Eunuchs?

[DaveW]

This post is a reply to a PM from SuperEddy and it is posted with his permission.  His original thread on this topic was in the Men's sex folder and it was requested by a mod that it be put here where both men and women can comment.  So be it.

The main text is from SE.  My comments are in RED.

We need MATT 19:9-12 from NIV, year 2011:

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 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."

Analysis:

Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?!  What would happen if a eunuch married a woman?  He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation.  His wife could divorce him with impunity!

First off - "adultery" has a very narrow definition in scripture: one who has sex with a person who is married to someone else.  One's status of being a eunuch has nothing to do with adultery.

Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.

Verse 10 doesn't make sense if it is taken at face value!  That is "the husband and wife are already married (obviously!)".  Why is it "better not to marry" if they are already married?!  The key is, "If THIS is the situation".  "THIS" probably refers to the eunuch husband:  It is better that he does not marry!

Your "face value" is a misunderstanding.  The disciples were saying that if it was that difficult to properly get out of a marriage, it would be better to not get married in the first place. It is kinda like saying "if there really is that bad crash and explosion at the bottom of the valley; it would be better to not drive your car off the cliff."


Verse 11 says, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."

I do not see that at all.  It is saying that the only ones who could take the advice "better to not marry" are those who Paul says has a charismatic gift of celebacy - not a eunuch but supernaturally sustained to be ok as a single.

Verse 12 lists three kinds of eunuchs:

1) Born that way.
2) Made eunuchs by others.
3) Act like eunuchs for the kingdom's sake.

A eunuch who is born that way has dysfunctional genitals and cannot have intercourse. 

Probably so.  There may be other forms as well.

The eunuch made that way by others begs an important question:  When did he do it?  Was it after he fathered a child or before he fathered any children?  If it was after, his genitals are functional, and, symbolically, he can still have intercourse.  If it was before, symbolically, he is like the "born that way" eunuch and he cannot have intercourse. 

In that society one "made by others" would indicate a male child who was "chopped off" to be a guard in a harem.  What you are describing is set #3. 

Last, he may have God's gift to remain unmarried and is like a "eunuch".

Which Paul lists in 1 Cor 7 as a charismatic gift.

As for, "The one who can accept this should accept it", it says, "eunuchs are not forbidden to marry but it's better for them not to do so."

Actually a eunuch was not biblically forbidden to marry but that society would have prevented it. 

[SuperEddy]

DaveW:  Thank you for posting this letter!  I'm formulating a reply which I will give you tomorrow.
SE

[SuperEddy]

First off - "adultery" has a very narrow definition in scripture: one who has sex with a person who is married to someone else.  One's status of being a eunuch has nothing to do with adultery.

DaveW:  Ironically it was MATT 5:32 that led me to a more general definition of adultery, or, rather, seeing that there are at least two definitions of adultery. 

MATT 5:32 == "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."

When I first read this, I thought, "Yes, I divorced my wife ten years ago, but I didn't have sex and I didn't marry again.  How is she the victim and how am I, implicitly, guilty of adultery just by divorcing her?"  The breakthrough came when I looked up the dictionary definitions of "adultery" and "unfaithfulness".  "Adultery" is defined as "sexual unfaithfulness of a married person" and "unfaithfulness" is defined as "not observant of vows, allegiance, or duty".  What I get from the Lord is that there are "vow" adulterers and "duty" adulterers (or adulteresses).  The vow-adulterer is the one of conventional meaning == the married person who sleeps around.  The duty-adulterer is the one who refuses to do their marital sexual duties, which was my case due to my divorcing my wife without proper cause.  A eunuch who marries a woman would automatically and instantly be a duty-adulterer.

[DaveW]

I had a great and somewhat long post that disappeared before I hit the "post" button.

Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text.  It is not in the original at all.  The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.

And you need to look at a Strong's, a Thayer's, Vine's, Wilson's, etc. to find the meaning of the actual words translated "adultery."

[SuperEddy]

I had a great and somewhat long post that disappeared before I hit the "post" button.

Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text.  It is not in the original at all.  The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.

And you need to look at a Strong's, a Thayer's, Vine's, Wilson's, etc. to find the meaning of the actual words translated "adultery."

DaveW:  Too bad about your lost post == I would like to see it.

Last week, I ordered a Greek Interlinear Bible and a NT Greek/English Dictionary.  It should arrive at the end of August.  I'll be better equipped to address the issue then.

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text.  It is not in the original at all.  The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.

DaveW:  Just thought of this: If she is "forced" to commit adultery, doesn't THAT make her a victim?
Are we just splitting hairs? 

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD. [/color] [/b]

Actually a eunuch was not biblically forbidden to marry but that society would have prevented it. 

DaveW:  In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK.  This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!

Or, does it?  Look at MATT 19:7-8.  In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it!  == "No, your hearts were hard!  I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth!  In the beginning, it was not so!""  So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do!  MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus!  A NT example is slavery!  "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..." 

Even more than that:  Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven"  God's Word is dynamic.  The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!

It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[Rella]

Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.

I  in no way want to divert this discussion from the subject of the opening post, but you have made a point in this specific statement of yours and I have a very valid question.

IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....

DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?

The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.

[SuperEddy]

Second - biblically only husbands can file for divorce. Yes there are examples going the other way but that was a culutural thing during NT times that was in opposition to scripture. So - no - his wife could not biblically divorce him PERIOD.

I  in no way want to divert this discussion from the subject of the opening post, but you have made a point in this specific statement of yours and I have a very valid question.

IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....

DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?

The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.

Rella:  The Bible is, unfortunately, silent on this issue, but with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

Your "face value" is a misunderstanding.  The disciples were saying that if it was that difficult to properly get out of a marriage, it would be better to not get married in the first place. It is kinda like saying "if there really is that bad crash and explosion at the bottom of the valley; it would be better to not drive your car off the cliff."

Verse 11 says, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."

I do not see that at all.  It is saying that the only ones who could take the advice "better to not marry" are those who Paul says has a charismatic gift of celebacy - not a eunuch but supernaturally sustained to be ok as a single.

DaveW:  The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12.  In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..."  The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry". 

The charismatic gift of celebacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ".  And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[DaveW]

DaveW:  The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12.  In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..."  The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry". 

The charismatic gift of celibacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ".  And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

You seem to be missing my point.   "Better not to marry" means in the first place.  Don't get hung up over the tenses of the verb. It is not talking about being better to dissolve an existing marriage.

And I do not see anywhere that equates the gift of celibacy with being a eunuch.

[DaveW]

IF only men were/are entitled to obtain a divorce from a wife, and the only reason is because of adultery, of which I would assume meant her adultery/ unfaithfullness to him... or perhaps his desire to bed/marry another woman would make it alright for him to divorce his wife...(?)....

DOES GOD APPROVE OF WIFE/CHILD ABUSE of either the physical or verbal kind?

The fact that only men are able to obtain a divorce, of Biblical approval (ie God approved) would seem to suggest He does.

No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you  should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there.  That is why it was not addressed.

BTW - abuse can go both ways.  A man would have not been allowed to divorce his wife for abuse against him either.

[DaveW]

with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!

This is off topic but WHAT? ? ?  By the apostles writing something addressing it in the NT?  That did not happen.

I think you have a very wrong idea of what binding and loosing are all about.

[SuperEddy]

DaveW:  The point of verse 10 was to introduce verses 11 and 12.  In verse 11, Jesus says, "Not everyone can accept THIS (verse 10) word, but only .... (introduce verse 12)..."  The point, "It is better not to marry", does NOT mean, "It would have been better that they didn't marry". 

The charismatic gift of celibacy is referred to as a state of being a " 'eunuch' ".  And THAT, together with the other eunuchs, can be summed up as, "Only eunuchs may choose not to be married."

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

You seem to be missing my point.   "Better not to marry" means in the first place.  Don't get hung up over the tenses of the verb. It is not talking about being better to dissolve an existing marriage.

And I do not see anywhere that equates the gift of celibacy with being a eunuch.

DaveW:  I DO get your points, but you seem to be missing mine.  How do we resolve this?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

with MATT 16:19 this can be changed!

This is off topic but WHAT? ? ?  By the apostles writing something addressing it in the NT?  That did not happen.

I think you have a very wrong idea of what binding and loosing are all about.

DaveW:  The MATT 16:19 quote was originally from Post #6 == Please read that (#6) and then comment.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[Rella]

No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you  should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there.  That is why it was not addressed.

You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.

I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.

Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)

They were regarded in many cases as possessions.

Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.

As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.

Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.

So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....

Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.

[chosenone]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce. 

[AVZ]

No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you  should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there.  That is why it was not addressed.

You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.

I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.

Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)

They were regarded in many cases as possessions.

Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.

As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.

Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.

So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....

Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.

The discussion is only men were allowed to divorce their wives, or if God allowed abuse is moot, really.
The Bible states that if one hurts his neighbor...and yes that includes his wife...he has to pay up.

The Jews twisted the OT scriptures into the understanding that men could divorce their wive for whatever reason.
Didn't like her anymore...divorce her. All the same.

Anyway, if you are being abused...pack your bags and go live somewhere else.
That does not constitute divorce. The Bible nowhere states or indicates that a wife has to live with her husband if she is abused (or the other way around).

[SuperEddy]

No - God does not approve of domestic abuse in any form. But you  should understand that domestic abuse is a cultural issue that did not exist there.  That is why it was not addressed.

You cannot possibly know if it did or did not exist there.

I agree that there can be husband abuse, and as such that would not have been grounds for a divorce either.... but with all due respect to the Holy Bible, It was written by men, or .... at least the books that made it in to the acceptable Canon
were.

Women were considered inferior to men, back in that time span.(Still are according to a number of men I know.)

They were regarded in many cases as possessions.

Not unlike the Muslim thought about women today.

As such, I would not expect abuse to be included in talk in scripture.

Today if a Muslim woman were to abuse her husband she would be killed.
We do not know if that would have been acceptable in old testament times as they did stone to death for any number of reasons. Therefore, as a reason for divorce, it may not have been necessary.

So, if it is not a reason for divorce today, then I submit that God does approve....

Probably as an added curse from the idiocy of Eve that we will always be under.

Rella:  This is very well said!!!  Thank You!!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.

Dear chosenone:  Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters.  He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night.  One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife!  It became are regular thing == daily!  His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help.  She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help.  Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail".  Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife!  He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.

I'd say her divorce was justified!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[SuperEddy]

Basicly it said that your NIV translation is off by adding "victim" into the text.  It is not in the original at all.  The Greek says it forces her to commit adultery.

DaveW:  Just thought of this: If she is "forced" to commit adultery, doesn't THAT make her a victim?
Are we just splitting hairs? 

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

DaveW:  I thought you might have missed this == Please comment.
SuperEddy

[chosenone]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.

Dear chosenone:  Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters.  He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night.  One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife!  It became are regular thing == daily!  His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help.  She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help.  Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail".  Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife!  He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.

I'd say her divorce was justified!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.

[SuperEddy]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.

Dear chosenone:  Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters.  He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night.  One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife!  It became are regular thing == daily!  His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help.  She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help.  Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail".  Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife!  He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.

I'd say her divorce was justified!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.

chosenone:  Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue?  I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[chosenone]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.

Dear chosenone:  Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters.  He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night.  One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife!  It became are regular thing == daily!  His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help.  She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help.  Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail".  Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife!  He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.

I'd say her divorce was justified!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.

chosenone:  Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue?  I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Do you mean about allowing wives to divorce their husbands? 

[SuperEddy]

I see abuse as a reason to separate, and if possible for the abuser to get help to stop the abuse if he/she is willing. I am sure that in cases of severe abuse against the spouse or children or both,  God would lead the abused to end the marriage.
Some things are fare more serious than a divorce.

Dear chosenone:  Some years ago, I had a friend named "Mike" (not his real name) who was married with six daughters.  He liked to go out drinking with his friends each night.  One night, he tried drinking then going home to beat-up his wife!  It became are regular thing == daily!  His wife talked to him while he was sober, but that didn't help.  She tried counseling and marriage counseling, but that didn't help.  Then she filed for divorce and Mike fought against her "tooth-and-nail".  Mike complained bitterly that he didn't want a divorce, but he still wanted to drink and beat-up his wife!  He lives off-the-grid and pays no taxes or child-support.

I'd say her divorce was justified!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Yes I agree. She should have left after the first beating, especially if she has children to think of. Also she should have reported him to the police every time. maybe that would have made him get help.

chosenone:  Could I also get your opinion on Post #6, which was the root of the spouse-abuse/divorce issue?  I'd also like to know how your opinion is different from DaveW's.

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Do you mean about allowing wives to divorce their husbands?

chosenone:  That, but, also, in general == and each of the specifics.  Also check out the original "Eunuchs?" post.
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[chosenone]

I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.   


As for women divorcing, if they have Biblical reason to do so, yes.

[SuperEddy]

I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.   


As for women divorcing, if they have Biblical reason to do so, yes.

chosenone:  Do you have an / share my opinion wrt MATT 19:7-8 and MATT 16:19, as these are the mechanisms for change?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[MeMyself]

I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.   

Agreed.

[SuperEddy]

I see a eunuch as one who is either born maybe with non specific sexual organs or who was made that way to guard the hareems. I dont see a eunuch as a man who may be infertile because he doesnt produce sperm(either because he was born that way or because he may have been made that way through cancer treatment or a vasectomy), but still has the sexual organs and the sexual desires.   

Agreed.

MeMyself:  Do you have an opinion about MATT 19:7-8?  I discuss it in Post #6.  Do you share my opinion?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[MeMyself]

In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK.  This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!

Or, does it?  Look at MATT 19:7-8.  In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it!  == "No, your hearts were hard!  I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth!  In the beginning, it was not so!""  So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do!  MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus!  A NT example is slavery!  "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..." 

Even more than that:  Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven"  God's Word is dynamic.  The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!

It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...

I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?

[SuperEddy]

In that society, yes, a eunuch would be forbidden to marry, but Biblically, it IS OK.  This is true of many things, in general == Times change, but the Bible doesn't!

Or, does it?  Look at MATT 19:7-8.  In a few words it says, "But I thought You said we could just write the letter of divorce and that's it!  == "No, your hearts were hard!  I told you that because you couldn't hear the truth!  In the beginning, it was not so!""  So, God allows for human weaknesses and allows for things which He would prefer not to do!  MATT 19:7-8 is an excellent example of God contradicting His prior Word (OT) via Jesus!  A NT example is slavery!  "Slaves obey your masters == Work not just with eye service..." 

Even more than that:  Look at MATT 16:19 == "Bind on Earth/ Bind in Heaven"  God's Word is dynamic.  The essential things will never change, but WE can modify His Word!

It seems only fair, in the modern day, to allow a wife to file for divorce!

Sincerely,
SuperEddy

S.Eddy...here is the post you are asking about...

I think that a wife should be allowed to divorce her dh, for biblical grounds such as adultery AND abuse.
I read the thread you had going in the men's forum...I gather (please correct me if I am wrong) that you feel a vas would be an abuse towards the marriage/wife?

MeMyself:  I do not feel a vas is an abuse.  Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake.  But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach.  Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it?  Or, not?  Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[AVZ]

Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.

[SuperEddy]

Super Eddy. I think you should get a more accurate Bible translation because the translation you use in post 6 is not whar the Bible states.

AVZ:  So Noted.  I have a Greek Interlinear Bible on order.  It should come at the end of August.
Thank You!
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

[MeMyself]

MeMyself:  I do not feel a vas is an abuse.  Please disregard the Men's Forum posts as I had ended them in confusion and I see that they were a mistake. 

Ok. Will do.

But, please do see the original Post of "Eunuchs?" which is my corrected approach.  Please look at my analysis == do you agree with it?  Or, not?  Why?
Sincerely,
SuperEddy

Here is your post and analysis:
Analysis:

Verse 9 is generally true, but what if the "anyone" husband is a eunuch?!  What would happen if a eunuch married a woman?  He would automatically and instantly be an adulterer since he could not perform his marital duties of sex and procreation.  His wife could divorce him with impunity!

~~~~

My reply is that if a man was unable to function sexually, he would disclose that to his intended bride to be...and there are women who would be fine with no sex within marriage.  But, what if the man didn't know? What if he had E.D. and only found out after marriage? (Or hoped that marriage would "cure" him)I would hope his wife would be loyal to him and their vows...I do *not* think this is grounds for divorce. I do *not* see a man like you describe as "automatically and instantly be an adulterer "

[SuperEddy]

chosenone:
MeMyself:

How do you (both) Biblically justify a divorce based on spouse-abuse?  What verses do you site?  How is it justified?

Sincerely,
SuperEddy