I have spoken with several brothers in the permanence of marriage movement about my book, some of whom have been enthusiastic about it. One question I get a lot though is what explanation I use for the “exception clause” in Matthew’s Gospel. In this book, I actually present BOTH of the most common explanations side by side, and I explain what they mean, and how they are in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

I give the historical explanation – that the exception is for divorce in the case of ongoing adultery, but NOT for remarriage, since the New Testament plainly states remarriage is adultery many times – and the betrothal view – that the exception is for fornication before marriage, such as during the Jewish betrothal period or discovered immediately after marriage, which in a sense is really an annulment since the man had been defrauded into marrying to begin with. I probably spend more time on the latter explanation. I also give many of the quotes from the Early Christian Fathers, who deal explicitly with this issue, and whose understanding is from the historical view.

Personally, I formerly accepted the historical view, and these days lean toward the betrothal view, but both views of the exception clause come to the same conclusion and are in good harmony with Scripture. This is in contrast to the permission of remarriage, which plainly breaks the Word of God and amounts to approving adultery. Naturally, in presenting the permanence of marriage, I point out that taking a second husband or wife is ongoing adultery, not merely a one-time sin, and I explain why. The couple that is living in a second “marriage” needs to repent, and end the intimate relationship which God calls adultery. However, if there are children who have come from their adultery, those children are still theirs and should be loved and cared for by them.