09.02.2013 Views

-1- Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and ...

-1- Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and ...

-1- Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>the</strong> community, but to be healed of <strong>the</strong>ir practices <strong>and</strong> sexual object choice. Heterosexist<br />

creation <strong>the</strong>ology of <strong>the</strong> binary paradigm serves as <strong>the</strong> model according to which sexual<br />

activity <strong>and</strong> identity is to follow, <strong>and</strong> deviation <strong>the</strong>refrom needs to be addressed <strong>and</strong> made<br />

to conform.<br />

-31-<br />

Where does <strong>the</strong> eunuch fit in such a sexed ideology? Outside of it altoge<strong>the</strong>r. The<br />

eunuch is a figure that not only violates <strong>the</strong> heterosexual binary dualism, but cannot<br />

participate in it at all. Even as a figure of celibacy, it renounces <strong>the</strong> forms <strong>and</strong> practices at<br />

<strong>the</strong> heart of binary paradigm. Indeed, in <strong>the</strong> saying of Mat<strong>the</strong>w <strong>19</strong>:<strong>12</strong> <strong>the</strong>re is absolutely no<br />

suggestion that to be a eunuch is to be someone who is in any way in need of “fixing”,<br />

“healing”, or “reintegration” into society. <strong>Jesus</strong> heals <strong>the</strong> blind, <strong>the</strong> paralyzed, <strong>the</strong><br />

possessed, <strong>the</strong> fevered, <strong>the</strong> leprous, <strong>the</strong> hemorrhaging, even <strong>the</strong> dead, in every case<br />

restoring <strong>the</strong>m to full societal membership. In <strong>the</strong> case of <strong>the</strong> eunuch, however, <strong>the</strong>re is no<br />

implication whatsoever of “illness” or social “deformity” in need of restoration. Instead, <strong>the</strong><br />

eunuch is held up as <strong>the</strong> model to follow. Such a model suggests, even in <strong>the</strong> larger<br />

Mat<strong>the</strong>an context of marriage <strong>and</strong> divorce, that <strong>the</strong> rhetorical direction is away from<br />

reinforcement of <strong>the</strong> binary sex paradigm <strong>and</strong> its function to establish <strong>and</strong> naturalize<br />

heterosexual marriage <strong>and</strong> procreativity. Unlike Isaiah 56 where <strong>the</strong> eunuch is promised a<br />

return to society <strong>and</strong> a reward set in terms of that society’s sex-gender ideology (“more<br />

than sons <strong>and</strong> daughters”), it is <strong>the</strong> transgressive body of <strong>the</strong> eunuch that symbolizes <strong>the</strong><br />

kingdom. Canonical appeals 108 to creation <strong>the</strong>ology or Torah legislation in an effort to<br />

naturalize <strong>the</strong> heterosexist imperative ignore or dismiss this figure at <strong>the</strong>ir own peril.<br />

Interestingly, this notion of <strong>the</strong> rejection of <strong>the</strong> binary sex paradigm finds resonances<br />

even within <strong>the</strong> canon itself, as <strong>the</strong> triple tradition report of <strong>Jesus</strong>’ controversy with <strong>the</strong><br />

Sadducees (Mk <strong>12</strong>:18-27//Mt 22:23-33//Lk 20:27-39) <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> pre-Pauline baptismal<br />

108 Cf. C. Seitz, “Sexuality <strong>and</strong> Scripture’s Plain Sense: The Christian Community <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> Law of God,” in<br />

Homosexuality, Science <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> “Plain Sense” of Scripture.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!