Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 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.
10. If the case of the man be so with his wife ] If these are the conditions of marriage.
it is not good to marry ] Nothing could prove more clearly the revolution in thought brought to pass by Christ than this. Even the disciples feel that such a principle would make the yoke of marriage unbearable.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
His disciples say … – The disciples were full of Jewish notions. They thought that the privilege of divorcing a wife when there was a quarrelsome disposition, or anything else that rendered the marriage unhappy, was a great privilege; and that in such cases to be always bound to live with a wife was a great calamity. They said, therefore, that if such was the case – such the condition on which people married – it was better not to marry.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 10. If the case of the man] , of a husband, so I think the word should be translated here. The Codex Bezae, Armenian, and most of the Itala, have , which, perhaps, more properly signifies a husband, though both words are used in this sense.
Our word husband comes from the Anglo-Saxon, hus and band: the bond of the house, anciently spelt housebond, – so in my old MS. Bible. It is a lamentable case when the husband, instead of being the bond and union of the family, scatters and ruins it by dissipation, riot, and excess.
It is not good to marry.] That is, if a man have not the liberty to put away his wife when she is displeasing to him. God had said, Ge 2:18, It is not good for man to be alone, i.e. unmarried. The disciples seem to say, that if the husband have not the power to divorce his wife when she is displeasing to him, it is not good for him to marry. Here was a flat contradiction to the decision of the Creator. There are difficulties and trials in all states; but let marriage and celibacy be weighed fairly, and I am persuaded the former will be found to have fewer than the latter. However, before we enter into an engagement which nothing but death can dissolve, we had need to act cautiously, carefully consulting the will and word of God. Where an unbridled passion, or a base love of money, lead the way, marriage is sure to be miserable.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
This is a very strange saying, and discovers to us both the imperfect state of Christs disciples, and also the tyranny of a sinful practice grown up into a custom. The Jews had assumed a liberty of turning their wives out of doors upon every light and trivial offence or dislike; the disciples think, if this licentiousness may not be allowed it is not good to marry. So a holy institution of God, ordained for the propagation of mankind, for the restraint of extravagant lust, and for the solace and comfort of mans life, should be despised, rather than those unquiet lusts and corruptions mortified, the mortification of which would have made those irregular separations both needless and undesirable. Surely they should rather have said, If the case of a man be so with his wife, then both husbands and wives had need to learn to deny themselves, to comply each with another, to silence their brutish and boisterous passions, that, being the same flesh, they might also have one and the same spirit, and not be like a diseased piece of flesh, where humours so quarrel that one piece need be cut off to preserve the other. But the best of men have their infirmities; and, as the Hebrews said, Spiritus Dei non semper tangit corda prophetarum, The Spirit of God was not always upon the hearts of the prophets; so it is as true, Spiritius Dei non semper et ubique tangit corda fidelium, All that the saints say is not gospel. Their flesh hath its turn to speak, as well as the Spirit in them. A sinful liberty conceded, indulged, or connived at, by the laws, or by the rulers of a church or place where we live, for a long time, is not easily restrained, and even good men may for a time be carried away with the error of it, so as they cannot discern it, be convinced of it, or be brought clear of it to a conformity to the will of God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
10. His disciples say unto him, Ifthe case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marrythatis, “In this view of marriage, surely it must prove a snarerather than a blessing, and had better be avoided altogether.”
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
His disciples say unto him,…. Being surprised at this account of things, it being quite contrary to what they had been taught, and very different from the general practice and usage of their nation:
if the case of a man be so with his wife; if they are so closely joined together in marriage; if they are, as it were, one flesh, or one body, that a man’s wife is himself: that the bond between them is so inviolable, that it is not to be dissolved, but in case of adultery; that if a separation be made by a bill of divorce, in any other case, and either party marry again, they are guilty of adultery; if a man cannot part with his wife lawfully, provided she be chaste, and is faithful to his bed, let her be what she will otherwise, though ever so disagreeable in her person, and troublesome in her behaviour; though she may be passionate, and a brawler; though she may be drunken, luxurious, and extravagant, and mind not the affairs of her family, yet if she is not an adulteress, must not be put away:
it is not good to marry; it would be more expedient and advisable for a man to live always a single life, than to run the risk of marrying a woman, that may prove very disagreeable and uncomfortable; to whom he must be bound all the days of his or her life, and, in such a case, not to be able to relieve and extricate himself. This they said under the prejudice of a national law and custom, which greatly prevailed, and under the influence of a carnal heart.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The disciples say unto him ( ). “Christ’s doctrine on marriage not only separated Him from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve” (Bruce).
The case ( ). The word may refer to the use in verse 3 “for every cause.” It may have a vague idea here = , condition. But the point clearly is that “it is not expedient to marry” ( ) if such a strict view is held. If the bond is so tight a man had best not commit matrimony. It is a bit unusual to have and contrasted rather than and .
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The case [] . Not the relation of the man to his wife, nor the circumstances, the state of the case. Aijtia refers to cause (ver. 3), and the meaning is, if the matter stands thus with reference to the cause which the man must have for putting away his wife.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
10. His disciples say to him. As if it were a hard condition for husbands to be so bound to their wives, that, so long as they remain chaste, they are compelled to endure every thing rather than leave them, the disciples, roused by this answer of Christ, reply, that it is better to want wives than to submit to a knot of this kind. (603) But why do they not, on the other hand, consider how hard is the bondage of wives, (604) but because, devoted to themselves and their own convenience, they are driven by the feeling of the flesh to disregard others, and to think only of what is advantageous for themselves? Meanwhile, it is a display of base ingratitude that, from the dread or dislike of a single inconvenience, they reject a wonderful gift of God. It is better, according to them, to avoid marriage than to bind one’s self by the bond of living always together. (605) But if God has ordained marriage for the general advantage of mankind, though it may be attended by some things that are disagreeable, it is not on that account to be despised. Let us therefore learn not to be delicate and saucy, but to use with reverence the gifts of God, even if there be something in them that does not please us. Above all, let us guard against this wickedness in reference to holy marriage; for, in consequence of its being attended by many annoyances, Satan has always endeavored to make it an object of hatred and detestation, in order to withdraw men from it. And Jerome has given too manifest a proof of a malicious and wicked disposition, in not only loading with calumnies that sacred and divinely appointed condition of life, but in collecting as many terms of reproach ( λοιδορίας) as he could from profane authors, in order to take away its respectability. But let us recollect that whatever annoyances belong to marriage are accidental, for they arise out of the depravity of man. Let us remember that, since our nature was corrupted, marriage began to be a medicine, and therefore we need not wonder if it have a bitter taste mixed with its sweetness. But we must see how our Lord confutes this folly.
(603) “ Que de se mettre en une telle necessite et suiection;” — “than to place one’s self under such restraint and subjection.”
(604) “ La servitude que les femmes ont a porter;” — “the bondage of which wives have to endure.”
(605) “ De vivre tousiours avec une femme;” — “of living always with one wife.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(10) If the case of the man.The words seem to indicate that the laxer view of the school of Hillel was the more popular one even with those who, like the disciples, had been roused to some efforts after a righteousness higher than that of the scribes or Pharisees. They looked forward to the possible discomforts of marriage under the conditions which their Master had set before them, and drew the conclusion that they outweighed its advantages. Why entangle themselves in a union which they were no longer able to dissolve, when they got tired of it, by the short and easy method of a bill of divorcement? It is instructive to remember that one of the greatest of English writers has taken the same line of thought in dealing with the question. Miltons Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce, and the treatises that followed it, are but an elaborate and eloquent expression of the words of the disciples, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
10. Not good to marry The apostles’ opinion seems to have been on the side of Hillel. It was probably accordant with the doctrine, or at least ordinary practice of that wicked age. The apostles therefore speak under the influence of their habitual impressions. So indissoluble a union with one woman they thought to be in any way intolerable. Better no marriage at all. And yet how fully experience shows that the age of strict marriage is the age of every quiet and healthful virtue. Such an institute stays at once a thousand irregularities of life. When the law of marriage banishes beforehand all thought of separation and transgression, the whole train of lower feelings become tranquilized and dismissed, and room is made for thoughts of other than sexual matters.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘The disciples say to him, “If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.” ’
This comment was probably made by the disciples after the Pharisees had left the scene, the latter no doubt justifying their own position loudly as they went. It may well actually have been based on what the Pharisees were arguing, although out of earshot of Jesus, for they would not want to give Him another opportunity of showing them up. Indeed the Pharisees may well have considered this a clinching argument against what Jesus had said, that if people took Jesus seriously marriage would cease. Thus Jesus must be wrong, for marriage was God’s ordinance and there was no alternative.
They were, of course, not able to cite any alternative, for, to a respectable Jew, apart from celibacy, there was none. ‘Living together’ without marriage would not have been acceptable. And as most of them saw marriage and childbearing as a duty from God (some Essenes were an exception, but that was precisely because they saw the times as so threatening) that meant that in their eyes marriage must be encouraged, while they saw what Jesus was teaching as discouraging marriage. The disciples also clearly saw the logic in this and wanted to know what Jesus’ answer to this problem was.
The importance that male Jews placed on their right to divorce their wives, even if they did not often do so, comes out in this reaction of the disciples. It appeared to the disciples also that this statement of Jesus would make it inexpedient to marry, something that went against all that they had been brought up to believe. For the idea of marriage being a binding and lifelong commitment clearly appalled them. This was, of course, a reaction based on the ideas that they were used to (and demonstrates how male Jews looked on marriage as something under their control. They did in fact consider that the woman’s commitment should be lifelong unless ended by the man). So the idea that divorce was not acceptable to God put a whole new perspective on marriage, and gave it far greater substance and permanence. And yet for that very reason it appeared to be going too far (they did not consider the fact that for the woman it had always been so). Surely then what Jesus had said would make marriage unattractive to men and something best avoided. It was only a theoretical argument, for it was unlikely that many would abstain from it, but it sounded logical.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Jesus Offers The Opportunity Of Remaining Unmarried Like Himself For the Sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven (19:10-12).
At this point there is a change of scenery. The Pharisees have probably departed and the disciples are now probably walking along with Jesus and following up on what He has said. It has shaken them as well as the Pharisees. They suggest that as far as they can see, if a man can never divorce his wife in spite of any problems that arise, perhaps it would be better for him not to marry in the first place. This hardly intended this to be taken as a serious suggestion. It was rather a counter-argument against what Jesus had said about the inviolability of marriage (a counter-argument possibly suggested by the Pharisees). Their point was that to make marriage such a hardship was to discourage the Jews, who looked on marriage and the production of a family as a duty as well as a privilege, in accordance with God’s command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28), from actually marrying. Thus it appeared to them that Jesus’ teaching would result in the opposite of what was intended, the not to be thought of alternative of no one marrying at all.
We can compare with this startled question a similar startled question in Mat 19:25. They are slowly beginning to be made aware of what the presence among them of the Kingly Rule of Heaven involves.
Jesus takes up this suggestion and replies that the alternative is in fact not quite so out of the question as they might think. History in fact demonstrated that God had decreed that many men were unable to marry. There were, for example, those whom the later Rabbis described as ‘eunuchs of Heaven’. Due to genetic problems at birth, or a later accident, their sexual organs did not function properly. Thus they were unlikely to marry. It was clear from this therefore that God, Who had allowed this situation to occur, did not require all men to marry. Furthermore there were men who had been rendered impotent at the hands of other men, eunuchs (castrated servants) who served in royal palaces and rich men’s houses. These were what the later Rabbis described as the ‘eunuchs of men’. This treatment had been carried out on them so that they would be more dedicated and less belligerent as servants, sometimes even having the privilege of watching over a monarch’s wives in the harem, and this too regularly meant that they did not marry.
Furthermore now, with His coming, there was a third alternative to be considered. Those who became virtual eunuchs ‘for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven’. One partial example of this could be found in Jer 16:2 where God had said to Jeremiah, ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons and daughters in this place.’ Jeremiah had been forbidden to do what every Jewish man should do as a testimony to the dreadful things that would soon be coming on other people’s wives, sons and daughters. So this was one case where marriage was forbidden in order to get over the message of God’s sovereignty and purpose in judgment.
But now an even more important situation had occurred in the arrival of the Coming One and the establishing of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. Thus in this new emergency situation there was a call for those who were able to do so without sinning, to abstain from marriage for the sake of the Kingly Rule of Heaven so that they might be servants unfettered by the ties of wife and family, who were thus the better ready to face what the future held (compare 1Co 7:29-32). This was the only other grounds which could justify remaining single, as both Jesus and John the Baptist had. But such a change in men’s perspectives indicated the new situation which had now arisen. The Kingly Rule of Heaven was here. And God was, as it were, looking for ‘eunuchs’ to serve in the King’s house and do His bidding.
The case of Jeremiah may suggest that Jesus was indicating that by deliberately remaining single in order to advance the Kingly Rule of Heaven they too, like Jeremiah, were giving a warning to the nation of the times of judgment that were coming, when Jerusalem itself would be destroyed. But certainly we may see in it an indication of the urgency of the times in the light of the fact that the new world was beginning.
Analysis.
a
b “For there are eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs, who made themselves eunuchs for the kingly rule of heaven’s sake (Mat 19:12 a).
a He who is able to receive it, let him receive it” (Mat 19:12 b).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The dismay of the disciples:
v. 10. His disciples say unto Him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
v. 11. But He said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
v. 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. The Jews of Christ’s time had a very low view of women, and therefore of marriage. And the disciples were not free from the national ideas and prejudices. They had never had the subject presented to them like this before. If such be the state of affairs so far as the relations between husband and wife are concerned, they say, if the husband must regard his wife so highly, and if both husband and wife must regard the marriage bond as indissoluble, if this recourse to quick and easy divorces is both against the original order of God’s institution and against His revealed will, then it is poor policy to get married. But Christ corrects their poor understanding, and shows distinctly that the estate of marriage is the normal state for normal adults, only such individuals being ordinarily exempt from this rule whose physical and spiritual condition renders them unfit for the duties peculiar to the physical side of marriage. Some people are naturally, from their birth, incapable of contracting marriage. Others have been rendered impotent, sterile, through deliberate mutilation by others, as was done in the case of the Oriental eunuchs. Still others purposely force themselves to chastity, to a life outside of marriage, keeping the natural desires in subjection, in order to be able to devote their entire time and life to the service of the kingdom of God. But all three classes are abnormal, even the last, except in cases of religious persecution or for some other extraordinary reason, 1Co 7:26. Herewith Christ neither commands nor recommends celibacy, but sets these people, as a class, in a separate category, and warns that it takes a great deal of spiritual and moral capacity to grasp His saying. The claims of the kingdom of heaven are paramount, but Christ expects no one to feign an asceticism to which he is not fully equal, since that would be setting aside the law for the propagation of the human race by the order of marriage, which Christ has, throughout His declaration, very warmly defended. See 1Co 9:5-6. The last state described by Christ may, under circumstances, be preferable to the married state, but it takes an exceptional spiritual enlightenment to grasp it.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Mat 19:10. If the case of the man be so, &c. The disciples observed to their Lord, that since the law of marriage is so rigid, that, unless the woman breaks the bond by going astray, her husband cannot dismiss her, but must bear with her, whatever are her other vices, deformities, or defects,a man had better not marry at all. To this our Lord replies, that certainly it is not in every one’s power to live continently; yet if any man has the gift, whether by natural constitution, or by the injury of human force used upon him, which has rendered him incapable of the matrimonial union,according to that infamous traffic which the luxury and effeminacy of the Eastern world rendered so common; or by an ardent desire of promoting the interests of religion, animating him to subdue his natural appetite, and enabling him to live in voluntarychastity, unincumbered with the cares of the world; such a person will not sin, though he lead a single life. That the imputation of desire only is meant by the phrase, who have made themselves eunuchs, may be gathered from the other clauses of the passage: for there is mention made first of eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb; plainly importing that some are continent by natural constitution. Next we are told of eunuchs who have been made so by men; and last of all, there be, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; not by doing violence to themselves, but by a strong resolution of living continently in a state of celibacy, for the sake of promoting more effectually the interests of religion. See 1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:37. Our Lord adds, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it; which words must not be referred to the clauses immediately preceding them, as if our Lord meant to say, “He who is able to become an eunuch by any of the ways I have mentioned, let him become one:” for the second way is without all question unlawful: but they must refer to Mat 19:11 as is plain from the words themselves. In that verse Jesus had said, “All men cannot receive this saying, &c. They cannot live without marriage chastely, unless they have the gift of continency.” In the 12th verse he shews how that gift is obtained, mentioning three ways of it; and then adds, he that is able to receive it, let him receive it. “He who by any of the methods that I have mentioned is in a capacity of living chastely, may continue unmarried without sinning.” We may just observe, that what is here said of a single life, is entirely perverted by the Roman Catholics, when they produce it to discredit matrimony, and exalt celibacy as a more perfect state; for on this very occasion marriage is declared to be an institution of God: and, lest any one might have replied, that it was a remedy contrived purely for the weakness of our fallen state, it is particularlyobserved, that it was instituted in the time of man’s innocence. Wherefore, as the Apostle tells us, Marriage is honourable in all ranks and conditions of persons, provided the duties thereof are inevitably maintained. Besides, it is false to affirm that our Lord recommends celibacy; he only gives permission for it, as a thing not unlawful; telling them, that if they were able to live continently, they would not sin, though they did not marry; especially as the times they lived in were times of persecution. In this light also the judgment of the apostle St. Paul is to be considered, 1Co 7:26. See Macknight, Wetstein, and Chemnitz.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Mat 19:10 . This conversation is to be understood as having taken place privatim , in a house (Mar 10:10 ), or elsewhere.
, . . .] means causa , but not in the sense of res or relation (Grotius): “ si ita res se habet hoininis cum uxore ” (Grimm), which is at variance with the Greek usage, and would be tantamount to a Latin idiom; nor is it to be understood in the sense imported by Fritzsche: “causa, qua aliquis cum uxore versari cogatur .” According to the text, can only be taken as referring back to the question concerning divorce, , Mat 19:3 . The correct interpretation, therefore, must be as follows: If it stands thus with regard to the reason in question, which the man must have in relation to his wife (in order, namely, to her divorce). The Lord had, in fact, declared the of the wife to be such an as the disciples had inquired about, and that, moreover, the sole one. This also leads me to withdraw my former interpretation of in the sense of guilt , that, namely, which was understood to be expressed by the . The correct view is given by Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr . 1868, p. 24, and, in the main, by so early an expositor as Euthymius Zigabenus: . .
. .] because one cannot be released again, but, with the exception of adultery alone, must put up with all the woman’s other vices.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
“His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. (11) But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. (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.”
How little do these men form proper conceptions in what the kingdom of heaven in grace is made, who have fancied the qualifications for the enjoyment of it consists in things outward; instead of that regeneration of the heart, which the Lord himself describes, as the best and only qualification, by the blood and righteoussness of Jesus Christ. Men may make themselves what they may in nature, but it is the Lord who alone makes a new heart in grace. Joh 3:8 ; Eze 36:24-32 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
Ver. 10. If the case of a man be so with his wife ] viz. That he may not rid his hands of her when he will; better be married to a quartan ague than to a bad wife, said Simonides.
It is not good to marry ] It is not evil to marry, but good to be wary; to look ere one leap. Alioqui saliens antequam videat, casurus est antequam debeat, as Bernard hath it. Most men, as these disciples, look not to the commodities but discommodities of wedlock, and other things, and are discontented. But as there be two kinds of antidotes against poison, viz. hot and cold; so against the troubles of life, whether single or married, viz. prayer and patience, the one hot, the other cold, the one quenching, the other quickening.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
10. ] , not the cause of divorce just mentioned; nor, the condition of the man with his wife: but the account to be given, ‘ the original ground and principle ,’ of the relationship of man and wife: , Euthym [151] , who however mentions other renderings. The disciples apprehend that the trials and temptations of marriage would prove sources of sin and misery. This question and its answer are peculiar to Matthew.
[151] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Meyer refers back to the in Mat 19:3 , and understands it to mean the only reason justifying divorce; but the above interpretation seems to me preferable.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Mat 19:10-12 . Subsequent conversation with the disciples . Christ’s doctrine on marriage not only separated Him totaclo from Pharisaic opinions of all shades, but was too high even for the Twelve. It was indeed far in advance of all previous or contemporary theory and practice in Israel. Probably no one before Him had found as much in what is said on the subject in Gen. It was a new reading of old texts by one who brought to them a new view of man’s worth, and still more of woman’s. The Jews had very low views of woman, and therefore of marriage. A wife was bought, regarded as property, used as a household drudge, and dismissed at pleasure vide Benzinger, Heb. Arch. , pp. 138 146.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Mat 19:10 . : a vague word. We should say: if such be the state of matters as between husband and wife, and that is doubtless what is meant. So interpreted, would = res, conditio . (So Grotius.) Fritzsche regards the phrase . . . . . as in a negligent way expressing the idea: if the reason compelling a man to live with a wife be so stringent (no separation save for adultery). If we interpret in the light of Mat 19:3 ( . ) the word will mean cause of separation. The sense is the same, but in any view the manner of expression is somewhat helpless, as was not unnatural in the circumstances. Euthy. gives both meanings = and , with a preference for the former. here = vir, maritus ; instances of this use in Kypke, Palairet, etc.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Mat 19:10-12
10The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given 12For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.
Mat 19:10 “disciples said. . .it is better not to marry” Jesus’ statement shocked them. They had the views of their culture ingrained in their minds. So do we! Marriage is God’s will for humans (this is a first class conditional sentence). It is a great blessing but also a great responsibility. In days of frequent divorces the witness of a strong, godly marriage is very powerful to a lost world.
Mat 19:10-11 Marriage is the norm (cf. Gen 1:28; Gen 9:17), but celibacy is a godly option (cf. 1Co 7:7; 1Co 7:17). A believer’s prayerful desires will guide him/her in this area. If one chooses to be single, it should be for service to God (cf. 1Co 7:32).
The Jews of Jesus’ day rejected singleness as a godly option. Jesus is challenging the standards of His culture in several areas.
1. the husband’s total authority
2. couples should remain together and work out their problems
3. singleness is a godly option
Mat 19:12 Jesus discusses the different types of singles.
1. born that way
a. birth defect
b. personal tendency
2. forceful castration (eunuchs, i.e., Est 2:3; possibly Daniel and his friends, Act 8:27)
3. personal choice of singleness for the purpose of ministry (I do not think this demands physical castration although some early church leaders did it to themselves, i.e., Origen)
Notice how Mat 19:12 is framed
1. Mat 19:11, all men cannot be single
2. Mat 19:12 c, some me can accept this lifestyle
CONTEXTUAL INSIGHTS FOR Mat 19:13-15
A. Mat 19:13-15 are paralleled in Mar 10:13-31 and Luk 18:15-30.
B. The New Testament does not discuss children’s spiritual relationship with God.
C. Matthew 18 does not discuss the spiritual status of children but uses them as an example for new believers.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
If the case, &c. The condition is hypothetical. See App-118.
case = cause, as in Mat 19:3.
the man. Put by Figure of speech Synecdoche” (of Genus), App-6, for a husband.
good = profitable.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
10.] , not the cause of divorce just mentioned; nor, the condition of the man with his wife: but the account to be given, the original ground and principle, of the relationship of man and wife:- , Euthym[151], who however mentions other renderings. The disciples apprehend that the trials and temptations of marriage would prove sources of sin and misery. This question and its answer are peculiar to Matthew.
[151] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
Meyer refers back to the in Mat 19:3, and understands it to mean the only reason justifying divorce; but the above interpretation seems to me preferable.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Mat 19:10. – , of the man-with the woman) The nouns are used generically.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Gen 2:18, Pro 5:15-19, Pro 18:22, Pro 19:13, Pro 19:14, Pro 21:9, Pro 21:19, 1Co 7:1, 1Co 7:2, 1Co 7:8, 1Co 7:26-28, 1Co 7:32-35, 1Co 7:39, 1Co 7:40, 1Ti 4:3, 1Ti 5:11-15
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9:10
The disciples had heard the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees and doubtless were given information that was very new to them. See the comments at verse 3 about answering questions for the benefit of the hearers besides those who asked them. This explanation about the strictness of the marriage relation gave the disciples a feeling of hesitancy about contracting marriage. They expressed that feeling with the saying it is not good to marry. They meant that the best thing for a man to do is to abstain from marriage altogether.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Mat 19:10. If the case. The whole theory of marriage just announced is referred to. The low views then held may be inferred from what the disciples said: it is not good to marry; the ideal seemed so high, that its application seemed almost impossible.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
That is, if a man be so strictly tied by marriage, it is best for him not to marry. A very rash saying of the disciples, discovering both their great carnality, and also the tyranny of a sinful practice, grown up into custom.
Learn, 1. That the best of men have their weakness and infirmities: and the flesh takes its turn to speak, as well as the spirit in them. All that the saints say, is not gospel.
Learn, 2. How impatient nature is of restraint, and how desirous of sinful liberty, and to be freed from the ties and bonds which the holy and wise laws of God put upon it.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Mat 19:10-11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
CELIBACY
Mat 19:10-12. His disciples say to Him, If the cause of a man is thus with his wife, it is better not to marry. Since Jesus thus abrogated all right to divorcement except for fornication, the disciples propound this very practical question, whether it is not better to abstain from matrimony altogether. Jesus said to them, All do not receive this word, but those to whom it has been given. Now the meaning of this is very simple. Gods providence is over all of His true people, leading some of them, both brothers and sisters, to abide in celibacy, thus foregoing the privileges of matrimony for the Lords sake. Remember, the celibacy here mentioned is super-induced by the Divine guidance, matrimony being the Lords order, who, at His own option, doubtless makes many exceptions. For there are eunuchs who were so born from the womb of their mother. This affirmation of our Lord includes the people who have been born into the world with deficient genital organs. Of course, all such are excusable for abiding in celibacy. And there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men. In bygone ages emasculation was common, especially about royal courts, preparatory for the office of chamberlain and various public offices, especially in regal harems. This custom is still somewhat prevalent in the Old World. We read of the Ethiopian eunuch, who was the chief financial officer of Queen Candace. When I was in Egypt last November, I met an Ethiopian eunuch in the city of Cairo. And there are eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens. Let him who is able to receive it, receive it. Here you see our Savior throws wide open the door of celibacy for the sake of His kingdom, inviting all to receive it, at their own option, under the Divine leadership. Bishops Asbury, McKendree, and George, those grand heroes of pioneer Methodism in America, all, like St. Paul, lived and died unmarried, being wedded to the gospel of Christ, in which they spent their long, laborious, and useful lives. Doubtless they all wear a brighter crown in heaven this day because of this life of self-denial for the kingdom of heaven, having doubtless traveled more miles, preached more sermons, and led more souls to God, than would have been possible if encumbered with home and family. We are happy to see so many of the holiness people ready to forego matrimony, give up home and all domestic attachments, for the missionary field. God multiply them a thousand-fold, expedite the worlds evangelization, and send along our glorious King!
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 10
That is, if he is thus indissolubly bound to her.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the {i} case of the man be so with [his] wife, it is not good to marry.
(i) If the matter stands in this way between man and wife, or in marriage.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Some scholars who believe that Jesus meant to discourage remarriage in Mat 19:9 interpret the disciples’ statement in Mat 19:10 as evidence that they understood Him in this light. [Note: E.g., Francis J. Moloney, "Matthew 19, 3-12 and Celibacy. A Redactional and Form-Critical Study," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 2 (1979):42-60.] If a person has to remain unmarried after he divorces, it would be better if he never married in the first place. However this is probably not what Jesus meant in Mat 19:9. The evidence for this is His reference to eunuchs in Mat 19:12 as well as the inferiority of this view as explained above.
Probably the disciples expressed regret because Jesus had come down more conservatively than even Rabbi Shammai, the more conservative of the leading rabbis. Jesus conceded divorce only for sexual indecency, as Shammai did, but He was even more conservative than Shammai on the subject of remarriage. He encouraged the disciples not to remarry after a divorce involving sexual indecency whereas Shammai permitted it. His encouragement lay in His clarification that marriage constitutes a very binding relationship (Mat 19:4-6). The disciples thought that if they could not divorce and remarry, which both Hillel and Shammai permitted, they would be better off remaining single.
Jesus responded that not everyone can live by the strict verdict that the disciples had just passed in Mat 19:10, namely, never marrying. He did not mean that it is impossible to live with the standards He imposed in Mat 19:4-9. If He meant the latter, He eviscerated all that He had just taught. Some could live by the strict verdict that the disciples suggested, namely, eunuchs whom God graciously enables to live unmarried.
Jesus identified three types of eunuchs (Mat 19:12). Some eunuchs were born impotent or without normal sexual drive and therefore remained unmarried. Other eunuchs were eunuchs because others had castrated them, most notably those eunuchs who served in government positions where they had frequent access to royal women. Still other eunuchs were those who had chosen an unmarried life for themselves so they could serve God more effectively. Thus in answer to the disciples’ suggestion that Jesus’ encouragement to remain unmarried presented an unreasonably high standard (Mat 19:10), Jesus pointed out that many people can live unmarried. He was one who did. For those so gifted by God it is better not to marry. Those who can accept this counsel should do so.
However neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1Ti 4:1-3; Heb 13:4; cf. 1Co 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service. Eunuchs could not participate in Israel’s public worship (Lev 22:24; Deu 23:1). However they can participate in the kingdom and, we might add, in the church (Act 8:26-40; 1Co 7:7-9). Evidently there were some in Jesus’ day who had foregone marriage in anticipation of the kingdom. Perhaps John the Baptist was one, and maybe some of Jesus’ disciples had given up plans to marry to follow Him (cf. Mat 19:27). Jesus definitely was one for the kingdom’s sake.
To summarize, Jesus held a very high view of marriage. When a man and a woman marry, God creates a union that is as strong as the union that bound Adam and Eve together before God created Eve from Adam’s side. Man should not separate what God has united (cf. Rom 7:1-3). However, even though God hates divorce He permits it in cases where gross sexual indecency (fornication) has entered the marriage. Jesus urged His disciples not to divorce (cf. 1Co 7:10), and if they divorced He urged them not to remarry (cf. 1Co 7:8; 1Co 7:11; 1Co 7:27). However, He did not go so far as prohibiting remarriage (cf. 1Co 7:9; 1Co 7:28). He encouraged them to realize that living unmarried after a divorce is a realistic possibility for many people, but He conceded it was not possible for all (cf. 1Co 7:9). A primary consideration should be how one could most effectively carry on his or her work of preparing for the kingdom (cf. 1Co 7:32-34).
Matthew did not record the Pharisees’ reaction to this teaching. His primary concern was the teaching itself. He only cited the Pharisees’ participation because it illustrated their continuing antagonism, a major theme in his Gospel, and because it provided the setting for Jesus’ authoritative teaching.