Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
9. See ch. Mat 5:32.
and shall marry another ] Omitted in the Sinaitic MS.
The reading “causeth her to commit adultery,” instead of “committeth adultery,” has high MS. authority. The Sinaitic MS. also omits and whoso adultery.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And I say unto you – Emphasis should be laid here on the word I. This was the opinion of Jesus – this he proclaimed to be the law of his kingdom this the command of God ever afterward. Indulgence had been given by the laws of Moses; but that indulgence was to cease, and the marriage relation to be brought back to its original intention. Only one offence was to make divorce lawful. This is the law of God; and by the same law, all marriages which take place after divorce, where adultery is not the cause of divorce, are adulterous. Legislatures have no right to say that people may put away their wives for any other cause; and where they do, and where there is marriage afterward, by the law of God such marriages are adulterous!
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 9. Except it be for fornication] See on Mt 5:32. 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 De 24:1, When a man hath taken a wife-and she find no grace in his sight, because of some UNCLEANNESS, 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, Mt 19:4.
2dly, By express commandment, Mt 19:5.
3dly, Because the married couple become one and the same person, Mt 19:6.
4thly, By the example of the first pair, Mt 19:8; and
5thly, Because of the evil consequent on separation, Mt 19:9. The importance of this subject will, I hope, vindicate or excuse, the length of these notes.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
We met with the like determination of our Lords upon this question Mat 5:32, only there it was (instead of committeth adultery) causeth her to commit adultery, that is, in case she married again. Here our Lord saith the like of the husband: we have the same, Mar 10:11; Luk 16:18. The reason is this: Because nothing but adultery dissolves the knot and band of marriage, though they be thus illegally separated, yet according to the law of God, they are still man and wife. Some have upon these words made a question whether it be lawful for the husband or the wife separated for adultery to marry again while each other liveth. As to the party offending, it may be a question; but as to the innocent person offended, it is no question, for the adultery of the person offending hath dissolved the knot of marriage by the Divine law. It is true that the knot cannot be dissolved without the freedom of both persons each from another, but yet it seemeth against reason that both persons should have the like liberty to a second marriage. For,
1. The adulteress is by Gods law a dead woman, and so in no capacity to a second marriage.
2. It is unreasonable that she should make an advantage of her own sin and error.
3. This might be the occasion of adultery, to give a wicked person a legal liberty to satisfy an extravagant lust.
But for the innocent person, it is as unreasonable that he or she should be punished for the sin of another. But what our Saviour saith here, and in the other parallel texts, is undoubtedly to be understood of husbands and wives put away not for adultery, but for other light and trivial causes, for which by the law of God no divorce is allowed.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
9. And I say unto you, Whosoevershall put away his wife, except, &c.See on Mt5:32.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And I say unto you,…. 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, Mr 10:10 when he said to them much the same things, he had delivered before in Mt 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 Mt 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 “Mt 5:32”
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Except for fornication ( ). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds “maketh her an adulteress” ( ) and also these words: “and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery” ( ). 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 ( , not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term () which is technically adultery ( from ). 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.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Except for fornication [ ] . Lit., not on account of fornication.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
9. But I say to you. Mark relates that this was spoken to the disciples apart, when they had come into the house; but Matthew, leaving out this circumstance, gives it as a part of the discourse, as the Evangelists frequently leave out some intermediate occurrence, because they reckon it enough to sum up the leading points. There is therefore no difference, except that the one explains the matter more distinctly than the other. The substance of it is: though the Law does not punish divorces, which are at variance with God’s first institution, yet he is an adulterer who rejects his wife and takes another. For it is not in the power of a man to dissolve the engagement of marriage, which the Lord wishes to remain inviolate; and so the woman who occupies the bed of a lawful wife is a concubine.
But an exception is added; for the woman, by fornication, cuts herself off, as a rotten member, from her husband, and sets him at liberty. Those who search for other reasons ought justly to be set at nought, because they choose to be wise above the heavenly teacher. They say that leprosy is a proper ground for divorce, because the contagion of the disease affects not only the husband, but likewise the children. For my own part, while I advise a religious man not to touch a woman afflicted with leprosy, I do not pronounce him to be at liberty to divorce her. If it be objected, that they who cannot live unmarried need a remedy, that they may not be burned, I answer, that what is sought in opposition to the word of God is not a remedy. I add too, that if they give themselves up to be guided by the Lord, they will never want continence, for they follow what he has prescribed. One man shall contract such a dislike of his wife, that he cannot endure to keep company with her: will polygamy cure this evil? Another man’s wife shall fall into palsy or apoplexy, or be afflicted with some other incurable disease, shall the husband reject her under the pretense of incontinency? We know, on the contrary, that none of those who walk in their ways are ever left destitute of the assistance of the Spirit.
For the sake of avoiding fornication, says Paul, let every man marry a wife, (1Co 7:2.) He who has done so, though he may not succeed to his wish, has done his duty; and, therefore, if any thing be wanting, he will be supported by divine aid. To go beyond this is nothing else than to tempt God. When Paul mentions another reason, namely, that when, through a dislike of godliness, wives happen to be rejected by unbelievers, a godly brother or sister is not, in such a case, liable to bondage, (1Co 7:12,) this is not inconsistent with Christ’s meaning. For he does not there inquire into the proper grounds of divorce, but only whether a woman continues to be bound to an unbelieving husband, after that, through hatred of God, she has been wickedly rejected, and cannot be reconciled to him in any other way than by forsaking God; and therefore we need not wonder if Paul think it better that she should part with a mortal man than that she should be at variance with God.
But the exception which Christ states appears to be superfluous. For, if the adulteress deserve to be punished with death, what purpose does it serve to talk of divorces? But as it was the duty of the husband to prosecute his wife for adultery, in order to purge his house from infamy, whatever might be the result, the husband, who convicts his wife of uncleanness, is here freed by Christ from the bond. It is even possible that, among a corrupt and degenerate people, this crime remained to a great extent unpunished; as, in our own day, the wicked forbearance of magistrates makes it necessary for husbands to put away unchaste wives, because adulterers are not punished. It must also be observed, that the right belongs equally and mutually to both sides, as there is a mutual and equal obligation to fidelity. For, though in other matters the husband holds the superiority, as to the marriage bed, the wife has an equal right: for he is not the lord of his body; and therefore when, by committing adultery, he has dissolved the marriage, the wife is set at liberty.
And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced. This clause has been very ill explained by many commentators; for they have thought that generally, and without exception, celibacy is enjoined in all cases when a divorce has taken place; and, therefore, if a husband should put away an adulteress, both would be laid under the necessity of remaining unmarried. As if this liberty of divorce meant only not to lie with his wife; and as if Christ did not evidently grant permission in this case to do what the Jews were wont indiscriminately to do at their pleasure. It was therefore a gross error; for, though Christ condemns as an adulterer the man who shall marry a wife that has been divorced, this is undoubtedly restricted to unlawful and frivolous divorces. In like manner, Paul enjoins those who have been so dismissed
to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to their husbands, (1Co 7:11😉
that is, because quarrels and differences do not dissolve a marriage. This is clearly made out from the passage in Mark, where express mention is made of the wife who has left her husband: and if the wife shall divorce her husband Not that wives were permitted to give their husbands a letter of divorcement, unless so far as the Jews had been contaminated by foreign customs; but Mark intended to show that our Lord condemned the corruption which was at that time universal, that, after voluntary divorces, they entered on both sides into new marriages; and therefore he makes no mention of adultery.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(9) Whosoever shall put away his wife.The questions to which the law thus proclaimed gives rise have been discussed in the Note on Mat. 5:32. One serious difference has, however, to be noticed. Where in the earlier form of the precept we read, cuseth her (the woman put away for any cause but adultery) to commit adultery, we have here, more emphatically as bearing on the position of the husband in such a case, the statement that he by contracting another marriage commits adultery. The utmost that the law of Christ allows in such a case is a divorce, a mens et thoro, not a vinculo. The legislation which permits the complete divorce on other grounds, such as cruelty or desertion on either side, is justified, so far as it is justifiable at all, on the ground of the hardness of heart which makes such a concession necessary. It is interesting to compare St. Pauls treatment of cases which the letter of this command did not cover, in 1Co. 7:10-15.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
9. Except it be for fornication Our Lord here indicates no new law. He does not even restore the old one. He simply declares what has always been the law of God. Moses, in his civil code, declined to enforce the strictness of the moral law. Unlawful intercourse with any other person breaks the marriage tie. The criminal has deserted forever the marriage partner, and has become unfit for further association. Impure and outcast, the guilty being can never again enter a pure and lawful marriage covenant.
The orderly family is the foundation of the orderly society. Wherever marriage is lightly esteemed there is great danger that every tie will become loose. Unless the law be strong and strict enough to silence and suppress the roving imagination and roving desire, and to settle completely all thoughts of breaking or overstepping the sacred limit, disorder, licentiousness, and moral anarchy commence. A sensual tone pervades the life. And it is a universal law that where sexual license prevails, lawlessness of every other kind prevails. Lust and cruelty ever go together.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And I say to you, Whoever shall put away his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery, and he who marries her when she is put away commits adultery.” ’
Thus in God’s eyes if a man puts away his wife and marries another he commits adultery. And anyone who marries the wife who is divorced also commits adultery. Both are sinning grievously against God. Note the, ‘I say to you’ (compare its repetition in chapter 5). This dictum has the authority of Jesus behind it.
There is, however, one exception to the rule, and that is where porneia has been committed. This word is wider than just fornication and adultery and is used to cover different kinds of sexual misbehaviour (see 1Co 5:1; 1Co 5:13-13; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5). Thus if there has been fornication of one of the parties to a marriage with an outside party before the marriage was finalised that would justify divorce, for strictly from God’s viewpoint that person would be seen as married to that other. It would include adultery, for such adultery would break the marriage bond, thus releasing from it the ‘innocent’ party in the same way as the death of the guilty party would (which was strictly required according to the Law). It could include bestiality (lying with an animal) for that too would break the marriage bond. It would probably include acts of lesbianism or homosexuality.
We should note that this ‘exception’ actually strengthens the significance of marriage. The exception arises because one of the parties has sinfully broken the marriage by an act which has made them in God’s eyes liable to die. Thus the idea is that the ‘innocent’ party can treat them as being ‘dead’ in God’s eyes. They are ‘cut off’. They are no longer within God’s covenant. Divorce from them therefore maintains the sanctity of marriage.
This exception was especially important for Matthew because a Jew (and therefore often a Christian Jew) saw adultery not only as a grounds for divorce but as actually requiring divorce. Adultery was seen as an unredeemable blot on the marriage. For Mark and Luke in writing to Gentiles it did not have quite the same importance and they therefore do not refer to it. They wanted rather to stress the permanence of marriage. But all would have agreed that adultery destroys a marriage for it is the equivalent of an act of remarriage (1Co 6:16).
But in all our discussion about divorce we must not here lose sight of the fact that Jesus is laying down a new ‘interpretation of the Law’ under the Kingly Rule of Heaven (compare on Mat 5:27-32). He is beginning to introduce His new world. And this radical change with regard to marriage is a first step in the process.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 19:9. Whoever shall put away his wife, &c. From our Lord’s answer it appears, that the school of Sammai taught the best morality on the subject of divorce, but that the opinion of the school of Hillel was more agreeable to the law of Moses on that point. See on ch. Mat 5:31. The present verse seems to be parallel to Mar 10:11 having been spoken to the disciples in the house, as is probable from the unusual change of persons observable in this part of the discourse. The practice of unlimited divorces, which prevailed among the Jews, gave great encouragement to family quarrels, was very destructive of charity, and hindered the good education of their common offspring: besides, it tended not a little to make their children lose that reverence for them which is due toparents, as it was scarcely possible for the children to avoid engaging in the quarrel. Our Lord’s prohibition, therefore, of these divorces is founded on the strongest reason, and tends highly to the peace and welfare of society. See Macknight, and Mintert on the word .
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:9 . See note on Mat 5:32 .
.] not on account of fornication , i.e. adultery . The deleting of those words (Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub . p. 4 f.; Maier’s note on 1Co 7:11 ; but also Keim, who sees in them the correction of a subsequent age) is justified neither by critical evidence, which Keim himself admits, nor by the following . . , which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of course, the . refers to a woman who has been divorced arbitrarily, . (see note on Mat 5:32 ); nor by Mat 19:10 , where the question of the disciples can be sufficiently accounted for; nor by 1Co 7:11 (see note on this passage). We are therefore as little warranted in regarding the words as an interpolation on the part of the evangelist in accordance with a later tradition (Gratz, Weisse, Volkmar, Schenkel). The exception which they contain to the law against divorce is the unica et adaequata exceptio , because adultery destroys what, according to its original institution by God, constitutes the very essence of marriage, the unitas carnis ; while, on this account also, it furnishes a reason not merely for separation a toro et mensa (Catholic expositors), but for separation quoad vinculum . To say, as Keim insists (according to Mark), that Jesus breaks with Moses, is unwarranted, not only by Matthew’s narrative, but also by Mark’s; and any indication of such a breach would betray the influence of a later age.
] commits adultery , because, in fact, his marriage with the woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second is justified: because this is still the lawful wife of him who has, in an arbitrary manner, put her away.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Ver. 9. Except it be for fornication ] This sin dissolves the marriage knot, and directly fights against human society. See Trapp on? “ Mat 15:32 “ See Trapp on “ Joh 8:5 “ The apostle adds the case of wilful desertion,1Co 7:151Co 7:15 . The civil laws of the empire permitted divorce for various other causes. In Turkey the woman may sue a divorce only then, when her husband would abuse her against nature, which she doth, by taking off her shoe before the judges, and holding it the sole upward, but speaking nothing for the foulness of the fact. (Blount’s Voyage into the Levant.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 19:9 , ide notes on Mat 5:31-32 .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
And = But.
for. Greek. epi.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 19:9. , not[860]) The word occurs with the same force in 1Jn 5:16.- , and shall marry) The criminality of the divorce is especially aggravated by a second marriage.
[860] Lachm. rends with BD Orig. 3,647c, 648ac, 649b; except caus fornicationis in c. CZ read , and so Tischend. Rec. Text reads the same, prefixing . Vulg. nisi ob fornicationem, which favours Rec. Text. Nisi ob causam fornicationis in ab seems a blending of the two readings, and .-ED.
Bengel reads , , whosoever shall put away his wife NOT for fornication; E. M. has , IF NOT (i e. except) for fornication. The meaning is the same. In his Apparatus Bengel writes, in loc-
) Comp. et al. edd. Aug. 1, 4, Bas. 1, Byz. Cypr. Gehl. Med. Mosc. Steph. omn. Wo. 2, et sedecim et viginti alii: nec obstat Cant. Colb. 8, L. Par. 6, Arab. Syr. . Er et al. edd. cum pauculis MSS.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Whosoever: Mat 5:32, Mar 10:11, Mar 10:12, Luk 16:18, 1Co 7:10-13, 1Co 7:39
except: 2Ch 21:11, Jer 3:8, Eze 16:8, Eze 16:15, Eze 16:29, 1Co 5:1
doth: Gen 12:18, Gen 12:19, Gen 20:3, Jer 3:1, Rom 7:2, Rom 7:3, 1Co 7:4, 1Co 7:11, 1Co 7:39
Reciprocal: Deu 22:19 – he may not put
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:9
This verse names the only ground on which a married man or woman may be divorced and remarry lawfully in the sight of God. Fornication forms another fleshly union and automatically breaks the previous one. By that same token the innocent one is free and may remarry without committing adultery. To say that there is no exception to the law of marriage and divorce is to contradict Jesus, for he plainly says that fornication is an exception. Let it be noted that it is the remarriage where no guilt of fornication exists that constitutes the sin of adultery. There are cases where a person may need a divorce other than because of fornication on the part of the companion. In such instances the legal separation may be obtained but the said person would not have the scriptural right to remarry as long as the other one remained clear morally.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:9. And I say unto you. Spoken in the house (Mar 10:10-11).
Except for fornication. This one ground for divorce, mentioned as a matter of course, makes no exception to the rule laid down in Mat 19:5-6; this offence is in direct antagonism to the idea of marriage. The Church of Rome denies the validity even of this ground. All sins of unchastity are sins against the marriage tie (comp. chap. Mat 5:27-32), loosening it in spirit, but this act of sin is the only ground for dissolving it in form.The woman referred to is one divorced on improper grounds. Divorce laws should be framed in the light of Mat 19:8; not to facilitate, but to regulate, a matter arising solely from the sinfulness of mankind. The elevation of women from a condition of slavery has been the result of Christs teaching in regard to marriage; yet some women, thus elevated, have advocated divorce for any cause.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except [it be] {h} for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
(h) Therefore in these days the laws that were made against adulterers were not regarded: for they would have no need of divorce, if the marriage had been severed by punishment of death.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Jesus introduced His position on this subject with words that stressed His authority: "I say to you" (cf. Mat 5:18; Mat 5:20; Mat 5:22; Mat 5:28; Mat 5:32; Mat 5:34; Mat 5:39; Mat 5:44; Mat 8:10; Mat 16:18; Mat 16:28). His was the true view because it came from Him who came to fulfill the law. Matthew recorded only Jesus’ words concerning a man who divorces his wife, probably because in Judaism wives could not divorce their husbands. However, Mark recorded Jesus saying that the same thing holds true for a woman who divorces her husband (Mar 10:12). Mark wrote originally for a Roman audience. Wives could divorce their husbands under Roman law. Matthew’s original readers lived under Jewish law that did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.
There are four problems in this verse that account for its difficulty. First, what does the exception clause include? The best textual evidence points to the short clause that appears in both the NASB and the NIV translations, "except for immorality" or "except for marital unfaithfulness." [Note: Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, pp. 47-48.]
Second, what is the meaning of porneia ("immorality" NASB, "marital unfaithfulness" NIV, "fornication" AV) in the exception clause? Some interpreters believe it refers to incest. [Note: E.g., J. A. Fitzmyer, "The Matthean Divorce Texts and Some New Palestinian Evidence," Theological Studies 37 (1976):208-11.] Paul used this word to describe prostitution in 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:16. Others believe porneia refers to premarital sex. If a man discovered that his fiancé was not a virgin when he married her, he could divorce her. [Note: E.g., Mark Geldard, "Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce," Churchman 92 (1978):134-43.] Even though the Jews considered a man and a woman to be husband and wife during their engagement period, they were not really married. Consequently to consider this grounds for a divorce seems to require a redefinition of marriage that most interpreters resist. Still others define porneia as adultery. [Note: E.g., T. V. Fleming, "Christ and Divorce," Theological Studies 24 (1963):109; and Toussaint, Behold the . . ., p. 225.] However the normal Greek word for adultery is moicheia, which Matthew used back to back with porneia previously (Mat 15:19). Therefore they must not mean the same thing. It seems unlikely that porneia refers to spiritual adultery in view of 1Co 7:12.
The best solution seems to be that porneia is a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God’s will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word. [Note: Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. "porne . . .," by F. Hauck and S. Schulz, 6:579-95. See also Joseph Jensen, "Does porneia Mean Fornication? A Critique of Bruce Malina," Novum Testamentum 20 (1978):161-84.] These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others. Essentially it refers to any sexual intercourse that God forbids (i.e., with any creature other than one’s spouse).
A third problem in this verse is why did Matthew alone of all the Synoptic evangelists include this exception clause, here and in Mat 5:32, when the others excluded it? To answer this question we must also answer the fourth question, namely, what does this clause mean?
Some scholars believe that Matthew simply added the clause himself to make what Jesus really said stronger. They assume that what Mark wrote represents what Jesus really said. This view reflects a low view of Scripture since it makes Matthew distort Jesus’ words.
Another answer is that the exception clause does not express an exception. This view requires interpreting the Greek preposition epi ("except") as "in addition to" or "apart from." However when me ("not") introduces epi it always introduces an exception elsewhere in the Greek New Testament.
Another similar answer is that the exception is an exception to the whole proposition, not just to the verb "divorces." [Note: Bruce Vawter, "The Divorce Clauses in Mt 5, 32 and 19, 9," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 16 (1959):155-67; idem, "Divorce and the New Testament," Catholic Biblical Quarterly 39 (1977):528-48.] In this case the porneia is not involved. We might translate the clause as follows to give the sense: "Whoever divorces his wife, quite apart from the matter of fornication, and marries another commits adultery." Thus in this view, as in the one above, there is no real exception. The main problem with this view, as with the one above, is its unusual handling of the Greek text. One has to read in things that are not there.
A fourth view is that when Jesus used the Greek verb apolyo ("divorces") He really meant "separates from" and so permitted separation but not divorce. [Note: G. J. Wenham, "May Divorced Christians Remarry?" Churchman 95 (1981):150-61. See Tim Crater, "Bill Gothard’s View of the Exception Clause," Journal of Pastoral Practice 4 (1980):5-12.] Therefore there can be no remarriage since a divorce has not taken place. However in Mat 19:3 apolyo clearly means "divorce" so to give it a different meaning in Mat 19:9 seems arbitrary without some compelling reason to do so.
Other interpreters believe Jesus meant that in some cases divorce is not adulterous rather than that in some cases divorce is not morally wrong. [Note: John J. Kilgallen, "To What Are the Matthean Exception-Texts [5, 32 and 19, 9] an Exception?" Biblica 61 (1980):102-5.] In the case of porneia the husband does not make her adulterous; she is already adulterous. However the text does not say he makes her adulterous or an adulteress; it says he makes her commit adultery. If the woman had committed porneia, divorce and remarriage would not make her adulterous. However divorce and remarriage would make her commit adultery. The major flaw in this view is that in Mat 19:9 it is the man who commits adultery, not his wife.
Probably it is best to interpret porneia and the exception clause as they appear normally in our English texts. Jesus meant that whoever divorces his wife, except for some gross sexual sin, and then remarries someone else commits adultery (cf. Mat 5:32).
"On any understanding of what Jesus says . . ., he agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct) (M[ishnah] Eduyoth Mat 4:7-10); and if Jesus restricts grounds for divorce to sexual indecency . . ., then he differs fundamentally from Shammai. Jesus cuts his own swath in these verses . . ." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 411.]
Divorce and remarriage always involve evil (Mal 2:16). However just as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart, so did Jesus. Yet whereas Moses was indefinite about the indecency that constituted grounds for a divorce, Jesus specified the indecency as gross sexual sin, fornication. [Note: See Craig L. Blomberg, "Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Mat 19:3-12," Trinity Journal 11NS (1990):161-96.]
Why then did Mark and Luke omit the exception clause? Probably they did so simply because it expresses an exception to the rule, and they wanted to stress the main point of Jesus’ words without dealing with the exceptional situation. Since Matthew wrote for Jews primarily, he probably felt, under the Spirit’s inspiration, that he needed to include the exception clause for the following reason. The subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews in view of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on this subject. Mark and Luke wrote primarily for Gentiles, so they simply omitted the exception clause.