<p>19:10&nbsp;<em>The disciples said to him: If such is the case-</em>&nbsp;See on 19:9&nbsp;<em>I say unto you</em>. But&nbsp;<em>aitia</em>, translated &ldquo;case&rdquo;, more commonly means an accusation, a legal case against someone. The idea is probably that if by marrying a divorcee or by remarrying after divorce a man is really going to be accused of adultery, then it is better not to marry in the sense of remarrying in the cases the Lord has just outlined. On this reading, they would not be fearful of first marriage, marriage as a concept, but rather of the kind of marriage after a marriage breakup which appears to be adulterous in the Lord&rsquo;s eyes. He therefore goes straight on in :11 to assure them that although they have indeed understood Him correctly, He is talking of ideal standards and is prepared to accept lower achievements and to make concessions to human weakness in this area.</p>
<p><em>Of a man- </em>AV &quot;The man&quot;. The presence of the article suggests that a specific man or case is in view- and this would be &lsquo;the one&rsquo; who marries the woman whom he has had an affair with whilst still living with her first husband, whom he &lsquo;sends away&rsquo;.&nbsp;</p>
<p><em>With his wife, it is better not to marry-&nbsp;</em>They thought that the Lord&rsquo;s policy of no remarriage in this case meant that marriage was &ldquo;not good&rdquo;. And yet the Genesis record clearly states that it was &ldquo;not good&rdquo; for a man to be unmarried. Matthew in his own [over-ruled] word choice seems to be commenting how they were out of step with the spirit of Genesis. However, the Greek reads&nbsp;<em>sumphero&nbsp;</em>[&lsquo;profitable&rsquo;, &lsquo;good&rsquo;]&nbsp;<em>ou</em>&nbsp;[not]&nbsp;<em>gameo</em>&nbsp;[&lsquo;marry&rsquo;], and a better translation would be &lsquo;It is good / profitable not to marry&rsquo;. The &lsquo;marrying&rsquo; they had in mind was surely the case of marrying a married woman with whom one had had an affair, for this is the &lsquo;marrying&rsquo; of the immediate context in :9. The Lord has just used&nbsp;<em>sumphero</em>, &ldquo;good&rdquo;, in 18:6 in saying that those who offend little ones would be &ldquo;better&rdquo; cast into the sea with a millstone around their neck. And He had used it twice earlier in saying that it is &ldquo;profitable&rdquo; to lose our dearest body parts and enter the Kingdom, rather than offend a little one and be rejected from it (Mt. 5:29,30). Given the connections between this section about marriage and the earlier teaching about offending little ones in chapter 18 (see on :1), these occurrences of the same word can&rsquo;t be incidental. Note too that 1 Cor. 7:35 speaks of the single life as being for our &ldquo;profit&rdquo; [s.w.]- and Paul&rsquo;s teaching there about marriage is full of allusion to the Lord&rsquo;s words here in Mt. 19. The disciples could therefore be read as agreeing with their Lord- it is profitable / good not to marry- in the specific case in view, which is if a man has an affair with a married woman and then is faced with the choice of marrying her. The Lord then almost rushes on to say that in this whole area of sexual and moral failure and less than ideal marital situations, there is the possibility of following Him still even if lower level decisions have been taken and sins committed. The &ldquo;eunuchs&rdquo; that He now speaks about in :12 are those for whom marriage was not possible- but His point is, that for some this is simply too much to &ldquo;receive&rdquo;, and the implication is that He encourages people to accept the higher level (&ldquo;let him receive it&rdquo;) whilst accepting those who don&rsquo;t.</p>
<p>The New Testament is full of examples of concessions to human weakness. 1 Cor. 7 is a chapter full of this kind of thing. You could paraphrase it something like this: 'Basically, consider the option of not marrying.&nbsp;<em>But and if</em>&nbsp;you do, it's no sin. Once married, don't separate;&nbsp;<em>but and if</em>&nbsp;you do, this is allowable. If you are an elderly widow, it's best not to re-marry;&nbsp;<em>but and if&nbsp;</em>you do, OK go ahead'. The Lord Jesus recognized that these sorts of concessions to failures in married life had been made earlier; He spoke of how God through Moses had &quot;for the hardness of your hearts&quot; allowed divorce under the Law, although this was hardly God's original ideal in Eden (Mt. 19:8). The Lord Jesus spoke the word to His listeners &quot;as they were able to hear it&quot; (Mk. 4:33), following the same pattern. The exceptive clause, allowing divorce for adultery, is a prime example of this kind of concession. And yet the Lord speaks in Mark 10 as if there is no allowance for divorce even in this case; whilst in Matthew&rsquo;s record He clearly allows it. The point is, God doesn&rsquo;t advertise His concessions to human weakness (and neither should we). He leads men to attempt life on the highest level. Likewise Num. 6:7 speaks as if a man&nbsp;<em>couldn&rsquo;t</em>&nbsp;make himself unclean and end his vow, whereas in fact there was legislation which allowed him to take this lower level. But the Father doesn&rsquo;t want us to be minimalists, serving Him at the lowest level; quite to the contrary.&nbsp;</p>
