The Exception Clause

There is a well-known account of the Pharisees testing Jesus with a particularly difficult argument they themselves were having (Matt 19:1-12). "Is it right to divorce for any reason whatsoever?" Most Christians who have spent any time in their Bibles or in church have heard this story and know Jesus's answer. "What God has joined together let no man separate" (Matt 19:6). I would guess, however, that even more prevalent than that answer is the other answer Jesus gave. "Whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery" (Matt 19:9). Indeed, it is that phrase, beginning with "except", that is best known. You see, Jesus wasn't ambiguous. "Is divorce ever okay?" "No!" He didn't pull any punches or offer any escape. When pressed, He mentions in passing this singular phrase that we have come to call "the Exception Clause". Our typical aim is not full agreement with God's best, but "Is there an exception to this rule?"

It seems as if this concept is a primary thrust among believers. Among unbelievers an "exception clause" isn't needed; they just defy God. But believers, while on one hand aiming to obey God and do what pleases Him, seem to hope for exceptions. "I want to please God, but not too much." It's as if we're afraid we'll get to heaven after years of sacrificing personal pleasure in favor of pleasing God and find, "Oh, no! I didn't have to give that up!" Like we gave God too much.

Take, for instance, this very exception clause from Matt 19. Jesus states His position clearly and plainly: "What God has put together let no man separate." Next! "But ... but ...!" That is not satisfactory. Or, as His disciples put it, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry" (Matt 19:10). "Oh, whew! He has an exception clause. There is a method whereby we can divorce our wives and remarry! What a relief! You see, Jesus, for a moment there it looked like You were saying that we should remain with our wives for life, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, 'til death do us part. Nice to know we have an out." Now, I don't think that phrase, "except for sexual immorality", can be taken nearly as far as we do, but we do. Wives will say, "He's a disgusting pig in bed; that's sexual immorality. I'm out of here." Husbands will say, "She refuses to do normal stuff in bed and that makes her sexually immoral." And having negated "Can we divorce for any reason?" Jesus appears to have come back around to "Well, yes, you can." And we don't stop there. We expand it to other things like "desertion" and "abuse" (which gets further expanded to "physical abuse" and then "emotional abuse" and then "I just feel abused" because he didn't thank her for fixing him dinner). And then we take it to the next step where the "innocent party" is free to remarry. And we've managed to take a narrow (and, I would suggest, in our day non-existent) exception and expanded it to cover almost every possibility.

Sadly, we even seem to find exception clauses where they don't exist. "Yeah, I know the Bible says not to forsake gathering together," (the command) "but I can't find a good church in my area, so I won't go." Or "My wife or my husband isn't interested, so I won't go." Odd. I don't find that exception clause in the command. "Of course we're not to commit adultery," (the command) "but I'm not actually committing adultery by looking at pornography, looking at other women/men, or dreaming about other sexual relationships." Jesus's "I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28) doesn't seem to leave room for this exception clause. Or, perhaps the most common, "I know that we are to make disciples, teaching them to observe all that Christ commands," (the command) "and I'm going to do it ... except, well, isn't 'disciple' a bit cultish? And isn't it a bit arrogant to think that I could disciple someone else? And, look, I'm no teacher, so don't expect me to teach anyone to obey Christ. But, like I said, I'm going to do it. Well, I'm going to share the Gospel. That is, unless it's inconvenient. Or it's uncomfortable. Or it is embarrassing. I'll get right around to doing that at my earliest opportunity ... after this show ... and the game ... and whatever else comes up ..." Lots and lots of exceptions.

After awhile you begin to wonder if there is any command given that doesn't have an exception clause. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart." "Well, I can't do that, so I am not going to worry about it." "Husbands, love your wives." "You don't know my wife." "Wives, submit to your husbands." "Me? Submit to him?? He doesn't know enough to come in out of the rain." "I do not permit a woman to teach or usurp authority over men." "What? What about gifted women? That can't be right." Personal experience, personal feelings, cultural clamor, a distaste for doing a particular command, all of this can serve as grounds for an exception clause in which we feel justified to go ahead with a particular sin (or sins) while still claiming to love God and long to serve Him.

Brothers, these things ought not be. We are supposed to be dead to sin (Rom 6:6; 1 Peter 2:24). We are called to die to self, to "take up your cross" (Mark 8:34-35). We are to kill our passions and desires (Gal 5:24). We are to die to this world (Col 3:5). We are supposed to think differently (Rom 12:2; Eph 4:23; Col 3:2). We are supposed to be different. It would seem to me that scrambling around for exception clauses wherever they might lie and making them up where they don't would be counterproductive to our aims as followers of Christ. Obeying too much isn't possible. Giving up too much isn't reasonable. Loving God too much isn't even conceivable. However, setting our minds on the interests of Man rather than the interests of God (Mark 8:33) is a real possibility for us. We don't want that now, do we?