Bible contradiction? Does God prefer castrated men?

For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: Does God prefer castrated men?

Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:

Yes

“For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by people; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”” (Matthew 19:12)

No

“No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off may enter the assembly of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:1)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

1. When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction.  A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time.  To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time.
2. One should be skeptical of whether this is a Bible contradiction given the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s track record of inaccurately handling the Bible.  See the many examples of their error which we have responded to in this post: Collection of Posts Responding to Bible Contradictions.  Of course that does not take away the need to respond to this claim of a contradiction, which is what the remainder of this post will do.  But this observation should caution us to slow down and look more closely at the passages cited by the Skeptic Annotated Bible to see if they interpreted the passages properly to support their conclusion that it is a Bible contradiction.
3. The skeptic tries to pit Matthew 19:12 as affirming the claim “God prefer castrated men” against Deuteronomy 23:1 as affirming “God does not prefer castrated men.”
4. The way the skeptic phrased the question is rather strange.  It is awkward that the skeptics said God “prefer” castrated men.  As regular readers know I title my post base upon the Skeptic Annotated Bible’s exact wordings in their list of alleged Bible contradictions.
5.  The skeptics incorrectly cited Matthew 19:12 as affirming the claim “God prefer castrated men.”
   1. In the context Matthew 19:12 is part of a passage from Matthew 19:1-12 concerning divorce.  The teaching on marriage and divorce by Jesus was such a high standards that His disciples said in verse 10 it is better not to marry.  Matthew 19:12 is Jesus’ affirmation that some followers of God might not be married.  Again Matthew 19:12 is Jesus’ affirmation that some followers would not be married, it is not saying that God prefer castrated men.
   2. Furthermore the skeptics’ thinking does not follow.  Just because God talk about some followers are not married does not mean God prefer such set of believers over and against others (those who are not castrated, those who are married, etc).  For example after Matthew 19:12 is the passage Matthew 19:13-15 on God accepting and blessing children.  This does not mean therefore God does not accept and bless adults.  The logic does not follow.  Likewise Matthew 19:12 saying some followers would not be married does not mean God prefer castrated men.
6. The skeptic also did not interpret Deuteronomy 23:1 in context when the skeptic assert the verse teaches “God does not prefer castrated men.”
   1. Deuteronomy 23:1 is in the context part of Deuteronomy 23:1-8 which is a passage on those who are allowed and not allowed to “enter the assembly of the Lord.”  The assembly of the Lord refers to formal gathering of God’s people for festivals and public worship.
   2. While Deuteronomy 23:1 does prohibit those who are castrated as part of the assembly I think we need to understand what castrating and cutting one’s body meant during the time of Deuteronomy 23.  Deuteronomy 23:1 is likely a prohibition against castration as part of pagan religious practices.  There’s other laws in the Old Testament that prohibits cutting one’s body in general: “You are sons of the Lord your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave a bald spot above your forehead for the dead.” (Deuteronomy 14:1).  The Hebrew verb for cut is גָּדַד.  It is used later in 1 Kings 18:28 where Baal’s prophets cut themselves to get their god to hear them.  The actual practice of castration is also evident among the Babylonian has a practical of having an assinnu that is usually understood as a castrated male.  Given these data I take the interpretation that Deuteronomy 23:1 is prohibiting pagan religious purpose driven castration and I don’t think this is prohibiting all forms of castrated such as for medical purposes or some have something happen to their body accidently or they were victims of others castrating them, etc.
   3. Consistent with my interpretation is that some subset who are castrated are eunuchs.  Yet Isaiah 56:3-5 states that those who are eunuchs who trust in God enjoy fellowship with God and His blessings.
7. The purpose of why some became eunuchs are not the same in Matthew 19:12 and in Deuteronomy 23:1.  Matthew 19:12 is for the goal of pleasing God and Deuteronomy 23:1 is in context talking about those who are eunuchs by physically castrating themselves as part of pagan practices.  That’s apples and oranges the skeptics are comparing.
8. There is no contradiction here.  Seems the skeptic needs to learn of How to Handle Bible Contradictions.
9. We shouldn’t miss that worldviews are at play even with the skeptic’s objection to Christianity.  The worldview of the author of the Skeptic Annotated Bible actually doesn’t even allow for such a thing as the law of non-contradiction to be meaningful and intelligible.  In other words for him to try to disprove the Bible by pointing out that there’s a Bible contradiction doesn’t even make sense within his own worldview.  Check out our post “Skeptic Annotated Bible Author’s Self-Defeating Worldview.”