Matthew 19:6
in Matthew 19So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
BSB
The same verse in ASV and KJV ▾
ASV
So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
KJV
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
⋯
This verse in Matthew 19
Commentary
30 notes on this verseGod has joined by making man and woman one flesh; this then man may not put asunder, but God only. Man puts asunder, when from desire of a second wife the first is put away; God puts asunder, who also had joined, when by consent for the service of God we so have our wives as though we had them not. (1 Cor. 7:29.)
This site's exposition
made them at the beginning
on Matthew 19:4-6
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female bypasses the Deuteronomy dispute entirely and answers from Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 instead, the bench noting Jesus refuses the Pharisees' framing on their own contested legal ground and returns to marriage's original design before the fall or the law of Moses ever entered. They twain shall be one flesh states a union the commentators read as more than physical, a joining God himself performs, which is why what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder follows as the verse's own conclusion rather than an added command. The appeal to the beginning rather than to Moses sets up the distinction Jesus draws sharply in verse 8.
The record, by era
The Church Fathers5 voices
(Vers. 5, 6.) And he said: Because of this, a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Likewise, he said, a man must be united to his wife, not wives. And the two will become one flesh. The reward of marriage is for two to become one flesh. Chastity joined to the spirit makes one spirit. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate.
(Cont. Faust. xix. 29.) Behold now out of the books of Moses it is proved to the Jews that a wife may not be put away. For they thought that they were doing according to the purport of Moses' law when they did put them away. This also we learn hence by the testimony of Christ Himself, that it was God who made it thus, and joined them male and female; which when the Manichæans deny, they are condemned, resisting the Gospel of Christ.
(Civ. Dei, xiv. 22.) For they are called one, either from their union, or from the derivation of the woman, who was taken out of the side of the man.
And accordingly, those whom God "from the beginning" conjoined, "two into one flesh," man shall not at the present day separate. The apostle, too, writing to the Ephesians, says that God "had proposed in Himself, at the dispensation of the fulfilment of the times, to recall to the head" (that is, to the beginning) "things universal in Christ, which are above the heavens and above the earth in Him.
A commentator
John ChrysostomHomily on the Gospel of Matthew 62 · Written in the 5th century.
proposed
See a teacher's wisdom. I mean, that being asked, Is it lawful? He did not at once say, It is not lawful, lest they should be disturbed and put in disorder, but before the decision by His argument He rendered this manifest, showing that it is itself too the commandment of His Father, and that not in opposition to Moses did He enjoin these things, but in full agreement with him. But mark Him arguing strongly not from the creation only, but also from His command. For He said not, that He made one man and one woman only, but that He also gave this command that the one man should be joined to the one woman. But if it had been His will that he should put this one away, and bring in another, when He had made one man, He would have formed many Women. But now both by the manner of the creation, and by the manner of lawgiving, He showed that one man must dwell with one woman continually, and never break off from her. And see how He saith, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female," that is, from one root they sprung, and into one body came they together, "for the twain shall be one flesh." After this, to make it a fearful thing to find fault with this lawgiving, and to confirm the law, He said not, "Sever not therefore, nor put asunder," but, "What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." But if thou put forward Moses, I tell thee of Moses' Lord, and together with this, I rely upon the time also. For God at the beginning made them male and female; and this law is older (though it seem to have been now introduced by me), and with much earnestness established. For not merely did He bring the woman to the man, but also commanded to leave father and mother. And neither did He make it a law for him merely to come to the woman, but also "to cleave to her," by the form of the language intimating that they might not be severed. […]
23 more voices on this verse
The Church Fathers1 voice
And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, …
The Medieval Church7 voices
Understand this also, that "he that is joined unto the Lord is of one spirit with Him" (I Cor. 6:17) and a union takes place between the believer and Christ. For we have all become one body with Him and we are, each one of …
Of the Sacrament of matrimony there are three goods, namely fidelity, offspring, and the Sacrament. And there are twelve impediments, which impede marriage from being contracted and dissolve one already contracted. The Church neither ought nor is able to annul a marriage that has been …
A commentator
BonaventureDisputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, Question 3 · Written in the 13th century.
proposed
That conjugal chastity is to be approved according to the evangelical law is shown by authority, as follows. Matthew 19, the Lord responding to the question put to him concerning marriage: Have you not read, that he who made men from the beginning made them …
A commentator
BonaventureDisputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, Question 3 · Written in the 13th century.
proposed
Conjugal chastity accords with the law of grace by reason of the Lord's definition, not only through the deed by which He was present at the wedding, but also through the word by which He authoritatively defined it, Matthew 19: What God has joined together, …
Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. Then he draws the principal conclusion: what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder, because it was done by God's will. If it is from God, man cannot separate; because if God joined, …
(interlin.) Or, one flesh, that is in carnal connection.
Therefore, since they have become one flesh, joined together by means of marital relations and physical affection, just as it is accursed to cut one's own flesh, so is it accursed to separate husband and wife. He did not say, "Let not Moses put asunder," …
The Puritans and the Awakening2 voices
Marriage and the sabbath are the most ancient of divine ordinances. Though marriage be not peculiar to the church, but common to the world, yet, being stamped with a divine institution, and here ratified by our Lord Jesus, it ought to be managed after a godly sort, and sanctified by the word of God, and prayer.
Wherefore they are no more twain,....
The Nineteenth Century3 voices
What therefore God hath joined together - Συνεζευξεν, 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.
In these verses we have the mind of Christ declared on two subjects of great moment. One is the relation of husband and wife; the other is the light in which we should regard little children in the matter of their souls. It is difficult to overrate the importance of these two subjects: the well-being of nations and the happiness of society are closely connected with right views upon them. Nations are nothing but a collection of families.
In these verses we have the mind of Christ declared on two subjects of great moment. One is the relation of husband and wife; the other is the light in which we should regard little children in the matter of their souls. It is difficult to overrate the importance of these two subjects: the well-being of nations and the happiness of society are closely connected with right views upon them. Nations are nothing but a collection of families. The good order of families depends entirely on keeping up the highest standard of respect for the marriage tie, and on the right training of children. We ought to be thankful that, on both these points, the great head of the church pronounced judgment so clearly. With respect to marriage, our Lord teaches that the union of husband and wife ought never to be broken off, except for the greatest of all causes, namely, actual unfaithfulness. In these days when our Lord was upon earth divorces were permitted among the Jews for the most trifling and frivolous causes. The practice, though tolerated by Moses to prevent worse evils—such as cruelty or murder—had gradually become an enormous abuse, and no doubt led to much immorality ( Malachi 2:14–16 ). The remark made by our Lord’s disciples shows the deplorably low state of public feeling on the subject. They said, “If the case of the man be so it is not good to marry ”They meant, of course, “if a man may not put away his wife for a slight cause at any time, he had better not marry at all.” Such language from the mouths of apostles sounds strange indeed! Our Lord brings forward a widely different standard for the guidance of his disciples. He first founds his judgment on the original institution of marriage.
Modern Voices10 voices
A commentator
GK ChestertonThe Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 6: The Story of the Vow · Written before 1936.
proposed
They are trying to break the vow of the knight as they broke the vow of the monk. They recognise the vow as the vital antithesis to servile status; the alternative and therefore the antagonist. Marriage makes a small state within the state, which resists …
Anyhow, to vary the legendary symbolism, it never seems to occur to the king in this fairy tale that the gold crown on his head is a less, and not a more, sacred and settled ornament than the gold ring on the woman's finger.
So the unfortunate man, who cannot tolerate the woman he has chosen from all the women in the world, is not encouraged to return to her and tolerate her, but encouraged to choose another woman whom he may in due course refuse to tolerate. And …
It does really mean that a section of the human race is asking whether the primary relations of the two human sexes are particularly good for modern shops. The human race is asking whether Adam and Eve are entirely suitable for Marshall and Snelgrove. If …
Architecture is a very good test of the true strength of a society, for the most valuable things in a human state are the irrevocable things--marriage, for instance. And architecture approaches nearer than any other art to being irrevocable, because it is so difficult to …
A commentator
GK ChestertonThe Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920) (1920)
proposed
What is respected, in short, is fidelity to the ancient flag of the family, and a readiness to fight for what I have noted as its unique type of freedom. I say readiness to fight, for fortunately the fight itself is the exception rather than …
A commentator
GK ChestertonThe Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925) (1925)
proposed
But Christ in his view of marriage does not in the least suggest the conditions of Palestine in the first century. He does not suggest anything at all, except the sacramental view of marriage as developed long afterwards by the Catholic Church. It was quite …
A commentator
GK ChestertonThe Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925) (1925)
proposed
So it is in this case of the sacrament of marriage. We may not believe in sacraments, as we may not believe in spirits, but it is quite clear that Christ believed in this sacrament in his own way and not in any current or …
A commentator
GK ChestertonThe Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920) (1920)
proposed
But before they make this attempt, it would be well to ask why such a dignity ever appeared or in what it consisted. And I fancy we shall find ourselves confronted with the very simple truth, that the dignity arose wholly and entirely out of …
While free love seems to me a heresy, divorce does really seem to me a superstition. It is not only more of a superstition than free love, but much more of a superstition than strict sacramental marriage; and this point can hardly be made too …
How the passage was read
On Matthew 19:3-12On Matthew 19:3-12
“For any cause”: Jesus asked to pick a school
“Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” The last three words are the point. The two great Pharisaic teaching schools of the generation before Jesus, the houses of Hillel and Shammai, disagreed on record over the divorce grounds in Deuteronomy 24:1: Shammai's house allowed divorce only for unchastity, Hillel's house “even if she spoiled his dish,” and Rabbi Akiva later added “even if he found another fairer than she” (the Mishnah preserves all three positions, Gittin 9:10). “For any cause” is the Hillelite slogan. The questioners are asking Jesus, in Herod Antipas's territory where John the Baptist lost his head over a marriage, to take a side in a live intra-Pharisaic dispute.
Jesus declines the menu. He reaches behind Moses to creation (“from the beginning it was not so”), grounds marriage in Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, reads the Mosaic provision as concession to hard hearts, and lands nearer Shammai on the exception while resting the whole matter on ground neither school had made primary. The scene is only half understood until the reader knows there were two schools in the room.
This section is reception history: how the passage was read and kept in the Jewish tradition. Where a reading parts from an essential of the Christian faith, the section says so at that point.
Sources: Mishnah Gittin 9:10 (the schools' positions verbatim)
The words behind it
15 Greek wordsEvery Greek word of this verse in the order it stands, with what it means and the door to its own study. The last column counts the times a word stands in the whole Bible: the rarer the word, the more the places it appears belong together.
| Greek | Sound | Meaning | Word study | In the Bible |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ὥστε | hoste | so that | G5620 → | 83 times |
| οὐκέτι | ouketi | no longer | G3756 →G2089 → | 140 times |
| εἰσὶν | eisin | are they | G1510 → | 2333 times |
| δύο | duo | two | G1417 → | 133 times |
| ἀλλὰ | alla | but | G235 → | 635 times |
| σὰρξ | sarx | flesh | G4561 → | 146 times |
| μία. | mia | one. | G1520 → | 343 times |
| ὃ | ho | What | G3739 → | 1405 times |
| οὖν | oun | therefore | G3767 → | 497 times |
| ὁ | ho | <the> | G3588 → | 19766 times |
| θεὸς | theos | God | G2316 → | 1312 times |
| συνέζευξεν, | sunezeuxen | united together, | G4801 → | |
| ἄνθρωπος | anthropos | man | G444 → | 549 times |
| μὴ | me | not | G3361 → | 1066 times |
| χωριζέτω.¶ | chorizeto | should separate. | G5563 → |
ὥστεso that
hosteG5620 →83 times
οὐκέτιno longer
εἰσὶνare they
eisinG1510 →2333 times
δύοtwo
duoG1417 →133 times
ἀλλὰbut
allaG235 →635 times
σὰρξflesh
sarxG4561 →146 times
μία.one.
miaG1520 →343 times
ὃWhat
hoG3739 →1405 times
οὖνtherefore
ounG3767 →497 times
ὁ<the>
hoG3588 →19766 times
θεὸςGod
theosG2316 →1312 times
συνέζευξεν,united together,
sunezeuxenG4801 →
ἄνθρωποςman
anthroposG444 →549 times
μὴnot
meG3361 →1066 times
χωριζέτω.¶should separate.
chorizetoG5563 →
A shaded row is a word that stands 400 times or fewer in the Bible.
The walk
8 stopsEach card is a verse this one points to, and under it the verses that one points to in turn. Where several paths arrive at the same place, that place is listed first: the text keeps returning to it.
Through
Hebrews 13:4Marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.
it leads to
- Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
- Proverbs 5:15–23
Drink water from your own cistern, and running water from your own well.
- 1 Corinthians 7:2–16
But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
- Galatians 5:19
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity, and debauchery;
- Genesis 2:24
Through
Romans 7:2For instance, a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage.
it leads to
- Genesis 2:23–24
And the man said: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man she was taken.”
- Genesis 2:23–24
Through
Ephesians 5:28In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
it leads to
- Genesis 2:21–24
So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep, and while he slept, He took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the area with flesh.
- Ephesians 5:25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her
- Matthew 19:5
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
- Genesis 2:21–24
Where this verse is studied
On this page
About Matthew
This page draws on 23 works. Open the list of works
This page draws on Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Bible; Augustine of Hippo, Catena Aurea by Aquinas; Bonaventure, Breviloquium, Part 6; Bonaventure, Disputed Questions on Evangelical Perfection, Question 3; GK Chesterton, The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 6: The Story of the Vow; GK Chesterton, The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 4; GK Chesterton, In Topsy-Turvy Land (Tremendous Trifles); GK Chesterton, Tremendous Trifles, IX. In the Place de La Bastille (1909); GK Chesterton, The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. VII: The Tragedies of Marriage (1920); GK Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, Part 2 Ch. 2: The Riddles of the Gospel (1925); GK Chesterton, The Superstition of Divorce, Ch. 2; Glossa Ordinaria, Catena Aurea by Aquinas; J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on the Gospels: Matthew; Jerome, Catena Aurea by Aquinas; Jerome, Commentary on Matthew; John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists; John Chrysostom, Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62; John Gill, Exposition of the New Testament (1746-1748); Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible; Tertullian, On Monogamy; Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter 13; Theophylact of Ohrid, Commentary on Matthew and Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Matthew.