NEW TESTAMENT CONTEXTUAL COMMENTARY

by Dr. Robert R. Seyda

GOSPEL OF MATTHEW

CHAPTER NINETEEN

Part IV

Years ago I spoke to a minister who married a divorcée before he was converted and called to the ministry. When he applied for ordination in a Pentecostal denomination he was told he had to divorce his wife because her husband was still living, and she had not divorced him on grounds of adultery. So he made the agonizing choice to annul the marriage of the woman he loved so much and had remained single ever since. To me, this was a complete travesty of his right to marry her and made a farce of Jesus teaching. However, some say once the person is regenerated and such a divorce takes place for the very same reasons, then the individual is held to a different set of rules as a child of God. But this dialogue by Jesus with the Pharisees took place before our Lord was slain as the Lamb of God. Therefore, we must look at its application both to the Jewish faith and the Christian faith, as well as before and after being born again.

Would such an examination of Scripture encourage divorce among believers? No! As Jesus said, Moses instituted it and God acquiesced to it because of man’s hardheadedness and hardheartedness. Should we condemn a believer who gets divorced because of physical cruelty, abandonment, incompatibility, or irreconcilable differences? No! Having married the wrong person in haste or out of ignorance may eventually lead to such a necessity. I believe our Lord was trying to emphasize that divorce hurts both parties, and is especially tragic for any children involved. Therefore, it should be entered into only as a last resort. But most certainly, should never be misused for personal gain or convenience.

In this part of Jesus’ dialogue, He is not as stringent about what role a person finds themselves in as a result of their birth, or as a consequence of their own choosing. The Hebrew word cariyc for “eunuch”is first used when Joseph was sold by the Midianites to a eunuch named Potiphar in Egypt who worked for Pharaoh and was captain of the guard.¹ One Jewish translator named Potiphar: “Pharaoh’s courtier, the high chamberlain.”² He says that the Hebrew word here is translated as “Eunuch,” based on context. Therefore, this context points to Potiphar being a court official. Also, the term “chamberlain,” can have alternate meanings in the Hebrew, either involving slaughtering or cooking, that’s why in some English translations he is called “chief executioner” and in others “chief steward.”³ However, since Potiphar was married, it appears that this use of the Hebrew word indicated his being an upper official in Pharaoh’s court.

It’s only in the story of Esther were we find it used to designate an official of the court who was purposely castrated because they were in charge of the king’s harem.⁴ It would have been nice if James Strong in his Bible concordance could have distinguished between the two uses. However, Joseph Henry Thayer in his Lexicon does a good job of pointing out the different usages of the Hebrew.⁵ But in this context of our Lord’s teaching, it is clear that He means a male who is born sterile, or chooses to be sterile through castration.

We find that the Rabbis, in discussing this subject, called such an individual as someone who was emasculated.⁶ They also mention that it could be caused by being so from birth, or the accidental crushing of one’s testicles, or castration.⁷ Even an esteemed Jewish philosopher made this statement: “It is better to be made an eunuch than to be hurried into wickedness by the fury of the illicit passions: for all these things, as they overwhelm the soul in harmful calamities, are deservedly followed by extreme punishments.”⁸ Perhaps for this reason, Philo admired the sect call the “Therapeutae.” They had a commune near Alexandria in Egypt, and were much like the Essenes in Israel. But keeping oneself chaste through such surgery was not only expected of men, but women as well.

Jewish philosopher Philo points to some differences: “The women…the greater part of whom, though old, are virgins in respect of their purity (not indeed through necessity, as some of the priestesses among the Greeks are, who have been compelled to preserve their chastity more than they would have done of their own accord), but out of an admiration for and love of wisdom, with which they are desirous to pass their lives, on account of which they are indifferent to the pleasures of the body, desiring not a mortal but an immortal offspring, which the soul that is attached to God is alone able to produce by itself and from itself, the Father having sown in it rays of light appreciable only by the intellect, by means of which it will be able to perceive the doctrines of wisdom.”⁹

So, Jesus was not introducing some forbidden subject but was simply applying the possibility of marriage to different circumstances in response to His disciples’ question of whether or not marriage should even be considered if one wanted to remain pure for the Kingdom of Heaven, thereby not having to face the possibility of divorce. In reference to men choosing to remaining celebrate, Jesus does not imply that they must undergo castration. However, some early saints were so committed to remaining pure in order to serve the Lord, that they chose physical surgery rather than simply taking an oath of celibacy. We read the story of one of them as follows:

At this time, while Origen was conducting catechism instruction at Alexandria, a deed was done by him which evidenced an immature and youthful mind, but at the same time gave the highest proof of faith and continence. For he took the words, “There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake,”¹⁰ in a too literal and extreme a sense. And in order to fulfill the Savior’s word, and at the same time to take away from the unbelievers all opportunity for scandal – for, although young, he met for the study of divine things with women as well as men – he carried out in action the words of the Savior. He thought that this would not be known by many of his acquaintances. But it was impossible for him, though desiring to do so, to keep such an action secret. When Demetrius, who presided over that parish, at last learned of this, he admired greatly the daring nature of the act, and as he perceived his zeal and the genuineness of his faith, he immediately exhorted him to courage, and urged him the more to continue his work of catechism instruction. Such was he at that time. But soon afterward, seeing that he was prospering, and becoming great and distinguished among all men, the same Demetrius, overcome by human weakness, wrote of his deed as most foolish to the bishops throughout the world. But the bishops of Cesarea and Jerusalem, who were especially notable and distinguished among the bishops of Palestine, considering Origen worthy in the highest degree of the honor, ordained him a presbyter. There upon his fame increased greatly, and his name became renowned everywhere, and he obtained no small reputation for virtue and wisdom. But Demetrius, having nothing else that he could say against him, save this deed of his boyhood, accused him bitterly, and dared to include with him in these accusations those who had raised him to the presbytery. These things, however, took place a little later. But at this time Origen continued fearlessly the instruction in divine things at Alexandria by day and night to all who came to him; devoting his entire leisure without cessation to divine studies and to his pupils.”¹¹

The subject being written about here is Origen’s self-castration as a young man to show his complete concentration to God and His Word. Some scholars believe it was a bogus story invented by Demetrius out of jealousy because of Origen’s growing popularity and ascension as an admired scholar. In any case, Origen himself makes a comment on this subject of physical eunuchization, which gives strong evidence that Origen would never have committed such an act of self-mutilation for purity’s sake:

Before we present the interpretation that seems true to us, we would like to present two possible false interpretations of this verse and to refute them as far as we are able; insofar as we have grasped the true intent of this passage, while guarding against any mistakes in what we have to say, we ought to arrive in this way at an improvement of life; this is how we intend to approach the present text. For many have believed that, as a result of the two physical eunuchizations, the third eunuchization must also be physical, and have dared to eunuchize themselves, in analogy to the first eunuchizations, out of a fear of God, to be sure, but nonetheless mistakenly, and have drawn reproach, and perhaps even scandal, upon themselves, not only among them who stand apart from the faith, but also among them who can understand any human action better than those [actions] that produce suffering and physical mutilation (out of an imagined fear of God or excessive love of abstinence) or better than that person who, no matter what else he may undergo, submits himself to such an action. The others, however, and there are not many of them, have understood the text as follows, because they have not examined the sequence of the words: They assumed that the Savior also self-evidently meant the first two eunuchizations in a physical sense, as if He were not hinting at something beyond the sensual; but, they said, the third was no longer meant literally, but rather they felt that the third phrase described eunuchization by the Word, namely, when in view of the kingdom of heaven one has cut out this type of lustfulness by means of the sharp-cutting Word and thus has scorned the haughtiness of the body so that it can no longer defeat a soul that has cut out lust by the Word.

Verse 12b: “And others have given up marriage because of God’s kingdom. Celibacy is only for those who are willing to accept it.”

This is perhaps the hardest choice to maintain. But it is wise that our Lord put a qualifier at the end to show that if it is a person’s decision, then they are responsible for holding out against all temptations. This became a sensitive subject in the early church that led to many interpretations and resulted in the teaching of celibacy for the priesthood.

Jerome, for instance, has this to say: “There are three kinds of eunuchs, two carnal and the third spiritual. One group are those who are born this way. Another are those who are made into eunuchs by captivity or for pleasuring older women. The third are those who ‘have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’ and who become eunuchs for Christ though they could be whole men. The last group are promised the reward. The other two, for whom chastity is not a matter of willing but necessity, are due nothing at all. We can put it another way. There are eunuchs from birth who are of a rather frigid nature and not inclined to lust. There are others who are made eunuchs by men, those who are made so by philosophers, others who are made weak toward sex from their worship of idols, and still others who by heretical persuasion pretend chastity so as to falsely claim the truth of religion. None of the above is receptive to the kingdom of heaven. Only the person who for Christ seeks chastity wholeheartedly and cuts off sexual impurity altogether [is the genuine eunuch]…Chastity in itself is agreeable and alluring; but one must look to one’s strength so that ‘he who is able to receive this may receive it.’ It is as if the Lord with His words were urging on His soldiers to the reward of chastity with these words: He who is able to receive this let him receive it; he who is able to fight, let him fight and conquer.”¹²

Another early church writer offers this: “As if someone should say, ‘What are you saying, Lord? If for whatever reason a man happened not to have a wife, will he receive the reward of chastity?’ Not always. For just as without will an action cannot cause sin, so justice is not achieved merely by the action unless there is the will. For many try to be chaste in body but commit adultery in their will. If fornication were not committed through the will alone, the Lord never would have said, ‘Everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.’ Therefore the will frequently sins without action. The continence that brings glory is not the continence that a weakness in our bodies compels us to keep; rather it is the one which we embrace with the will of our holy intention. Therefore He says, ‘There are eunuchs who have been so from birth; there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men.’ These are kept chaste by necessity, but the third group, those ‘who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,’ are crowned by their willing it.”¹³

So it is that the debate on divorce and remarriage has continued down through the ages. It is now more of the norm in our society than it was just 100 years ago. One major reason for this is because the whole concept and definition of marriage has changed. Many couples are living together today and even raising a family because they do not want to deal with the legal ramifications of divorce, but also because of the bias against married couples in taxation. But since all marriages come to an end in death, and there will be no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven after the resurrection, then it becomes strictly an earthly matter to be dealt with through the grace, mercy, and forgiveness of God through Christ. For God looks at the intent of the heart. Therefore, He cannot be fooled by a person’s verbal expressions of cause or reason.

1 Genesis 37:36

2 Robert Alter, op. cit., p. 216

3 Ibid., Footnote (36), p. 216

4 Esther 1:12

5 Cf. Isaiah 56:3,4; Esther 1:10, 15; 2:3, 14, 15; 4:5; Daniel 1:3

6 Babylonian Talmud, op. cit. Seder Nashim, Masekhet Yebamoth, folio 75a

7 Ibid., folio 75b

8 Philo of Alexandria, Volume 2, A Treatise on the Principle that the Worse is Accustomed to Always Plotting Against the Better, Chapter 48 (176)

9 Ibid., On the Contemplative Life, Volume 9, Chapter 8 (68), pp. 104-108

10 Matthew 19:12

11 Eusebius, History of the Church, Bk. VI, Ch. VIII

12 Jerome: Commentary on Matthew, Vol. 3, 19:12

13 Incomplete Work on Matthew, Homily 32