Eunuchs and Jesus Christ

(Mathew 19:12)

OK, here's a subject for a Bible study most people get squeamish about. There are many books and commentaries written about marriage, chastity and even things like over coming sexual addiction. (Which is a real problem in the Christian community.) Most of those types of things, people can handle. They can talk about the wonderful benefits of marriage and sexual relationships with their spouses, dealing with adultery, helping teens and young adults make it to their wedding day with their virginity and dignity in tact; but when you start taking about Jesus Christ and sex, people get weirded out.

So here we go.

Question #1

Does the Bible give us any indications, explanations that help us understand the difference between sin and biology?

We know back in Genesis God commanded everything on the planet to "be fruitful and multiply". Well, I can certainly attest to the fact that the weeds in my garden are obeying this command. Be fruitful and multiply and fill Righterzpen's gardens with weeds. They do that well.

Joking aside here, I have covered in other Bible studies how in Genesis when God says "it was good"; the word "good" in the Hebrew here is in the context of something pleasant. It's used in the context of describing people, plants and or animals that are "beautiful". They are "pleasing" to look at; or other contexts where things are "pleasing" to the senses. (Like eating a good meal.) Or even "pleasing" psychologically. (Like relationships with family, friends, pets etc.) The reflection of this pleasantness comes to us from God's creative action. Creating this universe gave God pleasure; made Him content with a plan and satisfied with what He'd made. So in turn, that good pleasure of God is instilled in the creation in it's reproductive capacity. (Pleasure, contentment, satisfaction) Life begets life and life can not exist without the breath of life given by God. This obviously is how God is still active in creating even though the heavens and earth are "done"; from a creative design standpoint.

So yes, on account of this reproductive capacity that's present in the creation; the Scriptures do give us indications in the law of the difference between sin and biology.

First off - in the Old Testament Levitical Law, a number of people who commit sexual acts God considered "abominations" are to be put to death. (Abomination loosely translated means something God finds "disgusting".)

This list includes people who commit adultery, beastiality (sex with animals), homosexuals, people who force others to have sex, (rape), and fornicators (people with multiple sex partners).

Numbers 31 (passage about Midianite women and children) actually addresses the issue of sex with prepubescent children. (Not something God looks favorably upon either.) Numbers 31 is a complicated passage and many people use it to accuse God of telling Israel to commit war crimes and that's not actually what's happening. But the explanation of that passage is a subject for a different study.

There's also a passage in Deuteronomy where people often accuse God of telling a non-espoused victim to marry their rapist, but that isn't what that passage is saying either. That Deuteronomy passage isn't addressing rape; rape is addressed a few verses earlier.

Deuteronomy 22

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

To "lay hold of" in this context means to "trick" or "seduce". This is not forcible rape, because she knows what he wants and allows this to happen. This also goes along with verse 23 & 24 about the betrothed woman "not crying out" in the city; for the assumption is that she'd be in the vicinity of other people who'd hear her screaming for help and come to protect her.

Verse 25 also states specifically about "force"; assuming that she'd put up some sort of fight and thus there would be physical evidence that she "cried out" but no one heard her to come and help her.

Verse 26 is also fascinating in that apparently thousands of years before "women's liberation" God states to humanity that rape is an act of violence and not an act of sex; for it is "like unto when a man rises up and slays his neighbor". Here is an acknowledgement that something has gone seriously wrong in the psyche of the rapist and thus warrants putting him to death in order to protect the community.

What fornication is not:

Now, stipulation for people who were not already espoused (or were in consummated marriages) was that if they had sex with one other partner who was also not espoused or married; they weren't to be put to death. (Exodus 22:16) They were to get married. Now if they refused to get married, than they fell into the "fornicator" category.

This category (non espoused people) is also picked up in 1 Corinthians 7:36-38. The passage looks kind of strange in English and causes a lot of confusion. Some commentators think this is talking about a father giving a daughter in marriage; (an older daughter as opposed to a younger daughter) but that is not what this is talking about.

If his virgin "passes the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sins not, let them marry. Never the less, he that stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity but having power of his own will and has decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he that gives her in marriage does well, but he that gives her not in marriage does better."

If the virgin "passes the flower of her age" means she's not a virgin any longer. And this is why "need so require" (referencing back to the law in Exodus) to be married. "he sins not" (He has not sinned for lack of control over himself.) Yet if a man has power of himself that his virgin still is a virgin by the time they get to the wedding ceremony; than he has done honorably by her. So then he that gives her unto marriage (because they already had sex) does what is morally appropriate. But he that gives her not unto marriage (because he's maintained control over himself) does the more noble thing.

So there is marriage application as opposed to sexual behavior God sees as an abomination.

Marriage bed undefiled:

Now this phrase is out of Hebrews 13:4. "Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled, but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge."

Now some have said this passage supports the idea that any heterosexual behavior is OK, between a husband and wife; but what this passage is actually talking about is the conception of children... and folks, children can only be conceived one way! And this is why it says "whoremongers and adulterers God will judge". "Whoremongering" can also take place within a marriage. Rightful and healthy sexual activity should not be degrading to either husband or wife. Sexual behavior that God does not find "disgusting", does not involve body openings where genitalia was not designed to go.

Biology - things we know that happen naturally to males and females.

Biology tells us that certain things happen to males and females regardless of the individuals intent on sexual activity. Most basically, biologically speaking, we are talking about engorgement of genitalia with blood and discharge of fluid from the body. This happens for a variety of reasons. Some if it is connected to sleep cycles, biological functions like having to urinate, hormone cycles. This is part of the clock work of being a biological entity. These things happen to animals and plants in their own rights too. Some of it is connected to the neurological hardwiring of the organism. Castrated animals (and humans) may still seek to have sex. This is because that although the organs that produce the hormones may be removed, the neurological wiring that drives the process (behavior) is still present. The reproductive system is still connected to the brain, even if parts of the system are missing.

So these cycles happen to everyone regardless of age. These occurrence may be more or less frequent depending on age and the presence; or lack there of hormones. Engorgement of genitalia even without bodily discharge is part of biology's way of maintaining the heath of the organ. It's the same with other body systems (digestion, the brain, limbs). There are times when more blood is shunted off to certain systems for the reason of performing certain functions.

All of that is part of biology and that in and of itself is not sin. Now these functions can be misappropriated and used in a sinful way, this is true; but the function itself is not sin.

And here's an instance where the "overly conservative"? (no that's not the right word) Church groups / denominations that have aberrant teachings concerning the division between intended sexual behavior and biology, have gone off the rails. Both eggs and sperm are discharged naturally from the body regardless of whether or not they are intended for sexual behavior by the individual organism. It isn't necessarily a matter of the will of the individual to do this. Especially during puberty, it often happens without instigation. This is true of pregnancy too. Women experience an increase of body discharge when they are pregnant, besides having to urinate more frequently.

Masturbation:

Here is an issue certain people get squeamish about that is actually never addressed in the Scripture. People who say it is, cite one passage about a man Onan who "spilled his seed" (on the ground assuming) and "God was angry with him". (Genesis 38) Now if we read this passage carefully, we see what God was really angry at Onan for. God was angry at Onan because Onan hated his brother and refused to raise up children to this brother after the brother died.

God was not angry at the loss of sperm cells. There's usually plenty more where those came from and besides, we know from basic biology that sperm cells get "spilled" all the time.

So, other than this assumed passage in Genesis, the Scripture never addresses the subject of masturbation. Why is this? The answer to that might actually be in Matthew 19?

Jesus Christ:

So, nuts and bolts biology. We just addressed that due to natural processes, organs become engorged with blood and body fluids get discharged on a pretty consistent basis. Jesus, having been a biological entity; obviously these things happened to him/Him too.

Now, Matthew 19;12 is a very interesting passage. It talks about eunuchs. Jesus makes this statement in a couple of verses that some are born eunuchs by nature. (There's something physically wrong with them. Be it actual genital birth defect or lack of appropriate hormone level for the person's age.) Some are made eunuchs by men. (Male humans who've had portions (or all) of their reproductive systems removed for various reasons.) And the English translation says "Some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

Literal translation:

"One has made himself a eunuch in order to reign in the Kingdom of God. He empowered by God, who restrains him, let him continue in this command."

Now this particular verse is in the singular. We know there's only One who REIGNS in the Kingdom of God, who fits the biological capacity to be a eunuch in the first place. The Father and the Spirit don't have bodies, so if you don't have bodies, you have no reproductive system.

Now this choice to make himself/Himself a eunuch is a reference to Jesus's choice to not get married. He never gets married, so obviously he/He's not producing children. Now Jesus actually had that choice. If he/He decided that he/He really didn't want to endure the whole wrath of God / crucifixion for the sake of saving sinners ordeal, his other option was to produce his/His own children in the flesh.

Now this would have produced two races of people on earth; the race of the first Adam and the race of the last Adam. Now Jesus being sinless, all his/His offspring would have also been sinless. He also would have gone through the same process the first Adam went through as far as obtaining a wife, seeing how the daughters of the first Adam would not have been considered an appropriate helpmate; because this choice would have eliminated any opportunity for redemption any wife Jesus may have chose from the first Adam's children.

So in this sense, Jesus could not "have His cake and eat it too". It was either one choice or the other, and since the wrath of God, being crucified for the sake of redeeming sinners is what both Jesus and the Father (and the Spirit) intended from before the foundations of the world; this was the choice Jesus went for. And this is how he/He REIGNS in the Kingdom; for in a race of Divine beings, there'd be no one to "reign over", because they'd all be equal.

So Jesus Christ went through all of life, died a virgin (having never had sex with any other biological entity).

Now we get to the second part of this verse. "He empowered by God who restrains him, let him continue in this command."

The phrase "empowered by God" implies that there is not an innate ability inherent in the personhood of Jesus (God or man attribute of the incarnation) to restrain himself. He was incarnated in the likeness of the first Adam as a male human with a completely functioning body as the first Adam had.

Also this phrase "empowered by God who restrains him..." is in a participle of speech that is a continuous action. Meaning that the biological sex drive Jesus contended with, he/He contended with his/His entire post-pubescent life. Even though the choice to not be married was made at a specific point in his/His life; the consequences of dealing with that choice were still present for the duration of his/His life. The last portion of this verse could probably even be considered a prayer. "Continue to restrain me, because I don't have the power in and of my own volition to restrain myself."

Now what exactly does this mean for someone who didn't have any sin? That's hard to determine.

Be fruitful and Multiply:

One thing we do know from Genesis is that "be fruitful and multiply" was the first command given to completed creation. This command is probably given as such because of the innate desire to do so, is woven into the fabric of life itself. The reason for this is because God is a creative living entity. So this drive to reproduce is part of the fabric of life because "creating" is fundamental to the definition of life. It's fundamental to the definition of life, because it's fundamental to the entity that God is as the Creator.

This being said though, we can recognize simply from biology that human sexuality runs on a bit of a different / expanded paradigm than the rest of creation. One example of this is that man is the only mammal that does not have a penile bone. This anatomical difference makes copulation a little more complicated for humans that it is for other mammals and this I think is a direct result of man being made in the image of God. Human interactions run more on a relational level than other animals who's job it simply is to multiply. This is also bore witness to the fact that most humans have one baby at a time. So yes, there are some notable differences in the sexuality of humans as opposed to the rest of creation.

So all this being duly noted; the necessity of Jesus needing to be restrained from fulfilling this command in the flesh - it would not have been appropriate from either a theological or biological stand point to remove this aspect of Jesus's personhood from his/His existence simply because it was "not in the plan". Just because the drive was not convenient to his/His purpose, did not justify it's elimination and so therefore it wasn't eliminated. There are other theological reasons for this drives presence also; which I'll explain in a minute. Jesus just had to learn to exist within the boundaries that hedged him/Him in, despite his/His natural inclination to obey the command.

Now the "theological reasons" had to do with being an appropriate sacrifice. Since Adam was created in the image of God; Jesus had to be incarnated in the likeness of Adam. So if Christ had not bore all the same potential "frailties" Adam had, there would have been grounds to accuse God of "cheating". So thus is why Jesus, biologically remained fully intact.

The other aspect of this too, I think had to do with Jesus being able to fully engage in what it meant to be part of the creation. Not just the pain and trials of living in a fallen world, which is / was rightfully under the wrath of God; but also the joys, pleasures and contentments. "What is man that You are mindful of him; or the son of man that You take care of him?"

So what does it mean in the end of the verse (Matthew 19:12) to continue in the command if he/He was constrained from doing so in the flesh? We know from the first part of that verse that the command he/He was to continue in; wasn't being commanded to be a eunuch. That was a choice he/He made for the sake of atoning for sin, not a command that was given to him/Him. And we know he/He would not have been commanded to that end, because that would have been a violation of the original "be fruitful and multiply" command.

So the command "continued in", in relation to the context of what this passage is talking about had to be the original "be fruitful and multiply". How did Jesus still fulfill this command, although not in the flesh? That question is addressed/expounded upon in the next chapter.

Sin and temptation:

Now in the realm of our existence as living entities; we have an innate desire for the pursuit of that which pleases us. We see this in food, drink, rest, labor, recreation and reproduction. These desires are there because they are a reflection of the goodness of God that God intentionally wove into the fabric of life.

The temptation is not in the eat, drink, sleep, work, play or ability to have an orgasm. The temptation is to pursue these desires outside of the proper context that God has intended them for. We enjoy these things because we are designed to do so. We transgress when we put any of them above the rightful place God is to occupy; wherewith He's made known the boundaries He's put on the pursuit of these desires.

So the enjoyment that's designed to be had isn't the sin. The Scripture tells us that we are to be moderate about what we do and to do all that we engage in to the glory of God.

We see this example practically played out in Jesus, in that because Adam was created in Christ's image; Jesus also liked to eat, drink, sleep, work, play and would have pursued sexual activity within the confines of what was appropriate for him/Him.

Thus also being temptable in any of these areas to cross the line, given context of whatever circumstance he/He was confronted with at the time. For example, though it was not wrong for Jesus to consume food, there was a time he did abstain; and did so to the point of the brink of starvation. This showed forth his/His resolve to even be willing to die in pursuit of obedience to the Father; which ultimately is what happened. Where the first Adam forfeited his life to save his will; Jesus forfeited his will to ultimately save his life (as well as the lives of those he/He'd come to atone for).

Jesus's psychological profile:

Now a couple of things we do find in Scripture that we see impacted Jesus's psychological makeup had to do with his/His personality. He gets angry, sad, frustrated, annoyed, happy, disgusted, despondent, confused etc. and more along the lines of biology - tired and hungry. Also we see, he/He's obviously quite intelligent and has a bit of whit to him/Him. "Sense of humor" is probably there too, but it's a little more difficult to identify because things that are "funny" in the Scripture are more funny because of their irony than they are "ha ha - funny". So yes, some of the witty come backs / statements Jesus makes to people, show an ironic and intelligent type of sense of humor. He can catch the crafty in their own craftiness and both he/He and they know it - and that's "ironically" funny.

Now also added to this are things he/He knew about him/Himself. Who he/He was, why he/He was here, the task ahead etc. These aspects, plus being without sin, made him/Him alienated in certain respect from the rest of humanity. Now he/He obviously liked people, but was often misunderstood and misjudged, which appears to be at least part of the reason he/He appears to have been frequently frustrated.

He also appears to contend with a lot of frustration based in the divergence of what he/He understood about God and what the rest of humanity understood about God. Zealots fall into two categories. Ones who want people to understand so their relationship with God is better and ones who want their egos stroked by being told they are right. That's the basic dividing line. So based in the desire for others to know, understand and believe, Jesus exhibited a lot of passion.

Interestingly though, despite the differences between men and women (men tend to be more task orientated while women tend to be more relationally orientated); Jesus was a good mix of both task and relationally orientation. This makes sense because both genders are created in God's image. So in Jesus we see the whole range of emotion as well as a linear thinking organization of the mind. This balance makes him/Him well equipped to deal with both genders and we see record of those differing approaches in the Scripture.

Next we see, that because of not having sin and because of being so different in the nature of who and what he/He was; we do see some isolation and feeling alone as being a very accurate reality for Jesus. Many of us at various times feel misunderstood, misjudged, isolated and alone for various misunderstandings or misperceptions of ourselves. But Jesus really was different, so his/His experience in this regard, was shifted on a different paradigm than most ours are. The psychiatrists in many regards were right about Jesus's psychological profile. They just weren't right for the right reasons. On the flips side of this though, we can also ascertain that God understands our sorrows and grief.

So now all these layers that produce feelings of isolation and loneliness, obviously also produce stress.

Now how this plays out in the world; is most human beings contend with three different major areas of life. Power (who am I / why am I here), Money (the acquisition of resources to obtain your goals) and Sex (comfort has multiple extensions that though they do not all run on the sexual behavior continuum, all endeavors for comfort are "sex orientated" based in gender.)

Jesus obviously dealt in all these realms as evidenced of his/His considerable wisdom as exhibited by examples we see of his/His responses to such realms as written in the gospels. He devoted a lot of thought and consideration to all these realms and he/He had quite a repertoire of behavioral resources to draw from. Although he/He did not react the same way to everyone, or every situation, his/His personality remained consistent across all encounters. This is a good thing, because it showed forth his/His basic personality to be very stable.

Isolation, loneliness and stress:

Now these realities of our emotional lives are dealt with in various attempts to obtain comfort from the biting sting of them. Now the goodness of God reflected in the reproductive capacity of life, if attended to in prayer can be a spiritual experience for the person(s) praying. It's a bit of a different dynamic when two people are engaged instead of a self initiated action, but needless to say, the pursuit of the experience of orgasm is often utilized to reduce isolation, loneliness and stress; of which prayer also does this too. So combining the two may provide, in more practical terms, a quicker means to the end of; being desire for relief. Besides, nothing is off limits of being able to share with /and in the awareness of the presence of God. Not that God is not aware of what is going on regardless anyways; whether being engaged in as sin or not.

So this being a reflection of God's goodness, would it really make sense for Jesus to be denied access to that pleasure, comfort and satisfaction when those attributes themselves are part of God's goodness? If the Bible speaks nothing of condemnation of sinners for sexual release sought by self stimulation; as an act simply a means to an end itself, why would Jesus be exempt? Sinners also have the choice of marriage; of which by necessity of his/His desire to secure atonement, Jesus was forbidden. So if you are prohibited from marriage, what other option is there, (besides self denial)?

"He empowered by God who restrains him, let him continue in this command."

"Continue to restrain me, because I don't have the power in and of my own volition to restrain myself." (I don't have inherent in the nature of my personhood the ability to eliminate my own sex drive from my life experience.)

God the Father hedged Jesus into a space to contend with something Jesus didn't have the ability to eliminate. The Father was the only space Jesus could take this to. "No temptation has taken you that is not common to man, but God has provided an escape." What escape do we suppose that was in these circumstances?

So I've concluded, looking at all this information that it's possible / probable and rather likely that Jesus Christ engaged in certain behaviors (highly likely interlinked to prayer) with a consistent degree of frequency.