Matthew 19:3–9

The Pharisees bring up the subject of marriage by coming to the Lord with the question, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" Clearly they had no real desire to learn the truth, for we read they were "testing Him." It seems they hoped that by the Lord's answer they could accuse Him either of ignoring what Moses said, or of approving the loose customs common among the people. As usual, when men in their folly try to test the Lord, they are themselves thoroughly exposed.

How dreadful this attempt appears when we consider the dignity of the Person whom they try to test! He is the Wisdom, the Lord, who created all things; the One who instituted marriage and whose fingers wrote on the tablets of stone. Instead of worshipping Him and taking their place at His feet to be taught by Him, they try in their blindness to trap Him. But why do they bring up this question about divorcing a wife for any cause? Most likely they had heard what the Lord said in chapter five of this Gospel, where He declared that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery. Now they think they have a fine case against Him.

Here it is the Pharisees who bring up the question of marriage, and of what it binds a man to. It has been suggested, with reason, that they wanted to draw Him into the disputes between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai, who were at odds over divorce. The question, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" seems to point to the opinions of Hillel. He went so far as to decide that a wife spoiling her husband's dinner was cause enough. But in answer the Lord goes further than Shammai himself. He clears away all that men had since used to obscure marriage, and finds His argument in the way marriage was set up at the beginning. That argument strikes at polygamy as well as at the loose holding of the marriage tie. It brings us back beyond everything that has come in with sin, to the Creator's first design for His creatures.

This chapter surveys the relationships of nature in the light of the kingdom. The first and most basic is marriage... There you have the conduct of those who are on legal ground. There is really no respect for God, no genuine regard for His law.

The Lord goes back behind the law to God's original institution: "he who created them from the beginning... but from the beginning it was not so." So Christ's authority restores God's natural order — the relationship He formed, the origin of all other human relationships. He returns to God and God's institution of man. It is not Jehovah, it is not "my Father," but God made them — a very important principle. The law takes its place as a provisional thing, brought in along the way.

We should also notice that when evil of this sort is allowed, it not only spreads but persists. When some centuries later our Lord was on earth, the Pharisees came with the question, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" (Matt. 19:3), which implies that these loose practices were still common. We know how our Lord at once referred them to what God established at the beginning.

The door had been opened wide enough to allow "many causes" instead of the one, but all so trivial that the Lord refuses even to notice them. So may we. The great point is settled: marriage, as God Himself set it up in Eden, continues in the kingdom on earth. If the man and the woman act according to the spirit of that kingdom, there will be neither the occasion nor the need for separation between them.

Here it is the Pharisees who bring up marriage, and whether it binds. Their aim, it seems, was to draw Him into the disputes between the rabbinical schools of Hillel and Shammai, who differed about divorce. Their question — is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause? — seems to point to the views of Hillel's school. It went so far as to decide that a wife spoiling her husband's dinner was cause enough. But in answer the Lord goes further than Shammai himself. He clears away everything that man had since obscured it with, and finds His argument in the institution of marriage at the beginning. That argument strikes at polygamy as well as at the loose holding of the marriage tie. It carries us past all that has come in with sin, back to the first design of the Creator for His creatures.

He points to Old Testament Scriptures with the question, "Have you not read?" Once it is, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" (Matt. 19:4). Again it is, "Have you not read what was said to you by God: I am the God of Abraham …?" (Matt. 22:31). Christ was showing that if they had studied these scriptures, they would have found the will of God. It was on those very subjects that they were questioning Him. If the Old Testament taught them on any subject, that was enough warrant for them to accept the teaching as God's. Is it not also enough warrant for you?

The Lord at once defends the institution and the sanctity of marriage from Scripture: "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female?" (ver. 4). That is, He shows it is not merely a question of what came in by the law; He goes to the sources. God had first established it. He does not dissolve the tie at man's pleasure. He made a single pair, so each was only for the other. All other relationships were light compared with this closest tie — even union.

He had made them male and female, each suited to the other, each completed by the other. As to what the union meant, He had said, "the two shall become one flesh." The words speak of two, and only two. It was so with Adam and his wife at the first, where no one could even think of polygamy or divorce. And "one flesh" would make either polygamy or divorce an abomination.

Notice too that the Lord Jesus (Matt. 19:4-5) attributes to God the words quoted from Gen. 2:24: "He who created them … said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother," and so on. It was Moses who wrote, but it was God speaking none the less.

This was the ground the Lord Jesus stood on long afterwards. He defended the original institution and affirmed the lasting sanctity of marriage. The law of Moses did not introduce this relationship. Marriage was God's purpose for man from the very start of his history.

It may also be noticed that the Lord Jesus (Matt. 19:4-5) attributes to God the words quoted from Gen. 2:24: "He who made them … said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother,'" and so on. It was Moses who wrote it: but it was God speaking none the less.

The Lord goes back behind the law to God's original institution: "He who made them at the beginning … From the beginning it was not so." So Christ's authority restores God's natural order. That order is the relationship He formed, and the origin of all other human relationships. He returns to God and God's institution of man. It is not Jehovah, it is not "my Father," but God made them — a very important principle. The law takes its place as something provisional, brought in along the way.

Before a man marries, the chief relationship he stands in is that of a son, and his responsibility is towards his parents. But when he marries he leaves his father and mother and holds fast to his wife. From then on she becomes his chief care, for he and she are no longer two but one flesh.

God's order in creation is clear. So it was right that a man should leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. This verse settles many questions. First, when marriage takes place, the man (or woman) is no longer in the place of subjection to parents. Second, he holds fast to his wife — only one wife. So bigamy and polygamy are completely against Scripture. Holding fast to his wife means genuine love for her, faithfulness and devotion.

He establishes, or rather re-establishes, the true character of marriage as a bond that cannot be dissolved. I call it that, because the exception in the case of unfaithfulness is not really one. The guilty person had already broken the bond.

The two are then recognised before God as being "one flesh." It is God Himself who has joined the two together. Therefore no man has authority to divorce them. Governments today of course ignore God's decree in this matter, but the word of God will not change to suit men's preferences.

Again, the application to Christ and the church can be made. Christ, as man, gave up what was His by relationship to His earthly people, Israel, to gain and have the church. Paul quotes this verse in Ephesians 5:31 … So the marriage bond becomes the picture of the union of the church with Christ.

He who made the man and the woman regulated the relationship from the first. Later things went out of course. Then the Lord, who made everything perfect, cleared the relationship of that concession which man had abused, and called it back to its original order. This is all the more striking because God ruled it so. He did not rule it only for the short-lived state of innocence in paradise, but as His mind for man on the earth at any time. The terms prove it.

The Lord goes back behind the law to God's first institution: "He who created them from the beginning… from the beginning it was not so." So Christ's authority restores God's natural order. That order is the relationship He formed, and it is the source of every other human relationship. He returns to God and to God's institution for man. The name used is God — not "the Lord," not "my Father" — and that is an important point. The law came later, as a temporary measure.

The first was a provision "for the hardness of their hearts." Men no doubt often used it without the reason Moses required: "because he has found some indecency in her" (Deut. 24:1). The second (Gen. 2:24) taught the sacredness and the real character of the tie.

The two are then recognized before God as being "one flesh." It is God Himself who has joined the two together. Therefore man has no authority to divorce them. Governments today of course ignore God's decree in this matter, but the word of God will not change to suit men's preferences. From the beginning God meant marriage to bind two people for as long as both are alive.

A minister may pronounce a couple man and wife "on behalf of the church." That is simply wrong. Neither the true church of God nor the churches of men have any authority over marriage… When God joins, He does so without the help of any man.

God set a clear order in creation. So it was right that a man should leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife. This verse settles many questions. First, when marriage takes place, the man (or woman) is no longer in the place of subjection to parents. Second, he holds fast to his wife — one wife only, so bigamy and polygamy have no place in Scripture. Holding fast to his wife means real love for her, faithfulness and devotion.

Where someone sinned against the relationship, it was not really an exception. By then the one man and one woman had stopped being one flesh, because a human will had cut across God's. Sin broke the bond.

God's will is that marriage cannot be broken… This is true not only of marriages between believers, but of every marriage.

Why should a person's circumstances, failures, the difficulties along the way, incompatibility or anything else interfere with what came from the heart of God? … Couples will find that the love which first gave us marriage can hold them up.

The Pharisees try to quote Moses against the Lord. But He at once shows them that Moses condemned them, not Him. Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, allowed a man to send his wife away. He never commanded it. Here, as on another occasion, Moses does not defend them. He becomes their accuser and judge. "There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope" (John 5:45). It is always a dangerous thing for a sinner to take his stand on the law. The law can only expose and condemn him. It has no power to pardon and forgive.

In verse 7 they say, "Why then did Moses command?" and so on. He did nothing of the sort. He gave liberty, but never commanded, so the Lord takes them up and says he "allowed you." Moses allowed it to prevent worse sin, because hearts were hard… But God hated this divorcing.

In their reply they sought to turn aside the Lord's question by speaking, not of what Moses commanded, but of what Moses allowed. In doing so they unknowingly exposed the hardness of their hearts. They neglected the positive commands of Moses, and speak only of special rules set up to meet their own hardness. The commands met God's heart for man; the rules about divorce were to meet their hearts.

The Pharisees also thought they could prove the Lord wrong by referring to Deuteronomy 24:1. There Moses, the lawgiver, gave an instruction. If a man had found some uncleanness in his wife, he could give her a bill of divorcement and send her away. The bill of divorce guarded the wife against cruel treatment. Without it, a man could discard her and still leave her unable to marry anyone else.

Two great opinions divided the Pharisees about divorce. Some held the views of Hillel and others the views of Shammai. Hillel had taught that a husband may send his wife away for almost any cause… The school of Hillel taught this openly, and lived by it: if a wife cooks her husband's food badly, by over-salting or over-roasting it, her husband is to send her away. The school of Shammai, followed by other Pharisees, allowed divorce only for adultery. This sheds more light on the temptation these Pharisees put before Him.

Moses allowed certain things that were not according to God's original design. Nor should this surprise us, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good… Some concessions in the law did not express the divine mind at all. In them God was dealing with a people after the flesh. The law does not view a man as born of God; Christianity does… So our Lord made some allowance for Israel's condition in the flesh. At the same time He defended God's law from the corrupt conclusions of these selfish Pharisees.

Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace enables one to rise above difficulties in a way that law could never do.

The Lord goes back beyond the Law to show that God set up this relationship at the beginning, and that it comes before every other. They asked, "Why did Moses then command a man to give a certificate of divorce and send her away?" In the Law, through Moses, God had permitted divorce in a certain exceptional case (see Deut. 24:1), not commanded it as they said, and it was because of the hardness of their hearts. This word is the key to the whole passage. These men had never felt the deeper feelings of the human soul about God's arrangement for His creature. If they had, they could never have quibbled about divorce.

But they did not understand Moses, and they did not understand themselves. The Lord turns their own argument against them in the simplest way: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." Moses himself was the one supplying the evidence of their own condition — and what evidence it was! The law, which was "weak through the flesh," could not perfect anything because a people ruled by the flesh resisted it. Their objection proved two things at once: their own evil, and how hopeless that evil was under law.

Moses allowed certain things that were not according to God's original pattern. This should be no surprise, for the law made nothing perfect. It was good in itself, but it could not make anyone good… The law contained certain concessions that did not express the mind of God at all. In it God was dealing with a people who lived by the flesh. The law does not treat a man as born of God; Christianity does… The law itself drew no line between those born of God and those who were not. It addressed all Israel, and not believers only, and so it allowed certain things in view of the hardness of their hearts.

The Lord takes the occasion to insist on this truth, that what God had established from the beginning of creation was always valid in itself. Moses had allowed a man to put away his wife under the law, but this was only the patience of God with the hardness of man's heart. It was not according to God's own heart and will. In creation at the beginning God made what was good — weak, but good. He allowed other things when He set up a temporary order for His people, for fallen man. But when He created them, He had made things another way. God had joined husband and wife, and man had no right to separate them.

Moses allowed this because of their hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace enables a person to overcome difficulties in a way law could never do.

In the law there was a compromise between God's order and the hardness of men's hearts, and so under the law men could divorce their wives. But the Lord's coming into the world set all that aside. He came to establish a kingdom in which the will of God would be done, and He swept away the provision Moses had made for hard hearts. Grace reigns in that kingdom, and it enables all who are in it to fulfil every relationship according to God.

They did not understand Moses, and they did not understand themselves. Their own argument turns against them in the simplest way: "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." It was Moses himself who was supplying the evidence — and what evidence — of their own condition! ... And He turns on them with one of those commanding sayings that sweep aside all power of resistance like a lightning flash of truth.

Moses had allowed this because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not so. How clearly this shows that the law itself was not at all the expression of God's heart! In this case law was more permissive than the grace of God is! For grace enables a person to overcome difficulties in a way that law never could.

He establishes, or rather re-establishes, the true character of marriage as a bond that cannot be dissolved. I say it cannot be dissolved, because the case of unfaithfulness is not really an exception. The guilty person had already broken the bond. It was no longer man and woman one flesh.

The one exception is allowed because the sin has violated the marriage bond so deeply that it is as good as broken already. If one partner is guilty of sexual immorality, then it would not be adultery for the other to divorce and marry someone else. But the person who marries the partner put away for that sin would be guilty of adultery.

In His grace He makes room for one possible exception. A marriage can be dissolved before God when the terrible sin of adultery attacks its spiritual, mental and physical unity. This is not a command. It is an exception, in which God meets the wronged partner in his spiritual or emotional weakness. Yet do not forget: the sin of adultery can and should be forgiven when the guilty partner confesses it honestly, and it does not have to lead to divorce.

A divorce carried out before men (that is, in a court) does not by itself break the marriage entered into before God and man. What breaks it is the sexual union with another partner afterwards — even when this takes place in a new marriage!

The Lord Jesus here gives room for one exception, which clearly excludes any other exception... Yet this one and only exception is missing in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 does not mention it either... The Lord does not say that divorce cannot be avoided when one partner commits sexual immorality. He says only that in such a case, if the other partner remarries after a divorce, it is not adultery.

Often there may have been fault on both sides, and before another marriage a person should be broken before God, seeking only His will. 1 Corinthians 7:15 also shows that desertion breaks the marriage bond, so the deserted partner is left no longer under that bond.