I believe Jesus didn’t believe in exceptions, so why do we?

I believe the common Protestant interpretation of the so-called “exception clause” in Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 deserves to be rejected. The traditional interpretation holds that Jesus permits divorce when one spouse commits adultery or some other form of serious sexual immorality. However, I believe the context of Matthew, the terminology Jesus uses, the Jewish understanding of betrothal, and the broader teaching of the New Testament point in a different direction. The exception for sexual immorality applies to the period of betrothal before the marriage has been consummated. Once a man and woman have entered the one-flesh union of marriage, Jesus gives no exception permitting them to dissolve that union and marry someone else.

The key passage is Matthew 19:9, where Jesus says that whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, “except for sexual immorality.” The Greek word translated “sexual immorality” is porneia. The word Jesus uses for adultery, however, is moicheia. This distinction is important. Jesus does not simply say, “except for adultery.” Instead, He uses a broader term for sexual immorality in the exception clause and then specifically describes remarriage after divorce as adultery. This raises the question of why Matthew would use two different terms if both referred to precisely the same situation.

Matthew’s Gospel itself provides an important clue. In Matthew 1, Joseph and Mary are betrothed to one another but have not yet consummated their marriage. Nevertheless, Joseph is already described as Mary’s husband, and Mary can be spoken of as his wife. When Joseph discovers that Mary is pregnant, he assumes that she has been sexually immoral and determines to “divorce her quietly.” This shows that, in the Jewish culture reflected in Matthew, a betrothed couple could already be considered husband and wife, and ending the betrothal could be described as divorce even though the marriage had not yet been consummated.

That background provides a natural explanation for the exception clause. Jesus is not necessarily describing adultery committed after a one-flesh marriage has been formed. Rather, He may be referring to sexual immorality discovered during the betrothal period. If a man discovered that his betrothed wife had been sexually unfaithful before consummation, the betrothal could legitimately be terminated. Joseph himself intended to do exactly this before the angel revealed that Mary’s pregnancy was the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit.

This interpretation also helps explain why the exception clause appears in Matthew but not in Mark or Luke. In Mark 10:11–12, Jesus says plainly that whoever divorces his spouse and marries another commits adultery. Luke 16:18 similarly states that everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery. Neither Gospel records an exception. If Jesus were establishing adultery as a universal ground for dissolving a consummated marriage, the absolute statements in Mark and Luke would be difficult to explain. But if Matthew’s exception addresses a specifically Jewish betrothal situation familiar to his audience, the difference becomes much easier to understand.

Jesus’ argument in Matthew 19 also begins with creation rather than with exceptions. When the Pharisees ask Him about divorce, Jesus directs them back to Genesis. God created male and female and declared that a man would leave his father and mother, hold fast to his wife, and the two would become one flesh. Jesus then concludes, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” The foundation of His teaching is that marriage is a union created by God. Human beings do not possess the authority to dissolve what God Himself has joined.

The reaction of the disciples is also significant. After hearing Jesus’ teaching, they respond, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” Their reaction seems unusually severe if Jesus has merely taught that marriage is permanent except in cases of adultery. Their words make considerably more sense if they understood Jesus to be teaching that marriage is an essentially lifelong covenant from which there is no ordinary escape. Once married, a person is bound to his or her spouse.

The prophet Hosea gives us a powerful picture of this kind of covenant faithfulness. God commanded Hosea to marry Gomer, a woman who would prove unfaithful to him. Her betrayal was not theoretical. She pursued other lovers and brought deep shame and sorrow into the marriage. Yet when Gomer wandered away, God did not tell Hosea simply to discard her and replace her with someone more faithful. Instead, Hosea was commanded to go after her, love her again, redeem her, and restore her. Hosea 3:1 records God’s command: “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress.” Hosea’s marriage became a living picture of God’s covenant relationship with His people.

That illustration matters because Gomer’s adultery did not become an excuse for Hosea to abandon covenant faithfulness. Her sin was real, grievous, and destructive, but Hosea’s response demonstrated something even greater: covenant love pursues restoration. The point of the book is not that adultery is insignificant. It is that covenant faithfulness is stronger than betrayal. God used Hosea’s marriage to show Israel what His own love looked like toward an unfaithful people. Israel repeatedly pursued idols, broke covenant, and committed what the prophets described as spiritual adultery, yet God continued to call His people to repentance and restoration.

The New Testament gives us an even greater illustration in the relationship between Christ and His church. Paul teaches in Ephesians 5 that human marriage is ultimately patterned after the relationship between Christ and the church. Husbands are commanded to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” Marriage therefore does not merely illustrate companionship or romantic affection. It displays something about the covenant love of Christ.

And the church has not always been a faithful bride. The New Testament itself records serious failures within local churches. The Corinthians tolerated sexual immorality and division. The Galatians were tempted to abandon the purity of the gospel. In Revelation 2–3, Christ rebukes churches for losing their first love, tolerating false teaching, becoming spiritually compromised, and growing lukewarm. Yet Christ does not respond to every act of unfaithfulness by abandoning His bride and choosing another. He rebukes, disciplines, warns, calls to repentance, and continues His work of sanctifying His people.

Christ’s commitment to His church therefore becomes the supreme example of covenant faithfulness. Ephesians 5 says that Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her “that he might sanctify her.” He does not love the church because she has already achieved perfect faithfulness. He loves her and works to make her holy. His love is covenantal, sacrificial, corrective, and persevering.

If marriage is intended to portray Christ and the church, then that reality should shape how Christians think about marital betrayal. When a spouse sins grievously, the first biblical instinct should not be, “Has the covenant now become disposable?” The better question is, “What does covenant faithfulness require?” That does not mean sin should be ignored or that dangerous situations must be endured without protection. Scripture allows for discipline, confrontation, boundaries, and, when necessary, physical separation. But none of those things necessarily mean that the marriage covenant itself has ceased to exist.

This understanding is reinforced by Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7. Paul tells married Christians that a wife should not separate from her husband and that a husband should not divorce his wife. He then acknowledges that separation may nevertheless occur. In such a case, his instruction is striking: the separated person should “remain unmarried or else be reconciled.” Paul does not immediately present separation as grounds for another marriage. His emphasis remains reconciliation or continued singleness.

This distinction is extremely important. Scripture may recognize situations in which physical separation becomes necessary. Abuse, danger, abandonment, or other serious circumstances may make living together impossible for a period of time. But separation and dissolution of the marriage covenant are not necessarily the same thing. A person may need to live apart from a spouse while still recognizing that the marriage itself remains before God.

For these reasons, I do not believe Matthew’s exception clause should automatically be interpreted as permission for divorce and remarriage whenever adultery occurs within a consummated marriage. The stronger contextual reading is that porneia refers to sexual immorality discovered during betrothal, before the marriage has become a one-flesh union. Once that union exists, Jesus’ words stand with remarkable force and simplicity: “What God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Marriage is therefore not merely a contract maintained as long as both parties keep the terms satisfactorily. It is a covenantal, one-flesh union established by God. Hosea’s faithfulness to Gomer demonstrates the pursuit of an unfaithful spouse. Christ’s faithfulness to His church demonstrates the ultimate reality toward which Christian marriage points. In both cases, betrayal is answered not by pretending that sin does not matter, but by a covenant love that seeks repentance, redemption, and restoration.

Sexual sin may grievously wound a marriage, and in some circumstances separation may be necessary, but sin does not automatically give man authority to undo what God has joined together. The Christian response to marital unfaithfulness should therefore emphasize repentance, forgiveness, reconciliation, discipline, restoration, and enduring covenant faithfulness. Marriage is meant to tell the world something about the character of God Himself—a God who remains faithful even when His people are faithless, and a Savior who does not casually abandon His bride.

So on the basis of Jesus’ logic, the cultural context, and in light of how we know the audience would have understood Jesus words, we must conclude that the “exception” clause is a modern fabrication of theology created by a church seeking to accommodate that which God’s Word provides no warrant for. Yes, in God’s inscrutable grace, He does call a few select men to live in the condition evangelicals are quick to excuse a man from. Faith was never promised to be easy; it was promised to never fail when tested.