Eunuchs *Disclaimer* - Matthew 19:10-12

Disclaimer: I don’t like the way that I sound in a lot of this, but these were the best words I could use to explain my feelings and beliefs. Please know that everything I say is said out of love, and that there is no judgment because I have definitely spent my time in the dirt.

There is a lot more about marriage and divorce and adultery that can be gone through but I’m going to skip over it because I feel like it’s already been discussed throughout other parts of the blog, and thinking about it really upset me yesterday. Apparently the disciples see Jesus’ teaching about marriage and divorce as complicated and say, “if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” Interestingly, I believe that they all would have been married, and honestly their statement doesn’t make any sense, how to go form one conclusion to the other. It might be that this was a question to Jesus about whether or not marriage was to be sought after or if it should be avoided, that would make sense.

Jesus’ answer is equally as cryptic, saying, “All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.” Absolutely no idea what he’s talking about. If I were to look at it from the perspective of a church who already requires their clergy to be single and celibate, then I could conclude that the apostles are saying that it is not good for them to marry, and Jesus saying, “well not everyone can do it, but if you feel called to the work then don’t get married.” Again, this is very difficult for me to understand and draw any conclusions from at all.

With the topic of marriage, divorce and adultery, Jesus brings up the concept of eunuchs. Wikipedia defines a eunuch as “a man who has been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences… Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function.” I had heard of eunuchs as a teenager and had always assumed that castration was a punishment. The first time I learned why eunuchs were made so for any other reason was in college. I think it was a geography class and we were talking about ancient China and civil servants. The professor commented that the process of becoming a civil servant in China was rigorous, and the higher positions were generally held by eunuchs. What? Why? He explained that eunuchs weren’t able to have sex so they were considered asexual.

We know that sex is a huge motivator in most people, men and women. Ideally, men look for a woman to marry and then start a family, but we are all aware of the extramarital sex that goes on in so much of people’s lives. They are motivated by it, the physical side but also the emotional side of feeling powerful. Then there are rape issues, sexual assault that has to be accounted for, and honestly it’s a really tricky situation. Say a king has many wives and girlfriends, the house where these women live must be protected, but protected by a bunch of guards, young, healthy men with their only deterrent being punishment from the king for messing with his women? That is a recipe for disaster. Who better to protect the king’s women then a man who doesn’t want to have sex with them?

My professor explained that eunuchs didn’t have the distraction of starting families, they didn’t have the hormones raging that contribute to the stupid decisions that men make. They don’t have any children of their own to look out for or build wealth for, and they aren’t preoccupied with trying to have sex with anything that walks, like so many men of power do. All this combined makes them incredibly loyal and trustworthy. The Wikipedia article says, “eunuchs did not general have loyalties to the military, the aristocracy, or to a family of their own (having neither offspring nor in-laws, at the very least), and were thus seen as more trustworthy and less interested in establishing a private ‘dynasty.’… In cultures that had both harems and eunuchs, eunuchs were sometimes used as harem servants or sergolio guards.”

Jesus’ use of the word eunuch might imply that he’s speaking about someone who physically can not have sex, but I don’t think that’s the case. He talks about eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb. This is possible, I have definitely seen enough babies with “ambiguous genitalia” to know that it is possible, but it’s pretty uncommon. Honestly I feel that it is so uncommon that Jesus mentioning it doesn’t make sense because it applies to so few people, and would just cause confusion. Jesus speaks of eunuchs “which were made eunuchs of men,” and this applies to almost all of the eunuchs ever, so this makes sense. But he also talks about “eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” This sounds like Jesus is commending the practice of self-mutilation so that one can dedicate themselves fully to his service. We know that this is not true.

The IM clarifies, “From verse 12 in Matthew 19, it may appear that the Savior approved of celibacy or self-mutilation. Modern prophets and apostles, however, have clarified ‘that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children… God’s commandment to His children to multiple and replenish the earth remains in force.’ Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained that anciently some people held the false belief that a life of celibacy was to be sought after: ‘Apparently those who made themselves eunuchs were men who in false pagan worship had deliberately mutilated themselves in the apostate notion that such would further their salvation. It is clear that such was not a true gospel requirement of any sort. There is no such thing in the gospel as willful emasculation; such a notion violates every true principle of procreation and celestial marriage.’”

So if what is construed in the text as meaning one thing, but modern day prophets say something that seems contrary, let’s try to look at what the Savior is saying outside of the box. This is only gospel according to Amy, so take it with a grain of salt, but the way that I read verse 12 is completely different. Let’s change the definition of eunuch from one who physically can not have sex, to one who spiritually can not have sex. How do you spiritually have sex? What is the only way in which sex is spiritually lawful? Between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully married. For those is that specific situation, sex is not only ok spiritually, but it’s vital to the spousal relationship and to creating a family. It might seem like this applies to everyone because from what I understand most people world wide are married, but there are a lot of people and circumstances that this doesn’t apply to, and that might seem obvious to some but maybe mot so much to others.

Getting divorced and learning the whole “no sex outside of marriage” thing has really put a lot of things into perspective for me and I’ve been able to see things that I otherwise could not have seen. I don’t speak for everyone and I can’t assume everything about every circumstance, but my statements are general and flawed so just remember that. If we are outside of a marriage, 1 man/ 1 woman relationship then sex or sexual activity is forbidden. Is that true in all cases? Are the Nephi-like exception? Not that I can think of and not that I’ve ever come across. It’s never ok, and it can be a slippery slope. Let’s get a definition in here, from the “For the Strength of Youth” section on “Sexual Purity” we learn, “physical intimacy between husband and wife is beautiful and sacred. It is ordained of God for the creation of children and for the expression of love between husband and wife. God has commanded that sexual intimacy be reserved for marriage… The Lord’s standard regarding sexual purity is clear and unchanging. Do not have any sexual relations before marriage, and be completely faithful to your spouse after marriage… Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses those emotions in your own body.”

That’s a pretty exhaustive list and includes pretty much everything and gives absolutely no wiggle room. All those things are prohibited outside of man/woman marriage, spiritually. Now let’s go through Jesus’ statement and instead of thinking about eunuchs as unable to physical have sex, let’s think about them in terms of unable to have sex without breaking spiritual laws. For the eunuchs “so born form their mother’s womb,” we consider spiritual eunuchs and ask “are there people who were born unable to have sex within the bonds of man/woman marriage?” Seems like the answer might be the few and far between like the physical eunuchs, but I suggest that there are many more. I personally believe that homosexuality is usually something a person if born with. I know many people who are homosexual and almost all of their answers are “I knew I was different since I was a child.” This isn’t the answer of someone who chose to be gay as an adult, which begs the question, why would the Lord have people be born gay if he knew that they would not be able to marry and have children like is commanded, basically sentenced them to be spiritual eunuchs.

I have a couple of theories about this, first is that our attitude about homosexuality might be misguided. As a society, we urge people to “live your true self,” or “be true to yourself” and while I agree with that to a point, we are here on earth to learn and grow, so living your true self negates the possibility of growth. “Living your true self” or “being true to yourself” is a lie because by nature all people are incredibly self-absorbed and petty and jealous. “Being true to yourself” implies that whatever you are born with is the way that you have to be, otherwise you are betraying yourself. I actually read several books about the concept of the “true-self” and it’s not about blurting out however you feel or doing whatever you want, it’s about discovering what values you believe in, formulating the kind of person that you want to be and then working to become that person. For instance, if you truly value health, then eating fast food 3 times a week is betraying yourself. However, the societal statement of “be true to yourself” implies “do whatever you want without regard to the consequences or the feelings of others. If we discover that our best self is the one that we can become through Christ, then as we are “true” to our selves, we act and believe in ways that are consistent with our “best” self.

My second point worth noting is that in our society today, sexuality is very fluid. I’m not saying that those who are attracted to the same gender can magically decide to be attracted to the opposite gender, I don’t feel like that is the case for most people who claim homosexuality, especially men. A friend told me about a friend of hers who was married with kids but who told her that he was attracted to men when he was younger and when he realized that he would have to give up the gospel in order to live a gay lifestyle, he decided that he wasn’t going to be with another man, and if he found a woman that he was attracted to and wanted to be with then he’d get married, otherwise he’d just be single but still have the gospel. There are many accounts of people with same sex attraction that are able to find someone and get married. I just wonder what would happen if the perspective wasn’t “I’m attracted to the same gender, therefore I have to live a gay lifestyle to be happy.” What if we replaced that perspective with “I’m going to keep the commandments and maybe I’ll find someone of the opposite gender to marry and maybe I won’t, but at least I’ll still have the gospel.”

So that begs the question, is the gospel worth a lifetime of solitude? There are a lot of way to be alone in life and your sexuality isn’t even the biggest factor. I feel like this mortality has a “homesick” quality to it and most people probably feel alone or abandoned for a lot of their lives just because this isn’t the lifestyle that we’ve gotten used to over eons of time. I feel like I’m qualified to make my statement as I feel like my life has been quite difficult and there has been much isolation, but I choose the gospel over a non-gospel relationship because Jesus brings peace and hope and miracles. I have had very few relationships that have given me that before, and I’m talking romantic relationships, but I’m also talking about friends and family. No one has ever provided me a life like the one Jesus has, or the attention or promises like what he offers, I’ve never gotten that from anywhere else. So if the gospel worth it? I’m living the gospel everyday now instead of trying to find a man to be with, so I would say, yes, absolutely.

A third point is the lie of attraction. I’m a firm believer that there must be some physical attraction in a marriage and that a physical relationship is super important. But if we consider that marriage is for life, then we have to recognize that there are many stages of life that we go through and if there is anyone who thinks that they are going to be wildly attracted to their spouse everyday of their whole life, I suggest that maybe that person hasn’t been married long enough. People become more or less attractive based on their personalities. Whenever there is an ugly guy with a beautiful woman, they say “he must have one heck of a personality.” Or an ugly woman is called a “sweet spirit,” and I think that these are not nice things to do, but they underscore the point that personality plays a large role in relationships and attraction. The whole “for better or for worse” implies illness, and no one is attractive when they are sick and puking everywhere, that’s gross. But if we were to base our commitment to the marriage on whether or not we were attracted to our spouse the whole time, people would be divorced a hundred times and always be single.

Jesus says that there are also eunuchs who “were made eunuchs of men.” The wording of this is interesting and it makes me wonder about the interpretation. I see this as meaning that men made them eunuchs, which we know what the vast majority of cases, but can people make it so that others are unable to have sex inside of a man/woman marriage? Initially I thought that this referred to those who molest children and “turn the kids gay,” which I know is an awful and inaccurate way to put it, but it’s true of so many people, especially children who are sexually abused. The child who is sexually abused has their brain physically rewired so many times they don’t understand what is appropriate or not, what is ok and what’s not. It’s been my observation that when a girl becomes pregnant before high school she has almost always been the victim of sexual abuse at some point. It’s tragic really, many people who have been sexually assaulted become hypersexual in order to trivialize sexual encounters so that they can convince themselves that what happened to them is no big deal. I’m not saying these things to be awful, or to generalize, this comes from a place of love and personal experience.

Another way that a person can become unable to have sex within marriage is in the case of singleness or divorce. If we were once married, but then get divorced, then that window of sexual opportunity is closed, and a lot of times the divorce isn’t our choice. I know for me, I worked hard to save my marriage, I waited a really long time to finally get divorced because I wanted to be sure. But unfortunate for me, my husband wasn’t willing to make the same sacrifice. So do I consider myself a spiritual eunuch because of a man? Absolutely, and there are so many instances like that, where the divorce is one sided or someone could have tried harder to save it, this is spiritual eunuchs made by man. But then there are the cases of people who never marry. It’s apparently a really big deal within the LDS community, because the number of temple worthy women outweighs the number of temple worthy men by like 2 women for every man. Are these women made spiritual eunuch by men? I would chalk it up to that, sure.  Are there men that are single men out there in the same situation? Absolutely.

If we consider the term “men” that Jesus used, it is safe to assume that it could also be a reference to “mankind” or also known as society in general. Are there people who are unable to have sex within the confines of man/woman marriage because of the way our society treats the issue? Absolutely. If they don’t know the commandments or if their testimony of their validity is lacking, and our society is screaming at women that they are only as good as their value to men, and screaming at men that they are only as good as the number of women they can have sex with, then that is definitely manipulating people’s ability to have monogamous, healthy relationships. Ultimately we all make our own choices but the way that we live today is incredibly toxic to strong, stable marriages, whether it’s that we don’t need a piece of paper to be committed, or you have sex first to see if you’re compatible, or movies, or tv, or magazines or the crazy porn addictions that are ruining everything. Porn kills love.

The final situation addressed in verse 12 is “and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” This might refer to those who find themselves outside of the man/woman marriage for whatever reason, and who choose to remain faithful to the gospel despite what feelings they might face. I’ve learned that so many people are looking to fill the void of themselves with outside things, men, women, friends, drugs, alcohol, money, sex, surgery, etc. In all my experience, and I’m young but I feel like there has been quite a bit, I’ve learned that there is nothing that can fill the hole inside ourselves that comes from the outside. There is no man or woman that can make you feel whole, there is no amount of money or sex or drugs or alcohol that can complete you. There is no surgery or body change that can bring you the value that is so desperately sought after. There is nothing outside that can fix what’s broken inside. People spend so much time and energy and resources looking for the fix but nothing will ever fill them up, except for Jesus, and if this is the case, then our number one priority should always be to have Jesus in our hearts.

His final sentence might be Jesus saying that the path of spiritual eunuchs is difficult, so much so that many people will not be willing to make the trek. But I also feel like this is Jesus’ way of recognizing the fact that sexuality is complicated, especially when you factor in hormones and abuse and loneliness. I feel like this is Jesus way of saying that he understands the struggle that each of us go through, but also assures us that being a spiritual eunuch and keeping the commandments is worth it.

At this point, I wonder if I should consider myself “asexual” because I’m not married, and I’m living a spiritual eunuch lifestyle. Honestly, this is going to sound defeatist, but there is an excellent statistical probability that I will not get married again in this life time. I’m kind of sad about it, but then I remember all the drama and think maybe it won’t be so bad waiting until the next life. But there is also the lie that we need another person to make us happy. I remember someone asking me why I won’t date anyone who’s not a member of the church, and I said because I won’t marry outside of the church. He was shocked and asked, “you’re willing to give up your chance at happiness because of church?” I told him that my happiness didn’t depend on finding a man, yes it would be nice to marry a great guy, but if that doesn’t happen then I will find ways to give my life meaning and to be happy, and that I’ll always have Jesus. I’ve been promised that I will have an eternal companion, and if that means that I have to wait until the next life to receive my blessings, then so be it. I still have value, I still contribute as a single woman, and I have decided that I will be cherished or I will be single.