Return of the Eunuch (Part Three): The Proposed Reading
This is the third part in a series, so if you haven’t already read Part One and Part Two, you’ll need to do that to make any sense of what follows. In Part Two, we uncovered why the “usual reading” of Mt 19:3-12 fails. In this post, we’ll explore the alternative: what I’m calling the “proposed reading”.
Previously…
So, to recap Matthew 19:1-12:
Jesus tells the Pharisees that, in marriage, God joins a man and a woman together and human beings should not separate what God has joined (i.e. “Don’t divorce your wives, guys”). They don’t like this answer (divorce and remarriage were common 1st-century ancient Mediterranean practices, including amongst the Jews), and so they retort that since Moses allowed divorce, who was Jesus to object?
Jesus says divorce was God’s concession to a heart-hardened, post-Fall humanity and is totally out-of-sync with his created order. He then asserts his kingdom-ethic on the topic:
“I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” - Mt 19:9
Not only does Jesus tell the disciples that sexual immorality is the only permissible reason for a divorce, but he says that to remarry after divorce is to commit adultery (See footnote.1 See also Mt 5:31-32.). This would have been startling to his 1st Century audience—Pharisees and disciples alike. Not only was divorce common and relatively easy to enact, but the ancient Mediterranean practice of divorce (particularly the issuing of a divorce certificate) implicitly allowed for remarriage for either spouse.
In a subsequent (seemingly private) discussion with Jesus, his disciples express their shock at how (comparatively) restrictive Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage is. Basically, they say, “That’s such an impossibly high bar to meet that it would be better for us not even to try and meet it in the first place! We should just never marry at all!”. Jesus replies:
“Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.” - Mt 19:11
Proposing Some Answers
In this series, we’ve been asking several questions that arise from this passage. In our last post, we even found the answers to some of them!
What is “this saying” (v.11) referring to?
We discovered that (grammatically speaking) it cannot be referring forward to the eunuchs (v.12). But for exegetical and theological reasons, it is also very unlikely to be referring back to what the disciples just said in v.10. The most natural and consistent reading, by far, is that “This saying” refers back to what Jesus said to the Pharisees in vv.3-9.
Who are those to whom it has been given?
We discovered that, in Matthew, Jesus repeatedly gives a difficult or challenging teaching (what I’ve called here a kingdom-ethic teaching) that those on the “outside” cannot understand or embrace. But that same kingdom-ethic teaching has been “given” to the disciples to understand, know and accept. Those who can receive “this saying” (v.10) are the disciples. All of them. More on this in a moment.
So in summary: Jesus is essentially saying:
“Look, guys. I know what I just said about divorce and remarriage seems like a lot. But remember, you are not like the Pharisees who can’t accept it and won’t follow it. To you has been given the secrets of the kingdom (Mt 13:11). And so, as my disciples, not only can you follow, but you must follow this kingdom-ethic about marriage, divorce and remarriage.”
This is (part of) the “proposed reading”.
However, we still have an outstanding question:
What on earth do the eunuchs have to do with all of this?
In the “usual reading”, vv.10-12 are a discrete little section about celibacy for the sake of the kingdom. They stand on their own as a kind of alternative to vv.3-9. That is, according to the “usual reading”:
vv.3-9: Marriage is really good and really important. Don’t stuff it up
vv.10-12: But hey, also, refraining from ever marrying is super good for the select few who can make it work. So, if that’s you, go live your best self-made eunuch life.
However, because the “usual reading” doesn’t stack up, then neither does the idea of vv.10-12 as a kind of corresponding alternative package of verses to vv.3-9. So, how do vv.10-12 relate to vv.3-9? Specifically, how does the “proposed reading” account for Jesus’ use of the eunuchs? What is their function if they are not poster boys for lifelong chosen celibacy for a select few?
Well, the “proposed reading” understands vv.10-12 to be a direct extension and outworking of vv.3-9. That is to say, the eunuchs (v.12) operate as a kind of “proof” of the “this saying” (v.11) that Jesus says has been given to the disciples. And what is that saying? His teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage. In short, the eunuchs are employed as metaphoric exemplars of those who follow Jesus’ kingdom-ethic of honouring marriage by not remarrying after divorce.
Let me explain.
The Demands of the Kingdom
In vv.3-9 Jesus makes his kingdom-ethic on marriage, divorce and remarriage clear. It is grounded in God’s creative intent but, consistent with the entire Gospel of Matthew, the kingdom transcends. In doing so, it makes seemingly impossible demands on life in this age.
Think, for example, of the beatitudes (Mt 5:3-12). Blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, the ones who mourn, those who are persecuted and reviled. The things of the kingdom turn the ways of this world upside down. Jesus’ subsequent teachings in the same chapter also demonstrate a kingdom-ethic that transcends what is the obvious and expected. To lust in your mind is to commit adultery in one’s heart (v.28); to be angry is akin to murder (v.22); we are to love those who hate us (v.43).
The demands of the Kingdom are demanding indeed.
We see another example of this right before Jesus’ interaction with the Pharisees in Mt 19. In Mt 18:21, Peter asks Jesus if he needs to forgive his brother up to a whole seven times. Peter seems to think he is being extravagant in his (theoretical) willingness to forgive so many times. But Jesus answers, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times” (Mt 18:22) . He then tells a parable to explain the demands of this over-the-top kingdom-ethic of mercy.
Jesus clearly expects Peter and the other disciples to be able to understand and abide by the ethical demands of the kingdom when it comes to the matter of mercy and forgiveness. Why? A few chapters earlier, he told them that it had been given to them to do so.
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.[…] 13 This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” 14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.[…] 16 But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear.”
- Mt 13:10-16
The disciples are the ones to whom the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom have been given. They get it. Not because of anything worthy in them that allows them to perceive this transcendent knowledge. No. Because God has “given” it to them to see, hear and accept.
Immediately after Jesus shares the parable of the unmerciful servant, the Pharisees come up to test Jesus (interestingly, the subject of their testing is basically about what they should or should not forgive their spouse for). Jesus gives them his kingdom-ethic response (“Do not separate what God joined. Do not commit adultery by divorcing and then remarrying”), knowing that they will not accept or abide by it. His disciples, on the other hand? It’s been given to them to accept it, and “the one who can accept this should accept it” (v.12).
And so…
Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom
Jesus uses the figure of the eunuch as a metaphorical yet aspirational example for his disciples of the kind of acceptance they are to enact.
Here is how A. Andrew Das puts it:
Had Jesus allowed remarriage after divorce for sexual sin, Jesus’ teaching would not have been overly difficult—certainly not to the point that the disciples would have objected in v.10 that it is better not to marry. When the disciples object to Jesus’ teaching (v.10), he responds by dividing the world into those empowered to accept the teaching and those who are not (v.11). The eunuch saying in v.12 conforms well to Jesus’ teaching about divorce and remarriage. […] To express the parallel, some will forgo sexual relations by not ever marrying for the sake of the kingdom […] For those divorced by others, they have been made eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom. As difficult as a life of such discipleship may be, as the disciples’ objection recognises, Jesus insists that the celibate lifestyle remains possible thanks to the help of God. The disciples do what Pharisees and unbelievers cannot readily do because “for God all things are possible” (Matt 19:26, shortly after Jesus’ divorce and remarriage teaching”.
- Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity, p. 187.
So yes, the eunuchs do operate as a kind of aspirational metaphor for a godly life of singleness… but not for a specially empowered few. The eunuchs are the aspiration model for all of Jesus’ followers who either do not marry (i.e., those who are eunuchs from birth) or do not remarry after divorce (i.e., those who have been made eunuchs because they do not remarry after their spouse has divorced them, or who make themselves eunuchs by not remarrying after they have divorced their spouse).
The eunuch is not representative of a specially enabled sub-group but of all Jesus’ followers who are not married. In light of the kingdom, singleness is both doable and honourable… for all who are single.
Moreover, the eunuchs are not employed as commendable examples of those who have rejected marriage. The disciples think that the stakes are so high that it would be better to avoid marriage altogether (v.10). They wish to avoid the “hard work” entailed in postlapsarian marriage, by forgoing that good altogether.
But Jesus does not allow for their rejection of marriage for the sake of personal convenience. Instead, he employs the figure of the eunuch to urge his disciples to honour marriage for the sake of the kingdom.
You see, somewhat ironically, the ones who are made or make themselves like eunuchs are ones who deeply honour marriage—by refraining from turning it into adultery through remarriage. They understand that to separate what God has joined together is a grievous act (even if, in the case of sexual immorality, it is permitted—note, not commanded). Such grievousness would only be compounded further by remarriage. Through their kingdom-compelled, post-divorce, single-againness, these eunuchs actively honour and dignify marriage.
To sum up: the “proposed reading” understands the eunuchs to be those who witness to both:
The (God-given) ability of Jesus’ followers to live out the kingdom's demands when it comes to singleness after divorce (and indeed singleness, period)
…and also…The (God-given) significance of the marriage relationship as a good of this creation as that which points to what is ultimate in the creation to come.
Right. I imagine you have some outstanding questions and thoughts. So do I. Which I guess means that we’ll need to come back for a surprise (and less brain-taxing) final Part Four :)
I’m aware there is much discussion (and pastoral complexity) surrounding the Matthean “exception” (i.e., “except for sexual immorality”), and specifically, whether it modifies Jesus’ comment on divorce alone or extends to his reference to both divorce and remarriage. It is beyond the scope of this series to do a deep dive into this matter. Suffice to say, I’m exegetically and theologically persuaded that the exception refers only to divorce and not remarriage, thereby making remarriage (prior to the death of one’s divorced spouse) an act of adultery (and this, regardless of the “legitimacy” of the divorce or if one is the innocent part). I’ll make a few pastoral comments about this in the next (and final!) post in this series. But I do highly commend A. Andrew Das’ book, Remarriage in Early Christianity, as a comprehensive and rigorous exploration of this topic more broadly. For a summary discussion of his work, you might prefer to watch an interview with him such as this one.
“Matthew 19:9 is the only gospel text that may actually permit remarriage. In this case, the “except for sexual sin” would modify both the verbs “divorce” and (re)marry,” granting an exception to both. Another possibility is that the exception clause may modify only the first verb. Scholars recognize both options as grammatically admissible. Several lines of evidence, however, favor the conclusions that the exception clause modifies only the divorce verb, in which case Matt 19:9 does not offer any permission for remarriage”
(A. Andrew Das, Remarriage in Early Christianity p. 284)
Thanks Dani, great article! I am looking forward to the final instalment. This is a timely topic for me as I have been researching this myself as some of my Christian friends have recently gone through divorce and remarriage. In the Protestant Evangelical world lip service is paid to the evils of divorce, but once it has occurred, there is rarely any serious push back against remarriage, and in many instances remarriage is actively encouraged by the church. I really do think this is in large part due to the aversion that Protestant Evangelicals have towards singleness. They make singleness an unrealistic option in so many ways as you and others have pointed out in books and articles. That leaves those whose marriages have failed with no option but to remarry if they are to fit into the church since singleness is perceived as being so untenable. While the Biblical case against remarriage while the first spouse is alive is compelling, I have not seen much said in the way of how to apply that teaching to Protestant Evangelical churches and communities in our current time. Not only are there numerous instances of people in our churches who are married and have living ex spouses, but in many if not most of those cases, the couples involved believe that their remarriages were blessed by God. With these facts on the ground, the push back to any correction to the church's teaching on divorce and remarriage would be overwhelming. The mere hint that someone should not remarry is often met with anger and defensiveness as is the suggestion that someone might have been wrong to enter the marriage they are currently in. I honestly don't know what the pastoral implications of this Biblical understanding would be. The Roman Church historically would call couples to separate if they had living ex spouses since the new marriages would be perpetually adulterous, but I have seen some Protestant theologians suggest that a second marriage should not be broken up regardless of whether the second marriage should have occurred. It may be beyond the scope of your article series to tackle this topic, but I would none-the-less like to see a fuller discussion of the practical implications of this understanding of marriage.
This has been a very interesting series. I had always understood the "hard teaching" to be that about divorce and remarriage, but could never understand the but about eunuchs. I've often wondered, if Jesus was so hard on divorce, why Christians seem to be so accepting of it. I once asked my pastor about the remarriage issue, and he stated that it's rare that he will agree to perform a marriage for someone who divorced while claiming to be Christian. Recently I've been thinking about it more, since I'm at a point in life where the chances of meeting a man who is in my age range and has never married is miniscule. I wonder things like when is it permissable to ask about what went wrong in the previous relationship? I would want to know on the first date all about why the divorce happened so that I would know whether there would be a second date! And I think that's not culturally acceptable. But if you're right, and remarriage is never ok, then that sort of makes things easier for me! I wish it was talked about more, but I think it makes people all kinds of uncomfortable because they feel guilty. But we can't ignore Jesus' teaching because we don't like it.