Structure of verses 1-16

Section 1 Verses 1,2
Loyal recognition

1 Corinthians 11:1
Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.

Be ye followers of me- there is a strong case for thinking that this verse goes best with chapter 10, where the apostle closes the chapter with his testimony in verse 33 that he pleased all men in all things, not seeking his own profit. It is fitting that he should encourage the Corinthians to follow his example. Of course he is not trying to form a sect of followers. He has said in verse that we should do all to the glory of God, and forming a sect would certainly not glorify God. What he means is that they should follow his example.

Even as I also am of Christ- the apostle immediately makes it clear that this exhortation to follow him is limited. He cannot be followed in everything, for he, like all believers at present, has a sin-principle within him which results in failure. There is one who has not this sin-principle, however, and it is He, Christ, who can safely be followed. It is only as Paul followed Christ that we can follow Paul.

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you.

Now I praise you, brethren- from Acts 18:1-11 we learn that the apostle Paul was responsible for the founding of the assembly in Corinth, and had subsequently spent a considerable time with them, “teaching the word of God among them”. He writes to them, therefore, as one who knows them, and he is able to praise them for not forgetting what he had taught them. There were many things at Corinth that needed correction, as we learn from the two epistles Paul wrote to them, but he praises where he can. His praises and rebukes were God’s gracious provision for them, for they give a preview of that time when all believers shall stand before the judgement seat of Christ, and their lives, attitudes, and service are reviewed. In the goodness of God they would have encouragement from Paul’s praise, and correction from his rebukes, so they could make adjustment before the solemn day of Christ’s review came.

That ye remember me in all things- Paul’s conduct and teaching must have made a deep impression upon them, for he can say here that they remembered him in all things. They related every aspect of their conduct to what he had told them when present. When a problem confronted them they immediately thought to themselves, “What did Paul teach us about this”. So it was that he could commend them for keeping the ordinances, and doing so in just the same way as he had instructed them. They had not sought to modify them in any way, and this was commendable.

And keep the ordinances, as I delivered them unto you- an ordinance is a matter that is handed down, and might well have been translated as tradition. There are different sorts of tradition, however. The Lord Jesus spoke of Jewish tradition, by which the rulers in Israel had made the word of God of no effect, Matthew 15:6. The apostle Peter referred to a vain conversation received by tradition, 1 Peter 1:18. The traditions or ordinances that are referred to in our passage, however, are spiritual matters handed down from God to His people, through the apostles, and as such are not vain, and far from setting aside God’s word, they establish it. This means they are of supreme importance, and hence to keep them faithfully is praiseworthy. The word for keep used here means to hold firmly. The Corinthians were keeping the ordinances faithfully and resolutely. The commendation of the apostle here gives us a strong indication as to what Christ will praise at the judgement seat.

We see from this idea of tradition, or handing down, the importance of regularly rehearsing the matters dealt with in this passage. How easy it is for the years to slip by, and the subject never be raised. How easy, too, for the Scriptures to be sidelined, so that when there are those who wish to conform to them, they find they are in the minority, and probably labeled legal! The apostle exhorted Timothy in these terms, “And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also”, 2 Timothy 2:2. In this way there will be a constant rehearsal of these important matters, and both old and young will be instructed.

Section 2 Verses 3-6
Methodical instruction

1 Corinthians 11:3
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

But I would have you know- the fact that this verse begins in this way would indicate that whereas their keeping of the ordinances was commendable, nevertheless there was a certain lack of intelligence as to why they were keeping them. This the apostle now corrects. The word used for know is “eidon”, to discern. It is not the word for know which means “to get to know”, for they had done that when the apostle was with them. They had come to know the truth, now they were to discern its meaning. No doubt the apostle had explained it to them once, but like most of us, they needed to be told again.

It is good to obey the word of God; it is better to obey with intelligence and insight. God graciously gives us reasons why He expects us to do certain things, and in the measure we get to know what these reasons are, we discern the workings of the Divine Mind, and thereby increase in the knowledge of God, Colossians 1:10. No doubt this is one reason why the apostle put such stress in the first four chapters of the epistle on the foolishness of the world’s wisdom, and the value of Divine wisdom. Wisdom is insight into the true nature of things, and in this passage the apostle will set out the true nature of things relative to headship and subjection.

Having said that, it is expected that the brothers and sisters comply with the ordinances set out in this passage whether they understand the meaning of them or not. The Corinthians did not seem to understand the meaning until this epistle arrived to explain it to them. Nonetheless, the apostle commends them for keeping the ordinances. To comply with this passage even in ignorance is praiseworthy; to comply with it in wisdom is best of all.

The use of the word head in this verse is clearly a figure of speech. Just as the whole of the human body is controlled by its physical head, so a person’s “head”, or superior, has the authority to administrate and control. The expected response from those under the headship of another is that of subjection, just as the human body is governed by the directives of the head, and responds accordingly. The idea of headship naturally makes us think of our physical head, and this is why the ordinance has to do with the physical heads of brothers and sisters, and their covering or not covering them, or shearing their hair or not shearing it, is in view. Wives usually signify their subjection and loyalty to their husbands by wearing a ring on their finger. We do not immediately connect finger with headship, but we do connect head with headship, and this is what the apostle is emphasizing.

There are those who try to avoid the ideas of subjection and authority by saying that headship has to do with source, just as the head-waters of a river are the source of water for the rest of its length. The apostle is using the specific metaphor of the human body, however, with its vital link with the head. That head does not provide resources for the body. Rather, it directs and controls the body. It is true that it has to do with resources in that way, but is not in itself the resource.

It is easy to see why the principles of this passage are dismissed by some in our day, for the time fast approaches when lawlessness, and the Lawless One, will dominate the earth, and men will cast off the bands and cords of Divine restraint, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12; Psalm 2:3. How sad that professed believers should reject Divine authority by refusing to carry out the teaching of these verses. No doubt the protests of the women’s liberation movement of recent years have influenced worldly believers in this. For centuries there was no questioning of these matters; it is a purely modern phenomenon, which in itself should make us suspicious.

The apostle makes three statements, in which he sets out the governing principles behind the ordinance of head-coverings. By so doing, the apostle shows the Divinely-ordered relationships between brothers, sisters, Christ and God. These statements are as follows:

The head of every man is Christ.
The head of the woman is the man.
The head of Christ is God.

The first statement speaks of Christ’s headship, the third of His subjection. The first and second statements show that man is both subject and head, as Christ is, and the second statement shows that the woman is subject, as Christ is; so both man and woman have Christ as their model.

The idea of Christ being subject to God is reserved as the climax to the statement, even though it took place first, when Christ became man. Perhaps this is because subjection to a head comes hard to us, and we are reminded that Christ was subject, yet He did not find it hard, but was subject to God in willing obedience. We should take our example from this. Perhaps the apostle also puts the subjection of Christ last because both male and female are subject in this passage, whereas the male is head as well as being subject. What is common to both male and female, and of which both need a perfect example, is found in the end of the verse for emphasis.

That the head of every man is Christ- this means that every believing man has Christ as his head. Christ is his controlling authority to whom he should be subject. By His death on the cross, the Lord Jesus has set aside Adam and the things he brought in by his sin. By His resurrection He has brought in a new order of things of which He is the head. All evil forces that asserted their authority before, have been utterly defeated, as is declared in Ephesians 1:19-21; 4:8; Colossians 2:15; and Hebrews 2:14.

In other passages we learn the following:

He is head of the church which is His body, where believers are looked at corporately, Colossians 1:18.
He is head of all the angels, Colossians 2:10.
He is head, potentially, of all things, Ephesians 1:22.
He is head of the church just as the husband is the head of his wife, Ephesians 5:23.

In the passage before us, however, He is head of the individual man. Since Adam is still the head of unbelievers, this must relate only to believing men. They cannot have two heads at the same time. Furthermore, the “every man” of verse 4 is included in the “every man” of this verse. But since in that verse the man is praying to God or prophesying for God, he must be a believer.

If “every man” means every man without exception, whether believer or unbeliever, then every Christian woman is subject to an unbelieving man, which surely cannot be the apostle’s thought. See also verse 11, where the apostle takes it for granted that those he writes to are in a position to act, “in the Lord”; in other words, they are believers.

The use of the word “every” is not to make us think of all men universally, whatever their spiritual status before God, but is surely to remind us that the teaching of the passage is not confined to married men, but to all believing males. It is true that the word for “man” and “husband” is the same, but the context has to decide for us.

No doubt the headship of Christ over man is mentioned first to caution the brothers, lest they should think of their headship over the woman as an excuse to dominate. They should remember that they are subject to a head, too. The brothers must ask themselves how Christ acts as their head; does He act harshly and without feeling? The answer, of course, is obvious; then the brothers should exercise their God-given authority in regard to the sisters in a similar way. They will be helped in this by taking note of the attitude of Christ to women when He was down here. Whereas others, even disciples, may have criticized and rebuffed them, Christ ever appreciated their exercise, and was quick to defend and praise them. A study of the following passages will assure us that this is the case:- Luke 7:13,15; 7:44-50; 8:2,3; 8:48; 8:54,55; John 12:7.

And the head of the woman is the man- as we have noted, the Greek words for man and woman also mean husband and wife, but the context decides. So, for instance, in Ephesians 5:22-33 it is easily seen that the apostle is counseling married persons, since he refers to a man leaving his father and mother when he gets married. Here, however, it is the relative relationships between brothers and sisters in the Lord that is in view, for it is not marital matters, but spiritual exercises like praying and prophesying that are on the apostle’s mind. If headship only applies to married believers, then there would be a two-tiered system prevailing, with differing ordinances according to whether a believer is married or unmarried. This clearly would be confusion.

A female believer was once heard to exclaim, “I want Christ as my head!” The fact is that Christ is indeed the head of sisters, since He is head of the body, and sisters are members of the body as much as brothers. The point here, however, is how God has ordered the relative positions of the brother and the sister. In this area, He has ordained that the sister should recognize the headship of the man, who, in turn, should recognize the headship of Christ, who, again in turn, recognizes the headship of God. In this way, Divine order is maintained to His glory. We may rest assured that His orderings cannot be improved upon. So in one respect the sister has Christ for her head, whereas in another, it is the brother who occupies that role. The former has to do with the eternal security which being linked to Christ guarantees, (for the life of the body is bound up with the life of the head), whereas the latter has to do with how the authority of God is put into effect in practical terms on the earth.

And the head of Christ is God- here the apostle declares by way of climax that having come into subject manhood, it can be said of Christ that His head is God. Immediately we realize that subjection is not a matter of spirituality or moral inferiority, since Christ is neither less spiritual than God, nor inferior to Him. It follows that the subjection of the woman to the man does not mean that she is inferior or less spiritual. The scriptures are clear as to the equality of the Son of God with the Father, irrespective of whether He is in heaven, (John 1:1; Philippians 2:6), on earth, (John 5:17-18; John 10:30,36), or returned to heaven, (Colossians 2:9- note the present tense, “dwelleth”). By coming into manhood, however, the Son of God introduced a new feature into His person as He subjected Himself to the will of His Father, Hebrews 10:7. Involved in this is the “learning of obedience” of which Hebrews 5:8 speaks. He who previously had always commanded, now learns what it is to obey the will of God, so that He may relate to His people as they obey Him, Hebrews 5:9. See also Isaiah 50:4,5.

1 Corinthians 11:4
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.

Every man praying or prophesying- the apostle now begins to apply the principle of verse three. We ought to note that he does not specifically link the spiritual exercises of praying and prophesying with assembly gatherings. It is true that the apostle has been speaking of the breaking of the bread and the drinking of the cup in 10:16, and these are distinctively assembly actions, but he speaks of them in the reverse order to which they are taken at the Lord’s Supper. He is simply drawing an illustration from them which serves his purpose in that chapter. It is not until 11:17,18 that coming together in the assembly is in view.

Whenever a believer deliberately sets out to engage in spiritual exercises, then the principles of this passage apply. The apostle speaks in four places of what he prayed for when he was “at his prayers”, as the words literally mean; see Romans 1:9; Ephesians 1:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:2; and Philemon 4. So the idea is that headship and subjection should come to mind as we set ourselves to engage in spiritual exercises, even when at home alone. After all, the apostle will imply in verse 10 that the angels have an interest in the conduct of believers; but they do not limit their interest to assembly gatherings.

The expression “having his head covered”, is literally, “having (anything) on his head”. The man is to have no covering of any sort or of any size on his head. The Jewish prayer shawl and the Jewish skull-cap are alike excluded.

For the males to be engaged in spiritual exercises with an uncovered head, is clearly a departure from the Old Testament mode, for in the tabernacle the priests wore bonnets or turbans. But Christ has now come into manhood, consequently there is a new situation prevailing. The priests wore a head-covering to signify that the nation they represented was subject to God. After all, Israel was symbolically the wife of Jehovah, Jeremiah 33:32. Now, however, Christ is the representative of the people of God, hence the believing man no longer fills the role of representative of those who are subject, and therefore is not required to cover his head. He is the head of the woman who is subject, it is true, but he does not represent her before God, as Aaron represented Israel before God. It is Christ alone who represents the people of God before God, whether they are male or female, but this is not the subject of the passage.

Dishonoureth his head- if the man does cover his head, then he brings dishonour onto his head, for he has rejected Divine order, ignored the headship of Christ, and failed to take his proper place as head of the woman.

There are those who believe that by “his head” the apostle means the man’s spiritual head, even Christ. We should bear in mind, however, that when the apostle is addressing the sisters in verses 5 and 6, and explaining the significance of their action if they disobey God’s commands, he declares that a woman dishonours her head by not covering it, and he explains that dishonour by saying it is the same as if she had a shaved head. Now a shaved head does not dishonour a man directly, but does dishonour the woman who has it done. There is no doubt indirect dishonour done to the man, however. So transferring this principle, to verse 4 in connection with the man, it is the man’s own head that is dishonoured, just as it is the woman’s own head that she dishonours. But indirectly, Christ as head is dishonoured too.

The covering or not covering of the head does not simply serve to distinguish male from female, because the short hair of the man and the long hair of the woman do this. The head-covering is needed as well to signify that the ideas of subjection and headship are accepted. So when the male cuts his hair, he is endorsing the difference that God has made between male and female. Likewise, when the woman does not cut her hair, she is recognising the same truth. When a man uncovers his head, he indicates that he is recognising the responsibilities he has as head of the woman, and also as subject to Christ. When the woman covers her head, she consciously takes her proper subject place as a woman, and as such is subject to the man, even if the man is not present. Indeed, the absence of the man makes it all the more imperative to cover her head, lest it be thought she is rebellious in his absence.

The apostle reserves the reason for the man’s uncovered head until verse seven, so that he may there deal with the man and woman together in relation to the truth of Genesis chapter one.

1 Corinthians 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head- prayer is the expression of the mind of a believer, in the ear of God. Prophesying, however, is the expression of the mind of God, in the ear of believers. The full range of spiritual exercises is indicated. At the time of writing, there were prophetesses, but the gift of prophecy has been withdrawn, so the apostle is no doubt using that gift as being the highest one possible. Even having the best gift of all does not exempt any from the requirements of this passage.

An instance of women prophesying is given in Acts 21:9 in connection with Philip’s four daughters, no doubt in fulfillment of the words of Joel quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17, “your sons and daughters shall prophecy”. Since this activity comes close to appearing to usurp the place of the man, then the sister in question is to be especially careful to signify her subjection by having a covered head. This particular ministry is no longer in operation, for prophecies have ceased with the completion of the canon of Scripture, but the principle remains. Just as the brother dishonours his head by ignoring divine order, so does the sister.

The question as to whether the woman is praying and prophesying in the assembly does not arise in this passage, since it is not specifically concerned with assembly gatherings. The apostle’s teaching with regard to these is very clear from what he writes in 1 Corinthians 14:34, where prophesying is being dealt with, and 1 Timothy 2:8, where prayer is the subject. The seven-fold mention of “coming together” from verse 17 of this chapter onwards would strongly indicate that the apostle is regulating there in full for assembly gatherings. The number seven speaks of fulness and completeness.

The verse begins with the word “but”, which presents an alternative. Clearly, the alternative is not the dishonouring of the head, because that is true of both male and female when they fail to obey. The word “but” therefore serves to emphasise the word uncovered, in contrast to the word covered in relation to the male.

For that is even all one as if she were shaven- the reason why the uncovered woman dishonours her head is now given. It is assumed by the apostle in this passage that the sister will have long hair. Only those of low repute had shorn heads. But confusion reigns if a sister with long hair like a woman, prays or prophesies with head uncovered like a man. It would be, declares the apostle, as if she had no hair on her head at all, having shaved it off. Since the length of a person’s hair enables us to distinguish between male and female, no-one would be able to tell whether she was a woman or not if she had no hair. This is confusion. To introduce confusion into the things of God is serious indeed, and hence the dishonour on the woman’s head.

For a woman to cut her hair is disobedience, but to shave it all off is an extreme example of rebellion. Her hair is her glory, and she has despised God’s gift to her entirely, and hence is dishonoured.

1 Corinthians 11:6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn- consistency must be the rule, or else all is confusion. If a woman has no head-covering, then she is in a position of headship, (for the man has an uncovered head to signify headship). But headship is vested in the male, so she is occupying the place of a male- let her then be shorn like a male. She cannot be like a woman and like a man at the same time.

But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered- the grammar of the expression “if it be a shame” indicates that the shame is not just a possibility, but a reality- “if, as is the case, that it is a shame.” The apostle is not saying that if there are those who see no shame in a woman being shaved or shorn, then they need not cover their heads. “If it be a shame” does not mean “if it is a pity”, but “if it be a dishonour”. So as it is the case that it is a shame for a woman to be either shorn, (having taken the scissors to her hair, as a man does), or shaven, (having taken a razor to her hair to shave it all off, so that whether she is male or female is not discernible), let her be covered.

A shaven woman has abandoned all attempt at distinguishing between male and female, and this dishonours God, and by extension, is a dishonour to herself, and women in general. Note again that the apostle assumes that the sister has long hair, for he says to put the scissors to it is a shame to her, and no Christian woman should want to be in a shameful state. His argument in verses 13 and 14 falls down if he cannot start with the premise that a woman has long hair. Since the apostle’s words are inspired, then his argument does not fall down, so the woman is to have long hair as a matter of course, let alone for any other reason.

We should note that the woman’s covering is to be a veil, (such is the meaning of the word), and therefore is to cover her head effectively. The word for “to cover” in verses 6 and 7, (and in the negative in verse 5), “katakalupto”, a combination of “kalupto” to cover, and “kata”, a (preposition which intensifies the verb), meaning “down”. Something like a headscarf is in view. The covering is for the head, and it should definitely cover the head, so that the hair is not visible through it, even though the hair may be visible beyond it if the hair is hanging down her back.

In the apostle’s day there would not be a great diversity of head-coverings, since a veil would not have been considered a fashion item. This very uniformity would emphasise that rich and poor have equal place before God, and would avoid the scandal of rich sisters parading their affluence by wearing elaborate head-gear. A spiritual sister will want to see to it that her head is covered in a way which fulfils the requirements of the teaching found in this passage, without ostentation and unwise expense.

1 Corinthians 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head- the apostle gives the reason why the Christian man should not cover his head during spiritual exercises. He has left the explanation until now so that he can instruct both males and females from the same passage in Genesis. Because he is going to base his instruction on the principles found in that book, we know that the matters detailed in this passage are not “cultural”, and therefore local to Corinth, as some teach.

The word “indeed” assures us that the statement that follows, although startling in view of the practice in the tabernacle and the synagogue, is in fact true. We know there was at least one synagogue at Corinth, Acts 18:4, and Luke tells us there were Jews and Greeks attending it. If some of these were saved, and subsequently formed part of the assembly at Corinth, then they would know that both males and females would have covered heads in the synagogue. The word “indeed” also refers us back to what has been stated in verse 4, and reinforces it.

Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God- this is clearly a reference to the fact that man was made in the image of God at the beginning.

The “he” of this statement is sometimes linked with Christ, so that the man covers his head because his spiritual head, Christ, is the image and glory of God. The problem with this is that the words of verse 7 in the original are as follows: “For man indeed ought not to have the head covered, image and glory of God being”. So there is only one man in the verse, the Christian man, and not two. The second “he” in the Authorised Version has been rightly added to make the sense, and refers to the man aforementioned. It is indeed true that Christ is “the image of God”, 2 Corinthians 4:4, and it is also true that He is the “brightness of the glory” of God, Hebrews 1:3, but these truths are not to the fore in this passage. The underlying truth is that of headship. In any case, the words “image” and “glory” have no definite article before them, and are therefore not specific, (as they would be if the glory of Christ was in view), but characteristic. That which Christ has inherently, man has subordinately.

In Genesis 1:26 we find God communing with Himself, and purposing to make the race of man in His own image, after His likeness. We read, “And God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness'”, Genesis 1:26. And this He did, for in verse twenty-seven we read, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them”. By “man” is meant mankind, as represented by Adam and Eve.

Note the emphasis in Genesis 1:27 on the “him”, which indicates that the man Adam represented the race, even though that race consists of male and female, for “male and female created he them”. When the race is in view it is “him”, but when individuals are in view, it is “them”. So there is a special sense in which Adam, and males generally, are charged with the duty of representing God to creation in the matter of headship. There are many ways in which women may represent God to others, but this is not one of them.

The Christian sister does not miss out through this however, for every believer, male or female, “is renewed in knowledge after the image of Him that created him”, Colossians 3:10. In respect of spiritual relationship with God, brother and sister are equal in their opportunity to express Divine characteristics, Galatians 3:28, but in respect of Divine order and administration, the brother alone is the image or representative of God.

Man is also said to be the glory of God. It is not so much that he glorifies God, for sisters do that also, but that he is the glory of God, meaning that the majesty of God as the head of all things manifests itself in the man as he controls for God in the Christian sphere. David ascribed headship to God with the words, “Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O Lord, and thou art exalted as head above all”, 1 Chronicles 29:11.

But the woman is the glory of the man- we must not think that the “but” the apostle uses here indicates an inferior role. It is not that the man is the image of God, whereas the woman has to be content with merely being the glory of the man. The fact is that when the Christian sister recognises the God-given role of the man by being in subjection to him as her head, she enhances that glory. In this way she is the glory of the man in the specific way relevant to the context, namely, she enhances the man as he fulfils his role as head. She thus gains the glory that comes through obeying God’s command.

So the man is the glory of God as he controls for God, and the woman, by her subjection as expressed by her head-covering, is the glory of the man as he thus acts for God. She thus mirrors the way in which Christ in His subjection to God sought only His glory, but also, was crowned with glory and honour as He did so, (for, strictly speaking, it was when He was upon the earth that He was crowned with glory and honour, Hebrews 2:9). A covered man is a disgrace to himself, whereas a covered woman is a glory to a man with uncovered head, for her covering indicates his authority. She complements His position, not as a wife complements her husband, but as a subject person complements the one to whom she is subject. The headship of the man is pointless if there are no subject ones.

1 Corinthians 11:8
For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.

For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man- the apostle now proceeds to give two reasons for the foregoing statement about the relative positions of the man and the woman, hence the word “for”. The first reason is in this verse, and the second in verse 9.

The preposition “of” is the one that means “out of”, and the allusion is to Genesis 2:18-23, the account of the formation of the woman, where she is expressly said in verse twenty-three to be taken “out of” the man. The words are: “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man”. So we learn from Adam himself that the word woman indicates that she was taken out of him. Previously in the creation account, the word used had been “female”, establishing the distinction of gender, but now a word that tells us about suitability to Adam is used. God, of course, could have made the woman as He did the man, directly from the dust. He chose not to do so, to establish a principle.

The fact that the woman came from the man indicates that he was foremost in time, being created first, so having priority in certain areas, for he had to be in existence before she could be. She came into being and found him already the head of the creation. The order in which God created establishes principles for all time. This explains the apparently strange way that woman was formed- it was symbolic as well as historic.

This situation does not only relate to circumstances at the beginning, for every woman is the daughter of her father, and therefore every woman in a certain sense comes out of the man. This confirms that the apostle is not speaking of husbands and wives here, for the woman, whoever she is, and whatever her status, is of the man. Not of her husband, but of her father. What happens when a man begets a daughter is a mirror of what happened when Adam was used to produce the woman.

1 Corinthians 11:9
Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man- not only was the source of the woman significant, but also the reason why she was made. Having derived a lesson from the woman’s formation, the apostle now speaks of her function, as she is a help to the man. In the case of Adam and Eve it was a matter of being his wife. In the case of Christian sisters, it is in relation to all the males in the church. She is not a help if she intrudes into their sphere, and disrupts the order that God has established.

1 Corinthians 11:10
For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head- because of the principle established in the doctrine of the previous verses, the woman is to respond to man’s authority by covering her head. This covering is said to be “power on her head”. In classical writings, a king’s crown was sometimes referred to as his kingdom; the symbol was called by the name of the thing symbolised. So here, the thing symbolised is the authority of the man, (his power in the sense of his authority as head), and the symbol is the woman’s head covering, and therefore can fittingly be called power. When she covers her head before spiritual exercises, whether those exercises are private or public, the Christian woman deliberately recognises the superintending authority of the man, whether he is present or not.

Because of the angels- this is a secondary reason for the woman needing to put a sign of the man’s authority on her head, even the fact that the angels look on. We know from Scripture that angels rejoice when sinners repent, Luke 15:10. They take a great interest in the way that God’s wisdom is demonstrated in the life of the church, Ephesians 3:10. They look on to witness whether elders are treated fairly when false accusations are brought before them, 1 Timothy 5:21 They have an interest in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, with its showing or proclamation of the Lord’s death, 1 Corinthians 11:26. Daniel wrote about the “a watcher and a holy one”, clearly an angelic being, (for he was able to depose Nebuchadnezzar), who scrutinised the affairs of men, Daniel 4:13,17,23. Now it is indicated that they observe the way in which men and women act when they are engaged in spiritual exercises.

Eve overthrew the authority of Adam when she initially fell to the temptations of the Devil. To reassure the holy angels, therefore, the woman is to indicate by the covering of her head, that she does not intend to make the same mistake as Eve did.

But evil angels take an interest in the church, too, seeking to undermine its doctrine and practice, as indicated in 1 Timothy 4:1-3, and 1 John 4:1-6. These evil angels have been guilty of leaving the place of subjection God had given them, and seeking a place of dominance that God had not given to them, and thus have disregarded Divine order, for “they kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, Jude 6. What a rebuke to them the godly subjection of the Christian woman is, as she accepts her role with dignity, and thus glorifies God.

1 Corinthians 11:11
Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman- the apostle now balances out the truth he has detailed, by pointing out the mutual interdependence of believers, male and female. Far from rendering the Christian woman redundant, the requirements made known here show that she has a vital part to play in the Divine scheme of things. The man is not without (“cut off from”) the woman, for he is dependent upon her for so many things as he seeks to act for God.

Neither the woman without the man, in the Lord- by the same token, the woman depends on the man. The fact that the apostle says “in the Lord” indicates that he is speaking exclusively in this passage about believing men and women, for only they are in Christ, and can therefore act “in the Lord”, under His authority as head. It is only as His authority is recognised that godly order is maintained.

1 Corinthians 11:12
For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

For as the woman is of the man- as already explained, Eve was out of Adam at the beginning, and every female owes her existence to her father.

Even so is the man also by the woman- not only were Cain and Abel brought into the world through the agency of Eve, but every man since has come by means of his mother.

But all things of God- all these various relationships are “of God”, for He has ordained them, and they have spiritual meaning for those who are prepared to submit to them.

Ephesians 5:29
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

For no man ever yet hated his own flesh- the flesh in this context is not the soft part of the body, but man’s self. So the apostle is saying here that it is not part of man’s constitution to hate what he is. God’s requirement in the law was, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”, Leviticus 19:18. So it is in order for a man to love himself, but he is not to love himself exclusively. He is to love his neighbour as he loves himself. It is normal to love self, but selfishness is abnormal, and contrary to God’s will.

But nourisheth and cherisheth it- the opposite of hating one’s flesh is here described. Not only does a man care for his body, but he does that which preserves himself as a person, his flesh. Just as nourishing and cherishing of a wife means more than providing food and shelter for her, so the man is not content with the bare essentials, but seeks to make himself comfortable as a person.

Even as the Lord the church- what a man does to his flesh, Christ does to the church. And He does it as Lord, for He has total control over all that would harm and distress His people. The reason for this is found in the next verse. We should remember that one of the words for husband in the Old Testament is “baal”, meaning lord. The husband is to take control of the situation for the good of his wife, as Christ does for the good of the church.

Ephesians 5:30
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

For- here is the underlying reason for the foregoing exhortations. The apostle makes a statement of New Testament truth, and then alludes to an Old Testament illustration.

We are members of his body- we should not read this verse as if it said, “For we are members, of His body, of His flesh and of His bones”. In other words, we are not members of three things, but one thing, His body, and the reference to flesh and bones is an allusion in the first instance, to the physical parts of Adam’s body, but the apostle is establishing a principle from them in regard to the mystical body of Christ spoken of in verse 23, and not the Lord’s personal body. Believers are clearly not formed from the literal body of Christ, but they are part of His body the church, and the closeness of that membership justifies the use of the words spoken in the first place of Eve.

Since the body is a spiritual concept here, then the nourishing and cherishing, by the Lord, and therefore by the husband, is more than mere food and clothing. It is only Paul that uses the figure of the human body to help us to understand the relationship of Christ to His people. He is head of that body, and every believer is a member of that body, and as such, may count on the care and support of the head. Notice that the apostle does not liken our relationship to Christ as that of a wife to the husband, but to the head and the body. The actual marriage of the church to Christ has not yet taken place, but our link to Him as His body has.

Of his flesh- the expression “of his flesh and of his bones” is omitted in some manuscripts, but it is easy to see it should be there, for the next verse is meaningless if there has been no prior reference to Genesis 2:23.

Note the order in which the words are quoted, for they are the reverse of what Adam said. This alerts us to the fact that the phrase is being used here by the apostle in a figurative sense, as if to say, “Just as Eve came into being, and continued, as one who derived physical existence through Adam, so believers have received their spiritual being from Christ”.

When the Lord Jesus came into manhood, He took part, extraordinarily, of the same flesh and blood we partake of ordinarily. He came in by means of conception through the Holy Spirit and birth of the virgin Mary. Nonetheless, the manhood He took was our manhood, but sin apart. The scripture asserts that “Jesus Christ is come in the flesh”, 1 John 4:3, so that establishes Him as a real man. But we, real men, are sinners, and He was not. So how can we still be men, and yet be of His flesh? Or, how can our bodies, which still have the sin-principle within them, be members of Christ, as 1 Corinthians 6:15 says they are. The answer lies in the expression, “He that is joined to the Lord is one spirit”, 1 Corinthians 6:17. The fact that the Holy Spirit has joined us to Christ overrides all other considerations, for He is a Divine Person. And Christ looks on His people from that high viewpoint, and sees them as men in the flesh on one level, but as joined to the Lord on another level. In this way we can be said to be of His flesh, for we have been joined to Him, and share His nature. We should remember that even in resurrection the Lord Jesus has flesh and bones, as He demonstrated to His disciples the day He rose from the dead, Luke 24:39, 40.

And of His bones- Adam spoke of bone of his bones, for Eve was literally made from his rib-bone. So close was their relationship that his bone had become hers. The church is not made literally from the bone of Christ, but the church can be said to derive existence from what He did when He gave His entire self as a man in flesh for us at Calvary. Just as Adam’s rib provided the raw material for the making of Eve, so, in a spiritual sense, what Christ gave is the ground of what we have been made as believers.

When God took a rib from Adam and formed a woman therefrom, Adam was asleep. Christ was fully alert when He suffered at Calvary and gave Himself for the church. Adam gave a rib, Christ gave Himself. If Adam gave a rib and gained a wife, then Christ gave His all and gained His people. It is because we are of His flesh and of His bones that the church can be married to Christ in a future day, for she is meet for Him. She will also help Him, for the church will reign with Christ.

Ephesians 5:31
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother- the apostle now quotes directly from Genesis 2:24 to explain that it is because the woman was bone of Adam’s bone and flesh of his flesh that any get married. The underlying concept to marriage is the fact that the woman was made from the man. Of course, in the case of Adam there was no father or mother to leave, but God established the principle at the beginning, and this justifies the use of these words.

Ephesians 5:32
This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

This is a great mystery- we should notice that the apostle does not actually say that the church is the bride of the Lamb, but he certainly implies it. It is John who tells us about the Lamb’s wife in Revelation 19:7. He cannot be referring to Israel, for the nation is already married to the Lord. God says “I was a husband to them”, Jeremiah 31:32.

Now we know that Paul was entrusted with the task of fulfilling the word of God, Colossians 1:25. In other words, he revealed those mysteries that God had in reserve for the present age, so that all that God desires us to know is available to us. That which is perfect is come, 1 Corinthians 13:10. This being the case, it was not John’s remit to unfold new truth, but simply to elaborate on what had been known from the beginning. So the idea of the Lamb having a wife must be in Paul’s writings somewhere, and this is the place. The apostle hinted at this mystery in 2 Corinthians 11:2,3, where he wrote, “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve in his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ”. The apostle sees the assembly at Corinth as a betrothed maiden, and does not want her to be drawn away to a rival. What is true of the local assembly is also true of the church as a whole. Functioning now as a body does in relation to its head, we shall function in a day to come as a wife does in relation to her husband. But just as betrothal was a legally binding contract, so we should be aware of our commitment to Christ, and not let our affections wander.

But I speak concerning Christ and the church- the apostle is still at pains to keep the Lord and the church distinct in our minds. The working principles that operate in the case of a married couple, are to be worked out with us now, for the betrothed maiden was reckoned to be the wife of her intended spouse, as we see from Matthew 1:20,24. And the working principles of marriage are worked out by Christ, as He deals with us as His mystical body.

Ephesians 5:33
Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular so love his wife as himself; and the wife see that she love her husband.

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself- the apostle does not want a husband to be so taken up with the spiritual truths he is setting out that he forgets his responsibility to his wife.

And the wife see that she reverence her husband- the wife should not pretend to be so spiritual, absorbed with relationship to Christ, that she forgets her duty to reverence her husband, giving him his due, not necessarily because he is particularly spiritual, but because he has been given a position by God for her welfare.

There is a further reason why the apostle reverts back to speaking about husband and wife. After all, that is the context of the passage, beginning, as it does, with the words, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands”, and “Husbands, love your wives”, verse 22 and 25. It is to remind them that just as Christ and the church are to be one flesh after the marriage of the lamb, Revelation 19:7, so husbands and wives are one flesh now. If their bond can be broken, then, since it is in principle the same bond as between Christ and the church, that bond can be broken also. But this is not possible, for Christ will never divorce His church. Christian husbands should never contemplate divorcing their wives, therefore.

Romans 7:1
Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Know ye not, brethren- again the apostle appeals to their Christian intelligence. Cf. 6:3,6,9,16.

(For I speak to them that know the law)- either the law of Moses or the law of Rome will illustrate the principle about to be stated. How that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?- laws only regulate living people. The word for man is “anthropos” meaning man in general, an individual person, male or female.

Romans 7:2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth- the law of marriage is that “what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder”, Matthew 19:6. The only One with authority to loose the bond is the One who made it, and He does this by the death of one of the partners. Because the husband in this illustration has died, the law of the husband does not operate for him any more, and his wife is therefore not bound to it. It is the life or death of the husband that is the determining factor.

Those who refuse this verse as an argument against divorce say that the apostle is merely using an illustration, which is not in the context of instructions concerning marriage. But if there were exceptions to the “married for life” principle, it would undermine the apostle’s doctrine here regarding the law.

But if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband- the law of the husband is not his command, but the principle involved in having a husband. The point is that death looses the connection, and makes the marriage bond entirely inactive.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress- so binding is this “law of the husband”, that it still operates even if she is unfaithful. She is “an adulteress by trade or calling” if the first husband is still alive. Note that her unfaithfulness has not ended the marriage, for if it had, she would not be an adulteress.

But if her husband be dead, she is free from that law- and only in this way can she be free.

So that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man- she can be rightly married to a second man, but only if the first is dead

There are those who believe that there is a situation where a man can lawfully put away his wife, and they base their belief on the words of the Lord Jesus Himself in Matthew 19, to which we now turn. We should remember as we do so, however, that no interpretation of the words of scripture may contradict another passage.

Mark’s account of this incident is slightly different to Matthew’s in that in Mark the words from Genesis 2:24 are not a quotation, but are the actual words of Christ. Why should there be this difference? In Mark’s account, we read that having arrived on the farther side of Jordan the people resorted to Him, and “as He was wont, He taught them again”, Mark 10:1. It could well be therefore that the Lord had taught the people on the matter of divorce, as recorded by Mark, and then the Pharisees came along and asked Him about it, tempting Him. The conversation took place the other side of Jordan, and was therefore near to Philip’s territory. It was because John the Baptist had condemned Herod for taking Philip’s wife that he had lost his life. Perhaps the Pharisees are hoping that word will spread that Christ was of the same view as John, and in this way would put Himself in danger. It is interesting in that connection to notice that John had said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her”, Matthew 14:4, and here the Pharisees begin with “Is it lawful”. We know from Luke 16:14-18 that the Lord had confronted the Pharisees on the matter of divorce, and they are now seeking their revenge.

If the “exception clause” were valid today, then since it is not mentioned in Mark or Luke, the latter could be accused of giving an incomplete, and therefore misleading view of the subject of divorce. Since, however, both Mark and Luke were inspired by the same unerring Spirit as was Matthew, then we must conclude that Matthew includes the phrase “except it be for fornication”, knowing that the original readers of the gospel would be well aware of its limited application.

Matthew 19:3-12
The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

The Pharisees also came unto him- there were many differences of opinion between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, the other major religious party in Israel, and divorce was one of them. The Sadducees were lax about divorce, the Pharisees were strict, but they find that the righteousness of Christ exceeded the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, Matthew 5:20.

Tempting him- their sole object was to try to trip Him up, and make Him side with one or other of the ruling classes in Israel. They have not come with a genuine desire to find out the truth.

And saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Note the word lawful, for they are basing their question on what is legitimate as far as the law of Moses was concerned. They do this because they have a second question, which they think will undermine the answer they expect He will give to the first one. Note too, the word cause, for it also has a legal tone to it, having the idea of an accusation. What they are asking is whether there are any circumstances in which a man may bring a cause before a court which will give him the right to put away his wife. They are clearly not asking on the level of, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife because she burnt the dinner?”

Matthew 19:4
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read- this is a phrase that appears six times in the gospel of Matthew, either in this form or in a similar one. The Lord is answering their question directly, but He is not going to quote the law of Moses at first, but the book of Genesis. He does not say, “Verily, I say unto you”, as elsewhere in the gospel, for He does not need to do so, for He had spoken already in the words of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24.

That he which made them at the beginning made them male and female- so the Lord Jesus believed that the act of making Adam and his wife on the sixth day of the creation week happened at the beginning. The same beginning as is mentioned in Genesis 1:1. So there is no time-gap between verses 1 and 2 of Genesis 1.

In Mark’s account the phrase is “from the beginning”, and these are the words of Christ Himself. So Matthew 19, where there is a quotation from Genesis 1:27, tells us of the actual historic event of the creation of male and female. Mark’s account tells us that the act of making male and female is ongoing, for it is from the beginning as well as being at the beginning. So God is not making any other sort of people; for instance, those not having either male or female gender.

Matthew 19:5
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?

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother- the God who made male and female is also the one who spoke the words of Genesis 2:24 quoted here. But in Mark’s account the Lord does not quote, but speaks the words again that were spoken by God in Genesis. This is further testimony to the Deity of Christ.

Because God made male and female, there is an attraction between the two, and this attraction is stronger than between a son and his father and mother. The son leaves the sphere of his father’s headship, and begins a new sphere of headship, thus maintaining social order on the earth. He also leaves the care of his mother to care for and be cared for by his wife. His mother cannot help him in his new role of head of the house, but his wife can.

And shall cleave to his wife- this is no casual relationship, but a gluing together, (such is the idea behind the word), of two persons in a life-long relationship, whatever the future may bring.

And they twain shall be one flesh? They twain, (the word simply means “two”), are, on the one hand, the man who has left father and mother, and on the other hand the woman he is now going to cleave to in marriage. It is only these, who leave and cleave, that are one flesh. A man who consorts with a harlot does not leave and cleave in this way. He does not formally leave the family unit he was brought up in and establish another. Nor does he become one flesh; he only becomes joined in body.

It is significant that when the idea of being one flesh is presented, whether in the Old Testament Hebrew or New Testament Greek, the preposition is used which speaks of progress towards a goal. The idea is that “they two shall be set on a course towards increasingly being one flesh”. The moment that this process begins is when the man and woman are pronounced man and wife at the marriage ceremony. They are as truly married then as they will ever be, but they are not as closely married then as they will be at the end of their life together, for marriage is a process.

Matthew 19:6
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh- the words of the quotation are given again to emphasise this main point of two people being one. How can the question of putting away come up in that situation?

What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder- notice it is “what” and not “who” that is put asunder. It is two lives that are joined together, and they are not to be ruptured. Notice that it is God that joins together, not the one who conducts the wedding ceremony, and He does this the moment the couple say their vows. We have already seen this in the case of Joseph and Mary, for they were married several weeks or months before that marriage was consummated, yet the scripture calls them husband a wife. To put asunder is to insert a space between two persons that God has joined, thus acting directly in defiance of God. A fearful thing to do, indeed.

Notice that the Lord does not say it cannot be done, for the law-courts of men are full of those who make a living out of divorce procedures. What He is saying is that when it is done, what God has done still stands. The act of men cannot overthrow the act of God. That this is so is seen in the fact that a man who divorces his wife and then marries another, committeth adultery against her, Mark 10:11. He sins against God by divorcing and remarrying, but if the divorce cancels the marriage, why should this be so? If immoral unfaithfulness cancels a marriage, why is marrying again a sin against God? He who divorces and marries again also sins against the first wife. But if divorce is recognised by God, then the man has no more connection with the first woman, why should his remarriage be a sin against her?

Matthew 19:7
They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? Instead of discussing divorce, the Lord had enforced the truth of marriage. This should always be the emphasis, for if we were more versed in the truth regarding the marriage relationship, we would be less taken up with divorce. There needs to be regular teaching concerning marriage so that it is constantly the norm in the minds of believers.

This second question is really the one the Pharisees wanted to ask from the beginning, but the Lord had frustrated their plan, for if they obeyed the word of God regarding being one flesh, the matter of divorce would not come up.

The reference is to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, where a man who had found some matter of uncleanness in his wife was allowed to put her away. This was not a question of a man being suspicious of his wife, wondering if she had been unfaithful to him but not being able to prove it one way or the other. There was provision for that situation in the trial of jealousy, detailed in Numbers 5.

Matthew 19:8
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives- the Lord pinpoints the attitude of heart of some in Israel who were prepared to reject their wives because of something the wives could not help. It is not known precisely what is meant by “uncleanness”. “Ervah” is indeed used 51 times in the Old Testament in connection with illicit sexual behaviour, (“uncover the nakedness” is a phrase used for sexual relations), but not with the addition of “dabar”. Some indication as to its meaning is given by the fact that it is only elsewhere used with dabar with regard to the toiletting arrangements in the camp of Israel, Deuteronomy 23:14.

If it had been unfaithfulness on the part of the woman there was provision in other parts of the law for this. This is the only situation in which divorce was allowed in Israel, so was an exception rather than the rule. The Pharisees possibly wanted to make it the general rule. Certainly they wanted the Lord to take sides, and thus be open to criticism. He sides only with God’s word.

Clearly the man in this situation is not prepared to accommodate the unfortunate plight of his wife, and is hard of heart towards her, no doubt angry that he has been deprived of conjugal rights by her condition. In that situation Moses allowed a man to divorce his wife for her own protection, and marry another man if he would be prepared to marry her knowing her condition. If he put her away for the same reason, or if he died, she was not to return to her former husband again. She might be tempted to think that without her second husband maintaining her, (either because he had died or had put her away), it was better to return to the first man than to be destitute. Again, the law of God provided for her protection, for it overrides her faulty reasoning in her own interests, as there is no reason to think the first husband had changed.

This is an instance of God’s grace superceding the general rule for the sake of the welfare of His people. It is a mistake to think that there was no grace during the law-age. A reading of the passage where God described Himself to Moses will assure us there was, Exodus 34:6,7. In fact the word grace is found seven times in Exodus 33 and 34. The Pharisees wanted to talk of what was lawful, but the Lord highlighted the attitude of the man in the scenario, and Moses, representing God. The man was hard of heart, but Moses, acting for God was merciful.

But from the beginning it was not so- again they are taken back to the beginning where the laws of marriage were instituted by God. Nothing that was instituted at the beginning was set aside by the law at Sinai. Those who wish to make this special case the general rule should be aware that the Lord does not sanction it, but points us back to the original institution of marriage. The reason he does not sanction it is not because he disagrees with what Moses did, but because in a few weeks time a new age will have begun, and the dictum, “there is neither Jew nor Gentile” will apply.

In any case, the believer is not under law but under grace, and should not put himself or others under its bondage. Are the advocates of divorce willing to enforce all the stipulations of the law, such as stoning those who commit adultery? What of Deuteronomy 22:20,21, where a damsel is found to have acting immorally, and must be stoned to death after due process? Are believing advocates of divorce willing to do this? If they say we are not under law, then they are correct. But just as we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 22, so we are not under the law of Deuteronomy 24.

Matthew 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication- this is the well-known “exception clause”, as many call it, which advocates of divorce feel gives them grounds for divorce. This clause is only found in Matthew’s gospel. Now the truth of God is the same for every believer, yet in the early days of the church some believers might only have Mark’s gospel, some only Luke’s, some only Matthew’s. It cannot be that only the latter are allowed to divorce, whilst believers who only have Mark or Luke are not, for there is no exception clause in these two gospels. We are surely forced to the conclusion, therefore, that Matthew’s account has something distinctive about it. It must relate to a situation particular to Matthew’s gospel, or else those who had the other gospels would be governed by different principles.

When He commissioned the disciples to go into the world, the Lord told His disciples to teach all that he had commanded them, not just some things. They were to teach Matthew 19 truth as well as Mark 10 truth, for they were not at variance.

Those who have read as far as chapter 19 of Matthew’s gospel will have already come across the situation described in the first chapter, where Joseph was faced with the prospect of divorcing Mary, (for such is the force of “put away”).

Such readers have already been prepared, therefore, for the teaching of the Lord Jesus regarding divorce, and will be aware of what “except for fornication” means. It relates to the Jewish practice of betrothal being classed as a legal relationship, with the parties concerned being called man and wife, as we have seen in the case of Joseph and Mary. But because Joseph and Mary were not formally married, Mary’s supposed sin is fornication, not adultery, for that latter sin is on part of a person who is married to another formally. Such a situation did not pertain for those for whom Mark and Luke wrote, (as is seen by the fact that Mark mentions the Gentile practice of a woman divorcing her husband, 10:12, and Luke is writing to a Gentile, 1:3), and so they do not mention the exception clause, thus showing it to be a matter distinctive for Jewish readers at that time.

And shall marry another, committeth adultery- notice the distinction the Lord is making here between fornication and adultery, as does Galatians 5:19; 1 Corinthians 6:9, where the two sins are found together in a list. The list of sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 is sordid, but the Spirit of God would have us be aware of them. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God”. Notice that the apostle is careful to distinguish between fornication and adultery, mentioning them separately, as the Lord Jesus had done. But he also carefully distinguished between the effeminate and the abusers of themselves with mankind. These two persons were the passive and active participants in the sin of sodomy. If he was precise in his wording in connection with two men who are engaging in the same sin, does this not tell us that he was being precise when he mentions fornication and adultery separately, (with another sin, idolatry, in between), showing they are not interchangeable?
If we do not make the distinction between fornication and adultery, then it is legitimate for a man to divorce his lawfully wedded wife on the ground of her adultery. She is now free of her marriage bond, according to this view. But we have already seen from 1 Corinthians 6:16(a) that physical joining does not form a marriage. Nor does unlawful and immoral joining in unfaithfulness break a marriage, because of the teaching of Romans 7, which says a man and a woman are joined in marriage until one of them dies. The apostle Paul claimed that the things he wrote to the Corinthians were “the commandments of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 14:37. So the teaching of 1 Corinthians 6 is as binding as the commandments of the Lord in Matthew 19. The apostles were sent forth to preach what Christ had commanded, Matthew 28:20. Are we really going to say that the commandments given to the apostle Paul are at variance with the commandments given to The Twelve? So to say that fornication and adultery are synonymous in this verse is to say that the scriptures are in disarray and in conflict with one another.
But what if we say that fornication in this context does not mean adultery? Then, everything falls into place, and there is no conflict. The use of fornication rather that adultery highlights the fact that the “wife” in question here, if she sins, commits the sin that single persons commit. This can only be because she is in a state of betrothal. She is linked to the man enough to be called his wife, but she is not linked so closely that if she sins she commits adultery. Nor is she linked so closely, (“one flesh”), that she cannot be put away lawfully.

One not betrothed is not a wife in any sense, (so is not in view here), and one who is lawfully wedded commits adultery if she is unfaithful. A single person cannot commit adultery. Only a betrothed woman can be a “wife” and commit fornication at the same time. So the only ground for divorce at that time was unfaithfulness on the part of a betrothed wife to her betrothal commitment. But since Jewish customs such as betrothal are not binding on the church, there is no legitimate ground for divorce today, whether of believers or unbelievers.

And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery- if, for the sake of argument, we allowed that the fornication of the first part of the verse is the same as adultery, and the situation is that a married man divorces his wife because she has committed adultery, if that is recognised by God as a just reason to divorce, and the marriage is over as far as God is concerned, why does marrying another count as the sin of adultery? In an “adultery nullifies marriage” scenario, she is single, and so is her husband.

Matthew 19:10
His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry- when confronted with the teaching the Lord gave about marriage, the disciples felt that the standard was so high that it would be best not to marry. They realise that are far as married men and women are concerned, (they are not talking about betrothed persons), it is better to not get married rather than risk a life-time of heart-ache. But why should they think that the standard was too high, if there were easy exceptions to the marriage law, and it was not difficult to divorce? They had only to be unfaithful to their spouse and they could legitimately divorce. The truth is that they saw clearly that the standard was the same as it had ever been from the beginning, and man was not to put asunder what God had joined.

Marriage should be embarked upon with the thought by both parties that “This is for life, and we will strive to make our relationship work”, rather than thinking, “It may not work, so are there ways in which we get out of it?” To say “it is not good to marry” because there is no divorce available, is unbiblical and foolish.

Matthew 19:11
But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given- the “but” signals that the Lord does not agree that marriage is not a good thing. God had said at the beginning “It is not good for the man to be alone”, and now the disciples are saying the reverse. Clearly, if there are those who remain alone, it must be for good reason, allowed by God. He gives some the ability to not be lonely when they are alone, because they are taken up with the things of God.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men- there are those who are not able to marry, for they have either been born unable, or have been mistreated by men and so are unable to fulfil all the functions involved in marriage. The point of telling us this is to show that it is possible to live in an unmarried state.

And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake- it is given to some believers to be able to be so taken up with the things of God and the work of God, that to not be married is genuinely not a concern to them. Their unmarried state can be used of God to further the interests of His kingdom in some way not otherwise open to them if they were married.

He that is able to receive it, let him receive it- if a person is enabled by God to not be concerned that they are not married, then they should receive that situation and attitude as being from God. But those who have not been thus gifted should not force themselves to be celibate.

The enabling to live a celibate life is from God, for the scripture says, in connection with being either married or unmarried, “But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that”, 1 Corinthians 7:7. So those who are saved after they are divorced and remarried will be enabled, if they desire to act “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”, to live as single people.

For we must not think that conversion alters relationships. If a man has unsaved parents, and then himself gets saved, they are still his parents. If he was born out of wedlock to those parents, nothing has changed as to his status. Why should we think then that if a divorced and remarried person gets saved the situation is any different? Nothing has altered as to the relationship. It is true that the sin of divorcing and remarrying has been forgiven, but it is a condition of salvation that repentance is in evidence, not just at conversion, but afterwards as well. John the Baptist challenged men to bring forth fruits meet for repentance, Matthew 3:8, and so the believer should show these fruits.

But what of those who are already divorced when they get saved, whether believers or unbelievers? The word of the Lord Jesus was that “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake”, Matthew 19:12. In other words, there are those who live as single persons, even though married, for the sake of the testimony. This would apply in the case of believers who are divorced and who then marry another. Once they see the truth of the Scriptures, they should live apart from their new partner. Although they will still have a responsibility to ensure they are provided for.