BibleTools
verse

(e.g. john 8 32)
  or  

Matthew 19:9  (King James Version)
version

A.S.V.
Amplified®
Darby
I.S.V.
K.J.V.
Young's


Compare all


Book Notes
  Barnes' Book Notes
  Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Book Notes
  Robertson's Book Notes (NT)
Commentaries
  Adam Clarke
  Barnes' Notes
  Forerunner Commentary
  Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
  John Wesley's Notes
  Matthew Henry
  People's Commentary (NT)
  Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
  Scofield
Definitions
Interlinear
Library
Topical Studies
X-References
E-mail this page
Commentaries:
Robertson's Word Pictures (NT)
<< Previous verse   Next verse >>


Matthew 19:9

Except for fornication (parektov logou porneiav). This is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds "maketh her an adulteress" (poiei authn moixeuqhnai) and also these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery" (kai o apolelumenhn gamhsav moixatai). 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 (mh epi porneiai, not for fornication), it is plain that Matthew represents Jesus in both places as allowing divorce for fornication as a general term (porneia) which is technically adultery (moixeia from moixaw or moixeuw). Here, as in Matthew 5:31 f., 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.




Other commentary entries containing this verse:

Matthew 5:32
Mark 10:4
Mark 10:11
Luke 16:18
1 Corinthians 7:10
1 Corinthians 7:15
2 Peter 3:16

 
<< Previous verse   Next verse >>

DISCLAIMER: Church of the Great God (CGG) provides these resources to aid the individual in studying the Bible. However, it is up to the individual to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good" (I Thessalonians 5:21). The content of these resources does not necessarily reflect the views of CGG. They are provided for information purposes only.

E-mail this page


The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

XML RSS 
feeds available
Add to My Yahoo!

The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment

Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 60,000 subscribers are already receiving each day.

Email Address:

   

We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.
©Copyright 1992-2009 Church of the Great God (C.G.G.).   Contact C.G.G. if you have questions or comments.