Matthew 19:6

19:6 Since God made marriage a union, humans do not have the right to break that union. Jesus affirmed the indissolubility of marriage.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Mat 19:6. οὐκ ἔτι εἰσὶ, they are no more) They are now no longer two, as they were before.—δύο, two) We should not understand σάρκες, fleshes (carnes): for in Mat 19:5 we find οἱ δύο (the two, they twain).—ὃ, that which (quod), not ἅ, those which (quae): for they are now one flesh.—συνέζευεξεν, hath joined together) hath made one.—ἄνθρωπος, man) see Mat 19:3.—μὴ, κ.τ.λ., 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.—χωριζέτω, 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?

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat_19:6. Οὐκέτι] after this union, Mat_19:5.

εἰσί] are they, that is, the two of Mat_19:5.

ὅ] quod, ut non tanquam de duobus, sed tanquam de uno corpore loqueretur, Maldonatus.

ὁ θεός] through what is said in Mat_19:5. Observe the contrast to ἄνθρωπος.

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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mat 19:6 . ὥστε with indicative, expressing actual result as Christ views the matter. They are no longer two, but one flesh, one spirit, one person. ὃ οὖν : 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!

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Hath made them yoke fellows, as the marriage itself is by a borrowed kind of speech called a yoke.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 6. 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.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(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 man’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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, εαυτον, 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 εις σαρκα μιαν, 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 3:1; Job 13:1, he will not do it.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Wherefore (wste); so that. This follows from the quotation just given. Our Lord explains and confirms the original dictum by an assertion of his own and a general law. What God hath joined together. The institution of marriage is God"s appointment. Christ says o , what, neuter singular, not "those whom," plural and concrete, that he may make it clear that he is here speaking in the abstract, not specially of Adam and Eve. What he enunciates is true of all wedlock, not simply of the case of our first parents. Let not man put asunder. Man does thus infringe the primitive rule when he divorces his with. Herein he opposes God and acts against nature. He and his wife are one; they can no more separate from one another than they can from themselves. If we regard our Lord"s language in this passage without prejudice, and not reading into it modem notions, we must consider that he here decrees the indissolubility of the marriage tie. His hearers plainly understood him so to speak, as we see from the objection which they urged.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 6, 7. Natural laws and human infirmities.

The law of marriage must be thought of as fixed for human beings before the Fall. Natural laws are not fixed in view of man"s wilfulness and sin. They remain natural laws after man has sinned; but their application and practical working are modified by the new conditions and relations which sin has introduced. God made man male and female. God designed single pairs. God proposed lifelong faithfulness of the wedded pairs. There is no natural provision made for divorce, because such a thing has no place in the natural order. In the Divine idea human society is based on the mutually helpful relation in which one man and one woman may stand. Instability of human society comes when the family bond can be easily broken. The human infirmities which have necessitated modifications of the natural marriage laws are

I CRUELTIES. It became necessary for woman to have some defence against man"s violence. Natural law makes man and woman equals. They are different; but their faculties and sympathies are relative, and each is head in a way. But sin took first shape as masterfulness; and man, the stronger, took advantage of woman, the weaker, and made her his slave. There had to be adjustment of law to meet this condition and give due protection to the weaker one. "But for the possibility of divorce, the wife would have been the victim of the husband"s tyranny; and law social law which has to deal with facts not with what ought to be, but withwhat is was compelled to choose between two evils." Woman"s lot, even in civilized times, would often be intolerable but for the possibility and the fear of divorce.

II INFIDELITIES. This subject needs to be touched very wisely in a general audience; and yet there is no subject on which wise words are more pressingly demanded. It is one of the most serious of the mischiefs wrought by sin, that it has loosened men"s control of bodily passion. And the mischief is wrought, not in man only, but also in woman. Infidelities make the continuance of natural relations impossible, though the modification of law, which permits divorce, makes no attempt to deliver man or woman from the power of their infirmity. R.T.

HOMILIES BY R. TUCK Vers. 6, 7. Natural laws and human infirmities.

The law of marriage must be thought of as fixed for human beings before the Fall. Natural laws are not fixed in view of man"s wilfulness and sin. They remain natural laws after man has sinned; but their application and practical working are modified by the new conditions and relations which sin has introduced. God made man male and female. God designed single pairs. God proposed lifelong faithfulness of the wedded pairs. There is no natural provision made for divorce, because such a thing has no place in the natural order. In the Divine idea human society is based on the mutually helpful relation in which one man and one woman may stand. Instability of human society comes when the family bond can be easily broken. The human infirmities which have necessitated modifications of the natural marriage laws are

I CRUELTIES. It became necessary for woman to have some defence against man"s violence. Natural law makes man and woman equals. They are different; but their faculties and sympathies are relative, and each is head in a way. But sin took first shape as masterfulness; and man, the stronger, took advantage of woman, the weaker, and made her his slave. There had to be adjustment of law to meet this condition and give due protection to the weaker one. "But for the possibility of divorce, the wife would have been the victim of the husband"s tyranny; and law social law which has to deal with facts not with what ought to be, but withwhat is was compelled to choose between two evils." Woman"s lot, even in civilized times, would often be intolerable but for the possibility and the fear of divorce.

II INFIDELITIES. This subject needs to be touched very wisely in a general audience; and yet there is no subject on which wise words are more pressingly demanded. It is one of the most serious of the mischiefs wrought by sin, that it has loosened men"s control of bodily passion. And the mischief is wrought, not in man only, but also in woman. Infidelities make the continuance of natural relations impossible, though the modification of law, which permits divorce, makes no attempt to deliver man or woman from the power of their infirmity. R.T.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. What God hath joined together. If God hath so joined them that the twain are one, no human ordinance has the right to separate them.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

6. ὅ, the neuter strengthens the idea of complete fusion into a single being.

συνέζευξεν. The aorist of the divine action undetermined by time. Cp. εὐδόκησεν, ch. Mat 3:17, παρεδόθη, Mat 11:27, ἐδόθη, Mat 28:18.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

(M) 6. So that they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God joined together, let not man separate.] So Mk. Divorce, therefore, is from an ideal standpoint not to be thought of.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

What [ο] . 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).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.