I try to resist, but old habits die hard. I read the article on Atoday called: The Non-Normative Jesus, What the Eunuch Passages Say About People on the Margins. It takes as its Bible reference the following verses from Matthew chapter 19. I quote it below with the section in red being the verse not used in the article.
NIV1 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan.2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’5 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’?6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
The ultimate conclusion seems to be found toward the end of his article. He writes:
My reading suggested to me that our modern understanding of the word “eunuch” does not do full justice to all who could be included within its meaning. I began to feel that in this context, eunuchs represent all sexually non-normative people, including gay men, lesbians, so-called “barren” women, people whose gender identity does not fit the male/female binary, and any other sexually non-normative group excluded from privilege.
Certainly the eunuchs of old were non-normative but clearly, the verses are talking about those without sexual interest due to being born that way, castration or accident and those who have completely controlled and removed their sexual desires for the Kingdom of heaven. Very likely the last is perhaps a 1 and a million position but certainly like the others not likely anyone you have met. But does Eunuch represent all sexually non-normative people? The pedophile, the person fond of bestiality, the sadist? To the author Andrew Dykstra it appears that those should be included in his "all sexually non-normative people".
There was once a time that I found interesting theologic material on Adventist Today. Now it seems to be filled with positively infantile and absurd reasoning. Oh and go look at the comments on Facebook, the only way one can comment on Adventist Today. Though they often block people on Facebook as well. No comment about the missing verse 9 which is pretty central to the whole question the disciples ask, the reason for their concern is well stated in the Benson Commentary as:
Matthew 19:10-11. His disciples say, If the case of a man be so with his wife — If the marriage-bond be thus indissoluble, and a man cannot dismiss his wife unless she break that bond by going astray, but must bear with her, whether she be quarrelsome, petulant, prodigal, foolish, barren, given to drinking, or, in a word, troublesome by numberless vices; it is not good to marry — A man had better not marry at all, since by marrying he may entangle himself in an inextricable snare, and involve himself in trials and troubles which may make him miserable all the rest of his days. But he said, All men cannot receive this saying — Namely, that it is not expedient to marry; save they to whom it is given — As a peculiar gift, to conquer those inclinations toward that state which are found in mankind in general, according to the common constitution of human nature.
I also think it is pretty unwise to base concepts to heavily on the words of Jesus when the Pharisees came to test Him, as they were trying to entrap him and Jesus was avoiding their traps. As the famous saying goes, the plain things are the main things. When we try to explain the vague things we usually are just inserting our preconceived ideas and trying to make them work with the text.
It is important to actually note the meaning of the word eunuch:
u'-nuk (caric; spadon; eunouchos):
Primarily and literally, a eunuch is an emasculated man (Deuteronomy 23:1). The Hebrew word caric seems, however, to have acquired a figurative meaning, which is reflected in English Versions of the Bible where "officer" and "chamberlain" are found as renderings (compare Genesis 37:36; 39:1, where caric is applied to married men; Esther 4:4). The barbarous practice of self-mutilation and the mutilation of others in this way was prevalent throughout the Orient. The religious disabilities under which men thus deformed labored under the Mosaic law had the effect of making the practice abominable to the Jews as a people (Deuteronomy 23:1; Leviticus 22:23-25). The law excluded eunuchs from public worship, partly because self- mutilation was often performed in honor of a heathen god, and partly because a maimed creature of any sort was deemed unfit for the service of Yahweh (Leviticus 21:16; 22:24). That ban, however, was later removed (Isaiah 56:4,5). On the other hand, the kings of Israel and Judah followed their royal neighbors in employing eunuchs (1) as guardians of the harem (2 Kings 9:32; Jeremiah 41:16), and (2) in military and other official posts (1 Samuel 8:15 margin; 1 Kings 22:9 margin; 2 Kings 8:6 margin; 2 Kings 23:11 the King James Version margin; 2 Kings 24:12,13 margin; 2 Kings 25:19 margin; 1 Chronicles 28:1 margin; 2 Chronicles 18:8 margin; Jeremiah 29:2; 34:19; 38:7; compare Genesis 37:36; 40:2,7; Acts 8:27). Josephus informs us that eunuchs were a normal feature of the courts of the Herods (Ant., XV, vii, 4; XVI, viii, 1). From the single reference to the practice in the Gospels (Matthew 19:12), we infer that the existence and purpose of eunuchs as a class were known to the Jews of Jesus' time. There is no question with Jesus as to the law of Nature:
the married life is the norm of man's condition, and the union thereby effected transcends every other natural bond, even that of filial affection (Matthew 19:5,6).
But He would have His hearers recognize that there are exceptional cases where the rule does not hold. In speaking of the three classes of eunuchs (Matthew 19:12), He made a distinction which was evidently well known to those whom He addressed, as was the metaphorical use of the word in application to the third class well understood by them (compare Lightfoot, Horae Hebrew et Talmud; Schottgen, Horae Hebrew, in the place cited.).
How Origen misunderstood and abused the teaching of this passage is well known (Euseb., HE, VI, 8), and his own pathetic comment on the passage shows that later he regretted having taken it thus literally and acted on it. His is not the only example of such a perverted interpretation (see Talmud, Shabbath 152a, and compare Midrash on Ecclesiastes 10:7). The Council of Nicea, therefore, felt called on to deal with the danger as did the 2nd Council of Aries and the Apos Canons (circa 21). (Compare Bingham's Ant, IV, 9.)
It is significant that Jesus expresses no condemnation of this horrible practice. It was in keeping with His far-reaching plan of instilling principles rather than dealing in denunciations (John 3:17; 8:11). It was by His positive teaching concerning purity that we are shown the lines along which we must move to reach the goal. There is a more excellent way of achieving mastery of the sexual passion. It is possible for men to attain as complete control of this strong instinct as if they were physically sexless, and the resultant victory is of infinitely more value than the negative, unmoral condition produced by self-emasculation. These "make themselves eunuchs" with a high and holy purpose, "for the kingdom of heaven's sake"; and the interests created by that purpose are so absorbing that neither time nor opportunity is afforded to the "fleshly lusts, which war against the soul" (1 Peter 2:11). They voluntarily forego marriage even, undertake virtual "eunuchism" because they are completely immersed in and engrossed by "the kingdom of heaven" (compare John 17:4; 1 Corinthians 7:29,33; 9:5 and see Bengel, Gnomon Novi Test. in the place cited and Clement of Alexandria., Strom., iii.1).
See MARRIAGE.
LITERATURE.
Driver," Deuteronomy," ICC, Deuteronomy 23:1; Commentary on Mt, in the place cited. by Morison and Broadus; Neander, Ch. Hist, II, 493; Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus, 72; The Expositor, IV, vii (1893), 294; Encyclopedia Brit, article "Eunuch."
George B. Eager
Copyright Statement These files are public domain.
Bibliography Information
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. "Entry for 'EUNUCH'". "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia". 1915. |
3 comments:
As a theology student who knows Andrew Dykstra personally, I would like to make two comments about how you handle his article, regardless of your clear disagreement with him.
First, as you are no doubt aware, within the limitations of a word count, theologians and preachers cannot say everything they think. I happen to know that Andrew honours and supports equal marriage, but to my eye there is nothing in his article that would works against the verse you claim he has ignored.
Second, in any argument it is important to deploy the rule of gracious interpretation. But it seems to me that accusing Andrew of including pedophiles, sadists, and those who have sex with animals in the sexually non-normative of which he is speaking, there is an implied ad hominem and an explicit straw man. Did you attempt to clarify with Andrew before posting such a thing?
Andrew (and every other LGBT Christian of whom I am aware - hundreds of us) believes that informed consent is an absolute minimum standard for healthy and blessed sexual expression. There are probably others, but please note that this one alone is sufficient to make my point in this context.
Therefore bestiality is out at the start - how can a human being get consent from an animal? We cannot. Likewise, children cannot give informed consent to sexual activity, especially with the power imbalance between an adult and a child. (In the interests of truthfulness, it is important to make a distinction between someone attracted to children and someone who assaults children sexually. Conflating the two causes deep confusion in the church.) And sadism as defined by the DSM, as I understand it, is the willingness to inflict pain against/without the consent of another person. I can imagine that some folks would want to argue using absurd counterexamples, but my point is simple: my friend Andrew did not imply that these three further states were part of his insight.
It is deeply unjust to suggest otherwise.
I agree with you completely Kharisma1980. The absurdity is with this article, not with what my friend Andrew says.
Same old crap from haters.
Love the love Andrew shows in his article.
See the blog article Reply to Kharisma198
Post a Comment