Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Verse 6. What therefore God hath joined together] , yoked together, as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally, in order to bring it on. Among the ancients, when persons were newly married, they put a yoke upon their necks, or chains upon their arms, to show that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life. See KYPKE in loco.
The finest allegorical representation of the marriage union I have met with, is that antique gem representing the marriage of Cupid and Psyche, in the collection of the duke of Marlborough: it may be seen also among Baron Stoch’s gems, and casts or copies of it in various other collections.
1. Both are represented as winged, to show the alacrity with which the husband and wife should help, comfort and support each ether; preventing, as much as possible, the expressing of a wish or want on either side, by fulfilling it before it can be expressed.
2. Both are veiled, to show that modesty is an inseparable attendant on pure matrimonial connections.
3. Hymen or Marriage goes before them with a lighted torch, leading them by a chain, of which each has a hold, to show that they are united together, and are bound to each other, and that they are led to this by the pure flame of love, which at the same instant both enlightens and warms them.
4. This chain is not iron nor brass, (to intimate that the marriage union is a state of thraldom or slavery,) but it is a chain of pearls, to show that the union is precious, beautiful, and delightful.
5. They hold a dove, the emblem of conjugal fidelity, which they appear to embrace affectionately, to show that they are faithful to each other, not merely through duty, but by affection, and that this fidelity contributes to the happiness of their lives.
6. A winged Cupid, or Love, is represented as having gone before them, preparing the nuptial feast; to intimate that active affections, warm and cordial love, are to be to them a continual source of comfort and enjoyment; and that this is the entertainment they are to meet with at every step of their affectionate lives.
7. Another Cupid, or genius of love comes behind, and places on their heads a basket of ripe fruits; to intimate that a matrimonial union of this kind will generally be blessed with children, who shall be as pleasing to all their senses as ripe and delicious fruits to the smell and taste.
8. The genius of love that follows them has his wings shrivelled up, or the feathers all curled, so as to render them utterly unfit for flight; to intimate that love is to abide with them, that there is to be no separation in affection, but that they are to continue to love one another with pure hearts fervently. Thus love begins and continues this sacred union; as to end, there can be none, for God hath yoked them together.
A finer or more expressive set of emblems has never, I believe, been produced, even by modern refined taste and ingenuity. This group of emblematical figures is engraved upon an onyx by Tryphon, an ancient Grecian artist. A fine drawing was made of this by Cypriani, and was engraved both by Bartolozzi and Sherwin. See one of these plates in the second volume of Bryant’s Analysis of Ancient Mythology, page 392.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Wherefore they are no more twain,…. They were two before marriage, but now no more so; not but that they remain two distinct persons,
but one flesh; or, as the Syriac, Arabic, Persic, and Ethiopic versions read, “one body”: hence the wife is to beloved by the husband as his own body, as himself, as his own flesh, Eph 5:28.
what therefore God hath joined together; or, by the first institution of marriage, has declared to be so closely united together, as to be, as it were, one flesh, and one body, as husband and wife are;
let no man put asunder; break the bond of union, dissolve the relation, and separate them from each other, for every trivial thing, upon any slight occasion, or for anything; but what is hereafter mentioned. The sense is, that the bond of marriage being made by God himself, is so sacred and inviolable, as that it ought not to be dissolved by any man; not by the husband himself, or any other for him; nor by any state or government, by any prince or potentate, by any legislator whatever; no, not by Moses himself, who is, at least, included, if not chiefly designed here, though not named, to avoid offence: and God and man being opposed in this passage, shows, that marriage is an institution and appointment of God, and therefore not to be changed and altered by man at his pleasure; this not merely a civil, but a sacred affair, in which God is concerned.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
What therefore God hath joined together ( ). Note “what,” not “whom.” The marriage relation God has made. “The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation” (Bruce). The word for “joined together” means “yoked together,” a common verb for marriage in ancient Greek. It is the timeless aorist indicative (), true always.
Bill (). A little (see on 1:1), a scroll or document (papyrus or parchment). This was some protection to the divorced wife and a restriction on laxity.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
What [] . Not those. Christ is contemplating, not the individuals, but the unity which God cemented; and so Wyc., that thing that God enjoined; i e., knit together. The aorist tense (denoting the occurrence of an event at some past time, considered as a momentary act) seems to refer to the original ordinance of God at the creation (ver. 4).
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
6. What God therefore hath joined. By this sentence Christ restrains the caprice of husbands, that they may not, by divorcing their wives, burst asunder the sacred knot. And as he declares that it is not in the power of the husband to dissolve the marriage, so likewise he forbids all others to confirm by their authority unlawful divorces; for the magistrate abuses his power when he grants permission to the husband to divorce his wife. But the object which Christ had directly in view was, that every man should sacredly observe the promise which he has given, and that those who are tempted, by wantonness or wicked dispositions, to divorce, may reflect thus with themselves: “Who, art thou that allowest thyself to burst asunder what God hath joined? ” But this doctrine may be still farther extended. The Papists, contriving for us a church separated from Christ the Head, leave us an imperfect and mutilated body. In the Holy Supper, Christ joined the bread and the wine; but they have dared to withhold from all the people the use of the cup. To these diabolical corruptions we shall be at liberty to oppose these words, What God hath joined let not man separate
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) What therefore God hath joined.Strictly interpreted, the words go further than those of Mat. 5:32, and appear to forbid divorce under all circumstances. They are, however, rather the expression of the principle that should underlie laws, than the formulated law itself, and, as such, they assert the true ideal of marriage without making provision (such as was made before) for that which violates and annuls the ideal. It is remarkable that the essence of the marriage is made to depend, not on laws, or contracts, or religious ceremonies, but on the natural fact of union. Strictly speaking, that constitutes, or should constitute, marriage. The sin of all illicit intercourse, whether in adultery, or concubinage, or prostitution, is that it separates that union from the relations and duties which the divine order has attached to and makes. if Simply minister to the lusts of mans lower nature. The evil of every system that multiplies facilities for divorce is that it treats as temporary what was designed to be permanent, and reduces marriage, so far as it goes, to concubinage durante bene placito. This may, in some stages of social progress, as the next verses indicate, be the least of two evils; but it does not cease to be an evil, and the efforts of all teachers and legislators should be directed to raise the standard of duty rather than to acquiesce in its debasement.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. One flesh As in Adam before the creation of Eve the twain were one, so now, by marriage, the oneness is restored. They are two halves of one whole, forming one person. Yet, however much we may talk of their oneness, they are not one soul. They have an eternal separateness of individuality, by which they may be eternally separated in future destiny. Hence they are indeed one flesh, but not one soul. Let not man put asunder It cannot be done in any case without crime, except by death.
Our Lord in this answer sides with neither party, but rises above them both. He does not say, with Schammai, that the letter of Moses’s law allowed no divorce but for adultery. Nor does he, with Hillel, affirm that divorce is allowable for every or any cause. He maintains that, upon the foundation of original creation, divorce for any other cause than adultery is wrong, and only permitted by Moses to prevent greater wrong.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
“So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.”
And once the two have been joined in this way they are ‘one flesh’. They thereby reflect the image of God, the image of God’s own unity. Thus what God has joined together man must not try to separate. To break such a unity would thus be to sin grievously against God. This is not ‘just another sin’. It is to offend God drastically. It is to destroy His purpose in creation. It is to tear apart what He has put together.
The idea of ‘one flesh’ comes from the fact that woman was seen as originally taken out of man. She was ‘bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh’ (Gen 2:23). Thus by sexual union they were seen as again becoming ‘one flesh’. They formed ‘one man’ made up of two necessary parts. To separate them once they were thus united was therefore to be seen as the same thing as decapitating a man and destroying God’s handywork.
We should note from this Jesus’ emphasis on the inviolability of the marriage bond. For Jesus it was not something that was under the man’s control, and that could be kept or broken to order. The union was sacred, and any breach of it a travesty. It was sealed in the sight of God, and there was no breaking it without it involving a deep sin against God. The man and woman who have had sexual relations before God are thereby bound together by Him with a heavenly tie that cannot be broken. That is why the act of adultery is such a great sin. It breaks God’s handywork and attacks His very purpose in creation. Like the Israelites did, we look around for some way in which we can break it ‘lawfully’. But there is no way. It can only be done by an act of deep sin.
People talk as though if Jesus was alive today He would somehow be soft on sexual sin. They argue that if He had lived now He would have seen the error of His ways and would have agreed with them (is it not strange how people always think that He would take their side of the argument?). They argue that He was simply a child of His times. But here we learn differently. In a society where Hillel was seen as proclaiming the norm in allowing easy divorce, and where Shammai was seen as the tough one who tended to be a little hard, Jesus was in fact very much tougher than either of them. He was far from being a child of His times. Rather He leaned on the authority of Scripture. For while Shammai was certainly more strict than Hillel, he nevertheless accepted the divorces of those who were divorced under Hillel’s precepts and allowed them to remarry without it being seen as wrong. Jesus, however, declares that such a marriage is adultery and therefore forbidden. Jesus sees no place for broken marriages, or for the remarriage of the one who has broken the original marriage, within the purposes of God.
Jesus was thus introducing a ‘new’ concept of marriage which was to be observed under the Kingly Rule of Heaven. By it He was indicating that a new state of affairs was beginning. This was a sign that the Kingly Rule of Heaven had now commenced, making demands upon people the like of which had not been known before.
The quotation reveals traces of the Septuagint. This confirms that at least some of what Matthew was saying was taken from Mark, for when Matthew ‘goes LXX’ it is usually due to the influence of Mark.
Brief Note on Divorce in the Old Testament.
There is nowhere in the Law of Moses any specific dealing with the with the question of an ‘allowable’ divorce in a marriage between two of God’s people, that is, of two people within God’s favour. The Pharisees had sought one and had made use of Deu 24:1-4 for that purpose. But that was because they had failed to see what Jesus had now brought to their attention, and that was that in God’s eyes anything that caused a separation between a man and woman who had been united in God’s eyes was not permissible under any circumstances. They were made one by the sexual act and must remain one until death broke the bond. That was why adultery had to result in death. It was to break that oneness. And the only remedy for that was death so as to maintain the principle. Having destroyed what God had put together they too must be destroyed.
Deu 24:1-4 was therefore describing a position which was unallowable in God’s eyes and yet which had to be legislated for because it happened. In it God was not giving approval for divorce, but was seeking to legislate for two things. Firstly the protection of a woman who, as a result of the custom which was against His purpose, had been thrown out by her husband, and secondly the prevention of something that was abhorrent to Him. In the first case she was to be given a bill of divorce so as to protect her from false accusations which might be made in the future. In the second she must never remarry her first husband once she has been married to another, even if her second husband has died. That would be to treat lightly the unbreakable oneness of the initial marriage. It would be to make a mockery of marriage as though it was something to be entered into haphazardly. It would slight God, Who would not unite again what man had put asunder against His will.
What can be said about this case in Deuteronomy is that the only grounds on which divorce was even explicitly allowed to stand (without all guilty parties being put to death) was in the case of a situation where the woman had been divorced because of ‘the nakedness of a matter’. It was this that Moses had allowed because of the hardness of men’s hearts. But it was not giving explicit permission for it, it was legislating for what should be done once it had happened ‘by custom’. And it was the definition of that phrase ‘the nakedness of the matter’ that caused the disagreement between Shammai and Hillel. However, in the Law of Moses ‘nakedness’ is usually associated with sexual sin, which was Shammai’s contention, and was probably how Jesus saw it in view of His ‘except in the case of porneia (sexual sin)’.
The point about sexual sin was that it, as it were, cancelled out the marriage bond because it had interfered with the oneness sexually between a man and a woman. What was meant by sexual sin is open to question, but it would seem that it was something that was seen as grossly indecent. While adultery was supposed to result in the death sentence for both parties there were probably many cases where that course was not pursued, especially when they had not been caught in the act, and in the cases of suspected adultery the woman may have chosen divorce rather than trial before the sanctuary, and been allowed it by her husband (compare how Joseph was willing to put away Mary privately for her then supposed sexual misconduct). This may thus be what was mainly in mind here. Or it may have included other sexual behaviour which was seen as exceptionally disgraceful and as destroying the oneness between the man and the woman.
God’s true view of a divorced person was made clear in that a priest was not to marry a divorced person, for a divorced woman was seen as ‘defiled’ and ‘unholy’. They were displeasing to God and outside His sphere of holiness (Lev 21:7; Lev 21:24; etc.). However, the fact that divorced women were allowed to live and remain within the camp demonstrates that they could be tolerated at a distance from the Sanctuary, something which could be seen as a concession on God’s part. It did not, however, give them His permission to divorce.
There were, however, certain circumstances in which ‘divorce’ was permitted, and these were to do with cases of marriages between someone under God’s covenant and someone outside that covenant (see Deu 21:10-14; Ezra 10; Exo 21:7-11, see our commentary). That was why Paul later had to ‘legislate’ to allow for such marriages to continue in the case of a Christian (1Co 7:12-15). But concerning marriages between two persons within God’s covenant God declared ‘I hate divorce’ and forbade it (Mal 2:15-17).
End of note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Mat 19:6 . ] after this union, Mat 19:5 .
] are they , that is, the two of Mat 19:5 .
] quod , “ut non tanquam de duobus, sed tanquam de uno corpore loqueretur,” Maldonatus.
] through what is said in Mat 19:5 . Observe the contrast to .
Having regard, therefore, to the specific nature of marriage as a divine institution, Jesus utterly condemns divorce generally as being a putting asunder on the part of man of what, in a very special way, God has joined together. With regard to the exception, by which, in fact, the essential idea of marriage as a divine institution is already practically destroyed, see Mat 19:9 , and comp. note on Mat 5:32 .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
Ver. 6. They are no more twain ] A man’s wife is himself, , Eph 5:28 ; (as is likewise a man’s country, Luk 4:23 , to cure his country is to cure himself), and they twain, saith our Saviour in the former verse, shall be , into one flesh. The man misseth his rib, and the woman would be in her old place again, under the man’s arm or wing; hence no rest till they be re-united and concorporated. “My daughter,” said Naomi to Ruth, “should I not seek rest for thee, that it may be well with thee?” Rth 3:1 . Why, then, should there be divorces for light matters? why should there be beating of wives, and laying upon them (as some) with their unmanly fists? Did ever any man “hate his own flesh,” Eph 5:29 , or but hide his eyes from it? Isa 58:7 , how much less tear it with his teeth, and pull it away piecemeal, unless it were mad demoniacs and rash divorcers? Christ, the best husband, hates putting away, Mal 2:16 ; yea, though never so much provoked to it,Jer 3:1Jer 3:1 ; Job 13:1 , he will not do it.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Mat 19:6 . with indicative, expressing actual result as Christ views the matter. They are no longer two, but one flesh, one spirit, one person. : inference from God’s will to man’s duty. The creation of sex, and the high doctrine as to the cohesion it produces between man and woman, laid down in Gen., interdict separation. Let the Divine Syzygy be held sacredel How small the Pharisaic disputants must have felt in presence of such holy teaching, which soars above the partisan views of contemporary controversialists into the serene region of ideal, universal, eternal truth!
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
What = The unity, not “those” (the persons).
God. App-98.
hath joined together, &c. = joined together, &c. The converse is true also. See note on Php 1:1, Php 1:10.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Mat 19:6. , they are no more) They are now no longer two, as they were before.-, two) We should not understand , fleshes (carnes): for in Mat 19:5 we find (the two, they twain).-, that which (quod), not , those which (quae): for they are now one flesh.-, hath joined together) hath made one.-, man) see Mat 19:3.-, …, let not, etc.) The principle here involved admits of a widely extended application: what GOD hath separated, commanded, conceded, prohibited, blessed, praised, loosed, bound, etc., let not Man join together, prohibit, forbid, command, curse, blame, bind, loose, etc., not even in his own case; see Act 10:15; Num 23:8; Rom 14:3; Rom 14:20.-, put asunder) In every case of sexual connection, either God hath joined the two, or He hath not joined them: if He hath not joined them, their connection is unlawful; if He hath joined them, why are they separated?
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
God: Pro 2:17, Mal 2:14, Mar 10:9, Rom 7:2, 1Co 7:10-14, Eph 5:28, Heb 13:4
hath: [Strong’s G2201], “hath yoked together,” as oxen in the plough, where each must pull equally in order to bring it on. Among the ancients, they put a yoke upon the necks of a new married couple, or chains on their arms, to shew that they were to be one, closely united, and pulling equally together in all the concerns of life.
Reciprocal: Gen 31:50 – afflict Mar 10:7 – General Joh 8:5 – but 1Co 6:16 – for
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
19:6
Are no more twain is a positive proof that the fleshly union that is formed by the first intimate relationship is permanent, and not that the fact of being one flesh applies only at the time the act is being performed as some people teach. It is stated that God has joined this man and woman into one flesh, and the only “ceremony” that was used was the fleshly act. Were there no human laws on the subject, the fleshly act would be the only thing that would constitute marriage in heaven’s sight. But as man began to multiply on the earth and social conditions became more complex, the need for laws of regulation to keep the relation between the sexes pure was recognized by human leaders and such laws were enacted. The only thing God has to do in such laws is to recognize them and to require His creatures to obey them. What God joined . . . ‘no man put asunder. The Lord would not make a ruling against a sin that could not be committed. The fact that He did forbid man to sever this union which He alone had formed by the intimate relation proves that such a putting asunder can be committed. The only conclusion that is possible, then, is that the union will be put asunder when either party to it has relation with another; that act will form another union which will sever the preceding one.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:6. what therefore God joined together, etc. Our Lords conclusion. The sentence forms a proper part of every Christian marriage ceremony. It is Christs protection of this holy relation. It also implies a warning against hasty marriages, against ignorance and forgetfulness of the fact that it is God who forms the indissoluble tie.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 6
Twain; two.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath {e} joined together, let not man put asunder.
(e) Has made them yokefellows, as the marriage itself is called a yoke, by a borrowed kind of speech.