EPISODE 232 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW CHAPTER 19 " Eunuchs"

Welcome to Share the Word. We are on episode 232 in the Gospel of Matthew chapter 19. We can always count on Pastor Paul and all of the others to bring eye-opening topics to the podcast. Today is definitely one of those rare podcasts. Are you ready? Oh, and I'll let him tell you what the title is.

Paul? Matthew chapter 19. Eunuchs. Eunuchs? Yes, eunuchs. Have you ever given much thought to eunuchs?

For most of us, the answer is probably, um, no, not really. Well, stick with me here then. The two most obvious big ideas to discuss from Matthew 19 would be what Jesus said in response to a question about marriage and divorce, and then later, what his interaction with the guy we call the rich young ruler teaches us about the impossibility of works-based salvation. But we covered both of those when we were in Mark chapter 10, which describes the same events as in today's chapter. Now that we're on our third synoptic gospel, I'm looking for things we haven't focused on in Mark or Luke's accounts, and this is definitely one of them. In chapter 19, Matthew gets into some issues about human sexuality Jesus discussed with his disciples after answering a question about marriage and divorce.

Verse 3 describes how some Pharisees had approached him with a question, hoping to provoke him into saying something problematic about divorce. I explained that in episode 150 why it was a trick question. Importantly, especially for our time, in Jesus' response, he clearly spelled out God's definition of marriage when he said, Haven't you read that at the beginning, the Creator made them male and female and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.

God's original design, Jesus said, was for a male and female to come together in marriage and form a new family unit, one that takes precedence over any family relations in their past, and for that new family unit, that marriage, to be a permanent and unbreakable bond. Well, that surprised Jesus' disciples, one of whom voiced his reaction, If that's the situation between a husband and wife, it's better for a man not to marry. Why would he say that? Because women were not considered to be of equal value to men in that society. They were essentially bought through the dowry system and, in the view of most, wives were property and so disposable. Even the Pharisees taught that wives could be divorced with a simple letter from their husband saying, I'm not happy with you anymore.

So hearing Jesus state such a lofty view of marriage, that is, that it's a union between two halves making one whole and a relationship that's for a lifetime, their reaction was, If that's the case, Lord, we're not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. I mean, what if she's quarrelsome? What if she's barren? What if she turns out to have some hidden bad habits or just gets on my nerves? Sounds like it would be better not to get entangled in such a permanent relationship, if that's what marriage really is. It'd be better for me to stay single, the man was saying.

You know this wasn't Peter speaking, because although he was usually the guy to speak up, he was already married. But to whoever it was, Jesus replied in verse 11, probably with a smile crossing his face, Not everyone can accept that word, but only those to whom it has been given. You might think he was referring back to his definition of marriage, but it's more likely a response to the disciples' objection, his conclusion that if marriage is really a lifetime arrangement, it'd be better for men to stay unmarried. That makes much better sense with what Jesus said next. Listen. Not everyone can accept this word, he said, but only those to whom it has been given.

For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by other men, and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it. Did you know this subject even came up in the Bible? Whether you did or not, in this lesson, I'm going to tell you more than you ever thought you needed to know about eunuchs. Are you ready? First, let me say that the word used here in verse 12 multiple times and in other places in the New Testament translated eunuch had the normal meaning of a castrated male, and so a man physically incapable of fathering children.

I'm not sure we've ever clarified this, but at Share the Word, we stick with literal translations or good dynamic equivalence translations of the Bible. Literal translations, called by some formal equivalence translations, include the New American Standard Bible, the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, for example. In these, the translators tried hard to do a word-for-word translation from the original Koine Greek to modern English. Dynamic equivalence translations do their best to take the idea expressed in the original and express the same idea clearly into English. The most popular dynamic equivalence translations are the New International Version and the New Living Translation. And then there are paraphrases, which sometimes interpret things pretty loosely, and we don't use those in our lessons, you know, like the Good News Bible or The Message, for example.

Just for fun, I looked up how The Message reads at verses 11 and 12 in our chapter. Here's what it says. Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn't for everyone. Some from birth seemingly never give marriage a thought, and others never get asked or accept.

And some decide not to get married for the kingdom reasons. But if you're capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it. Well, that's all true, I think, and maybe the editorial committee was thinking they should write something with kids in mind and avoid the, you know, eunuch talk. But in doing so, they are not clear on what Jesus was actually saying. He answered the disciple, who remember just said, If marriage is permanent, it'd be better to stay single. Not everyone can accept that, meaning staying single would not be a good idea for most men.

The reason being, God made women to complete men, and God made humans as sexual beings. For most men and women, and for children's sake, the commitment of marriage is the best and most normal situation to live out our lives. It's how God designed things from the beginning. But there are exceptions, Jesus said. First, there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb. He's allowing there are some males who may have an abnormality, and they are born without the physical or hormonal functioning men normally have.

It's rare, but it certainly happens. A small percentage of people, for a variety of reasons, are not sexual. I know a guy like this, has zero interest in romantic or sexual relationships. He's young, he's healthy, just not sexually driven at all. And no, if you're thinking that, he's not a closet homosexual. He's just someone who has no sexual interest.

He's a category number one on Jesus' list, someone born with no interest or ability sexually. But there's another category, much more common in the ancient world than now, and Jesus described it as eunuchs who were made eunuchs by other men. The original derivation of this word, by the way, came from two Greek roots, bed and keeper, or guard. So bed keeper or bed guard, because in ancient times, men who worked as guards of the king's harem or who worked closely with a queen or other royal females were often literally castrated. That sounds barbaric to us today, but it was a fairly common practice in the ancient world. In the Old Testament book of Esther, you will see this at the court of the Persian king Xerxes.

It's also referred to in Daniel and in several other places in the Old Testament. Even in the New Testament book of Acts, in chapter 8, we met a man who worked at the court of the queen of Ethiopia who became a Christian, and he's matter-of-factly referred to by Luke as a eunuch. So Jesus, in the second category, referred to the fact that some men were made eunuchs by others on purpose, not by their choice. But the third situation Jesus referred to like this: And there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it. Wait, was Jesus suggesting that maybe some of his disciples who were yet unmarried consider castration so they could avoid both the obligations of marriage and the sexual temptations that single men struggle with?

To take that drastic step so they could focus more on their calling to serve God's kingdom? If that's how the disciples heard him, I can see them at that point changing their tune real quick. You know, marriage doesn't sound that bad after all, now that I've given it a little more thought. But in reality, there's no evidence in the New Testament that any of Jesus' disciples or early Christians took him literally when he said, Some men make themselves eunuchs. But there were some later who did, in later centuries. Self-mutilation, getting physically castrated on purpose, became a thing, a practice of extreme asceticism.

For some, it was hiked as a sacrifice to God to make yourself a more useful minister. At the Council of Nicaea, this was held in 325 A.D., church leaders from far and wide gathered to address doctrinal questions and other pressing issues. But first up on their docket that day, it was this very issue. It had become that much of an issue. After discussing it, they decided that if a man had been castrated for medical reasons or otherwise not of his choice, he could still function as a church leader. Bapha man deliberately underwent this procedure as a form of extreme asceticism.

They could not serve as a church leader. This was done specifically in order to stop this practice because Christian leaders at the time believed that was not Jesus' intention. I'm getting older, but I'm not quite old enough to have been at that meeting at Nicaea, Turkey, in the fourth century. But I imagine and hope that in their discussions, they took into account that the Apostle Paul wrote about this too. In 1 Corinthians 7, he agreed with Jesus that relatively few people were called to a life of celibacy and referred to it as a gift from God. If one could successfully remain celibate and moral at the same time and focus more of their time and energy on serving the kingdom of God, Paul said he was all for that.

In his personal case, being a missionary, church planter, and overseer of several congregations, constantly traveling when not in prison, he knew that for him, being successfully married would have been an impossibility. And he was able to do that apparently without having any sexual problems, something he considered a special enablement given to him by God. Here's part of what Paul wrote in that passage as he was giving advice to early Christians. Some of it bears directly on our topic. The husband should fulfill his wife's sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband's sexual needs. But don't deprive each other of sexual relations unless it's by mutual agreement for a time.

And then afterward, you should come together again so Satan won't be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish everyone were single, just as I am. Yet each person has a special gift from God, in one kind or another. A married man has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. His interests are divided.

In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can devote herself to the Lord, holy in body and spirit. But a married woman has to think about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband. I am saying this all for your benefit, not to place restrictions on anyone. I want you to do whatever will help you serve the Lord best, with as few distractions as possible. So in that section, Paul was saying his ability to stay single in order to focus on ministry was a gift he had been given by God, and he wished more had it. But he certainly did not suggest anyone mutilate themselves in order to try to achieve the kind of freedom he had.

He was, in a way, like a eunuch, voluntarily, who served in a sensitive position in the ancient king or queen's court. But he was serving in God's court, in God's kingdom. Some, like the apostle Paul, John the Baptist, even Jesus himself, lived celibate lives, which enabled them to more fully focus on their special service to God's kingdom. But it was a gift, certainly not something to try to accomplish through self-mutilation, and also not something to try to live under if you are not specially equipped to do so. That only leads to frustration and sexual sin by those who try. For most of us, getting married, enjoying our spouse, having some kids is what God intends.

Later in the pastoral epistles, Paul also wrote an important prophetic warning that bears on our topic. This is 1 Timothy chapter 4, verse 3. But the Spirit, the Holy Spirit, explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God created to be gratefully shared by those who believe and know the truth. What did the Holy Spirit reveal to Paul that touches on our subject? That some religious false teachers, advocating the idea that ascetic practices can make you holier than other people, would actually forbid marriage, as well as forbid certain foods or require abstaining from certain foods at certain times.

Asceticism—I think we've defined that term before—but if not, asceticism is the idea a person can become holier by renouncing normal physical desires and practices. Did forbidding marriage become a part of religion's going forward, as the prophecy says? Yes, it did, unfortunately. The idea became a part of Roman Catholic religion here and there throughout the Dark Ages, but then was actually mandated for Catholic clergy in the 12th century. Even though the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that when such a thing happened, it would be a departure from the faith, his words. By that terminology, he meant a departure from the doctrines and practices of Jesus and the apostles, not the idea that some could be specially equipped by God to remain unmarried and so devote themselves more fully to ministry.

That's exactly what Paul himself did. That's not what he was saying. But rather the idea that anyone should be compelled to do that, forbidden to marry, and pursued the false idea that that would make them holier than other people. That was definitely not a part of the Christian faith. That's clear in the pastoral epistles elsewhere, 1 Timothy and Titus, where Paul gave qualifications to look for in men who would serve in church leadership positions. And in those qualifications, the assumption is there that they would be married men who were faithful to their wives and were good leaders in their homes.

We saw that in 1 Timothy chapter 3 and Titus chapter 1. Because history fascinates me, I wondered when the wrong practice of forbidding church leaders to marry came about and why. Here's what I found out by surveying some church history sites. The Second Lateran Council, which happened in the year 1139, this was a meeting of Roman Catholic prelates well more than a thousand years after New Testament times, decreed the marriage of any priest at that point null and void, and made clergy celibacy a mandatory discipline for future clergymen in the Western Church, that is, in the Roman Catholic Church. It also enforced separation from any wives or concubines for those who already were in holy orders, and declared that any future attempt at marriage by a bishop, priest, deacon, subdeacon, or monk would be invalid.

So from that point on, since the 12th century, marriage was forbidden to Catholic clergy. There were practical reasons for this too, stated by the church councils and popes of that era. The Roman Catholic Church hit upon the idea of utilizing celibacy of their clergy to mark both their separation from and their superiority to the laity. That means the idea that their clergy were practicing celibacy, which is very hard to do, they were voluntary eunuchs abstaining from normal sexual relations, helped sell the mystical notion that they were spiritually superior to ordinary people. And another important, very practical consideration was that the institutional Church benefited from denying clergy the right to pass on property to their offspring. So the property that all of them had never left the Church.

That means all the wealth stayed within the Roman Catholic Church since unmarried priests had no wives or children to pass anything on to. Wow. All this was a serious error. I probably do not have to tell you how many stories have been around now for a long time about priests who get themselves into sexual sin one way or another because they are forced to pretend they are the Apostle Paul and live a celibate lifestyle when in fact they're not equipped to do that. Very few people are equipped to do that. But the Roman Catholic religion, that's not the only group that through the centuries has forbidden marriage.

There have been others. For example, a group known in history as the Shakers originated in England, then came to the United States in the late 18th century. They called themselves the United Society of Believers in Christ's Second Appearing. That's a long name. But everyone else called them the Shakers because of their ecstatic behavior during their services. This religious group developed quite a few self-contained communities from Maine to the Midwest, and they reached their peak in the middle of the 19th century.

They forbade marriage and sexual practices altogether for all members. Their leader, a woman by the name of Ann Lee, was a false prophet who taught that sex was the original sin in the Garden of Eden, and that sexual desire was the root of all sin and the cause of our separation from God. Wow, definitely a weird doctrine of demons there. The Shakers are known today for some wonderful furniture they made in those communes, but many of their ideas were completely unbiblical, actually anti-biblical, and because they didn't allow marriage and there was no procreation, the movement died out on its own in the early 20th century. Ann Lee, that false prophetess, apparently did not see that coming, but it was pretty predictable, wasn't it? So what does a recap show on this subject, which you probably never expected to hear addressed on Share the Word?

First, that remaining unmarried is a perfectly valid lifestyle if you are for some reason unable to have sex, or if you have a special gift from God that enables you to live a fulfilled life without it. Two, it's not, however, by nature holier to live a celibate lifestyle. It does not make you closer to God than other people. Marriage is God's design for most people, and it's a good and holy design. Three, if you believe God has called you to forego marriage and family life so you have more time and energy and resources to serve Him, that's a good thing. But remember, Scripture indicates that's a rare and special gift.

Be sure you have it. And fourth, forbidding people to marry or otherwise live out self-depriving ascetic lifestyles is not a part of the Christian faith. In fact, forbidding people to marry is called in 1 Timothy 4 a doctrine of demons. Have I cleared up all your questions about eunuchs and celibacy? If not, you can email me at paul@sharetheword.org. We're always glad to hear from our listeners.

Have I cleared up your questions about eunuchs and celibacy was not the closing sentence I expected from Paul in this podcast. But when I thought more about what Paul said, I realized how much dedication it must have taken for those who follow the self-made path and fully abstain in order to devote themselves completely to God. It wasn't about the physical alterations, but about a profound spiritual commitment. And even though we're talking about sex and marriage, how many other aspects can we say we're cutting out of our lives in order to devote fully to God? The difference was that the Apostle Paul didn't lead a life of celibacy to be more holy or better than those who he shared the gospel with. He chose to abstain from worldly, physical, and personal attachments for spiritual growth, focus, and self-discipline, and the love of our Lord Jesus Christ.

And when I looked at the other definition of eunuch, it actually said it's an ineffectual person. Hmm, that's got to be man-made.