Matthew 19:12 "Whoever can accept this ought to accept it"

  • Thread starter Thread starter MojeIme1981
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MojeIme1981

Guest
I’m wondering whether Jesus has commanded us to stay celibate if we already know that we can do it…

The Bible text of interest:

9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."
10 [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”
(Matthew 19:9 19:10 19:11 19:12 from www.usccb.org)

I’m wondering about the word translated here as “accept”, in all 3 instances in cited text the original Greek word translated here as “accept” is “χωρέω, chóreó (link)” which is so far as I could see only in this place translated as “accept”, or in some English translations as “receive”. In my Croatian translation this word is in fact translated in manner as “understand” (i.e. “Whoever can understands this ought to understand it

I’m wondering what did Jesus actually say here. Which of these extreme interpretations of the word “accept” is more true:

1) “accept” should be interpreted simply as “understand”, then these verses look like this:
*“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
He answered, “Not all can understand [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can understand this ought to understand it.”
*

or 2) “accept” should in fact be interpreted as “achieve this”:
*“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
He answered, “Not all can achieve this [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can achieve this this ought to achieve this it.”
*

or 3) or even more explicitly put: “accept” can be interpreted as “can stay celibate”:
*“I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
[His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”
He answered, “Not all can can stay celibate [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.
Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can can stay celibate this ought to stay celibate it.”
  • Is this what Jesus actually said??
The consequent problems of interpretation “1” is why would someone not be able to understand this word? It’s pretty much understandable. Actually as we look at our Church today, it’s not voluntarily to understand priestly celibate or not, it’s in fact accepted and by all the faithful and they often defend it.

The problem with the interpretations “2” and “3” is that whoever lives a faithful celibate single life, then he is in fact commanded to stay that way and not to marry in the future,

Why did the writer use this Greek word “χωρέω, chóreó” which is hard to interpret here in this context. He could have made this more clear by simply choosing another word?

Please help!
 
I think you’re missing a very critical part in verse 12 – “because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven”.
“Renounced” carries tones of a vow – a vow made for the purpose of serving the “kingdom of heaven”. The kingdom of heaven on earth is the Church.

Regardless of whether you translate it as “accept”, “understand”, “achieve this”, or “stay celibate”, you can’t separate it from the ones Our Lord has designated, It is for those who have experienced a call to devote themselves (or give themselves) to serving God alone.
 
In context I believe Jesus is talking about celibacy. The problem with the translation you provided is with the word “aught.” That word implies some sort of commandment for those willing to go through with the commitment.

What makes the Catholic priest celibacy law unbiblical is not that they make a vow to be celibate, but that the church demands they be celibate in order to serve as priests.
 
In context I believe Jesus is talking about celibacy. The problem with the translation you provided is with the word “aught.” That word implies some sort of commandment for those willing to go through with the commitment.

What makes the Catholic priest celibacy law unbiblical is not that they make a vow to be celibate, but that the church demands they be celibate in order to serve as priests.
The Latin Rite calls for celibacy, but some of the Eastern Rites that are a part of the Church - under the Pope - do allow marriage. (eg. Byzantine Rite) If a man truly felt a calling to be a priest, but not to take a vow of celibacy, he could become a member of one of the rites that allow married Catholic men to become priests.

I’m sure you’re aware that even in the Latin Rite exceptions are made in regard to married Protestant ministers who convert – and request and are accepted for ordination as Catholic priests.
 
Brian I’m glad you wish to learn.
Being celebate is not a requirement of the Church. It is called a discipline.
From what I can cull from history is that the Bishop owned the assets of the Church and in the 900’s or so private property (not the King’s) started and so there were laws set up for inheritance. So if a Bishop was marrried his widow would inherit the diocese and all its assets.
 
Brian I’m glad you wish to learn.
From what I can cull from history is that the Bishop owned the assets of the Church and in the 900’s or so private property (not the King’s) started and so there were laws set up for inheritance. So if a Bishop was marrried his widow would inherit the diocese and all its assets.
:

Hi rds…,
Have done a fair amount of reading, but have never heard of that before! Could you please give some sort of source or reference.
Thanks,
Nita
 
Brian I’m glad you wish to learn.
Being celebate is not a requirement of the Church. It is called a discipline.
From what I can cull from history is that the Bishop owned the assets of the Church and in the 900’s or so private property (not the King’s) started and so there were laws set up for inheritance. So if a Bishop was marrried his widow would inherit the diocese and all its assets.
I have heard of this too, and wanted to reply about it in other threads like this, but I haven’t gotten around to finding the references for it. Do you have a reference that I can look at?
 
I have heard of this too, and wanted to reply about it in other threads like this, but I haven’t gotten around to finding the references for it. Do you have a reference that I can look at?
I find it really difficult to believe that inheritance laws had anything to do with certain rites in the Church deciding to require celibacy.
Just a few points that come quickly to mind:
  1. If that truly was the situation, why didn’t those rites with married clergy end up losing diocesan assets?
  2. I know the East-West split didn’t occur until 1000+ AD. If celibacy really was mandated by the Church in the 900’s, then that means at one time all the various rites were celibate by Church law (and only after the schism was it reinstituted). Maybe that really happened, but I’d sure want to have a reliable source before repeating it.
  3. The beginning of such a “private property” law doesn’t seem to have caused a problem for non-Christian religions at the time which had married clergy. (eg. Jews)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top