Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 19:11 - 19:12
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Mat_19:11-12. The disciples have just said: οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι . But to this saying must τὸν λόγον τοῦτον be referred, not to the statement concerning the indissoluble nature of marriage, as though Jesus meant to say that this was to be insisted on only in the case of those who had been endowed with the donum continentiae (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 410 f.); which would be to contradict His argument in favour of non-dissolution taken from the objective nature of marriage, no less than His absolute declaration in Mat_5:32, as well as to render nugatory, for all practical purposes, the primitive moral law of non-dissolution, by making it dependent on a subjective condition. Besides, the illustration of the eunuchs is only applicable to continence generally, not to a mere abstaining from the sin of adultery. No. Jesus wishes to furnish His disciples with the necessary explanation regarding their οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι , and for this end He by no means questions their λόγος , but simply observes that: it is a proposition which all do not accept, i.e. which all cannot see their way to adopt as a maxim, but only such as God has endowed with special moral capabilities. Then, in Mat_19:12, He explains who are meant by the οἷς δέδοται , namely, such as have become eunuchs; by these, however, He does not understand literal eunuchs, whether born such or made such by men, but those who, for the sake of the Messiah’s kingdom, have made themselves such so far as their moral dispositions are concerned, i.e. who have suppressed all sexual desire as effectually as though they were actual eunuchs, in order that they might devote themselves entirely to the (approaching) Messianic kingdom as their highest interest and aim (to labour in promoting it, comp. 1Co_7:32; 1Co_7:34). Finally, He further recommends this ethical self-castration, this “voluntary chastity” (Luther), when He exclaims: Whosoever is able to accept (to adopt) it (that which I have just stated), let him accept it! Chrysostom well observes: He says this, προθυμοτέρους τε ποιῶν τῷ δεῖξαι ὑπέρογκον ὂν τὸ κατόρθωμα , καὶ οὐκ ἀφιεῖς εἰς ἀνάγκην νόμου τὸ πρᾶγμα κλεισθῆναι . Comp. 1Co_7:1 f. The χερεῖν , Mat_19:11 f., means simply to receive, and to be understood as referring to a spiritual reception, a receiving in the heart (2Co_7:2); and those endowed with the power so to receive it have, in consequence of such endowment, not only the inclination to be continent, but at the same time the moral force of will necessary to give effect to it, while those who are not so endowed “aut nolunt, aut non implent quod volunt,” Augustine. The more common interpretation, praestare posse (“negat autem Jesus, te, nisi divinitus concessis viribus tam insigni abstinentiae, qua a matrimonio abhorreas, parem esse,” Fritzsche), might be traced to the rendering capere, but it is precluded by the fact that the object of the verb is a λόγος (a saying). Others take it in the sense of: to understand, with reference, therefore, to the power of apprehension on the part of the intellect (Maldonatus, Calovius, Strauss, Bretschneider, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ewald; similarly Bengel, de Wette, Bleek, who, however, arbitrarily take τὸν λόγ . τοῦτ . as pointing forward to Mat_19:12). So Plut. Cat. min. 64; Ael. V. H. iii. 9; Phocyl. 86: οὐ χωρεῖ μεγάλην διδαχὴν ἀδίδακτος ; Philo, de mundo Matthew 1151: ἀνθρώπινος λογισμὸς οὐ χωρεῖ . But the difficulty with respect to what the disciples have said, and what Jesus says in Mat_19:12, is not connected with the apprehension of its meaning, but with its ethical appropriation, which, moreover, Jesus does not absolutely demand, but leaves it, as is also done by Paul, 1 Corinthians 7., to each man’s ability, and that according as he happens to be endowed with the gift of continence as a donum singulare. Consequently, the celibate of the clerical order, as such, acts in direct opposition to this utterance of the Master, especially as the εὐνουχίζειν ἑαυτόν cannot be acted on by any one with the certainty of its lasting. Comp. Apol. Conf. A., p. 240 f.: “non placet Christo immunda continentia.” As showing how voluntary celibacy was by no means universal, and was exceptional even among the apostles themselves, see 1Co_9:5.
The metaphorical use of εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτούς to denote entire absence from sexual indulgence, likewise occurs in Sohar Ex. f. 37, c. 135; Levit. f. 34, c. 136 b; Schoettgen, p. 159.
It is well known that from a misunderstanding of the meaning of this passage Origen was led to castrate himself. On the correctness of this tradition (in answer to Schnitzer and Bauer), see Engelhardt in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 157; Redepenning, Origenes, I. p. 444 ff.
That Jesus was not here contemplating any Essenian abstinence (Strauss, Gfrörer, Philo, II. p. 310 f., Hilgenfeld), is already manifest from the high estimate in which marriage is always held by Him, and from His regard for children. The celibacy which a certain class of Essenes observed was founded on the fact that they regarded marriage as impure.