“Eunuchs from Birth” and Same Sex Relationships (Matthew 19:12)

I have been asked to consider whether the category “eunuchs from birth” in Matt 19:12 might open the way for biblically minded Christians accepting same-sex relationships on a par with heterosexual marriage. Here is my answer concerning this verse alone. (The solution to such questions involves interpretation of a wide range of biblical material and this is only one such aspect.)

The context of the passage is Jesus being asked by Pharisees his interpretation of Deut 24:1, the core text on divorce in Pharisaic thought. Jesus is being asked where he stands in relation to an ongoing debate between Shammai and Hillel Pharisees. Deuteronomy 24:1 states that a husband can divorce his wife if he finds some indecency in her. Shammai took indecency here to mean sexual immorality. The Shammai view is consistent with the Hebrew ʿěr·wā(h) which at its core, means the genitals. Hillel took it more figuratively, Moses giving grounds for a husband to divorce his wife on any grounds. As the term ʿěr·wā(h) could mean something morally repugnant, this is not implausible. However, this interpretation led to some considering that a man can divorce his women for insignificant “indecencies,” like burning the dinner.

In Mark’s account, Jesus takes a harsher view than either school, stating that a man and woman should not divorce at all, and if either partner remarries, they commit adultery (Mark 10).

Matthew’s version is similar. Jesus refers to the creation narrative, where God created humankind as male and female. This draws on the important passage, Gen 1:26–27, where God created people in his own image, both men and women. This is followed by an injunction to multiply and fill the earth (which brings heterosexual relationships producing children into view).

Matthew’s Jesus follows this up by citing Gen 2:24, where a man will leave his family home and join a wife and the two will become one flesh. This is the foundational marriage text in the biblical narrative cited here by Jesus and twice by Paul (1 Cor 6:16; Eph 5:31).

Both texts affirm heterosexual marriage relationships as central to God’s purposes for humankind. Nothing in Genesis suggests a same-sex relationship having the same kind of place in God’s purposes. Jesus affirms the creational stance, as does Paul in the texts mentioned above.

Jesus then states that what God has joined together in marriage, no one should separate. He is asked about Deuteronomy 24:1. He states that this injunction was given because of the human hardness of the heart. However, this is not God’s ideal (“from the beginning, it was not so.”). Matthew, then, affirms Mark’s strong stance. Ideally speaking, men marry women and do not divorce. Sadly, humans have and will always have hard hearts, and this does not always work out. Hence, there is permission for divorce. Even Mark does not describe divorce as a sin, it is subsequent sexual relationships that become sin (adultery).

Unlike Mark’s account, Matthew’s Jesus states emphatically that anyone who remarries commits adultery, except where there has been sexual immorality. Hence, he sides with the Shammai in this regard. For Matthew, there is only one ground for divorce and remarriage, sexual immorality. This seems clear, although porneia can have a broader meaning than merely sexual immorality, seen in its use in the Greek versions of Hosea and elsewhere—there, it can mean idolatry. Hence, some see here Jesus opening up the possibility of divorce where extreme violations of the marriage are in view, e.g., abuse. Still, Matthew’s Jesus certainly appears to allow divorce and remarriage where there is sexual immorality (and perhaps other analogous things), although as Jesus makes clear in v. 8, this is not God’s idea. Paul, similarly, appears to allow divorce and perhaps remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7—where a believer is divorced by an unbeliever.

Likely realizing that marriage is not then always easy, the disciples then ask him whether it is better not to marry. (Paul seemed to think so, see 1 Cor 7).

Then Jesus responds referring to eunuchs. He notes that not all will accept this saying, probably referring to other Jews at the time.

In v. 12, he speaks of three types of eunuchs. First, there “eunuchs who have been so from birth.” Second, “there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men.” Third, there are those “who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.”

A eunuch was a castrated male. The second group is clearly those who were castrated and superintended a royal harem (such a person is no sexual threat). An example is the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 9.

In that the second group is clearly someone castrated, it is likely Jesus is using the term eunouchos in the same way in each use, although some scholars find the third group to be figurative of celibacy. If so, the third group then would be someone who castrates themselves or lives a celibate life for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. This sounds ludicrous, but in the ancient world, there were people like the Galli of Galatia who castrated themselves as part of their initiation into the priesthood of Cybele. Indeed, circumcision is an essential part of the Jewish religious ritual.

If a literal castration is in view, this would then be someone who takes literally Jesus’ teaching to cut off any parts of the body causing sin (Matt 5:30; 18:8), in this case, the genitals. They are so determined to please God with sexual purity, that they do so. If we take “eunuchs” here figuratively, it may refer to celibacy (as in the Roman Catholic priesthood). These, then, would be people Jesus himself and Paul who renounced sexual relationships and marriage for the work of God.

What about the first group? The first group would likely be those born with variations in the usual human genitals, what we might call “intersex” people. Matthew shows that he was aware of this in his time. Or, if non-literal, these are people born without a sexual drive.

Now, returning to the initial question. Does this support same-sex relationships or marriage in any way? The short answer is no. The passage actually affirms what the whole biblical narrative states from start to finish; sexual relationships are legitimate within heterosexual, monogamous, marriage (which should be loving and faithful). There is absolutely nothing in the passage about these eunuchs marrying and the church legitimating a same-sex union. There are just eunuchs in existence (literally castrated people or celibate people). Jesus does not go on to add anything about them forming sexual unions. In fact, it is a rather strange idea because a eunuch has no sexual organ and a celibate person is just that, celibate.

We should also note that the term porneia, used in v. 9, was at the time of Jesus, a general term for any sexual relationship outside such a marriage. Matthew uses it two other times. In Matthew 5:32, Jesus states that sexual immorality (porneia) is committed when a man looks with lust at a woman. It seems reasonable that the same would apply if a man looks at another man in such a way; or, if a woman looks at a man or woman with sexual desire. To do this is to commit adultery. Jesus is setting a high standard here for people of the Kingdom—they are to be self-controlled in terms of objectifying others sexually and engaging in sexual relationships, same-sex, or heterosexual. This would apply to eunuchs and those with genitals. We are to “cut off” lust at its source. Within a heterosexual marriage, sexual relationships are legitimate.

The other use is equally important, Matthew 15:19. Jesus is countering the idea that things people eat make a person unclean. Rather, what makes us unclean is the evil that comes from peoples’ hearts. He lists a range of such things: evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (porneia), theft, bearing false witness, and slander. They defile a person. The inclusion of sexual immorality here reinforces Matt 5:32 and anticipates Matt 19:9. Whether believers are orientated toward people of the same sex, are bi-sexual, or heterosexual, they are to grow in self-control in regards to the lusts of the heart. They are also to control their evil thoughts, their desire to harm others and kill them, any proneness to theft, bearing false witness, and slandering others. These are equally wrong.

So, there is nothing in this passage that can be used to support same-sex sexual relationships or marriages. In fact, to do so inverts aspects of the text including the endorsement of the biblical view on marriage (heterosexual, monogamous) and takes what Jesus clearly describes as evil (porneia, sexual immorality), and seeks to argue its acceptability. The reason this is not discussed in many commentaries as a possibility is that to read same-sex relationships or marriage into the text, violates its essence. To read into the text an endorsement of or a basis on which to argue for the legitimacy of same-sex relationships is to read into the text contemporary preference. To do so opens the way for reading all manner of contemporary predilections into Scripture. For those of us who believe that the Scriptures are the foundation of Christian theology and practice, this is to go beyond what is written (1 Cor 4:6).