The Pulpit Commentary — Matthew — Volume 1 — Section 173

lic:.1>.f(« ,,.,). rerlrnps the verb origina.lly in vers. 33, 38, 43. Who■oever shall put referred to the stick of a tra.p (11'1<c£v8<ZAov, a away, eto. The substanoe of Deut xxiv. I, Hellenistic word, 11pp11rently equivalent to but leaving out all mention of oause for <r1<avocl.1>. 71Bpov) striking the person's foot, o.nd such putting away. This may be perhaps BO catching him in the trap; but when found beoause our Lord is going to refer to this in literature (almost solely in the New immediately, or because, in fact, the giving Testament) it he.s apparently lost all conno- "a writing of divorcemcnt" was now con- tation of the trap, and only means co.using sidered as alone of importance. Let him 11 person to Ptu m hie (for 11n analysis of give her; Hebrew, into lter hand; i.e. into it.s uso in the New Testament, vide especially her own possession ( of. Isa. L l ; J er. iii. 8), Cremer, u,.). Pluck it out, and ca.st it from A writing of divoroement. See the trans- thee. The second clause shows the purely lntion of such a get in Lightfoot (' Hor. figurath-e character of the sentence. Our Hehr.'). Lord commands (1) the removal of the Ver. 82.-(}'or full notes, c,f. eh. xix. 9,) means of "offence" out of the place of Pa.rallel passages : Mark L 12 ; Luke xvi. nffection that it has long held ; (2) the 18; apparently the context of Mark ropre- putting it away so thoroughly, both by the sents eh. xi.x. 1-8, and the context of Luke manner of the act and the distance placed rather represents eh. v. 18. Notice here: between the " offence" and the person, that (1) Matthew alone, in both places, gives restoration is almost impossible. In both the exception of fornication. (2) St. Paul verbs the aorist brings out the decisiveness refers in 1 Cor. vii. 10, 11 to this saying of of the action. For it is profitable for thee our Lord's. (3) The laxity in this matter the.t one of thy members should perish. It of the Hillel school of the Pharisees is well is better to lose one faculty, one sphere of known. Their theory, indeed, sounds good, usefulness, one part of those things which viz. that there should be perfect unity in normnlly make a person complete, than that the marriage state ; but starting from this the person himseli should be lost. Notice premiss they affirmed that if in any single the sixfold personal pronoun in this one respect the unity was not attained, divorce verse; "Our Lord grounds his precept of might follow. For examples, see Lightfoot the most rigid and decisive self-denial on (' Hor. Hebr.'). Our Lord upholds the the considerations of the truest self-interest" school of She.mme.i. It is so.id that shame- (Alford). Should be cast. For to One thy ful laxity in divorce still exists among whole person will become as abhorrent as Oriental J ewe. Fornioation. The reference the offending member ought in fact now to is to sin after marriage. Contrast Dent. be to thee (/3cl>..e. /3A71Bj). :nil. 20, 21, where the husband's action is Ver. 30.-Should be cast into hell; Re- not thought of as divorce, The more general vised Vereion, go into hdl (,lr "t••vvav word (1rop11,lci) is used, beoause it lays more irrr,Mn). both word and order laying stress, stress on the physical character of the sin not on the action of the Jndge, but on thy than µo•x•la would have laid. Causeth her departure, either from things of time and to commit adultery; Revised Version, maketh Eense, or from his presence (eh. xxv. 46). li,er an adulteress, since the right reading, µo,x,vB;jvci,, connotes being si11Ded against Vere. 81, 82.-Dit>orce. rather than sinning (Received Text, µo,- Ver. 81.-Here only. It hath been ea.id xiio-Ba,). (For the thought, of. Rom. vii. 8.) (<p{,,o.,, 71,'). This is the only one of the six And whosoever shall marry, etc. Bracketed examples to which our Lord does not prefix by W esteott and Hort, as omitted by certain "ve have heard," and inserts 7i,. Hence • W estem' authorities ( especially D nnd Lightfoot (' Hor. Hehr.') writes, "This Old Latin manuscripts). (On the impor- particle hath this emphasis in this place, tance of the • W estem ' group in cases of tbat it whispers a silent objection, which is omission, f>ide Westcott and Hort, ii. §§ answer<;cl in tbe following verse," i.e. Christ 240-242; cf. also eh. ix. 34, note.) The Jiacl snicl even a sinful look is too much: the clause closely resembles Luke xvi. IBb. la,n-ns eaicl, "But the Law allows divoroe, Her that is di voroed ; i.e. under these wrong ancl· therefore a married man can after all conditions, as Revised Version, her when put oUain the woman he def!ires." But this is away, even though alYTiw is not expreeaed, strained. The shorter expression is bere Thie interpretation, notwithstanding Weiss's bufilcient, because of the close connexion stigma of it es "ganz willklirlieh," is surely of this subject with the preceding. Hence, only a plain deduction from the preceding Il.ev iscd Version, better, it was said also, clause. The fact that no such limitation is lt is, by tbe by, curious that the translators to be found in Luke xvi. 18 must not pre- of the Authorized Version should have judice our judgment hero. nltercd the rendering of i#l9-ti, wbich they !,ad given rightly in vers. 21, 27, and Vera. 33-87.-0ath,. Matthew only; but ,b.Juld have preferred the perfect here and cf. eh, xxiii, 16-22. orr. v. 1--48.] THE GOSPEL .ACCORDING TO ST. M..A.TTIIEW. 1G5