What about eunuchs in Matthew 19:10-12? Does this passage teach that the Bible endorses trans-surgery? Does being “born” a eunuch imply same-sex attraction?

Modern culture grasps at anything to justify their decisions.

Let’s examine the passage in question to find out if being a eunuch in Matthew 19:10-12 support trans surgeries. Further, does “born a eunuch” = homosexuality?

I refer to printed commentaries to provide a variety of opinions. They are a community of teachers I respect because they respect Scripture. I learn a lot from them.

The translation is mine.  if you would like to see many others, please go to biblegateway.com.

I.. Scripture

A. Quotation

¹⁰ His disciples said to him, “If the case of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” ¹¹ But he said to them, “Not everyone accepts this word, but to whom it has been given. ¹² For there are eunuchs who are born that way from the mother’s womb. And there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this accept it. (Matt. 19:10-12)

B. Brief Exegesis

The context: Jesus just finished endorsing God’s model for marriage in Eden: one man and one woman. Divorce should be extremely rare.

The disciples react. They draw the reasonable (but incomplete) conclusion because easy-divorcism was common back then in many quarters, why get married if divorce is restricted only to sexual misconduct? However, they miss the point of the blessing of the creation of marriage back in Genesis (Matt. 19:4-6).

Next, Jesus mentions three classes of eunuchs, which in one category seems to be celibacy. But the implied,  better path is to get married and have children.

1. Eunuchs were born this way, presumably without sexual organs or with malfunctioning ones;

2. Eunuchs who were made this way by people, presumably to watch the harem in royal courts;

3. “Eunuchs” who gave up sex or lived the celibate life for the kingdom of heaven, much as Jesus and Paul were doing and Paul recommended, with reservations (1 Cor. 7:7-9). The verb “it is given” is in the passive, so some scholars (Turner) say this is the divine passive or an understatement of God working behind the scenes, giving power to be celibate.

Nevertheless, it is better to marry than to burn with passion (1 Cor. 7:9).

In a Jewish context, it would be impossible for Jesus to advocate self-mutilation, because it would have caused horror in the minds of his fellowJews of his day. It was against God’s law of nature. Therefore, Jesus simply means celibacy, like the Essenes, a group not mentioned in the Bible, though they lived during Jesus’ times, and who favored celibacy.

As noted, Jesus is affirming heterosexual marriage in the entire section of Scripture not quoted here (vv 1-9). The above three categories are rare and outside the mainstream of kingdom life. And Jesus already taught how God viewed marriage in vv. 4-6. God ordained the institution. No man should split up in a frivolous divorce what God has joined together.

II. Commentaries

A. R. T. France

He writes about “born a eunuch” = homosexuality:

Most references to homosexual behavior in the ancient world are to what we now call bisexuality, the choice of some who are capable of heterosexual intercourse to find sexual fulfillment also (or instead) with member of their own sex. Such a choice could hardly be described as being “born a eunuch,” and the idea of an innate and irreversible homosexual orientation belongs to modern Western psychology rather than to the world in which Jesus lived (p. 725).

As for making oneself a eunuch, it is not to be understood literally. It means to renounce marriage (New International Version) or not marry. This category represents those who have voluntarily chosen celibacy. “Their choice is not ascribed to disinclination but to their perception of God’s will for them: the ‘kingship of heaven’ means God’s sovereign authority, and it is obedience to that authority that they have been prepared to stand apart from normal expectation of marriage and fatherhood” (France, p. 725).

B. Craig Blomberg

Craig Blomberg also counsels us that marriage is the norm, but sometimes God calls people to be single for the kingdom of God. He does not cover self-mutilation, however. But since  Jesus’s position on marriage is even stricter than Shammai’s (an earlier conservative sage or teacher who restricted divorce), it is not possible to believe that Jesus would endorse self-mutilation (as France pointed out).

He writes:

C. David L. Turner

He quickly summarizes Jesus’s teaching on marriage and the disciples’ reaction. Should people remain single?

Turner writes:

But Jesus teaches that celibacy is only for divinely gifted people (Matt. 19:11; cf. 1 Cor. 7:1-2, 7-9). The disciples are familiar with eunuchs, those who cannot have children because of congenital defect or castration, but Jesus adds a third category: those who choose singleness and sexual abstinence because of their kingdom commitment (Matt. 19:12). (p. 463)

Then Turner warns against our misinterpreting the clause “makes themselves eunuchs”:

Such “making a eunuch of oneself” is not to be taken literally. Among those who fit this category are probably John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, and Philips’ four daughters (cf. 1 Cor. 7:32-38; 9:5; Acts 21:9). For them, the eschatological urgency over normal family relationships (cf. Matt. 8:21-22; 12:46-50). On the other hand, rabbinic reflection on Gen. 1:28 concluded that no man is exempt to have children (m. Yebam 6.6; b. Yebam 61b-64b) (pp. 463-64)