Vasectomy

[SuperEddy]

I have come across a Scripture that I think needs to be reinterpreted by the Christian community.  These are MATT 19:9-12.  The word "eunuch" in verse 12 is usually taken to mean, "Those who have the Gift to remain unmarried", however, I argue that it should be taken literally.  Taken as "The Gift" it doesn't make sense.  By taking it literally and interpreting the verse 10 word, "marry", as a "code-word" for "have sex" gives a better picture for what the Lord Jesus has shown me.

In modern-day terms: "Those men who deliberately make themselves sterile in order to avoid fathering any children or fathering more children are forbidden by the Lord from have sex in their marriage, and, if they have not fathered ANY children, are forbidden from having sex for the rest of their lives."

It says nothing about women, but to make a female eunuch would be lethal to the woman in Biblical times. 

======== See Posts #46 and #49 To Participate ========================

I was shown these verses by the Lord 28 years after I had my vasectomy == The Above is True!

[johndoo]

I disagree

[DaveW]

I disagree by reason of the point you make.  Making one's self a eunuch for the kingdom means you are forgoing sex to be a more effective servant for the Kingdom of God.  To get a vas so you can have sex without children is the opposite; one cannot effectively serve the kingdom of God when one is out there fornicating.

[SuperEddy]

You have missed the point.  If "eunuch" meant "Gift to remain unmarried", each gift must be given by God.  But how can a eunuch be made that way by others (NIV 2011)?  That is, how can a mere human being give that Gift?  He can't!  The Gift must be given by God!  Therefore, the "Gift" interpretation of eunuch doesn't make sense.

I also wish to add a Post Script:

The term "forbidden" may encompass many things: "impotence", "a wife's rejection", "a wife's refusal to have sex on a permanent basis", "for unbelievers: no bar-room pick-ups", "long-term depression", in short, "any number of things at the Lord's disposal".

[Red Baker]

I was shown these verses by the Lord 28 years after I had my vasectomy == The Above is True!

"He that is able to receive it, let him receive it"...V12~You obviously have not receive what these scriptures are saying. 

"and there be eunuchs which have made themselves eunuchs"~Not in a literal sense, in which the words are not to be taken, as they were by Origen; who though otherwise too much pursued the allegorical way of interpreting Scripture, here took it literally, and castrated himself ; But here it means such, who having the gift of continency without mutilating their bodies, or indulging any unnatural lusts, can live chastely without the use of women, and choose celibacy.

Paul said: "For I would that all men were even as I myself.  But every man hath his proper GIFT OF GOD, one after this manner, and another after that." I Corinthians 7:7

[DaveW]

In modern-day terms: "Those men who deliberately make themselves sterile in order to avoid fathering any children or fathering more children are forbidden by the Lord from have sex in their marriage,..."

Can you please explain why marital sex is forbidden in this case?

[DaveW]

Paul said: "For I would that all men were even as I myself.  But every man hath his proper GIFT OF GOD, one after this manner, and another after that." I Corinthians 7:7

Quick note on the underlying greek: the word "gift" in this verse is charisma, the same word 5 chapters later is used to describe healing, prophecy, miracles, etc.

IOW, you can no more choose to be celebate than you can choose to have the gift of miraculous healing.

[DaveW]

Not in a literal sense, in which the words are not to be taken, as they were by Origen; who though otherwise too much pursued the allegorical way of interpreting Scripture, here took it literally, and castrated himself ;

I thought that was Jerome.  Perhaps it was both.

In any event, this is an example of someone who apparently did NOT have that charismatic gift trying to force it on themselves.

[SuperEddy]

The best way that I understand it is that it is an interruption of the flow of life and, therefore, the "flow" of sex is also interrupted.  Christian marriage only ends by the death of a spouse (legally).  It can also end in divorce, but no re-marriage is possible (legally).  If, either, the wife dies or the husband gets a divorce, and, the husband re-marries, he can have sex with his new wife as long as he has fathered at least one child.  If he has no children, he cannot have sex even with his new wife.

[SuperEddy]

Paul said: "For I would that all men were even as I myself.  But every man hath his proper GIFT OF GOD, one after this manner, and another after that." I Corinthians 7:7

Quick note on the underlying greek: the word "gift" in this verse is charisma, the same word 5 chapters later is used to describe healing, prophecy, miracles, etc.

IOW, you can no more choose to be celebate than you can choose to have the gift of miraculous healing.

YES!!!  This is exactly my point!  Being made a "Gift Eunuch" by others (other men) is impossible!  Only God can make a "Gift Eunuch"  THAT IS WHY THE "Gift Eunuch" CONCEPT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

[DaveW]

The best way that I understand it is that it is an interruption of the flow of life and, therefore, the "flow" of sex is also interrupted.  Christian marriage only ends by the death of a spouse (legally).  It can also end in divorce, but no re-marriage is possible (legally).  If, either, the wife dies or the husband gets a divorce, and, the husband re-marries, he can have sex with his new wife as long as he has fathered at least one child.  If he has no children, he cannot have sex even with his new wife.

Wow.  that is the most screwed up version of this I have heard in a long time. If you take that last sentance literally; it makes that husband violate several direct biblical commands:

"Be fruitful and multiply"   Genesis 1:28; 9:1
"Shall not diminish her ... conjugal rights."   Exodus 21:10
"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife"  1 Corinthians 7:3

The scriptures know nothing of a sexless marriage. That idea was invented by "church fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries who had intentionally lost any clue of how the NT scriptures (and the OT scriptures as well) were understood in their proper first century Jewish setting.

BTW - Jesus, James, Peter and Paul ALL were raised in the synagogue and would have been taught that sex is a wife's right and a husband's responsibility. And that if she was not "getting enough," she could sue in a rabbinic court to make him do it more, even change jobs if that was taking him away from home too much or left him to tired to perform.  The minimum frequency of sex was actually written into the "Ketubah" or marriage contract.

[Red Baker]

The best way that I understand it is that it is an interruption of the flow of life and, therefore, the "flow" of sex is also interrupted.  Christian marriage only ends by the death of a spouse (legally).  It can also end in divorce, but no re-marriage is possible (legally).  If, either, the wife dies or the husband gets a divorce, and, the husband re-marries, he can have sex with his new wife as long as he has fathered at least one child.  If he has no children, he cannot have sex even with his new wife.

Who put that into your mind?  Why do men marry? Hint~1 Corinthians 7:2,9.

The scriptures know nothing of a sexless marriage.

Amen.

[Catholica]

The primary (but not sole) purpose of marriage is for the pro-creation of children. 

With that in mind, I would argue that v.12 about men who were "made eunuchs by others" in context means not that men who have had a vasectomy cannot have sex with their wives, but rather that they cannot marry someone, that is, until they had their vasectomy reversed.  At that point, even if the reversal fails, they could marry someone.  And if someone is married then it behooves them to repent from the sin of vasectomy (which is like castration) and make reparation by having the vasectomy reversed.

[SuperEddy]

I disagree

Why?  Please explain in detail.  I'd like to hear from you. 
SE

[SuperEddy]

The best way that I understand it is that it is an interruption of the flow of life and, therefore, the "flow" of sex is also interrupted.  Christian marriage only ends by the death of a spouse (legally).  It can also end in divorce, but no re-marriage is possible (legally).  If, either, the wife dies or the husband gets a divorce, and, the husband re-marries, he can have sex with his new wife as long as he has fathered at least one child.  If he has no children, he cannot have sex even with his new wife.

Wow.  that is the most screwed up version of this I have heard in a long time. If you take that last sentance literally; it makes that husband violate several direct biblical commands:

"Be fruitful and multiply"   Genesis 1:28; 9:1
"Shall not diminish her ... conjugal rights."   Exodus 21:10
"The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife"  1 Corinthians 7:3

The scriptures know nothing of a sexless marriage. That idea was invented by "church fathers" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries who had intentionally lost any clue of how the NT scriptures (and the OT scriptures as well) were understood in their proper first century Jewish setting.

BTW - Jesus, James, Peter and Paul ALL were raised in the synagogue and would have been taught that sex is a wife's right and a husband's responsibility. And that if she was not "getting enough," she could sue in a rabbinic court to make him do it more, even change jobs if that was taking him away from home too much or left him to tired to perform.  The minimum frequency of sex was actually written into the "Ketubah" or marriage contract.

Dave W:  I AM TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO DELIBERATELY GETS STERILIZED !!!!  I agree with your statements (above).  The entire context of my posts is to discuss the Biblical sexual consequences of getting a vasectomy!!

[SuperEddy]

The best way that I understand it is that it is an interruption of the flow of life and, therefore, the "flow" of sex is also interrupted.  Christian marriage only ends by the death of a spouse (legally).  It can also end in divorce, but no re-marriage is possible (legally).  If, either, the wife dies or the husband gets a divorce, and, the husband re-marries, he can have sex with his new wife as long as he has fathered at least one child.  If he has no children, he cannot have sex even with his new wife.

Who put that into your mind?  Why do men marry? Hint~1 Corinthians 7:2,9.

The scriptures know nothing of a sexless marriage.

Amen.

Red:  The whole purpose of my posts is to address the Biblical sexual consequences of men getting vasectomies!!!  Your posts are well reasoned == I agree with you.  Now, please modify your statements to address men having vasectomies.  (Which is, after all, the whole subject heading.)
SE

[SuperEddy]

The primary (but not sole) purpose of marriage is for the pro-creation of children. 

With that in mind, I would argue that v.12 about men who were "made eunuchs by others" in context means not that men who have had a vasectomy cannot have sex with their wives, but rather that they cannot marry someone, that is, until they had their vasectomy reversed.  At that point, even if the reversal fails, they could marry someone.  And if someone is married then it behooves them to repent from the sin of vasectomy (which is like castration) and make reparation by having the vasectomy reversed.

Catholica: Of any of the people to respond so far, you come the closest to my view.  My point IS THAT a man who has a vasectomy (getting one while he is married) cannot have sex (he is forbidden by the Lord to have sex) with his wife.  Sex, in such a case, can be resumed if he reverses the vasectomy.
SE

[SuperEddy]

Dave W:  Please address my post #9 == my response to you.  We are on the first step towards an agreement == Let me know if this is so.
SE

[DaveW]

Dave W:  Please address my post #9 == my response to you.  We are on the first step towards an agreement == Let me know if this is so.

ok - I did not see much to comment on there; but as you request:

Paul said: "For I would that all men were even as I myself.  But every man hath his proper GIFT OF GOD, one after this manner, and another after that." I Corinthians 7:7

Quick note on the underlying greek: the word "gift" in this verse is charisma, the same word 5 chapters later is used to describe healing, prophecy, miracles, etc.

IOW, you can no more choose to be celebate than you can choose to have the gift of miraculous healing.

YES!!!  This is exactly my point!  Being made a "Gift Eunuch" by others (other men) is impossible!  Only God can make a "Gift Eunuch"  THAT IS WHY THE "Gift Eunuch" CONCEPT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!

I have never heard of the term "Gift Eunuch," so I guess I am not sure what exactly is meant by it.

Anyone can chop someone's male parts off and it was not uncommon in the ancient mid-east. So I take the Lord's words in Matthew 19:12 quite literally.

However, Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 7:7 are more to the point - being celebate WITHOUT the removal of those male parts. The kicker is the apostle's words: "I would that all men were even as I myself."  And he was intact in his manhood.  How do I know?  Because in Acts 21 he was in the temple and it was absolutely FORBIDDEN for anyone who was NOT intact to enter the temple. (yes - they were inspected)

Deuteronomy 23:1 (NET)  A man with crushed or severed genitals may not enter the assembly of the Lord.

So there is a difference. 

[DaveW]

Dave W:  I AM TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO DELIBERATELY GETS STERILIZED !!!!  I agree with your statements (above).  The entire context of my posts is to discuss the Biblical sexual consequences of getting a vasectomy!!

OK.  I see no "consequences" if the man can still perform to satisfy his wife. (which is the locus of biblical sexual command) And as we know, there are many different ways to please a woman.  While the western world has only discovered this in the last century or so, Solomon wrote about some of the alternate techniques in the Song of Songs circa 1000 bc. (masturbation, manual sex, oral sex are all mentioned) So that was well understood in Jewish culture.

So the question comes up does having a vasectomy violate a command in scripture? I see nothing in that to diminish his ability to satisfy his wife.  If they already have children he has fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. So I see no violation there.

The next question that comes is whether Deuteronomy 23:1 is applicable in a New Covenant environment.  I would say no, especially for gentile believers. If a third temple is set up at some point, and there is true worship of God there, a Jew who has a vas potentially may not be let in. But it should not exclude any of us from worship elsewhere.

[SuperEddy]

Dave W:  Again your remarks in post #18 are out of context.  Look again at port #9:

    By "Gift Eunuch" I mean using the word "Eunuch" to refer to one who "Has the Gift to remain Unmarried" == i.e., Its traditional meaning.

    I intend to use the word "Eunuch" in a semi-literal sense to mean, in general, "one who is sterilized".

    Now, please look at post #9:  "You can no more choose to be celebate than...."
    And my comment to that.

Please comment

[Red Baker]

The primary (but not sole) purpose of marriage is for the pro-creation of children.

Really?  How about those people who marry late in life, after their spouse are dead?  When I got married almost fifty years ago, it was all due to blinded lust, of course I thought I was in love, but more lust driven than love.

Red:  The whole purpose of my posts is to address the Biblical sexual consequences of men getting vasectomies!!!  Your posts are well reasoned == I agree with you.  Now, please modify your statements to address men having vasectomies.  (Which is, after all, the whole subject heading.)
SE

I will ponder this some more~RB

[DaveW]

Dave W:  Again your remarks in post #18 are out of context.  Look again at port #9:

    By "Gift Eunuch" I mean using the word "Eunuch" to refer to one who "Has the Gift to remain Unmarried" == i.e., Its traditional meaning.

    I intend to use the word "Eunuch" in a semi-literal sense to mean, in general, "one who is sterilized".

    Now, please look at post #9:  "You can no more choose to be celebate than...."
    And my comment to that.

Please comment

I am not sure what you are saying is out of context.  Perhaps you are not reading me correctly. 

If I misunderstood your use of "Gift Eunuch" I apologize. 

I make a distinction between those who have the charismatic gift (which cannot be chosen) while remaining intact; and those who are physically emasculated.  Paul and Jesus were talking about 2 different situations.

[SuperEddy]

Dave W:  I AM TALKING ABOUT A MAN WHO DELIBERATELY GETS STERILIZED !!!!  I agree with your statements (above).  The entire context of my posts is to discuss the Biblical sexual consequences of getting a vasectomy!!

OK.  I see no "consequences" if the man can still perform to satisfy his wife. (which is the locus of biblical sexual command) And as we know, there are many different ways to please a woman.  While the western world has only discovered this in the last century or so, Solomon wrote about some of the alternate techniques in the Song of Songs circa 1000 bc. (masturbation, manual sex, oral sex are all mentioned) So that was well understood in Jewish culture.

So the question comes up does having a vasectomy violate a command in scripture? I see nothing in that to diminish his ability to satisfy his wife.  If they already have children he has fulfilled the command to be fruitful and multiply. So I see no violation there.

The next question that comes is whether Deuteronomy 23:1 is applicable in a New Covenant environment.  I would say no, especially for gentile believers. If a third temple is set up at some point, and there is true worship of God there, a Jew who has a vas potentially may not be let in. But it should not exclude any of us from worship elsewhere.

Masturbation,  Oral sex,... may be OK == i.e., not under "consequences"  == maybe only intercourse.

Paragraph two is THE very issue I am trying to resolve!!  (Let's figure it out.)

Again, Deut 23:1 is not the issue:  I'm talking about sterilization and vasectomy not emasculation and castration.

[SuperEddy]

Dave W:  Let me ask you some questions which may make our communications better == Let's see where we agree and where we differ.

In MATT 19:12, how do you define "eunuch"?  Its literal way or something different?

Do you view MATT 19:9-12 as a minimum set of verses that define a context for them?

What are the verses that go with MATT 19:9-12 which support them?

SE

[DaveW]

In MATT 19:12, how do you define "eunuch"?  Its literal way or something different?

Literally. Those who are chopped off.

Do you view MATT 19:9-12 as a minimum set of verses that define a context for them?

I take the context starting with verse 3.  It has to go to the larger question of marriage and divorce.

What are the verses that go with MATT 19:9-12 which support them?

I pretty much take it as a stand-alone passage.  While Paul seems to be talking about the same thing in 1 Cor 7, I take it as a seperate issue.

[SuperEddy]

In MATT 19:12, how do you define "eunuch"?  Its literal way or something different?

Literally. Those who are chopped off.

Do you view MATT 19:9-12 as a minimum set of verses that define a context for them?

I take the context starting with verse 3.  It has to go to the larger question of marriage and divorce.

What are the verses that go with MATT 19:9-12 which support them?

I pretty much take it as a stand-alone passage.  While Paul seems to be talking about the same thing in 1 Cor 7, I take it as a seperate issue.

Dave W:  GOOD!!  For the purposes of this discussion I agree with you!!  I would also ask you if you would, in addition, accept a semi-literal definition of "eunuch" as, in modern terms, "sterilization" and "vasectomized"?   Also, note that I am not 100% in agreement with Catholica but has the "flavor" of what I'm trying to say.
SE

[DaveW]

accept a semi-literal definition of "eunuch" as, in modern terms, "sterilization"  and  "vasectomized"?

No I will not.  Eunichs had the testicles removed thus rendering them without a sex drive. (no testosterone) And (if done pre-puberty) often unable to attain an erection. That is why they were ideal for guarding the harem.

A vasectomy does not do that.

[SuperEddy]

accept a semi-literal definition of "eunuch" as, in modern terms, "sterilization"  and  "vasectomized"?

No I will not.  Eunichs had the testicles removed thus rendering them without a sex drive. (no testosterone) And (if done pre-puberty) often unable to attain an erection. That is why they were ideal for guarding the harem.

A vasectomy does not do that.

Dave W: I understand your position.  I would add the thought, "What does vasectomy and castration have in common?"  Answer: They block the flow of sperm == They block procreation.  For the purposes of the discussion will you limit the use of the term "eunuch" to this commonality == consistent with the meaning of MATT 19:3-12?
SE

[DaveW]

Yes both C and V block procreation.  I will grant you that.

Now answer me this: Do you think marital sex has any value beyond procreation?  If so - what?

[SuperEddy]

Yes both C and V block procreation.  I will grant you that.

Now answer me this: Do you think marital sex has any value beyond procreation?  If so - what?

Dave W:  To answer your question: YES!!  It has many values.  For example, fun, bonding, pleasure, love,...   Yes, Many values!
SE

[DaveW]

Dave W:  To answer your question: YES!!  It has many values.  For example, fun, bonding, pleasure, love,...   Yes, Many values!

OK - so far we are on the same page. 

Now if a guy gets a vas, does that change?   If so - how and why? 

[SuperEddy]

Dave W:  To answer your question: YES!!  It has many values.  For example, fun, bonding, pleasure, love,...   Yes, Many values!

OK - so far we are on the same page. 

Now if a guy gets a vas, does that change?   If so - how and why?

Dave W:  If you asked me that a month ago, I would say, "No, not one iota!", and I assume that you would say the same!  (Am I right?)  I could not say the same, today, as it is not consistent with what the Lord has shown me about my own vas, which was 28 years ago, however, the Lord told me last week that vasectomy is very destructive to one's sex life, in marriage or not in marriage.  This is why I'm writing in this forum == This is why I am here!
SE

[DaveW]

Does a vas negate the command to sexually satisfy your wife?

[SuperEddy]

Does a vas negate the command to sexually satisfy your wife?

Dave W:  The Lord is the Author of the command to sexually satisfy your wife.  You can do mutual masturbation or oral but the Lord forbids you to do intercourse if you get a vas.  The Lord is the Author of the command == He has the power and authority to negate it, if He desires!
SE