One of the weirdest, least-discussed, and, shall I say, queerest parts of the canonized gospels is Matthew 19:12. This passage is unique to Matthew and aligns queerly enough with other uniquely Matthean elements. The context of the verse is a “controversy dialogue.” Controversy dialogues are places where Jesus verbally spars with an opponent, nearly always a Pharisee in Matthew; though regularly a scribe in Mark. In this case some Pharisees ask Jesus if it is permitted for a man to divorce his wife for any cause (Matt. 19:2-9). Jesus responds using the creation stories, combining the priestly creation of Genesis 1 with the Eden story of Genesis 2-3: first he cites that God “made them male and female” (Gen. 1:27) and then combines it with the verse that says, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2:24). Because the two are now one, they are joined and should not be separated. The Pharisees asked why Moses permitted divorce (Deut. 24:1-4), and Jesus retorts that it was due to being hard-hearted. Ultimately Jesus gives one reason for divorce: for unchastity, but no other reason is permitted.
Jesus makes some interesting and, in one case, confusing rhetorical moves here. Firstly, he combines Genesis 1:27 and 2:24, and, by doing so, suggests sex differentiation exists for the purpose of marriage and “becoming one flesh.” Without sexual differentiation, no need for marriage; without marriage, no need for sexual differentiation. In Jesus’ reasoning, it would seem that divorce would be an impossibility. So the fact that he gives an out – a restricted out, but an out – seems inconsistent (Mark’s version, for example, gives no out in Mark 10:1-12).
The disciples, though, do not like Jesus’ response. They basically say: if I can’t divorce, then why would I ever bother to get married at all? (Matt. 19:10). Then Jesus’ response is so striking that it makes most readers uncomfortable, well, most cis male readers: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs whom have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can” (Matt. 19:11-12).
Most people think of eunuchs as someone who was born with male genitalia and whose genitals have been surgically removed, usually just the testes. Jesus’ understanding of eunuchs is a bit broader than that. Let’s start with the second group: eunuchs who were made eunuchs by others. This is what a typical ancient person would have thought of as a eunuch: someone who does not have autonomy, but who has been castrated by someone else for that other person’s purposes. While ancient texts often used the masculine pronoun for such folks, texts usually spoke of such people as in between male and female, or having been “unmanned” and, therefore, never become men (if become eunuchs before puberty) or are no longer men (if made eunuchs after puberty). A key example of this would be the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:27-40, who, as a gender outsider and a geographical outsider, becomes a very early convert to the Jesus movement (cf. Isaiah 56:3-8).
What about those who are born eunuchs? Such a figure is not most people’s usual understanding of a eunuch, but we do find other ancient sources that speak of people who were “born this way” (Strassfeld, Trans Talmud). Ancient gender categories do not always align with modern categories, but it may include those who had no “opposite-sex” desire, those who did not conform to gender expectations such as modern trans folks, or it could refer to those whose sex characteristics were otherwise ambiguous since birth (what today we would call intersex). The point is: even after quoting Genesis 1:27 that God made them male and female, Jesus quickly starts thinking of those who are beyond male and female (as I would argue is actually inherent in the Genesis 1 story itself).
Finally, there are those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Most modern scholars, having intense discomfort with this verse, take it metaphorically or as hyperbole for celibacy – we are talking about marriage and avoiding marriage right? Phew, we have nothing to worry about. But Jesus speaks of marriage in terms of a sex binary, then speaks of avoiding marriage by speaking of those who do not fit the sex binary. Some are born with it and, therefore, are free not to marry; others have it forced upon them and, therefore, do not marry; then some undertake it freely so they are free not to marry. The first two were literal; why not the third?
Let’s look back to the Sermon on the Mount: speaking of adultery (remember the one thing that Jesus allows for a divorce), Jesus says: “if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell” (Matthew 5:29-30). We do have documents from that era (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) that speak of a “foot” and a “hand” as euphemisms for the penis. Could Jesus be hinting already in the Sermon on the Mount: just cut it off and move on with your life so you don’t go to hell? Considering that the context is adultery, the idea of cutting off one’s penis to prevent one from sinning is consistent. Having already read this in Matthew 5, then by the time one gets to Matthew 19, it seems that, yes, Jesus is endorsing one willingly altering one’s genitals for the sake of the kingdom, to opt out of the gender binary and any social obligations connected to that gender binary so that one can focus on the kingdom.
In short, Jesus recognizes people beyond the gender binary. Jesus recognizes social obligations that intersect with the gender binary, but he resists those social obligations by speaking of those beyond the gender binary itself: likely what we would today call intersex folks, but also those who willingly undergo bottom surgery. Such people are ideal seekers of the kingdom. Since Jesus seems to idealize such eunuchs, it makes me wonder: did he belong to one of these categories?
Jaeda Rising & Reborn: Ancient Jewish & Christian Crossings & Transitions 