{Except for fornication} (parektos logou porneias). This
is the marginal reading in Westcott and Hort which also adds
"maketh her an adulteress" (poiei aut(886e) moicheuth(886e)ai) and also
these words: "and he that marrieth her when she is put away
committeth adultery" (kai ho apolelumen(886e) gam(8873)as moichatai).
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 (m(8820)epi pornei(8369), 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 (moicheia from moicha(9320)or moicheu(935c)).
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.