Why did Mark and Luke (along with Matthew 5:32) omit the “except for sexual immorality” clause found in Matthew 19:9?
Some critics theorize that Jesus did not say “except for sexual immorality” in His original statement, but that Matthew (or somebody who copied his Gospel) inserted these words to make Christ’s teaching more acceptable to the public. But they can produce no evidence for this conjecture. This exceptive clause was omitted in the other Gospels simply because it wasn’t needed. All first-century readers–Jewish, Greek, and Roman–agreed that sexual infidelity was legitimate grounds for divorce. Commands that have well-known or obvious exceptions are often stated without a repetition of the exceptions. For example, Paul in Romans 13:1-7 told us to obey governing authorities and states no exceptions. Peter in his first epistle (2:13-16) told us to submit to “every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake” and gave us no exceptions. But both knew full well the principle expressed by Peter and recorded in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men.” They assumed their readers did too. Why rep
