Scripture presents marriage as part of how God made humanity. In Genesis, God makes people male and female, and a man leaves his parents, cleaves to his wife, and the two become one flesh. When Jesus is asked about marriage, he goes back to those same words. The same Bible also asks the church that holds this conviction to examine how it treats people. This study reads both kinds of text, the ones about design and the ones about judgment, and asks you to hold them together.
You can work through it alone in about an hour or with a group over one or two meetings. Bring a Bible, a pen and some paper. The study draws on a Jude 3 Project podcast conversation between Lisa Fields, the founder of Jude 3 Project, and Dr. Sean McDowell, who teaches at Biola University. Their words appear where they help you read the text more closely. They do not replace the reading.
Before you open a Bible
From memory, write down the passages you would use to explain the Christian view of marriage. Then write down any passages you would use to explain how Christians should treat people who disagree with that view or live differently. Many people find the first list easy and the second short or empty. Keep your paper for the end.
If you are leading a group, say plainly at the start that this subject may be personal for someone in the room. No one has to share their own story, and no one’s life will be used as an example.
Start where Jesus starts: Matthew 19:3-9
Notice the question he was asked
Read Matthew 19:3-9 slowly. The Pharisees do not ask Jesus to define marriage. They ask about divorce: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” (Matthew 19:3). The debate in front of him is about how easily a marriage may be ended, and the main thing Jesus defends is permanence.
Notice where he goes for an answer
Jesus does not start with Moses’ divorce rules. He goes back to creation: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 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?” (Matthew 19:4-5). Twain is older English for two, and cleave means to cling or hold fast.
Look at three details. First, Jesus joins Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24 into one teaching. Second, he says the Creator spoke the words of Genesis 2:24, which in Genesis read like the narrator’s comment. Third, the words “For this cause” link the leaving and cleaving to the creation of male and female just mentioned. Then he concludes: “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6). When pressed about Moses, he answers that “from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). For Jesus, the beginning sets the standard.
A serious objection, stated fairly
Some interpreters argue that this passage settles less than traditional readers claim. Their strongest case runs like this. The question was divorce. Every marriage Jesus’ hearers knew was between a husband and a wife, so naming male and female describes the case under discussion rather than setting a condition for all marriage. Jesus never addresses same-sex unions here. Genesis 1:27 itself is mainly about humanity bearing God’s image, not about marriage. On this reading, the binding teaching of Matthew 19 is faithfulness and permanence, and the rest is background.
The common Christian reading, held across most of church history, answers from the text. Genesis 2:24 alone would have answered a question about divorce. Jesus chose to add Genesis 1:27, and he made the one-flesh union follow from it with “For this cause.” He is arguing from the created order, not from the customs of his hearers, and he treats that order as God’s own speech. That reading accounts for more of what Jesus actually says, and it is the basis of the position Jude 3 Project holds: marriage is a covenant union between one man and one woman.
Be honest about the limits too. Matthew 19 does not answer every question by itself. Christians still debate what verse 9 permits about divorce and remarriage. The conclusion about sex difference also does not rest on one verse. It rests on how Jesus reads Genesis, together with the wider witness of Scripture.
In a group, pause here. Ask two people to restate each reading in its strongest form, in words its own holders would accept, before anyone says which they find more convincing.
Back to the beginning: Genesis 1 and 2
Now read Genesis 1:26-28 and Genesis 2:18-25. These chapters are narrative, so they mostly describe rather than command. Genesis 2:24 still opens with “Therefore,” turning the story into a pattern: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
McDowell points out who these chapters are about. In his words, “Genesis one is not the creation of the Jewish or the Christian people.” Abraham does not enter until Genesis 12, and McDowell adds, “It’s the creation of everybody.” Marriage appears before Israel, before the law, before any church.
McDowell also says, “I think biblically, there’s three purposes for sex,” and he ties procreation to Genesis 1, unity to Genesis 2, and pleasure to Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5. Test each claim rather than accepting it. Genesis 1:28 gives humanity the blessing to be fruitful and multiply. Genesis 2 moves from the man being alone to the two becoming one flesh. Proverbs 5:18-19 tells a husband to rejoice in the wife of his youth. Ask whether each text actually says what it is being used to show.
From these passages McDowell offers a definition: “marriage is a permanent exclusive union between a man and a woman that has the intent of having children.” Some parts trace directly to the text. Permanence comes from Matthew 19:6, exclusivity from cleaving to one wife, man and woman from Genesis 1:27. The last clause is different. Genesis 1:28 is a blessing, not a definition of marriage, so the orientation toward children is an inference from that blessing and from the nature of sexual union.
Christians weigh that inference differently. McDowell treats it as part of marriage’s nature and handles infertility by distinguishing orientation from outcome: a couple who cannot conceive still joins in the kind of union from which children come. Other Christians who hold the same conviction about man and woman see children as a blessing of marriage rather than part of its definition, and they put more weight on the companionship of Genesis 2:18. On either view, the marriage of an infertile couple is fully a marriage.
Lisa Fields draws out the point about authority: “when we talk about marriage, we don’t get to set the rules.” If marriage comes from the Creator’s design, the question is what God made it to be.
The texts that turn toward the church
Here the study changes direction, because Scripture does. McDowell names Romans 1 among the passages on marriage and sexuality, but Paul’s argument does not stop there. Read Romans 2:1: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” Then Romans 3:23: “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.” Paul describes the world’s sin in order to bring every reader, the religious reader included, to the same level ground.
Next, read 1 Corinthians 5:1-13. A member of the Corinthian church was living with his father’s wife, and the church was proud instead of grieving. In verses 9-10, Paul clarifies that he did not mean they should avoid immoral people in the world. Then he asks: “For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?” (1 Corinthians 5:12).
McDowell draws the same line: “There’s a different manner for how we’re supposed to deal with Christians, hence Matthew 18 than non-believers who don’t even share our faith.” Toward those outside, he says, “I think we lead with grace, we lead with generosity.” That fits 1 Peter 3:15, which tells believers to be ready to give a reason for their hope “with meekness and fear.” The manner of answering is part of obeying the verse.
McDowell is candid about where the church has failed. Its first move, he says, should be self-examination: “rather than pointing fingers, we need to take a deep look inside at how we’ve treated people with same sex attraction.” He names demeaning jokes and selective outrage: “We do kind of pick and choose our sins.” That is the very habit Romans 2:1 warns against.
Finally, read Luke 15:1-2: “Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” McDowell sums up the pattern: “Jesus was a friend of sinners. He didn’t compromise on calling things out as sin.”
A practice: read both sets as one assignment
Draw a line down the middle of a sheet of paper. On the left, list Genesis 1:27-28, Genesis 2:24 and Matthew 19:4-6. On the right, list Romans 2:1, 1 Corinthians 5:12, 1 Peter 3:15 and Luke 15:1-2.
- For each passage, write one sentence saying what it asks and of whom. Be exact. Matthew 19 addresses people asking about divorce. 1 Corinthians 5 addresses a church about its own members.
- Draw a line between any two passages on opposite sides that a person could obey together.
- Circle any passage you have tended to use against other people while rarely applying it to yourself.
- Write one concrete change that would bring your church, group or habits closer to the right-hand column without letting go of the left. Make it specific enough that someone could see whether you did it.
In a group, give ten quiet minutes for steps 1 through 3. Share step 4 only voluntarily. Discussing how the passages connect is more useful than comparing personal failures.
When the question is personal
Lisa Fields raised the case of a friend who experiences same-sex attraction and longs for a family. McDowell’s first reply was not an argument: “Those are good desires that God has placed inside of you.” The longing for love and family reflects being made in God’s image.
He then points to Jesus, Jeremiah, Paul and John the Baptist as “fully actualized human beings who are celibate.” Paul calls his own state a gift: “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Corinthians 7:7). If marriage has a God-given shape, a life outside it cannot be treated as second class. Jude 3 Project holds that singleness is a full and honored way of following Christ, who was himself single. A church that believes this will show it in its friendships and its homes, not only from the pulpit.
If this study touches your own story, you do not have to settle everything this week. A pastor or a trusted counselor who can hold Scripture and compassion together is worth seeking out.
Questions for discussion
- Matthew 19 begins with a question about divorce. What changes in how you read Jesus’ answer once you notice that?
- How much weight should the words “For this cause” carry in Matthew 19:5? What would a careful critic of the traditional reading say, and how would you answer?
- Which parts of McDowell’s definition come straight from the text, and which are inferences? Does the difference change how firmly you hold each part?
- What would be lost if a reader stopped Paul’s argument at the end of Romans 1?
- Where do you see churches reverse the order of 1 Corinthians 5, strict with neighbors and lenient with themselves?
- Luke 15 shows sinners drawing near while religious leaders murmured. What in the passage helps explain why the two groups responded to Jesus so differently?
- Look at the two lists you wrote at the start. What would you add to the second list now?
To carry with you
McDowell’s closing call in the conversation joins conviction and humility: “May we get on our knees and humbly before God repent of our sins.” This week, pick one passage from the right-hand column of your page and practice it with one specific person.