἄν Sense: has no exact English equivalent, see definitions under AV. |
|
| ἀπολύσῃ | shall divorce |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Subjunctive Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: ἀπολύω Sense: to set free. |
|
| γυναῖκα | wife |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Feminine Singular Root: γυνή Sense: a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow. |
|
| αὐτοῦ | of him |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Genitive Masculine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| δότω | let him give |
|
Parse: Verb, Aorist Imperative Active, 3rd Person Singular Root: διδῶ Sense: to give. |
|
| αὐτῇ | to her |
|
Parse: Personal / Possessive Pronoun, Dative Feminine 3rd Person Singular Root: αὐτός Sense: himself, herself, themselves, itself. |
|
| ἀποστάσιον | a letter of divorce |
|
Parse: Noun, Accusative Neuter Singular Root: ἀποστάσιον Sense: divorce, repudiation. |
|
Greek Commentary for Matthew 5:31
The Greek is an abbreviation of βιβλιον αποστασιου biblion apostasiou (Matthew 19:7; Mark 10:4). Vulgate has here libellum repudii. The papyri use συγγραπη αποστασιου suggraphē apostasiou in commercial transactions as “a bond of release” (see Moulton and Milligan‘s Vocabulary, etc.) The written notice (βιβλιον biblion) was a protection to the wife against an angry whim of the husband who might send her away with no paper to show for it. [source]
Reverse Greek Commentary Search for Matthew 5:31
This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds “maketh her an adulteress” There seems to be a certain amount of assimilation in various manuscripts between this verse and the words in Matthew 5:32. But, whatever reading is accepted here, even the short one in Westcott and Hort Here, as in Matthew 5:31., 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 Matthew 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. [source]
As soon as Jesus appears in Galilee the Pharisees attack him again (cf. Mark 7:5; Mark 8:11). Gould thinks that this is a test, not a temptation. The word means either (see Matthew 4:1), but their motive was evil. They had once involved the Baptist with Herod Antipas and Herodias on this subject. They may have some such hopes about Jesus, or their purpose may have been to see if Jesus will be stricter than Moses taught. They knew that he had already spoken in Galilee on the subject (Matthew 5:31.). [source]
Referring to Christ's declarations respecting divorce, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:3-12. Not a distinction between an inspired and an uninspired saying. Paul means that his readers had no need to apply to him for instruction in the matter of divorce, since they had the words of Christ himself. [source]
Not mere wish as in 1 Corinthians 7:7, 1 Corinthians 7:8. Not I, but the Lord (ουκ εγω αλλα ο κυριος ouk egō alla ho kurios). Paul had no commands from Jesus to the unmarried (men or women), but Jesus had spoken to the married (husbands and wives) as in Matthew 5:31.; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:9-12; Luke 16:18. The Master had spoken plain words about divorce. Paul reenforces his own inspired command by the command of Jesus. In Mark 10:9 we have from Christ: “What therefore God joined together let not man put asunder” (μη χοριζετω mē chorizetō). That the wife depart not from her husband First aorist passive infinitive (indirect command after παραγγελλω paraggellō) of χοριζω chorizō old verb from adverbial preposition χωρις chōris separately, apart from, from. Here used of divorce by the wife which, though unusual then, yet did happen as in the case of Salome (sister of Herod the Great) and of Herodias before she married Herod Antipas. Jesus also spoke of it (Mark 10:12). Now most of the divorces are obtained by women. This passive infinitive is almost reflexive in force according to a constant tendency in the Koiné{[28928]}š (Robertson, Grammar, p. 817).sa120 [source]
Paul had no commands from Jesus to the unmarried (men or women), but Jesus had spoken to the married (husbands and wives) as in Matthew 5:31.; Matthew 19:3-12; Mark 10:9-12; Luke 16:18. The Master had spoken plain words about divorce. Paul reenforces his own inspired command by the command of Jesus. In Mark 10:9 we have from Christ: “What therefore God joined together let not man put asunder” (μη χοριζετω mē chorizetō). [source]