You will occasionally hear someone cite Christ’s words in Matthew 19:9 to debunk the Catholic Church’s teaching on divorce: “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.”
The “except for unchastity” part is generally known as the Matthean exception clause, which is not found in any other record of Christ’s teaching on this matter (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, 1 Cor. 7:10-11).
The objection is that Jesus apparently agrees that if your spouse commits adultery (or some other sexual immorality), then you can legitimately divorce your spouse. Ergo, Jesus is more understanding and compassionate than the Catholic Church!
There are many good responses to this objection (see here, here, and here). And I wish to build upon them with my own answer: St. Matthew here is protecting the honor of John the Baptizer.
This is because John the Baptizer basically told Herod to get a divorce, to end his invalid marriage with Herodias: “For Herod had arrested John, bound him, and put him in prison on account of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, because John had been telling him, ‘It is not lawful for you to have her’” (14:3-4).
If Jesus prohibits anyone from divorcing his wife without any nuance, then it would seem as if Herod should remain with Herodias—an adulterous and illegitimate union at its very conception! On top of that, there would be a contradiction between Jesus and John: should Herod divorce or not?
Because of the Matthean exception clause, however, there is no conflict: Herod’s union was invalid from the start. The Catholic Church today would not regard such a “marriage” as valid, and so a “divorce”—or, more properly, an annulment—would be declared. After all, special care is taken in the Catholic Church to ensure that the man and woman in the union are eligible to marry. Herod and Herodias would have flunked.
To make things absolutely clear: Matthew 19:9 does not permit divorce because of adultery, but clarifies that a “marriage” contracted on illegitimate grounds—like the bride already being married!—can be lawfully undone.
Now, why should we think this is why Matthew has the exception clause in his Gospel? If we assume that Matthew drew from Mark to write his Gospel, then we see how much Matthew cared about John the Baptizer’s reputation and relationship with Jesus.
In Matthew, for example, John the Baptizer, like Jesus, condemns the Pharisees and Sadducees (3:7-10), whereas only Jesus explicitly opposes them in Mark. Matthew is showing that Jesus and John both opposed the Pharisees and Sadducees! There is harmony rather than disharmony between the two.
A close reading of Matthew also reveals how much he cared about John’s reputation. Jesus in Matthew explicitly tells us that John is Elijah the Prophet (11:14, 17:12-13), whereas Mark only gestures toward the connection (1:2-3). Matthew focuses more on the words of John than does Mark (e.g., Matt. 11:2-6). Matthew also has Jesus’ high praise of John (vv. 7-15), which isn’t found in Mark.
Of interest here is that we have precedent for Matthew resolving apparent tensions between Jesus and John the Baptizer. In Mark, Jesus is simply baptized by John without question. This is strange, because Jesus is clearly without sin and does not need to be baptized. Matthew, however, includes more dialogue between Jesus and John, which softens the tension:
| Mark 1:9-11 | Matthew 3:13-17 |
| In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.” | Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for it is proper for us in this way to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, the Beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” |
In short, Matthew has the exception clause not because divorce is okay if your partner cheats, but because invalid “marriages” like the one John the Baptizer condemned between Herod and Herodias should not persist. This is perfectly harmonious with Catholic teaching and makes perfect sense of Matthew’s Gospel.