Changes

The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism.  He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>   

The last case of eunuchs are those who purposely choose to be single and celibate, as referred to in 1 Cor. 7:7,32-35, in order to better attend to the things that most directly pertain to the kingdom of God. Among the Essenes there were examples of this. But celibacy within marriage is actually forbidden by 1Cor. 7:5. (Note: The early church leader Origen castrated himself, literally following Matthew 19:12, perhaps to remove any hint of scandal as he taught young women their catechism.  He later came to see his action as ill-advised and not to be taken as an example.)<ref>http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/GLIMPSEF/Glimpses/glmps054.shtml</ref>   

However, here some homo apologists, in an evident and extreme example of egregious exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>  

However, here some homo apologists, in what is seen as an extreme example of egregious exegetical sophistry, postulate or assert that at least some some of the eunuchs in the Bible, and those which Jesus referred to in Mt. 19:12, were natural born homosexuals, and controvert “all cannot receive this saying” (v. 11) to refer to the uniqueness of the male/female union of Gn. 2, and so conclude, “Jesus did not prohibit same sex marriage for born eunuchs”, asserting they are “exempt from the Adam and Eve style, heterosexual marriage paradigm”. Then, enlisting 1Cor. 1:8,9, and subjecting Scripture to man's wisdom (stating abstinence is unreasonable), the pro homosexual apologist reasons that marriage must be allowed for them <ref>Homosexual Eunuchs, Rick Brentlinger</ref>  

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref> Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.   

While it may be true that sometimes eunuchs who were considered to have been born that way could procreate,<ref>Homosexuality p. 122; James B. De Young</ref><ref>Digest of Justinian, Vol. 1, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1998, Book XXIII.3.39.1</ref> of which some, in pagan nations, were sexually active homosexuals,<ref>Faris Malik, Eunuchs are Gay Men</ref> not simply asexual, yet Israel was not to be like other nations (Lv. 18:24,27), and to suppose that Jesus is referring to congenitally determined homosexual behavior and sanctioning such is neither warranted here or elsewhere.<ref>Transsexuality and Ordination by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D [http:www.robgagnon.net/articles/TranssexualityOrdination.pdf]</ref> Not only in Scripture but in every other extant piece of evidence about Jewish views on same-sex intercourse in the Second Temple period and beyond shows them to be consistently hostile to such behavior.<ref>Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 159-83</ref> Yet even the presumed homosexuality of eunuchs will be shown to be irrelevant, and the absurdity and invalidity of the pro homosexual apologist argument is evident from the outset and throughout.   

In the broader context of Mt. 19:3-12, Jesus has just restored the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). The explicit exclusivity of this uniquely sanctioned marriage is what the homosexual apologist labors to negate. Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is an implicit affirmation of this statement (cf. Mt. 16:13-17; Mk. 7:28,29; 15:2), in that not all men can receive (or submit) to their expressed  alternative to the narrow way of marriage, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1Cor. 7:7), in context referring to being either married or single and celibate.  

Mt. 19:3-12 reveals Jesus restoring the original standard for marriage, referencing back to it's institution in Gn. 2, and in which He affirms that the “what” of “what therefore God hath joined together” is the unique union of one man for one women for life, except that the fornication clause may negate it's permanence, but which clause itself reaffirms that sex outside marriage is sin (cf. 1Cor. 7:2). The explicit exclusivity of this uniquely sanctioned marriage is what the homosexual apologist labors to negate. Hearing the narrowness of the original standard, the disciples react that it is not good to get married. Jesus response is an implicit affirmation of this statement (cf. Mt. 16:13-17; Mk. 7:28,29; 15:2), in that not all men can receive (or submit) to their expressed  alternative to the narrow way of marriage, but only those to whom it is given, whom Jesus calls eunuchs, which refers to both physical and spiritual ones. This perfectly correlates to what the Holy Spirit establishes under the New Covenant, in which “every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1Cor. 7:7), in context referring to being either married or single and celibate. "Although marriage was normally expected of Jewish people, Jesus here acknowledged the value of a single life that includes abstinence, without making celibacy the norm for Christians."<ref>[http://www.augsburgchurches.org/Library/BibleSexualBoundaries.htm, The Bible and Sexual Boundaries, by Craig R. Koester] See also Robert H. Smith, Matthew (Augsburg New Testament Commentary; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), 229-230</ref>

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The pro homosexual polemic controverts this, asserting that what Jesus was referencing to (“this saying”) was the '''kind''' of marriage, that being between male and female, to negate it's exclusivity as a type, when instead Jesus was referring to  the '''disciple's conclusion''' that being single was to be preferred, which had become the issue, in the light of the high standard of marriage commitment, that being  it's '''permanence'''. The homosexual polemic next supposes that the avocation of marriage due to intense longing in 1Cor. 7:9 must sanction same gender marriage, but fully consistent with all other teaching on marriage, it is only male and female who are to be joined in marriage here, and who are legally free to marry, and not to anyone who so desires. The sanction of marriage here does not abrogate the Biblical restrictions on marrying near kin, or another man's wife, or an animal, no matter how much one may long to do so, or between same genders. 1Cor. 7 also further establishes that “eunuchs” are those who are single and celibate. It should be added here that, as many Christians who have chosen that state can testify, this does not necessarily infer that this condition does not pertain to persons who could be married if they so choose, and have as much or more drive than others in regards to union, but that, like the passionate Paul, these can happily keep their body under subjection (1Cor. 9:27) as they seek and serve the LORD, who Himself was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15).

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Yet such an argument has about as much validity as saying that God never said you cannot marry a gorilla. Or, in another example of the law of purpose, in Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, which eliminates cement as sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. But as this also does not explicitly forbid “Christian cannibalism” as a way of life (as long as the subjects consented, the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as any manner of life as it is contrary in principal.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

The homosexual apologist knows that there no avocation of any same gender marriage, and thus employs another specious polemical tactic, which asserts that since that Jesus did not say that eunuchs must be celibate, that door is still open. Such an argument is seen to have a validity similar to saying that since God never commanded that man cannot marry a gorilla, than that may be a option. Also similar is an example using another law of purpose, that as Gn. 9:3 God states man's need for food (sustenance, not medicine) was to be fulfilled by plants and animals, and then this eliminates substances such as cement for sustenance, no matter how much one might hypothetically crave it, though it is not expressly forbidden. Or as “Christian cannibalism” is not explicitly forbidden (as long as the subjects preconsented, (and the blood was drained, and were well cooked),<ref>even this may be seen as allowable by some in life or death circumstances, as unlike homosexuality, there is no explicit injunction against it, but such could never be allowed as a practice, as it is contrary in principal to what God established.</ref> then to be consistent, pro homosexual polemicists could argue for this as a lifestyle. The facts are that the Bible only establishes marriage as between opposite genders, and wherever it explicitly deals with same gender sex then it condemns it. And when the New Testament deals with those whom the disciples saying (Mt. 19:10) applies, then it evidences it only as celibacy. (1Cor. 7:2,7,32-37) The precludes any need for an explicit statement such as “eunuchs are not to be married.”  Rather, it is such an explicit statement sanctioning  same sex marriage is what is  needed, but such cannot be seen anywhere, or derived by forcing sex into passages it does not belong.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.   

Another tactic used in seeking to negate the exclusivity of opposite gender marriage, is to assert that  different types of marriage are allowed in Scripture, which is true, such as polygamy and concubines (a type of an economical wife, but a wife nonetheless). However, these were types of the original union, and they actually stand as an argument against same gender marriage, as in all manifest cases of sanctioned marriage, these are all between male and female counterparts, even though Solomon had 700 of the latter. In Mt. 19:3-8, Jesus revealed  that in the Old Testament God allowed Moses a degree of broadness as regards to the number of wives and the permanence of it, in condescension to their carnality, yet in bringing it back to it's original standard Jesus distinctly stated it was male and female which God joined together, and it is that union which alone is explicitly and abundantly affirmed throughout Scripture.