Bible Study WELCOME TO AN IN DEPTH STUDY OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

[Chopper]

March 10, 2016 Matthew 19:10-12 What's a Eunuch?

Matthew 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

Not seeing that in scripture. How do you see a wife with such an attitude fitting with

For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. (1 Peter 3:5-6 ESV)​

Seems to me this passage is telling a wife to trust in her Lord if she desires security.

Thank you for your question Hospes. You gave me an Old Testament example. Lets consider what marriage was like back then. The husband was the master of the home. What he said was law, so to speak. Jesus, when referring to marriage & divorce in Matthew 19, He said "for the hardness of heart" An example was when Abraham told Sarah to tell the folk she was his sister, Sarah had to do it even though she probably knew it was wrong.

Now, I'm going to point out perhaps the greatest rule for theology in the whole of Scripture. It is this....Matthew 22:35 "And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him.
22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?"
22:37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
22:38 This is the great and first commandment.
22:39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
22:40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Whenever a decision is to be made in the Christian home especially, and in life in general, Love is the guide. Just today, Brother Jim Parker reminded me of the importance of LOVE. Personally, I believe that we are just like the Church of Ephesus in Revelation, we have lost our first loving....Rev 2:4 Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. (KJV).... Rev 2:4 "But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first." (ESV)

Ok, lets look at what these Scriptures are teaching. In Matthew 22:37, Jesus says that the greatest Commandment that comes out from Almighty God to all people is to love Him as well as all others. Look at what He says. "On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets." (ESV) or, Matthew 22:40 "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (KJV)

All theology and doctrines of any church or any Christian, must consider the outcome of any decision or practice is it love motivated, not Law motivated or Prophet motivated. Nothing is to be done outside of the mandate of LOVE.

Now, lets look at a scriptural marriage. I'm talking about men because the man is responsible before God for the success or failure of any marriage.
1Peter 3:7 " Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered."

The husband is to honor his wife's feelings in any decision that effects their marriage. Gone is the Old Testament commands for the wife to obey her husband with no input. The husband is to love his wife, not push her around like a slave.

With no real knowledge of the circumstances of Jane and her husband's moving to Rome, we really can't use this example very far. Scripture is Scripture, Love is the prerequisite for any family decision.

 

[GodsGrace]

There are more interesting "deeper" equations to the matters. We know for example, that it was Eve, Adam's inner man, who was deceived, 1 Tim. 2:14. I might even say that the Adam, the natural man was not deceived, but instead entirely clueless about the deception, as he was "with" Eve during the entire discourse. The natural/carnal man NEVER understands Gods Laws. Romans 8:7

I might even go so far as to say that the inner man, Eve, was in fact DECEIVED by the lips of her own natural man mate. Remember, the command not to eat came to Adam, prior to Eve's separation/forming from within him. So it is ADAM who had to recount the command to Eve, and she botched it. She may very well have botched it because the natural man, Adam, did not tell the straight story on the command, as noted here:

Genesis 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

No, God didn't say that. Adam seemed to have added to the law just a tad. He wasn't paying close enough attentions to the DETAILS. And, the inner man then QUESTIONED Gods command, and was led into the deception.

I might suggest they were to TEND, but not to eat. But the LAW was amplified in both of their minds beyond what was stated by God. And this shows that the deception was well upon them both, internally, already, as it is with every natural/flesh/carnal person.

At the point of recognition that deception is an internal matter, we might understand what really happened to both of them, by Matthew for example, here, MORE LIGHT is shed upon that event:

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

And this is exactly what happened to them, and to all "natural flesh people" since.

There were TWO form of seed planted in the Garden. One was the seed of natural man. Here is a picture of both (including the adverse/wicked/deceiver) seed, when God spoke to the deceiver, the serpent.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This should spark some interesting details questions, from the inner man.

Seriously though, in these conversations about DIVORCE for example, we seldom look for the internal adverse influences factor by the DECEIVER. And are only looking at surface equations. That is the way of understandings only in the 'natural' and not really a deeper objective look at ALL the parties.

We all talk about Dick and Jane. But never about the internal deceptions of Satan, our mutual adversary.

It's not about just Dick and Jane. It's also about the deceptions we have in our flesh, and that by another party that is NOT Dick and Jane.

You're so serious Smaller!
Always thinking about the deceptions in your flesh. I keep sending you to Philippians, but NO!

Will get back to this when I'm done doing the floors.
Hope my Adam appreciates it!!

W

 

[smaller]

You're so serious Smaller!
Always thinking about the deceptions in your flesh. I keep sending you to Philippians, but NO!

Will get back to this when I'm done doing the floors.
Hope my Adam appreciates it!!

W

That is always a reality, perceived or not.

 

[GodsGrace]

W,

I knew there was more to the situation; there always is. I do not know enough to give counsel for your friend's daughter and I recognize I am not called to do so. I'll give you my thoughts, though.

I think because it is men typically teaching on Biblical marriage roles, the teaching is one-sided. We men find it easy to thump on men for not loving their wives by laying down their lives. We do not find it easy to chastise women for not submitting to their husbands. We are fearful we will come across as overbearing insensitive brutes. This is due to the cultural pressures; it's okay for a man to get in touch with his inner child or his feminine side, but it is not culturally acceptable for him to tell a woman God calls her to be submissive to her husband. Also, it is due to the natural disposition of men toward protecting women. But if a man is to offer Biblical instruction, he must be ready to lay aside societal pressures and personal inclinations and instruct as Paul and "not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God." (Acts 20:27 ESV)

Usually, when submission is spoken of, it is framed as a response God wants from a wife to a husband showing sacrificial loving leadership. So in essence the teaching is for Christian women to be submissive to the husband who is leading per the Bible. Only problem is submission-as-a-response is not per the Bible.

Husbands are to provide leadership and lay down their lives for their wives as Christ did for his Bride, the Church. Even for wives who refuse to act per the Bible. Wives are to accept leadership from their husbands as the Church is to accept leadership from Christ. Even for husbands who lead poorly. (Of course, for the Christian husband and wife there are limits due to God having their highest allegiance.) The husband and wife are called to be a certain way not as a response to one another, but as a response to their Lord. Here is a passage making it clear submission is not only for husbands doing as they ought:

Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. (1 Peter 3:1-2 ESV)​

(Once again, there are Biblical limits to this.)

Finally, marriage is to display the grace-filled relationship between Jesus and his bride. Grace is undeserved goodness. This means I am to show goodness to my wife even when she does not deserve it and she is to show goodness toward me even when I have done something deserving her wrath and none of her goodness. Sinners marry sinners, so there is much opportunity to display grace.

W, you have drawn me into the open on a hot-button issue. If I get waylaid, I am holding you responsible!

Wait. Let me do this before anyone else does:


Gosh Hospes, we're grown up adults. How could this be so easy for you?
Does this fall into the equation? Jobs here are scarce. There's a good business going on up here for them. Why move back to Rome and risk not even having a job that could maintain a family?

What does this mean?
Only problem is submission-as-a-response is not per the Bible.
(my highlighted and underlined as above)

You say the wife's submissive response is to a husband showing sacrificial loving leadership. How was this woman's husband showing this by wanting to leave a secure place for an insecure place?? Could we at least agree that sometimes the wife is right?

All being equal, I agree with you. (as I usually do). But things were not equal here and there was much to be considered. Maybe the husband could have made a little sacrifice in not seeking the entertainment and lifestyle of a busy city and instead consider the well-being of his family?

I see you're posting 1 Peter. I had posted Ephesians 5:22.25
I post here for your consideration Ephesians 5:23
Christ is the savior of the church. The husband must be the savior of his family - not put it in jeopardy.
Ephesians 5:25
Christ gave himself up for the Church. Sometimes it's the husband who should make the sacrifice.

I think Chopper is going on to the next verse in Mathew just in time!

W

 

[Chopper]

Here we go. What is a Eunuch?
εὐνοῦχος
eunouchos
yoo-noo'-khos
From εὐνή eunē (a bed) and G2192; a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication a chamberlain (state officer): - eunuch.
Total KJV occurrences: 8

Lets look again at our Scripture....
19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

We have here, men who have on sex organs. The Jewish leaders didn't like what Jesus has said about the requirements for divorce. They wanted to divorce "for any reason" pretty much what men want today. The modern woman has about the same attitude. The Disciples saw the truth in Jesus' statement and said...."If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Bingo!!

Now, the problem with not marrying, people just live together out of the bond of marriage. What do we learn from this passage of Scripture? Marriage is for a life time. Divorce for the Christian is not an option. The only grounds for a Christian divorce is "fornication" (KJV) or "sexual immorality" (ESV) of either the husband or wife.

I know of a case where a woman married her College fellow student, then found out that he was a practicing homosexual. She later divorced him. The word fornication covers any illegal sexual conduct that God disapproves of. The best way to look at marriage is to view it as a life time commitment with no divorce period!! If for some reason a divorce happens, it's a sin and needs the forgiveness of God and repentance.

 

[eddif]

Eunuch:
Hormonal induced condition
Lack from birth
Chemical induced condition
Surgical induced condition
Angels that can but don't
Men that refrain for the kingdom
Other ?

eddif

 

[Hospes]

Does this fall into the equation? Jobs here are scarce. There's a good business going on up here for them. Why move back to Rome and risk not even having a job that could maintain a family?

I am not saying the husband in your situation did what was right. My limited experience with other people's marriages - and lots of experience with my own! - leads me to suspect there is always wrong behavior by both spouses, even when there is an obvious spouse that sins more grievously than the other. I'm quite the egalitarian concerning who sins!

What does this mean?
Only problem is submission-as-a-response is not per the Bible.

You say the wife's submissive response is to a husband showing sacrificial loving leadership. How was this woman's husband showing this by wanting to leave a secure place for an insecure place??

I must have not been clear. I wanted to emphasize the different roles God commands for a husband and wife are not to be dependent on the other spouse's fulfillming their role. The husband you are writing about may be totally wrong in his leadership, but his wrongness does not necessarily mean his wife may now disregard what God asks of her as a wife. (You and I know there are qualifiers to this statement.)

Could we at least agree that sometimes the wife is right?

You bet the wife may be right! The husband may be wrong more often than not. My point is not who is more wise or obedient to God than the other. The fact is the wife is called to an extremely high degree of trust in God because she is called to entrust herself to prone-to-stupid husband. (It's one thing to trust an all-powerful and omniscient Person, but it's a whole different level of trust when the Person asks you to trust Him by entrusting yourself to a husband who is not all-powerful and way, way, short of omniscient!)

All being equal, I agree with you. (as I usually do). But things were not equal here and there was much to be considered. Maybe the husband could have made a little sacrifice in not seeking the entertainment and lifestyle of a busy city and instead consider the well-being of his family?

I see you're posting 1 Peter. I had posted Ephesians 5:22.25
I post here for your consideration Ephesians 5:23
Christ is the savior of the church. The husband must be the savior of his family - not put it in jeopardy.
Ephesians 5:25
Christ gave himself up for the Church. Sometimes it's the husband who should make the sacrifice.

I fully believe you understand the situation way better than I and fully support all of the passages spelling out God's commands for a husband. I have no hesitation being the person to give a disobedient husband a Christ-like thumping!

Before I stop, in my last post I was trying to point out the tendency of good-hearted men like Chopper to be very direct in applying the scripture to husbands and not as direct in applying scripture to wives. His post 1701 is an example.

I'm talking about men because the man is responsible before God for the success or failure of any marriage.

I know of two faithful men that had wives start an on-line fling with some old boyfriends and eventually abandoned their husbands and children, leaving a wake of damaged people. Though I am sure the husbands could have done better, to hold them solely accountable for their failed marriages wouldn't be the act a just judge, much less God.

[In order to not hijack this tread, I will not address this further here. If anyone would like to start a new thread, I'd be willing to engage this further. Sorry Chopper for the interruption.]

 

[eddif]

I Corinthians 7:35
And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

It would do little good for a surgically induced eunuch to marry. If a spiritually induced condition deteriorated then marriage might be an option.

This part of Matthew (off into mysteries) is difficult to receive by some. The physical always has a meta / greater beyond it ( the spiritual reality that casts the shadow in the physical realm).

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

There are more interesting "deeper" equations to the matters. We know for example, that it was Eve, Adam's inner man, who was deceived, 1 Tim. 2:14. I might even say that the Adam, the natural man was not deceived, but instead entirely clueless about the deception, as he was "with" Eve during the entire discourse. The natural/carnal man NEVER understands Gods Laws. Romans 8:7

I might even go so far as to say that the inner man, Eve, was in fact DECEIVED by the lips of her own natural man mate. Remember, the command not to eat came to Adam, prior to Eve's separation/forming from within him. So it is ADAM who had to recount the command to Eve, and she botched it. She may very well have botched it because the natural man, Adam, did not tell the straight story on the command, as noted here:

Genesis 3:3
But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

No, God didn't say that. Adam seemed to have added to the law just a tad. He wasn't paying close enough attentions to the DETAILS. And, the inner man then QUESTIONED Gods command, and was led into the deception.

I don't understand. How did Adam add to the law? Genesis 3:3 is the same as Genesis 2:17
Both God and Eve said that eating of the tree would cause death.

I might suggest they were to TEND, but not to eat. But the LAW was amplified in both of their minds beyond what was stated by God. And this shows that the deception was well upon them both, internally, already, as it is with every natural/flesh/carnal person.

I agree that they were to tend and not to eat. But you repeat about the law being amplified. I don't think it was... God said "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die." Genesis 2:17 NASB

At the point of recognition that deception is an internal matter, we might understand what really happened to both of them, by Matthew for example, here, MORE LIGHT is shed upon that event:

Matthew 13:19
When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

And this is exactly what happened to them, and to all "natural flesh people" since.

This is interesting and, of course, goes to your belief system-which I kind of understand, although I find it to be brooding, for lack of a better word. IOW, everythng you read goes back to this. You say the wicked one catcheth away that which was sown in the heart. Did satan catch away that which was in Eve's heart? Did he go in there and pull it out? OR did satan, in a very conniving way, CONVINCE Eve that she was not to listen to God because God lied and surely she would not die! Satan was on the OUTSIDE, he was not in the heart of Eve pulling out the words God had said. (well, actually Adam had passed on the instructions).

There were TWO form of seed planted in the Garden. One was the seed of natural man. Here is a picture of both (including the adverse/wicked/deceiver) seed, when God spoke to the deceiver, the serpent.

Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Okay. I get that the seed of natural man was planted in the garden. But do you think the seed of satan was planted in the garden? No. God is talking about the seed of satan and the seed of Mary, Jesus.

This should spark some interesting details questions, from the inner man.

Seriously though, in these conversations about DIVORCE for example, we seldom look for the internal adverse influences factor by the DECEIVER. And are only looking at surface equations. That is the way of understandings only in the 'natural' and not really a deeper objective look at ALL the parties.

We all talk about Dick and Jane. But never about the internal deceptions of Satan, our mutual adversary.

It's not about just Dick and Jane. It's also about the deceptions we have in our flesh, and that by another party that is NOT Dick and Jane.

I agree that the deceiver is forever present. I agree that he's our adversary. I agree that it's not just about Dick and Jane, but about the powers and the principalities.

Satan affects marriage, just like he affects everything else.

W

 

[GodsGrace]

I am not saying the husband in your situation did what was right. My limited experience with other people's marriages - and lots of experience with my own! - leads me to suspect there is always wrong behavior by both spouses, even when there is an obvious spouse that sins more grievously than the other. I'm quite the egalitarian concerning who sins!

I must have not been clear. I wanted to emphasize the different roles God commands for a husband and wife are not to be dependent on the other spouse's fulfillming their role. The husband you are writing about may be totally wrong in his leadership, but his wrongness does not necessarily mean his wife may now disregard what God asks of her as a wife. (You and I know there are qualifiers to this statement.)
You bet the wife may be right! The husband may be wrong more often than not. My point is not who is more wise or obedient to God than the other. The fact is the wife is called to an extremely high degree of trust in God because she is called to entrust herself to prone-to-stupid husband. (It's one thing to trust an all-powerful and omniscient Person, but it's a whole different level of trust when the Person asks you to trust Him by entrusting yourself to a husband who is not all-powerful and way, way, short of omniscient!)

I fully believe you understand the situation way better than I and fully support all of the passages spelling out God's commands for a husband. I have no hesitation being the person to give a disobedient husband a Christ-like thumping!

Before I stop, in my last post I was trying to point out the tendency of good-hearted men like Chopper to be very direct in applying the scripture to husbands and not as direct in applying scripture to wives. His post 1701 is an example.
I know of two faithful men that had wives start an on-line fling with some old boyfriends and eventually abandoned their husbands and children, leaving a wake of damaged people. Though I am sure the husbands could have done better, to hold them solely accountable for their failed marriages wouldn't be the act a just judge, much less God.

[In order to not hijack this tread, I will not address this further here. If anyone would like to start a new thread, I'd be willing to engage this further. Sorry Chopper for the interruption.]

Hospes,
I agree with much of what you say. I also agree that situations are always complicated and difficult and it takes two. I said way back at the beginning that I would not want to be the one to judge any such difficulties.

I highlighted and underlined a couple of sentences about Chopper. Chopper is a nice man and respectful toward women - OF COURSE he's not going to be as direct with them! Gentleness is a treasured virtue!

Back to Mathew...

W

 

[eddif]

I Corinthians 9:9
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?
10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

Oxen are not about oxen.
By extension:
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is not totally about a tree (probably about our tree like sensory: sight, taste, etc.)

The husband / wife is not totally about marriage (the union of Christ and his bride - - keeping her as his virgin).

The eunuch is probably not about a haram (keeping the church requires devotion to that job).

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

Eunuch:
Hormonal induced condition
Lack from birth
Chemical induced condition
Surgical induced condition
Angels that can but don't
Men that refrain for the kingdom
Other ?

eddif

I think angels are asexual, no?
In fact, I've never heard of a woman angel.
I'm referring to angels being understood as being male, but asexual.

W

 

[Malachi]

I think angels are asexual, no?

Why would you make this assumption when they always appear on earth as MEN. While they are spirit beings, they have the capacity to transform themselves (or be transformed) into men (never women or eunuchs). Please refer to Luke 24. "The angels which kept not their first estate" took the form of men, and functioned as men (Jude 6) and are mentioned in relation to sexual sins.

The only reasons that the Bible says that there are no marriages in Heaven are (1) the Marriage of the Lamb is the only one that counts in Heaven, (2) it is a realm where spirits and "spiritual bodies" (as per 1 Cor 15) reside, and the focus is on the triune Godhead by all the residents.

 

[GodsGrace]

Here we go. What is a Eunuch?
εὐνοῦχος
eunouchos
yoo-noo'-khos
From εὐνή eunē (a bed) and G2192; a castrated person (such being employed in Oriental bed chambers); by extension an impotent or unmarried man; by implication a chamberlain (state officer): - eunuch.
Total KJV occurrences: 8

Lets look again at our Scripture....
19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given.
19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it."

We have here, men who have on sex organs. The Jewish leaders didn't like what Jesus has said about the requirements for divorce. They wanted to divorce "for any reason" pretty much what men want today. The modern woman has about the same attitude. The Disciples saw the truth in Jesus' statement and said...."If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Bingo!!

Now, the problem with not marrying, people just live together out of the bond of marriage. What do we learn from this passage of Scripture? Marriage is for a life time. Divorce for the Christian is not an option. The only grounds for a Christian divorce is "fornication" (KJV) or "sexual immorality" (ESV) of either the husband or wife.

I know of a case where a woman married her College fellow student, then found out that he was a practicing homosexual. She later divorced him. The word fornication covers any illegal sexual conduct that God disapproves of. The best way to look at marriage is to view it as a life time commitment with no divorce period!! If for some reason a divorce happens, it's a sin and needs the forgiveness of God and repentance.

As you know Chopper, I agree with you.
But, yes, it is a difficult statement to accept. Why? Because not only does Jesus outlaw divorce (with exception) but He's saying that even if we don't marry there is to be no fornication. He's practically saying that we are all to be eunichs. Because we're born that way (asexuality) or because they were made that way (either physically - thankfully this doesn't apply to our day, although chemically this is possible) or for the sake of the Kingdom (or our own free choice). "He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

WHO is able to accept it? Not many. Satan has affected everything. Including love. Why wait for real love to give away one's body? It's made to seem so natural that the body is worth nothing and is only there for our pleasure-seeking. Why would one have to combine the physical aspect with love? We've been duped to think that it's two different things - when in reality it's one, or at least it should be one.

But man longs to have a companion. God Himself said that it's not good for man to be alone. One feels lonely being alone. We hear of finding our better half. So are we just half of a person by ourselves? How much self-respect is necessary to achieve the goal of living alone? What is it that makes us feel so lonely that we would be willing to sin to avoid this? Catholic priests are not allowed to marry. Some are very pure and are a eunich for the Kingdom, many fail. So is God not enough?

So many questions - so little answers.

Wondering

 

[GodsGrace]

Why would you make this assumption when they always appear on earth as MEN. While they are spirit beings, they have the capacity to transform themselves (or be transformed) into men (never women or eunuchs). Please refer to Luke 24. "The angels which kept not their first estate" took the form of men, and functioned as men (Jude 6) and are mentioned in relation to sexual sins.

The only reasons that the Bible says that there are no marriages in Heaven are (1) the Marriage of the Lamb is the only one that counts in Heaven, (2) it is a realm where spirits and "spiritual bodies" (as per 1 Cor 15) reside, and the focus is on the triune Godhead by all the residents.

I never spoke to marriage in heaven.
And what assumption am I making?
You mean that angels are asexual?
Well, who do angels have physical relations with if they're NOT asexual???

Angels always took the form of men. Gabriel, Michael. BUT they went back to being angels.

Jude 6 is speaking about angels that ABANDONED their proper abode. God has thus kept them in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgement of the great day. IOW, they remain MEN and have become as those who indulged in gross immorality and will undergo the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 7.

Angels, those in their proper abode (heaven) remain asexual.

W

 

[eddif]

Lonely.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

We have a corporate and personal relationship available. God is knocking at the door of our inner man too.

eddif

 

[GodsGrace]

Lonely.

Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

John 14:16
And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

We have a corporate and personal relationship available. God is knocking at the door of our inner man too.

eddif

This is very nice eddif.
Do you always feel God's presence?
Know what I heard a preacher say not long ago?
If you're lonely, you don't know God and are not saved.

How do you like that bag of beans?
Do you agree with it?

Wondering

 

[smaller]

I agree that the deceiver is forever present. I agree that he's our adversary. I agree that it's not just about Dick and Jane, but about the powers and the principalities. Satan affects marriage, just like he affects everything else.

W

True. Without factoring in the above, all the mishmash is void of understanding.

The pressures of the world, which are under his destruction domination, also add a lot of adverse flavors.

Think about how much brainwashing we ingest everyday from this wicked place. It's almost constant bombardment.

About the time that people begin to mature from childhood to adulthood, there are tremendous social, sexual pressures and pressures in competition/financial survival. And all these pressures imprint people's minds, deeply.

 

[brother Paul]

(my $.02)....When the LORD God "formed" man (yatsar - gave material form to) from the dust of the ground, the human form was "made" ('asah) to have full capability to be "fruitful and multiply"....sexuality is a blessing not something dirty or perverse. It is blessing and capability that comes with having a "human form".

So I believe "Eunuch by choice" refers to celibacy...which some practiced to be fully devoted to the Lord without distraction or attachment...

Now on the unrelated side note I believe that angels in their spirit form are asexual (being non-corporeal) but when (and some had/have this this ability) they tale on or assume a "human form" it is fully capable of having sex (however most would not even consider it)....those who ultilized this function of such a form in the remote past did so with the intent of disrupting God's plan of bringing forth the one who would bruise the head of the Serpent - Genesis 3:15)...Satan and his hosts made many attempts throughout history to disrupt the Lord's planned intent only to fail over and over....when He was here they tried to kill Him (and succeeded) trying to prevent Him from bruising their head but inadvertently caused it and made it happen (the Lord foreknowing what they would do)....in effect they only bruised His heel (that part closest to the earth - His footstool - which was His fleshly incarnate form)...again this is just my $.02 on this unrelated subject....

 

[eddif]

This is very nice eddif.
Do you always feel God's presence?
Know what I heard a preacher say not long ago?
If you're lonely, you don't know God and are not saved.

How do you like that bag of beans?
Do you agree with it?

Wondering

As long as we are in our body we have issues, but that does not take away from the possible benefits either. Being saved is not depending on power to witness.
Repentance
Salvation
Power to witness

Stay on the wilderness side of Jordan or cross over. All Israel is saved, but some were happy short of the promised land. One is the spiritual reality, and the other is the physical type.

Tradition of the Gentiles is about as bad as traditions of the Jews at times. The one new man helps to understand.

Just because I have some insight in the mind, that does not cause my flesh to already be resurrected. I still have issues in the flesh that will require the last trump.

Without Romans 7:25 we can not know how to discuss the human flesh / spirit very much.

eddif