TRV
Translation
King James Version
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?
Complete Jewish Bible
and that he said, `For this reason a man should leave his father and mother and be united with his wife, and the two are to become one flesh'?
Berean Standard Bible
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’?
American Standard Version
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?
World English Bible Messianic
and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall join to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’
Geneva Bible (1599)
And sayd, For this cause, shall a man leaue father and mother, and cleaue vnto his wife, and they which were two shalbe one flesh.
Young's Literal Translation
and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall be--the two--for one flesh?
See on the biblical-era map
In the KJVVerse 23,768 of 31,102
Study This Verse
Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Commentary on the Whole Bible. This section covers . Public domain.
Copy as
Shepherd of HermasAD 160
Shepherd of Hermas, Commandment 4
"Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way."
Justin MartyrAD 165
The First Apology, Chapter XV
Concerning chastity, He uttered such sentiments as these: "Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart before God." And, "If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out; for it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into everlasting fire." And, "Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced from another husband, committeth adultery." And, "There are some who have been made eunuchs of men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake; but all cannot receive this saying." So that all who, by human law, are twice married, are in the eye of our Master sinners, and those who look upon a woman to lust after her. For not only he who in act commits adultery is rejected by Him, but also he who desires to commit adultery: since not only our works, but also our thoughts, are open before God.
Theophilus of AntiochAD 185
To Autolycus, Book III, Chapter 13
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: "Whosoever looks on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart." [Matthew 5:28] "And he that marries," says [the Gospel], "her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery." [Matthew 5:32] Because Solomon says: "Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent." [Proverbs 6:27-29]
Athenagoras of AthensAD 190
A Plea for the Christians
A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. "For whosoever puts away his wife," says He, "and marries another, commits adultery;" [Matthew 19:9] not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again. For he who deprives himself of his first wife, even though she be dead, is a cloaked adulterer, resisting the hand of God, because in the beginning God made one man and one woman, and dissolving the strictest union of flesh with flesh, formed for the intercourse of the race.
Clement of AlexandriaAD 215
The Stromata Book 3
Concerning the words, "Not all can receive this saying. There are some eunuchs who were born so, and some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven; let him receive it who can receive it," they do not realize the context. After his word about divorce some asked him whether, if that is the position in relation to woman, it is better not to marry; and it was then that the Lord said: "Not all can receive this saying, but those to whom it is granted." What the questioners wanted to know was whether, when a man's wife has been condemned for fornication, it is allowable for him to marry another.
Clement of AlexandriaAD 215
The Stromata Book 2
Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, "Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;" and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive. Not to deck and adorn herself beyond what is becoming, renders a wife free of calumnious suspicion, while she devotes herself assiduously to prayers and supplications; avoiding frequent departures from the house, and shutting herself up as far as possible from the view of all not related to her, and deeming housekeeping of more consequence than impertinent trifling. "He that taketh a woman that has been put away," it is said, "committeth adultery; and if one puts away his wife, he makes her an adulteress," that is, compels her to commit adultery. And not only is he who puts her away guilty of this, but he who takes her, by giving to the woman the opportunity of sinning; for did he not take her, she would return to her husband. What, then, is the law? In order to check the impetuosity of the passions, it commands the adulteress to be put to death, on being convicted of this; and if of priestly family, to be committed to the flames. And the adulterer also is stoned to death, but not in the same place, that not even their death may be in common. And the law is not at variance with the Gospel, but agrees with it. How should it be otherwise, one Lord being the author of both? She who has committed fornication liveth in sin, and is dead to the commandments; but she who has repented, being as it were born again by the change in her life, has a regeneration of life; the old harlot being dead, and she who has been regenerated by repentance having come back again to life. The Spirit testifies to what has been said by Ezekiel, declaring, "I desire not the death of the sinner, but that he should turn." Now they are stoned to death; as through hardness of heart dead to the law which they believed not. But in the case of a priestess the punishment is increased, because "to whom much is given, from him shall more be required."
TertullianAD 220
To His Wife Book II
What kind of yoke is that of two believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both (are) brethren, both fellow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly "two in one flesh." Where the flesh is one, one is the spirit ton.
TertullianAD 220
To His Wife Book I
Let them see to that, who, among the rest of their perversities, teach the disjoining of the "one flesh in twain; " denying Him who, after borrowing the female from the male, recombined between themselves, in the matrimonial computation, the two bodies taken out of the consortship of the self-same material substance.
Origen of AlexandriaAD 253
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 14.17
The apostle understands "the two shall become one flesh," as referring to Christ and the church. So we must say that Christ did not dismiss the former (so to speak) wife, that is, the former synagogue, for any other cause than that the wife committed fornication, being made an adulteress by the evil one. Along with him she plotted against her husband and gave him over to death, saying, "Away with such a fellow from the earth, crucify him, crucify him."It was she, the synagogue, therefore who left him, rather than that her husband divorced her and sent her away. Therefore it says in Isaiah, rebuking her for this divorce: "Where is your mother's bill of divorce, with which I put her away?"
Hilary of Poitiers (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 367
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Also He cures the Galileans on the borders of Judæa, that He might admit the sins of the Gentiles to that pardon which was prepared for the Jews.
Apostolic ConstitutionsAD 380
Apostolic Constitutions (Book VIII), The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles, Section 48
If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended.
John ChrysostomAD 407
Homily on the Gospel of Matthew 62
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. And not even with this was He satisfied, but sought also for another greater union, "for the twain," He saith, "shall be one flesh."
Then after He had recited the ancient law, which was brought in both by deeds and by words, and shown it to be worthy of respect because of the giver, with authority after that He Himself too interprets and gives the law, saying, "So that they are no more twain, but one flesh." Like then as to sever flesh is a horrible thing, so also to divorce a wife is unlawful. And He stayed not at this, but brought in God also by saying, "What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder," showing that the act was both against nature, and against law; against nature, because one flesh is dissevered; against law, because that when God hath joined and commanded it not to be divided, ye conspire to do this.
John Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 407
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Hom. lxii.) The Lord had before left Judæa because of their jealousy, but now He keeps Himself more to it, because His passion was near at hand. Yet does He not go up to Judæa itself, but into the borders of Judæa; whence it is said, And it came to pass when Jesus had ended all these sayings, he departed from Galilee.
It should be also observed, that the Lord is not either ever delivering doctrine, or ever working miracles, but one while does this, and again turns to that; that by His miracles faith might be given to what He said, and by His teaching might be showed the profit of those things which He wrought.
For indeed Christ so healed men, as to do good both to themselves, and through them to many other. For these men's healing was to others the occasion of their knowledge of God; but not to the Pharisees, who were only hardened by the miracles; whence it follows; And the Pharisees came to him, tempting him,, and saying, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
Observe their wickedness even in the way of putting their question. The Lord had above disputed concerning thus law, but they now ask Him as though He had spoken nothing thereof, supposing He had forgot what He had before delivered in this matter.
But not by the law of creation only, but also by the practice of the law, He shows that they ought to be joined one and one, and never put asunder, And he said, For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife.
See the wisdom of the Teacher. Being asked, Is it lawful, He said not straight, It is not lawful, lest they should be troubled, but establishes it through a proof. For God made them from the beginning male and female, and not merely joined them together, but bade them quit father and mother; and not bade the husband merely approach his wife, but be joined to her, showing by this manner of speaking the inseparable bond. He even added a still closer union, saying, And they twain shall be one flesh.
When He had brought forward the words and facts of the old law, He then interprets it with authority, and lays down a law, saying, Therefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. For as those who love one another spiritually are said to be one soul, And all they that believed had one heart and one soul, (Acts 4:32.) so husband and wife who love each other after the flesh, are said to be one flesh. And as it is a wretched thing to cut the flesh, so is it an unjust thing to put away a wife.
He brings in God yet again, saying, What God has joined, let no man put asunder, showing that it is against both nature and God's law to put away a wife; against nature, because one flesh is therein divided; against law, because God has joined and forbidden to sunder them.
Had the Lord been opposed to the Old Testament, He would not thus have contended in Moses' behalf, nor have gone about to show that what was his was in agreement with the things of old. But the unspeakable wisdom of Christ made answer and excuse for these in this manner, He saith unto them, Moses for the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives. By this He clears Moses from their charge, and retorts it all upon their own head.
At last, because what He had said was severe, He goes back to the old law, saying, From the beginning it was not so.
JeromeAD 420
Commentary on Matthew
(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. God has joined, by making one flesh of man and woman: this the man cannot separate, unless perhaps by the power of God alone. Man separates, when, due to desire for a second spouse, he dismisses the first. God separates, who had also joined, when by consent due to the service of God (because time is limited) we have wives as though we have none (I Cor. VII).
Jerome (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 420
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
That they might have Him as it were between the horns of a syllogism, so that, whatever answer He should make, it would lie open to cavil. Should He allow a wife to be put away for any cause, and the marriage of another, he would seem to contradict Himself as a preacher of chastity. Should He answer that she may not be put away for any cause whatsoever, He will be judged to have spoken impiously, and to make against the teaching of Moses and of God.
But He so frames His answer as to evade their snare. He brings in the testimony of Holy Writ, and the law of nature, and opposing God's first sentence to this second, He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female? This is written in the beginning of Genesis. This teaches that second marriages are to be avoided, for He said not male and females, which was what was sought by the putting away of the first, but, male and female, implying only one tie of wedlock.
In like manner He says his wife, and not wives, and adds expressly, and they twain shall be one flesh. For it is the reward of marriage that one flesh, namely in the offspring, is made of two.
God 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.)
Here they reveal the cavil which they had prepared; albeit the Lord had not given sentence of Himself, but had recalled to their minds ancient history, and the commands of God.
What He says is to this purpose. Is it possible that God should so contradict Himself, as to command one thing at first, and after defeat His own ordinance by a new statute? Think not so; but, whereas Moses saw that through desire of second wives who should be richer, younger, or fairer, that the first were put to death, or treated ill, he chose rather to suffer separation, than the continuance of hatred and assassination. Observe moreover that He said not God suffered you, but, Moses; showing that it was, as the Apostle speaks, a counsel of man, not a command of God. (1 Cor. 7:12.)
JeromeAD 420
COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW 1.19.6
“What therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder.” God “has joined” in making one flesh of man and woman; this no man can put asunder, unless perhaps God alone. Man “puts asunder” when we dismiss our first wife in desire of a second; God, who also had joined together, puts asunder, when by consent for God’s service, we so have our wives as though not having them.
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(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.
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(Gen. ad lit. ix. 19.) Whereas Scripture witnesses that these words were said by the first man, and the Lord here declares that God spake them, hence we should understand that by reason of the ecstasy which had passed upon Adam, he was enabled to speak this as a prophecy.
Augustine of Hippo (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 430
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(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.
Pseudo-Chrysostom (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 500
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
PSEUDO-CHRYSOSTOM.e. As the righteous Lord of all, who loves these servants so as not to despise those.
They were conducting Him forth, as the young children of a father going on a far journey. And He setting forth as a father, left them as pledges of His love the healing of their diseases, as it is said, And he healed them.
But, as when you see one much pursuing the acquaintance of physicians, you know that he is sick, so, when you see either man or woman enquiring concerning divorce, know that that man is lustful and that woman unchaste. For chastity has pleasure in wedlock, but desire is tormented as though under a slavish bondage therein. And knowing that they had no sufficient cause to allege for their putting away their wives, save their own lewdness, they feigned many divers causes. They feared to ask Him for what cause, lest they should be tied down within the limits of fixed and certain causes; and therefore they asked if it were lawful for every cause; for they knew that appetite knows no limits, and cannot hold itself within the bounds of one marriage, but the more it is indulged the more it is kindled.
If then God created the male and female out of one, to this end that they should be one, why then henceforth were not they born man and wife at one birth, as it is with certain insects? Because God created male and female for the continuance of the species, yet is He ever a lover of chastity, and promoter of continence. Therefore did He not follow this pattern in all kinds, to the end that, if any man choose to marry, he may know what is, according to the first disposition of the creation, the condition of man and wife; but if he choose not to marry, he shall not be under necessity to marry by the circumstances of his birth, lest he should by his continence be the destruction of the other who was not willing to be continent; for which same cause God forbids that after being joined in wedlock one should separate if the other be unwilling.
If then because the wife is made of the man, and both one of one flesh, a man shall leave his father and his mother, then there should be yet greater affection between brothers and sisters, for these come of the same parents, but man and wife of different. But this is saying too much, because the ordinance of God is of more force than the law of nature. For God's precepts are not subject to the law of nature, but nature bends to the precepts of God. Also brethren are born of one, that they should seek out different roads; but the man and the wife are born of different persons, that they should coalesce in one. The order of nature also follows the appointment of God. For as is the sap in trees, so is affection in man. The sap ascends from the roots into the leaves, and passes forth into the seed. Therefore parents love their children, but are not so loved of them, for the desire of a man is not towards his parents, but towards the sons whom he has begot; and this is what is said, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife.
This sentence of chastity seemed hard to these adulterers; but they could not make answer to the argument. Howbeit, they will not submit to the truth, but betake themselves for shelter to Moses, as men having a bad cause fly to some powerful personage, that where justice is not, his countenance may prevail; They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
Therefore said He well, Moses suffered, not commanded. For what we command, that we ever wish; but when we suffer, we yield against our will, because we have not the power to put full restraint upon the evil wills of men. He therefore suffered you to do evil that you might not do worse; thus in suffering this he was not enforcing the righteousness of God, but taking away its sinfulness from a sin; that while you did it according to His law, your sin should not appear sin.
Remigius of Rheims (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 533
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
The Apostle says that this is a mystery in Christ and the Church (Eph. 5:32.); for the Lord Jesus Christ left His Father when He came down from heaven to earth; and He left His mother, that is, the synagogue, because of its unbelief, and clave unto His wife, that is, the Holy Church, and they two are one flesh, that is, Christ and the Church are one body.
Rabanus Maurus (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 856
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
Here then He begins to relate what He did, taught, or suffered in Judæa. At first beyond Jordan eastward, afterwards on this side Jordan when He came to Jericho, Bethphage, and Jerusalem; whence it follows, And He came into the coasts of Judæa beyond Jordan.
It should be known, that the whole territory of the Israelites was called Judæa, to distinguish it from other nations. But its southern portion, inhabited by the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, was called Judæa proper, to distinguish it from other districts in the same province as Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and the rest. It follows, And great multitudes followed him.
For by the wholesome design of God it was ordained that a man should have in the woman a part of his own body, and should not look upon as separate from himself that which he knew was formed out of himself.
Glossa Ordinaria (as quoted by Aquinas, AD 1274)AD 1274
Catena Aurea by Aquinas
(interlin.) Or, one flesh, that is in carnal connection.
CS LewisAD 1963
Mere Christianity, Chapter 6 - Christian Marriage
The Christian idea of marriage is based on Christ's words that a man and wife are to be regarded as a single organism - for that is what the words 'one flesh' would be in modern English. And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a sentiment but stating a fact - just as one is stating a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instrument. The inventor of the human machine was telling us that its two halves, the male and the female, were made to be combined together in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally combined. The monstrosity of sexual intercourse outside marriage is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which were intended to go along with it and make up the total union. The Christian attitude does not mean that there is anything wrong about sexual pleasure, any more than about the pleasure of eating. It means that you must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting them out again.
Source: Quotations drawn from early Church Fathers and historical Christian theologians (AD 100–1500). Some quotes address the surrounding passage context rather than this verse alone.
Copy as
Continue studying Matthew 19:5 across the web’s major study libraries — every link below opens this exact verse, chapter, or book on the destination site.
Read & Compare
BibleGatewayThis verse in more than 200 translations and 70 languages.
Bible.comThe YouVersion reader — hundreds of translations, reading plans, and highlights.
ESV.orgCrossway's official English Standard Version reader.
NET BibleThe NET translation with 60,000+ translators' notes on every rendering decision.
STEP BibleTyndale House's free study tool — original text, vocabulary, and scholarly resources.
BibliaLogos Bible Software's free web reader.
USCCBThe New American Bible (Revised Edition) with the U.S. bishops' study notes.
Commentaries
BibleHub CommentariesDozens of classic commentaries on this verse, gathered on one page.
StudyLightMore than 100 commentary sets — the largest collection on the web.
BibleRefPlain-English commentary on what this verse means, verse by verse.
Enduring WordDavid Guzik's free commentary on this chapter, widely used by Bible teachers.
Bible Study ToolsVerse commentary alongside Greek and Hebrew study aids.
Original Language & Research
- BibleHub InterlinearThe verse word by word — original language, transliteration, and English.
- BibleHub LexiconEvery word's original-language definition and Strong's entry.
Blue Letter BibleDeep-study tools — Strong's numbers, concordance, and word studies.
CNTR CollationThe earliest Greek manuscripts of this verse, collated letter by letter.
Sermons, Hymns & Audio
TrulyRandomVerse is not affiliated with these sites and doesn’t control their content. They’re linked because they’re genuinely useful.
SUMMARY
In Matthew 19:5, Jesus directly quotes Genesis 2:24 to underscore the divine, foundational nature of marriage as a lifelong, indissoluble union. Responding to the Pharisees' questions about divorce, Jesus re-establishes God's original intent for humanity, emphasizing that marriage is a sacred covenant where a man and woman "leave" their parental homes, "cleave" to each other in profound commitment, and become "one flesh" in a holistic, inseparable unity.
CONTEXT
Literary Context: This verse is embedded within Jesus's discourse on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19:1-12. The exchange begins with the Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus by asking if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for "any cause" (Matthew 19:3). Instead of engaging with their legalistic interpretations of Mosaic law, Jesus immediately shifts the discussion back to the creation account, appealing to God's original design for humanity and marriage (Matthew 19:4). By quoting Genesis 2:24, Jesus asserts the divine origin and permanence of the marital bond, directly challenging the prevailing divorce practices of His day. The disciples' subsequent reaction (Matthew 19:10) reveals the radical nature of Jesus's teaching compared to contemporary norms.
Historical & Cultural Context: During Jesus's time, Jewish society had differing interpretations of the Mosaic law regarding divorce, primarily based on Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Two prominent rabbinic schools, Hillel and Shammai, held opposing views. The Hillel school, more lenient, permitted divorce for a wide range of reasons, even trivial ones (e.g., a burnt meal), while the Shammai school held a stricter interpretation, allowing divorce only for "indecency" (sexual immorality). This verse shows Jesus bypassing these rabbinic debates entirely, going back to the pre-fall, pre-Mosaic blueprint for marriage. In a patriarchal society where divorce was primarily a male prerogative and women had few rights, Jesus's teaching elevated the status of marriage and the wife, emphasizing mutual commitment and the sanctity of the union as established by God, not by human custom or legal loophole.
Key Themes: Matthew 19:5 highlights several crucial themes. Foremost is the divine institution of marriage, asserting that marriage is not merely a human social contract but a sacred bond established by God Himself at creation. This leads to the theme of permanence and indissolubility, as Jesus emphasizes that what God has joined together, no human should separate (Matthew 19:6). The concept of unity is central, encapsulated in the "one flesh" idea, signifying a profound physical, emotional, and spiritual bond. This verse also underscores the sanctity of the marital covenant, treating it as a solemn promise before God. Finally, it speaks to the original intent of creation, reminding humanity that God's design for relationships is rooted in His perfect will from the very beginning, a standard to which His followers are called to return, rather than relying on human concessions or interpretations.
EXPOSITION AND ANALYSIS
Key Word Analysis
Verse Breakdown
Literary Devices
Jesus's use of Matthew 19:5 is rich in literary technique. The most prominent device is Quotation/Allusion, as Jesus directly cites Genesis 2:24. This serves to ground his teaching in the authoritative, foundational narrative of creation, bypassing contemporary rabbinic debates and establishing God's original intent as the ultimate standard. By doing so, he employs Argument from Origin, asserting that the earliest divine decree holds precedence over later human interpretations or concessions. The phrase "one flesh" functions as a powerful Metaphor and Symbolism. It is a metaphor for the profound, holistic unity achieved in marriage—not merely physical, but encompassing the entire being of both individuals. As symbolism, it points to the mysterious, sacred nature of the marital bond, reflecting a divine pattern. There is also an implicit Contrast between God's perfect, original design for marriage and the fallen, human-driven practices of divorce that had become prevalent, highlighting the tension between divine ideal and human compromise.
THEOLOGICAL AND THEMATIC CONNECTIONS
Matthew 19:5, by re-asserting the Genesis account of marriage, establishes a profound theological foundation for the institution. It portrays marriage not merely as a social construct or legal arrangement, but as a divinely ordained covenant that reflects the very nature of God. The "one flesh" union speaks to the relational aspect of the Trinity, where distinct persons exist in perfect unity. Furthermore, this passage lays the groundwork for understanding marriage as a sacred mystery that foreshadows the ultimate union between Christ and His Church. It underscores the sanctity, permanence, and exclusive nature of the marital bond as a unique expression of human intimacy and partnership, designed by God for procreation, companionship, and mutual sanctification.
REFLECTION AND APPLICATION
Jesus's teaching in Matthew 19:5 calls believers to a high and holy view of marriage, one that transcends cultural norms and personal preferences. It challenges us to consider whether our understanding and practice of marriage align with God's original, perfect design rather than fallen human interpretations. The principles of "leaving," "cleaving," and becoming "one flesh" provide a timeless blueprint for building strong, resilient, and God-honoring relationships. "Leaving" requires a mature reorientation of loyalties, prioritizing the new marital bond above all other human relationships. "Cleaving" demands intentional, lifelong commitment, loyalty, and active pursuit of intimacy—physical, emotional, and spiritual. "One flesh" invites couples into a profound unity where individual identities are not lost but integrated into a new, shared identity, fostering deep intimacy, mutual support, and shared purpose. This sacred union, designed by God, is meant to be a testimony to His faithfulness and a context for human flourishing and sanctification.
Questions for Reflection
FAQ
Why does Jesus quote Genesis 2:24 here?
Answer: Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24 to establish the divine, pre-Mosaic origin and intent of marriage as the ultimate standard. By appealing to the creation account, Jesus bypasses the contemporary rabbinic debates about divorce laws and returns to God's original, perfect design for humanity, asserting that marriage is a sacred institution ordained by God Himself, intended to be a permanent and indissoluble union. He emphasizes that God's original purpose for marriage takes precedence over any later human concessions or interpretations.
What does "one flesh" truly mean in this context?
Answer: The phrase "one flesh" signifies a holistic and profound unity between husband and wife. It encompasses not only physical intimacy but also a deep merging of emotional, spiritual, and legal identities. It means that two distinct individuals become an inseparable new entity, sharing life, purpose, and destiny. This union is meant to be the deepest form of human intimacy and commitment, reflecting the covenantal nature of marriage where two lives are integrated into one, establishing a new family unit that is distinct from their families of origin.
CHRIST-CENTERED FULFILLMENT
Matthew 19:5, by emphasizing the "one flesh" union, finds its ultimate and most profound fulfillment in the relationship between Christ and His Church. Just as a man leaves his father and mother to cleave to his wife, so Christ "left" His heavenly glory and divine prerogative to "cleave" to humanity, taking on flesh and dwelling among us (Philippians 2:6-8). The "one flesh" union in marriage serves as a profound mystery that foreshadows the spiritual union between Christ, the Bridegroom, and the Church, His Bride (Ephesians 5:31-32). Christ's commitment to His Church is the perfect embodiment of "cleaving"—a steadfast, unconditional, self-sacrificial love that led Him to give His life for her (Ephesians 5:25). Through faith, believers are united with Christ, becoming "one spirit" with Him (1 Corinthians 6:17), a spiritual reality that mirrors the intimacy of the marital bond. This divine marriage culminates in the eternal "marriage supper of the Lamb" (Revelation 19:7-9), where the Church, made holy and blameless, is eternally united with her Savior, fulfilling the deepest longing for perfect communion that the "one flesh" union on earth only dimly reflects.