Matthew 19:9

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, ערות 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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19:9 Jesus permits only one legitimate reason for a man to divorce: if his wife has been unfaithful (see 5:32). In the face of those who thought divorce could be taken lightly, Jesus affirms God’s created order: Marriage was designed to be permanent (see Mark 10:11-12). • commits adultery: This speaks only of the man who divorces his wife unlawfully. In such a case, his remarriage is adulterous. Jesus’ motivation is to reestablish the permanency of marriage.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 19:9. Μὴ, not[860]) The word occurs with the same force in 1Jn 5:16.—καὶ γαμήση, and shall marry) The criminality of the divorce is especially aggravated by a second marriage.

[860] Lachm. rends παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας with BD Orig. 3,647c, 648ac, 649b; “exceptâ causâ fornicationis” in c. CZ read μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, and so Tischend. Rec. Text reads the same, prefixing εἰ. Vulg. “nisi ob fornicationem,” which favours Rec. Text. “Nisi ob causam fornicationis” in ab seems a blending of the two readings, εἰ μὴ and λόγου.—ED.

Bengel reads ὃς ἄν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ, whosoever shall put away his wife NOT for fornication; E. M. has εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνωίᾳ, IF NOT (i e. except) for fornication. The meaning is the same. In his Apparatus Bengel writes, in loc—

“μὴ) 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. εἱ μὴ. Er et al. edd. cum pauculis MSS.”—(I. B.)

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_19:9. See note on Mat_5:32.

μὴ ἐπὶ πορν.] not on account of fornication, i.e. adultery. The deleting of those words (Hug, de conjug. vinculo indissolub. p. 4 f.; Maiers 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 ὁ ἀπολελ. γαμ. μοιχᾶται, which is in no way inconsistent with the exception under consideration, seeing that, as a matter of course, the ἀπολελ. refers to a woman who has been divorced arbitrarily, μὴ ἐπὶ πορν. (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 Matthews narrative, but also by Marks; and any indication of such a breach would betray the influence of a later age.

μοιχᾶται] commits adultery, because, in fact, his marriage with the woman whom he has arbitrarily dismissed has not yet been disannulled. The second μοιχᾶται is justified: because this ἀπολελυμένη is still the lawful wife of him who has, in an arbitrary manner, put her away.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:9 , ide notes on Mat 5:31-32 .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Therefore in these days the Laws that were made against adulterers were not regarded: for they should have needed no divorcement, if marriage had been cut asunder with punishment by death.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except, &c.--See on Mat 5:31.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(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 mensâ 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. Paul’s treatment of cases which the letter of this command did not cover, in 1Co_7:10-15.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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, Mar 10:10 when he said to them much the same things, he had delivered before in Mat 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 Mat 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 on Mat 5:32

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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 7:15. 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.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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!

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

And I say to you. It is worthy of remark, that in the parallel texts, St. Mark x. 2. and St. Luke xvi. 18. and St. Paul to Corinthians vii. 10. omit the exception of fornication; and also that St. Matthew himself omits it in the second part of the verse; and says absolutely, that he who shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery. It perhaps crept in here from chap. v. 23, where it is found in a phrase very similar to this, but which expresses a case widely different. Divorce is in no case admitted but in that of adultery. This is what Christ teaches in chap. v. 32, and to this the exception is referred, marked in the two texts. But in this very case the separated parties cannot contract a second marriage without again committing adultery, as we must infer, from a comparison of this text with the parallel texts of St. Mark and St. Luke. (Bible de Vence) --- If we did not understand it in this manner, the case of the adulteress would be preferable to the case of her who should be put away without any crime of her own; as in this supposition, the former would be allowed to marry again, which the latter would not be allowed. (Tirinus) --- St. Augustine is very explicit on this subject. See lib. 11. de adult conjug. chap. xxi. xxii. xxiv. --- St. Jerome, in his high commendation of the noble matron, Fabiola, says of her: "that though she was the innocent party, for the unlawful act of marrying again, she did public penance." (In Epitaph. Fabiolæ.) --- This universally received doctrine of the Catholic Church was confirmed in the general council of Trent. (Session xxiv. canon 6.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

We met with the like determination of our Lord’s 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 God’s 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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And I say unto you. Our Lord here enunciates the law which was to obtain in his kingdom, which, indeed, was simply the reintroduction and enforcement of the primitive and natural ordinance. Except it be for fornication; ei mh epi porneia : nisi ob fornicationem (Vulgate). This is the received reading. Tregelles, Tischendort; Westcott and Hort omit ei . The parallel passage in St. Mark (where Christ is stated to have made the remark to his disciples "in the house") omits the clause altogether. Lachmann, following some few manuscripts, has introduced parektogou porneiav , "saving for the cause of fornication," from Mat_5:32. The interpretation of this verse has given occasion to acute controversy. There are some questions that have to be considered in expounding this matter.

a. What is here meant by porneia ? Does it bear its usual meaning, or is it equivalent to moiceia , "adultery"? These who affirm that the sin of married persons is never expressed by the word porneia, hold that it here signifies ante-nuptial unchastity, which would make the marriage void ab initio; post-nuptial transgression would be punished by death, not by divorce. In this view, our Lord would say that no divorce is allowable except where the wife is proved to have been unchaste before marriage. In such an ease, the union being void from the first, the man is free to marry again. But there are difficulties in this interpretation. Why, at the end of the verse, is it called adultery to marry the divorced woman, if she was never really and lawfully married? Again, it is not correct to say that porneia denotes solely the sin of unmarried people. All illicit connection is described by this term, and it cannot be limited to one particular kind of transgression. In Ecc 23:23 it is used expressly of the sin of an adulteress. We may also remark that metaphorically idolatry is often called by this name, whereas, since Israel is supposed to be married to the Lord, the breaking of this bend by the worship of false gods might more strictly be named adultery. And yet again, there is no proof that the discovery of previous immorality in a wife did ipso facto vitiate the marriage. (see Hos_1:2, etc.) The passages that are thought to bear on this matter are Deu_22:13-21 and 24:1-4. In the former there is no question of divorce, the offender is to be stoned; in the second passage the ground of divorce is "some uncleanness," or some unseemly thing, whether immorality or personal defect is meant cannot be decided, the rival schools taking different sides. But it is quite certain that adultery is not intended, and ante-nuptial unchastity is not even hinted. The interpretation, therefore, given above cannot be maintained.

b. Omitting for the moment the limiting clause, may we say that the general teaching of Christ makes for the indissolubility of the marriage bond? The majority of the Fathers from Hermas and Justin Martyr downwards affirm this. Those who admit that divorce is permissible in the case of the wife"s adultery are unanimous in asserting that, by Christ"s ordinance, remarriage is prohibited to the husband during the culprit"s life; so that, practically, if divorce a mensa et toro is allowed, divorce a vinculo is refused. All Christ"s utterances on the subject, saving the apparently restrictive clause (Mat_5:32) and here, absolutely and plainly forbid divorce, on the ground of law and nature. The words in Mar_10:11 and Luk_16:18 are given without any limitation whatever. St. Paul draws from such his conclusion of the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as may be seen in 1Co_7:10, 1Co_7:11, 39 Rom_7:2, Rom_7:3. There could never have been a doubt about this subject had it not been for the difficulty in interpreting the parenthetical clause.

c. Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those words, modifies his general statement, and allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife"s misconduct? Such is the view taken by many theologians, and practically endorsed by the civil law of many countries. Neither the Roman nor the Anglican Churches support this laxity. Ecclesiastical and civil laws are here antagonistic. It is said that Christ allows the wronged party to marry again. If so, if the oneness of the parties is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, why is it not permitted to a man to marry a divorced woman? This cannot be called adultery unless she is still one flesh with her husband, although separated. We must argue from this that divorce in such an ease does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, the marriage bond. and if not under this circumstance, surely under no other; for any other ground must be always less serious than adultery. If the clause in question enunciated an exception to the absolute rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to stultify himself, to give two opposite decisions, and to introduce uncertainty in a most important verdict. The principle on which he based his dictum would be overthrown, and his hearers might have accused him of inconsistency. The solution offered for this difficulty is this that Christ is contemplating merely what we call judicial separation; he considers that no trivial cause justifies this, in fact, nothing but fornication, and that this modified divorce does not free the man so that he may marry again; he is bound by the Law as long as his wife lives. Our Lord seems to have introduced the exceptional clause in order to answer what were virtually two questions of the Pharisees, viz. whether it was lawful to "put away a wife for every cause," and whether, when a man had legally divorced his wife, he might marry again. To the former Christ replies that separation was allowable only in the case of fornication; in response to the second, he rules that even in that case remarriage was wholly barred. And whosoever marrieth her which is put away (apolelumenhn , without the article); her, when she is put away (Revised Version); or, a divorced woman. The clause is wholly omitted by a and some other manuscripts, and some modern editors, as Westcott and Hort. But it has very high authority in its favour. Alford renders, "her, when divorced," and restricts the application to a woman unlawfully divorced, not extending it to one separated for porneia. But the language is too indefinite to admit of this interpretation as certain. (see Luk_16:18, and the note on Mat_5:32, where the popular view is expressed) The clause, pondered without regard to foregone conclusions, surely contains an argument for the indissolubility of the marriage tie, as we have said above. Marriage with a divorced wife can be rightly termed adultery only in consideration of the continuance of the vinculum. Doth commit adultery. The binding nature of marriage does not depend on the will or the acts of the persons, but on its primal character and institution. By the repeal of the Mosaic relaxation and the restoration of marriage to its original principle, Christ not only enforces the high dignity of this ordinance, but obviates many opportunities of wickedness, such, for instance, as collusion between husband and wife with a view to obtain freedom for marriage with others.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And I say to you - I revoke that indulgence from this day, so that from henceforth, Whosoever, &c.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

9. I say unto you. We have here Christ's law of divorce in contrast with that of Moses. Except for fornication. There is only one sufficient cause of divorce; that is, unfaithfulness to the marriage relation. Committeth adultery. Because he is married still to his former wife, who is still his wife in spite of the divorce; so, too, if any man marries the divorced woman, he marries another man's wife.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

9. See ch. Mat 5:32.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

9. Mk. has here: “And in the house again, the disciples were asking Him about this.” Mt., as elsewhere, omits Mk.’s vague references to a house. See on 9:1, 15:15, 21, 17:19.

(M) 9. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, save for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery.] Mk. has: “And He saith to them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and shall marry another, commits adultery against her. And if she who has put away her husband shall marry another, she commits adultery.”—λέγω δέ] for Mk.’s καὶ λέγει, to make an antithesis with v. 8, cf. Introduction, p. xxxi. The editor omits the last clause as inconsistent with Jewish custom. See on v. 3. Some of the copyists of Mk. have also found it inconvenient, and modified it so as to get rid of the conception of divorce by a woman. See critical note in Swete. A parallel to this saying has already been recorded in 5:32. See note there.

And he who marries her that is put away, commits adultery.] This clause is not in Mk. If genuine (see below), it may be meant to compensate for the omission of Mar_12.

9. The passage in Mk. runs: ὅς ἅν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπʼ αὐτήν· καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήση ἄλλον μοιχᾶται. This has given trouble to the Syriac and Latin translators, who substitute desertion for divorce in the second clause. So S1, who also transposes the clauses: “That woman which leaveth her husband and becometh the wife of another doth indeed commit adultery, and that man which leaveth his wife and taketh another doth indeed commit adultery” (Burkitt). D has καὶ ἐὰν γυνὴ ἐξέλθῃ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἀνδρός, and so in substance d a b c ff2 Wellh. Mt. inserts (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ after γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, and omits the harsh ἐπʼ αὐτήν. He also omits the whole of the second clause.

B D S2 133 latt. assimilate to 5:32 by substituting παρεκτὸς λὸγου πορνείας for (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ. B C* N further assimilate to 5:32 by substituting ποιεῖ αὐτήν μοιχευθῆναι for μοιχᾶται.1 B N also omit καὶ γαμήσῃ ἅλλην for the same reason. S2 adds “against against her,” to assimilate to Mk.

καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται] is omitted by א C3 D L S S1 S2 a b e ff1 g1 h. It seems to be a further assimilation to 5:32.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Except for fornication [μη επι πορνεια] . Lit., not on account of fornication.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.