Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor

JESUS WAS A MARRIAGE AND SEX COUNSELOR
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
Matthew 19:4-5 4"Haven'tyou read," he replied,
"that at the beginning the Creator'made them male
and female,' 5and said, 'For this reasona man will
leavehis father and mother and be united to his wife,
and the two will become one flesh'?
BIBLEHUB RESOURCES
Divorce
Matthew 19:3-9
W.F. Adeney
The readiness with which the marriage tie is dissolvedin some countries, and
the daring questions on the subjectthat have been raised in England, make it
important for us to see clearlyhow divorce should be regarded in the light of
the teachings ofChrist. Plainly he sets his face againstany divorce exceptin
the most extreme case.Let us considersome of the pleas for a laxer rule, and
then look at the duty of resisting them.
I. PLEAS FOR A GREATER FREEDOMOF DIVORCE.
1. The happiness of the home. It is urged that some husbands and wives are
hopelesslyat variance. Though married outwardly, in soul they are not

wedded at all. They live togetheras enemies compelled to occupy the same
prison, which a miserable conventionality falsely names home. Undoubtedly,
this may be so. But then happiness is not the chief end of life. Moreover, the
immediate relief of freedom would have to be purchased at the costof an
invasion of the settledsocialorder.
2. The rights of liberty. A more daring position is taken up by those who claim
liberty to dissolve the marriage bond. These people deny that we have any
right to enter into a lifelong contractof marriage; or rather, they plead that
such a contractshould be subject to revision.
II. THE OBLIGATIONS OF IRREVOCABLE MARRIAGE TIES. Jesus
Christ saw the terrible evils that resulted from great freedom of divorce in his
day, and he distinctly opposedthis dangerous licence. Letus considersome of
the grave objections to it.
1. It is contrary to nature. On the surface of it, marriage may seemto be an
artificial arrangement, and absolute freedom the state of nature. But our Lord
pointed out that marriage was instituted at the Creation, and that it was
associatedwith the very constitution of human life. There is a higher nature
than that of the animal world. There is a certainbest arrangement which only
those who have intelligence to perceive it and conscienceto follow it canenter
into. This corresponds to Nature, not in her lowestinstincts, but in her highest
aspirations.
2. It is contrary to the law of God. The arrangement of nature was
supplemented by the word of revelation. In marriage men and womencarry
out a law that God has revealed. In free divorce they break that law. This is of
no consequence, perhaps, to people who are "emancipated;" but it should be
all-authoritative for Christians.
3. It leads to numberless evils.
(1) It ruins the home. Discordantsentiments may also ruin it; but they
indicate failure to reachan ideal. Freedomof divorce destroys the very ideal.
The home which may be brokenup at any moment is no home.

(2) It is unjust. It cannot always happen that both husband and wife desire to
be separatedwhen one is tired of the union; and if the wish is on one side only,
injustice is done by divorce, and a wrong inflicted. Even if the divorce cannot
be carried out without mutual consent, the one person who does not wish for it
is placed in a cruelly distressfulposition.
(3) It lowers the idea of marriage. Instead of studying to make the best of the
marriage union, people who have freedom of divorce are tempted to be
looking abroad for new attractions. This is immoral; it tends directly to
degrade the thoughts, and to throw open the flood gates ofunrestrained
desires. - W.F.A.
Biblical Illustrator
Behold, we have forsakenall, and followedThee;what shall we have
therefore?
Matthew 19:27-30
The advantages offollowing Christ
A. Weston.
I. THAT A FOLLOWER OF CHRIST POSSESSES A CHARACTER OF
HIGH AND ESSENTIALIMPORTANCE. TO be a followerof Christ we
must —
1. Believe the testimony which the Word of God has given as to His character
and office.
2. From this principle of faith emanates all the other elements which compose
the Christian character.
3. A public professionof His name, and exertion in His cause. Do you believe,
etc.?

II. THAT IN SUSTAINING THIS CHARACTER PAINFUL SACRIFICES
MUST FREQUENTLYBE MADE. The disciples, primitive Christians, etc.
1. Rememberfor whom these sacrificesare to be made.
2. Rememberfor what these sacrifices are to be made. Are you determined at
all costs to follow Christ?
III. THAT OUR PRESENTSACRIFICES IN THE SAVIOUR'S CAUSE
SHALL ISSUE IN A GLORIOUS REWARD.
1. Here is an advantage promised as to the present life.
2. As to the life to come. The time and nature of the recompense. What
encouragementdoes this subjecthold out to the followers ofChrist?
(A. Weston.)
The reward of Christ's followers
Sketches.
I. The evils they renounce. We must forsake allour sinful practices, ungodly
associates,unholy attachments.
II. The example they follow. Christ, as our Teacher, Sovereign, Pattern.
III. The reward they anticipate. Following Christ will secure our personal
salvation, our temporal interests and our eternal happiness.
(Sketches.)
Christian fidelity and its rewards
J. C. Gray.
I. THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE ABANDONING THE WORLD THE
BETTER TO SERVE CHRIST. Whatwas left?

(1)A home that was dear;
(2)friends of the old time;
(3)a familiar occupation;
(4)the religion of forefathers.
II. THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE ENGAGED IN DUTIES OF CHRISTIAN
PROFESSION. It involved
(1)being thrust out of synagogue;
(2)ceaselesscombatwith the world — opinions, fashions;
(3)arduous labours.
III. THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE'S RECOMPENSE. Whatshall we have? —
(1)Presentpeace;
(2)joy of discipleship;
(3)anticipation of sharing in future results of all Christian work;
(4)the final rest and reward.
(J. C. Gray.)
The gain greaterthan the loss
J. R. Day, D. D.
We must understand the requirements of religion; and not over-value the
things which we are obliged to give up. Some say "that a Christian must
renounce all the world, all its gains, and pleasure." This has been true in the
world's history; as in case ofXavier, Wesley, and missionaries. These
exceptionalcases. Thensome people think that if they love Jesus Christ, they
must be careful not to love wife and children too much. This is a mistake. God
has made the family and cementedit with love. It is not necessaryfora man to

love God more that he love family less. There is a difference betweenthat
sacrifice whichbrings everything to God, to be regardedas His, and that
slavery which dispossesses ofall worldly goods and earthly affections in order
to appease the heart of the infinite Creator. Love of God intensifies our home
affections. So with regard to worldly possessions. A man is not calledupon to
endangerhis working capital, but to consecrateit. The rules of the gospel
bend to wealth; and a Christian has a largerexpectancyof possessingthe good
things of this life. But he views himself as the stewardof God, and does not
allow it to imperil his soul's salvation. Then comes another question: If I am a
followerof Christ, what is to be my attitude towards the world's amusements
and pleasures. Give up the follies of the world, not its true pleasures. There is
a high sense in which a man is to live soberly in Christ Jesus. If any man has a
right to the pleasures ofthe earth, it is His disciple; he has a right to inherit its
fruits, blessings. He has the joys of sense, andothers much higher and richer
in the greenpastures. I would like to ask the Christian if he really thinks that
he gives up much in following Christ? Our sacrifices have been joys to achieve
in faith and love. But there will come a time when the text will have a certain
literalness about it, when "there will be no question as to what we leave, but
what we are going to find? The man will have to turn his back upon his
possessions. All will have forsakenus. He will then fulfil the promise of eternal
life. This the final consummation. We shall not then in the eternal sunshine be
disposedto think much of what we have given up to follow Christ.
(J. R. Day, D. D.)
The hundred-fold recompense
H. Melvill, B. D.
This reply of our Lord as furnishing guidance for us in our endeavours to act
upon men and persuade them to give heed to religion. It will not do,
constituted as men are, to enlarge to them abstractedlyon the beauty of
holiness and on the satisfactionderivable from a conscienceatrest. They will
not regardvirtue as its own reward. We must admit that religion requires
greatsacrifices;but we contend that even in this life they are more than

counterbalancedby its comforts, and that in the next they will be a thousand-
fold recompensed.
I. Take the case ofthe YOUNG. You are reluctant to lose the pleasures of
earth. We do not wish to deprecate these;all your senses are againstour
arguments. Christ did not tell Peterthat his boat and net were worth but little
at the most. We admit the extent of the sacrifice. We take the ground of
recompense more than equivalent for all renounced. A nobler pursuit; reward
more enduring.
II. It is the apparent conflict betweenduty and interestwhich causes us in a
variety of casesto disobey God and withstand the pleadings of conscience.The
conflict is only apparent, as our true interestis always on the side of duty.
Here, again, we must magnify the remunerative power of Him in whose cause
the sacrifice is made, rather than depreciate the sacrifice itself. But the duty is
clear, and the difficulty of discharging it will not excuse its neglect. A man
says he must sell his goods on the Sabbath in order to support his family, his
interest demands it. But if he follows duty as againstapparent interest, we
assertthat he engages onhis side all the aids of Providence, if you cannotbe
religious but through bankruptcy, let not your name in the Gazette scare you
from inscribing it in the Lamb's book of life. We remind you of the
inexhaustibleness of God; He is the Proprietor of both worlds. To men who
are in danger of being engrossedin business, as well as those who are tempted
to swerve from rectitude, we say, dwell on the word " hundred-fold" in our
text as suggestive ofthe Divine fulness and power.
(H. Melvill, B. D.)
Forsaking allto follow Christ
J. T. Barker., W. H. Hatchings, M. A.
I. CHRIST IS THE PRE-EMINENTOBJECT AND THE BOUNDLESS
SOURCE OF ALL MORAL ATTRACTION AND INFLUENCE.

1. He is the pre-eminent objectof moral attraction. He is the centre of all
moral power. It is the overpowering force of the sun's attraction that regulates
the motion of the planets; it is the overwhelming attractionof the earth that
neutralizes the mutual attraction of things upon its surface, and prevents
them from inconveniently clinging together. So is Christ the centre of the
moral world. As God, He claims our adoration: as Man, our lively affection.
He is the realization of every Divine idea. In a galleryof paintings, comprising
portraits, allegories,historic scenes,and ideal creations, one grand
masterpiece, long concealed, is at length uncoveredand disclosedto view.
Immediately all others are forsaken;the admiring gaze is directed to this. It is
" the attraction," not because ofits mere novelty, but because it comprises all
the subjects and all the excellencesofevery other work, and displays them
with unrivalled power. He is the way to the Father, and to the soul's
everlasting home. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the
Father, but by Me." A wild country is spread before us, with numerous paths,
by-ways, and intersecting roads. Many of these tracks are toilsome, but
supposedto leadto the possessionofsome profit and gain; many are pleasant,
but of doubtful issue;many are perilous; many are evidently ways of
perdition. But at length a bright "way" appears, and it is seento lead
upwards, and to terminate in a glorious "city of habitation." Shall we not
forsake everyother way to follow this? He is the fulness of all good. He is all
and in all. Is it not greatgain to forsake alland to follow Him? He is the friend
beloved. When a beloved friend arrives, business and pleasure are alike
abandoned, for the joy of his society. Jesus comes, He calls to us; He
announces the joyful news of reconciliationwith God. Should we not forsake
all to follow Him, and to be receivedinto His everlasting friendship? He is the
heavenly Bridegroom. The bride forsakesher father's house, her country, her
early associatesforthe bridegroom.
2. He is the boundless source of moral influence. He changes the earthly into
the heavenly. No teachernor doctrine can produce a transformation like this;
the all-powerful influence is with Christ alone. If we desire our own true
glory, should we not forsake allto follow Him? He changes the corrupt into
the spiritual. He raises the spiritually dead into a Divine life. This reminds us

that the attraction and influence of the Lord Jesus Christ canonly be savingly
experiencedthrough the instrumentality of faith.
II. To FORSAKE ALL AND TO FOLLOW CHRIST IS ALIKE OUR
INDISPENSABLEDUTY AND OUR TRUE HAPPINESS.
1. It is our indispensable duty to forsake all and to follow Christ. It is not by
abstractconsiderations we usually judge of duty, but by contemplating actual
and living relations. Now, if we contemplate the actualrelations Christ
sustains to us, and of the reality of which we are assuredby Divine testimony,
the entireness ofHis claims will become immediately evident. As the Sonof
God, He claims supreme homage and entire obedience:as Mediator, He has a
peculiar claim, because we are the subjects of His all-prevailing intercession.
This imperative duty is sustainedby every conceivable motive; it is also
indispensable. It is the divinely appointed condition of salvation. We must
look at the awful alternative. We are all under the most sacredobligationto
hold the possessionofearthly things in subservience to the service of Christ.
2. It is our true happiness to forsake allto follow Christ. "What shall we have
therefore?" Is it not true happiness to derive present and everlasting joy in
the contemplationof so pre-eminent an object of love; to experience the
transforming influence of His Spirit and truth changing us into His likeness;
and to enter into living and effectualrelation with Him, all whose names are
significant of unlimited blessing? "Whatshall we have therefore?" Exemption
from eternal death, and the inheritance of everlasting life. The truth of Christ.
The fellowshipof the saints. An infinite compensation;a blissful result of self-
denial. "And the last shall be first." As the first in their own and in the
world's esteemshould be really the last, so the last shall be first. The lastin
worldly esteem. The last in socialconditions — Christians are required to
avoid all vain display and ostentation. The last in their own esteem. "What
things were gain to them, these they counted loss for Christ."
(J. T. Barker.)Whatcalledforth this question? An event had just takenplace
which had made a deep impression on the minds of the disciples.
I. LET US CONSIDER THE SPIRIT IN WHICH THOSE WORDS WERE
UTTERED BY ST. PETER. There are some who always seemto delight in

putting a bad constructionupon the actions and words of God's saints. We
have no sympathy with such men. They judge others by their own standard
and motives. But in the words of the text we find no instance of human
infirmity. WhateverSt. Peter's faults may have been, certainly he was the last
man to think of payment for service, or of reward. He was impetuous,
affectionate, generous. .Nor, again, canwe admit that there was something
vain-glorious in the words. What, then, led St. Peter to say, "What shall we
have therefore?" It was thankfulness. He was thrilled with gratitude at the
thought of the grace whichhad enabled him to do what others had not done.
But further, instead of pride there was, we believe, humility in this utterance.
It was as much as to say, "What condescensionthat thou hastchosenus, such
as we are, for so greata vocation!" They felt the greatness ofthe love which
had calledthem, and their own unworthiness of the dignity. Let us look at the
statements which are made. They are two. Christ had bidden the rich youth to
give up all, and St. Peternow says, "'We have done this — we have forsaken
all. Yes, it was not much, but it was all, and the sacrifice is to be measured not
by the amount which is surrendered, but by the love which prompted it.
Again, St. Peteradds, "We have followedThee." This was the secondthing
which our Lord demanded of the rich youth. Perfectdoes not consistin the
mere abandonment of external goods. St. Peterwas careful to add that they
had forsakenallwith a definite motive — that of following Christ, and of
being like Him in the external conditions of his life. It is not merely world-
surrender, but self-surrender which Christ demands. The forsaking is the
preliminary of the following. Detachmentfrom the creature is useless unless it
leads to attachment to the Creator. Sin consists in two things — the turning
awayfrom God, and the turning to the creature. "My people have committed
two evils; they have forsakenMe, saiththe Lord, the Fountain of living
waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no waters"
(Jeremiah 2:13). Holiness, on the other hand, requires a spirit of detachment
from visible things, and love for God. They loved Him. It was a progressive
love.
II. OUR LORD'S REPLY TO ST. PETER'S QUESTIONWAS AN
ENCOURAGING ONE. He did not find fault with the question, knowing the
purity of motive which prompted it. But He was careful to elevate their

thoughts. They should have some greathonour, some mysterious union with
Christ in His exaltation, as they now had fellowship with Him on earth. Christ
is Judge alone. They canhave no share in His judiciary authority. In what
sense, then, will the Apostles sit with Christ and judge the world? By the
judgment of comparison. They will be examples of faithfulness to grace,
condemning those thereby who have clung to earthly things and forsaken
Christ. And besides this, by the judgment of approbation. They will be
Christ's court, His princes, marked out from others by specialglory and
blessednessas the recompense oftheir allegiance to Him. Is this honour to be
confined to the original disciples? We are not called, as Apostles were,
actually to forsake all, and to follow Christ. But all Christians must share
their spirit. We must "use this world, as not abusing it" (1 Corinthians 7:31).
The outward acts of religion, necessaryas they are, will not compensate fora
worldly spirit. But the Christian life is no mere negative thing — the
quenching of the love of the temporal; it is the following of Christ. Try by
meditation to gain a clearerview of our Lord's example. Nor is it a sordid
movement of soul to desire to look overthe hills of time into the glories of the
eternal world. Love, not selfishness, prompts all sacrifice made for Christ. But
He who "for the joy which was setbefore Him endured the cross, despising
the shame" (Hebrews 12:2), permits the inquiry of the text when made in the
spirit of hope and thankfulness. "What shall we have therefore?" It is not
merely happiness, it is blessedness.
(W. H. Hatchings, M. A.)
Hundredfold reward
M. Pool.
We must not understand this of an hundredfold in specie, but in value. It is —
1. Joyin the Holy Ghost, peace of conscience, the sense ofGod's love; so as,
with the Apostles, they shall rejoice that the)" are thought worthy to suffer for
Christ.

2. Contentment. They shall have a contentedframe of spirit with the little that
is left to them; though they have not so much to drink as they had, yet they
shall have less thirst (Philippians 4:11, 12).
3. God will stir up the hearts of others to supply their wants, and that supply
shall be sweeterto them than their abundance was.
4. God sometimes repays them in this life, as He restoredJob after his trial to
greaterriches.
(M. Pool.)
The Christian's recompense
Lapide.
The man who forsakeshis possessionsand friends for Christ's sake, shallfind
that Christ will take care that he has "a hundred," i.e., very many others, who
will give him the love and help of brothers, wives, and mothers, with far more
exceeding sweetnessand charity; so that it shall not seem that he has lost his
own possessions, but has only laid them down, and in Christ's providence has
multiplied them with great usury. For spiritual affections are sweeterthan
natural ones.
(Lapide.)
The reward of self-sacrifice
Lapide.
This implies —
1. The security of those who are poor for the gospel's sake.
2. The privilege of judging.
3. Dignity and eminence above others.

4. The nearestplace to Christ and most perfect union with Him.
5. A principality of grace, happiness, and glory, that inasmuch as they are
princes of the kingdom of heaven, they should have the right of judging, and
of admitting into it those who are worthy, and excluding the unworthy.
(Lapide.)
The Christian's possession
He who has left all things begins to possessGod;and he who has God for his
portion is the possessorofall nature. Instead of lands, he is sufficient to
himself, having goodfruit which cannotperish. Instead of houses, it is enough
for him that there is the habitation of God, and the temple of God, than which
nothing can be more precious. For what is more precious than God? That is
the portion which no earthly inheritance canequal. What is more magnificent
than the celestialhost? Whatmore blessed than Divine possession?
( Ambrose.)
The joy of the virtuous
If, instead of the perturbation of angerand fury, you weigh the perpetual
calmness ofthe mind; for the torment of anxiety and distraction, the quiet of
security; for the fruitless and penal sadness ofthe world, the fruit of sorrow
unto salvation;for the vanity of worldly joy, the richness of spiritual delight:
— you will perceive that the recompense ofsuch an exchange is a
hundredfold.
( Cassian.)
The first last
M. Pool.

This is an awakening sentence to the best of men. It was as much as to sayto
the Apostles, "You have forsakenalland followedMe; but you had need look
and consider, from what principle, with what love, and to what end you have
done it; you had need keepa watchupon yourselves, and see that you hold on,
and that you have no confidence in yourselves. Formany that are first in
profession, first in the opinion of others, first in their own opinion and
confidence, at the Day of Judgment will be found to be last in Mine and My
Father's esteemand reckoning;and many who make not so greata noise, nor
have so greata name and repute in the world, and who have the lowestand
meanestopinion of themselves will be found first and highest in My favour.
The Day of Judgment will frustrate many expectations.
(M. Pool.)
COMMENTARIES
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) And said, For this cause.—InGenesis 2:24 the words appear as spokenby
Adam; but words so uttered, prompted by the Holy Spirit, and stamped with
the divine sanction, might well be lookedon as an oracle from God, the
expressionof a law of His appointment.
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
19:3-12 The Phariseeswere desirous ofdrawing something from Jesus which
they might represent as contrary to the law of Moses.Cases aboutmarriage
have been numerous, and sometimes perplexed; made so, not by the law of
God, but by the lusts and follies of men; and often people fix what they will
do, before they ask for advice. Jesus replied by asking whether they had not
read the accountof the creation, and the first example of marriage; thus
pointing out that every departure therefrom was wrong. That condition is best

for us, and to be chosenand kept to accordingly, which is best for our souls,
and tends most to prepare us for, and preserve us to, the kingdom of heaven.
When the gospelis really embraced, it makes men kind relatives and faithful
friends; it teaches them to bear the burdens, and to bear with the infirmities
of those with whom they are connected, to considertheir peace and happiness
more than their own. As to ungodly persons, it is proper that they should be
restrained by laws, from breaking the peace ofsociety. And we learn that the
married state should be entered upon with greatseriousnessand earnest
prayer.
Barnes'Notes on the Bible
And he answeredand said ... - Instead of referring to the opinions of either
party, Jesus calledtheir attention to the originaldesign of marriage, to the
authority of Mosesanauthority acknowledgedby them both.
Have ye not read? - Genesis 1:27;Genesis 2:21-22. "And said, For this cause,"
etc., Genesis 2:24. Thatis, God, at the beginning, made but one man and one
woman: their posterity should learn that the original intention of marriage
was that a man should have but one wife.
Shall leave his father and mother - This means, shall bind himself more
strongly to his wife than he was to his father or mother. The marriage
connectionis the most tender and endearing of all human relations more
tender than eventhat bond which unites us to a parent.
And shall cleave unto his wife - The word "cleave"denotes a union of the
firmest kind. It is in the original taken from gluing, and means so firmly to
adhere togetherthat nothing can separate them.
They twain shall be one flesh - That is, they two, or they that were two, shall
be united as one - one in law, in feeling, in interest, in affection. They shall no
longerhave separate interests, but shall act in all things as if they were one -
animated by one soul and one wish. The argument of Jesus here is, that since
they are so intimately united as to be one, and since in the beginning God
made but one womanfor one man, it follows that they cannotbe separated
but by the authority of God. Man may not put awayhis wife for every cause.

What God has joined togetherman may not put asunder. In this decisionhe
really decided in favor of one of the parties; and it shows that when it was
proper, Jesus answeredquestions without regard to consequences, from
whatevercause they might have been proposed, and howevermuch difficulty
it might involve him in. Our Lord, in this, also showedconsummate wisdom.
He answeredthe question, not from Hillel or Shammai, their teachers, but
from Moses, andthus defeatedtheir malice.
Jamieson-Fausset-BrownBible Commentary
5. And said, For this cause—tofollow out this divine appointment.
shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they
twain shall be one flesh?—Jesushere sends them back to the original
constitution of man as one pair, a male and a female;to their marriage, as
such, by divine appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressedby the
sacredhistorian, that in all time one man and one woman should by marriage
become one flesh—so to continue as long as both are in the flesh. This being
God's constitution, let not man break it up by causelessdivorces.
Matthew Poole's Commentary
See Poole on"Matthew 19:6".
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
And said,.... Genesis2:24 where they seemto be the words of Adam, though
here they are ascribed to God, who made Adam and Eve; and as if they were
spokenby him, when he brought them together; and which is easilyreconciled
by observing, that these words were spokenby Adam, under the direction of a
divine revelation; showing, that there would be fathers, and mothers, and
children; and that the latter, when grownup, would enter into a marriage
state, and leave their parents, and cleave to their proper yoke fellows, which
relations then were not in being: this therefore being the effect of a pure
revelation from God, may be truly affirmed to be said by him. Some think
they are the words of Moses the historian; and if they were, as they were
delivered by divine inspiration, they may be rightly called the word of God. A
note by Jarchi on this text exactlyagrees herewith, which is "the holy Spirit

says thus: for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife";and not wives:and the phrase denotes that close union betweena
man and his wife, which is not to be dissolved for every cause, it being stricter
than that which is betweenparents and children; for the wife must be cleaved
unto, and father and mother forsaken:not that upon this new relation
betweenman and wife, the former relation betweenparents and children
ceases;nor does this phrase denote an entire separationfrom them, so as to
have the affectionalienatedfrom them, or to be disengagedfrom all duty and
obedience to them, and care and regard for them, for the future; but a
relinquishing the "house of his father and the bed of his mother", as all the
three Targums on the place explain it: that is, he shall quit the house of his
father, and not bed and board there, and live with him as before;but having
takena wife to himself, shall live and cohabit with her:
and they twain shall be one flesh; the word "twain" is: not in the Hebrew text
in Genesis, but in the Septuagint version compiled by Jews, inthe Samaritan
Pentateuch, and version, and in the Targum of Jonathanben Uzziel, who
renders, it as here, "and they two shall be one flesh". This is the true sense,
for neither more nor less canpossibly be meant; and denotes that near
conjunction, and strict union, betweena man and his wife, the wife being a
part of himself, and both as one flesh, and one body, and therefore not to be
parted on every slight occasion;and has a particular respectto the act of
carnalcopulation, which only ought to be betweenone man and one woman,
lawfully married to eachother; See Gill on 1 Corinthians 6:16.
Geneva Study Bible
And said, For this cause shalla man leave father and mother, and shall {c}
cleave to his wife: and they {d} twain shall be one flesh?
(c) The Greek word conveys to be glued unto, by which it signifies the union
by marriage, which is betweenman and wife, as though they were glued
together.
(d) They who were two become one as it were:and this word flesh is
figuratively takenfor the whole man, or the body, after the manner of the
Hebrews.

EXEGETICAL(ORIGINAL LANGUAGES)
Meyer's NT Commentary
Matthew 19:5. Εἶπεν] God. Comp. note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. Although, no
doubt, the words of Genesis 2:24 were uttered by Adam, yet, as a rule,
utterances of the Old Testament, in which God’s will is declared, are looked
upon as the words of God, and that altogetherirrespective of the persons
speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the passage.
ἕνεκεν τούτου]refers, in Genesis 2:24, to the formation of the womanout of
the rib of the man. But this detail, which belongs to an incident assumedby
Jesus to be well known, is included in the generalstatementof Matthew 19:4,
so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhatfreely, the particular to
which the ἕνεκεν τούτου refers. Observe, atthe same time, that Matthew 19:4-
5 togetherconstitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to
appear in the shape of an inference in the verse immediately following.
καταλείψει “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cuiuni paterna et materna
cedit,” Bengel.
οἱ δύο]These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occurin the
Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followedby the
LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly emphasizing
the claims of monogamy. See note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. The article indicates
the two particular persons in question.
εἰς σάρκα μίαν] Ethical union may also be representedby other ties; but this
cannot be said of bodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, that
in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth constituted one person.
Comp. Sir 25:25 and Grimm’s note. The construction is not Greek (in which

εἷναι εἰς means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. Phil. p. 39
E; Alc. I. p. 126 A), but a rendering of the Hebrew ָ‫י‬‫ה‬‫ל‬‫ה‬ (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680
f.).
Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 19:5. καὶ εἶπεν: God said, though the words as they stand in Gen.
may be a continuation of Adam’s reflections, ora remark of the writer.—
ἕνεκεν τούτου:connectedin Gen. with the story of the womanmade from the
rib of the man, here with the origin of sex. The sex principle imperiously
demands that all other relations and ties, howeverintimate and strong, shall
yield to it. The cohesionthis force creates is the greatestpossible.—οἱ δύο:
these words in the Sept[109]have nothing answering to them in the Hebrew,
but they are true to the spirit of the original.—εἰς σάρκα μίαν: the reference is
primarily to the physical fleshly unity. But flesh in Hebrew thought represents
the entire man, and the ideal unity of marriage covers the whole nature. It is a
unity of soul as wellas of body: of sympathy, interest, purpose.
[109]Septuagint.
Cambridge Bible for Schools andColleges
5. Forthis cause]The lessonof Nature is the lessonof God, “Nunquam aliud
Natura aliud Sapientia dicit.” Juv. Sat. xiv. 321.
Bengel's Gnomen
Matthew 19:5. Εἶπεν, said) sc. GOD, by Adam.—ἕνεκεν τούτου, forthis cause.
In wedlock, the bond is natural and moral.—καταλείψει, κ.τ.λ., shallleave,
etc.)Therefore already at that time the same woman could not be both wife
and mother of the same man. Such is the commencementof the prohibited
degrees. The conjugalrelation, to which alone the paternal and maternal
yield, is the closestofall ties.—πατέρα,father)Although neither Adam had
yet become a father, nor Eve a mother.—τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, to his wife) and
thus also the wife to her husband. The husband is the head of the family.—
ἔσονται, shall be) one flesh while they are in the flesh.—οἱ δύο, the two[856])

Thus also Mark 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31;the Samaritan[857]
Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac[858]versionof Genesis.
[856]E. V. “Theytwain.”—(I. B.)
[857]The Samaritans rejectall the SacredBooks ofthe Jews, exceptthe
Pentateuch. Of this they preserve copies in the ancient Hebrew characters;
which, as there has been no friendly intercourse betweenthem and the Jews
since the Babylonish captivity, must unquestionably be the same that were in
use before that event, though subjectto such variations as are always
occasionedby frequent transcribing. Although the Samaritan Pentateuchwas
known to and cited by Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza,
Diodorus of Tarsus, Jerome, Syncellus, andother ancient Fathers, it
afterwards fell into oblivion for more than a thousand years, so that its very
existence beganto be questioned. JosephScaligerwas the first who drew the
attention of learned men to this valuable relic of antiquity; and M. Peiresc
procured a copy from Egypt, which, togetherwith the ship that brought it,
was unfortunately captured by pirates. Archbishop Usher, however, procured
six copies from the East;and Father Morinus printed the Samaritan
Pentateuch, for the first time, in the Paris Polyglott(which was published in
1645, in ten volumes, large folio), from another copy, procured by the French
Ambassadorat Constantinople. Forfurther particulars, see Hartwell Horne
in voc.—(I. B.)
[858]Considerable doubt exists as to the origin and date of the PESCHITO
SYRIAC (or literal Syrian) VERSION of the Old Testament. It was printed
for the first time in the Paris Polyglott. Foran accountof the various opinions
entertained regarding the date and authorship of this celebratedVersion
(ranging over a period of more than a thousand years), and of the arguments
by which they are supported, see HartwellHorne in voc.—(I. B.)
Pulpit Commentary

Verse 5. - And said. The words that follow are assignedto Adam in Genesis
2:23, 24, but he spake by inspiration of God, as he knew nothing of "father
and mother" by personalexperience, and therefore they canbe rightly
attributed to the Creator. It was, in fact, a prophetic utterance of which Adam
was the mouthpiece; as St. Augustine says, "Deus utique per hominem dixit
quod homo prophetando praedixit." For this cause. Becauseofthis Divine
appointment, and especiallyofthe peculiar creationof Eve. She was not
formed separatelyof the dust of the earth, but directly from the substance of
Adam; so she was one with her husband, nearer than all other human
relations, superior to the tenderestties of nature and birth. Shall cleave
(προσκολληθήσεται, orκολληθήσεται);literally, shall be glued to; adhaerebit.
The word expresses the closestpossible union, stronger and higher than that
towards parents. They twain shall be one flesh; the two shall become one flesh
(ἔσονται οἱ δίο εἰς σάρκα μίαν). The Septuagintand Samaritan Pentateuch
insert "the two," which is not in the present Hebrew text. Our Lord adopts
the addition as conveying the correctsense. In marriage there is a moral and
physical union, so that two persons become virtually one being. Originally,
man containedwoman in himself before she was separatedfrom him; she was
a corporealunity with man; or, as others put it, man, as a race, was created
male and female, the latter being implicitly contained in the former; the
previous unity is thus asserted. In marriage this unity is acknowledgedand
continued. St. Paul quotes this text in Ephesians 5:31; and in 1 Corinthians
6:16 uses it as an argument againstfornication,
Vincent's Word Studies
Shall cleave (κολληθήσεται)
Lit., shall be glued.
Shall be one flesh (ἔσονται εἰς σάρκα μίαν)
Lit., "into one flesh;" Wyc., two in one flesh.

STUDYLIGHTRESOURCES
Adam Clarke Commentary
For this cause - Being createdfor this very purpose; that they might glorify
their Makerin a matrimonial connection. A man shall leave (καταλειψαι,
wholly give up) both father and mother - the matrimonial union being more
intimate and binding than even paternal or filial affection; - and shall be
closelyunited, προσκολληθησεται, shallbe firmly cementedto his wife. A
beautiful metaphor, which most forcibly intimates that nothing but death can
separate them: as a well-gluedboard will break soonerin the whole wood,
than in the glued joint. So also the Hebrew word ‫קבד‬ debak implies.
And they twain shall be one flesh? - Not only meaning, that they should be
consideredas one body, but also as two souls in one body, with a complete
union of interests, and an indissoluble partnership of life and fortune, comfort
and support, desires and inclinations, joys and sorrows. Farther, it appears to
me, that the words in Genesis 2:24, ‫דחא‬ ‫רסבי‬ lebasarachad, for one flesh,
which our Lord literally translates, mean also, that children, compounded as
it were of both, should be the product of the matrimonial connection. Thus,
they two (man and woman) shall be for the producing of one flesh, the very
same kind of human creature with themselves. See the note on Genesis 2:24.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.
Bibliography
Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "The Adam Clarke
Commentary". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/matthew-
19.html. 1832.

return to 'Jump List'
Coffman's Commentaries on the Bible
And said, For this cause shalla man leave his father and his mother, and shall
cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh? So that they are no
more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man
put asunder.
Jesus'answerwas plain, even blunt. God does not allow divorce. There's
really no problem at all about knowing God's will. To be sure, problems and
difficulties occur, but from what sinful men do, not from any ambiguity
regarding what God commanded! "What God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder." Divorce is man's will, not God's will. How shocking this
truth must have been to the Pharisees who not only allowed, but also
practiced, divorce on a colossalscale. How shocking it is for many today!
People have no trouble knowing the truth on this question, but they do have
quite a problem trying to make what they do bear the light of this truth! See
under Matthew 19:9.
Copyright Statement
James Burton Coffman Commentaries reproduced by permission of Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. All other rights reserved.
Bibliography
Coffman, James Burton. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Coffman
Commentaries on the Old and New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bcc/matthew-19.html. Abilene
Christian University Press, Abilene, Texas, USA. 1983-1999.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible
And said,.... Genesis2:24 where they seemto be the words of Adam, though
here they are ascribed to God, who made Adam and Eve; and as if they were

spokenby him, when he brought them together; and which is easilyreconciled
by observing, that these words were spokenby Adam, under the direction of a
divine revelation; showing, that there would be fathers, and mothers, and
children; and that the latter, when grownup, would enter into a marriage
state, and leave their parents, and cleave to their proper yoke fellows, which
relations then were not in being: this therefore being the effect of a pure
revelation from God, may be truly affirmed to be said by him. Some think
they are the words of Moses the historian; and if they were, as they were
delivered by divine inspiration, they may be rightly called the word of God. A
note by Jarchi on this text exactlyagrees herewith, which is ‫שדקה‬ ‫תרמוא‬ ‫ןכ‬ ‫,חור‬
"the holy Spirit says thus: for this cause shall a man leave father and mother,
and shall cleave to his wife";and not wives:and the phrase denotes that close
union betweena man and his wife, which is not to be dissolvedfor every
cause, it being stricter than that which is betweenparents and children; for
the wife must be cleavedunto, and father and mother forsaken:not that upon
this new relationbetweenman and wife, the former relation betweenparents
and children ceases;nor does this phrase denote an entire separationfrom
them, so as to have the affectionalienated from them, or to be disengaged
from all duty and obedience to them, and care and regard for them, for the
future; but a relinquishing the "house of his father and the bed of his
mother", as all the three Targums on the place explain it: that is, he shall quit
the house of his father, and not bed and board there, and live with him as
before; but having takena wife to himself, shall live and cohabit with her:
and they twain shall be one flesh; the word "twain" is: not in the Hebrew text
in Genesis, but in the Septuagint version compiled by Jews, inthe Samaritan
Pentateuch, and version, and in the Targum of Jonathanben Uzziel, who
renders, it as here, ‫ןוהלוורת‬ ‫ארשלבי‬ ‫דח‬ ‫,ןוהלו‬ "and they two shall be one flesh".
This is the true sense, forneither more nor less can possibly be meant; and
denotes that near conjunction, and strict union, betweena man and his wife,
the wife being a part of himself, and both as one flesh, and one body, and
therefore not to be parted on every slight occasion;and has a particular
respectto the act of carnal copulation, which only ought to be betweenone
man and one woman, lawfully married to eachother; See Gill on 1
Corinthians 6:16.

Copyright Statement
The New John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible Modernisedand adapted
for the computer by Larry Pierce of Online Bible. All Rightes Reserved,
Larry Pierce, Winterbourne, Ontario.
A printed copy of this work can be ordered from: The Baptist Standard
Bearer, 1 Iron Oaks Dr, Paris, AR, 72855
Bibliography
Gill, John. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "The New John Gill Exposition
of the Entire Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/geb/matthew-19.html. 1999.
Geneva Study Bible
And said, For this cause shalla man leave father and mother, and shall c
cleave to his wife: and they d twain shall be one flesh?
(c) The Greek word conveys "to be glued unto", by which it signifies the union
by marriage, which is betweenman and wife, as though they were glued
together.
(d) They who were two become one as it were:and this word "flesh" is
figuratively takenfor the whole man, or the body, after the manner of the
Hebrews.
Copyright Statement

Text Courtesyof BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Bibliography
Beza, Theodore. "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5". "The 1599 Geneva Study
Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/gsb/matthew-19.html.
1599-1645.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And said, For this cause — to follow out this divine appointment.
twain shall be one flesh? — Jesus here sends them back to the original
constitution of man as one pair, a male and a female; to their marriage, as
such, by divine appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressedby the
sacredhistorian, that in all time one man and one woman should by marriage
become one flesh - so to continue as long as both are in the flesh. This being
God‘s constitution, let not man break it up by causelessdivorces.
Copyright Statement
These files are a derivative of an electronic edition prepared from text
scannedby Woodside Bible Fellowship.
This expanded edition of the Jameison-Faussett-BrownCommentary is in the
public domain and may be freely used and distributed.
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Matthew 19:5". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb/matthew-19.html. 1871-8.

Robertson's WordPictures in the New Testament
Shall cleave (κολλητησεται — kollēthēsetai). Firstfuture passive, “shallbe
glued to,” the verb means.
The twain shall become one flesh (εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν — esontaihoi
duo eis sarka mian). This use of εις — eis after ειμι — eimi is an imitation of
the Hebrew, though a few examples occurin the older Greek and in the
papyri. The frequency of it is due to the Hebrew and here the lxx is a direct
translation of the Hebrew idiom.
Copyright Statement
The Robertson's WordPictures of the New Testament. Copyright �
Broadman Press 1932,33,Renewal1960. All rights reserved. Used by
permission of Broadman Press (Southern BaptistSunday SchoolBoard)
Bibliography
Robertson, A.T. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Robertson's Word
Pictures of the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/rwp/matthew-19.html.
Broadman Press 1932,33.Renewal1960.
Vincent's Word Studies
Shall cleave ( κολληθήσεται )
Lit.,shall be glued.
Shall be one flesh ( ἔσονται εἰς σάρκα μίαν )
Lit., “into one flesh;” Wyc.,two in one flesh.

Copyright Statement
The text of this work is public domain.
Bibliography
Vincent, Marvin R. DD. "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5". "Vincent's Word
Studies in the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/vnt/matthew-19.html. Charles
Schribner's Sons. New York, USA. 1887.
Wesley's ExplanatoryNotes
And said, For this cause shalla man leave father and mother, and shall cleave
to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
And said — By the mouth of Adam, who uttered the words. Genesis 2:24.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website.
Bibliography
Wesley, John. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "JohnWesley's Explanatory
Notes on the Whole Bible".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/wen/matthew-19.html. 1765.
The Fourfold Gospel
And there came unto him Pharisees,trying him1, and saying, Is it lawful [for
a man] to put awayhis wife for every cause2?

There came unto him Pharisees, trying him. See .
Is it lawful [for a man] to put awayhis wife for every cause? Thatis, for every
cause satisfactoryto the husband.
Copyright Statement
These files are public domain and are a derivative of an electronic edition that
is available on the Christian ClassicsEtherealLibrary Website. These files
were made available by Mr. Ernie Stefanik. First published online in 1996 at
The RestorationMovementPages.
Bibliography
J. W. McGarveyand Philip Y. Pendleton. "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5".
"The Fourfold Gospel".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tfg/matthew-19.html.
Standard Publishing Company, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1914.
Abbott's Illustrated New Testament
Genesis 2:24.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Abbott, John S. C. & Abbott, Jacob. "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5".
"Abbott's Illustrated New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ain/matthew-19.html. 1878.
Calvin's Commentary on the Bible
5.Therefore shalla man leave his father and mother. It is uncertain whether
Moses representsAdam or God as speaking these words;but it is of little
consequence to the present passagewhichof these meanings you choose,forit
was enough to quote the decisionwhich God had pronounced, though it might
have been uttered by the mouth of Adam. Now he who marries a wife is not
commanded absolutely to leave his father; for God would contradict himself,
if by marriage He set aside those duties which He enjoins on children towards
their parents; but when a comparisonis made betweenthe claims, the wife is
preferred to the father and mother But if any man abandon his father, and
shake off the yoke by which he is bound, no man will own such a monster;
(595)much less will he be at liberty to dissolve a marriage.
And the two shall be one flesh. This expressioncondemns polygamy not less
than it condemns unrestrained liberty in divorcing wives; for, if the mutual
union of two persons was consecratedby the Lord, the mixture of three or
four persons is unauthorized. (596)But Christ, as I stated a little ago, applies
it in a different manner to his purpose; namely, to show that whoeverdivorces
his wife tears himself in pieces, because suchis the force of holy marriage, that
the husband and wife become one man. Forit was not the design of Christ to
introduce the impure and filthy speculationof Plato, but he spoke with
reverence of the order which God has established. Let the husband and wife,
therefore, live togetherin such a manner, that eachshall cherish the other in
the same manner as if they were the half of themselves. Let the husband rule,
so as to be the head, and not the tyrant, of his wife; and let the woman, on the
other hand, yield modestly to his commands.

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Calvin, John. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Calvin's Commentary on
the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/matthew-
19.html. 1840-57.
John Trapp Complete Commentary
5 And said, For this cause shalla man leave father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Ver. 5. And said, Forthis cause, &c.]Dixit, duxit, benedixit He ordered, he
commaned, he blessedthese three things are said by Moses to have been done
by God in the institution, and for the honour of marriage; to the which still
(saith Bifield on 1 Peter3:2) God beareth so greatrespect, as that he is
pleasedto bear with, cover, and not impute the many frailties, follies, vanities,
weaknesses, andwickednessesthat are found betweenman and wife.
For this cause shall a man leave father] viz., In regardof cohabitation, not of
sustentation;Relinquet cubile patris et matris, as the Chaldee rightly
interprets it, Genesis 2:24. And this was the first prophecy that was ever
uttered in the world (saith Tertullian and Beda), venerable therefore for its
antiquity; like as is also that first hexameter, made by Phemonoe, in the year
of the world 2580 (1424 BC).

συμφερετε πτερατ οιωνοι κηροντε μελισσαι.
And shall cleave to his wife] Gr. Be glued to her, προσκολληθησεται. A table
will often cleave in the whole wood, before it will part asunder where it is
glued. A husband ought to be as firm to his wife as to himself. {See Trapp on
"Genesis 2:24"}
And they twain shall be one flesh] This is point blank againstpolygamy, which
yet Anabaptists would bring in again, and Turks allow of. They learned it of
Lamech, qui primus unam costamin duas divisit, who was the first
polygamist, saith Jerome, but had soonenough of it. So had Jacob, Elkanah,
and other holy men of old, who lived and died in this sin of polygamy, and
merely through mistake, as it is thought, of that text, Leviticus 18:16; "Thou
shalt not take a wife to her sister, to vex her," i.e. Thou shalt not superinduce
one wife to another. Now the Fathers took the word (sister) for one so by
blood, which was spokenof a sisterby nation, as those clauses (to vex her) and
(during her life) do evince.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Trapp, John. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". John Trapp Complete
Commentary. https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jtc/matthew-
19.html. 1865-1868.
Greek TestamentCriticalExegeticalCommentary

5. εἰς σάρκα μίαν] εἶναι εἰς is not Greek, but a Hebraism, ָ‫י‬ ‫ה‬‫ל‬‫ה‬ (Meyer). Stier
remarks, that the essentialbond of marriage consists notin unity of spirit and
soul, by which indeed the marriage state should ever be hallowedand
sweetened, but without which it still exists in all its binding power:—the
wedded pair are ONE FLESH, i.e. ONE MAN within the limits of their united
life in the flesh, for this world: beyond this limit, the marriage is broken by
the death of the flesh. And herein alone lies the justification of a second
marriage, which in no way breaks off the unity of love in spirit with the
former partner, now deceased. Vol. ii. p. 267, edn. 2.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Alford, Henry. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". Greek TestamentCritical
ExegeticalCommentary.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hac/matthew-19.html. 1863-
1878.
Heinrich Meyer's Critical and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament
Matthew 19:5. εἶπεν] God. Comp. note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. Although, no
doubt, the words of Genesis 2:24 were uttered by Adam, yet, as a rule,
utterances of the Old Testament, in which God’s will is declared, are looked
upon as the words of God, and that altogetherirrespective of the persons
speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the passage.
ἕνεκεν τούτου]refers, in Genesis 2:24, to the formation of the womanout of
the rib of the man. But this detail, which belongs to an incident assumedby
Jesus to be well known, is included in the generalstatementof Matthew 19:4,
so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhatfreely, the particular to

which the ἕνεκεν τούτου refers. Observe, atthe same time, that Matthew 19:4-
5 togetherconstitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to
appear in the shape of an inference in the verse immediately following.
καταλείψει “necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui uni paterna et materna
cedit,” Bengel.
οἱ δύο]These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occurin the
Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followedby the
LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly emphasizing
the claims of monogamy. See note on 1 Corinthians 6:16. The article indicates
the two particular persons in question.
εἰς σάρκα μίαν] Ethical union may also be representedby other ties; but this
cannot be said of bodily unity, which consists in such a union of the sexes, that
in marriage they cease to be two, and are thenceforth constituted one person.
Comp. Sirach 25:25 and Grimm’s note. The construction is not Greek (in
which εἷναι εἰς means to refer to anything, or to serve for anything, Plat. Phil.
p. 39 E Alc. I. p. 126 A), but a rendering of the Hebrew ָ‫י‬ ‫ה‬‫ל‬‫ה‬ (Vorst, Hebr. p.
680 f.).
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Meyer, Heinrich. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". Heinrich Meyer's Critical
and ExegeticalCommentaryon the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hmc/matthew-19.html. 1832.
Johann Albrecht Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament

Matthew 19:5. εἶπεν, said) sc. GOD, by Adam.— ἕνεκεν τούτου, forthis cause.
In wedlock, the bond is natural and moral.— καταλείψει, κ. τ. λ., shall leave,
etc.)Therefore already at that time the same woman could not be both wife
and mother of the same man. Such is the commencementof the prohibited
degrees. The conjugalrelation, to which alone the paternal and maternal
yield, is the closestofall ties.— πατέρα, father) Although neither Adam had
yet become a father, nor Eve a mother.— τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, to his wife) and
thus also the wife to her husband. The husband is the head of the family.—
ἔσονται, shall be) one flesh while they are in the flesh.— οἱ δύο, the two(856))
Thus also Mark 10:8; 1 Corinthians 6:16; Ephesians 5:31;the Samaritan(857)
Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac(858)versionof Genesis.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bengel, JohannAlbrecht. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". Johann Albrecht
Bengel's Gnomonof the New Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jab/matthew-19.html. 1897.
Matthew Poole's EnglishAnnotations on the Holy Bible
See Poole on"Matthew 19:6".
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Poole, Matthew, "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5". Matthew Poole's English
Annotations on the Holy Bible.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mpc/matthew-19.html. 1685.
Justin Edwards' Family Bible New Testament
Marriage is an institution of God; honorable in all, ministers of the gospelas
well as others; sacredin its obligations;and unless these obligations are
violated by one of the parties, not to be dissolved till death.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Edwards, Justin. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Family Bible New
Testament". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/fam/matthew-
19.html. American TractSociety. 1851.
Cambridge Greek Testamentfor Schools andColleges
5. ἕνεκα τούτου. The lessonofNature is the lessonofGod, ‘Nunquam aliud
Natura aliud Sapientia dicit.’ Juv. Sat. XIV. 321.
κολληθήσεται. This wordand the compound προσκ. in N.T. use are confined
to St Pauland St Luke exceptRevelation18:5. This passage andMark 10:7
(where the reading is doubtful) are quotations. The classicalmeaning of
κολλᾶνis [1] to glue; [2] to inlay; [3] to join very closely:κεκόλληταιγένος
πρὸς ἄτᾳ, Æsch. Ag. 1566.
εἰς σάρκα μίαν. εἰς denotes the state or condition into which a thing passes.
The constructionfollows the Hebrew idiom.

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
"Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Cambridge Greek TestamentforSchools
and Colleges".https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cgt/matthew-
19.html. 1896.
Whedon's Commentary on the Bible
5. Leave father and mother — The tie of man and wife is stronger than that of
parent and child. Hence, as the latter maintains its tie upon the heart during
life, so the former should be indissoluble.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Whedon, Daniel. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Whedon's Commentary
on the Bible". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/whe/matthew-
19.html. 1874-1909.
PeterPett's Commentary on the Bible
“And said, ‘For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall
cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ ”

Indeed that was the only ground on which it was right for a man to leave his
father and mother. It was so that he might cleave to his wife with the result
that the two became one flesh, united and indivisible. Even filial obedience
and family unity, which were so important in Israel, were nevertheless
subservient to the fact of the uniting of a male and a female ‘as one flesh’. And
by it they became one being in God’s eyes (compare Paul’s argument in 1
Corinthians 6:16). A man’s wife was to become to him more important than
anything else apart from God, for she would be a part of himself. (Of course
this would not destroy filial obedience and family unity, for it would almost
always be done in full agreementwith both).
We should note that the verbs are strong ones. ‘Forsake(desert)his father
and mother’ and ‘cleave closelyto (be glued to) his wife’. It was a violent and
fundamental change, and resultedin a fundamental alteration in both their
lives. From that moment on they had a new focus of concentration, their
oneness with one another.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Pett, Peter. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "PeterPett's Commentary on
the Bible ". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/pet/matthew-
19.html. 2013.
Schaff's Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Matthew 19:5. And said (Genesis 2:24). Either said by Adam before the fall,
and here cited as said by God through Adam as the representative of the race,
or by Moses, and cited as an inspired utterance.

For this cause. Comp. Ephesians 5:31, where the passageis applied also to
Christ and the Church. God says, Christ says, that the relationship betweena
man and his wife is closer, higher, and stronger, than even that between
children and parents. Notice:it is the man who leaves his parents.
The twain shall become one flesh. ‘Unity of soul and spirit,’ is not mentioned.
The absence ofit, howevergreata source of unhappiness, is not a ground of
divorce. The essentialbond is the fact that the twain, by marriage, ‘became
one flesh,’ one man within the limits of their united life in the flesh, for this
world. The one cause ofdivorce (Matthew 19:9) is incompatible with the unity
as ‘one flesh.’
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Schaff, Philip. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Schaff's Popular
Commentary on the New Testament".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/scn/matthew-19.html. 1879-
90.
The Expositor's Greek Testament
Matthew 19:5. καὶ εἶπεν: God said, though the words as they stand in Gen.
may be a continuation of Adam’s reflections, ora remark of the writer.—
ἕνεκεν τούτου:connectedin Gen. with the story of the womanmade from the
rib of the man, here with the origin of sex. The sex principle imperiously
demands that all other relations and ties, howeverintimate and strong, shall

yield to it. The cohesionthis force creates is the greatestpossible.— οἱ δύο:
these words in the Sept(109)have nothing answering to them in the Hebrew,
but they are true to the spirit of the original.— εἰς σάρκα μίαν: the reference
is primarily to the physical fleshly unity. But flesh in Hebrew thought
represents the entire man, and the ideal unity of marriage covers the whole
nature. It is a unity of soul as well as of body: of sympathy, interest, purpose.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Nicol, W. Robertson, M.A., L.L.D. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". The
Expositor's Greek Testament.
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/egt/matthew-19.html. 1897-
1910.
George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary
===============================
[BIBLIOGRAPHY]
Erunt duo in carne una, Greek:duo eis sarka mian, in carnem unam, as
Genesis ii. 7. factus esthomo in animam viventem. See Maldonat.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography

Haydock, George Leo. "Commentaryon Matthew 19:5". "GeorgeHaydock's
Catholic Bible Commentary".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/hcc/matthew-19.html. 1859.
E.W. Bullinger's Companion Bible Notes
and they twain. This is added by the Lord to Genesis 2:24. See App-107 and
App-117.
they twain = the two.
flesh. Figure of speechSynecdoche (of the Part), put for the whole person.
App-6.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Bullinger, Ethelbert William. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "E.W.
Bullinger's Companion bible Notes".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bul/matthew-19.html. 1909-
1922.
Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible - Unabridged
And said, For this cause (to follow out this divine appointment), shall a man
leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be
one flesh?

Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Jamieson, Robert, D.D.;Fausset,A. R.; Brown, David. "Commentary on
Matthew 19:5". "Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible -
Unabridged". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfu/matthew-
19.html. 1871-8.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(5) And said, For this cause.—InGenesis 2:24 the words appear as spokenby
Adam; but words so uttered, prompted by the Holy Spirit, and stamped with
the divine sanction, might well be lookedon as an oracle from God, the
expressionof a law of His appointment.
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Ellicott, Charles John. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "Ellicott's
Commentary for English Readers".
https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/ebc/matthew-19.html. 1905.

Treasuryof Scripture Knowledge
said
Genesis 2:21-24;Psalms 45:10;Mark 10:5-9; Ephesians 5:31
cleave
[proskollao (proskliðnomai)]"shallbe cemented to his wife," as the Hebrew
davak implies; a beautiful metaphor, forcibly intimating that nothing but
death can separate them.
Genesis 34:3;Deuteronomy 4:4; 10:20; 11:22;1 Samuel 18:1; 2 Samuel 1:26;
1 Kings 11:2; Psalms 63:8;Romans 12:9
and they
1 Corinthians 6:16; 7:2,4
Copyright Statement
Bibliography
Torrey, R. A. "Commentary on Matthew 19:5". "The Treasuryof Scripture
Knowledge". https:https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/tsk/matthew-
19.html.
E.M. Zerr's Commentary on SelectedBooksofthe New Testament

For this cause means because Godmade one man for one woman to reproduce
the race. Thatbeing true, they must be free from all other human beings in
this relationship. That will make it necessaryfor the man (he being the
aggressorand head in all of the socialaffairs of life as is evident all through
the Bible) to leave his parental home in order to form a union with a female
and thus establishanother family. Leave is from KATALEIPO which Thayer
defines, "To leave behind; to depart from, leave;to forsake, leave to one"s
self," etc. Certainly it does not mean that he must desert his parents in other
respects, but in the matter of forming a union for the perpetuation of the race,
a man must act independently with regard to this physical relationship. Most
human laws regarding the "age ofconsent" have ignored this Biblical law of
God: When a male is old enough to perform the marriage act he is instructed
that he may leave his parents and contractmarriage with a female. Cleave is
from KOLLAO which Thayer defines, "To glue, glue to, glue together,
cement, fasten together;join one"s selfto, cleave to." This "joining" is
accomplishedby the actthat makes them one flesh according to the closing
statementthat they twain shall be one flesh.
PRECEPTAUSTIN RESOURCES
Christ and Divorce
Matthew 19:1-12

Dr. S. Lewis Johnsondicusses Christ's view on divorce, and how his reaction
to a challenge by the Jewishleaders onthe subject is an illustration of the true
spirit of God's law.
SLJ Institute > Gospelof Matthew > Jesus as the Messiah> Christ and
Divorce
Listen Now
Audio Player
00:00
00:00
Use Up/Down Arrow keys to increase ordecrease volume.
Readthe Sermon
Transcript
Now we are going to look at three passagesin our Scripture reading this
morning, because I think it is important in understanding Matthew chapter
19 to read a few verses from Genesis chapter2, and then a few verses from
Deuteronomy chapter24, since these are the passagesthat our Lord and also
the Phariseeshave in mind when this encounter takes place.
So let’s turn back to the Book ofGenesis and let me read a few verses
beginning with the 18th verse of the 2nd chapter. Genesis chapter2 and verse
18, and here we read,
“And the LORD God said, It is not goodthat the man should be alone; I will

make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God
formed every beastof the field, and every fowlof the air; and brought them
unto Adam to see whathe would call them: and whatsoeverAdam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to
all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beastof the field; but for
Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the LORD God caused
a deep sleepto fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and
closedup the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had
takenfrom man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And
Adam said, ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall
Be called Woman, because she was takenout of Man.’ Therefore shalla man
leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall

be one flesh.”
I want you to notice, particularly, that 24th verse, and notice that it is either
the word of Adam or the word of Moses;most likely the latter.
“And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”
Let’s turn now to Deuteronomy chapter 24, in which we have some instruction
in the Mosaic legislationconcerning marriage and divorce. And when the
Pharisees come to the Lord Jesus, this is the passagethatthey have in mind
when they ask their question. Now as we read this passage, I must make one
suggestionto you. You know, when we have conditional sentencessuchas, if
the air conditioning is not working today, then Dr. Johnsonwill suffer during
the message, we have two parts of a sentence. One of which is known,
technically, as the protasis, and the other is knownas the apodosis. The
protasis is the “if” clause:if the air conditioning is not working. And then the
conclusionis the apodosis. One represents that which we set forward as a
premise, and the other is an answering clause to that premises.
Now we have that in these verses here, in the four verses that I’m going to
read, and the first three verses form the protasis, and the fourth verse is the
apodosis. Unfortunately, the King James Versionhas not done this as
accuratelyas one might have, and has rather takenthe first verse to contain
both the protasis and the beginning of the apodosis in that clause that begins
with, “then let him write her a bill of divorcement.” That is takenas the
beginning of the apodosis in the King James Version. I think that is an error.
In the Hebrew text, it is the simple wow (or vov), which means, really, “and.”
And in the light of the whole of this passage, almostallof the scholars ofthe

Hebrew text have now come to the conclusionthat we do have the conclusion,
or the apodosis in verse 4, and we have a lengthy protasis preceding.
Now, the reasonI’m saying this is because if we take it the way the King
James Versionhas it, then it is commanded that a man give a wife a bill of
divorcement: “then let him write her a bill of divorcement,” and, so divorce
becomes a command. It is evident, however, from the New Testament
interpretation, as wellas the grammatical structure of these verses, that it is
not a command, but rather something that is, as our Lord says, permitted.
And so the condition is a condition of three verses and one, rather than one
and three. Let me read it, now, in the light of that.
“When a man hath takena wife, (and this opening word, when,
corresponds to an “if” kind of clause)and married her, and it come to pass
that she find no favor in his eyes, becausehe hath found some uncleanness
in her: (and he) write(s) her a bill of divorcement, and give(s)it in her hand,
and send(s)her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his
house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband
hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and

sendeth her out of his house;or if the latter husband die, which took her to
be his wife; (then – I am supplying this “then,” because that, I think, is the
force of the Hebrew text here) then her former husband, which sent her
away, may not take her againto be his wife, after that she is defiled; for
that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land
to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”
So you see, the thing that is being denied here, the thing that is being
prohibited, is a man who has given his wife a bill of divorcement, who in turn
has married again, and who has been divorced or her husband has died – the
thing that is prevented is the original husband taking back the wife. She is
now defiled. That’s the point of these verses.
That is important for the passagethat we’re going to read for our Scripture
reading this morning. So let’s turn now to Matthew chapter 19, and we read
the first twelve verses for our passage fortoday.
“And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he

departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts ofJudaea beyond Jordan;
and greatmultitudes followedhim; and he healedthem there. The
Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, ‘Is it
lawful for a man to put awayhis wife for every cause?’”
Now, our Lord did not answerthis directly, as we shall see, but indirectly. He
appeals to Genesis chapter2 first,
“And he answeredand said unto them, ‘Have ye not read, that he which made
them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause
twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.
What therefore Godhath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They
say unto him, ‘Why did Moses thencommand to give a writing of

divorcement, and to put her away?’He saith unto them, ‘Moses because
of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:but from
the beginning it was not so. (In other words, he says the original intention is
found in Genesis ratherthat in Deuteronomy). And I say unto you,
Whosoevershallput awayhis wife, exceptit be for fornication, and shall
marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put
awaydoth commit adultery.’”
If you have a modern language versionwith you – or if you have a version
with marginal notes – you will notice that the lastclause of, or clause or two,
of that verse after “adultery,” first, is not found in your text. And that’s
because the most ancientmanuscripts of the Gospelof Matthew at this point
do not have those words, and therefore we shall omit them in the exposition.
The idea found in them is found in one of the parallels, but we will leave them
out. Now verse 10,
“His disciples say unto him, ‘If the case ofthe man be so with his wife,
it is not goodto marry.’ But he saidunto them, ‘All men cannotreceive

this saying, exceptthey to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs,
who were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs,
who were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to
receive it, let him receive it.”
May God bless this reading from his word.
The subject for today is “Christ and Divorce.” The 20th Century has been
called, “The Age of Adultery,” and its citizens have been called “the new
adulterers.” Adultery is not new, nor is the philosophy of the new adulterers
new. Adulterers have been young. They have been old. They have been rich,
and they have been poor. They have been kind. They have been cruel. They
have been brutish, and they have been gentlemanly. They have been religious,
and they have been irreligious. They have been Catholic, and they have been
Protestant, and they have been Jew. And they have been businessmen, and
they have been businesswomen. And furthermore, they have been professional
men, and they have been preachers.
Some repent, and some do not.

What is the difference, today, if any? Is it the arrogance ofthe departure from
the truths of the word of God that characterizes the new adulterers? Is it the
proud indulgence that characterizes them? Mostof us agree that we have
come into a new situation. When I think of that, I think of a saying of an old
American League baseballumpire, George Magerkurth, who in a famous
malapropism said, “We have seenthe dawn of a new area.” [Laughter] Well,
we have truly seenthe dawn of a new era, it would seem, in the relationship of
the male and the female in the United States of America and in our Western
world in the last few decades.
Another thing that characterizes the new adulterers is that they are prolific
with pens. And in their use of the pen, they justify their views. And they
detestably, it seems to me, pervert the English language in an attempt to
support the things that they are enjoying. They frequently use the term,
honesty. Honesty is a term that used to mean that, well, you do not stealor
you do not lie or do not cheat; you’re trustworthy. Now, honesty has come to
mean “letting people see us as we are.” Perhaps that’s not too bad; that’s very
common among our people in our societytoday to think that is a very noble
thing for people to see us as we are. I don’t object to that too much.
But then it’s made to become a coverfor selfishness, forcrudeness and for
immorality: “Yes, we’re living togetherout of wedlock, but we are honest, and
furthermore, it’s healthy.” I don’t think it’s healthy. I don’t really think it’s
honesty in the true sense ofthe term, honesty. I’m more inclined to think of
Paul who spoke ofthe antinomians of his day as men and womenwho gloried
in their shame. MargaretMeadhas said that “Whatwe should have in the
20th Century is not monogamy but serial monogamy, one at a time.”
Alvin Toffler, in Future Shock, saidthat he anticipated the day when
executives would not go through the wrenching experience of moving a family
from one city to another. Many of you in this room have had that experience. I

know, because that is characteristic ofmodern business, to move their
executives about. Well, he suggestedthat the time will come when there will be
no moving about of families, but only the executive will move, and that it will
be the job of the corporationto find an appropriate family with an
appropriate lifestyle and appropriate wife and children and other things to
which he may, simply, plug-in, and therefore they may escape allof the
problems of moving the family across the country.
Our Lord’s words, then, would seemto have a specialrelevance for our
society. Now I know that perhaps you’re thinking, wellafter all, we are
Christians and not worldly. We are not worldly people. We are not of the
world, and so why is this so relevant for us? Well this is relevant for us for the
simple reasonthat the church is always is extremely, strongly affected by the
experiences and the lifestyles of the world, and well all know this.
I think one of the things that impressed me more than anything else, when the
elders askedme to come back to Believers Chapeland to speak regularly in
the morning service, this is one of the things that impressedme almostmore
than anything else, because Ithink the first six people who askedto come and
talk with me, of the first six, five were having marital problems. They weren’t
all from Believers Chapel, but they were all Christians, and they were all
having serious marital problems. Now, I think our Lord’s words have a
specialrelevance forus, and they have an even more specialrelevance forthe
young who are thinking about marriage.
The occasionofthis incident was the enmity of the Pharisees, andtheir desire
to catchour Lord Jesus in some statementby which they might justifiably
accuse him before the Sanhedrin. And furthermore, I think that lying back of
this was the continuing dispute over the meaning of Deuteronomy chapter 24
and the expression, “if the man should find in his wife something unseemly.”

Now this had been the occasionofa great dealof debate among the Jewish
interpreters of the Old Testament. One schoolof rabbis – or one schoolof
Jewishinterpreters under Rabbi Shammai – had interpreted this very strictly.
They had interpreted that unseemly thing that a man found in his wife as
being fornication, or adultery. And so that became the only occasionfor the
giving of a bill of divorcement.
But Rabbi Hillel and his followers thought differently. They thought that a
man could divorce his wife for any, somewhatinconsequentialthing, for
almost any cause. Forexample, if a wife did not prepare breakfastproperly
and burned the food, that was sufficient cause fordivorce. Now, I must sayI
sympathize a little with that [laughter], I think I’ve had occasionforit myself.
But Scripturally, of course, it is not. In fact, it was also said that if a woman
raisedher voice so high that the neighbors could hear it, that was sufficient.
And then some rabbis – not specificallyRabbi Hillel – said that if a man found
a woman who was more attractive than his wife, that sufficiently fulfilled the
text of Deuteronomy chapter24 to make it possible for a divorce to take place.
So you see, with these two important schools ofopinion concerning
interpretation, when the Pharisees came to the Lord Jesus and askedhim, “Is
it lawful for a man to put awayhis wife for every cause?”they were raising
for him a dilemma, and he was bound to lose some support.
Now politicians would somehow or other be able to solve a question like this,
but our Lord was never a politician. He never thought to sit on the fence and
maintain support from two contradictory parties, and so he did express
himself very directly, and soonwe learn that he stoodon the side of the strict
school. No question about that. But they knew that by forcing him to answer
this question, he would have to declare himself.

Now, he had come from Galilee to Judea, and was on the other side of the
River Jordan in Perea. Greatmultitudes had followedhim there. And he
healed them, performing still the signs that markedhim out, according to the
Old Testamentrecordas the Messiah. And it’s there that the Phariseescame
with their questions.
The Jews, remember, had very high views of marriage. They even thought
that it was the duty of a young man who reachedthe age of twenty to marry,
exceptin order to concentrate on the study of the law. Now, I know that it is
gospelnews for some of the young ladies, but nevertheless that is the way they
felt about it. They felt that marriage was something that young men should
undergo.
Furthermore, they had other things that led to an extremely high view of
marriage and divorce. They said, “He who had no children slew his own
posterity and lessenedthe image of God upon the earth.” “When a husband
and wife are worthy,” so they said, “the glory of God is with them.” So there
was every incentive to marry, apart from the study of the law of Moses and
also to stay married among them.
The Jewishlaws of marriage and purity also aimed high. Ideally, divorce was
hated. God said in Malachichapter 2, a passage thatit just so happens – isn’t
that something for a Calvinist to say? [laughter] – it just so happens that we
take up Wednesdaynight in our studies of Malachi, there God says, “I hate
putting away.” That’s the divine attitude toward divorce. It was saidthat the
very altar wept tears when a man divorced the wife of his youth. And there’s a
greatdeal of truth in this, and I think you cansee the backgroundout of
which the Pharisees came withthe question, “Is it lawful for a man to put
awayhis wife for every cause?”

And in the answerthat the Lord Jesus gives, the first thing I want you to
notice, of course, is that he does not answerthis directly. His answeris a more
complete answer. He could have answeredit more directly and immediately
and settledthe question. But it was more important, he thought, for them to
understand the basis upon which he gave his answer. And so he appealedto
Genesis chapter2 in order to interpret Deuteronomychapter 24 and then
answerthem. Now, that is goodScriptural methodology. We interpret the
New Testamentin the light of the Old Testament, or we interpret the Old in
the light of the New as well—that, too is a valid principle (although they’re
certain strictures that we might be sure to place upon our methodology there).
But we do interpret the Testaments by looking at them both.
Now, I want you to notice one thing before we look at his answer, which I
think is rather important and expresses animportant attitude which the Lord
Jesus had with reference to the word of God. In answer to them he says,
“Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning made them male
and female and said, Forthis cause a man shall leave father and mother and
shall cleave to his wife, and they too shall be one flesh.” So he said, you’re
asking me a question about Deuteronomy24, but I want you to considerthe
fundamental passage whichis Genesis chapter2. And did you not read that
the one who made them at the beginning—now who was it that made them at
the beginning? Why that of course is God—made them male and female and
said, for our Lord is saying that the one who made them at the beginning, the
Father or God, is the one who said, “Forthis cause shalla man leave his
father and mother.”
Now when you turn back to the Old Testamentand read that Genesis account
in the light of what our Lord Jesus says here, you’ll discoveras you read the
accountof Genesis chapter2, it is not the God who made them that said those
words. It is Moses who said those words. It is Moses who said, “Forthis cause
a man shall leave father and mother and shall cleave to his wife, and they too

shall be one flesh.” The Lord Jesus says the one who made them male and
female, the one who createdthem in the beginning, is the one who saidit.
Now you cansee that in this there is a philosophy of Scripture. Professor
Warfield and others have pointed out down through the years that we have
revealedhere our Lord’s understanding of Scripture. He though that the Old
Testamentwas the word of God. Now we are inclined at times to say that
Scripture is the product of God and the product of man. That is false in my
understanding. The Scripture is not the product of God and the product of
man. The Scripture is the word of God through a man. Man is the
instrumentality; he’s not the source of Scripture. Scripture is God’s word
through a man.
Now you canfind that illustrated over and over again – we have seenthat – in
the first chapter of the Gospelof Matthew, when he speaks aboutthat spoken
by the Lord “through the prophet,” distinguishing in the use of prepositions
direct agencyor indirect intermediate agency:by the Lord through the
prophet. But the Scripture is the word of God. So the Old Testamentand the
New Testamentare regardedby the writers of holy Scripture and by our Lord
as the word of God. That’s what Paul means when he says, “All Scripture is
God-breathed”—breathedout by God.
It is not as if God saw a book written by Moses andsaid, that’s not a bad
book, and as he turned the pages said, well, as a matter of fact, I think I agree
with everything in it. In fact, I think I agree with everything in it, and
therefore I will breathe into it; therefore, it constituted an inspired record. No,
no. It came from God through Moses, so that when Moses wrote, he wrote
what God intended to be written. So, the word of God is the word of God.
Augustine said, in the Confessions, putting words in the mouth of Godas he
does throughout that work, “Indeed, O man, what my Scripture says, I say.” I

think that’s a goodexpressionof a doctrine of Scripture that is true. Indeed,
O man, what my Scripture says, I say.
Now I think that’s rather startling that the Lord Jesus shouldsay that the one
who made them at the beginning also saidthese words. This is not an accident.
You can turn to the first chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews and find three
or four other illustrations of the same thing, and it occurs in other places in
the New Testament. It’s not something that was unique. It was not an
accident. It was an expressionof an attitude toward the word of God. The
word of God is the word of God. And, we need to remember that constantly.
Well now, let’s get to our Lord’s answer. He makes these points in my
opinion. First of all, in the factthat he refers to the Old Testament, he
acknowledgesthathe regards that Old Testamentrecord as the record of
God’s thoughts concerning marriage, and I think that we cansay right at the
beginning that he regardedmarriage as an institution that was receivedby
man from God.
Even in the Genesis account, it is saidthat God took a rib from the side of
Adam, and he made the woman and he brought her to the man. It is not
absurd for us to saythat marriage is something receivedfrom men by God.
It’s not even absurd to say that the first officiant at the first wedding
ceremonywas God himself. He was the first officiant at a wedding ceremony.
Marriage is something that is receivedby men from God. It is a divine
institution.
Now I think that the next thing we can sayabout it is that it was a purposeful
union. Men do not marry without purpose; they marry for a purpose. Now,
we know, of course, that they marry in order that the race might be
propagated. They married that they might be fruitful and multiply. That’s

why the Jews saida young man of twenty should be married unless he studied
the law. It was that he might be fruitful and multiply.
But in the contextof Genesis chapter2, God said it’s not goodthat the man be
alone. So evidently, the fellowshipthat exists betweenthe two is important in
the eyes of God. And the experience of marriage is not simply for procreation.
It is for other and significantpurposes also. And I think one of the greatest
blessings ofmarried life is the blessing of the fulfillment that comes from
personalfellowship on all the planes of our human being: spiritual,
intellectual and physical.
Now then, I think he says another thing in the texts in the way they are used.
He says that in the ideal, marriage is a monogamous union. He said, “They
two shall be one flesh”—theytwo, but the two of them so united that they
become one flesh. Therefore, the divine ideal is one marriage. They, too, shall
become one flesh.
And finally, I think we cansay the Lord Jesus regardedmarriage as a
permanent union. We read, here, for example—or rather, verse 5—“Forthis
cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife.”
That word is very interesting. That word in the Greek text is a word that
meant, literally to glue or cement together—something I don’t think that we
are to take literally—but you can see that it expresses a union that is regarded
as permanent. Erasmus referred to this in the Latin text and translatedthis,
aglutenabatur, which means the same thing, “shallbe glued together.” You
can recognize our English word from the Latin word, aglutenabatur, the
future tense of that word. Glued together. So, the ideal is an indissoluble
union. He says, “And shall cleave to his wife.”

Incidentally, some have pointed out, and I think it’s fair, in order to “cleave to
your wife,” you do have to leave your mother. [Laughter] You cannot cleave
before your leave. There are, unfortunately, some, both females and males,
who have not really left. And an attempt to cleave is virtually impossible.
I am very happy that when I was married, my wife left, and we have had a
very happy marriage through the years. But, that is one of the requirements,
young people. A man shall leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his
wife, and they, too shall be one flesh. And then, our Lord adds something
that’s a little new. He says, “Wherefore they are no more two but one flesh,
what therefore God hath joined together”—thatwordmeans literally to yoke
together. So you see, Godreally does join people together in marriage. It was
God who joined Adam and Eve. Marriages are made in heaven.
While that may seemabsurd in our society, nevertheless itis true. When two
people under God come togetherin holy matrimony, we can rest assuredthat
this institution is something given by God, and as we look to him, we can
expecthim to be with us in that marriage and that the purposes of God may
be accomplishedin it. I think we canconclude that the Lord Jesus has told
these Pharisees thatmarriage is a permanent, divine institution.
The reasonpeople come togetheris not that they might do one thing together,
but that they might do all things together. We’re living in a societyin which
people think that because theyhave an imperious physical desire, they should
come togetherand marry. But let me assure you, if that is the reasonyou are
marrying, your marriage is foredoomedto failure. We do not marry in order
that we may do one thing together; we marry that we may do all things
together. That’s very important, seems to me. And I think that’s a word of
advice that all young people – and older people – need to remember.

And I do think it’s goodto give some practicaladvice. The Puritans believed
in that. One of the Puritans said, “First, he must chose his love, and then he
must love his choice.” [Laughter] He must be very carefulthat he make the
right choice. And then another Puritan who was a little more bashful about
marriage said, “It’s not evil to marry, but it’s goodto be wary.” [Laughter]
That’s goodadvice, too.
And for you young men and for you young women, don’t rush into something
like this. Now, you don’t have to do as I did. I went with my wife for eight
years before we were married. I wanted to be sure. [Boisterous laughter]And
I had not read Thomas Gottfacher’s remarks, either, about being wary.
Course, I should have. My first date with my wife was when she was 13, and I
was 15. And we had mutual first cousins, and so I knew her rather well before
we were married.
Well, the Lord Jesus now has answeredthe question by saying to the
Pharisees,you must remember that marriage is a permanent, divine
institution. Ah, they said, but now we’ve gothim. Now, we’ve gothim.
BecauseMoses,evidently, said something about divorce, and Jesus has just
said marriage is a permanent, divine institution. ForI can just imagine
them—we’ve really gota point of attack, now!And so they ask for the
microphone [Dr. Johnson laughs] –Dr. Clark is here. I remember our
beautiful discussions that we’ve had over the lastcouple of days.
One of them asks for the microphone and says, “Are you saying that Moses
was wrong?” That’s what they say. “Why, then did Moses commandto give
her a writing of divorcement and to put her away?” You say marriage is a
permanent, divine institution. Moses talkedabout divorce. Are you saying
Moses was wrong?Because, yousee, if they could prove that he really was
saying Moseswas wrong, they knew they would have him, because they all

Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor

Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor

Ähnlich wie Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor (20)

Mehr von GLENN PEASE

Mehr von GLENN PEASE (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Jesus was a marriage and sex counselor