JESUS “COMMANDS” TO NOT MARRY
(Also, eunuchs can still have sex)
Matthew 19:10-12:
Jesus and His Disciples directly stated in Matt. 19:10 that “it is not good to marry” manifested mostly because of “divorce” explained in Matt. 19:3-9; that is, the marriage standard does not work (or work best). You see, divorcing for “any reason” begets an innocent “victim” and breaks the all important Goldenrule. If she’s out a-whorin’ (“porneia”) then she’s really not an “innocent” victim. Plus, when she’s loyal, the divorcer is still not happy when he has to remain married. Jesus goes on in Matt. 19:11-12 stating that “eunuchs” (men with testicles removed as a form of birth control, who can still have sex) can “accept” (NKJV) Jesus’ preference for people to not get married, because they would not father any children; hence, their sex would not cause a secular financial burden (see my Lewis and Clark page). In Matt. 19:13-15, Jesus quickly supports “children” to show that the total solution is not for everyone to become childless eunuchs, as a perfect Christian following world would end in said generation. In Matt. 19:16-24 Jesus quickly continues emphasizing that the root of the problem is the greed of the rich man. Jesus goes as far as to state that “eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs” did it for Jesus’ “Kingdom of Heaven’s sake.” Therefore, this part of the Gospel is definitely stating that Jesus preferred people to NOT get married. In Matt. 19:25-29 Jesus tells that only people who leave the family standard “shall receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.” Again, this is not Paul talking who later overruled this (but only as a “concession”), this is Jesus talking:
Matthew 19:10-12 (NKJV):
10His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry." 11But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it."
In other words, if you are “able” to not get married, then Jesus actually says “it is better not to marry.” And, the “let him” part is not in the original Greek. In fact, “let” is an actual lie / corruption. This lie was intended to change Jesus’ words from a command to an allowance (like it makes any sense why Jesus would allow one to not marry since we are all born unmarried):
Interlinear Greek-English New Testament, Green, Baker Books, 1996, 2nd printing 1998, p. 63, Matthew 19:12:
As you can see, the last two Greek words are both Strong # 5562, meaning that “He who is able to accept it, accept it!” with no “let him”: it’s not included in the form of the either of the words. Or if you like, “The one having been enabled to receive it, receive it! The “let him” is a corruption to make the real message more obscure. And the word before those (i.e. δυνάμενος) means “to be able or possible.”
Now let’s see what kind of verb the last “accept / receive it” really is:
The NIV English-Greek New Testament: A Reverse Interlinear, Mounce, Zondervan Publishing House, 2000, p. 113, Matthew 19:12:
P. xvii, General Guildlines:
The Analytical Lexicon to the Greek New Testament, Mounce, Zondervan Publishing House, 1993, p. 485:
Analytical Concordance of the Greek New Testament, Clapp-Friberg, Vol. 1: Lexical Focus, p. 2531:
P. xxxiii, How To Use The Concordance:
Now let’s see what “imperative” means:
Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 1997, p. 582:
What do you think of that? Am I doing my homework right, God? That is incredible.
What does that actually mean?
It actually means that Jesus Christ Himself “commanded,” “entreated” (pleaded, asked urgently), “exhorted” (urged strongly, warned), “controlled and directed,” an “order,” “rule,” “guide,” an “obligation,” a “duty,” “not to be avoided or evaded: NECESSARY” to not marry. It’s that simple.
Well, I would say that today, with effective birth control, all are “able” to not marry, and it is “imperative” that you don’t, as is commanded, et al., by Jesus Himself.
Marriage has been a huge issue for thousands of years, affecting most everyone’s daily lives. Therefore, God has to be careful in Matthew 19:10-12 and others to give me the “conclusive” information I need while allowing His opposition a way to spin it to keep Jesus’ words alive during (mainly) Middle-Age corruption. Using “eunuchs” as an example was a very cleaver way to circumvent the enemy. The threat was so close, and the line so thin, that luckily the Church was successful in influencing Mary as the superior; thanks to the easy gullibility of the average person.
Does He really need to say this 100 times for it to be heard, or can He say it just one time to be enough?
Luke 9:35: And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
Realize, Jesus Christ is the voice of God.
Family News From Dr. James Dobson, Focus on the Family, January 2000, p. 4 (second paragraph)
Yes it will, as long as religious leaders continue to lie and denounce sex outside of marriage. Also, many problems will continue until there’s a Nationally Paid Child Support Program (or, we could place free food, free land, clean water and clean air back).
Today’s Churches corruptly teach that Jesus denounced all sex outside of marriage, but also denounced marriage, which would cause mankind to end if everyone did what Jesus said to do. Those of you who are saying that you’re smart enough to realize this, still need to realize that the rest of the world is not smart enough to realize this.
Other English Bible versions:
By the way, the New International Version (NIV) states it more correctly as “The one who can accept this should accept it” leaving out the “let him.”
Other versions that leave out the “… let him …” are: Contemporary English Version; New Century Version; GOD’S WORD Translation; Common English Bible; New International Reader's Version; Worldwide English (New Testament); Today’s New International Version; Easy-to-Read Version; Peshitta - Lamsa Translation; Accurate New Testament; Christogenea New Testament; Revised Knox Bible; The New Testament: An Understandable Version; Spoken English New Testament; New American Bible (Catholic) which has an interesting spin:
http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm, USCCB – NAB: New American Bible (Catholic), “Matthew: Chapter 19”:
10 [His] disciples said to him, "If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry."
11 He answered, "Not all can accept [this] word, 8 but only those to whom that is granted.
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage 9 for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."
…with the following footnotes (which is also printed in the book version):
8 [11] [This] word: probably the disciples' "it is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10). Jesus agrees but says that celibacy is not for all but only for those to whom that is granted by God [or more correctly: for those who have effective birth control: there’s nothing saying God has to approve them first].
9 [12] Incapable of marriage: literally, "eunuchs." Three classes are mentioned, eunuchs from birth, eunuchs by castration, and those who have voluntarily renounced marriage (literally, "have made themselves eunuchs") for the sake of the kingdom, i.e., to devote themselves entirely to its service [of not getting married]. Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage [but it doesn’t say “remarry”]. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry, since that suits better the optional nature of the decision: whoever can . . . ought to accept it.
Click here to see the 1380 Wycliffe Bible text
Luke 20:34-36:
34Jesus answered and said to them, “The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry(verb in the active present tense) nor are given in marriage; 36nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.”
So “Jesus” is saying that only single people can attain the resurrection. The original Greek verbs “γαμουσιν” for “marry” (both) are in the active present tense. Nope, it doesn’t say you can’t have sex outside of marriage. If it did, and everyone in the world did want Jesus expects (which would be the goal), then mankind would end because no one would be able to have sex.
1 Timothy 5:11-12:
11But refuse the younger widows; for when they have begun to grow wanton against Christ, they desire to marry, 12having condemnation because they have cast off their first faith.
Eunuchs can still have sex:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=castrate, castrate@everything2.com:
castrate … To surgically remove the testicles. The penis is not removed in castration. … A human male who has been castrated is a eunuch.
The Dictionary of Misinformation, Burnam, 1975, p. 78, “eunuchs and erections”:
Sexualia: From Prehistory to Cyberspace, Bishop / Osthelder, 2001, p. 314, “Prostitution in the Western World | Men for Sale”:
Sexualia: From Prehistory to Cyberspace, Bishop / Osthelder, 2001, p. 161, “The Harem and the Great Seraglio”:
http://www.geocities.com/KarenSpecial/castrate.html, Castration. Source: “The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets” by Barbara G. Walker [Harper & Row, 1983]:
Ritual castration was again revived by the 18th century Russian sectaries calling themselves Skoptsi, “castrated ones.” They also called themselves People of God, insisting that removal of their genitals brought them profound spiritual powers. Russia’s “mad monk” Rasputin was a member of this sect. Since Rasputin was famed for his affairs with women, few of his contemporaries would have believed him a eunuch; but they had forgotten what eastern harem-keepers knew well enough: that eunuchs are quite capable of providing women with sexual pleasure. Rasputin’s hold over his female devotees was in any case a curious combination of spiritual and sensual obsessions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Castration”:
Castration, gelding, neutering, orchiectomy or orchidectomy is any action, surgical or otherwise, by which a biological male loses use of the testes. This causes sterilization, i.e. prevents them from reproducing; it also greatly reduces the production of certain hormones, such as testosterone. It should not be confused with penectomy, which is the whole or partial removal of the penis. … Castrations after the onset of puberty will typically reduce the sex drive considerably or eliminate it altogether. Castrates can, however, still have erections, orgasms and ejaculations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castration_cult (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Castration cult”:
A number of religious cults have included castration as a central theme of their beliefs. These include: • The cult of Cybele • Hijra (India) • Some followers of early Christianity such as Origen considered castration as an acceptable way to counter sinful desires of the flesh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybele (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Cybele”:
Cybele's most ecstatic followers were castrated males called Galli by the romans, who led the people in orgiastic ceremonies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen (Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia), “Origen”:
Origen was a Christian scholar and theologian and one of the most distinguished of the Fathers of the early Christian Church. He was born about 182, probably at Alexandria, and died at Caesarea not later than 251. … His full name was apparently Origenes Adamantius. … he followed literally Matthew 19:12 and castrated himself, partly influenced, too, by his belief that the Christian must follow the words of his Master without reserve. … Origen accordingly fled from Alexandria in 231, and made his permanent home in Caesarea. A series of attacks on him seems to have emanated from Alexandria, whether for his self-castration (a capital crime in Roman law) or for alleged heterodoxy is unknown; but at all events these fulminations were heeded only at Rome, while Palestine, Phoenicia, Arabia, and Achaia paid no attention to them.
We now have this that controls modern day thought:
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Brown, Zondervan Publishing, 1978, vol. 3, p. 541, “Separate, Divide”:
Jesus and His disciples were previously discussing the marriage problems of divorce and adultery, and used it for a basis to shun marriage. They were not telling of the pitfalls of sex between single people. Jesus tells that the assurances and expectations relied on in the marriage union is interrupted by adultery and divorce, and therefore is not working as originally intended, as it begets too many victims. He never says that sex between single people is wrong. At the end of verse 12, Jesus shuns marriage, not all sexual relations period. Plus, the fact that eunuchs can still have erections says that they can still do the act, and that eunuchs can have orgasms says they can still very much enjoy the act. I’m telling you, the ones who people trust the most (clergies) are really the ones they can trust the least. Plus, if Jesus denounced “sexual relations altogether,” and if everyone did what Jesus wanted, then mankind would end in that generation, as no one would be having sex. Yet, people will believe whatever the church tells them. And, that is what allows a church full of lies and cop-outs, instead of a church of solutions.
The Youth Bible, Word Publishing, 1991, “Dictionary” p. 1359, “eunuch”:
Another false teaching example stating that Eunuchs cannot have sexual relations.
http://www.ars-rhetorica.net/David/Eunuchs.pdf (or, http://www.spirituality.org.za/files/Eunuch.pdf), Eunuchs and the Postgender Jesus: Matthew 19:12 and Transgressive Sexualities, p. 1, “Abstract”:
The eunuch of Matthew 19:12 has long been viewed as a symbol of chastity and celibacy. However, a study of ancient perspectives on eunuchs reveals a highly sexed and morally dubious “third type of human” embodying the worst fears of masculine vulnerability and sexual transgression.
P. 3, “Introduction”:
The eunuch was a figure perceived to be neither celibate nor morally chaste, but was a monstrous gender formation whose ability to navigate within and take on properties of both male/masculine and female/feminine worlds (physically, sexually, socially, culturally, even politically) was the source of his/her ambivalent social status.
P. 6, “Modern Interpretive Receptions”:
From this perspective, since a eunuch cannot penetrate a female in order to produce children, a eunuch cannot have sex. This interpretation is certainly reasonable (within its presumptive contours) and clearly has deep historical roots in the reception of this saying8 (as well as in the history of the development of Christian sexual ethics from the late 2nd century onwards). But that this interpretation is predicated upon a deep ideological assumption about sex and sexuality can be shown by reference to one single fact: eunuchs were not celibate. Indeed, they were not even viewed as chaste. In fact, eunuchs were universally characterized by the frequency, ease of and adeptness with which they performed sex acts with both men and women.
P. 10, “Eunuchs and Sexuality in the Ancient World”:
With respect to prepubescent castration, certain physiological characteristics were widely known and stereotyped, including feminine and beardless faces, physical weakness, height, with womanish vocal characteristics. With respect to post-pubescent castration, however, many secondary sex-characteristics associated with males would be maintained, making it extremely difficult for anyone in the ancient world to know for certain whether the man in front of him was a eunuch or not.
P. 12:
The fact that eunuchs were seen as objects of sexual desire did not shield them from vituperation directed precisely at the sexual practices that made them adept lovers.
P. 14:
It seems odd, therefore, that the “simple and straightforward” exegesis of the eunuch logion of Matthew today would view the eunuch as a symbol of sexual chastity and celibacy. Clearly, eunuchs were widely perceived as neither chaste nor celibate, but highly sexual and sexed beings.
P. 21, “Christian Ritual Castration and Gender Identity Politics”:
Indeed, contrary to what we have come to believe, Christian ritual castration was in fact performed for centuries.69 Practitioners were not limited to what we would now term “heterodox” or “gnostic” movements, but were also found within orthodoxy itself. Indeed, given the fluid and contested boundaries of the various Christian movements up to the 4th century, it should come as no surprise to learn that Christian ritual castration, though certainly understood as a special calling, found adherents in both orthodox and heterodox movements. The great ascetic movements that blossomed in the 3rd century which practiced ritual castration laid the foundation for later monasticism and its advocacy of celibacy.
P. 24, “Christian Ritual Castration and Gender Identity Politics”:
Springtime devotees to Cybele/Magna Mater would engage in ecstatic dancing. Certain novice members who were ready to signal their complete devotion would then take the ritual curved stone knife and castrate themselves, flinging their now amputated testicles at the door of house, whose female members were then expected to give them clothing, which they would then don.
http://www.partnertherapy.com/node/1091, Excessive Libido:
For men, the easiest and least utilized method of libido reduction is orchidectomy (removal of the testicles). It's obviously ill-advised for anyone wanting a family, but more to the point, there are certain cultural "taboos" about it. But there are plenty of men living happy sexual lives after such minor surgery -- some are removed for disease (testicular cancer), some to help address other diseases (prostate problems) and some folks simply have them out to reduce/eliminate libido. Such men can still have sex if they want -- the adrenals produce at least as much testosterone as women enjoy, and as we all know, that can be more than enough for some women!
It sounds like pleasure is reduced but not gone. I spoke to a local urologist, and he said that a person who has his testicles removed can definitely still have and enjoy sexual intercourse. He also told me it would not lessen their sexual libido unless the patient was pretty old. He agreed with my assumption that the early Greeks did it for a guaranteed method of birth control.
This is the one doctors refer to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16989928&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum (PubMed.gov: A Service of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health), The sexuality and social performance of androgen-deprived (castrated) men throughout history: Implications for modern day cancer patients, Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada:
The historical term for a man who has been castrated is 'eunuch', now a pejorative term implying overall social and sexual impotence. In this paper, we review key historical features of eunuch social performance and sexuality from a variety of cultures in order to assess the validity of contemporary stereotypes of the androgen-deprived male. Data were taken from secondary sources on the history of Byzantium, Roman Antiquity, Early Islamic societies, the Ottoman Empire, Chinese Dynasties, and the Italian Castrati period. This cross-cultural survey shows that castrated men consistently held powerful social positions that yielded great political influence. Many eunuchs were recognized for their loyalty, managerial style, wisdom, and pedagogical skills. Furthermore, rather than being consistently asexual and celibate, they were often sexually active. In certain cultures, they were objects of sexual desire for males, or females, or both. Collectively, the historical accounts suggest that, given the right cultural setting and individual motivation, androgen deprivation may actually enhance rather than hinder both social and sexual performance. We conclude that eunuch history contradicts the presumption that androgen deprivation necessarily leads to social and sexual impotence. The capabilities and accomplishments of eunuchs in the past gives patients on ADT grounds for viewing themselves in a positive light, where they are neither socially impotent nor sexually chaste.
The fact that a eunuch can have sex at all, proves Jesus was not condemning sex. He was only saying “marriage” was evil, and furthermore, that He had unwavering support for sex outside of marriage. Since the world would end if everyone became a eunuch, eunuch is just a great example of someone who can be very promiscuous, even to be able to be a participant in Cybele’s ritual orgies. That way, you don’t end up with a bunch of pregnant women. Being a eunuch was “visual” conclusive proof that no one can get pregnant. Ouch, though. Men, you can all start breathing again: today we have the pill.
Eunuch is a good example for Jesus to use as it can bypass a lot of corruption by those who can easily “just say” eunuchs can’t have sex, allowing the word to stay in the Bible, so that I can utilize it today, for my needed Jesus support.
Jesus overrules the Old Testament with another one:
Deuteronomy 23:1-2 (Old Testament):
1“He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD. 2One of illegitimate birth shall not enter the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation none of his descendants shall enter the assembly of the LORD.”
The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, Achtemeier, 1996, pp. 313-314, “eunuch”:
It is “unclear” because the meaning of Jesus commanding us to not marry is clear. It doesn’t say we can’t have unmarried sex, as the many citings above indicate “eunuchs” were actually “popular” for having unmarried sex.
In fact, eunuch… in Greek actually meant “unmarried,” etc.:
The New Strong’s Complete Dictionary of Bible Words, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament (portion), p. 627, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 1889, Baker Books 1997, p. 260, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer’s, 1979, p. 323, “ευνουχ…” (eunuch in Greek):
See, you don’t need to be married when you have effective birth control. But I suggest today to use spermicides, condoms, the pill, etc. STDs is the problem today. And today’s churches thank God for STDs; and, that kind of strong influence has to have a lot of control to lessen the finding of cures.
Even the New International Version (NIV) replaces “made themselves eunuchs” with “renounced marriage” thereby defining such:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Mat&c=19&v=12&t=NIV#12, NIV, “Mat 19:12”:
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage [fn]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
“[fn]” Footnote:
(19:12) Or have made themselves eunuchs
Miscellaneous:
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, John M. Allegro, 1992, p. 116, “The Celibate Ideal”:
Yes, but today’s church will have to wait for someone who can explain a rational alternative.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15458a.htm (Catholic Encyclopedia), Virginity:
The counsel of virginity is expressly given in the New Testament; first in Matt., xix, 11, 12, where Christ, after reminding His disciples that besides those who are unfit for marriage by nature, or by reason of a mutilation inflicted by others, there are others who have made the same sacrifice for the kingdom of heaven, recommends them to imitate these. "He that can take, let him take it." Tradition has always understood this text in the sense of a profession of perpetual continence. St. Paul again, speaking (I Cor., vii, 25-40) as a faithful preacher of the doctrine of the Lord (tamquam misericordiam consecutus a Domino, ut sim fidelis), formally declares that marriage is permissible (Paul said this, not Jesus), but that it would be better to follow his counsel and remain single; and he gives the reasons; besides the considerations arising from the circumstances of his time, he gives this general reason, that the married man "is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife (the sin of partiality): and he is divided"; whereas he that is without a wife directs all his care to his own bodily and spiritual sanctification, and is at liberty to devote himself to prayer.
These verses are slamming “marriage.” They are not recommending to never have sex. There’s nothing in these verses that says you can’t have sex out of marriage, other than the corrupt definition of “fornication.” By the way, James 2:8-9 (NKJV): [8]If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you do well; [9]But if you show partiality, you commit sin, and are convicted by the law as transgressors. (“Transgressor” means to violate the law.) “Partiality” (for self or for a person / people) is the root of all evil. Conversely, “partiality” for material (non human) things is our actual mission for God: what we want of material things (creation, location) is what God wants. The problem comes in when one’s desire for a material thing is someone else’s detriment, therefore, the Goldenrule must first be met.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 1933, “Virginity” 1, b:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/marriage/a/RomanMarriage.htm, Matrimonium - Roman Marriage, “Who Had The Right To Marry?”:
Bride and groom must have reached puberty. Over time, examination to determine puberty gave way to standardization at age 12 for girls and 14 for boys. Eunuchs, who would never reach puberty, were not permitted to marry. Monogamy was the rule,
(The Romans are the one’s who persecuted the early Christians [for there hundred years].)
Jealousy:
Marriage / monogamy, especially with looks discrimination, promotes jealousy; and, jealousy cannot be a true Jesus goal, simply because Jesus instructed that we are to love (have concern for the happiness of) everyone, including the other guy that also wants to date your girl. It is logically impossible for the essence of each motif to agree. At this point, to explain how and why people are able to connect the two, I should explain why people are not near as smart as they think they are; but, because I would be right, that would just cause myself more enemies, so I’ll save it for another subject.
Fundamentals of Human Sexuality, Katchadourian, 1989, p. 460, “Sexual Jealousy”:
Here’s something just to show that verse 12 is talking about “this saying”:
http://www.archive.org/stream/familyexpositoro1831dodd#page/235/mode/1up; The Family Expositor; or, a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament; with critical notes, and a practical improvement to each section; Philip Doddridge, D. D.; 1831; p. 235; “MATT. XIX”:
Note that it’s another corruption of “let him,” which allows the last sentence; and, the elaboration erroneously implies that eunuchs can’t have sex.
“Become one flesh”: Genesis 2:24 & particularly Matthew 19:2-9:
Comment:
What describes things best: symbolic meanings OR literal meanings?:
On my previous WIFE / WOMAN / Gunaikos webpage, I interpret Genesis 2:24’s “and they shall become one flesh” more literally, as it indicates that the “one flesh” of the two parents is what’s better know as a “baby.” Also, again, “wife” (KJV) in Genesis 2:24 & 25 is the same Hebrew word (Strong Hebrew # 802) used in Genesis 2:22 & 23 (just before) & 3:1 (just after) as “woman,” proving NO evidence the two were married. However, Jesus did reference the same in the Jews traditional meaning of marriage. I think Jesus used it simply because that’s how the Jews used it at the time to justify marriage; therefore Jesus used it as a reference basis just to firmly denounce divorce, which I agree should be avoided (as it usually begets a victim), and, of course, later mandated that people maintaining effective birth control should not marry in the first place, around the eunuch (visual effective birth control of the era) explanation. Surely Jesus caused more people to avoid divorce in the last 2,000 years by avoiding the literal “baby” meaning, by emphasizing the established “God” threat. So, He handled it right: (1) Jesus addresses the Old Testament understanding, and did not debate its “baby” validity, to (2) more support His deterrent of divorce; but then (3) to avoid the same divorce problem, e.g., ordered everyone who can stay single to do so. All this agrees with my thoughts, except today I feel the time’s right to overcomplicate it by telling of the “baby” corruption / misunderstanding.
Again, divorce usually always begets a victim, and particularly for the woman in ancient times. Even today, in reality, divorce is usually always something only one party wants. If both parties really want the divorce, then there’s no victim. If Jesus would have justified divorce in this way, then there would have been many more beatings of wives, etc. just so she would more “really” want the divorce as well. Don’t you hate logic?
Plus, Jesus had to conform to the then traditional understanding of the “read[ing]” as the Pharisees were “temping” Him. Jesus also overruled Moses by disallowing all divorces, unless she’s out a-whoring, where she can financially take care of herself. If she’s just sleeping with other men without charging (today’s definition of fornication), then she obviously isn’t going to be any financially better off after the divorce. So why would Jesus permit her to maybe starve if He’s caring about her well being? You see, this “fits” (in logic and reality) better than any other explanation. See my webpage: http://www.the-goldenrule.name/05-18-09__Americans_love_living_a_lie.htm under “A New Testament translation problem” concerning the “adultery” part, that partly parallel’s Matthew 19:9. Matthew 19:9 does add in that it’s not “adultery” for the man unless he marries another, allowing an avenue for someone who wishes to recant marriage altogether. Since early Christians were communal, enough was provided for single women, so they wouldn’t need to be married or go out a-whoring. I’m assuming this specific kind of divorce allowance was for married Christian followers alone.
Plus, with the “let him” part not being in the original Greek of the last sentence of Matthew 19:12 so to diminish Jesus’ “imperative” “command” form of verb, tells of a definite church corruption to allow marriage when Jesus instructs to not. That should be enough to satisfy any doubt alone. Again, Jesus instructs that if you are “able” to accept the saying “it is better to not marry” then we must accept it; as he was instructing the “great multitude” (verse 2). And, with effective birth control, STD cures, and the government paying everyone for their basic needs, then everyone can accept it.
Jesus worked with the Old Testament “as is”:
I don’t recall Jesus ever telling of an error or Hebrew word corruption in the Old Testament, He would rather just overrule it, like He did in this marriage / divorce passage; eye for eye; etc. I, of course, do cite many word corruptions, thus giving the true instructions of Jesus, not overruling Him. Therefore, Jesus and I work in two different ways: Him overruling things but not citing corruptions; me citing corruptions but not overruling Jesus. This would explain why Jesus just overruled marriage instead of pointing out the “one flesh” corruption. Likely Jesus telling of all the Old Testament word corruptions and slanted interpretations (which I’ve found both kinds) would have opened up way too many cans of worms for that era. It’s even opening too many cans of worms for this era also, but I’m instructed by God to write them anyway, as I find them. Again, it makes sense for Jesus to aggrandize on the then established Jewish misinterpretation of “one flesh,” to help lessen spouse victimizations for the subsequent 2,000+ years. Then, nip it in the bud in verse 12, as He latter commanded to keep us from getting ourselves into those kinds of situations (marriage) in the first place.
Support (even) for symbolic “one flesh” in Matthew 19:6:
Any contract (marriage, business, etc.) (that doesn’t hurt an innocent person) is recognized by God and is expected by Him to be obeyed. The contract is now “one” contract involving both or all parties. Therefore, the two (or all) are now in one agreement (or of “one flesh”) to the terms of the contract, and are not to break the contract under the penalty of Fair Afterlife Punishment by God. Therefore, the marriage contract is expected to be obeyed in a full Godly sense. The contract symbolically can be the “one flesh” of the combined people involved in the contract. Again, divorce is breaking the marriage contract, victimizing the other partner. All contracts are “joined together” by God, and therefore are expected to be upheld.
In a perfect sense, if everyone in the world could have sex or be married to each other (everyone become one flesh), then it would rid prejudice, wars, bias, etc. and create a much better and happier world. Not just the attractive and peer accepted, but everyone would be looked at as more of “a” value. Such would be in support of John 13:34’s “commandment” of “love one another” and all Bible instances of the Goldenrule. This is the reasoning why Jesus commanded that we not marry: to build a stronger love between all others.
Jesus states not that the sex prerequisite obligation to marry but the marriage contract is under duty to God (specifically addressing divorce and adultery), as ALL contracts are to be obeyed in fairness to the other party (because Goldenrule is top priority, even over sexual freedom). Therefore, it is better to not marry in the first place (19:10-12). It’s the imprisonment, the slavery, the monogamy, the anti-Freedom, the limiting love to only one, etc. of marriage that Jesus was against. But, if you obligate yourself to it, you’re stuck in lieu of hurting an innocent person (your innocent spouse). You see, a couple isn’t under God’s obligation until they get married, thereby agreeing to the marriage vows. By no means is it saying that God says you can’t have sex until married. Not until they “become one flesh” (the Jews symbolic interpretation) are they obligated to God. And, I know, divorce and adultery can devastate one’s spouse. And, back in those days, it meant the woman could starve to death. You see, it’s the entire system of government based on marriage that’s the problem, not individuals who get married. Welfare laws need to be adjusted to end paternal child support. And, no better an era than today for its implementation, as marriage is being shunned my many young couples today. Taxing men (or all) for child expenses instead of directly is basically just rearranging the expenses for the same obligations (like how our school system works), and such would “guarantee” financial support for all of “our” children; causing no (legal or emotional) restrictions in fathers in visiting their children (producing more positive visits). And children obey better under one general (mother), not two of the same rank in conflict. (Statistics show otherwise because authorities cause children to feel victimization after divorce when they assert both parents are “needed,” to keep parents together and to get deadbeat fathers to better pay, solely to save on welfare taxes.) Realize, you’ve all been taught that you’re going to Hell for any sex outside of marriage, totally based on “money” (meaning more for the rich man), not God or Jesus.
You see, everyone by default can do, or has the Freedom to do, whatever they want in this world, as long as it doesn’t hurt an innocent person. But, in business or marriage, there is an added agreement that states further restrictions and obligations, causing its violation to further hurt an innocent person, because the violation hurts the other party. Business contracts should continue until someone comes up with a better plan, but marriage is something that should end.
Marriage is kind of like gambling or car racing. None are retributive sins or break the Goldenrule, because all parties basically consent to the action, and therefore basically none beget an “innocent” victim. But, all are not recommended for obvious reasons, respectively: marriage reserves love for just one forsaking others, or imprisons; too many lose everything; dangerous. Like Matthew 19:4-6, if I was to stress an unethical problem in gambling, I’d first have to acknowledge it, and if the religion to which I was addressing pre-told it was a mandated agreement of God, I could expand on that to have it better support that the Goldenrule still applies in gambling, specifically that cheating would be a retributive sin. You see, by alerting folks that God is still there when they gamble, then God’s Goldenrule can be better practiced while gambling. If I said that, no, God had always been opposed to gambling, then those who gamble anyway would tend to not feel as guilty if they decided to cheat, since people feel that God is not already everywhere. It’s like in Church, people will “act” nicer to others there, then not as nice in other places. Therefore, there are benefits in making the dumb human feel God is supporting their marriage. And, He actually does at an individual couple level; but, as a whole He knows the entire concept of marriage needs to go. It’s like God does want the poor gambler to win the rest of this month’s rent, but still wants gambling as a whole to be outlawed. If I had a spouse who was planning to break my heart by leaving me, I could argue that God’s blessing is in our marriage, hoping that it might keep her from leaving me when I am needing her the most. I’m sure that by Jesus supporting the Jewish marriage standard of the day, it caused many less divorces in a mandated marital society, therefore less victimizations.
Jesus also affirmed that God did ordain marriage at one time, according to Luke 13:6-9 with 2 Peter 3:8; or what else would Jesus be needing to overrule in Matt. 19:10-12? You see, Luke 13:6-9’s symbolic “fig” represents the festival to the “marriage” goddess Hera/Juno, and the vineyard points to Dionysus/Bacchus the god of wine (but popular for wild orgies). That IS telling us that God once wanted marriage to work, as He planted the fig tree in a disorderly open sex world. 2 Peter 3:8 puts a timeline on this to over one million years ago. Later God saw problems in marriage, but allowed it more time. Jesus culminated it in Matthew 19:10-12. But, the vineyard keeper still refuses to cut down the antiquated fig tree, even after effective birth control. See my webpage: “Homo erectus (as it relates to Jesus’ FIG TREE parable)” for more information.
You see, Dionysian orgies would not be liked by God as it discriminated more for the “attractive” people, and against the ugly; as an orgy today would also. I know this sounds egotistical, but sexual freedom can work in fairness today, since I (only) can teach that a simple fad in desiring diversity in looks is the key to the entire solution. Peer pressure does control the dumb human very well. Therefore, God knows the entire solution is at hand; but, if instead atheism destroys Christianity in say a hundred years, then we can only learn of the benefits of diversity in appearance the hard way: after much heartbreak, discrimination, strong prostitution standards, and the government still using hunger to motivate people to work. Again, Jesus supports my diversity in looks stance very well in Matt. 5:27-30, as today and yesterday, men only really “lust” in discrimination for attractive women. So, “pluck out your eyes” if you still hold to marriage (which just fuels lust for the attractive in the game of possession), by not supporting my diversity in looks policy. That’s what I call strong support from Jesus.
According to Matthew 19:1-12, Jesus denounced marriage specifically because of "divorce": the major problem that proves that marriage is not the ultimate solution. That is, it doesn't say He denounced marriage to evade sexual intercourse, as many of today's churches say.