Book 15 of Origen’s explanations on the gospel according to Matthew.

Matt 19.12 - On the Three Types of Eunuchs

1. For there are certain eunuchs which are begotten as such from the womb of [their] mother, up to, The one who is able to accept [this], let him accept [it] ^[85].

Let us set forth two ways of reading this passage before offering the explanation which appears to us to be the true one. After this, we will refute them insofar as we are able, so that, guarding against every error in these [readings] which will be recited, we might accept the true intention of the passage and th<en> live according to the better [understanding], and in this way let us come back to the passage at hand.

For, on the one hand, there are those who consider the third [castration] in a somatic sense, in a way that accords with the operation of the two other castrations when considered in a somatic sense. [These people] dare to hand themselves over to become a eunuch of the same kind as the first two out of a fear toward God on the one hand, but without understanding on the other. Indeed, they have submitted themselves to reproach, and perhaps shame, not only in view of those who are outsiders to the [Christian] faith, but also indeed to all who share the common opinion on basic human matters about one who (by an appearance of fear of God and an inordinate love of moderation) would produce pains and the mutilation of the body, and whatever else one might experience who hands himself over to so great a matter.

But others, and indeed a majority,^[10] have understood [the passage] in this way, not closely the examining the passage’s sequence of words: they have taken what was said by the Savior about the first two [castrations] in a somatic sense, as though countenancing nothing more than sensible things, yet they have supposed that the third [castration] is no longer to be read according to the literal understanding. Rather, they regard “the castration” in the third case to signify that [which comes] from reason (ἀπὸ λόγου), when such people as have castrated their faculty of desire (τὸ … ἐπιθυμητικόν)^[11] by means of the most incisive reason for the purpose “of the kingdom of the heavens,” show contempt for the wanton inclinations of the body, those [inclinations] no longer being able to conquer the soul who has castrated desire by reason.

But one must understand that the first group, though they have become friends of the evangelical letter and do not understand that Jesus also spoke these things in parables and [that] it was said in spirit, has understood the present passage in a more consistent way than those who confess the first two castrations are to be read somatically. For [this first group] treats the third [castration] in a way consistent with the first two, not making a mistake as far as a consistency with the three [castrations], but necessarily making a mistake in having overlooked the principle (τὴν ἀρχήν) of the things in this passage. For in having read the [first] two somatically, it would follow also that the third is somatic as well.

The second group, on the other hand, has come to a sound conclusion about the third [castration], having determined that what is being indicated is the castration of the passionate part of the soul which comes from reason. But they have not yet seen that it would agree with this interpretation to allegorize the first two castrations similarly to the third, or to explain the third in a way equivalent with the first two. Since therefore it is fitting to apply “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” ^[86], to certain discourses not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New, one must confess this also in connection with the passage at hand. For one might say that, when the letter of the [first] two castrations is kept, it kills those who understand the third [castration] in a way consistent with the first ones, and who dare to say (as though they have received this understanding in accordance with the word of the Lord) that they are making themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of heaven in a similar way to the first ones who were made eunuchs.^[12]

2. If someone desires to entertain other examples where the letter of the New Testament kills, let him listen for an example to the passage where Jesus says to the Apostles, “When I sent you out without a purse, bag, or sandals, did you lack anything?,” to which it follows, “They said, ‘Nothing.’ Jesus said to them, therefore, ‘But now, the one who has a purse must take it, and likewise a bag. And the one who has no sword must sell his cloak and buy one’” ^[87]. For if, because of these things Jesus has said, someone who lacks insight into the intention of what has been recorded sells his material cloak and buys a man-slaying sword, as though in acquiring such a sword he has acted according to the intention of Jesus, he will perish, having misinterpreted his word. Perhaps he will even perish “by the sword” ^[88]! But this is not the time to offer an explanation of the sword in question.

Take for another example, “Greet no one along the way” ^[89]. If someone does not examine closely what Jesus means when he orders this, and in his zeal for the apostolic manner of life this person greets “no one along the way,” he might seem to be inhuman <and stupid> to those who observe him. These people might then attribute the source of such way of thinking to the Word, because it is on this account that this person seems to act in this way, and it might encourage one to despise the Word of God, as though furnishing him with these savage and inhuman [ways of living]. And he who uses the [Scripture] as the reason for greeting “no one along the way,” might suffer death by a pretext of the letter, the letter killing him.

Also, if someone might cut out the right eye, as though it were the cause of seeing poorly, or the right hand of the body, or the fleshly right foot ^[90], he may suffer because *** of those things being killed on account of the letter, inasmuch as he remains beholden to the letter, when he should ascend to the spirit of what is said.^[13]

Others, therefore, who came before us have not hesitated in their writings to provide occasions to certain people who dare to suffer the third “castration” on the pretext of the kingdom of heaven, making it equivalent to the first two [castrations].^[14]

3. But we who at one time knew Christ (the Logos of God), “according to the flesh” and the letter, “<but> now no longer” [know him in this way] ^[91], do not agree with those who, as though a good thing, have undertaken the third castration to themselves by introducing the pretext of the kingdom of the heavens. We might not spend such an amount of time to refute the person who desires to take the third [castration] in a bodily sense similar to the first two, except that we have observed those who have dared [to do it], and we have read those who are able to stir up the hastier soul (indeed believing but not rational) to such a daring action. Sextus, in his Sentences—a book approved by many—says, “Every part of the body which persuades you to not practice moderation, cast [it] away! For it is better to live in moderation without this part than destructively with it” (Sent. 13). Again, advancing in the same book, offering support to something similar, he says, “You see men cutting off and casting away part of their body to keep their health. How much better to do so on behalf of moderation?” (Sent. 273).^[16] Philo, also, in the abundance of his compositions on the law of Moses which are in good repute by men of understanding, says in the book which he entitles thus, On the Worse Loving to Attack the Better, that “it is better to make oneself a eunuch than to desirously rage after unlawful sexual unions.”^[17]

But one must not give credence to those who do not understand the intention of the holy letters concerning these things. For if “self-control” was mentioned among the fruits “of the Spirit” with love, and joy, long-suffering, and the rest ^[92], one must certainly produce the fruit of self- control, and one must preserve [intact] the male body which was given by God, rather than ever dare to do some other thing, in order that one may not transgress what is said with benefit even according to a literal reading: “You will not ruin the appearance of your beard” ^[93]. Also beneficial for diverting those who are exuberant <but> youthful in the faith, about whom it is necessary to confess that they have a love of moderation, “but not according to discernment” ^[94], is [the passage which says], “If men should fight with each other, a man with his own brother,” etc., up to, “Your eye shall not spare her” ^[95]. For if the hand which seizes the testicles of a man is cut off, how will it not also be so for the person who on account of ignorance of the way which leads to moderation has given himself to such a dubious state? Therefore, let the one who is about to dare to do such a thing take account, what he will endure from those who cast reproaches and avail themselves of this text, “A eunuch and one who is mutilated will not enter into the Church of the Lord” ^[96], so numbering the man himself among those who have been mutilated. Nor have I yet mentioned what things he may suffer out of season [παρὰ καιρὸν] from the seed being hindered (as the students of physicians say) from descending from the head to the male parts, which, while descending through certain vessels near the cheeks, causes hair to grow for men around the chin by the natural heat of the [seed] that is descending. Those who consider it necessary to make themselves eunuchs in a somatic sense on account of the kingdom of heavens are indeed lacking such hair. Should they experience such things as a heaviness in the head and dizziness which sometimes comes upon the principal part [of the soul]^[18] and agitates the imagistic faculty so that it imagines unnatural things, from something so material [as literal castration]?

Before I come to the explanation of this passage, it must be said that since Marcion has created a certain following for himself, when saying that one should not allegorize the Scripture, and he rejected these passages as not having been said by the Savior, thinking that the believer must either 1) accept (along with affirming that the Savior said these things) and comply by giving himself over to do such daring things, or 2), as it is not reasonable to do such daring things as will bring infamy against the word, that he must not believe these words to be from the Savior, if they may not be allegorized.^[19]

4. We, on the other hand, who desire to maintain the sequence of the three castrations, and approve of the figurative reading of the third, affirm such things concerning the first two as well. Now, in figurative terms, eunuchs might mean those who abstain from sexual pleasure, and do not give themselves to licentiousness and impurity, or equivalent sorts of things. There are (I think) three different groups among those who abstain from these things: 1) there are such as are [abstaining] because of [their] constitution, concerning whom it may be said: There are eunuchs who have been born as such from the womb of their mother ^[97]; 2) on the other hand, [there are] those practicing asceticism from <human> teachings (λόγων), having been persuaded to abstain from sexual pleasures, and all licentiousness in this vein; but it is not the logos that comes from God that produces for them such an inclination and ascetic practice, and the correction (if I may name it such), but human logoi, whether from those who philosophize among the Greeks, or “those forbidding to marry, to abstain from food” ^[98], among the heretical sects. Indeed, these seem to me to be indicated by, There are eunuchs such as have become eunuchs by men ^[99].

But what is worthy of acceptance is if someone takes up the word which is living and “effective and sharper than any two-edged sword” ^[100], even the “sword of the Spirit” (as the Apostle names it ^[101]), castrating the passionate part of the soul, without touching the body, indeed he may do this *** and understanding the kingdom of the heavens, and that to castrate the passionate part of his soul with reason contributes greatly towards inheriting the kingdom of the heavens. It is to such people, and not as those who suppose that the passage is to be taken in a somatic fashion, that [the passage] is fitting, There are eunuchs such as have made themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens ^[102].

5. It is a great power to “accept” the castration of the soul by reason, which [castration] not all do accept, but only to whom it is given ^[103]. It is given to all who ask from God for the rational sword, and who make suitable use of it, so that they might make themselves eunuchs on account of the kingdom of the heavens. But if it is necessary also to touch upon the [literal] stories according to the Scriptures along with the elevated sense in them as it shows itself to us, we might mention that there were certain eunuchs of Pharaoh who were unproductive in anything good, having been made eunuchs so that they might serve him wine and prepare food. But there were also men of God who were eunuchs <unproductive in anything evil> for this reason, so that they might build up Jerusalem which was fallen. Concerning the first group, therefore, it has been written in Genesis ^[104], and of the second group an example is written in Second Ezra, which says, “And I became a eunuch for the king. It happened in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes” ^[105] etc., up to, “And it was pleasing to the king, and he sent me” ^[106]. And as you converse with Second Ezra, you will find the whole account of this passage and you will understand why it is that a worthy man who became a eunuch was a leader in rebuilding the temple of God. For the sons of the Hebrews also suggest that Daniel and the three who were with him (Ananiah, Azariah, and Misael) were made eunuchs in Babylon, fulfilling the prophecy which Isaiah delivered to Hezekiah, “They will take from your seed, and they will make them eunuchs in the house of the king of Babylon” ^[107]. They say that Isaiah also prophesied beforehand concerning these things, saying, “Do not let one of foreign birth who attaches himself the Lord say: ‘Surely the Lord will separate me from his people,’” etc., up to, “Better than sons and daughters” ^[108]. It is good, therefore, as though in reference to a mystical place, to not be born in Babylon, but to be unfruitful towards Babylon, as was Daniel, in order that we, after conceiving by the divine Spirit, might beget visions and prophecies (in the same manner as him and those with him).

One must understand that, should one desire, one may find not a few plausible arguments to support with reason the position that these three castrations are somatic, and to join in advocating with the aforementioned people who are teaching this through [their] treatises. We did not desire to expound on these [treatises], nor to set out their words for the sake of the exercise of expounding a refutation for each one, lest we give occasion to those who “accept” the teaching concerning being a eunuch but not as Jesus intended, so that it is necessary to understand this “to accept” with a different <sense> <than> to entertain it somatically. It is necessary for one who lives by the Spirit, and who orders one’s life by the Spirit, also to be persuaded to read these three castrations spiritually.