Let's talk about Matthew 19:12

[Utomobong]

Interpreting Matthew 19:12 literally involves considering the three categories of eunuchs Jesus describes:
Those born as eunuchs: Individuals with physical conditions preventing reproduction.
Those made eunuchs by men: Those castrated by others.
Those who made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven: Those who voluntarily chose physical castration.
However:
Early Christians debated the literal meaning. Some, like Origen, self-castrated, but this was a minority view rejected later.
Most Christians consider the literal interpretation of the third category, which involves self-castration, to be incorrect.
The context of Matthew 19:10-12, following a discussion on marriage, suggests a broader meaning.
The Greek word "eunuchoi" can refer to castrated men, but also to those dedicated to celibacy.
Jesus' focus appears to be on accepting the idea of remaining unmarried for the kingdom's sake, rather than on physical castration.
Therefore, a literal interpretation of Matthew 19:12, particularly the third category, would mean accepting self-castration, which is not the common Christian interpretation. Most commentators understand the third category as those who choose celibacy to serve God.


But me, I'm here to do it directly but through the use of depo provera

[WheelyFixed]

There has been a certain amount of debate over the years about whether or not Jesus was actually celibate - with particular question about Mary Magdelene... Even more intriguing is that supposedly there are some early 'Virgin and Child' statues dating back to the very early Christian era, (with contexts that clearly indicate that it is supposed to be Jesus and Mom) where it is possible to check the child's "equipment" - and it's FEMALE! (and no sign that it was altered after the statue was originally made)

There are also plenty of other religions that did castrations, particularly notable are the Cybele worshipers, who would have been operating in the same time and area as the early Christians.

We have had a moderate number of members on EAv2 that were seeking castration for religious reasons, I'm not aware of any others here on EAv3 at present...

Mathew 19:12 is commonly pointed at, as is the one about 'If thine eyes offend thee, etc.' Biblical interpretation is a guessing game at best IMHO, but I think there is some reason not to want to buy off on 19:12 being a "free pass" to get into heaven... However that is just my opinion.

Putting on the moderator hat for a moment, while religious discussion in general is discouraged, it is allowed in relation to castration. However there is also the rule that it is OK to talk about your beliefs, but not OK to proselytize... ("I believe in X" is fine, "You should believe in X" is not...) So far there have been no problems, and I hope there won't be, but I thought a mild reminder is appropriate.

WheelyFixed

[Godson]

So, it's time to set the record straight on what is likely one of the most misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misrepresented passages of Scripture.

The actual verse, in it's most authentic form (meaning it hasn't been re-interpreted; edited; "modernized"; or made nicey-nice for queasy faith leaders and their followers) from the King James Version is as follows:

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

So, first and most obviously is the historical context of time and place, when the presence of eunuchs in everyday life would be as familiar as Amazon delivery men are today. Every family, at every age would have exposure to them. They might even have had the condition forced upon them through birth status; conquering; punishment; or be considering it as an option for their own children as a way to elevate their family station and status. That covers the first two.

The second part is those "which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven," which I actually fall into, re: my own nullification journey.

While Christ often taught (seemingly) inscrutably, and in parable and allegory; Christ's teaching in this passage IS literal, and so to is intended to be taken and acted on LITERALLY.

It is important to acknowledge that Christ himself was a eunuch; as well as a number of the Apostles; and the discipleship that went out to spread Christ's ministry after His death, led primarily by Mark; and the ascetic monks who became known as the "Desert Fathers," who founded the first Christian communities; that became the first official "church" - the Coptic Orthodox.

Back to the passage - what most people fail to recognize - now that the Gospel has become little more than a collection of memes to most people - is that Christ spoke of only two things - *commandments* which we *must* follow in order for Him to present us to God for Judgement; and *guidelines* for living a pure life worthy of His mercy, and God's grace.

And He instructs us very clearly and simply here in His line, "He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

We can actually Venn diagram what that line really means, as His words are crystal clear, and not leave any room for misinterpretation.

Christ isn't talking about ALL men. He is speaking to a very specific and small group of men - SINGLE men. NOT temporarily single, or made single by circumstance, but men who for whatever reason will not marry in their lives. The reason for which is because marriage is our covenant we make on earth to represent our covenant with God (and thereby the Trinity) and create new life (His gift) in His name. That's the reason Jesus is referred to as our Bridegroom, and all of us - male and female - are referred to as His bride. And since the marriage covenant we make with a spouse in this life continues on eternally after we pass, it's a very serious thing.

Single men who never marry, and never intend to, thus have no way of making that lifetime covenant - and that's what castration/emasculation is: the opportunity for single men to still make an eternally binding covenant with God, which they would otherwise be shut out of by their bachelorhood.

Since I don't have time to Venn this, the rationale for this can be broken out into segments of who Christ is instructing, and who not. Look at it as totally separate universes:

Universe: All Single Men
Sub-universe: All single men pursuing a devoted life in following the Cross of Jesus Christ
> Single men who are "in waiting" (adolescence; pre-marriage; wanting marriage but prevented by circumstance [soldiers, seafarers, etc.]) = no
> Single men who have been married but no longer have a wife = no
> Single men with no intention of marriage or viable prospects = yes (includes disciples, missionaries, monks, ascetics, etc. etc.)
> Single men with no intention of marriage or viable prospects; who understand Christ's instruction; but do not have the courage or commitment to make the sacrifice ("let those who CAN receive it...") = no
> Single men with no intention of marriage or viable prospects; who understand Christ's instruction; and who are *singleminded* about surrendering their full lives to the Lord in devotion to a life in the Cross; and have courage and commitment - and thus ARE able to "receive it" = yes

And, to this last, small, and final committed and brave group who are "able to receive it," He gives both permission (for what some would consider mutilation of the flesh, but is in fact simply an acknowledgement "that there can be no covenant without blood") and the confidence that He is confirming His guidance in the line "let him receive it."

So, plainly, He is telling us that if we aren't dedicating our lives to the work of "creating" (making babies, raising families, etc), then, in all our freedom and spare time, we should commit our to to doing the work of God thus this step is the covenant to making that commitment.

So, the actual group that He intends this instruction for is very small; and given the context of time and place would not have seemed extraordinary at all.

It is only history, and editing, and the politics of church evolution, and clergy who didn't want to get cut themselves, and the twisting and changing of the Gospel to suit the cowardice and convenience of faith leaders and denominations that have distorted this very meaningful and literal passage.

- Micah

[WheelyFixed]

Interesting summary of how you interpret the gospel, and I certainly have no disrespect for your beliefs.

BUT not all would agree and IMHO the Bible is cryptic enough to allow for many different interpretations and honestly held beliefs about what it means, and I don't want to disrespect those beliefs either....

That said, there is a definite lack of evidence that Jesus was a eunuch or even celibate (i.e. his relationship w/ Mary Magdelene, not to mention that some have suggested possible homosexual relationships between him and the other apostles....)

Ditto the apostles.... (Note I define the lack as being no explicit statements either way in the bible, or historical records outside of it. I don't buy 'implications' or reading between the lines as definitive)

And the King James Bible is an interpretation of an oral tradition in a different set of languages, which was apparently not written down until some number of years after the time of Jesus and friends.... There are many other interpretations that also claim to be authoritative and exact but are different.... There is also historical record of several books being removed and suppressed even before the King James....

Putting on the moderator hat for a moment, I'd remind you that our policy on religious discussion is that it is totally OK to say "I believe X", but it is not OK to say "You should believe X" or that "X is the only legitimate belief" as that is not respectful of others....

WheelyFixed

[TheRagingEunuch]

"Those born as eunuchs: Individuals with physical conditions preventing reproduction."
And that would include yours truly. I have never known any other way and was brought up as such. Just an ordinary guy who just happens to a Eunuch.