eunuchs and pigs in the parlour

There’s this solitary passage in the gospel in which Jesus is being questioned by the religious rulers.  They were trying to trick him in order to bring accusation and discredit his way.  The issue raised was about marriage and divorce.  Jesus gave them a thing or two to think about which seemed to shut them up nicely but this exchange led even his disciples to afterwards say to him that they felt that according to what he had just said it would be better not to marry at all.

Straight off the bat Jesus responds by doing one of those things that has always amazed me.

No, he doesn’t turn to the latest publication on “How To Re-Grow Your Waning Church And Get The Cash-Flow Positive Again” penned by some super-apostle of the day with a ridiculously expensive suit supported by a totally unnatural hairstyle, but strangely, instead of simplifying the issue and bringing comfort and resolve to a clearly disturbed band of followers Jesus seems  to pose another very unusual and even perplexing riddle.

Firstly, he doesn’t lay down a law but instead suggests that some will not be able to accept what this all means anyway.  In fact he declares that only those who receive it from heaven will be able to embrace what he is about to say (this being perhaps one of Jesus’ first Gnostic alignments).  He then launches off into the touchy subject of castration, specifically the issue of eunuchs.

Some eunuchs he says, are born completely without testes or with testes that are non functional.

Others, he goes on to say, are made eunuchs (castrated) by men.

A third group he reveals, are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

He then rounds off this unusual explanation by re-emphasizing his earlier suggestion that if there is anyone able to receive it, let him receive it.

Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together?

What really interests me in this response is the background to the second example Jesus gave.

From what I understand man-made eunuchs were usually emasculated or castrated males employed as harem attendants in royal courts.  Possibly this practice prevented the male attendants of the royal harem from being able to enter in and derive personal pleasure and gratification from those promised or actually wed to the king.  Surely being a mortal amongst a bevy of beautiful women had its very real temptations so the drastic deed was done to prevent physical access to the kings treasured possession.

The third category is perhaps even more compelling as it suggests that for the sake of the kingdom of heaven some emasculate themselves.  This suggests a personal decision which is seemingly made independent of external pressure or demand.

In my last blog posting ( http://wp.me/p10VG6-m8 ) I suggested a link between a real friend and a best man who prepares and protects the bride of their friend for no personal advantage other then the joy of hearing his voice and fulfilling his pleasure.

We live in a world where political prestige and power and all the privileges these things can offer has washed into and even saturated so called “ministry.”  Our spiritual leaders are pop stars and celebrities.  They are the kings, not servants of kings.  They seem to so willingly receive the cream from an adoring multitude beneath their feet.

I wonder how many present day “ministers” have even metaphorically considered being in the service of the king of heaven for reasons other than their own personal pleasure and gratification?

I’m sure there are perhaps many, but they are seldom if ever seen or heard of and that because they are real friends, real servants, real “ministers.”

he was murdered for this

He went about doing good and healing all who were under heavy pressure from negative, evil circumstance.   As he went along amazing things seemed to happen around him.  It was clear that a force much more powerful than himself, the words he spoke, or the deeds he did was tangibly present with him.   Lives were marvelously changed as he made contact with all manner of people and as a consequence they sought him out and followed him virtually wherever he went.   They thronged around and asked him questions and he graciously spoke back to them in response.   He taught them what the sacred texts had hidden in them, presented a revolutionary, fresh angle on ancient truth and opened the eyes of the blind.   He demonstrated by way of his own lifestyle, a way of life that had never been seen before.   As a result lame legs were restored, withered arms were straightened and for the first time enabled to reach out and touch, caress and even heal.

Other than the twelve he officially called to be his personal disciples, to leave their homes and families and to walk with him he never asked anyone else to join him or follow him as he walked.   He never developed unrealistic expectations in the hearts and minds of those who met him and instead seemed rather to make it more difficult for them to follow him than that which first was apparent.   He was unpredictable in almost everything he did and when expected to ‘zig’, he ‘zagged.’   He extracted no payment for his service of kindness but often met the needs of the poor instead.   His only charge was for all to honour God and do as he did – to follow his example of giving up his own life for those of his friends.  In fact, he more often than not forbade the recipients of his kindness their passionate request to follow him and even had the emancipated fortitude of wisdom, personal conviction and divine sense of purpose to amongst many other seemingly controversial acts,  inadvertently cause a very wealthy man with all his worldly resources, to turn away from following him by lovingly revealing the great poverty of the mans extreme wealth and success.

He had no personal empire of material or political wealth.   He never drew attention to himself nor promoted his service.  If anything, he underplayed the accolades of the crowd and preferred to call himself the ‘son of man’, a lowly, unpretentious description for someone who performed such incredible feats of miraculous kindness.   He never owned any form of personal transportation nor any building with attractive, socially trendy décor to accommodate the masses who pressed in.   Instead, he chose the dusty footpaths, market places, the homes of often socially inappropriate people, taverns and once a week, the small, traditional religious gathering spots to make contact with people.  He had no permanent roof over his head other than the stars, no place to call his own nor to hang his hat or raise his banner.   He tended more often than not to profoundly offend the established religious order and the prevalent leadership of the day and they too pursued him relentlessly, but for other reasons than respect, admiration and gratitude.

Eventually Jesus was murdered for this, as are any who follow his example and do as he did.