Matthew (Written)

Thursday, 30 April 2026

For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” Matthew 19:12

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“For they are eunuchs who from ‘mother’s womb’ were born thus, and they are eunuchs who, they were eunuchized by men, and they are eunuchs who, they eunuchized themselves through the ‘kingdom, the heavens’. The ‘being able to contain’ he contains.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus told the disciples about those who could accept the premise concerning whether to marry or not. He next explains who those exceptions would be, beginning, “For they are eunuchs who, from ‘mother’s womb’ were born thus.”

A new word is seen here, the noun eunouchos, a eunuch. Strong’s definition says, “a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed-chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication, a chamberlain (state-officer) — eunuch.” The word is derived from eune, a bed, and echo, to have or hold. As such, the idea of “alone in bed” is understood.

Jesus’ words of this first clause extend the idea of being a eunuch to a person born incapable of sex. Such a person is the first exception to the thought presented in the previous verse. Jesus continues, saying, “and they are eunuchs who, they were eunuchized by men.”

Another new word is seen, the verb eunouchizó, to eunuchize. It signifies making someone unable to procreate through mutilation or removal of the genitals (castration). The practice was once common. Today, it is much less common, but it has not died out. Religious cults and isolated subcultures still engage in the practice.

Further, sexual criminals are still castrated either through surgery or chemical castration. These are the second exception. The third category is noted as Jesus continues, “and they are eunuchs who, they eunuchized themselves through the ‘kingdom, the heavens’.”

This is the second and last use of the verb eunouchizó. As noted, the word extends beyond the standard idea of castration. It will figuratively be applied to those who don’t engage in sexual activity for other reasons, including impotency or abstinence.

Some people are disciplined enough not to engage in sexual activity. They have placed something else above that aspect of life. In the case of acceptable self-denial, Jesus notes that there are those who have purposefully decided to pursue the kingdom of the heavens above marriage.

Paul was in this category. He refers to it in 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Corinthians 9. He placed kingdom priorities above taking a wife. These are the three exceptions that are noted. The intent of Jesus’ words is that, apart from these categories, marriage is the normally expected avenue for humanity. This is reflected in Jesus’ final words on the matter, “The ‘being able to contain’ he contains.”

In other words, if you fall into one of these categories, then your state is an acceptable exception to the original intent for humanity, which is to marry and remain married to your spouse.

Life application: In 1 Timothy 4, Paul says –

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, ² speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, ³ forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. ⁴ For every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be refused if it is received with thanksgiving; ⁵ for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Timothy 4:1-5

There are problems with forcing abstinence on others. First, it is contrary to the intent set forth for humanity as given in the first pages of Scripture. Second, it generally leads to other, more deviant side problems.

Paul’s words in these verses are like an indictment on Roman Catholicism, penned in advance of the rise of that ideology. In order to serve the Lord as a “priest” or a “nun,” there must be a vow of abstinence, something not found in Scripture. It forces people to go against what is natural. That has led to sexual deviancy within their orders that is almost unmatched in any religion in history.

Homosexuality, molesting of children, violation of the “vows” between priests and lay people, or priests and the nunnery have filled Roman Catholicism since its inception. The RCC also commands that adherents abstain from certain foods at certain times, such as on certain days of the week.

These completely unbiblical practices set it off as the world’s largest aberrant cult. Deviation from the Bible, either through allowing what it does not allow or commanding what it does not forbid, is wholly unacceptable. Be sure to stick with the Bible. Reject any teaching in any denomination or local church that does not comply with what the Bible presents.

Lord God, help us to know and apply Your precious word to our lives. May we not deviate from it. If we have had something contrary to what it teaches trained into us, help us to identify that precept and cut it out of our lives. May it be so to Your glory. Amen.

Wednesday, 29 April 2026

But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: Matthew 19:11

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen)

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And He said to them, ‘Not all, they contain this word, but whom it has been given.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, the disciples responded to Jesus’ words about marriage and divorce, saying that because of what He said, it is better not to marry. Having heard that, Matthew records, “And He said to them, ‘Not all, they contain this word.’”

The question arises: Is Jesus referring to His own words concerning marriage, or is He referencing the response by the disciples? His continued words through the next verse will show that it is in response to what the disciples said –

Disciples: “If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.”
Jesus: “Not all, they contain this word.”

Of this, the Pulpit Commentary rightly states that Jesus “endorses these words in a different signification from theirs. Their objection to marrying arose from the impossibility of putting away a wife for any cause. Christ passes over these ignoble scruples and enunciates the only principle which should lead a man to abstain from marriage.”

In other words, Jesus is going to explain that there is a certain condition where not getting married is to be expected. Beyond that, marriage is the standard which is set for human existence. Despite all of its baggage and many setbacks, it is the normal, anticipated, and expected path for humans to follow. Understanding this, the following words introduce the matter concerning who is anticipated not to get married, saying, “but whom it has been given.”

Said differently, “Marriage is God’s plan for humanity, but it must be adhered to according to God’s expectation for marriage. It is a difficult but proper path to follow. However, there is an exception to this expectation for a particular category, they are…” From this point, Jesus will explain those who are the exception.

Life application: The point of this interaction between Jesus and the disciples, and the substance behind it, is that marriage is the proper avenue for humanity. In Genesis 1, the six days of creation are detailed. At the end of day 6, it said –

“And He saw, God, all which He made. And behold! Good, vehemently. And it was, evening, and it was, morning – Day, the sixth.” Genesis 1:31

Everything was good at the end of the sixth day of creation. From there, Genesis 2:4-25 is given as an insert to the portion of the sixth day concerning the creation of man. The Lord created the man, he was then placed in the garden, and he was given a command not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Right after that, it said, “And He said, Yehovah God, ‘Not good, being the human to his separation. I will make to him ‘helper, according to counterpart’.’” Genesis 2:18 (CG). During the sixth day of creation, there was something not good, a lack, which needed to be rectified.

To reveal this, the animals and birds were brought forward to be named by Adam. With that accomplished, it said, “And to Adam, not he found ‘helper, according to counterpart’.” Genesis 2:20 (CG). Adam could see there were male and female creatures, but he was alone in his kind.

With that understanding, the Lord put the man into a deep sleep, fashioned the woman from his side, and she was presented to him. At that time, Adam made his proclamation concerning the woman. Genesis 2 says –

“‘And he said, the man –
“This the beat:
Bone, from my bones,
And flesh, from my flesh.
To this, it will be called ‘Woman.’
For from man, she was taken – this.”’
²⁴Upon thus, he will relinquish, man, his father and his mother, and he impinged* in his wife. And they were to flesh – one.” Genesis 2:23, 24 (CG).

With this completed, the words of Genesis 1:31 are properly understood, “And He saw, God, all which He made. And behold! Good, vehemently.” Only after the creation of woman for man and the acknowledgement that they were fashioned for one another was the sixth day considered good. It is the expected norm for humanity since that time for humans to marry and continue the species accordingly. To not do so is considered the exception.

A logical question for those who insist on long-term creation arises from this thought. “If man is created, not having evolved, and if everything was good at the end of the sixth day, but it was not good during the sixth day, then how can that be reconciled with a long-term creation?” It cannot.

Either the record of man’s creation in one day is true, following the pattern from the other single days of creation, or 1) the account of man’s creation is false, or 2) the record of the Genesis 1 account (regardless of how long it actually was) is false, or 3) the entire Genesis creation account is false. Everything hinges on six literal days of creation, with man having been created in one day on the sixth day.

One cannot have things both ways. Either God’s word stands and is true and reliable, or it is not. If Genesis 1 and 2 are merely allegorical, then Jesus’ words about marriage hold no significance. If this is true, then the Christian message concerning moral issues has no validity at all.

Think things through! Don’t be so foolish as to think you can outsmart God. We all must stand before Him and give an account of our lives and doctrine. Accept the word as it is written. It is truth.

Lord God, thank You for the rite of marriage that has existed since the first man on earth. Thank You that even though we fail one another at times, this is the beautiful course of life You have set forth for us. Help us to be faithfully faithful to one another as we live in Your presence. Amen.

Tuesday, 28 April 2026

His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry. Matthew 19:10

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“They say to Him, His disciples, ‘If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus pronounced His authoritative decree concerning divorce. So strong were His words taken in a society that openly tolerated it, we next read, “They say to Him, His disciples.”

In verse 3, it was the Pharisees who brought up the matter of divorce. Jesus made His statement, and it is not they, but Jesus’ disciples who respond. The Pharisees could agree or disagree with Jesus because they saw His words as an interpretation.

In Mark’s account, this response by the disciples is recorded as being later, in the house. Despite this, it is evident that they see Jesus’ words for what they are, a fixed and authoritative proclamation. As such, they say, “If it is this, the case of the man with the wife, it conduces not to marry.”

The disciples seem incredulous at the matter. What a burden it must have seemed! A man and a woman vowed before God to be faithful to one another in whatever wording a culture chose for such rites.

For example, it is generally stated in the US that the couple will stick it out through health and sickness, poverty or wealth, good times and bad times, etc. Other cultures may have their own choice of words to unite a couple, but it is generally accepted by normal functioning societies that the bond is expected to last… at least on paper.

The disciples’ response, however, shows that they understood this wasn’t always the case, maybe not even normally the case. Jesus’ response to their incredulity will be a stern warning to those who flippantly excuse divorce as an acceptable avenue in a “failed” marriage. To God, a marriage that follows His rules, despite the happiness of the union, is a successful marriage.

Life application: No wonder the Christian message is dying out around the world. When people realize God expects them to act morally in societies where morals are pretty much laughed at, it means the Bible, too, will be laughed at.

From there, society sees the mocking attitude of those who go from one marriage to another and, in turn, follow suit. What was once considered wholly unacceptable and a reason for being shunned in society suddenly becomes the standard.

And yet, the vows of marriage remain pretty much unchanged. “I promise these things before God…” When the marriage ends, there is no concern about the vows that were made. There is no dread of being held accountable for their actions.

This is true in churches as well as in society in general. Pastors have extramarital relationships, get divorced and remarried, and people continue to go to the churches they preach at. This means that what the Bible says has no value to them. If it did, they would not tolerate such things.

How willing are you to uphold the words of Scripture, even if you are miserable? Our happiness is not the main focus of Scripture. Rather, glorifying God with our lives is more important than what we want from moment to moment in our fleeting existence.

Let us attempt to honor God, being responsible for the words we utter in vows to those we have united with in marriage.

Lord God, may we be faithful concerning the words we speak and the vows we make. Help us to be people who are willing to put You above all else, knowing that these lives are temporary and will someday be behind us. We have an eternity in Your presence to look forward to. So, Lord, help us to have this eternal perspective even now. Amen.

Monday, 27 April 2026

And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” Matthew 19:9

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“And I say to you that whoever, if he should dismiss his wife not upon harlotry, and he shall marry another, he commits adultery. And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus explained that Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of the people’s hearts. However, from the beginning it was not so. Jesus continues, saying, “And I say to you.”

His words are not an explanation but a declaration. There is nothing subjectively interpretive in them. In other words, He doesn’t say, “Well, Moses says, but this point can be inferred from the Genesis account.” Instead, Jesus is speaking with His own authority to define a matter, which is “that whoever, if he should dismiss his wife not upon harlotry, and he shall marry another, he commits adultery.”

This is clear and unambiguous. If a person has a wife and she is faithful to him, he has no biblical right to divorce her. If she does engage with another man, she is obviously an adulteress and has broken the marriage covenant. In such a case, he has the right to divorce her.

However, if the man’s wife was faithful, and he divorces her and later marries another, he is now guilty of adultery. He has violated the marriage covenant. The precept set forth in Genesis 2 concerning the two being one flesh is, according to Jesus, a binding precept. Likewise, He continues, saying, “And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.”

It has already been established that if a woman commits adultery during marriage, she has violated the marriage covenant. So, Jesus’ words here mean that if a man divorces his wife who has been faithful and she remarries, she is still considered an adulteress. She remained bound to her husband despite the piece of paper he issued to be rid of her.

In other words, to avoid being labeled an adulteress, she would have to remain single, even after divorce, or until he died, at which time, her vows to him were annulled.

Life application: The words of Jesus in this verse are intensely debated over. Some manuscripts have dropped the final clause, “And the ‘having been dismissed,’ having married, she commits adultery.” By doing this, it relieves the tension for some, but when thought through, it isn’t relieved at all.

The point of Jesus’ words relies on the original nature of the Genesis account. It does not rely on what the man or woman wants or does. In other words, once a marriage has taken place, the two have become one. Violations of that precept must be considered from that perspective.

If a woman is dismissed by her husband, she is still bound to the original precept of her marriage, meaning identifying with the husband she married, regardless of their active status as a couple.

With that having been said, there is a truth that must be considered. In Christ, all sin is forgiven. One law cannot be held above all the others as being apart from Christ’s atonement, as if He has forgiven everything but adultery.

Therefore, though this is a binding precept, it is not a matter of loss of salvation if violated. Rather, if a believer goes through a divorce and is identified as an adulterer according to Jesus’ words, that disobedience will be judged for rewards and losses according to 1 Corinthians 3 and 2 Corinthians 5.

Those in Christ are not under law, but grace. However, it should never be the case that grace be thought of as an excuse for license to sin. Such an idea is perverse and should not be considered. God looks at our marriage covenant in the same light He looks at His covenant with us. They are to be considered indissoluble by those who enter them. It is the reason Israel still exists as a nation today.

God will fulfill every promise He has made to the people He has covenanted with.

Lord God, help us to live honorably in Your presence, living our lives according to Your will and in accord with the precepts set forth by You. May we never consider it ok to tread upon the grace You have bestowed upon us. Help us in this, O God. Amen.

Sunday, 26 April 2026

He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matthew 19:8

Note: You can listen to today’s commentary courtesy of our friends at the “Bible in Ten” podcast. (Click Here to listen).

You can also read this commentary, scrolling with music, courtesy of our friends at “Discern the Bible” on YouTube. (Click Here to listen), or at Rumble (Click Here to listen).

“He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you, he allowed you to dismiss your wives. But from the commencement, not it has been thus.’” (CG)

In the previous verse, Jesus was asked about Moses’ provision in the law concerning the issuing of a certificate of divorce. In response to that, Matthew records, “He says to them, ‘Because Moses, toward the hardheartedness of you.’”

A new word, not found outside biblical references, is seen here, sklérokardia. It is derived from two words, the first being skléros, dry, but indicating hard or tough, like a dry scab. Figuratively, it refers to stubborn people who won’t budge, bend, or submit. The second word is kardias, the heart. By analogy, it refers to the thoughts or feelings of a person. It is the seat of moral preference.

By placing the two words together, one can see the result: a heart that is hardened and morally obdurate. Of the words of Jesus, He ascribes this state as being the reason for Moses’ grant for divorce. This does not negate the doctrine of inspiration. What Moses said was under the inspiration and divine approval of God.

However, the book of Deuteronomy is written from Moses’ perspective. When the Lord is mentioned, it is generally in the third person, such as, “Yehovah our God, He made with us – covenant, in Horeb” (Deuteronomy 5:2).

As such, Jesus refers to the words as being those of Moses. But it is the Lord who truly looks upon the hardheartedness of the people. Moses, on the other hand, saw the result of it being worked out in the lives of the people. It is in this state of understanding the state of the people that Moses directed his words pros, toward, their hardheartedness.

The fact is that divorce was and remains a part of the human condition. Israel was taken out of the body of humanity. Their inclinations would be no different than those of anyone else. The law, however, would magnify the people’s guilt in such matters. In seeing this state in them, Jesus says, “he allowed you to dismiss your wives.”

Moses’ words were not a command to dismiss. Rather, they were an accommodation to do so because of the hard state of human hearts, among whom Israel is included. In other words, Moses had to decide the matter, considering what would have been the result if this allowance were not provided.

The answer is that things would have been worse in various ways, not better. Otherwise, the allowance would not have been given. Despite this allowance, however, Jesus next says, “But from the commencement, not it has been thus.”

The verse in Jesus’ words is a perfect participle. Depending on the translation, such as the NKJV, someone may deduce that it was not so in the beginning, but because of accommodation through Moses, that then changed. This is incorrect. The use of the perfect participle tells us that it was not that way in the beginning, it was not that way at the time of Moses’ allowance, and it continued not to be the case even up to the present.

This accommodation does not change the original intent of marriage at all. Rather, Jesus will continue to explain the matter in the verses ahead.

Life application: As an example of mixing doctrines, consider the words of the Pulpit Commentary –

“From the beginning. The original institution of marriage contained no idea of divorce; it was no mere civil contract, made by man and dissoluble by man, but a union of God’s own formation, with which no human power could interfere. However novel this view might seem, it was God’s own design from the first. The first instance of polygamy occurs in Genesis 4:19, and is connected with murder and revenge. Matthew 19:8.”

The substance of the Pulpit Commentary on the matter of divorce is fine. But one must stop and ask, “What does the last sentence of the commentary have to do with divorce?” The answer is, “Nothing.” Further, the conclusion they gave concerning polygamy is entirely amiss.

The fact that murder is mentioned by Lamech has nothing to do with his being married to two wives. Second, murder had already been seen, in the same chapter, when connected in a similar offhand manner to a non-polygamous marriage.

Cain killed Abel. They were sons of Adam and Eve. The fact that murder took place has nothing to do with that fact, just as the fact that Lamech had two wives, from a biblical standpoint, has nothing to do with Lamech’s killing of another person.

Be careful when reading commentaries not to get misdirected into irrelevant side issues. This is quite common in commentaries, but incorrect conclusions can become the highlight of a matter because of such things. When that happens, all kinds of false teachings can quickly arise.

If someone wants to deviate from a thought being presented, there needs to be a reason for it, such as a “life application” that is understood to be extra to the main content.

Likewise, be sure to stick to relevant facts yourself in your own discussions about theology and doctrine. In doing so, you will build a stronger case without fallacious conclusions that misdirect from the matter at hand.

Lord God, help us to be faithful husbands and wives, living out our lives in adherence with what You have set forth for marriages in Your word. May we be patient, caring, and forgiving as we interact with the spouse You have blessed us with all the days of our lives. Amen.