Matthew 19:12 - "Eunuches from the womb"?

[precepts]

I'm unaware that a wet dream, something that happens unconsciously, is a sin.

How would something that one isn't doing consciously be sinful?

Well, if to look on a woman with lust is adultery, what does that make dreaming of the act itself? If the Pope, or any eunuch for the kingdom, dream about having sex with women, probably women they're familar with, what does that mean? Is it saintly? Dreaming, probably of different women everytime? Is that saintly?

 

[handy]

The examples you provide are not mixing of literal and metaphoric but clearly specifies what Christ is referring to, whether it is a "living water" or "bread of life", the term itself shows it is metaphoric and not literal.

Sigh.... Water and bread do indeed take on metaphorical meanings within these passages. You seem to be clutching at straws my friend.

The fact remains that the Greek supports a metaphoric usage of the term eunuch, and the text in Matthew 19 supports its usuage as metaphor.

Felix, I realise that you tend to be very literal minded... OK...

But, please don't tell others, ""Sorry, nothing in Greek says this", when the Greek does indeed have a metaphorical definition of the word, and most, when reading Matthew 19:12 see a clear use of the metaphor here.

Basically, Felix, even if a man were convicted to mutilate himself so that he would (after a long period of healing, if he were to even survive the process; most multilated in this way died during the process) be able to better service God, still doesn't deny the fact that this passage serves to give notice to some that they very well might live a life of complete celibacy, never to have sex, never to marry... in order to serve the kingdom. But, just because someone like Jethro recognizes the call to remain a lifelong celibate doesn't mean that Jethro must thus multilate himself. Or the Pope for that matter.

 

[Elijah674]

Eunuchs do not have any sex hormones and they can't have wet dreams because their desire for sex is significantly reduced.

I vote that this thread gets squashed!
--Elijah

 

[handy]

Well, if to look on a woman with lust is adultery, what does that make dreaming of the act itself? If the Pope, or any eunuch for the kingdom, dream about having sex with women, probably women they're familar with, what does that mean? Is it saintly? Dreaming, probably of different women everytime? Is that saintly?

Again I ask, how is something done unconsciously sin? Looking upon a woman is a conscious act, dreaming is not.

Can you provide any Scripture texts whatsoever that backs up the idea that something done while completely unconscious is counted as sin and needs forgiveness....

Which is also an answer right there... if anyone feels convicted after an erotic dream (women get them do, and do have physical reactions during sleep; there just isn't a lot of evidence left upon awakening)... ask for forgiveness...

I don't see how this is really germaine to the issue... unless you are in agreement with Felix that anyone who cannot marry (not that Felix has specified who cannot marry) and desires to serve God should multilate themselves.

I know that some are thinking of Christ's word about "If your eye offends thee, pluck it out, if your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off..." taking that literally as well and extrapolating that thought to this issue.

As our class clown asks... "How many one-eyed, left handed sopranos are on the church baseball team..."

Felix, precepts... has your eye ever caused you to stumble... ever? Did you pluck it out, or just ask forgiveness and repent?

 

[Pizzaguy]

Felix, are you a Greek scholar, understanding the original language in your own right, and not relying upon lexicons, greek dictionaries and studies of the origianl language?

Felix, you continual ignoring of such questions, then how you skirted the issue in the post following this, makes it clear you are TRYING to imply you are a scholar.

You must see that you are not engaging children here, be honest and answer the question. The thread has become all about you and your position - so go with it!

If you want to lead the way, do so.

 

[felix]

Sigh.... Water and bread do indeed take on metaphorical meanings within these passages. You seem to be clutching at straws my friend.

In John 4:13-14, Jesus is differentiating two waters, clearly specifying one is literal water and the other is metaphorical because, He is taking the literal one as an example to explain the spiritual one. The woman in the well wrongly understood the metaphorical water as literal one. However, there is no literal water that is welling up to eternal life clearly specifying the water Jesus specified as spiritual.

In John 6:32-33, as in the waters, Jesus is differentiating two bread, taking literal bread or manna as an example to explain the true spiritual bread from heaven.

However, in Matthew 19:12, Jesus is not taking other eunuchs in literal sense as an example to show a metaphorical meaning.

The fact remains that the Greek supports a metaphoric usage of the term eunuch, and the text in Matthew 19 supports its usuage as metaphor.

Felix, I realise that you tend to be very literal minded... OK...

I am not a very literal minded. But in Matthew 19:12, Jesus is not giving a spiritual or a metaphorical explanation for a literal problem.

Basically, Felix, even if a man were convicted to mutilate himself so that he would (after a long period of healing, if he were to even survive the process; most multilated in this way died during the process) be able to better service God, still doesn't deny the fact that this passage serves to give notice to some that they very well might live a life of complete celibacy, never to have sex, never to marry... in order to serve the kingdom. But, just because someone like Jethro recognizes the call to remain a lifelong celibate doesn't mean that Jethro must thus multilate himself. Or the Pope for that matter.

If you consider what Jesus said regarding eunuchs who made themselves for sake of kingdom of heaven is mutilating himself, how about circumcision, where the foreskin is removed - isn't it mutilating too?

The process of becoming eunuch themselves does not always mean they take a knife and do it themselves. It can be done with the aid of others for the man who want it. It is also not true that many died during the process. Sophisticated surgical methods existed long back. What you say regarding survival rate is true only for slaves/prisoners or war who were treated so low in history and used brutal and non surgical methods - e.g, in Korea, they used dogs to bite young boys's where 9 out of 10 died.

If Christ is advocating celibacy to serve Kingdom of heaven, then He is contracting what He meant in Gen 2:18, "It is not good that man should be alone" and contracting Paul's advise to Timothy on "doctrines of demons".

The only explanation that does not contradict what God found to be "not good" in Genesis to what Christ told in gospels is make someone who "cannot marry" rather than "not marrying". "Not marrying" is "not good" according to God the Father and I CANNOT accept Son denying Father's statement.

 

[handy]

Again... who are these who cannot marry... they are differentiated from those with birth defects and those mutilated... who are they?

Who is it who cannot marry...

Even a person born eunuch can marry... they will simply be impotent.

Eunuchs who were made so by other men could not, because they were enslaved to remain single.

But who are the ones who "cannot" marry as opposed to choosing not to marry?

I've asked this before... you said you weren't one of them (which I knew as I know that you are married and the father of some lovely daughters)... but surely if there are some who cannot marry, men who are intact and potent, but cannot marry... who are they?

As for the death rate... I saw the same record of the Koreans and the dogs...terrible what inhumane things sin reduces men to... but the information that I've read all seems to agree that it was a dangerous process with a high mortality rate.

And, per the metaphorical vs literal... You're not seeing it because you don't see it... Almost all the scholars I've read on this passage, every preacher I've ever heard preach on the subject, pretty much every one here participating in this thread... we can all see the transition from the literal to the metaphorical...

If there were no accepted metaphorical Greek definition, I'd say you would have at least something... but even the Greek shows a metaphorical definition and for me, it's very obvious when Jesus transitions from the literal to the metaphorical...

(and just in case you go here... I was a Christian long before I started attending any church or having any formal Christian teaching... I learned by reading the Bible on my own... so this isn't just "indoctrination" by others.)

 

[felix]

Felix, you continual ignoring of such questions, then how you skirted the issue in the post following this, makes it clear you are TRYING to imply you are a scholar.

You must see that you are not engaging children here, be honest and answer the question. The thread has become all about you and your position - so go with it!

If you want to lead the way, do so.

I am not trying to be a scholar nor I will become one for being a scholar is worldly knowledge and does not edify the church. Neither it is giving by Christ for a church. Scripture does not require Greek scholars to understand or interpret it - but only Holy Spirit.

When I said Greek does not say it, I mean it word for word.

ευνουχοι G2135 EUNUCHS οιτινες G3748 WHO ευνουχισαν G2134( G5656) MADE EUNUCHS OF εαυτους G1438 THEMSELVES

The above is from Interlinear Greek. There are G2135 (eunuchs) who G2134 (to castrate). If you notice, G22 (celibate or unmarried) is the right word to specify here if referring to celibacy but used G2135 instead.

 

[felix]

handy, to be honest with you, the simple reason I cannot accept a metaphorical explanation of eunuchs who made themselves, to be celibate or willing to be unmarried is because, this metaphorical explanation doesn't go well with other scripture verses like 1Tim 4:1-3 and what God the Father said in Gen 2:18.

How many child sex scandals those celibate fathers of Catholics have been involved with? The very intent of what Christ saying about becoming an eunuch is not about sacrificing marriage for the sake of kingdom of heaven but to avoid sexual temptations altogether.

Born as eunuch is like a birth defect and you do not have all the capabilities that a man and cannot father a child. But impotent men have all the capabilities of a normal man, but only some medical defect by which they are not able to procreate. Impotent includes reduced sperm count, erectile dysfunction etc who have testicles but born as a eunuch does not have testicles and cannot perform what a normal man can. Both are very different.

 

[handy]

Several points... then I need to leave for the evening...

"I am not trying to be a scholar nor I will become one for being a scholar is worldly knowledge and does not edify the church. Neither it is giving by Christ for a church. Scripture does not require Greek scholars to understand or interpret it - but only Holy Spirit."

Scripture doesn't require Greek scholars, but they are certainly helpful and their role in the church is defined in Ephesians 4:11-12

And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ;

As well as 1 Corinthians 12:27-28:
Now you are Christ’s body, and individually members of it. And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues.

You say we need no scholars to help us understand the Bible only the Holy Spirit. All born again Christians have the Holy Spirit. Why the need for human teachers since we all have the Spirit?

Obviously, the Lord recognizes our need to draw upon the understanding of others who have devoted their lives to scholarship. The human heart can be quite deceptive...thinking one's own thoughts are the Spirit's... when in fact it's simply one's own opinion.

"The above is from Interlinear Greek. There are G2135 (eunuchs) who G2134 (to castrate). If you notice, G22 (celibate or unmarried) is the right word to specify here if referring to celibacy but used G2135 instead."

Here is the full definition of G2135:

1) a bed keeper, bed guard, superintendent of the bedchamber, chamberlain
a) in the palace of oriental monarchs who support numerous wives the superintendent of the women's apartment or harem, an office held by eunuchs
b) an emasculated man, a eunuch
1) eunuchs in oriental courts held by other offices of greater, held by the Ethiopian eunuch mentioned in Ac. 8:27-39.
c) one naturally incapacitated
1) for marriage
2) begetting children
d) one who voluntarily abstains from marriage


I've said this many, many times now... there is a difference between celibacy whilst single and voluntarily abstaining from marriage for life...

Which brings us to your next point, which believe me, I do appreciate it:

"handy, to be honest with you, the simple reason I cannot accept a metaphorical explanation of eunuchs who made themselves, to be celibate or willing to be unmarried is because, this metaphorical explanation doesn't go well with other scripture verses like 1Tim 4:1-3 and what God the Father said in Gen 2:18."

And yet, God has indeed called a few men to remain single.

Jeremiah comes to mind: The word of the LORD also came to me saying, “You shall not take a wife for yourself nor have sons or daughters in this place.†Jer 16:2

I have already mentioned John the Baptist several times. One can understand God's call to John the Baptist to remain a single man... he was a wanderer in the wilderness, dining on locusts and honey. The Lord knew that John the Baptist would be beheaded at a fairly young age...and it was his disciples, not a wife, who claimed his body. His ministry was not one for a married man, who must work to provide for his wife and children...

Paul remained a single widower....

The fact that there are some who better serve God as single men does not in any way negate the call for most men to marry... Marriage is God's norm, but individuals can certainly choose not to marry... In the case Jeremiah it wasn't even a choice, it was God's specific call.

As for the Catholic priests... I am in full agreement with you that the ban on priests to marry is ungodly... It's one thing for an individual to hear and obey God's call to remain single.. it's another to have others impose singleness upon a whole class of people. Hey, I'm Lutheran...Martin Luther had a lot to say regarding the marriage of priests... and Katharina made sure he practiced what he preached! :yes

One last thing, then I'm out for the evening... but I'll check in again, this has been an interesting discussion...

You seem to think the reason why some would voluntarily multilate themselves would be to put to rest sexual temptations... (however, it is a fact that eunuchs can still be sexually active... I choose not to go into details here, because the information I have on this isn't really ... appropriate, it speaks of deviancy... but it is factual)...

Which begs the question... why is sexual temptation to be avoided at such a high cost?

I was single until I was 38... I know quite a bit about sexual temptation... Yes, it can be more compelling than other temptations, but it is nonetheless temptation. We know that Christ was tempted in all things we are, had a fully healthy physical body and He remained single until His death... so He knew sexual temptation as well. There is no reason why any must need to take such a drastic and dangerous step in order to avoid temptation... there is nothing sinful about temptation. Facing down sexual temptation takes the same thing as facing down any other temptation... relying upon the faithfulness of God who will never allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to endure.. and will provide the way of escape from all temptation. (1 Corinthians 10:13) Saying a man tempted sexually must castrate himself is like saying a man tempted with gluttony must sew his mouth shut...

Circumcision isn't a mutilation as much as a modification and a fairly simple one at that. Circumcision doesn't in any way cause the male to not still fully function. Done as the Lord commanded, it's not even a particularly painful procedure and leaves no emotional damage. I believe it was you who brought up about apples and oranges? ;)

Anyway, I really have to go...

 

[farouk]

..

Born as eunuch is like a birth defect and you do not have all the capabilities that a man and cannot father a child. But impotent men have all the capabilities of a normal man, but only some medical defect by which they are not able to procreate. Impotent includes reduced sperm count, erectile dysfunction etc who have testicles but born as a eunuch does not have testicles and cannot perform what a normal man can. Both are very different.

I'm trying to follow the train of thought here but I'm struggling a bit.

It's years since I studied biology.

Some people are metaphorically eunuchs, I suppose, for the sake of the kingdom of God, such as a missionary nurse who selflessly spends her life in Africa, etc.

 

[Pizzaguy]

I'm trying to follow the train of thought here but I'm struggling a bit.

Well, Elijah has about given up, and now I am done here.

I turn "The Felix and the Eunuches Thread" over to you.

 

[farouk]

Well, Elijah has about given up, and now I am done here.

I turn "The Felix and the Eunuches Thread" over to you.

Pg:

To me?

Well, I'm no expert.

 

[felix]

handy,

In Jer 16:2, God wasn't forbidding marriage but not to marry and have sons on that particular land/place because of the curse that follows on "that" land.

God didn't ask John the Baptist to not marry. The absence of wife of John the baptist does not prove he didn't had one nor he wasn't willing to have.

The mentioned does not validate Matthew 19:12. Metaphorical eunuchs explanation still contracts verses in 1Tim 4:1-3 and what God the Father said in Gen 2:18. Any explanation contrary to Scripture is simply unacceptable.

 

[felix]

I'm trying to follow the train of thought here but I'm struggling a bit.

It's years since I studied biology.

Some people are metaphorically eunuchs, I suppose, for the sake of the kingdom of God, such as a missionary nurse who selflessly spends her life in Africa, etc.

There is a difference for eunuchs and celibates. A eunuch cannot have sexual desire or sexual temptations for they don't have testosterone pumped into their blood stream. However, celibates do have sexual desire and temptations. In Matthew 19:12, Jesus was specifically talking about avoiding adultery by not marrying - and explaining the people who cannot marry. A metaphorically eunuchs who is not really a eunuch can still marry, have temptations, divorce and involve in adultery.

 

[felix]

You seem to think the reason why some would voluntarily multilate themselves would be to put to rest sexual temptations... (however, it is a fact that eunuchs can still be sexually active... I choose not to go into details here, because the information I have on this isn't really ... appropriate, it speaks of deviancy... but it is factual)...

Which begs the question... why is sexual temptation to be avoided at such a high cost?

Because, sexual temptations CANNOT be overcome EXCEPT through the Holy Spirit.

I was single until I was 38... I know quite a bit about sexual temptation... Yes, it can be more compelling than other temptations, but it is nonetheless temptation. We know that Christ was tempted in all things we are, had a fully healthy physical body and He remained single until His death... so He knew sexual temptation as well. There is no reason why any must need to take such a drastic and dangerous step in order to avoid temptation... there is nothing sinful about temptation. Facing down sexual temptation takes the same thing as facing down any other temptation... relying upon the faithfulness of God who will never allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able to endure.. and will provide the way of escape from all temptation. (1 Corinthians 10:13) Saying a man tempted sexually must castrate himself is like saying a man tempted with gluttony must sew his mouth shut...

Temptations are very different for males and females. A girl left alone with a guy for 5 minutes is enough to pump 7% more testosterone. Nothing like that in females. The more testosterone, the more crazy and animal he becomes. While most males have self control, they try to converse and use deceiving ways to attract and "win" the girl to fulfill their desire. While, the real orgasm lasts for a few seconds in males and after which they have absolutely no interest in sex, females can have orgasm for several hours. It is for those few seconds, his desire builds up so huge that most celibate people terribly fail when a single temptation occurs.

Christ is giving a solution in the body to stop those sexual desires coming from heart.

 

[handy]

In Jer 16:2, God wasn't forbidding marriage but not to marry and have sons on that particular land/place because of the curse that follows on "that" land.

Right... and Jeremiah was in that place/land, therefore could not marry. No, God wasn't "forbidding marriage" in general... but He did forbid Jeremiah to marry. There is no record of Jeremiah settling in a different land/place and marrying...

A metaphorically eunuchs who is not really a eunuch can still marry, have temptations, divorce and involve in adultery.

Again... it is recorded history and fact that physical eunuchs do indeed engage in sex... voluntarily... This comes from various histories of the women in harems... wives and concubines... and their descriptions of the sexual activities between the eunuchs and especially the concubines. The sex was different... but it was sex. Sexual temptation isn't just about the male and testosterone... it also involves a lot of other things... things that eunuchs can and do engage in, but are nonetheless fornication and adultery on the part of the wife.

You keep repeating over and over that eunuchs CANNOT be sexually tempted because they have no sex drive... This is neither scientifically nor historically correct. It might not be the type of drive that most men have... it might be far more the type of drive women have... a desire for physical tenderness and intimacy... but it is sexual temptation.

Christ is giving a solution in the body to stop those sexual desires coming from heart.

Christ would not recommend that a man emasculate himself to be freed from sexual temptations... because obviously history proves that eunuchs still desire physical intimacy and Jesus would obviously know this.

Now you say this:

Because, sexual temptations CANNOT be overcome EXCEPT through the Holy Spirit.

AT LAST!!!! SOMETHING WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH!!!! YAY!!!

Right, only through the Holy Spirit are we able to overcome sexual temptations... Not through mutilation... but through relying upon God's faithfulness and His promise that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond what we are able.

With the Holy Spirit, there is no need for a man to emasculate himself... He need only to learn to rely upon the Spirit... something Paul obviously had learned to do, never remarrying but living as one eunuched, eschewing marriage and sex and completely devoting himself to serving God.

If there were no metaphorical eunuchs...there would be no need for a metaphorical definition of the word.

 

[Stormcrow]

for being a scholar is worldly knowledge and does not edify the church.

Neither does ignorance. Spiritual or otherwise.

Just sayin'.

 

[felix]

Right... and Jeremiah was in that place/land, therefore could not marry. No, God wasn't "forbidding marriage" in general... but He did forbid Jeremiah to marry. There is no record of Jeremiah settling in a different land/place and marrying...

No. Jeremiah was a Levite or a priest. He was born in the land of Benjamin and was prophesying in Jer 16:2 regarding Judah in Jerusalem. Although Benjamin joined the Judah in having the Southern kingdom, their land wasn't merged and they had separate rulers and princes as we see in Jer 37:11-15. Not to take a wife in this land does not mean he cannot take elsewhere in either northern or southern kingdoms for he is a levite.

If God doesn't want him to marry at all, He wouldn't have specified "not to take from this land".

Jeremiah did moved to Tophet as in Jer 19:14 to prophesy and to Mizpah as in Jer 40:6 to actually dwell there. So, it is wrong to say he didn't move around.

Again... it is recorded history and fact that physical eunuchs do indeed engage in sex... voluntarily... This comes from various histories of the women in harems... wives and concubines... and their descriptions of the sexual activities between the eunuchs and especially the concubines. The sex was different... but it was sex. Sexual temptation isn't just about the male and testosterone... it also involves a lot of other things... things that eunuchs can and do engage in, but are nonetheless fornication and adultery on the part of the wife.

You keep repeating over and over that eunuchs CANNOT be sexually tempted because they have no sex drive... This is neither scientifically nor historically correct. It might not be the type of drive that most men have... it might be far more the type of drive women have... a desire for physical tenderness and intimacy... but it is sexual temptation.

What you say is history, not science. April fools done by many people discovered after 3000 yrs will be history, not necessarily true and scientific. There are inscriptions and manuscripts that tells many crazy stuff in ancient history. These are not necessarily true according to science.

Eunuchs cannot have sexual desire is scientific. Sexual desire is because of the sex hormone "testosterone" for males. The organ produces this hormone is testicles. Absence of this organ means, no sex desire. This is scientific and well known to every one.

Chemical castration is administered to rapists and other sex offenders to reduce their sex desire even today including US and Australia.

Christ is giving a solution in the body to stop those sexual desires coming from heart.

Christ would not recommend that a man emasculate himself to be freed from sexual temptations... because obviously history proves that eunuchs still desire physical intimacy and Jesus would obviously know this.

History is not science. There are historical documents that speaks about world being flat. This does not mean it has to be true. It simply means, such a statement has a historical value not scientific value.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Metaphorical eunuchs explanation still contracts verses in 1Tim 4:1-3 and what God the Father said in Gen 2:18. Any explanation contrary to Scripture is simply unacceptable.

If somebody has already brought this up forgive me (I've pretty much lost track of this long thread, lol), but how is Jesus' teaching according to how you teach it not a prohibition against marriage?

Perhaps this will castrate your argument right here and now for good.