Andrews University 

  Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Celibacy: A Forgotten Option, an Exploration of Matthew 19:10-12   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
A Paper   

Submitted to the Andrews University Seminary Studies

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
By:  
Jose N. Briones 
 February 21, 2019 
 
 
  
Introduction

In Matthew 19, at the end of the unit on the topic of divorce, the words of Jesus give the

reader a bit of a headache. He has been engaged in responding to the concerns and traps of the

Pharisees about Deuteronomic law versus the creation principles and ideals, when all of the

sudden, he replies to the unbelieving disciples about a different option of a lifestyle for those

who want to follow God. The disciples, showing their lack of faith and godliness, reply to Jesus’

standard of one lifelong partner saying, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not

to marry.”1 Jesus with poignant words replies, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but

only those to whom it is given.”

Textual Demarcation

The topic which I am devoting myself to in this paper is the idea of celibacy in Matthew

19. After commenting on the nature of forgiveness and the necessity of being humble towards

others, Jesus turns aside from Galilee and heads towards Judea, beyond the Jordan. During the

chapter, a reader can notice the Pharisees coming for yet another lesson from the Master, the

disciples showing their lack of faith and spiritual maturity, and a rich young man choosing to

retain his possessions, instead of gaining the salvation from the Lord. Yet out of all of the

sayings that Jesus utters throughout this chapter, the celibate, eunuchal call has been seen as a

puzzling response of Jesus to the disciples. I would like to propose that Jesus’ words are more

than needed today. In a society that, for multiple reasons, cannot keep the high standard of the

master and the ideals of marriage found in Genesis, the celibate lifestyle can prove to be a very

beneficial methodology in order to reach others, love your neighbor, and practice community in a

broken world.
1
Unless otherwise noticed, all Bible references are taken out of The Holy Bible: English Standard Version,
Containing the Old and New Testaments, ESV (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016).
 The text is not difficult to demarcate. There are three main units as a part of this literary

piece. These are: the divorce discussion, the children’s coming, and the rich rejection. While all

of these events seemingly occur around the same day, they happen to transpire in different

locations. Moreover, they are clearly separated by linguistic markers common to the book of

Matthew. A book entrenched in the parabolic themes, Matthew uses simple Greek markers to

delineate the different stories found in this chapter. The discussion is separated from the children

by the simple inclusion of the word τότε, a favorite of the Matthaean gospel with a usage of

about 90 times. Afterward, the writer enunciates that Jesus departs from the children and the

wealthy individual approaches him to have the final conversation of a chapter that cannot be

described otherwise, but Jesus shattering the commodity of the people who follow him, even His

dearest disciples. Having said that, I will focus on verses 10-12, which happen to be an internal

conversation between Jesus and His closest followers after the latest lesson of the Kingdom to

the Pharisees.

One last remark to be made about the passage is that there are no significant variances in

the textual rendering from manuscript evidence in this section.2 Two minor omissions may be

important to remark, however. One is found in verse 10, the word αὐτοῦ is not found in earlier

manuscripts. If one includes αὐτοῦ, the conversation is a direct discussion between the disciples

and Jesus, whereas the omission of the word makes their remark a comment into the larger

discussion between the Pharisees and Jesus. Either way, whether a direct reply to Jesus or a side-

comment into the larger discussion, the omission does not alter the meaning and purpose of

Jesus’ response. A similar omission is found in verse 11 with the word τοῦτον. This omission is

directly related to the previous one, but the manuscript evidence is not correlated. Only two

2
While some have doubted whether verse 12 is part of the equation, Thaddée Matura has defended the authenticity
of the verse in Thaddée Matura, "Le Celibat Dans Le Nouveau Testament," Nouvelle Revue Theologique 107
(1975): 481–500.
manuscripts (B, and e) have both omissions, whereas many other sources (C, D, K, L, N, etc.)

affirm the text without either of the deletions.

All in all, both omissions do not affect the meaning of the text, unless one takes the

response from Jesus as a response to the larger conversation on divorce and marriage, rather than

a comment on the nature of sexual possibilities for Christians and belonging within the

community of believers. This author takes the latter interpretation. Before explaining the

reasoning behind that, however, let us dive into the background of the time and conceptions

about celibacy and marriage in the Greek and Jewish mentality.

Historical Analysis

From a historical perspective, the larger discussion between Jesus and the Pharisees is

nothing new. The topic of divorce, remarriage, and sexual immorality were widely spoken in

Jewish circles with different schools applying the principles of the Deuteronomic law through

different interpretations. Some Jews adhered to Rabbi Shammai’s school of interpretation which

allowed divorce only for the matter of a spouse’s infidelity, a voice echoed by Jesus’ words in

the previous verses, while others subscribed to the school of Hillel, which allowed divorce on

more loose grounds, such as the proverbial burning of the toast.3 It is, therefore, peculiar that in

speaking about this matter, Jesus goes one step further and brings to the conversation a topic that

was not frequented among Jews during the time, the possibility of celibacy as a way to serve the

Kingdom. While the natural possibility of one’s genitalia being absent or not geared towards

procreation (i.e. barrenness) was understood in the Jewish mindset, the idea of castration or

suppression of one’s genitalia was a complicated and disrespectful position for the Pharisees to

adopt or give any serious consideration.

3
Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press,
2014), 93.
 One of the reasons that this position was disregarded among those who followed Jewish

norms was because of the Deuteronomic law given to Moses in regards to belonging to the

community of God and participating within the same.4 In Deuteronomy 23:1, Moses was given

instruction to proclaim that “No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off

shall enter the assembly of the Lord.” Jews, therefore, hearing the words of Jesus would be

totally shocked at the possibility of one becoming celibate or a eunuch for the sake of the

Kingdom.5 Another reason that the Jews were repulsed by this idea was that they believed in pro-

creation as a God-given command to be fulfilled by all people who were able to.6 Moreover, if

one failed to fulfill this command of multiplication, curses would fall upon them and dishonor

was brought upon that house. Jesus’ advocacy for singleness, then, becomes an act of defiance of

the Jews’ conception of who can belong to the community of God and who can participate in the

blessings that the Kingdom gives.

The majority of the Jews’ understanding in regards to celibacy seemed to not be

influenced by the Cynics of the time or the Epictetian ideals, who would have considered

marriage as a burden to escape from in order to acquire the blessings of lifestyle.7 However, the

Essenes, a Jewish sect, were in favour of eschewing marriage and focusing on the spiritual

blessings that could be brought from seeking God wholeheartedly.8 Another example of Jews

who desired the celibate lifestyle is the Therapeutae, named by Philo’s writings as such because

4
Ibid.

5
John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: Old
Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2012), 196.

6
Keener, 473.

7
Ibid.

8
Ibid.
“they profess a healing art better than that in the cities––for the latter cures bodies alone, but the

former also cures souls . . . or because they have been entrusted by nature and by the holy laws to

care for the Real.”9 This group of people advocated for self-restraint as a manner of edification,

purity, and for the purpose of looking a better life. However, these groups were a minority in the

wider Jewish practice of sexuality.

Therefore, one can see Jesus’ words as a conduit to reshape the conversation of divorce,

remarriage, and sexuality in all of its ambits. Jesus was hoping to defy the understandings of the

time regarding the topic of who could be divorced, remarried, or included within the community

of believers, and what is the purpose of sexuality as a whole within the Jewish context.

From the standpoint of the Gentiles, however, celibacy and abstinence from marriage

were regarded as a blessing. The Cynics, Stoics, and most of the schools of the philosophers

advocated for the suppression of desires for the sake of productivity and self-control, which is

embodied in the word ενκρατεια, self-mastery, for the purpose of αυταρκεια, self-

determination.10 While this was not the path for the regular man, it is a path that is encouraged

for a time in every individual whose goal is for the sake of loving wisdom, producing benefits for

society, and engaging with the world in a pure manner. Moreover, the Greeks also encountered

the theme of celibacy and its benefits from a cultic and god-like example. Athena, Artemis, and

Hesta, all goddesses of the Parthenon, were considered by some to abstain from sexual

relationships, although they were promoters of paternity, patriarchy, and reproduction. The tales

of the Attis myth, Danaides, and the Pythia are also examples of Greek’s regard to celibacy and

the conversation occurring at the time.11 The Romans also found a certain sense of identification
9
Vincent L. Wimbush, ed., Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook (Minneapolis: Fortress
Press, 1990), 134–155.

10
Carl Olson, Celibacy and Religious Traditions (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 23.

11
Ibid, 22.
with virgins and cultic practices. The Vestal Virgins and their practices were a symbolic

portrayal of the impenetrability, safety, and continuous ruling of the Roman empire. They were

considered so crucial to the point that the Romans believed that “one lapse by one Vestal was

sufficient to put the security of the state in jeopardy.”12

While one cannot ascertain that the Greeks, Romans, and other gentile communities

regarded celibacy as the only ideal, the conversation was plural in nature, which allowed for

different positions, motivations, and responses among those who were looking to be engaged in

the wider dialogue. It is, therefore, shocking, at least to the disciples and Pharisees, to see Jesus

siding with the gentile mindset and introduce terminology and acceptance of those who were not

contributing towards the multiplication of humanity and following the commands of God given

in the Torah.

Literary Analysis 

Having understood a bit of the background that Jesus encounters himself when it comes

to the understanding of marriage, divorce, and celibacy, His choice of words is, then, even more

puzzling. The language that Jesus uses in this passage is controversial at the very least, and as

mentioned above utterly defiant of the conceptions of the Jewish people as to who belongs as a

part of the community of believers. Jesus could have used the concept of αγαμος, which evokes

the idea of temporary abstinence and lack of reproduction, instead of recalling to the experience

and idea of the εὐνοῦχοι.

The eunuchs are usually conceived as castrated individuals who served in eastern courts,

such as the Babylonian and Persian examples found in the ‫כתבים‬. As described above, they were

exiled from the community of believers because of a Deuteronomic command. While there are

12
Ariadne Staples, From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman Religion (Routledge, 2014),
136.
examples of eunuchs mentioned in the Scriptures serving in the Jewish community, it is difficult

to assess whether they were Jews or not. A survey of the term ‫ סריס‬in the Hebrew Bible seems to

indicate that most of the instances the term is used, it either refers to the consequences of the

exile or regarding individuals who are not Jews serving in Israelite courts.13 As a result, the

inference is made that the practice of eunuchism was not favored among the Israelites, as a result

of the exclusion of those who lost their natural organs by means of castration.

It is, therefore, shocking that Jesus uses the terminology in order to create a safe space for

those individuals to be part of the community and as a response to the conversation on divorce

and remarriage. The textual link between eunuchs and the Kingdom would have been anathema.

Yet, Jesus chooses the words carefully in order to echo the prophet Isaiah and create a safe space

for all of those who want to be part of the community of believers.

As mentioned in the introduction, two other important literary features found in the

context of Jesus’ statement are in regards to the omission of αὐτοῦ in verse 10 and τοῦτον in

verse 11. The more relevant omission is in regards to τοῦτον, given that αὐτοῦ only separates the

interpretation of the text from a conversation that is private in nature to a public response from

the disciples’ statement. One can see that the omission of αὐτοῦ in order to signify a private

conversation is more plausible given the understanding of Jesus’ response as a whole. However,

the τοῦτον omission and its possible range of meanings if it was not omitted are even more

significant, given that it gives to completely different meanings to the words of Jesus, depending

on how one interprets the matter.

A common discussion among scholars is whether the inclusion of τοῦτον makes a

difference in the meaning of the clause and following statements. Most manuscripts have τοῦτον

13
F.P. Retief, J.F.G. Cilliers, and S.P.J.K. Riekert, "Eunuchs in the Bible," Acta Theologica Supplementum 26, no. 2
(2006): 250–251.
standing. However, only one of them is of earlier dating (Sinaiticus).14 Manuscripts that have the

omission are fewer in number but predate most of the addition of τοῦτον as a rendering of the

text. Therefore, τοῦτον may not have been there making the translation, “not many can receive

the word/saying”, rather than “this saying.” The exclusion of τοῦτον, moreover, makes the words

of Jesus harder to decipher. Is the saying/word referring to the conversation on divorce and

marriage, or is it part of the following response and addition of celibacy as a manner of

practicing and belonging to the Kingdom? Which saying is he referring to?

While the possibility for interpretation is strong for both options, the idea that the phrase

“not everyone can receive the saying” refers to the conversation on divorce and marriage, rather

than celibacy is problematic on two related counts. Firstly, it denies the high standard that Jesus

has just set for marriage, that one has grounds for divorce only on the cause of unfaithfulness.15

Secondly, it institutes that divorce is the standard for everyone and faithfulness can only be

accepted by those to whom it is given. This interpretation is in direct denial of inter-textual

evidence from other Gospel passages, the writings of St. Paul, and the Edenic ideal that He has

called for, and intra-textual evidence from His own teachings found in the Magna Carta

delivered by the sea, and his previous statement in this section. Moreover, it does not take into

account the links from surrounding verses.

The disciples’ comment in the previous verse, “it is better not to marry,” and the

explanatory γὰρ that follows in the next clause seem to be connectors to Jesus’ final comments

on the matter of divorce and marriage. His response cannot be taken to be anything but a public

one. He is satirically responding to the disciple’s comment of “it is better not to marry,” while at

the same time including the possibility of eunuchs in the Kingdom as a response to the Pharisees’

14
Barbara Aland and Holger Strutwolf, The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deustsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014).
15
Richard T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 1680.4–1681.9.
teaching of who can belong to the community of God. The satirical response gives the disciples

something to consider, rather than dismissing the standard of faithfulness. The inclusion of

eunuchs in the Kingdom, an echo of the book of Isaiah, allows for His consistency of restoration

to all people groups while on earth.

Another important literary inclusion in this passage is the idea of Eunuchs for the

Kingdom. Due to the nuances and implications, this topic necessitates its own section. That is the

next part of this exploration.

Three Kinds of Celibacy?

Jesus’ dictum includes three kinds of eunuchs that can be part of the community of

believers. The three types of eunuchs are: born that way, made by man, and for the Kingdom.

The eunuchs that were born with genital deficiencies or those who were made by man did not

posit a cognitive challenge to the hearing public. These were common words in the Rabbinic,

Jewish, and Greco-Roman writings to refer to these individuals. The linguistic designations for

these two categories were: ‫סריס אדמ‬, eunuchs made by man, and ‫סריס ה ּםא‬, eunuchs made by the

sun.

In the interpretative work of the Rabbis, one of them, ‫סריס ה ּםא‬, was able to be included in

the community, given that it was not castration at work, but congenital diseases of an

inexplicable sort. As aforementioned, ‫ סריס אדמ‬was excluded as a cause of the Deuteronomic

Law that impeded castrated males to belong to it. However, the puzzling inclusion of a new

category, “those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom”, leaves the

hearers of Jesus’ words dumbfounded.

Jesus speaks of a type of eunuch that could choose not only their sexual preference, but

also to be included in the community even if he had practice self-castration. While Jesus’ maxim
on this occasion are hyperbole, the truth of renunciation to the privileges of life for the sake of

the Kingdom is an idea that was not comfortable for anyone hearing this dictum. The theme of

this section can be interpreted in two ways. One is the specific view of eunuchism. This view

challenges the conception of marriage, inclusion, and belonging to the community of God, which

has been recurring in the analysis of this paper. Jesus’ main point for the specific view, as

mentioned throughout this paper, is to declare that eunuchs can belong to the Kingdom, an echo

of Isaiah. Moreover, He is making sure that the hearers of this dictum, the disciples, Pharisees,

and general people, understand that there is nothing separating anyone from the Kingdom, but

their own choice.

The second type of interpretation, the expansive view, invites the hearer to the

renunciation of all things for the sake of the Kingdom.16 This view takes our exegetical

understanding beyond the scope of the specific view, given that Jesus is challenging not only the

conceptions of the disciples and the Pharisees, but also their motivations.

A clear example, albeit anachronistic, is the Apostle Paul, who renounced to anything

that was not profitable for the sake of the Kingdom. However, in the life and ministry of Jesus,

one can find the general view to be a sequence of statements pronounced by Jesus. He is

continually calling people to renounce it all, in the same manner as those made themselves

eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. Although Jesus is not calling for self-castration in this

passage, He is inviting the hearer to imagine himself/herself renouncing to the privilege and duty

of procreation, as means to achieve a status of radical commitment to the cause of God. He is

making the individual understand, in a Bonhoefferian way, what discipleship is all about.

16
An excellent case for the expansive view is made by Rev. A.E. Harvey in his lecture at the University of London.
For a comprehensive reading, see A. E. Harvey, Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom: The Ethel M. Wood Lecture,
15 March 1995 (London: University of London, 1995),10–28.
 Throughout His ministry, Jesus makes this same call of renunciation in other manners,

the third category is just a natural outflow of the conversation between the Pharisees, disciples,

and Himself. The intra-textual evidence points towards Jesus calling people to renounce their

possessions (Mt. 19:19-26), emotional attachment to the deceased (Mt. 8:21-22), commodities

and luxuries of the home life (Mt. 8:19-20) and even oneself (Mt. 16:24). Therefore, the imagery

of self-castration, a common feature of pagan priests of the goddess Cybele, is a general

observation that Jesus gives to the disciples as to what is the cost of discipleship. In Jesus’

response, one can see a rebuke, an invitation, and a satirical comment to make the disciples

understand that the Kingdom of God has seemingly impossible standards that can only be

achieved, through Christ, when one commits all of oneself to Him to His cause.

Theological Analysis 

The theological ramifications of Jesus’ words are no less impressive than His word usage.

His saying contains a radical transformation around the themes of inclusion, faithfulness, and

sexuality. This threefold theological derivation can impact the believers’ life and her/his

perception of God and His Kingdom.

First, the theology of inclusion during this passage signals a primacy of acceptance for

non-Jewish people groups and those sexually oppressed. This is a departure from the Torahic

misrepresentation from the Pharisees and a full acceptance of the Prophetic writings of the Old

Testament under Isaiah, Jeremiah, Zachariah, and Malachi. Jesus calls for a higher degree of

acceptance by echoing the voices of those whom Jewish leadership had rejected before His

coming to the earth. Moreover, he ratifies a proper understanding of the Deuteronomic Law that

cares for those who are not like the Jews in either national or sexual respects.
 The second theological theme under this passage cements the idea of faithfulness around

the marriage covenant. Jesus’ reply to the disciples is a continuation of the theme of fidelity

found in His previous response to the Pharisees’ questioning on divorce. He makes it concrete

that faithfulness to one’s spouse is required to those who have partaken of the covenant. Jesus

clarifies the ideal and does not give loose ground for the disciples or those surrounding Him to

misunderstand the standard that God has set for His people. He goes further by promoting a way

for those who have been wronged to enter into the Kingdom, while staying faithful, and dedicate

their service and adoration to the purposes of the Almighty.

The final theological ramification comes into the theme of sexuality. Jesus opens the way

for those who do not want to engage in the practices of marriage to enter into the Kingdom of

God. He, moreover, concretizes that it is possible to choose a non-normative sexual style of

living and remain pure for God. Jesus expands the hearer’s minds from the procreation-only

mantra of interpretation from the Torahic commands to accept a more expansive view of

sexuality that honors God and serves His Kingdom. He enmeshes the theme of faithfulness while

opening up new ways of serving God for those who cannot conceive or do not desire to do so.

Commentary Engagement  

A major portion of the commentary discussion centers around the meaning of τὸν λόγον

τοῦτον and what is referring to.17 As the manuscript evidence stands, neither τοῦτον nor αὐτοῦ

17
P. Bonnard, L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu, 2nd ed, (Neuchate: Delaxhaux & Niestle, 1970), 284; R. H.
Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982),
383; Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium Nach Matthaus (Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag GmbH, 1989), 392; D. R. A.
Hare, Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 223 approve of τὸν λόγον τοῦτον referring to the
marriage conversation with the pharisees, while J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 1 (London:
Forgotten Books, 2012), 233; W. C. Allen, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S.
Matthew, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1912), 206; H. B. Green, The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised
Standard Version (New Testament) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979), 169; W.D. Davies, and D. C. Allison, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 150;
D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in F. E. Gaebelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8 (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1995), 419, Keener, A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005)
1171.2/310; and C. H. Turner in D. E. Nineham, The Gospel of Mark (London: Penguin Books, 1992), 463 side with
should be included in the passage. This approach makes the admonition a more expansive

conversation and clarifies the purpose of the word, that only some can receive, while at the same

time introducing a new theme. Jesus is addressing the previous marriage question by showing the

need for loyalty to God’s commands, providing justice by expanding the inclusion of others to

the community of believers, and welcoming a new option for living in the world as a follower of

God, celibacy.

Following the linguistic pattern from what is τὸν λόγον τοῦτον referring to, another

feature of interpretation among many commentaries is whether the section as a whole refers for

singleness as the eunuch’s call to individuals who are single, divorced, or castrated.18 The way of

interpretation hinges on where one stands on the τὸν λόγον τοῦτον. If one takes the statement to

be a reference backwards, this statement is an application to those who are divorced. However,

this position would have to override the disciples questioning as well as provisions for

remarriage based on Matthew’s rendition of Jesus’ only Sermon in chapter 5. Moreover,

accounting for the general conversation and the theological themes of the book of Matthew and

Jesus’ ministry, it seems to this author that this passage is more applicable to the ideas of

inclusion, restoration, and defiance that Jesus portrays in other passages. While this passage can

apply to those who have been divorced, it is not a compulsory measure.

Although not found in many academic commentaries, a final item of conversation among

some commentators and literature on the topic of this Matthean passage is to determine whether

the celibate position.

18
See Jacques Dupont, Mariage Et Divorce Dans L'Evangile: Matthieu 19, 3-12 Et Paralleles (Abbaye De Saint-
Andre: Desclee De Brouwer, 1959), 161–222, and Francis J. Moloney, "Matthew 19,3-12 and Celibacy: a
Redactional and Form Critical Study," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1, no. 2 (1979): 42–60, who take
Jesus’ provision to refer back to the Pharisee’s discussion asserting that the text is a compulsory measure for those
who have been castrated and divorced as well as for those who take it upon themselves. Carson, Keener, Davies, and
Turner espouse the passage to be only for those to whom the gift has been given and for it not to be taken literally.
the celibate passage extends in application to those who have non-normative sexual preferences,

namely individuals that identify with homosexuality, bisexuality, lesbianism, or

transgenderism.19 The majority of academic commentators do not engage in this conversation,

given that the data does not sufficiently show a correlation between this passage and the overall

theme of homosexuality in the Scriptures.

John McNeil, a priest and prominent supporter of Queer Theology, has tried to defend a

position based on the Talmudic writings that correlate eunuchs with certain characteristics akin

to those who identify as being homosexual.20 These links are made out to be on the loosely

related grounds of interpreting the ‫ סריס ה ּםא‬as homosexuals and using Greco-Roman literature as

the basis for ratifying the understanding of eunuchs as homosexuals in Jesus’ time.21 This data,

however, is challenged on multiple counts. First, it requires a work of interpretation and

translation to be ratified. It requires a careful reading of the custom of slavery and linguistic

equivalencies between Latin, English, Greek, and Hebrew. Second, it lacks the medical data and

understanding of homosexuality before the 1st Century.22 Finally, it necessitates a denial of the

conversation of marriage and divorce that Jesus has just exposed to the Pharisees in which he

affirms the primacy of marriage for man and woman.

Hermeneutical Stand 

19
See Frederick D. Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, Vol. 2 (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990), 940.4–943.1,
where he discusses it in short in order to show that there must be acceptance of non-normative individuals as they
are. John McNeil takes more work and discussion of those passages in his The Church and The Homosexual
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1993).

20
Isidore Epstein, ed. The Babylonian Talmud, trans. Israel W. Slotki (London: Soncino, 1978) 3302–3308.

21
The Digest of Justinian, Vol. IV: Book 50, trans. Alan Watson, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1998), 144–146. It is important to note that this would be an anachronistic reading and not part of the literature of
Jesus’ time.

22
A helpful medical understanding and pseudo-ratification of Rabbi Eleazar’s position on the Eunuchs impotency
can be found in Julian H. Barth and Moshe Zemer, The Congenital Eunuch: A Medical Halachic Study.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Eunuch.pdf
 The church, in its post-reformation state, has fallen in love with marriage and procreation

as the primary way of living, a probable overcorrection to the exaggerated stance of celibacy and

ascetic lifestyle as a higher ideal for all. It is evident in the parishioners’ comments to young

unmarried individuals, the informational magazines’ ideas of sexuality, and the sermons about

marriage as the primacy of the human experience. While that is one of the plans of God, the

church has forgotten that Jesus opened a different way to those who have the gift, and

discovering the parameters of that gift has become increasingly harder.

As a general rule of living, it is important to keep balance in all things when approaching

topics of morality, responsibility, and choice. Therefore, re-teaching the value of celibacy is an

imperative conversation that the church must have in the 21st Century. The themes of

faithfulness, inclusion, and sexuality from the Matthean passage may be able to transform the

body of Christ’s understanding of who belongs in the Kingdom. Moreover, it may prove to be an

advantageous conversation to navigate through the challenges of sexual licentiousness after the

sexual revolution of the 20th Century, institutional and personal moral failures from leadership,

and other social exclusions that are part of the fabric of the church from both its institutional and

personal perspectives.

While the sexual behaviors of the Christian church in its totality leave much to be

desired, the church can regain a gift from God through the celibate conversation. It can lead

towards the analysis of infant’s abuse from “celibate” clerics, who may not have had the gift, to

understand the lack of fidelity in the multiple affairs in marital relationships. The church may

engage with the Matthean passage in order to regain the lost themes of Jesus’ teachings and His

calling to faithfulness and consecration to the Kingdom of God. Encircling people around this

conversation and making them understand the value of faithfulness and inclusion may prove to
be a cure to the perils that surround the church in the sexual arena. Moreover, it may allow young

professionals to not feel the need to commit their lives to the married lifestyle and find happiness

in their time of singleness.

It is compulsory, at least for this author, to address one of the issues surrounding the

conversation of celibacy, clerical abuses towards children and women. The reports of abuse are

more than clear23, yet the stem of the problem is not being addressed. Churches who practice

obligatory celibacy for their clerics misunderstand the call of Jesus completely. Jesus’ words are

clear: “Not everyone can receive the word, but only those to whom it is given.”24 The Messiah

made it plain, only those to whom the gift is given, a passive voice in order to reflect the nature

of the calling to celibacy, possess the right tools to live the celibate lifestyle and serve the

Kingdom. Paul, moreover, in writing to the Corinthian Church counsels for people to be as he is,

unless they are unable. Paul had received a call to serve the Lord with a renunciation to all

things. While his desire is for everyone to follow the same path, Paul introduces the

consideration of marriage as an option to not burn with desire and perpetrate unfaithfulness

against the Lord.

It is evident that forced celibacy is not a proper understanding of the calling that God

gives to some. It cannot produce any positive outcome, but rather it suppresses a healthy

expression of sexuality and love for others. Therefore, the church must navigate through the

passage in question, discuss it, and find ways to discover the gift of God to those who can

receive it, while at the same time healing those who have been damaged by the institutional

practice of forced celibacy.

23
Among other resources, see Laurie Goodstein, “The Overlooked Scandal of Priests Sexually Abusing Nuns”. The
Daily, Podcast audio, February 7, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/column/the-daily, Elizabeth Abbott, A History of
Celibacy (New York: Scribner, 2000), and Grâce à Dieu Directed by Francois Ozon (Paris: Mars Distribution,
2019), DVD.

24
Original translation to reflect the exclusion of τοῦτον.
 One last application that needs to be taken into consideration is the practice of celibacy as

a form of faithfulness. While some are called to this lifestyle, others may see it as a way to

remain faithful to God and use their lives for the service of God. However, this must be done as a

choice. In the mind of the author are those who may not identify with normative gender

pronouns, sexual preferences, or those who have been abused by their spouses either physically,

emotionally, or sexually. These individuals can open their hearts towards the possibility of

celibacy as a way of faithfulness to God, a freedom to serve God, and be fulfilled with the author

and perfecter of our faith. This, again, must be done through a long process of discussion,

understanding, and the enacting of a choice, not through compulsory means.

Conclusion 

The passage on celibacy teaches the church to include others, remain faithful to God’s

commands, and open new ways of living. Jesus offers freedom and balance to those who are

seeking it. He provides a new path, a third way for the disenfranchised to engage in Kingdom

work and dedicate themselves to Him. Jesus, moreover, teaches us that we should not dismiss

His claims, but remain loyal to them. He has shown this to the Pharisees and the unbelieving

disciples.

When it comes to the expansive conversation the church must have regarding this topic,

Frederick Bruner puts it best on his commentary on this passage. He says, “Jesus frees people in

two directions. Against the Serious Pharisees (and most Protestant tendencies), Jesus honors

celibacy... Against the Rigorous Essenes (and official Catholic teaching on the ministry), Jesus

has just honored marriage incomparably... The church should have the balance of her Lord.”25

25
Frederick D. Bruner, The Churchbook: Matthew 13-28, Vol. 2 (Dallas: Word Publishers, 1990), ePub, 936.5.
 Bibliography 

Abbott, Elizabeth. 2000. A History of Celibacy. New York: Scribner Press.

Aland, Barbara, and Holger Strutwolf. 2014. The Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Deustsche
Bibelgesellschaft.

Allen, W.C. 1912. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S.
Matthew, 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.

Barth, Julian H., and Moshe Zemer. The Congenital Eunuch: A Medical Halachic Study.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Eunuch.pdf

Bengel, J.A. 2012. Gnomon of the New Testament, Vol. 1. London: Forgotten Books.

Bonnard, P. 1970. L’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu. 2nd ed. Neuchatel: Delaxhaux & Niestle.

Bruner, Frederick Dale. 1990. Matthew 2, 2. Dallas: Word Publishers.

Davies, W.D., and D.C. Allison. 1997. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
according to Saint Matthew. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Dupont, Jacques. 1959. Mariage Et Divorce Dans L'Evangile: Matthieu 19, 3-12 Et Paralleles.
Abbaye De Saint-Andre: Desclee De Brouwer.

Epstein, Isidore, ed. 1978. The Babylonian Talmud. Translated by Israel W. Slotki. London:
Soncino.

France, Richard T. 2007. The Gospel of Matthew, NICNT. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Gaebelein, F. E., ed. 1995. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. Vol. 8. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan.

Grâce à Dieu. DVD. Directed by Francois Ozon. Paris: Mars Distribution, 2019.

Green, H.B. 1979. The Gospel According to Matthew in the Revised Standard Version (New
Testament). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goldstein, Laurie. “The Overlooked Scandal of Priests Sexually Abusing Nuns.” The Daily.
Podcast audio. February 7, 2019.

Gundry, R. H. 1982. Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art. 2nd ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Hare, D.R.A. 1993. Matthew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harvey, A. E. 1995. Eunuchs for the Sake of the Kingdom: The Ethel M. Wood Lecture, 15
March 1995. London: University of London.

Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Bibles.

John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas. 2012. The IVP Bible Background
Commentary: Old Testament. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press.

Justinian. The Digest of Justinian, Vol. IV: Book 50. Translated by Alan Watson. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998.

Keener, Craig S. 2014. The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament. Downers

Grove: InterVarsity Press.

_________ 2005. A commentary on the Gospel of Matthew. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Matura, Thaddée. "Le Celibat Dans Le Nouveau Testament." Nouvelle Revue Theologique 107
(1975): 481–500.

Moloney, Francis J. "Matthew 19,3-12 and Celibacy: a Redactional and Form Critical
Study," Journal for the Study of the New Testament 1, no. 2 (1979): 42–60.

Nineham, D. E. 1992. The Gospel of St. Mark. London: Penguin Books.

Olson, Carl. 2008. Celibacy and Religious Traditions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Retief, F.P., J.F.G. Cilliers, and S.P.J.K. Riekert. "Eunuchs in the Bible." Acta Theologica
Supplementum 26, no. 2 (2006): 250–251.

Sand, Alexander. 1989. Das Evangelium Nach Matthaus. Leipzig: St. Benno-Verlag GmbH.

Staples, Ariadne. 2014. From Good Goddess to Vestal Virgins: Sex and Category in Roman
Religion. Routledge.

Wimbush, Vincent L, ed. 1990. Ascetic Behavior in Greco-Roman Antiquity: A Sourcebook.

Minneapolis: Fortress Press.