JESUS “COMMANDS” TO NOT MARRY
(Also, eunuchs can still have sex)
Matthew 19:10-12:
Jesus and His Disciples directly stated in Matt. 19:10 that “it is not good to marry” manifested mostly because of “divorce” explained in Matt. 19:3-9; that is, the marriage standard does not work (or work best). You see, divorcing for “any reason” begets an innocent “victim” and breaks the all important Goldenrule. If she’s out a-whorin’ (“porneia”) then she’s really not an “innocent” victim. Plus, when she’s loyal, the divorcer is still not happy when he has to remain married. Jesus goes on in Matt. 19:11-12 stating that “eunuchs” (men with testicles removed as a form of birth control, who can still have sex) can “accept” (NKJV) Jesus’ preference for people to not get married, because they would not father any children; hence, their sex would not cause a secular financial burden (see my Lewis and Clark page). In Matt. 19:13-15, Jesus quickly supports “children” to show that the total solution is not for everyone to become childless eunuchs, as a perfect Christian following world would end in said generation. In Matt. 19:16-24 Jesus quickly continues emphasizing that the root of the problem is the greed of the rich man. Jesus goes as far as to state that “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs” did it for Jesus’ “Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.” Therefore, this part of the Gospel is definitely stating that Jesus preferred people to NOT get married. In Matt. 19:25-29 Jesus tells that only people who leave the family standard “shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” Again, this is not Paul talking who later overruled this (but only as a “concession”), this is Jesus talking:
Matthew 19:10-12 (NKJV):
10His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
In other words, if you are “able” to not get married, then Jesus actually says “it is better not to marry.” And, the “let him” part is not in the original Greek. In fact, “let” is an actual lie / corruption:
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Green, Baker Books, 1996, 2nd printing 1998, p. 63, Matthew 19:12:
As you can see, the last two Greek words are both Strong # 5562, meaning that “He who is able to accept it, accept it!” with no “let him”: it’s not included in the form of the either of the words. Or if you like, “The one having been enabled to receive it, receive it! The “let him” is a corruption to make the real message more obscure. And the word before those (i.e. δυνάμενος) means “to be able or possible.”
Now let’s see what kind of verb the last “accept / receive it” really is:
The NIV English-Greek New Testament: A Reverse Interlinear, Mounce, Zondervan Publishing House, 2000, p. 113, Matthew 19:12:
P. xvii, General Guildlines:
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Mounce, Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, p. 485:
Analytical Concordance of the Greek New Testament, Clapp-Friberg, Vol. 1: Lexical Focus, p. 2531:
P. xxxiii, How To Use The Concordance:
Now let’s see what “imperative” means:
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1997, p. 582:
What do you think of that? Am I doing my homework right, God? That is incredible.
What does that actually mean?
It actually means that Jesus Christ Himself “commanded,” “entreated” (pleaded, asked urgently), “exhorted” (urged strongly, warned), “controlled and directed,” an “order,” “rule,” “guide,” an “obligation,” a “duty,” “not to be avoided or evaded: NECESSARY” to not marry. It’s that simple.
Well, I would say that today, with effective birth control, all are “able” to not marry, and it is “imperative” that you don’t, as is commanded, et al., by Jesus Himself.
Marriage has been a huge issue for thousands of years, affecting most everyone’s daily lives. Therefore, God has to be careful in Matthew 19:10-12 and others to give me the “conclusive” information I need while allowing His opposition a way to spin it to keep Jesus’ words alive during (mainly) Middle-Age corruption. Using “eunuchs” as an example was a very cleaver way to circumvent the enemy. The threat was so close, and the line so thin, that luckily the Church was successful in influencing Mary as the superior; thanks to the easy gullibility of the average person.
Does He really need to say this 100 times for it to be heard, or can He say it just one time to be enough?
Luke 9:35: And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Realize, Jesus Christ is the voice of God.
Family News From Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family, January 2000, p. 4 (second paragraph)
Yes it will, as long as religious leaders continue to lie and denounce sex outside of marriage. Also, many problems will continue until there’s a Nationally Paid Child Support Program (or, we could place free food, free land, clean water and clean air back).
Today’s Churches corruptly teach that Jesus denounced all sex outside of marriage, but also denounced marriage, which would cause mankind to end if everyone did what Jesus said to do. Those of you who are saying that you’re smart enough to realize this, still need to realize that the rest of the world is not smart enough to realize this.
Luke 20:34-36:
34Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry(verb in the active present tense) nor are given in marriage; 36nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
So “Jesus” is saying that only single people can attain the resurrection. The original Greek verbs “γαμουσιν” for “marry” (both) are in the active present tense. Nope, it doesn’t say you can’t have sex outside of marriage. If it did, and everyone in the world did want Jesus expects (which would be the goal), then mankind would end because no one would be able to have sex.
1 Timothy 5:11-12:
11But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12having condemnation because they have cast off their first faith.
Eunuchs can still have sex:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=castrate, castrate@everything2.com:
castrate … To surgically remove the testicles. The penis is not removed in castration. … A human male who has been castrated is a eunuch.
The Dictionary of Misinformation, Burnam, 1975, p. 78, “eunuchs and erections”:
Sexualia: From Prehistory to Cyberspace, Bishop / Osthelder, 2001, p. 314, “Prostitution in the Western World | Men for Sale”:
Sexualia: From Prehistory to Cyberspace, Bishop / Osthelder, 2001, p. 161, “The Harem and the Great Seraglio”:
http://www.geocities.com/KarenSpecial/castrate.html, Castration. Source: “The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” by Barbara G. Walker [Harper & Row, 1983]:
Ritual castration was again revived by the 18th century Russian sectaries calling themselves Skoptsi, “castrated ones.” They also called themselves People of God, insisting that removal of their genitals brought them profound spiritual powers. Russia’s “mad monk” Rasputin was a member of this sect. Since Rasputin was famed for his affairs with women, few of his contemporaries would have believed him a eunuch; but they had forgotten what eastern harem-keepers knew well enough: that eunuchs are quite capable of providing women with sexual pleasure. Rasputin’s hold over his female devotees was in any case a curious combination of spiritual and sensual obsessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Castration”:
Castration, gelding, neutering, orchiectomy or orchidectomy is any action, surgical or otherwise, by which a biological male loses use of the testes. This causes sterilization, i.e. prevents them from reproducing; it also greatly reduces the production of certain hormones, such as testosterone. It should not be confused with penectomy, which is the whole or partial removal of the penis. … Castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether. Castrates can, however, still have erections, orgasms and ejaculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration_cult (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Castration cult”:
A number of religious cults have included castration as a central theme of their beliefs. These include: • The cult of Cybele • Hijra (India) • Some followers of early Christianity such as Origen considered castration as an acceptable way to counter sinful desires of the flesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Cybele”:
Cybele's most ecstatic followers were castrated males called Galli by the romans, who led the people in orgiastic ceremonies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Origen”:
Origen was a Christian scholar and theologian and one of the most distinguished of the Fathers of the early Christian Church. He was born about 182, probably at Alexandria, and died at Caesarea not later than 251. … His full name was apparently Origenes Adamantius. … he followed literally Matthew 19:12 and castrated himself, partly influenced, too, by his belief that the Christian must follow the words of his Master without reserve. … Origen accordingly fled from Alexandria in 231, and made his permanent home in Caesarea. A series of attacks on him seems to have emanated from Alexandria, whether for his self-castration (a capital crime in Roman law) or for alleged heterodoxy is unknown; but at all events these fulminations were heeded only at Rome, while Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Achaia paid no attention to them.
We now have this that controls modern day thought:
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Brown, Zondervan Publishing, 1978, vol. 3, p. 541, “Separate, Divide”:
Jesus and His disciples were previously discussing the marriage problems of divorce and adultery, and used it for a basis to shun marriage. They were not telling of the pitfalls of sex between single people. Jesus tells that the assurances and expectations relied on in the marriage union is interrupted by adultery and divorce, and therefore is not working as originally intended, as it begets too many victims. He never says that sex between single people is wrong. At the end of verse 12, Jesus shuns marriage, not all sexual relations period. Plus, the fact that eunuchs can still have erections says that they can still do the act, and that eunuchs can have orgasms says they can still very much enjoy the act. I’m telling you, the ones who people trust the most (clergies) are really the ones they can trust the least. Plus, if Jesus denounced “sexual relations altogether,” and if everyone did what Jesus wanted, then mankind would end in that generation, as no one would be having sex. Yet, people will believe whatever the church tells them. And, that is what allows a church full of lies and cop-outs, instead of a church of solutions.
The Youth Bible, Word Publishing, 1991, “Dictionary” p. 1359, “eunuch”:
Another false teaching example stating that Eunuchs cannot have sexual relations.
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/David/Eunuchs.pdf (or, http://www.spirituality.org.za/files/Eunuch.pdf), Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and Transgressive Sexualities, p. 1, “Abstract”:
The eunuch of Matthew 19:12 has long been viewed as a symbol of chastity and celibacy. However, a study of ancient perspectives on eunuchs reveals a highly sexed and morally dubious “third type of human” embodying the worst fears of masculine vulnerability and sexual transgression.
P. 3, “Introduction”:
The eunuch was a figure perceived to be neither celibate nor morally chaste, but was a monstrous gender formation whose ability to navigate within and take on properties of both male/masculine and female/feminine worlds (physically, sexually, socially, culturally, even politically) was the source of his/her ambivalent social status.
P. 6, “Modern Interpretive Receptions”:
From this perspective, since a eunuch cannot penetrate a female in order to produce children, a eunuch cannot have sex. This interpretation is certainly reasonable (within its presumptive contours) and clearly has deep historical roots in the reception of this saying8 (as well as in the history of the development of Christian sexual ethics from the late 2nd century onwards). But that this interpretation is predicated upon a deep ideological assumption about sex and sexuality can be shown by reference to one single fact: eunuchs were not celibate. Indeed, they were not even viewed as chaste. In fact, eunuchs were universally characterized by the frequency, ease of and adeptness with which they performed sex acts with both men and women.
P. 10, “Eunuchs and Sexuality in the Ancient World”:
With respect to prepubescent castration, certain physiological characteristics were widely known and stereotyped, including feminine and beardless faces, physical weakness, height, with womanish vocal characteristics. With respect to post-pubescent castration, however, many secondary sex-characteristics associated with males would be maintained, making it extremely difficult for anyone in the ancient world to know for certain whether the man in front of him was a eunuch or not.
P. 12:
The fact that eunuchs were seen as objects of sexual desire did not shield them from vituperation directed precisely at the sexual practices that made them adept lovers.
P. 14:
It seems odd, therefore, that the “simple and straightforward” exegesis of the eunuch logion of Matthew today would view the eunuch as a symbol of sexual chastity and celibacy. Clearly, eunuchs were widely perceived as neither chaste nor celibate, but highly sexual and sexed beings.
P. 21, “Christian Ritual Castration and Gender Identity Politics”:
Indeed, contrary to what we have come to believe, Christian ritual castration was in fact performed for centuries.69 Practitioners were not limited to what we would now term “heterodox” or “gnostic” movements, but were also found within orthodoxy itself. Indeed, given the fluid and contested boundaries of the various Christian movements up to the 4th century, it should come as no surprise to learn that Christian ritual castration, though certainly understood as a special calling, found adherents in both orthodox and heterodox movements. The great ascetic movements that blossomed in the 3rd century which practiced ritual castration laid the foundation for later monasticism and its advocacy of celibacy.
P. 24, “Christian Ritual Castration and Gender Identity Politics”:
Springtime devotees to Cybele/Magna Mater would engage in ecstatic dancing. Certain novice members who were ready to signal their complete devotion would then take the ritual curved stone knife and castrate themselves, flinging their now amputated testicles at the door of house, whose female members were then expected to give them clothing, which they would then don.
http://www.partnertherapy.com/node/1091, Excessive Libido:
For men, the easiest and least utilized method of libido reduction is orchidectomy (removal of the testicles). It's obviously ill-advised for anyone wanting a family, but more to the point, there are certain cultural "taboos" about it. But there are plenty of men living happy sexual lives after such minor surgery -- some are removed for disease (testicular cancer), some to help address other diseases (prostate problems) and some folks simply have them out to reduce/eliminate libido. Such men can still have sex if they want -- the adrenals produce at least as much testosterone as women enjoy, and as we all know, that can be more than enough for some women!
It sounds like pleasure is reduced but not gone. I spoke to a local urologist, and he said that a person who has his testicles removed can definitely still have and enjoy sexual intercourse. He also told me it would not lessen their sexual libido unless the patient was pretty old. He agreed with my assumption that the early Greeks did it for a guaranteed method of birth control.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16989928&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (PubMed.gov: A Service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health), The sexuality and social performance of androgen-deprived (castrated) men throughout history: Implications for modern day cancer patients, Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
The historical term for a man who has been castrated is 'eunuch', now a pejorative term implying overall social and sexual impotence. In this paper, we review key historical features of eunuch social performance and sexuality from a variety of cultures in order to assess the validity of contemporary stereotypes of the androgen-deprived male. Data were taken from secondary sources on the history of Byzantium, Roman Antiquity, Early Islamic societies, the Ottoman Empire, Chinese Dynasties, and the Italian Castrati period. This cross-cultural survey shows that castrated men consistently held powerful social positions that yielded great political influence. Many eunuchs were recognized for their loyalty, managerial style, wisdom, and pedagogical skills. Furthermore, rather than being consistently asexual and celibate, they were often sexually active. In certain cultures, they were objects of sexual desire for males, or females, or both. Collectively, the historical accounts suggest that, given the right cultural setting and individual motivation, androgen deprivation may actually enhance rather than hinder both social and sexual performance. We conclude that eunuch history contradicts the presumption that androgen deprivation necessarily leads to social and sexual impotence. The capabilities and accomplishments of eunuchs in the past gives patients on ADT grounds for viewing themselves in a positive light, where they are neither socially impotent nor sexually chaste.
The fact that a eunuch can have sex at all, proves Jesus was not condemning sex. He was only saying “marriage” was evil, and furthermore, that He had unwavering support for sex outside of marriage. Since the world would end if everyone became a eunuch, eunuch is just a great example of someone who can be very promiscuous, even to be able to be a participant in Cybele’s ritual orgies. That way, you don’t end up with a bunch of pregnant women. Being a eunuch was “visual” conclusive proof that no one can get pregnant. Ouch, though. Men, you can all start breathing again: today we have the pill.
Eunuch is a good example for Jesus to use as it can bypass a lot of corruption by those who can easily “just say” eunuchs can’t have sex, allowing the word to stay in the Bible, so that I can utilize it today, for my needed Jesus support.
Jesus overrules the Old Testament with another one:
Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (Old Testament):
1“He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. 2One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Achtemeier, 1996, pp. 313-314, “eunuch”:
It is “unclear” because the meaning of Jesus commanding us to not marry is clear.
The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament (portion), p. 627, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, Baker Books 1997, p. 260, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer’s, 1979, p. 323, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
See, you don’t need to be married when you have effective birth control. But I suggest today to use spermicides, condoms, the pill, etc. STDs is the problem today. And today’s churches thank God for STDs; and, that kind of strong influence has to have a lot of control to lessen the finding of cures.
Miscellaneous:
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, John M. Allegro, 1992, p. 116, “The Celibate Ideal”:
Yes, but today’s church will have to wait for someone who can explain a rational alternative.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia), Virginity:
The counsel of virginity is expressly given in the New Testament; first in Matt., xix, 11, 12, where Christ, after reminding His disciples that besides those who are unfit for marriage by nature, or by reason of a mutilation inflicted by others, there are others who have made the same sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven, recommends them to imitate these. "He that can take, let him take it." Tradition has always understood this text in the sense of a profession of perpetual continence. St. Paul again, speaking (I Cor., vii, 25-40) as a faithful preacher of the doctrine of the Lord (tamquam misericordiam consecutus a Domino, ut sim fidelis), formally declares that marriage is permissible (Paul said this, not Jesus), but that it would be better to follow his counsel and remain single; and he gives the reasons; besides the considerations arising from the circumstances of his time, he gives this general reason, that the married man "is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife (the sin of partiality): and he is divided"; whereas he that is without a wife directs all his care to his own bodily and spiritual sanctification, and is at liberty to devote himself to prayer.
These verses are slamming “marriage.” They are not recommending to never have sex. There’s nothing in these verses that says you can’t have sex out of marriage, other than the corrupt definition of “fornication.” By the way, James 2:8-9 (NKJV): [8]If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; [9]But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (“Transgressor” means to violate the law.) “Partiality” (for self or for a person / people) is the root of all evil. Conversely, “partiality” for material (non human) things is our actual mission for God: what we want of material things (creation, location) is what God wants. The problem comes in when one’s desire for a material thing is someone else’s detriment, therefore, the Goldenrule must first be met.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, “Virginity” 1, b:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm, Matrimonium - Roman Marriage, “Who Had The Right To Marry?”:
Bride and groom must have reached puberty. Over time, examination to determine puberty gave way to standardization at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Eunuchs, who would never reach puberty, were not permitted to marry. Monogamy was the rule,
(The Romans are the one’s who persecuted the early Christians [for there hundred years].)
Jealousy:
Marriage / monogamy, especially with looks discrimination, promotes jealousy; and, jealousy cannot be a true Jesus goal, simply because Jesus instructed that we are to love (have concern for the happiness of) everyone, including the other guy that also wants to date your girl. It is logically impossible for the essence of each motif to agree. At this point, to explain how and why people are able to connect the two, I should explain why people are not near as smart as they think they are; but, because I would be right, that would just cause myself more enemies, so I’ll save it for another subject.
Fundamentals of Human Sexuality, Katchadourian, 1989, p. 460, “Sexual Jealousy”:
“Become one flesh”: Genesis 2:24 & particularly Matthew 19:2-9:
Comment:
On my previous WIFE / WOMAN / Gunaikos webpage, I interpret Genesis 2:24’s “and they shall become one flesh” more literally, as it indicates that the “one flesh” of the two parents is what’s better know as a “baby.” However, Jesus did reference the same in the traditional meaning of marriage. I think Jesus used it simply because that’s how the Jews used it at the time to justify marriage; therefore used it as a reference basis just to firmly denounce divorce, which I agree should be avoided (as it usually begets a victim), and, of course, later mandates that people should avoid marry in the first place, around the eunuch explanation. (1) Jesus addresses the Old Testament understanding, and did not debate its “baby” validity, to (2) more support His deterrent of divorce; but then (3) to avoid the same divorce problem, e.g., ordered everyone who can stay single to do so. All this agrees with my thoughts, except today I feel the time’s right to overcomplicate it by telling of the “baby” corruption / misunderstanding.
Again, divorce usually always begets a victim, and particularly for the woman in ancient times. Even today, in reality, divorce is usually always something only one party wants. If both parties really want the divorce, then there’s no victim. If Jesus would have justified divorce in this way, then there would have been many more beatings of wives, etc. just so she would more “really” want the divorce as well. Don’t you hate logic?
Plus, Jesus had to conform to the then traditional understanding of the “read[ing]” as the Pharisees were “temping” Him. Jesus also overruled Moses by disallowing all divorces, unless she’s out a-whoring, where she can financially take care of herself. If she’s just sleeping with other men without charging (today’s definition of fornication), then she obviously isn’t going to be any financially better off after the divorce. So why would Jesus permit her to maybe starve if He’s caring about her well being? You see, this “fits” (in logic and reality) better than any other explanation. See my webpage: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/05-18-09__Americans_love_living_a_lie.htm under “A New Testament translation problem” concerning the “adultery” part, that partly parallel’s Matthew 19:9. Matthew 19:9 does add in that it’s not “adultery” for the man unless he marries another, allowing an avenue for someone who wishes to recant marriage altogether. Since early Christians were communal, enough was provided for single women, so they wouldn’t need to be married or go out a-whoring. I’m assuming this specific kind of divorce allowance was for married Christian followers alone.
Plus, with the “let him” part not being in the original Greek of the last sentence of Matthew 19:12 so to diminish Jesus’ “imperative” “command” form of verb, tells of a definite church corruption to allow marriage when Jesus instructs to not. That should be enough to satisfy any doubt alone. Again, Jesus instructs that if you are “able” to accept the saying “it is better to not marry” then we must accept it; as he was instructing the “great multitude” (verse 2). And, with effective birth control, STD cures, and the government paying everyone for their basic needs, then everyone can accept it.