Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made [them] at the beginning made them male and female,
4. at the beginning ] An appeal from the law of Moses to a higher and absolute law, which has outlived the law of Moses.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And he answered and said … – Instead of referring to the opinions of either party, Jesus called their attention to the original design of marriage, to the authority of Moses an authority acknowledged by them both.
Have ye not read? – Gen 1:27; Gen 2:21-22. And said, For this cause, etc., Gen 2:24. That is, 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 connection is the most tender and endearing of all human relations more tender than even that 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 together that 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 longer have 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 woman for one man, it follows that they cannot be separated but by the authority of God. Man may not put away his wife for every cause. What God has joined together man may not put asunder. In this decision he really decided in favor of one of the parties; and it shows that when it was proper, Jesus answered questions without regard to consequences, from whatever cause they might have been proposed, and however much difficulty it might involve him in. Our Lord, in this, also showed consummate wisdom. He answered the question, not from Hillel or Shammai, their teachers, but from Moses, and thus defeated their malice.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 4. He which made them at the beginning] When Adam and Eve were the first of human kind.
Made them male and female] Merely through the design of matrimonial union, that the earth might be thus peopled. To answer a case of conscience, a man should act as Christ does here; pay no regard to that which the corruption of manners has introduced into Divine ordinances, but go back to the original will, purpose, and institution of God. Christ will never accommodate his morality to the times, nor to the inclinations of men. What was done at the beginning is what God judged most worthy of his glory, most profitable for man, and most suitable to nature.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Mark, Mar 10:2-9, giveth us the same history of this discourse, differing a little in the order of the words, but nothing as to the substance of his discourse. Our Saviour answereth neither Yea nor Nay to their discourse, but gives them a fair occasion to answer themselves, and tacitly charges them with ignorance and corruption of the law of God. He refers them to the first institution of marriage, and for that to the book of Genesis, Gen 1:27; 2:24. It is as much as if our Lord had said, You own the book of Genesis, as well as the book of Deuteronomy. In the book of Genesis you read the first institution of marriage: it was instituted by God himself; he made male and female, Gen 1:27; he made the law of marriage, Gen 2:24, that a man (should) leave his father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they (should) be one flesh; from whence he concludes that the man and wife are one flesh in Gods account. From hence he leaves them to conclude, whether it was probable that Moses, whom they so reverenced, and who was so faithful in the house of God as a servant, would license them to put asunder whom God had put together; or whether they had not put an interpretation upon the law of Moses which it could not bear in consistency with the law of God. For the sense of those words, Gen 1:27; 2:24, see the notes on those places. See Poole on “Gen 1:27“. See Poole on “Gen 2:24“.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4. And he answered and said untothem, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning madethem male and femaleor better, perhaps, “He that madethem made them from the beginning a male and a female.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And he answered and said unto them,…. Not by replying directly to the question, but by referring them to the original creation of man, and to the first institution of marriage, previous to the law of Moses;
have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning, made them male and female? This may be read in Ge 1:27 and from thence this sense of things collected; that God, who in the beginning of time, or of the creation, as Mark expresses it, made all things, the heavens, and the earth, and all that is therein, and particularly “man”, as the Vulgate Latin, and Munster’s Hebrew Gospel supply it here, made the first parents of mankind, male and female; not male and females, but one male, and one female; first, one male, and then, of him one female, who, upon her creation, was brought and married to him; so that in this original constitution, no provision was made for divorce, or polygamy. Adam could not marry more wives than one, nor could he put away Eve for every cause, and marry another: now either the Pharisees had read this account, or they had not; if they had not, they were guilty of great negligence and sloth; if they had, they either understood it or not; if they did not understand it, it was greatly to their reproach, who pretended to great knowledge of the Scriptures, and to be able to explain them to others; and if they did understand it, there was no need for this question, which therefore must be put with an evil design.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
4. Have you not read? Christ does not indeed reply directly to what was asked, but he fully meets the question which was proposed; just as if a person now interrogated about the Mass were to explain faithfully the mystery of the Holy Supper, and at length to conclude, that they are guilty of sacrilege and forgery who venture either to add or to take away any thing from the pure institution of the Lord, he would plainly overturn the pretended sacrifice of the Mass. Now Christ assumes as an admitted principle, that at the beginning God joined the male to the female, so that the two made an entire man; and therefore he who divorces his wife tears from him, as it were, the half of himself. But nature does not allow any man to tear in pieces his own body.
He adds another argument drawn from the less to the greater. The bond of marriage is more sacred than that which binds children to their parents. But piety binds children to their parents by a link which cannot be broken. Much less then can the husband renounce his wife. Hence it follows, that a chain which God made is burst asunder, if the husband divorce his wife. (594)
Now the meaning of the words is this: God, who created the human race, made them male and female, so that every man might be satisfied with his own wife, and might not desire more. For he insists on the number two, as the prophet Malachi, (Mal 2:15,)when he remonstrates against polygamy, employs the same argument, that God, whose Spirit was so abundant that He had it in His power to create more, yet made but one man, that is, such a man as Christ here describes. And thus from the order of creation is proved the inviolable union of one husband with one wife. If it be objected, that in this way it will not be lawful, after the first wife is dead, to take another, the reply is easy, that not only is the bond dissolved by death, but the second wife is substituted by God in the room of the first, as if she had been one and the same woman.
(594) “ Que le mari qui se separe d’avecques sa femme rompt le lien dupuel Dieu estoit autheur;” — “that the husband, who separates from his wife, bursts the chain of which God was the author.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(4) Have ye not read . . .?The answer to the question is found not in the words of a code of laws, but in the original facts of creation. That represented the idea of man and woman as created for a permanent relationship to each other, not as left to unite and separate as appetite or caprice might prompt.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
4. He answered Our Lord’s answer really coincides with neither party. Schammai is indeed in the right in maintaining the stricter view of marriage obligation. His views are founded in absolute right. But then he is wrong in maintaining that the letter of the Mosaic law does maintain the highest strictness of the divine right on this subject. From the hardness of their hearts Moses did permit to the Jews, though not enjoin, a practice which was not absolutely right. A truly pure man could not avail himself of the permission. Have ye not read Our Lord here quotes the book of Genesis as a divine authority. We thus prove the Old Testament by the New. If Christ was the Son of God, Moses was the servant of God. If Christ’s words had a divine authority, then Moses was also inspired. Made them male and female He made the race male and female, with the divine intention that marriage should exist. And by still maintaining the race as divided into two sexes, he shows that marriage is a permanent and natural institution. And as he made one for one, and no more, so the marriage of a single man with a single woman is a law of the race. And since, by some mysterious law, the two sexes are perpetually preserved in an approximate equality in point of number, it is plain that the permanent marriage of one man with one woman is the permanent and universal law of nature. Polygamy, as well as capricious divorce, is a violation of natural law.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And he answered and said, “Have you not read, that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,
‘Have you not read?’ Jesus then turned their attention to what the Scriptures did say, and that was that God had made man ‘male and female’. The two were to be seen as one. Gen 1:27 says, ‘God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him, male and female He created them.’ In other words God’s image was reflected and revealed among other ways (e.g. their spiritual nature) in the oneness of the male and female. A man was thus incomplete without his female counterpart, and once they were joined together they were reunited as one. This was the basis and purpose of the creation of mankind.
‘From the beginning.’ That is, from Gen 1:1 and what followed. There was never a time when it was not so, however primitive man was. Marriage was always intended to be monogamous and permanently binding, and had been from the beginning.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The answer of Jesus:
v. 4. And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
v. 5. and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh?
v. 6. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. The Pharisees, as usual, find the tables turned upon them. Christ is too firmly grounded in the truth of the Old Testament. They had been so sure that there was no way out of the dilemma, that Christ’s answer, either way, would be sure to give offense. He appeals, with fine irony, to the knowledge of the books of Moses which they ought to have. He that made at the beginning, the Creator, at the time when Adam and Eve were the only representatives of the human race, made them two sexes, male and female. Their being brought together by God constituted the type of marriage in its fullest meaning, as an indissoluble union. At that time God Himself said, speaking through the mouth of Adam, Gen 2:24; See 1:27, that for this reason, because marriage was so instituted and so intended by God, a man would sever the ties which formerly held him to his mother and father, in his relation of son in the family, and would be joined in union with his wife. The two that were formerly separate and distinct would, by following the instinct of sex, controlled by the ordinance of God, become united in the most intimate, in the strongest relation, that of physical, fleshly unity. Where marriage has been entered into in this manner, in obedience to God’s natural and written laws, where there is unity of the two natures, of soul properly as well as body, of sympathy, interest, and purpose, there they can no more, nevermore, be two distinct, but they are and will remain, in the sight of God, one flesh. God has joined them together, yoked them together, as oxen before the plow, but not with a heavy, burdensome yoke, but with that of mutual affection, which will cause them cheerfully to share the inevitable difficulties of their joint estate, the man as shouldering the heaviest burdens, the wife as his faithful helpmate. Man shall not separate, is His plain statement, neither the persons that have thus been joined, thinking it a light matter to break the hallowed ties, nor any other person in the world, relatives, friends, the government. There is before God, strictly speaking, no such thing as granting a divorce. The Church or the government can merely state the fact, established by competent witnesses, that a marriage has been deliberately disrupted by one or both of the contracting parties, either by adultery or by malicious desertion; it cannot grant permission to break the marriage tie. Note: What the Lord here says represents the original, the primitive state of things with reference to marriage. He has never changed His ordinance. Only two persons, one man and one woman, shall be joined in holy wedlock; for if He had wished that the male dismiss one woman and marry another. He would have made more females at the beginning. Marriage is the natural, the logical relation for people to enter into at the proper time. The first two individuals of the male and female sex were not merely a man and a woman, but male and female, in the sense of being destined and intended exclusively for each other. Even now, in the normal human being, the presence of the sex instinct is the creation of God; for the two sexes are not created arbitrarily, or independently of, but for each other, suitable and adapted for each other, and should fulfill their destiny in accordance with God’s ordinance, in holy wedlock, the indissoluble union. “As though He would say: Thou, man, shalt not permit thyself to be separated from thy wife, for He that created the man brought thee to the woman; and He that made thee woman gave thee to the man as helpmate, and wants no divorce. Since this is so that what God has joined together no man shall part asunder, that He brings man and wife together, that He makes thee to be a man and thee to be a woman, and by His order man and woman become one body: therefore no man shall break this ordinance of God, whether his name be Moses or anything else; but here it says; Hast thou taken me, then thou must be separated from me only by death. If you are angry with each other and disagree, then be reconciled again, as also St. Paul commands, but divorce shall not be among you.”
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 19:4-7. And he answered, &c. The accounts which St. Matthew and St. Mark have given of this matter, though they seem to clash upon the first view, are in reality perfectly consistent. The two historians, indeed, take notice of different particulars; but these, when joined together, mutually throw a light on each other. According to both the evangelists, the Pharisees came with an insidious intention, and asked our Lord’s opinion concerning divorce. But the answer returned to their question is differently represented by the historians. Matthew says, that our Lord desired the Pharisees to consider the original institution of marriage in Paradise, where God created the human kind of different sexes, and implanted in their breasts such a mutual inclinationtowardseachother,asinwarmthandstrengthsurpasses all other affections wherewith he has endowed them towards any other of their fellow-creatures; and because they have such a strong love to each other, he declared, that in all ages the tie which unites them together in marriage should be stronger than any other tie, and among the rest stronger even than that which binds them to their parents; and that male and female, thus joined together in marriage, are by the strength of their mutual affection no more twain but one flesh; that is to say, constitute only one person in respect to the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each other’s body, (1Co 6:16; 1Co 7:4.) and that as long as they continued faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them. From the original institution of marriage in Paradise, and from the great law thereof declared by God himself upon that occasion, it evidently appears, that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships; a friendship supported by the authority of the divine sanction and approbation; a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death: What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, by unseasonable divorces. Thus, according to St. Matthew, our Lord answered the Pharisees’ question concerning divorce, by referring to the original institution of marriage in Paradise: but St. Mark says, Mar 10:3 that he answered them by referring them to the Mosaical precepts; he answered, What did Moses command you? The evangelists, however, may be easily freed from the imputation of inconsistency, by supposing, that the answer in St. Mark was given after the Pharisees had, as St. Matthew informs us, Mat 19:7 objected the precept in the law to the argument against divorce drawn from the original institution: Why did Moses then, &c.? “If divorce be contrary to the original institution of marriage, as you affirm, how came it that Moses has commanded us to give a bill of divorce, and to put her away?” The Pharisees, by calling the law concerning divorce a command, insinuated, that Moses had been so tender of their happiness, that he would not suffer them to live with bad wives, though they themselves had been willing; but peremptorily enjoined them, that such should be put away: to this our Lord answers, Mar 10:3. What did Moses command you, &c.? and this question being placed in this order, implies, that he wondered how they came to consider Moses’s permission in the light of an absolute command, since it was granted merely on account of the hardness of their hearts. See Macknight, Doddridge, and other harmonists, and the following note. Dr. Heylin, instead of He which made them, in the fourth verse, , reads the Creator; and instead of said, Mat 19:5 he reads it was said; for I take the word here, says he, for an impersonal verb. It was Adam who said so, and not God. The Prussian editors read, says the Scripture. But on this subject, see the note on Gen 2:24.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:4 . ] (Matthew 1:27) , Euthymius Zigabenus. The following should be understood after , as the object of the succeeding verb has often to be supplied after the participle (Krger’s note on Xen. Anab . i. 8. 11). For , to create , comp. Plat. Tim . p. 76 C; Hesiod, Theog . 110, 127 ( ).
] does not belong to (as usually explained), in which case it would be superfluous, but to what follows (Fritzsche, Bleek), where great stress is laid on the expression, “ since the very beginning ” (Mat 19:8 ).
. ] as male and female , as a pair consisting of one of each sex .
] after the same verb. See Khner, ad Xen. Mem . iv. 2. 21, and Gramm . II. 2, p. 656.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Ver. 4. And he answered and said unto them ] Our Saviour would not divide the inheritance, when required to it, Luk 12:13 , but he would decide controversies touching divorces; for in marriage matters many cases of conscience fall out fit to be determined by the minister, whose lips should both preserve and present knowledge to the people, whose house for this cause should be always open, as the Aediles’ house in Rome was to all comers.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4 6. ] On these verses we may remark (1) that our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as the historical fact of the first creation of man; and grounds his argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) That He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, and in immediate connexion; thus shewing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative, which, from their different diction, and apparent repetition, they have sometimes been supposed not to be. (3) That He quotes as spoken by the Creator the words in Gen 2:24 , which were actually said by Adam; they must therefore be understood as said in prophecy, divino afflatu , which indeed the terms made use of in them would require, since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. Augustin. de Nupt. ii. 4 (12), vol. x. pt. i., ‘Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetande prdixit.’ (4) That the force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. Thus it is said in Gen 1:27 , not , but . . He made them (man, as a race) male (not, a male) and female: but then the male and female were implicitly shut up in one; and therefore after the creation of woman from man, when one man and one woman were united in marriage they should be one flesh , , because woman was taken out of man. The answer then is, that abstractedly , from the nature of marriage, it is indissoluble .
The words are in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, but not in the Hebrew.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 19:4 . : the words quoted are to be found in Gen 1:27 ; Gen 2:24 . : the participle with article used substantively = the Creator. goes along with what follows, Christ’s purpose being to emphasise the primitive state of things. From the beginning God made man, male and female; suited to each other, needing each other. : “one male and one female, so that the one should have the one; for if He had wished that the male should dismiss one and marry another He would have made more females at the first,” Euthy.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Have ye not read . . . ? See App-143.
at = from. Greek. apo.
the beginning. See note on Joh 8:44.
male and female = a male and a female. Reference to Pentateuch (Gen 1:27). This settles the theory of evolution.
male. Greek. arsen. App-123.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4-6.] On these verses we may remark (1) that our Lord refers to the Mosaic account of the Creation as the historical fact of the first creation of man; and grounds his argument on the literal expressions of that narrative. (2) That He cites both from the first and second chapters of Genesis, and in immediate connexion; thus shewing them to be consecutive parts of a continuous narrative, which, from their different diction, and apparent repetition, they have sometimes been supposed not to be. (3) That He quotes as spoken by the Creator the words in Gen 2:24, which were actually said by Adam; they must therefore be understood as said in prophecy, divino afflatu, which indeed the terms made use of in them would require, since the relations alluded to by those terms did not yet exist. Augustin. de Nupt. ii. 4 (12), vol. x. pt. i., Deus utique per hominem dixit quod homo prophetande prdixit. (4) That the force of the argument consists in the previous unity of male and female, not indeed organically, but by implication, in Adam. Thus it is said in Gen 1:27, not , but . . He made them (man, as a race) male (not, a male) and female: but then the male and female were implicitly shut up in one; and therefore after the creation of woman from man, when one man and one woman were united in marriage they should be one flesh, , because woman was taken out of man. The answer then is, that abstractedly, from the nature of marriage, it is indissoluble.
The words are in the LXX and the Samaritan Pentateuch, but not in the Hebrew.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 19:4. , He who made) sc. them; with this construction, He who made them in the beginning, made them male and female. , (He who made, made), is a striking example of Ploce.[855]- , at the beginning) In every discussion or interpretation recourse should be had to the origin of a Divine institution; see Mat 19:8 and Act 15:7.
[855] See Explanation of Technical Terms in Appendix.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Have ye not read
See, Gen 1:27; Gen 2:23; Gen 2:24. The passage is significant as Jesus’ confirmation of the Genesis narrative of creation.
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
Have: Mat 12:3, Mat 21:6, Mat 21:42, Mat 22:31, Mar 2:25, Mar 12:10, Mar 12:26, Luk 6:3, Luk 10:26
that: Gen 1:27, Gen 5:2, Mal 2:15
Reciprocal: Gen 4:19 – two wives Deu 24:5 – a man 1Ch 14:3 – took 2Ch 24:3 – two wives Mat 9:13 – go Mat 21:16 – have 1Co 14:20 – malice
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:4
Jesus went back to the beginning of man, and all discussions of this subject should go there for the proper basis of whatever is said. It should be observed that both words male and female are singular, showing that the Lord intended that one partner only should be engaged with another in this union.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:4. Have ye not read, etc. An implied rebuke for their misunderstanding of the Scripture teaching on this point.
He who made them, etc. The historical truth of the narrative in Gen 1:11. is assumed as the basis of an important argument. The creation of man is affirmed.
Male and female (Gen 1:27). The question of the Pharisees is answered by what God did, in the original creation of man, instituting the sexual relation, and marriage as an indissoluble union between one man and one woman.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, Christ gives no direct answer to the Pharisees insnaring question, but refers them to the first institution of marriage, when God made them one, to the intent that matrimonial love might be both incommunicable and indissoluble.
Whence learn, 1. The sacred institution of marriage: it is an ordinace of God’s own appointment, as the ground and foundation of all sacred and civil society. What God has joined together.
Learn, 2. The antiquity of this institution, it was from the beginning: He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female. Marriage is almost as old as the world, as old a nature; there was no sooner one person, but God divided him into two; and no sooner were there two, but he united them into one.
Learn hence, 3. The intimacy and nearness of this endeared and endearing relation: the conjugal knot is tied so close, that the bonds of matrimonial love are stronger than those of nature: stricter is the tie betwixt husband and wife, than betwixt parent and children, according to God’s own institution. For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 19:4-6. He answered, Have ye not read, &c. It is thought by some that the chief design of the Pharisees in putting the fore-mentioned question to our Lord, was to make him contradict Moses. If so, they were much disappointed, for, instead of contradicting him, he confutes them by the very words of Moses. He who made them at the beginning When the human race began to exist; made them male and female Greek, , which Dr. Campbell renders, a male and a female. He finds fault with our version as inaccurate and irrelative to our Lords argument, and thinks our translators could not have rendered the clause differently if the original expression had been . Yet it is manifest, that the sense would have been different. All that this declaration would have implied is, that when God created mankind, he made people of both sexes. But what argument could have been drawn from this principle, to show that the tie of marriage was indissoluble? Or how could the conclusion annexed have been supported? For this cause shall a man leave father and mother. Besides, it was surely unnecessary to recur to the history of the creation to convince those Pharisees of what all the world knew, that the human race was composed of men and women, and consequently of two sexes. The weight of the argument, therefore, he says, must lie in this circumstance, that God created at first no more than a single pair, one of each sex, whom he united in the bond of marriage, and, in so doing, exhibited a standard of that union to all generations. The very words, and these two, show that it is implied in the historians declaration, that they were two, one male and one female, and no more. But this is by no means implied in the common version. It lets us know, indeed, that they were two sexes, but gives us no hint that these were but two persons. And said By the mouth of Adam, who uttered these words, For this cause On account of his engaging in the married state; shall a man leave father and mother When those dear relations of parental and filial tenderness shall take place, and shall cleave to his wife With an affection more strong and steady than he feels even for those from whom, under God, he has derived his being: and they twain shall be one flesh That is, shall constitute only one person, in respect of the unity of their inclinations and interests, and of the mutual power which they have over each others bodies, 1Co 6:16; 1Co 7:4; and as long as they continue faithful to this law, they must remain undivided till death separates them. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh
From the original institution of marriage, therefore, in paradise, and from the great law thereof, declared by God himself on that occasion, it evidently appears that it is the strongest and tenderest of all friendships, a friendship supported by the divine sanction and approbation, a friendship therefore which ought to be indissoluble till death. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder By unreasonable divorces. Husbands and wives, being joined together by the ordinance of God, must not be put asunder by any ordinance of man: but the bond of marriage must be esteemed sacred, and incapable of being dissolved by any thing which does not make them cease to be one flesh, by making that of the one common to some third person, that is, by one of the parties committing adultery: for as, by forming at first only one man and one woman, God condemned polygamy, so, by making them one flesh, he condemned divorce.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Jesus’ opponents based their thinking on divorce on Deu 24:1-4, where Moses permitted divorce. Jesus went back to Genesis 1, 2 as expressing God’s original intention for marriage: no divorce. He argued that the original principle takes precedence over the exception to the principle.
Jesus’ citation of Gen 1:27; Gen 2:24 shows that He believed that marriage unites a man and a woman in a "one flesh" relationship.
"The union is depicted in the vivid metaphor of Genesis as one of ’gluing’ or ’welding’-it would be hard to imagine a more powerful metaphor of permanent attachment. In the Genesis context the ’one flesh’ image derives from the creation of the woman out of the man’s side to be ’bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ (Gen 2:21-23); in marriage that original unity is restored." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 717.]
"One flesh" expresses the fact that when a man and a woman marry, they become whole, as Adam was a whole person before God created Eve from his side. It is a way of saying that, as unmarried individuals, Adam and Eve were each lacking something, but when God brought them together in marriage they became whole.
God was the Creator in view (Mat 19:4) though Jesus did not draw attention to that point (cf. Joh 1:3; Col 1:16). The phrase "for this cause" (Mat 19:5) in Gen 2:23-24 refers to becoming one flesh. Eve became related to Adam in the most intimate sense when they married. When a man and a woman marry, they become "one flesh," a whole entity, thus reestablishing the intimate type of union that existed between Adam and Eve.
". . . the ’one flesh’ in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it." [Note: Carson, "Matthew," p. 412. ]
Note too that it is the union of a man and a woman that Jesus affirmed as constituting marriage, not same sex marriages.
In view of this union, Jesus concluded, a husband and wife are no longer two but one (Mat 19:6). God has united them in a "one flesh" relationship by marriage. Since God has done this, separating them by divorce is not only unnatural but rebellion against God. Essentially Jesus allied Himself with the prophet Malachi, as well as Moses, rather than with any of the rabbis. Malachi had revealed that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16).
". . . the argument here is expressed not in terms of what cannot happen, but of what must not happen: the verb is an imperative, ’let not man separate.’ To break up a marriage is to usurp the function of God by whose creative order it was set up, and who has decreed that it shall be a permanent ’one flesh’ union." [Note: France, The Gospel . . ., p. 718.]
Jesus focused on the God-ordained and supernaturally created unity of the married couple. The rabbis stressed the error of divorce as involving taking another man’s wife. Jesus appealed to the principle. He went back to fundamental biblical revelation, in this case Creation. He argued that marriage rests on how God made human beings, not just the sanctity of a covenantal relationship between the husband and the wife. This covenantal relationship is what some evangelical books on marriage stress primarily. Marriage does not break down simply because one partner breaks the covenant with his or her spouse. God unites the husband and wife in a new relationship when they marry that continues regardless of marital unfaithfulness.