Of Eunuchs and predators: Matthew 19:1-12 in a cultural context - Critical Essay

We have seen that if a male did not comply with the normal behavioral patterns generally expected from a male "as God wills" (general code), he could be denied those physical organs (by symbolic castration) in which his virility presumably lies. I believe that the saying about the eunuch has to be interpreted from this point of view. If a husband were to treat his wife in the way Jesus proposed, establishing a relationship of reciprocity, mutual loyalty and non-dominance, this would surely raise doubts about his virility and cause a loss of honor, It should be remembered that eunuchs were without honor. They could not challenge other men, and they did not pose a threat to women. They did not have an aggressive of assertive attitude towards them either. They moved around within their own environment and were likened to women.

In the argument that Jesus has with the Pharisees here, Barton (194) discovers an echo of the antitheses in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:22, 28, 32, 39, 44). In these passages, Neyrey too believes Jesus asks his disciples to relinquish certain behaviors and interactions used to gain honor in the eyes of others. If they did adopt Jesus' views, they would certainly be expelled from their families with a consequent loss of honor and means of subsistence. He did the same in Matthew 6:1-18, where he asks his disciples to carry out works of mercy (prayer, fasting, altos) away from the public gaze. In the face of the social dishonor and stigmatization such behavior entailed, Jesus promised them an increase in honor in the eyes of their heavenly Father (Neyrey: 214-16).

This being the case, Jesus' request of his disciples to adopt an alternative view of marital relations, one which differed from the traditional patriarchal household ("deviating" from social norms), would have ramifications that affect relations with other men as well, It would entail giving up customary interactions of honor, giving up the locales where such interactions took place, and avoiding many of the behavioral patterns needed to achieve honor. All of this represents a stigma, with doubts about a male's virility stemming from the general code of masculinity. As a consequence, it would be no surprise if disciples were called "eunuchs," if, that is, their masculinity was impugned and was symbolically and socially denied to them. However, this was not because they refused to take a wife--nobody called Qumran's men eunuchs, nor were they stigmatized. It was because, at the request of Jesus, they established another kind of marital relationship, one that formed part of this alternative and "shameful" (in the eyes of other men) line of conduct and underlying attitude. Accepting the values befitting the forthcoming Kingdom and the type of relations they entailed meant that, though stigmatized by others, yet they were honored in the eyes of God.

Works Cited

Barton, S. 1994. Discipleship and Family Ties in Mark and Matthew. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.