This brings us to Jesus, enigmatic saying about the so-called
"eunuch" (Mt. 19:12), an expression which has at least two
historically attested levels of meaning.
1-To begin with, if we carefully read the entire pericope in which
this passage is found, it will immediately be seen that Jesus is not praising celibacy
at all, but is reiterating his commandment not to remarry after a
divorce:
Whosoever shall put away his wife...and shall marry another,
committeth adultery...All men cannot receive this statement, save they to whom
it is given...
Yet there are some who have "received this statement"
and have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven’s sake. He
that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Mt. 19:9-12). (This is also the
interpretation given by Quentin Quesnell, ",Made Themselves Eunuchs for
the Kingdom of Heaven’s Sake,," 354.)
Clearly, the "eunuch" to whom Jesus refers here is one
who refuses to remarry after divorcing a spouse. This is in fact the
same explanation which Paul gives in 1 Cor. 7 concerning the agamos ("de-married"),944
whom he similarly advises that
It is good for them to remain even
as I (vs. 8).
"Even as I" suggests
that Paul has himself become agamos, since he acknowledges in chapter 9:5
that he, like the other apostles, once travelled about with adelphen gunaike
("sister wives"). Thus he chooses to heed the Savior’s strict
admonition (Mt. 19:12) and remain agamos; it would therefore appear that
Paul’s use of the word agamos in 1 Corinthians exactly parallels Jesus,
use of the word "eunuch" in Mt. 19:12. Paul also exhorts the married
woman not to separate from her husband, though if she does, she too
should remain agamos (1 Cor. 7:10 --11), for she has previously been
"sanctified" (hegiastai) by marriage (vs. 14; cf. Eph. 5:26).
(J. Paul Sampley, And The Two Shall Be One Flesh (Cambridge, 1971),
42-3. Hegiastai is the perfect passive of hagiazo, "to
consecrate, to set apart." Hence, the married woman has become a
"sacred object" and is not to be touched by anyone but her own spouse)
Here again we encounter the ancient idea that human unions assimilate the
partners to their heavenly models and their sacrosanct condition, just as union
with the Divine fills one with heavenly attributes and holiness. This same idea
was also preserved in the Talmud, which states that a husband’s union with his
wife makes of her a "consecrated" object (hekdesh, BT. Kiddushin, 2b),
(The glossary to the Soncino edition of this tractate further gives for hekdesh
"any object consecrated to the Sanctuary," i.e. "forbidden
for secular use.") hence untouchable by others.
Surprisingly, however, Paul was considerably more lenient than the
Savior in allowing remarriage to those who would be adversely tormented
by lust, a policy followed by the LDS Church: (This evidently follows the
principle that basic laws should be firmly established before allowable
exceptions are introduced.)
If they cannot contain, let them
marry, for it is better to (re)marry than to burn (1 Cor. 7:9).
This basic understanding of the commandment to remain single
after separation from a spouse is also documented by Clement of Alexandria,
who explained that Jesus, "eunuch" was one who was willing to forego
remarriage after a divorce (Miscellanies, III.6.50). We also
encounter it in the second century Shepherd of Hennas, which was perhaps
the most widely read popular writing in the entire early Church:
Hermas writes: "Sir, allow me to ask you a few
questions." "Say on," said he. "Sir," said I, "if
a man have a wife faithful in the Lord, and he finds her out in some adultery,
does the husband sin if he lives with her?" "So long as he is
ignorant," said he, "he does not sin, but if the husband knows of her
sin, and the wife does not repent, but remains in her fornication, and the
husband goes on living with her, he becomes a partaker of her adultery."
"What then," said I, "shall the husband do if the wife remain in
this disposition?" "Let her put her away," said he, "and
let the husband remain by himself But if he put his wife away and marry
another he also commits adultery" (Mand. 4.1)
Again, such a "eunuch"
could not possibly refer to one who has never married, as this would
flatly contradict the commandment to marry (Mt. 19:5). Indeed, Paul
verifies this conclusion when he says, "Concerning parthenoi ("virgins")
I have no commandment from the Lord" (1 Cor. 7:25). (Eugene Seaich,
Ancient Texts and Mormonism, 6 vols. [3d ed.; Salt Lake City, Ronald W.
Gibson, 2014], 5:192-93)
What, then, of the Apostle Paul, and the supposed
"misogyny" of his notorious saying, "It is good for a man not to
touch a woman" (1 Cor. 7:1)?
Recent scholars remind us that the original Greek of this passage
contains neither copula nor punctuation, hence can be read either as a question
or as a statement:
kalon... me haptesthai...
good...not to touch...
Whether one renders this into idiomatic English by adding "it
is!" or "is it?" therefore depends entirely upon the context,
or upon one’s personal, theological bias:
(it is) good...not to touch...!
(is it) good...not to touch...?
"Orthodoxy" of course prefers to read this phrase as a
statement, reinforcing its own distaste for human sexuality. But reading it
as a question makes much better sense, and leads quite naturally to the answer
which Paul is about to give in the following sentence:
dia de tes porneias ekastos ten eautou gunaika echeto.
Now, because of fornication, let
each man have his own wife (vs. 2).
By the same token, dia de should mean "now," or
"because of," rather than "nevertheless, to avoid," (It is
sometimes claimed that de is an adversive particle, meaning
"but," "on the other hand," "nevertheless," etc.,
though the B-A-G Greek Lexicon also defines it as "simply
connective...without contrasts" (p. 170). Wigram-Green, The New
Englishman’s Greek Concordance and Lexicon likewise gives (in addition to
its adversive meaning) "transitional, now, then, and," or
"emphatic, in fact, indeed" (p. 151, our emphasis). Orr and
Walther (Anchor Bible, I Corinthians, 705) choose to translate it simply
as "now" ("now, because of sexual immorality..."),
especially because it best fits the context of Paul’s discourse in the
following verses.) which the KJV has gratuitously supplied in order to create
the impression that Paul’s answer has already been given in the preceding
sentence, and that what follows is a "grudging concession" to the
needs of the flesh. Indeed, only a late theological prejudice against marriage
insists that verse 1 be understood as a statement of Paul’s personal
belief; instead, it is more likely his recapitulation of the question he
is about to answer:
With reference to the matter about which you wrote: Is it good for
a man to have sexual relations with a woman? (Translated by Orr and Walther, op.
cit., 205. Massyngberde Ford ("Levirate Marriage in St. Paul [1 Cor
VII]," New Testament Studies, 10 (1963-4, 362) also argues that
this is the question, rather than Paul’s answer: "St. Paul
advises marriage, but" (referring now to vss. 5-6), "as a concession
to the Corinthians, allows abstinence for short periods by mutual consent for
purposes of prayer and fasting.")
His real answer, of course, is an unqualified "Yes!
All men and women should be married," (Compare also 1 Tim. 5:14: "I
will therefore that the younger women marry." Also 4:1-3: "In the
latter times some shall depart from the faith...forbidding to marry.") particularly
in view of the many temptations to immorality (vs. 2). One should also
note Paul’s teaching on marriage in his other epistles:
I will therefore that the younger women marry (1 Tim. 5:14).
In the latter times some shall depart from the faith... forbidding
to marry (4:1-3).
There is in fact good evidence in the New Testament that Paul
himself had been married. Mention has already been made of his travelling about
with "sister wives" ("Do we not have the right to be accompanied
by adelphen gunaika like the other apostles?," 1 Cor. 9:5). There
it was pointed out that this could only have referred to wives, not to
"sisterly companions," since gunaika would be redundant if it
meant only "women," coming as it does after adelphe ("sisters").
(William Phipps, Was Jesus Married? (N.Y., 1970), 99. See also
Massyngberde Ford, "Levirate Marriage in St. Paul," 361, for more
early Christian evidence in favor of Paul’s married state.) Indeed, "the
verb and object in this verse form the idiom gunaika periagein, meaning
in classical Greek ‘to have a wife’," (J. B. Bauer, "Uxores
Circumducere," Biblische Zeitschrift, 3 (1959), 94-102.) hence the
NEB translation, "Have I no right to take a Christian wife about with me,
like the rest of the apostles?"
Clement (Miscellanies, 3.6:53),
who knew Greek well, also understood gune to mean "wife;"
and both Eusebius (Church History, 3.36) and Ignatius (Epistle to the
Philadelphians) listed Paul among the apostles who "lived in
marriage." Clement (ibid, 3.6:53) and Origen(Homily on Romans,
1.1) even believed that Paul’s wife had lived at Philippi, and was the one
whom he addressed as syzygos ("partner") in Phil. 4:3. It was
in fact not until the fourth century that the very "orthodox" Jerome
finally translated gune as mulier ("woman") in the
Latin Vulgate, instead of uxor ("wife"), thereby fixing for
all time the idea of Christ’s "unmarried female companions" in
Catholic tradition. (See also TDNT, article "Gone," and The
Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1968), 2, 267.) (Ibid.,
5:195-96)
