Dong, bible scholars and exegetes never used Matthew 19:10-13 as biblical basis for priestly celibacy. Celibacy was never the essential theme on these texts dong. Besides, this was never meant to be an exclusive exhortation to the apostles. Note how scripture scholars approach the subject:
1. Barclay
“…Then Jesus talks about those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of God. We must be quite clear that this is not to be taken literally. One of the tragedies of the early Church was the case of Origin. When he was young he took this text quite literally and castrated himself, although he came to see that he was in error. Clement of Alexandria comes nearer it. He says, "The true eunuch is not he who cannot, but he who will not indulge in fleshly pleasures." By this phrase Jesus meant those who for the sake of the Kingdom deliberately bade farewell to marriage and to parenthood and to human physical love.
How can that be? It can happen that a man has to choose between some call to which he is challenged and human love. It has been said, "He travels the fastest who travels alone." A man may feel that he can do the work of some terrible slum parish only by living in circumstances in which marriage and a home are impossible. He may feel that he must accept some missionary call to a place where he cannot in conscience take a wife and beget children. He may even find that he is in love and then is offered an exacting task which the person he loves refuses to share. Then he must choose between human love and the task to which Christ calls him.
Thank God it is not often that such a choice comes to a man; but there are those who have taken upon themselves voluntarily vows of chastity, celibacy, purity, poverty, abstinence, continence. That will not be the way for the ordinary man, but the world would be a poorer place were it not for those who accept the challenge to travel alone for the sake of the work of Christ…â€
2. Jamieson-Faussett-Brown:
Verse 11. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given—that is, “That the unmarried state is better, is a saying not for everyone, and indeed only for such as it is divinely intended for.†But who are these? they would naturally ask; and this our Lord proceeds to tell them in three particulars. Verse 12. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother’s womb—persons constitutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.
and there are some eunuchs which were made eunuchs of men—persons rendered incapable by others.
and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake—persons who, to do God’s work better, deliberately choose this state. Such was Paul (1 Corinthians 7:7). He that is able to receive it, let him receive it—“He who feels this to be his proper vocation, let him embrace itâ€; which, of course, is as much as to say—“he only.†Thus, all are left free in this matter.
3. Life Application Commentary:
Matthew 19:11-12
But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.†(nrsv) Views differ on which “teaching†Jesus was referring to when he said, “Not everyone can accept this teaching.†If he meant the disciples’ words in 19:10, he was saying that their proposal of celibacy was a good one, but not everyone can be celibate, only those to whom it is given. The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus would have been setting celibacy above marriage as a “higher ideal,†and this would contradict his teaching in 19:3-9 (and the high ideal of marriage). A second option is that “this teaching†referred to his own words in 19:3-9 regarding the high ideal of marriage, a demanding one, an ideal to which not everyone is called “but only those to whom it is given.†Those “given†that responsibility are expected to adhere to it, as Jesus described above. This second interpretation fits best.
Single LifeMany Christians are single, chaste, and happy. Marriage is not a prerequisite for a fulfilled life. The question raised here is whether diligent Christians should choose singleness as a way of better serving Christ. Clearly, the Roman Catholic tradition promotes this. Priests and nuns are single in order to enhance their devotion to Christ. In other traditions, some have chosen singleness for spiritual purposes.
Here’s some help:
Jesus’ comment on singleness, like his comment on divorce, comes in the context of God’s overriding approval of stable marriage. A serious Christian should not, therefore, feel “less spiritual†because of a desire to marry. A decision to be single should never be forced (by parents or pastors or anyone) on anyone. Such a decision touches so deeply our personal lives that pressure or guilt should never be imposed. Vows of chastity are advisedly taken with an escape clause, in the event that, down the road, the vow becomes a source of deep sadness. Just as we would advise a friend, “Don’t marry just to marry,†so we would also advise, “Don’t set yourself up to burn with emotion, passion, and regret, should God lead you to that special person.â€
There are some to whom this gift of marriage is not given. A “eunuch†is an emasculated male—a man with no testicles. Some are eunuchs … from birth, who perhaps had physical limitations that prevented their marrying. Others were made eunuchs by others, such as those servants who, in ancient cultures, were castrated in order to serve the master without sexual distractions or without the ability to create offspring (such as the men who presided over the king’s harem). Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are those who voluntarily remained totally abstinent, choosing not to marry because, in their particular situation, they could serve God better as single people. They did not literally castrate themselves. Jesus himself would be in this category, as was the apostle Paul. Some believers throughout history have interpreted this wrongly as a command to remove their testicles. Origin (a.d. 184–254), a Christian scholar in Alexandria, did this in order to give himself more fully to teaching young women, but he later regretted this act. Jesus was not teaching that believers should avoid marriage because it is inconvenient or takes away freedom. That would be selfish. He was teaching that a good reason to remain single would be to use the time and freedom to serve God.
All these experts never quoted Matthew 19:10-13 as biblical foundation for priestly celibacy. And it would be foolish to do so when there is no evident reason that Jesus meant the text as a way of life for his disciples. Using the text as ground for priestly celibacy is “too much reading in between the lines.â€
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=11420.0
