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.
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.
I'm looking forward to part 4! I'm aware there are several different views amongst Christians regarding this topic (divorce and remarriage) as summarised in the book "Divorce and Remarriage: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions: Four Christian Views" (I haven't read it, so can't comment).
I was wondering, in a hypothetical scenario where a church has 4 pastors (rare, but it does exist, like my previous church), and each pastor holds to different view (there are 4 different views according to that book), what would the pastoral implications be for a member of that church that is considering/going through a divorce and/or remarriage? Is it an issue over which we should break communion?
Dani, what if you are putting a stumbling block or an occasion to fallen in your brother’s or sister’s way? If you were, would you not want to reevaluate your exegesis and your conclusions?
Thank you for these confronting words, Dani - and I mean that in a good way! As a recently divorced Christian myself, it is very helpful for me to read and hear Biblical discussion on the topics of divorce and remarriage. The Lord has been showing me that it is a good time in my life to be single and to learn to meet my needs for intimacy in my church family, but the question of how to best honour Him with my relationships in the future still weighs heavily on me.
If I could ask a question, though... Why is it that a divorced person, according to God's design, should become eligible to remarry under the circumstance that their ex-spouse (whom they might have had nothing to do with for many years) dies? It seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.
I too am looking forward to the fourth segment with interest!
Hi Dani, I appreciate that you have been motivated to try to wrestle through this because of your experience as a single person who would like to be married but haven’t been able to find a suitable husband. I appreciate the anguish which that experience can entail. And I feel for you. ❤️
But I think you have made several exegetical errors in arriving at your position. And those errors have caused you to come to difficulties in your conclusions. It looks to me like you have been so persuaded by Das’s arguments that they have almost closed your mind off to other possibilities.
I have not read Das’s book but I can tell, even from the few bits of him that you have quoted, that he is wrong. That may sound like I’m being unduly harsh, but I have studied this field for decades, so please grant me some credit for having opinions that are well informed.
Are you interested in learning what conclusions I have come to about the exegesis of the divorce and remarriage texts?
Hi Barbara - thanks for your comment. I know it can be very difficult to communicate tone effectively on a forum like this - especially when needing to offer some correctives to something that has been written. So, I want to state upfront that what follows is offered with both gentleness and peaceableness.
Thank you for your empathy for me as a never-married single woman. However, I do want to clarify that my exploration of this topic, and in fact the Bible's broader teaching on singleness, marriage and sexuality, has far less to do with myself (I am quite content in my singleness, even as I remain open to the possibility of marriage) and far more to do with my concern for both single and married Christians in contemporary evangelical churches more broadly. In other words, it is not personal anguish that drives me, but theological and pastoral concern.
I recognise that we have different theological conclusions about the Bible's teaching about divorce and remarriage. However, you are mistaken by assuming that I have been persuaded by one book (i.e. that I have not done my own extensive thinking about divorce and remarriage over a longer period of time) and that my mind is closed to other possibilities. Sister, I have undertaken more than 8 years of full-time rigorous theological, biblical, exegetical and historical study (including 4 years of NT greek). I undertook a B.Div (with Hons) at Moore Theological College (which, as an Australian, you will appreciate is no lightweight seminary) and have a doctorate in theology. I also have 20+ years of pastoral ministry experience, including almost 7 years of full-time ministry amongst women. None of that means my interpretation of Mt 19 is automatically correct, while yours is wrong. I understand and appreciate that you also have an extensive background in this field. But it should, at the very least, afford me the charitable assumption that I may have read much more widely and thoroughly on this topic than you are currently granting me, and that I am not one to be persuaded by just one book. I have a doctorate in theology - I know the importance of reading discerningly and widely.
I've cited Das throughout this series because a) I've read him recently and b) I think his treatment is exegetically, theologically and historically comprehensive. You've charged me with not having the humility to entertain other possibilities (which is not correct- I have, and I am). And so, I'd gently encourage you to hold yourself to the same expected standard by being willing to read his work before declaring with utter confidence that he is utterly wrong.
Having said all of that, my series has been primarily seeking to engage with a theological and exegetical analysis of Mt 19:10-12... which has required me to consider its relationship to the broader context of vv.3-9. If you would be interested in engaging with or refuting the particular arguments I've put forward about vv.10-12 (especially in Part Two) I'd welcome that.
It seems I made a wrong supposition in thinking that you were unhappy about being circumstantially single. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. If you will bear with me, I would like to quote the things you said in Part 2 which led me to make that supposition.
You wrote:
“… let me point out something I — an unmarried Christian woman whose singleness would generally be described as circumstantial rather than chosen — have always found deeply dissatisfying about this ‘usual reading’.”
“[The usual] reading leaves us with two ways to live:
1. Either work out you are one of those who have been ‘given’ to ‘receive’ intentional and irrevocable lifelong singleness as a follower of Jesus, or…
2. Get married.
This means God is either unloving. Or God is not sovereign.
Which diminished God do we prefer? A God who chooses to deny his children something he says they require? Or a God who is unable to provide his children with something he says they require?
For the record, I vote for neither of those options.
Folks, the ‘usual reading’ does not make theological or pastoral sense.”
“… the “usual reading” demands we leave the other two types of eunuchs— me, and others like me — in no-man’s land. God hasn’t ‘given’ us the ability/willingness/capacity/empowerment of lifelong singleness. But, despite our earnest prayers and longings, neither has he given us the necessary alternative — a spouse.”
I recognise that in arriving at your doctrine of divorce and remarriage you not been persuaded by simply one book, so please forgive me if I misspoke in my first comment. I’m pleased to hear that you recognise that your interpretation of Matthew 19 may not be correct.
You believe that the eunuchs (v.12) operate as a kind of ‘proof’ of Jesus’ teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage in which He taught the kingdom-ethic of honouring marriage by not remarrying after divorce.
I believe you have misunderstood the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees.
In this series, you didn’t explain in depth how and why you came to the view that remarriage after divorce is always adultery. And, since you haven’t expressed interest in learning what conclusions I have come to about the divorce and remarriage texts, I get the impression you don’t want to hear my exegesis and conclusions on that. Comments on a substack post would probably not be the best place for explaining my views on those doctrines, since explaining my views takes time. At my blog, and in my book, I have set forth my views on divorce and remarriage.
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.
I'm looking forward to part 4! I'm aware there are several different views amongst Christians regarding this topic (divorce and remarriage) as summarised in the book "Divorce and Remarriage: Finding Guidance for Personal Decisions: Four Christian Views" (I haven't read it, so can't comment).
I was wondering, in a hypothetical scenario where a church has 4 pastors (rare, but it does exist, like my previous church), and each pastor holds to different view (there are 4 different views according to that book), what would the pastoral implications be for a member of that church that is considering/going through a divorce and/or remarriage? Is it an issue over which we should break communion?
Dani, what if you are putting a stumbling block or an occasion to fallen in your brother’s or sister’s way? If you were, would you not want to reevaluate your exegesis and your conclusions?
Thank you for these confronting words, Dani - and I mean that in a good way! As a recently divorced Christian myself, it is very helpful for me to read and hear Biblical discussion on the topics of divorce and remarriage. The Lord has been showing me that it is a good time in my life to be single and to learn to meet my needs for intimacy in my church family, but the question of how to best honour Him with my relationships in the future still weighs heavily on me.
If I could ask a question, though... Why is it that a divorced person, according to God's design, should become eligible to remarry under the circumstance that their ex-spouse (whom they might have had nothing to do with for many years) dies? It seems like a rather arbitrary distinction.
I too am looking forward to the fourth segment with interest!
Hi Dani, I appreciate that you have been motivated to try to wrestle through this because of your experience as a single person who would like to be married but haven’t been able to find a suitable husband. I appreciate the anguish which that experience can entail. And I feel for you. ❤️
But I think you have made several exegetical errors in arriving at your position. And those errors have caused you to come to difficulties in your conclusions. It looks to me like you have been so persuaded by Das’s arguments that they have almost closed your mind off to other possibilities.
I have not read Das’s book but I can tell, even from the few bits of him that you have quoted, that he is wrong. That may sound like I’m being unduly harsh, but I have studied this field for decades, so please grant me some credit for having opinions that are well informed.
Are you interested in learning what conclusions I have come to about the exegesis of the divorce and remarriage texts?
Hi Barbara - thanks for your comment. I know it can be very difficult to communicate tone effectively on a forum like this - especially when needing to offer some correctives to something that has been written. So, I want to state upfront that what follows is offered with both gentleness and peaceableness.
Thank you for your empathy for me as a never-married single woman. However, I do want to clarify that my exploration of this topic, and in fact the Bible's broader teaching on singleness, marriage and sexuality, has far less to do with myself (I am quite content in my singleness, even as I remain open to the possibility of marriage) and far more to do with my concern for both single and married Christians in contemporary evangelical churches more broadly. In other words, it is not personal anguish that drives me, but theological and pastoral concern.
I recognise that we have different theological conclusions about the Bible's teaching about divorce and remarriage. However, you are mistaken by assuming that I have been persuaded by one book (i.e. that I have not done my own extensive thinking about divorce and remarriage over a longer period of time) and that my mind is closed to other possibilities. Sister, I have undertaken more than 8 years of full-time rigorous theological, biblical, exegetical and historical study (including 4 years of NT greek). I undertook a B.Div (with Hons) at Moore Theological College (which, as an Australian, you will appreciate is no lightweight seminary) and have a doctorate in theology. I also have 20+ years of pastoral ministry experience, including almost 7 years of full-time ministry amongst women. None of that means my interpretation of Mt 19 is automatically correct, while yours is wrong. I understand and appreciate that you also have an extensive background in this field. But it should, at the very least, afford me the charitable assumption that I may have read much more widely and thoroughly on this topic than you are currently granting me, and that I am not one to be persuaded by just one book. I have a doctorate in theology - I know the importance of reading discerningly and widely.
I've cited Das throughout this series because a) I've read him recently and b) I think his treatment is exegetically, theologically and historically comprehensive. You've charged me with not having the humility to entertain other possibilities (which is not correct- I have, and I am). And so, I'd gently encourage you to hold yourself to the same expected standard by being willing to read his work before declaring with utter confidence that he is utterly wrong.
Having said all of that, my series has been primarily seeking to engage with a theological and exegetical analysis of Mt 19:10-12... which has required me to consider its relationship to the broader context of vv.3-9. If you would be interested in engaging with or refuting the particular arguments I've put forward about vv.10-12 (especially in Part Two) I'd welcome that.
Hi Danni
It seems I made a wrong supposition in thinking that you were unhappy about being circumstantially single. I’m sorry if I’ve offended you. If you will bear with me, I would like to quote the things you said in Part 2 which led me to make that supposition.
You wrote:
“… let me point out something I — an unmarried Christian woman whose singleness would generally be described as circumstantial rather than chosen — have always found deeply dissatisfying about this ‘usual reading’.”
“[The usual] reading leaves us with two ways to live:
1. Either work out you are one of those who have been ‘given’ to ‘receive’ intentional and irrevocable lifelong singleness as a follower of Jesus, or…
2. Get married.
This means God is either unloving. Or God is not sovereign.
Which diminished God do we prefer? A God who chooses to deny his children something he says they require? Or a God who is unable to provide his children with something he says they require?
For the record, I vote for neither of those options.
Folks, the ‘usual reading’ does not make theological or pastoral sense.”
“… the “usual reading” demands we leave the other two types of eunuchs— me, and others like me — in no-man’s land. God hasn’t ‘given’ us the ability/willingness/capacity/empowerment of lifelong singleness. But, despite our earnest prayers and longings, neither has he given us the necessary alternative — a spouse.”
I recognise that in arriving at your doctrine of divorce and remarriage you not been persuaded by simply one book, so please forgive me if I misspoke in my first comment. I’m pleased to hear that you recognise that your interpretation of Matthew 19 may not be correct.
You believe that the eunuchs (v.12) operate as a kind of ‘proof’ of Jesus’ teaching about marriage, divorce and remarriage in which He taught the kingdom-ethic of honouring marriage by not remarrying after divorce.
I believe you have misunderstood the discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees.
In this series, you didn’t explain in depth how and why you came to the view that remarriage after divorce is always adultery. And, since you haven’t expressed interest in learning what conclusions I have come to about the divorce and remarriage texts, I get the impression you don’t want to hear my exegesis and conclusions on that. Comments on a substack post would probably not be the best place for explaining my views on those doctrines, since explaining my views takes time. At my blog, and in my book, I have set forth my views on divorce and remarriage.