Charles Ellicott Commentary Matthew 19:12

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother`s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven`s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." — Matthew 19:12 (ASV)

There are some eunuchs — These words are remarkably startling and clearly bear the mark of being a true report of a teaching that, in its depth and originality, went beyond the grasp of those who first heard it. What they teach is that only those who are in some sense “eunuchs” can safely abstain from marriage. This refers to those who lack the impulses that lead to marriage, whether naturally, through physical mutilation (which was common in the East), or by conquering those impulses through self-consecration to a higher life.

A celibacy of self-indulgence or even selfish prudence all too often leads to impurity of heart or life. The person who makes himself a eunuch must do it “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” This is not, as many have understood it, primarily to win heaven for oneself (though that aim is not excluded). Rather, it is for the sake of all that the kingdom of heaven implies: to enlarge its range and more effectively bring souls to receive it.

Those who heard these words could hardly fail, as they reflected on them, to see their Master’s life as the perfect example of this teaching on the higher form of holiness. The principles behind the motives St. Paul states for his own choice of the celibate life (1 Corinthians 7:7) and the counsel he gave to others (1 Corinthians 7:32–34) are identical to this teaching. These principles have influenced people in all ages of the Church, leading them to sacrifice the life of home, with all its blessings, for their work as pastors or evangelists.

The Church of Rome and the founders of monastic orders were not wrong in their ideal of the highest form of life. Their mistake was in enforcing that ideal as a rule for those who did not have the capacity to realize it. The boldness of our Lord's language seems intended to teach that this work must be done as effectively as if one had, like Origen, obeyed the implied command in its literal sense.

If the impulses still remain, if life is made miserable by the struggle with them, or if they taint the soul because they are not allowed to flow in their legitimate channel, then the person is, by that very fact, disqualified for this loftier ideal. He has not made himself a eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake and is therefore among those who “cannot receive the saying” that it “is not good to marry.”

On these grounds, the actions of priests of the Church of Rome who married after taking vows of celibacy are fully justified. These vows should never have been imposed or taken. Therefore, like the tetrarch’s oath (Matthew 14:7–9), when they were found to clearly conflict with the higher law of nature and to narrow what God had left free, their binding power ceased.

The case of a monk who deliberately enters an order where celibacy is a condition might at first seem to be different. But here also, a distinction must be made. While celibacy can be a legitimate condition for remaining in an order, a vow of lifelong celibacy is something that people have no right to either impose or take. Therefore, it is binding only as long as a person chooses to remain a member of the society that requires it.