Matthew’s Eunuch’s: A Response to “Trans” Interpretations of Matthew 19:12
This paper responds to interpretations of Jesus’ saying about eunuchs in Mt 19:12 arrived at through the lens of non-gender-conforming ideology. These interpretations seek to justify a non-binary theological anthropology, as opposed to traditional Christian sexual mores. This paper seeks to address three arguments of these newer interpretations, concluding that the “traditional” interpretation of Mt 19:12c is correct.
First, I consider the claim that the early church interpreted the phrase “those who make themselves eunuchs” as a literal reference to voluntary castration. This assertion removes the traditional interpretation of this phrase from the discussion. J. David Hester claims that a literal interpretation of v. 12c was “quite widespread… in both the West and East” (Hester, “Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus,” 30). However, an examination of the evidence from church fathers reveals otherwise, and the example of Origen as one who practiced castration is shown to be based upon weak historical evidence.
Next, I challenge the methodology that reads wider Mediterranean perspectives on sexuality and eunuchs into Mt 19:12. Hester’s objection to the traditional reading of Mt 19:12c is crystallized in his central assertion: “eunuchs were not celibate.” He argues, on the basis of sources from the wider Mediterranean world that, “The eunuch was a figure perceived to be neither celibate nor morally chaste….” (14-15). I argue that the proper background for reading Mt 19:12 is to be found in the Hebrew Bible and the world of Second Temple Judaism. These sources support the view that eunuchs were understood to be celibate, and the traditional interpretation bolstered.
Finally, I respond to the claim that Mt 19:12 should be excised from its Matthean context in order for one to understand what Jesus really meant. According to Josef Blinzler, who has been followed by others, the saying found in Mt 19:12 was originally a response by Jesus to his Jewish critics, who derisively referred to him as a “eunuch” because he was single and celibate (Josef Blinzler, “Eisin Eunouchoi: Zur Auslegung von Matt 19:12,” 261-4). Matthew, some argue, has twisted this saying by inserting it into a context in which a traditional sexual morality is upheld. I argue that the proper context in which the saying is to be read is the Gospel of Matthew. Moreover, for evangelical Christians, it is the text, not a historical reconstruction of the events and sayings behind the text, that is authoritative.
I conclude by asserting that the case for overturning the traditional interpretation of Mt 19:12 has been found wanting. The push for a radical reassessment of the church’s view of gender is likewise found to be without warrant from this passage. Moreover, Christ’s invitation to sinners is not one sets aside transgresses biblical sexual morality. He upholds God’s created order and invites those who cannot – through necessity or choice – experience all the blessings of God’s creation order to be a part of the New Covenant community.