Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:5
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
5. For this cause ] The lesson of Nature is the lesson of God, “Nunquam aliud Natura aliud Sapientia dicit.” Juv. Sat. xiv. 321.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Verse 5. For this cause] Being created for this very purpose; that they might glorify their Maker in a matrimonial connection. A man shall leave (, wholly give up) both father and mother – the matrimonial union being more intimate and binding than even paternal or filial affection;-and shall be closely united, , shall be firmly cemented to his wife. A beautiful metaphor, which most forcibly intimates that nothing but death can separate them: as a well-glued board will break sooner in the whole wood, than in the glued joint. So also the Hebrew word debak implies.
And they twain shall be one flesh?] Not only meaning, that they should be considered as 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 Ge 2:24, lebasar achad, 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 Ge 2:24.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
5. And said, For this causetofollow out this divine appointment.
shall a man leave father andmother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be oneflesh?Jesus here sends them back to the original constitutionof man as one pair, a male and a female; to their marriage, as such,by divine appointment; and to the purpose of God, expressed by thesacred historian, that in all time one man and one woman should bymarriage become one fleshso to continue as long as both are in theflesh. This being God’s constitution, let not man breakit up by causeless divorces.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And said,…. Ge 2:24 where they seem to be the words of Adam, though here they are ascribed to God, who made Adam and Eve; and as if they were spoken by him, when he brought them together; and which is easily reconciled by observing, that these words were spoken by Adam, under the direction of a divine revelation; showing, that there would be fathers, and mothers, and children; and that the latter, when grown up, 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 exactly agrees 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 between a man and his wife, which is not to be dissolved for every cause, it being stricter than that which is between parents and children; for the wife must be cleaved unto, and father and mother forsaken: not that upon this new relation between man and wife, the former relation between parents and children ceases; nor does this phrase denote an entire separation from them, so as to have the affection alienated 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 taken a 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, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and version, and in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, who renders, it as here,
, “and they two shall be one flesh”. This is the true sense, for neither more nor less can possibly be meant; and denotes that near conjunction, and strict union, between a 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 respect to the act of carnal copulation, which only ought to be between one man and one woman, lawfully married to each other;
[See comments on 1Co 6:16].
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Shall cleave (). First future passive, “shall be glued to,” the verb means.
The twain shall become one flesh ( ). This use of after is an imitation of the Hebrew, though a few examples occur in 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.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Shall cleave [] . Lit., shall be glued.
Shall be one flesh [ ] . Lit., “into one flesh;” Wyc., two in one flesh.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
5. Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother. It is uncertain whether Moses represents Adam or God as speaking these words; but it is of little consequence to the present passage which of these meanings you choose, for it was enough to quote the decision which 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 comparison is made between the 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 expression condemns polygamy not less than it condemns unrestrained liberty in divorcing wives; for, if the mutual union of two persons was consecrated by 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 whoever divorces his wife tears himself in pieces, because such is the force of holy marriage, that the husband and wife become one man. For it was not the design of Christ to introduce the impure and filthy speculation of Plato, but he spoke with reverence of the order which God has established. Let the husband and wife, therefore, live together in such a manner, that each shall 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.
(595) “ Il n’y a celuy qui ne fust estonne d’un tel monstre;” — “there is no man who would not be astonished at such a monster.”
(596) “ C’est un meslinge faux et pervers;” — “it is a false and wicked mixture.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(5) And said, For this cause.In Gen. 2:24 the words appear as spoken by Adam; but words so uttered, prompted by the Holy Spirit, and stamped with the divine sanction, might well be looked on as an oracle from God, the expression of a law of His appointment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“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 1Co 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 agreement with both).
We should note that the verbs are strong ones. ‘Forsake (desert) his father and mother’ and ‘cleave closely to (be glued to) his wife’. It was a violent and fundamental change, and resulted in a fundamental alteration in both their lives. From that moment on they had a new focus of concentration, their oneness with one another.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 19:5 . ] God . Comp. note on 1Co 6:16 . Although, no doubt, the words of Gen 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 altogether irrespective of the persons speaking. Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus and Fritzsche on the passage.
] refers, in Gen 2:24 , to the formation of the woman out of the rib of the man. But this detail, which belongs to an incident assumed by Jesus to be well known, is included in the general statement of Mat 19:4 , so that He does not hesitate to generalize, somewhat freely, the particular to which the refers. Observe, at the same time, that Mat 19:4-5 together constitute the scriptural basis, the divine premisses of what is to appear in the shape of an inference in the verse immediately following.
“necessitudo arctissima conjugalis, cui uni paterna et materna cedit,” Bengel.
] These words are not found in the Hebrew, though they occur in the Samaritan text, as they must also have done in that which was followed by the LXX. They are a subsequent addition by way of more distinctly emphasizing the claims of monogamy. See note on 1Co 6:16 . The article indicates the two particular persons in question.
] Ethical union may also be represented by 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 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 (Vorst, Hebr. p. 680 f.).
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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?
Ver. 5. And said, For this cause, &c. ] Dixit, duxit, benedixit He ordered, he commaned, he blessed these 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 1Pe 3:2 ) God beareth so great respect, as that he is pleased to bear with, cover, and not impute the many frailties, follies, vanities, weaknesses, and wickednesses that are found between man and wife.
For this cause shall a man leave father ] viz., In regard of cohabitation, not of sustentation; Relinquet cubile patris et matris, as the Chaldee rightly interprets it, Gen 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).
.
And shall cleave to his wife ] Gr. Be glued to her, . 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 “ Gen 2:24 “
And they twain shall be one flesh ] This is point blank against polygamy, which yet Anabaptists would bring in again, and Turks allow of. They learned it of Lamech, qui primus unam costam in duas divisit, who was the first polygamist, saith Jerome, but had soon enough 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, Lev 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 spoken of a sister by nation, as those clauses (to vex her) and (during her life) do evince.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
5. ] is not Greek, but a Hebraism, (Meyer). Stier remarks, that the essential bond of marriage consists not in unity of spirit and soul , by which indeed the marriage state should ever be hallowed and 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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 19:5 . : God said, though the words as they stand in Gen. may be a continuation of Adam’s reflections, or a remark of the writer. : connected in Gen. with the story of the woman made from the rib of the man, here with the origin of sex. The sex principle imperiously demands that all other relations and ties, however intimate and strong, shall yield to it. The cohesion this force creates is the greatest possible. : these words in the Sept [109] have nothing answering to them in the Hebrew, but they are true to the spirit of the original. : 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.
[109] Septuagint.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
and they twain. This is added by the Lord to Gen 2:24. See App-107 and App-117.
they twain = the two.
flesh. Figure of speech Synecdoche (of the Part), put for the whole person. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
5. ] is not Greek, but a Hebraism, (Meyer). Stier remarks, that the essential bond of marriage consists not in unity of spirit and soul, by which indeed the marriage state should ever be hallowed and 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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 19:5. , said) sc. GOD, by Adam.- , for this cause. In wedlock, the bond is natural and moral.-, …, 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 commencement of the prohibited degrees. The conjugal relation, to which alone the paternal and maternal yield, is the closest of all ties.-, father) Although neither Adam had yet become a father, nor Eve a mother.- , to his wife) and thus also the wife to her husband. The husband is the head of the family.-, shall be) one flesh while they are in the flesh.- , the two[856]) Thus also Mar 10:8; 1Co 6:16; Eph 5:31; the Samaritan[857] Pentateuch, the Septuagint, and the Syriac[858] version of Genesis.
[856] E. V. They twain.-(I. B.)
[857] The Samaritans reject all the Sacred Books of the Jews, except the Pentateuch. Of this they preserve copies in the ancient Hebrew characters; which, as there has been no friendly intercourse between them and the Jews since the Babylonish captivity, must unquestionably be the same that were in use before that event, though subject to such variations as are always occasioned by frequent transcribing. Although the Samaritan Pentateuch was known to and cited by Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, Procopius of Gaza, Diodorus of Tarsus, Jerome, Syncellus, and other ancient Fathers, it afterwards fell into oblivion for more than a thousand years, so that its very existence began to be questioned. Joseph Scaliger was the first who drew the attention of learned men to this valuable relic of antiquity; and M. Peiresc procured a copy from Egypt, which, together with 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 Ambassador at Constantinople. For further 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. For an account of the various opinions entertained regarding the date and authorship of this celebrated Version (ranging over a period of more than a thousand years), and of the arguments by which they are supported, see Hartwell Horne in voc.-(I. B.)
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
said: Gen 2:21-24, Psa 45:10, Mar 10:5-9, Eph 5:31
cleave: [Strong’s G4347], “shall be cemented to his wife,” as the Hebrew davak implies; a beautiful metaphor, forcibly intimating that nothing but death can separate them. Gen 34:3, Deu 4:4, Deu 10:20, Deu 11:22, 1Sa 18:1, 2Sa 1:26, 1Ki 11:2, Psa 63:8, Rom 12:9
and they: 1Co 6:16, 1Co 7:2, 1Co 7:4
Reciprocal: Gen 31:50 – afflict Deu 17:17 – multiply wives Jdg 8:30 – many wives 1Sa 25:43 – both 1Ch 14:3 – took Mar 10:7 – General Eph 5:28 – as
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:5
For this cause means because God made one man for one woman to reproduce the race. That being true, they must be free from all other human beings in this relationship. That will make it necessary for the man (he being the aggressor and head in all of the social affairs 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 establish another 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 of consent” 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 contract marriage with a female. Cleave is from KOLLAO which Thayer defines, “To glue, glue to, glue together, cement, fasten together; join one’s self to, cleave to.” This “joining” is accomplished by the act that makes them one flesh according to the closing statement that they twain shall be one flesh.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:5. And said (Gen 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. Eph 5:31, where the passage is applied also to Christ and the Church. God says, Christ says, that the relationship between a 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 of it, however great a source of unhappiness, is not a ground of divorce. The essential bond 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 of divorce (Mat 19:9) is incompatible with the unity as one flesh.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 5
Genesis 2:24.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:5 And said, For this cause shall a 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 between man and wife, as though they were glued together.
(d) They who were two become one as it were: and this word “flesh” is figuratively taken for the whole man, or the body, after the manner of the Hebrews.