Proof is a high and almost unattainable standard with regard to interpreting literature or the Bible. Generally, with regard to Bible interpretation my preference is to say there is evidence and avoid the use of the word proof. In the case of the Exception Clauses not being at all applicable to engagements, the evidence is so strong and compelling as to amount to "proof."

So, permit it to be said just this once: Yes, the words of Scripture prove the Exception Clauses found in Matthew were never meant to be applied to engaged couples. There are three primary reasons which can be extracted straight from the Word of God:

1. Paul says Jesus never spoke on the topic of fiancés or virgins breaking their engagements, therefore, since Jesus never spoke on the topic of fiancés breaking their engagements the Exception Clauses cannot be instructions from Jesus on how fiancés can break their engagements
2. Paul teaches that engagements may be broken for any reason or for no reason and it is not a sin, yet as Jesus taught the Exception Clauses (if they were to apply to engaged virgins) would mean that engagements could only be broken if one of the espoused persons was sexually unfaithful prior to the wedding--breaking the engagement for any other reason would be a sin--Paul and Jesus would therefore contradict each other
3. God divorced Israel on the grounds that she was an adulteress, a biblical example of the Exception Clauses being applied righteously by the Lord

"Proof" 1: Paul tells us explicitly in the very words of the Scripture he wrote that Jesus never taught about the engagement of virgins and whether such engagements could be lawfully broken. Because Jesus never taught on the subject of engagements Paul felt it necessary to render his own opinion on the matter.

When Paul says there is, "no command of the Lord," he means that Jesus gave no teachings on the subject of terminating engagements between virgins. If Jesus had taught on this subject in the presence of witnesses, if there were quotes circulating among the believers from "sayings of Jesus", or if Jesus had directly revealed to Paul a teaching on terminating engagements, then Paul would have said, "I do have a command of the Lord." Because Paul had none of these things, no teaching from Christ on engagements, he says he must render an opinion from his own deliberate study of God’s Word. Since we know Jesus never taught on the subject, we know that the Exception Clauses which Jesus taught were not about, could not have been about, the termination of engagements.

When someone says, "The Exception Clauses which Jesus taught, found in Matthew 5 and 19, are only about the breaking of engagements between virgins," they simply fail to realize that Paul said Jesus never taught such a thing.

Since we are assured that Jesus never spoke of the dissolution of engagements between espoused virgins, we also know that the following two passages cannot be applied to, or be in reference to, the breaking of engagements:

Divorcing one’s spouse is the sin of adulterating one’s marriage, or to be more precise, one’s marriage covenant. That is, divorcing one’s spouse is the sin of adultery except for the reason that the spouse has been sexually unchaste, sexually immoral, and sexually indecent. This is why these phrases in Matthew are called "the Exception Clauses."

As we just studied, Paul says these two "Exception Clauses" which Jesus taught are not instructions to engaged fiancés. Paul says Jesus never gave us instructions about engaged couples and whether they may dissolve their engagement bonds. Therefore, these "Exception Clauses" to Jesus’ General Rule of Remarriage must apply to unfaithfulness in existing marriages and not unfaithfulness in engagements.

"Proof" 2: Paul teaches that engagements may be broken for any reason or for no reason at all and no sin has been committed. Adultery by one of the fiancés is simply not the only valid means to end an engagement.

Here Paul tells us that if a virgin man is released from his engagement, he can stay unmarried and it is no sin. Then Paul says, at some future time if this virgin male should marry, again, he has not sinned. There is simply no consequence of sin to the virgins who dissolve their engagements or to those who consummate them in actual marriage. Dissolve the engagement, no sin. Marry, no sin. Engagements simply do not have the permanence of marriages, nor the insoluble covenant bonds of marriage. Nor does dissolving the engagement cause one to be guilty of adultery.

If we pretend for a moment that the Exception Clauses did apply to engagements the same as they do to marriages, then what the Exception Clauses teach us is that the only reason two people may break off their engagement is because one of the two people had been sexually unfaithful. To break off the engagement for any other reason would be the sin of adultery. This makes an engagement as permanent, and as seriously binding as a marriage--making this a new commandment.

For example, permit a temporary change to the words that Jesus spoke, and make them apply to engagements instead of marriage. It is now obvious how impossible it would be to ever end an engagement for any reason at all, except in the situation where one of the fiancés was sexually unfaithful.

Making the dissolution of engagements the same as committing adultery is a new commandment of tremendous proportions without precedent in Christian history. Are engagements which are ended just because the couple wish to dedicate all their time exclusively to Christian service really committing the sin of adultery? We know marriages ended by divorce are adulterous sins. But is pure folly to say, "whoever marries a divorced fiancée commits adultery."

Consider this question: Which is more extraordinary, that the Exception Clauses were given to establish the inviolate permanence of engagements, or that they were given to explain and regulate the breakup of adulterous marriages? The Exception Clauses cannot mean both things.

To believe that Jesus teaches that engagements are as binding as marriages, and that engagements can only be broken if one of the fiancés commits fornication with a third person, is to equate the custom of engagement with the Law of Marriage. It also means that Jesus considered traditions (the custom of engagement) to be the equivalent of the Mosaic Law, because violating this "custom" would result in the most serious of sins, just as violating a Law of Moses would result in sin. To assume that Jesus valued tradition as highly as He valued the Law is an untenable assumption.

If all of that were not bad enough, it would also mean that Paul contradicted and usurped Jesus when Paul claimed that engagements can be called off for no reason at all without the couple being guilty of sin. Finally, it would also indicate that Paul was simply out of his mind when he said that Jesus never spoke on the subject of dissolving engagements, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord."

Proof 3: God divorced Israel on the grounds that she was an adulteress. In Jeremiah 3, we read that God found Israel to be so persistently promiscuous (by worshipping idols) that He felt compelled to divorce her.

Whatever else is true about divorce, we know that God cannot sin and that He did not sin when He divorced Israel. What God did by writing a writ of divorce against Israel due to her continued adulteries is exactly the situation described in the Exception Clauses. If it is sin for a man to implement the Exception Clauses under the same situation in which God implemented it, then would God not be guilty of sin?

We must note that God decided not to marry a new nation (He did not choose a new nation to be His chosen people) after the divorce. Instead, He used the divorce to shame Israel into returning and reconciling. Israel, for her part, was already an adulteress (by worshipping idols) but she never married any other god (Israel did not choose to put a false god into the temple and call herself the nation of a false god). Israel chose to return to her husband, God, and repent, thus restoring the marriage. God used the divorce to send a chilling message to Israel, similar in nature to this paraphrase: "repent of your adulteries or be forever cutoff from God, for I have the right to choose a new nation" (Jeremiah 3:1). Perhaps Christians today should be using divorce in this manner when a spouse persistently strays into adultery.

If God divorced Israel in precise accord with the terms described in the Exception Clauses, and if He did not sin, then why would it be sin for a man to do as God did?

Another question must also be addressed: If a divorce based on the persistent adulteries of the other spouse is an unlawful divorce, how are we to understand or interpret Jeremiah 3:8 without indicting God of sin?

God did just as the Exception Clauses indicate we may do. If our spouse is in persistent sexual immoralities, we may seek a divorce, as God did. If we marry another following the divorce we eliminate all possible paths to reconciliation with our original spouse (Jeremiah 3:1, Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

If the Exception Clause does not mean that a person can divorce a persistently adulterous spouse, then exactly what Law is it that permitted God to write His wife, Israel, a writ of divorce?

It is for these three reasons we know for a certainty, proven beyond doubt, that the Exception Clauses do not apply to, or refer to, engaged virgins:

1. Paul says Jesus never spoke on the topic of fiancés or virgins breaking their engagements
2. Paul teaches that engagements may be broken for any reason or for no reason and it is not a sin, yet the exception clauses (if they applied to engaged virgins) would mean that engagements could only be broken if one of the espoused persons was sexually unfaithful prior to the wedding--breaking the engagement for any other reason would be adultery
3. God divorced Israel on the grounds that she was an unfaithful adulteress, and God did not sin

Only one interpretation covering all of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Jeremiah 3:1-8, Matthew 5:31-32, and Matthew 19:9 create one consistent message. If a person divorces a spouse for persistent adultery, it is not a sin.

If polygamy (marrying multiple spouses at the same time) is a sin, why did so many biblical / historical figures do it?

Perhaps the two most notable of the polygamists recorded in biblical history are David and his son, Solomon. It is most surprising that men so close to God would do something so obviously contrary to God’s standards, yet, that is the reality. Such things would be more expected from pagan rulers, like the pharaohs of Egypt, but not the rulers of God’s chosen people.

David began marrying wives even before he became king, while he was still on the run from Saul. Not only did he marry them, but he had multiple children by them (2 Samuel 3:1-5). Were these women legitimately married to David as wives? Yes, for so we are told in the accounts from Scripture. Was it lawful of David to marry these women? No, but he did it anyway.

David makes a very poor role model for us to follow with regard to sexual purity and self control. He married multiple wives, acquired sexual slaves (concubines), lusted after other men’s wives, committed physical adultery, had children outside of any of the many marriages, lied about his adultery, and committed murder to hide some of his sins.

This legacy of sexual hedonism was passed along to his son Solomon, who was a far more ardent hedonist than was his father David. Solomon pursued every type of pleasure under the sun (Ecclesiastes 2:10), not just sexual gratification.

In spite of all this gross sin, God honored the faith of these men, and their willingness to repent. However, the consequences of sin were borne by those who committed such acts. David lost his friend and most loyal military commander by trying to cover up his adulteries and then he lost an infant son as well. Certainly, no one charged David in judicial court with his crimes (murder, adultery, polygamy), but he still suffered the consequences.

Solomon also had to bear the outcomes of his own sexually motivated sins. His wives and concubines led him into idol worship. Even though he had built the most magnificent temple to the true God ever seen in Jerusalem, he became an idolater and a worshipper of false gods (including Ashtoreth, Milcom, Chemosh, and Molech), because of the influence with which he had surrounded himself at the hands of his many wives and concubines (1 Kings 11).

Just about every instance of polygamy one can isolate in the history of the Jewish patriarchs results in ugly consequences. Far from being a model of marriage for us to follow, polygamy, sexual slavery, adultery, and prostitution are examples of sinful relationships that ensnare the believer and drag him into deeper sins.

Finally, it must be noted that Jesus tells us bluntly enough: from the creation of mankind itself, God only created them so that one man may marry one woman, and the two shall become one union through a lifelong covenant. Not the "three shall become one", but the "two shall become one."

During the formation of the church, polygamy, just as is a second marriage after a divorce, was considered a sin so heinous that having multiple living wives was considered a reason to disqualify a man from service as a pastor or even a deacon.

If anyone can find a passage of Scripture in which God explicitly endorses the marrying of multiple spouses at the same time, this would be a passage worth studying and sharing, for this passage has not yet become known to the general public.

Consider also that the instructions to all Christians includes the following:

Each man is to have one wife, not wives. Each wife is to have but one husband, not husbands. Such is the teaching of marriage throughout the ages in the Scriptures, from the creation of mankind. One man, one woman, for a lifetime. Man has certainly perverted this concept, most notably David and Solomon, yet, God’s standard remains. One man, one woman, a lifetime covenantal relationship until death.

If God hates divorce, why did He initiate a divorce against Israel?

Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Jeremiah 3:1 are part of the Old Testament Law, and we are not under the Law, so these passages no longer apply to us, right?

What is the "Covenant Marriage Movement" and is it biblical?