Return of the Eunuch (Part Two): The Usual Reading

We’re going to launch right into it here, so if you haven’t already read the first part of this “Return of the Eunuchs” series, you’ll want to do that now. Also, get yourself comfy—because I resisted dividing it up into two, it’s a long one!

(Oh, BTW, if you prefer to listen to this article, you can do that by heading to it in the substack app and using its text-to-voice feature).

Parsing the Usual Reading

In part one, I argued that our understanding of what is going on with the eunuchs in Mt 19:12 hinges on what we think “this saying” (v.11) refers to.

In this post we will explore the “usual reading” of Mt 19:10-12 which understands “this saying” (v.11) to either be referring:

1. Forward to what Jesus is about to say about the eunuchs in v.12,
   OR

2. Backward to what the disciples just said in v.10.

Now, these two options are exegetically different. But theologically speaking, they lead to essentially the same interpretation, and so, I’m going to treat them together (though I will make a few specific exegetical remarks about each further down).

Here is a basic overview of the “usual reading”:

1. The Pharisees ask a (trick) question about Jesus’ thinking on reasons for divorce.

2. Jesus’ response is considered highly restrictive to his audience. Even his disciples are a bit polaxed. And so they respond with what is usually interpreted as a kind of uneasy joke. “Given all that, Jesus, surely it is easier to remain single instead! <insert awkward chuckle here>”.

3. Jesus essentially agrees with them, saying: “Yes. You are right that it is better to be unmarried. But not everyone can receive this. Only those to whom God has given it can take it on board and live it out”. He confirms this by turning to the example of the self-made eunuch.

4. Jesus then repeats his reminder that the one who is able to “receive this” should receive it (i.e., basically a repeat of v.11).

By and large, this logic seems reasonable, doesn’t it? In fact, it may seem nothing short of obvious. If “this saying” (v.11) does indeed refer back to either the disciples’ suggestion that it is better to remain unmarried or to the self-made eunuch (v.12) as a commendable exemplar or someone who has made that exact decision, then Jesus is promoting kingdom-oriented, lifelong, intentionally chosen singleness as the honourable, perhaps even better, alternative to marriage.

But note, this specific singleness is not attainable or achievable by all. It has been “given” to a select few. Only some are able to “receive it” (i.e., to faithfully live it out). One commentator puts it this way:

“In Matthew 19, Jesus encourages his disciples to consider a particular kind of singleness for the sake of the kingdom, compares it to the permanent state of being a eunuch, and indicates that only those called to vocational singleness will accept His teachings on it.” -Pieter Valk

So, is this indeed what is going on in Mt 19? Is Jesus legitimating, honouring and encouraging a certain kind of singleness amongst a select number of his followers as the alternative to their getting married? To put it simply, is the “usual reading” the correct reading?

The Poster Boy for Singleness?

Well, before we consider an exegetical response to that question, let me point out something I—an unmarried Christian woman whose singleness would generally be described as circumstantial rather than chosen¹—have always found deeply dissatisfying about this “usual reading”.

Nearly every article, post, podcast, book, talk and social media comment that appeals to the “usual reading” tends to zoom straight to the self-made eunuch at the end of v.12. Yet, Jesus doesn’t only speak about the self-made eunuch. In fact, he only mentions those guys after he has already spoken of two other groups of eunuchs—the “circumstantial” eunuchs.

In other words, if we’re going to run with the (metaphorical) logic, well, I’m smack-bang in the middle of that verse! Sure, I’m a non-self-made eunuch (i.e., one, or perhaps both of the first two types Jesus mentions). But I’m still a (metaphorical) eunuch nonetheless.

And here’s the thing about eunuchs—they were renowned as trusted caretakers, watchmen, attendants and even bodyguards within the palace. In other words, eunuchs served the king. It didn’t matter if they had chosen to become a eunuch or not. It didn’t matter if they had always been one if they were made one at some point. Their job was to serve the king simply because they were one.

So, why do we think that it’s only the “self-made” eunuch who is the real-deal? To put it another way, why do we make the third type of eunuch into the poster boy for kingdom-oriented singleness? Why are the other two eunuchs—the ones who didn’t choose it for themselves but are getting on with serving the king anyway—rendered immediately invisible?

Why? Well, because the “usual reading” demands it. It gives us no option but to zoom straight past the first two types of eunuchs so as to shine the spotlight on the third.

You see, it requires that we see “this saying” in v. 11 (i.e., the legitimacy and goodness of kingdom-oriented singleness as an alternative to marriage) as only being true for a select sub-group to whom it has been “given”. And so, this reading leaves us with two ways to live (for those who have ears to hear, pun intended 😉):

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.

And so, 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.

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. But it also does not make exegetical sense.

Getting Technical

Pssst: If you aren’t one for somewhat detailed exegetical discussion, it’s fine to skip down to the next subheading. I promise I won’t tell anyone ;) But also, why not give it a go? You might enjoy it!

It was William Alexander Heth’s 1986 Doctor of Theology dissertation that first alerted me to some of the exegetical difficulties of the “usual reading” some years ago. More recently, A. Andrew Das’ superb book, Remarriage in Early Christianity, returned my attention to the matter. If you are interested in a deeper exegetical dive into Mt 19:3-12, I can highly recommend their work. I especially encourage you to read Das for his clarity, engagement with more recent scholarship and comprehensive analysis of the biblical texts about marriage, divorce and remarriage.

So, let’s look (succinctly!) at some specific exegetical issues that arise in the “usual reading’s” handling of “this saying” in v.11. We’ll take each option at a time.

1. “This [the] saying” (v. 11 - τὸν λόγον τοῦτον) refers forward to what Jesus is about to say in v.12 about the metaphorical eunuch life not being for everyone.

   
   While this might seem a straightforward option in the English translation, some definitive grammatical issues in the Greek make it highly unlikely. Das (p.179-18) and Heth (p. 165-6) discuss these at some length, but I’ll share just one.
   
   When Matthew uses the Greek word for “this” in connection with the Greek word for “saying/word” it always refers to what has gone before it and not what will come after it. Furthermore, with the exception of one narratival example (Mt 28:15) it always refers to something Jesus himself has previously said or taught (eg. Mt 7:24, 26, 28, 19:1, 26:1). “In other words, [this particular word combination] in Matthew’s Gospel always refers back to Jesus prior teaching. Jesus’ comment in v.11 would thus be referring back to his comment in v.9”. (Das, p. 180. Emphasis mine).
   
   From an exegetical standpoint, it is highly unlikely that “this saying” in v.11 refers forward to v.12. We can effectively rule it out as a possibility. Goodbye option 1.
   

2. “This [the] saying” (v. 11 - τὸν λόγον τοῦτον) refers back to what the disciples just said about it being better not to marry in v.10.
   
   There is some historical and a lot of contemporary support for this option (for a summary, and also a rebuttal, see Das p.181). It does also overcome the problem of “this saying” needing to refer backward rather than forward. However, as we saw above, in Matthew, the phrase consistently refers back to something Jesus has previously taught rather than something the disciples (or others) have said. In my view, this is a serious problem for Option 2.
   
   There are two broader exegetical objections to this option, which I find particularly compelling. Firstly, Heth (p. 167-170) observes how, in Mt 19:23-28, Jesus’ interactions with an interlocutor (there, the rich young ruler) followed by his discussion with his disciples parallels Mt 19:3-12. Heth cites F.J. Moloney, who writes that in both passages, “there is a harsh word from Jesus (vv. 9 and 23-34) followed by a stunned, human reaction from the disciples (vv.10 and 25) resolved by a word from Jesus referring back to his harsh statement, on the possibility of even humanly impossible things in a God-given situation (v. 11 and 26)” (Heth, p. 168-169, quoting Moloney). In other words, the literary context of the chapter suggests “this saying” (v.11) more naturally refers back to what Jesus said, not what the disciples said.

   
   Secondly, Das makes a compelling case (p.181-183) for why it is unlikely that Jesus would be unequivocally affirming the disciples’ comment that it is better not to marry. In Matthew, the disciples “never express an ideal that Jesus would wholeheartedly or without qualification affirm” (Das, p. 181). Furthermore, and very importantly, Matthew’s Jesus is consistently “very supportive of the marital relationship” (Das, p. 187), especially in comparison to Luke’s Jesus (see Das, p.186-7). And so, it is very unlikely that, right after Matthew’s Jesus adamantly affirmed marriage as a very good and indissoluble creation ordinance orchestrated and overseen by God, he would immediately turn around and say, “But yes, you are right—it’s better not to marry”.
   
   All said, Option 2 is also a very unlikely one.

The Nail in the (Usual) Coffin

Psssst: Time to tune back in if you skipped over the last part!

Right. So, we saw that the “usual reading” is theological and pastorally problematic (i.e., the poster-boy objection). And we’ve just seen that it has a range of significant—I’d suggest terminal—exegetical issues to overcome. But there is one final objection to the “usual reading” that, frankly, I think is the nail in its coffin.

What is this killer blow? It’s the identity of “those to whom it has been given” (v. 11), “the one who is able to receive it” (v.12).

On the “usual reading” Jesus is dividing his disciples into two camps. Some have been specially given to receive/accept “this saying”. They are the haves. Others have not been given and so cannot receive or accept it. They are the have-nots.

But look at what Jesus said to his disciples just a few chapters earlier in Mt 13. Pay attention to the things being “given” and who is able to accept or receive them.

“Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them…. Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.” (Mt 13:11, 13)

Drawing upon the mid-century work of Jacques Dupont, Heth shows that Matthew 13 is not the only relevant passage here. In fact, all the Matthean passages that touch upon the issue of the disciples’ understanding:

“…emphasize that understanding is a characteristic of Jesus’ disciples as opposed to the unbelievers; […] Matthew over and over again stresses the disciples’ comprehension of the truths revealed by Jesus (cf. Matt 13:51).”
- Heth p. 172-3 (emphasis added)

Das concurs:

Whenever Matthew contrasts in his gospel those who receive Jesus’ teaching with those who do not, the contrast is with those outside the Jesus movement.
- Das p.184 (emphasis added)

Remember, in vv.10-12, Jesus is now talking privately with his disciples about what he had previously said to the Pharisees (v.3-9). Here, Matthew has recorded yet another instance where Jesus says something startling, which the outsiders (in this case, the Pharisees) cannot and will not receive, but which the disciples can and must accept, because it has been given to them to do so.

Jesus is not dividing his disciples into have/have-not camps based on an empowerment to never marry. He is saying “Here is another secret of the kingdom that has been given to you guys, but not to others”.

So What On Earth is Going On?!

So, what is the secret of the kingdom in Mt 19? Or, as we have been asking all along, what does “this saying” (v.11) refer to?

The “usual reading” doesn’t stack up. It cannot be a call to reject marriage because:

1. It would be nonsensical for Jesus to tell all his disciples (remember, it has been “given” to them as a group) it had “given” to them become life-long (metaphorical) eunuchs—especially since he had just finished talking about how important the creation good of marriage is!

2. Every other occurrence of “this saying” refers back to something Jesus had been teaching. This means that contrary to the “usual reading”, Jesus is referring to what he had been saying earlier in v.3-9.

Simply put, the eunuchs in v.12 function as a living metaphor to explain “this saying” in v.11… and “this saying” (which the disciples have been given to accept while the Pharisees have not) refers to what Jesus taught in vv.3-9. What was the focus of that teaching in those earlier verses? Marriage, divorce and remarriage.

The “usual reading” is an incorrect reading. The eunuch is not about never-married celibacy. He’s (somehow) about marriage, divorce and remarriage.

Still confused? Not convinced? Unsure how it all hangs together? Never fear—that is what Part 3 is for.

Click here to read Part Three

1. For the record, I think this simple binary of “choice” vs “circumstance” is not only reductionistic but theologically problematic. As I’ve written elsewhere:

“Despite our best attempts to reduce Christian singleness down to a simple either/or, it almost always involves a complex interaction of circumstantial factors beyond personal control and intentional decisions that are the result of personal choice—and most significantly, personal choice concerning godly obedience. Sometimes circumstances put us in the position of needing to make a choice. Sometimes making a choice leads to certain circumstances. For the single Christian these two things are very rarely unrelated to each other...we ought to appreciate that any clear divide between choice and circumstance is very blurred indeed! Both are caught up within something far more foundational, God’s sovereignty.”