Comments on SingleChristian.org: Three Questions RE: "The Case for Early Marriage"

PS. Gortexgrrl - I apologise if you felt I was bei...

2009-09-10T22:41:22.172-07:00

PS. Gortexgrrl - I apologise if you felt I was being arrogant or prideful. That was not the manner in which my words were written and I'm sorry if you took them that way.

@ gortexgrrl - I think there is little point conti...

2009-09-10T22:39:34.454-07:00

@ gortexgrrl - I think there is little point continuing this debate. We are going to have to agree to disagree. (I also checked the URL of Ash's article to make sure I hadn't copied it wrong. It loaded the pdf fine for me)

@ Kevin - thanks for your patience.

"And I believe it is cruel (and unbiblical) t...

2009-09-10T22:21:49.170-07:00

"And I believe it is cruel (and unbiblical) to encourage people to think that if they truly long for marriage then marriage is what God obviously intends for them. (a la Candice Watters et al).

Why? Well because when did God ever promise to give us our all of what we ‘feel’ that we need on this earth?...Hence, again my question as to why we think it is our right to not feel the pain of unwanted singleness? ."

We went over this before. Pointing to the intentions God has for men and women, as revealed in his design, does not mean that you presume it's going to happen for sure, nor is it akin to thinking that you have a right to have it happen or live a pain-free life. Do you know that there was a time when believers thought nothing of saying to their children "when you get married", and now it's "**if** you get married". This is not humble holiness, this is a reflection of a loss of faith in marriage that has come about concurrently with the devaluing of marriage in our culture. Yes, God is sovereign, but for the most part, we reap what we sow.

"What he did promise us (amongst the many, many undeserved blessings and joys we do receive at his hand) is suffering, trials, tears and discipline. Why? Because those things lead to our sanctification (Romans 5:3-5; Heb 12; 1 Pet 1:6-7; James 1:1-4)."

Actually, those examples about suffering leading to sanctification are in the context of **suffering for the sake of the gospel** (as did the early church) -- not just suffering for any reason. Suffering on its own does not lead to holiness. Suffering tends to lead to more suffering. And so we are exhorted to seek alieviation for our suffering, turning prayerfully to God for strength, wisdom, healing. Does it always happen, no. But suffering is suffering (as well as that which causes suffering, like unwanted singleness)-- it is NEVER referred to in the scriptures ANYWHERE as a "gift".

Make no mistake, singleness is not a gift. Never was. Never will be. For those who are gifted with a mission and a lot of self control, singleness is an option. The rest of us will have to get busy and find a spouse, or make the best of things with the consequences of our choices and non-choices -- but let's not assume that God "validates" all singleness.

"And so Jesus Christ, the most truly human person who has ever walked the face of the earth, was actually compromise in his manhood (and therefore somehow ‘less’ human than he was intended to be)."

Jesus was human, but he was more than that (you don't need me to tell you that). He transcended gender.

"Actually I think what Paul was saying was for them to be godly in whatever their situation was (1 Cor 7:19, 22-23). And yes, given our unprecedented levels (?) of protracted singleness and pre-marital sex that is exactly the appropriate message for people right now…. As for people throughout the ages past and ages to come."

Actually, neither of us got it right. He was saying "don't be slaves to men". The problem with your be "godly in whatever situation" is that it doesn't encourage action against the kind of "unnecessary slavery" that is placed upon believers by bad teachings that create confusion and paralysis about pursuing marry (which you don't seem to deny). Remember - Paul said that if you can gain your freedom, do so.

I will not continue to moderate this discussion fo...

2009-09-10T20:54:37.956-07:00

I will not continue to moderate this discussion forever, guys.

Boundless: ”Because what was not good about man al...

2009-09-10T20:24:21.270-07:00

Boundless: ”Because what was not good about man alone is that he was lonely… there in the direct, unmediated, unhindered, unobscured presence of God… Adam was lonely. His relationship with his creator left him dissatisfied.".

" How can this be??? How? It makes absolutely no sense to me"

Because Adam was made HUMAN. And with Eve fulfilling his relational needs, he was still managed to be tempted.

"...if that is what they are saying then I do think they are heading down a very slippery slope which will ultimately end up in idolatry. And no, I don’t make that statement lightly."

Just because someone (everyone) on this earth does not fulfilled with or without a relationship, that doesn't mean they are guilty of "idolatry", anymore than a starving person with a rumbling stomach.

Does their theology truly sit well with you? Do you truly find it theologically and biblically sound to say that Adam (pre-fall) being in full, harmonious and unhindered relationship with his creator was still emotionally and relationally dissatisfied? Really?

Yes, really.

I have to tell you that it grieves me greatly that we could think that would be the case.

It grieves me also to think that you think that the dissatisfaction of the lonely has anything to do with idolatry.

"Having a new body/different form does not mean we are no longer human in our created nature! Did the resurrected Christ cease being human? ...In heaven we will still be us.. and what we are, and what we will be, is essentially human – that is our created nature. A new (and perfect) body does not mean that we are no longer human – an entirely different creation. It means we will be perfected humans."

And with this perfected body, will we have hormones and sex organs that work, with all the drives and desires that go with them? You don't know that -- you're just guessing.

I said: "What's more, there is no biblica...

2009-09-10T20:04:02.000-07:00

I said: "What's more, there is no biblical support for the idea that marriage was created to "point towards" the "real marriage" between Christ and the Church -- this is another modern trend of making far too much of a metaphor."

You said: "Sorry – but nonsense again. This is a classic example of where a lack of biblical theology results in a distortion of scripture and a distortion of God’s plans and purposes for humanity. Neither is it a ‘modern trend’. Theologians have always recognised that scripture is absolutely full of earthly ‘shadows’ which point towards heavenly ‘realitites’... human marriage was designed to be an enacted parable of the ultimate heavenly marriage."

lol. Using this reasoning, you could take the metaphors of humans as "sheep" that the scriptures use to illustrate Christ's relationship to us as the good sheperd, and say that God created sheep in order to give us that metaphor -- when perhaps God's purpose for sheep was simply so people could have wool to make their clothes!

"Earlier I recommended Christopher Ash’s book ’Married for God’ as giving a detailed and solid biblical argument that God’s primary purpose of marriage is NOT to meet a perceived human loneliness (ie. human needs for fulfilment). From your lack of comment with regard to it I assume you have no interest in engaging with a counter-argument to your position... (and no, Ash is not alone on this matter). I would truly welcome your interaction with this argument, rather than simply reasserting your own position without even seeking to refute the alternative"

Look, I provided for you examples of where marriage is spoken of in terms of human practicality and volition (Prov 18:22, 1 Cor 7:2-5, 8-9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Tim 5:14 and you just convenient avoided them, without any scriptural specifics to support your position, other than theories about certain "themes". However, I did try to check out your link and couldn't get to that destination. Besides, I've heard what you're saying before and have since seen those lofty teachings exposed for what they are: too heavenly to be of any earthly good.

Can we wrap up this debate or take it elsewhere?

2009-09-10T19:37:27.375-07:00

Can we wrap up this debate or take it elsewhere?

"I think the crux of our differences is that ...

2009-09-10T19:31:43.805-07:00

"I think the crux of our differences is that we approach the bible quite differently. My scriptural understanding of the place of marriage (and sex) and singleness comes from reading the Bible as God’s unfolding plan of salvation for his people – from creation through to new creation. I believe this is the way the Bible was intended to be understood –not as passages, which although perhaps connected in theme, are nonetheless fairly isolated from one another...I can only assume, from what you have written thus far, that you do not share my understanding of the place and importance of biblical theology"

First of all, I must say right now that I am still reeling from the false pride and arrogance of these words, but I will try to address the main point here, which is about how you apply "themes" across other passages.

"So when I read passages about marriage in the New Testament I understand them in light of the institution of marriage in Genesis 1-2, the purpose of marriage in the Old Testament, the way that the cross has impacted humanity and its relationships and finally in light of the ultimate fulfilment of marriage in heaven (Rev 21)."

I am not ignorant about the "importance of biblical theology" and have some familiarity with various schools of thought on certain themes observed in the scriptures, such as the idea that to marriage in the OT was somehow more essential, and that to not marry was much more undesirable, but that the NT's "positive" attitude towards singleness (plus its claims of no marriage in heaven) makes it a much better fate, even an equal gift of equal value. However, not all theologians glean as much from this particular "theme" as you seem to, extrapolating that post-NT marriage is now mostly missional, rather than mostly practical, ***even though the scriptures always speak of marriage in practical, fleshly terms***, as I have noted.

"Adam’s joy is not at all rendered irrelevant under my theology. Far from it. Adam recognises Eve as the helper created wonderfully for him...full of rich theology which goes well beyond simply his recognition that here is someone who he gets to marry and have sex with (as good as that is)."

The point is that Adam was pleased for his own sake, not because in his wonderment he saw God's greater purposes, yet, the scriptures find his pleasure noteworthy. Don't you think that God creates some things for **our** pleasure? (and perhaps primarily for our pleasure?) Do you not think he delights in our delight? This is not to say that there are any written guarantees that all pleasures will be granted to you. Of course, God has greater purposes at work in all things, pleasureable and otherwise. But when the scriptures speak of such delights, do they always hammer us over the head with the grander spiritual purpose? No. See Song of Songs, with its hedonistic straight stretches of erotica interspersed with the most subtle and artful spiritual imagery. You'll never "go so far as to say that marriage wasn’t created to meet our needs at all" ever again for fear of being struck down for blasphemy.

Paul was likely responding to a letter written...

2009-09-10T06:41:19.883-07:00
Paul was likely responding to a letter written to him by the Corinthians asking questions about what they should be doing at that time, and ultimately, the message was "stay put". Do you think that would be the appropriate message for people right now, given our unprecedented levels of protracted singleness and premarital sex?

Actually I think what Paul was saying was for them to be godly in whatever their situation was (1 Cor 7:19, 22-23). And yes, given our unprecedented levels (?) of protracted singleness and pre-marital sex that is exactly the appropriate message for people right now…. As for people throughout the ages past and ages to come.

It is cruel (not to mention inappropriately pre...

2009-09-10T06:40:47.511-07:00
It is cruel (not to mention inappropriately presuming to know God's mind) to tell singles "that God intends some of them to stay that way regardless of whether or not they choose it", even if some of them don't get married.

And I believe it is cruel (and unbiblical) to encourage people to think that if they truly long for marriage then marriage is what God obviously intends for them. (a la Candice Watters et al).

Why? Well because when did God ever promise to give us our all of what we ‘feel’ that we need on this earth? When did God ever promise us that all of our longings for relationships with other humans would be fulfilled before his Son returns? When did God ever promise us that we would find the fulfilment of our heart’s desire for earthly relationships?

He didn’t.

What he did promise us (amongst the many, many undeserved blessings and joys we do receive at his hand) is suffering, trials, tears and discipline. Why? Because those things lead to our sanctification (Romans 5:3-5; Heb 12; 1 Pet 1:6-7; James 1:1-4). Some who earnestly long for marriage will receive that good gift from God- praise him! But others who long for it just as earnestly will not. Again, praise him! Because he knows their suffering and he promises to sanctify and preserve them through it.

I can say to that is perhaps you're the one who needs the reading recommendations, starting with articles from Boundless.com, such as "Marriage: An Idol?", "Jesus is (Not) All I Need" and "Marry for Sex", and anything by Candice Watters one of their writers who has a blog for women "boldly praying for marriage".

Been there. Done that. Bought the book (literally). And it will be no surprise to you that (when it comes to their writing on the matters we have addressed above) I strongly disagree – for the many reasons I have outlined.

And in each meaning given, you have a metaphor of manhood compromised (more rightly in the third, sacrificed).

And so Jesus Christ, the most truly human person who has ever walked the face of the earth, was actually compromise in his manhood (and therefore somehow ‘less’ human than he was intended to be). Right. I’m not quite sure where else to go with this one. And so I don’t think I will- especially since we both know that this debate is already raging on another blog. Let’s just keep it there.

Church leaders have tried to gloss over the grief of the surplus women in their churches who miss out on marrying and having children -- this is wrong. If they were more honest about the consequences of protracted singleness, some of those women (as well as their male peers) might be more inclined to marry. Realize, that I am coming from the perspective of a woman in my 40's who has seen the long term effects of the kind of "singleness-and-marriage-are-gifts-of-equal-value" teachings made popular over the past few decades.

Hence, again my question as to why we think it is our right to not feel the pain of unwanted singleness? I’m with you – let’s not gloss over the grief that comes with unwanted singleness and barreness. Let’s acknowledge it. Let’s grieve alongside those who grieve. Those who are single, who are barren, who are in lonely marriages, whose marriages have broken down. All of them.

And then let’s help them to see that this earth will remain a place of tears until Christ returns. Let’s direct them to Scripture where God promises that we will suffer in whatever form that takes. And let’s reassure them that he is using our suffering for our sanctification. And let’sn encourage them that God promises that he using us where we are for the sake of his kingdom - because that is our ultimate purpose on this earth.

And if we do that it will mean that we must affirm that marriage and singleness ARE gifts of equal value. Because BOTH are equally spheres of sanctification and service.

cont. What's more, there is no biblical s...

2009-09-10T06:37:56.704-07:00
cont.

What's more, there is no biblical support for the idea that marriage was created to "point towards" the "real marriage" between Christ and the Church -- this is another modern trend of making far too much of a metaphor.

Sorry – but nonsense again. This is a classic example of where a lack of biblical theology results in a distortion of scripture and a distortion of God’s plans and purposes for humanity. Neither is it a ‘modern trend’. Theologians have always recognised that scripture is absolutely full of earthly ‘shadows’ which point towards heavenly ‘realitites’ (from the promised land, to the sacrificial system, from the priesthood to marriage and so on). Indeed the old covenant was merely a shadow of the new covenant. When we do not let Scripture interpret Scripture as a whole we miss one of the most amazing things about God’s word. Genesis through to Ephesians/1Peter/Colossians (and other NT passages) through to Revelation (21 for example) make it absolutely clear that human marriage was designed to be an enacted parable of the ultimate heavenly marriage. When the heavenly reality has come then the shadows pass away (Heb 8-10).

"If marriage was created in order to fulfil Adam’s relational needs then what you are actually saying is that when Adam was in perfect, peaceful, beautiful, wonderful, whole relationship with the God who created him that he was STILL relationally unfulfilled."… That's what Focus on the Family is now saying at Boundless.com. But you seem to think it's idolatry

Yes – if that is what they are saying then I do think they are heading down a very slippery slope which will ultimately end up in idolatry. And no, I don’t make that statement lightly.

Does their theology truly sit well with you? Do you truly find it theologically and biblically sound to say that Adam (pre-fall) being in full, harmonious and unhindered relationship with his creator was still emotionally and relationally dissatisfied? Really?

I have to tell you that it grieves me greatly that we could think that would be the case.

And what is the reasoning behind it? ”Because what was not good about man alone is that he was lonely… there in the direct, unmediated, unhindered, unobscured presence of God… Adam was lonely. His relationship with his creator left him dissatisfied.. How can this be??? How? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

I believe the article linked above provides a clear and convincing refutation to Focus on the Family’s theology at this point (and no, Ash is not alone on this matter). I would truly welcome your interaction with this argument, rather than simply reasserting your own position without even seeking to refute the alternative..

In heaven, we won't have "human" needs because we will be of a different form (1 Cor 15:35-54).

Having a new body/different form does not mean we are no longer human in our created nature! Did the resurrected Christ cease being human? Of course not! Paul himself describes him as this in 1 Cor 15 (let alone the gospel resurrection accounts). Jesus is the most fully human person who ever lived. His resurrection did not change that.

In heaven we will still be us (1 Cor 15 argues this) - and what we are, and what we will be, is essentially human – that is our created nature. A new (and perfect) body does not mean that we are no longer human – an entirely different creation. It means we will be perfected humans.

(LOL. My posts just don't get any shorter. Sor...

2009-09-10T06:36:57.161-07:00
(LOL. My posts just don't get any shorter. Sorry!).

I think the crux of our differences is that we approach the bible quite differently. My scriptural understanding of the place of marriage (and sex) and singleness comes from reading the Bible as God’s unfolding plan of salvation for his people – from creation through to new creation. I believe this is the way the Bible was intended to be understood –not as passages, which although perhaps connected in theme, are nonetheless fairly isolated from one another. So when I read passages about marriage in the New Testament I understand them in light of the institution of marriage in Genesis 1-2, the purpose of marriage in the Old Testament, the way that the cross has impacted humanity and its relationships and finally in light of the ultimate fulfilment of marriage in heaven (Rev 21).

I can only assume, from what you have written thus far, that you do not share my understanding of the place and importance of biblical theology (if you are interested in following this up can I highly recommend a great book called ‘Gospel and Kingdom’ by Graeme Goldsworth).

You mention the creation mandate, but God's recognition of human needs is not far off. A few verse after Genesis 2:18 we see Adam's pleased response to the creation of Eve, which would be rendered completely irrelevant under your theology.

Nonsense. Adam’s joy is not at all rendered irrelevant under my theology. Far from it. Adam recognises Eve as the helper created wonderfully for him – different to all the other animals because she is made from his flesh, and not from the dust of the ground. Adam’s response is full of rich theology which goes well beyond simply his recognition that here is someone who he gets to marry and have sex with (as good as that is).

Earlier I recommended Christopher Ash’s book ’Married for God’ as giving a detailed and solid biblical argument that God’s primary purpose of marriage is NOT to meet a perceived human loneliness (ie. human needs for fulfilment). From your lack of comment with regard to it I assume you have no interest in engaging with a counter-argument to your position. However, if my assumption is incorrect then this link will take you to a pdf of one of his articles. I’d be more than happy to continue discussing this with you (perhaps over email if we can work out a way to contact one another) if you would like to read the extended argument and interact with it rather than with my quick summary of it (in previous posts).

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_115_1_Ash.pdf

as opposed to some big message from the Lord saying "this is the ONE", a message the scriptures never promise).

I never claimed to believe that Scriptures promises any such thing.

cont'd I mention 1 Cor 7:7 especially, becaus...

2009-09-09T14:06:21.118-07:00
cont'd

I mention 1 Cor 7:7 especially, because you use the phrase "gift of singleness", a phrase that was coined by a misreading of verse 7 that suggests that God either gifts you with marriage or singleness. It is that (mis)understanding that leads to the following:

"Telling a single person who feels normal sexual desire and attraction that God only wants those who have a super-spiritual injection of content celibacy to remain single. And then watching that person live a long life of discontent celibacy feeling that they have been totally and utterly jipped by God – because he has not given them either this spiritual gift where they are largely unbothered by their sex drive OR a marriage partner."

The reality of unwanted singleness is dealt with much better when you stick to the scriptures, which affirms the fact that we live in a fallen world where people (both individuals, and societies, generations) freely make relationship choices (and non-choices) that have consequences (good and bad) for themselves and others. It is cruel (not to mention inappropriately presuming to know God's mind) to tell singles "that God intends some of them to stay that way regardless of whether or not they choose it", even if some of them don't get married.

So as far as your suggestion that it's "more helpful", to be thumped on the head to "embrace singleness" (when you can't), for fear that continuing to hope for marriage will lead to discontentment and idolatry...well, all I can say to that is perhaps you're the one who needs the reading recommendations, starting with articles from Boundless.com, such as "Marriage: An Idol?", "Jesus is (Not) All I Need" and "Marry for Sex", and anything by Candice Watters one of their writers who has a blog for women "boldly praying for marriage".

"Marriage is not spoken of entirely in the la...

2009-09-09T14:05:10.976-07:00
"Marriage is not spoken of entirely in the language of practical human needs and personal choice. Marriage was instituted not to meet our human needs, but to enable humans to fulfil God’s mandate to them (Genesis 1:28 and 2:15) and to point towards the ultimate and real marriage between Christ and the church."

Certainly, you can point to the ultimate purposes that God enables humans to fulfill, but that is not how marriage is handled in the scriptures (esp the NT), which do indeed point to human need needs and choices (see Prov 18:22, 1 Cor 7:2-5, 8-9, 36, 39, 1 Cor 9:5, 1 Tim 5:14 - there is no "divine matchmaking" or advice to marry only for transcendant reasons).

You mention the creation mandate, but God's recognition of human needs is not far off. A few verse after Genesis 2:18 we see Adam's pleased response to the creation of Eve, which would be rendered completely irrelevant under your theology. Those passages affirm the rightness of human sexual and companionate desire -- needs that motivate us to marry (as opposed to some big message from the Lord saying "this is the ONE", a message the scriptures never promise). What's more, there is no biblical support for the idea that marriage was created to "point towards" the "real marriage" between Christ and the Church -- this is another modern trend of making far too much of a metaphor.

"If marriage was created in order to fulfil Adam’s relational needs then what you are actually saying is that when Adam was in perfect, peaceful, beautiful, wonderful, whole relationship with the God who created him that he was STILL relationally unfulfilled."

That's what Focus on the Family is now saying at Boundless.com. But you seem to think it's idolatry.

"That marriage does bring the joys and blessings of fellowship and intimacy is a gift from God. But these things are not what we ‘need’ as humans – if they were then marriage would need to continue in heaven."

Nonsense. In heaven, we won't have "human" needs because we will be of a different form (1 Cor 15:35-54).

"Neither is singleness spoken of entirely in the language of practical human needs. Indeed why does Paul recommend singleness as the ‘better’ option? Because some people’s needs are better met by not being married? No."

Well, yes. You mentioned v35, and there are other verses suggesting that some have more of a need than others for undivided devotion to the Lord -- including Paul himself, in verse 7: we are not all the same, we have been gifted differently by God, as far as innate characteristics are concerned, and based on that, the individual is free to choose whether to marry or stay single (as clearly follows in verses 8-9).

"Actually, according to BDAG the actual the g...

2009-09-09T11:56:10.204-07:00
"Actually, according to BDAG the actual the greek word 'euvoxos' means a number of different things (as shown by Jesus usage of it in Mt 19:12)..."

And in each meaning given, you have a metaphor of manhood compromised (more rightly in the third, sacrificed).

The uniqueness and differentiation of our gender means that we have been created to relate to one another and to the world in particular and unique ways...THAT is what it means to be either female or male. Our sexuality is part of our gender… but it by no means the sum total of our gender. To ‘abstain from marriage’ (ie be celibate as per the 3rd definition and as Paul commends in 1 Cor 7:8, 38) does not mean that one is sacrificing the sum total of their manhood or womanhood."

I did not say that abstaining from marriage is "sacrificing the sum total" of one's manhood or womanhood". More correctly, I said "exact a toll on your masculinity, femininity", a sacrifice something that the third type of eunuch is quite willing to make.

It's all well and good to assure the barren that they are no less a man or woman (although the scriptures do not support them in this way, but more transcendant terms), but it is disingenuous when it is used to downplay the degree of sacrifice it entails when made voluntarily, as well as the degree of suffering it entails when it occurs involuntarily. Church leaders have tried to gloss over the grief of the surplus women in their churches who miss out on marrying and having children -- this is wrong. If they were more honest about the consequences of protracted singleness, some of those women (as well as their male peers) might be more inclined to marry. Realize, that I am coming from the perspective of a woman in my 40's who has seen the long term effects of the kind of "singleness-and-marriage-are-gifts-of-equal-value" teachings made popular over the past few decades. I have seen both men and women, who probably would have made good mates, basically wither on the vine due to those teachings, which feed passivity, perfectionism, and confusion (ie. procrastination).

"Scriptures were crafted with the people of God in mind – both individually and collectively as the church. In 1 Cor 7 Paul addresses various ‘groups’ within the church – the married people, the widows, the virgins and then in v17 he writes ‘let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him’.Saying that God's word speaks to us as individuals, were we are at, is not a case of doing the ‘characteristically modern, western thing"

Of course, he spoke to heart of the individual, but he had the larger group picture in mind. Verse 17 is a general message against making sudden changes during that time of crisis -- can you imagine what the potential would have been at that time for mass panic? Paul was likely responding to a letter written to him by the Corinthians asking questions about what they should be doing at that time, and ultimately, the message was "stay put". Do you think that would be the appropriate message for people right now, given our unprecedented levels of protracted singleness and premarital sex?

PS - Sorry for the really long comments! I've ...

2009-09-08T22:25:40.036-07:00
PS - Sorry for the really long comments! I've never been known for my brevity!

This is actually a very dangerous point of view...

2009-09-08T22:23:59.533-07:00
This is actually a very dangerous point of view, one that has wreaked havoc in the Catholic church. And it has absolutely no scriptural basis. You will not find one passage that suggests that marriage is something God created only for himself and his creation mandate. Clearly, Genesis 2:18 and 1 Cor 7:2-5 affirms that sex and marriage were indeed created to fulfill human needs for companionship and sex.

I respectfully but totally disagree (noting that I never said God created marriage for himself. I said he created it for humanity in order to realise his purposes). And not only do I find one passage (among many) that supports my understanding – most importantly Genesis 1-2 (and also 1 Cor 7:2-5 though we clearly exegete it differently), but I also find the support of rightly understood biblical theology.

If marriage was created in order to fulfil Adam’s relational needs then what you are actually saying is that when Adam was in perfect, peaceful, beautiful, wonderful, whole relationship with the God who created him that he was STILL relationally unfulfilled. Perfect relationship with his creator was not enough in that case – he needed something else (another human being) to make him complete, to truly satisfy him. God wasn’t enough. And down that path is idolatry.

Furthermore, if marriage and sex were needed to fulfil human needs (because perfect relationship with God was not) then marriage and sex would need to be continued in heaven (because restored perfect relationship with God won’t be enough). In which case you have some very fancy footwork to do with a number of passages of Scripture.

Why was it not good for man to be alone? Because man alone could not do what God had purposed him to do only 2 verses earlier – to fill the earth and subdue it. And that is why God created him a helper… and not merely a companion. For a more thorough explanation of the extensive biblical and theological argument underlying this (which I don’t have time or space for here) can I suggest you read Christopher Ash’s Married for God - that way if you wish to refute the argument you can do it having understood it thoroughly and not just my snapshot of it). I’d be happy to email you a scan of the pertinent chapter but I’m not sure how to do that without either of us publicising our email addresses for the world (and the spam bots!) to see.

What bothers me about the way you approach these passages, Dani, is that you seem to be taking the most sexually negating stance possible - perhaps so as to not go overboard on commending the very thing you and most of your peers want, which is marriage!

I’m not negating the goodness of sex. I’m not negating the goodness of marriage. I see both as a good gift and blessing from God and rejoice in the marriages of so many of my friends and family. What I am suggesting, however, is that we do God’s word (the whole of God’s word, not just 1 Cor 7) an injustice when we make both marriage and singleness (and sex) all about us rather than about God and his plans and purposes for his creation. God’s plans for marriage and singleness are much bigger than you and I. Both ultimately point towards the wonderful heavenly reality of the marriage between Christ and the church.

Acutally, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize...

2009-09-08T22:19:22.918-07:00
Acutally, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize that remaining single to serve God is an option, one that the individual can choose without compulsion

I have not said anything to the contrary. Of course I agree that it is an option which can be choosen without compulsion. My point is that it is a good option which is very rarely actually presented or encouraged in our (or at least my) Christian circles.

"...to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well" - the last verse especially suggesting that the delay of marriage is temporary

It could be here. But it also might not be (given the larger eschatological context of the passage - eg. v29). It is interesting that Paul makes a distinction in v34 between the ‘unmarried’ and the ‘betrothed’ (lit. virgin). What is the distinction between them? Well, I am admittedly speculating here and would like to do some research on it but it would seem to me that a bethrothal is a social contract of sorts between a man and a woman. Presumably this contract means that the man has particular responsibilities for the welfare of his betrothed. Thus if he ‘refrains from marriage’ to her he is still required to ‘keep her as his betrothed’ in terms of his social obligations to her. As I said, somewhat speculative, but given the context of the passage as the whole I don’t think it is unreasonably speculative. I'll do some more reading about it.

No one should be posing these kinds of questions to a single, **unless they have already expressed an interest in remaining single to serve God**.

Why?! Given that Paul says that single people have a unique opportunity (and I would argue responsibility) to serve the Lord then why on earth would we not even encourage single Christians to think about whether they might chose to hold on to the gift of singleness that God has given them for this purpose? Singleness is not a curse. It is a good gift from God that has many blessings – just as marriage is likewise.

It is psychologically vexing to suggest all of those who are single (most likely not by choice) that perhaps God might want them to stay that way

But the reality is that God intends some of them to stay that way regardless of whether or not they choose it! I would like to be married. I feel sexual desire as much as the next woman. I would love to share in the emotional, physical, relational intimacy of the marriage partnership. But you know what? It may not ever happen... regardless of how much I would like it to.

So tell me what is ultimately more helpful to me?

1) Helping me to really embrace my singleness, to identify the good purposes of singleness and to acknowledge the reality that God might want me to remain single for his purposes (rather than my own). And in doing so to help me concentrate on serving the Lord with all my heart, where he has placed me here and now?

2) Or to encourage me not to embrace my singleness but to keep fixing my eyes on a marriage which is not yet, and may not ever be mine? Thereby making it agonisingly difficult for me to seek contentment with where God has put me here and now (because I'm always focusing on how I want something else)? To miss praising God for the good gift of time, resources and relationships that are mine as a single woman which he is using for his purposes? And to miss encouraging me to understand the hardships and sadness I suffer as a single person are in fact a blessing of God’s discipline of me as his daughter?

You know what is REALLY psychologically vexing? Telling a single person who feels normal sexual desire and attraction that God only wants those who have a super-spiritual injection of content celibacy to remain single. And then watching that person live a long life of discontent celibacy feeling that they have been totally and utterly jipped by God – because he has not given them either this spiritual gift where they are largely unbothered by their sex drive OR a marriage partner.

One of the biggest lies told to Christian youth...

2009-09-08T20:09:14.482-07:00
One of the biggest lies told to Christian youth by their leaders, is that staying single will not exact a toll on your masculinity, femininity, or your maturation as an adult. By very definition, those mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 who "made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom", were indeed sacrificing their manhood in God's service

Actually, according to BDAG the actual the greek word 'euvoxos' means a number of different things (as shown by Jesus usage of it in Mt 19:12):
1. A castrated male person, (as in Mt 19:12b)
2. A human male who, without a physical operation, is by nature incapable of begetting children, impotent male (as in Mt 19:12a)
3. A human male who abstains fr. marriage, without being impotent, a celibate (eg. Mt 19:12c)

God has created us as gendered beings – male and female. The uniqueness and differentiation of our gender means that we have been created to relate to one another and to the world in particular and unique ways (founded in Genesis 1-3 and developed in the biblical theology of all Scripture). THAT is what it means to be either female or male. Our sexuality is part of our gender… but it by no means the sum total of our gender. To ‘abstain from marriage’ (ie be celibate as per the 3rd definition and as Paul commends in 1 Cor 7:8, 38) does not mean that one is sacrificing the sum total of their manhood or womanhood. Yes, it means that they do not receive the blessings that come as part marriage (eg sex and children). But I do not see where you find scriptural warrant for your statement that we sacrifice what it truly means to be a man or a woman if we never engage in sexual activity.

After all, was Adam any LESS a man (by definition?) before Eve was created? No – indeed Eve’s name/gender/role was defined as per her relationship to Adam who was the very essence of man.

As I said earlier, the scriptures were crafted with the masses in mind -- you cannot do the characteristically modern, western thing and look at it solely from a place of individual holiness.

Scriptures were crafted with the people of God in mind – both individually and collectively as the church. In 1 Cor 7 Paul addresses various ‘groups’ within the church – the married people, the widows, the virgins and then in v17 he writes ‘let each person lead the life that the Lord has assigned to him’. Saying that God's word speaks to us as individuals, were we are at, is not a case of doing the ‘characteristically modern, western thing’, It is recognising that the word of God speaks to individual members of the body as it also speaks to the body collectively.

When we do that, we run the risk of "overspiritualizing" marriage and singleness -- which are, in reality, spoken of in scriptures entirely in the language of practical human needs and personal choice.

No they are not.

Marriage is not spoken of entirely in the language of practical human needs and personal choice. Marriage was instituted not to meet our human needs, but to enable humans to fulfil God’s mandate to them (Genesis 1:28 and 2:15) and to point towards the ultimate and real marriage between Christ and the church. That marriage does bring the joys and blessings of fellowship and intimacy is a gift from God. But these things are not what we ‘need’ as humans – if they were then marriage would need to continue in heaven.

Neither is singleness spoken of entirely in the language of practical human needs. Indeed why does Paul recommend singleness as the ‘better’ option? Because some people’s needs are better met by not being married? No. In order to, v35, ‘secure your undivided devotion to the Lord’. That is Paul’s reason for encouraging individuals to make the personal choice to remain single (albeit with the concessions he makes to those whose desire is not in control).

Neither singleness, nor marriage, is ultimately about us choosing how best our needs are met.

"As sexual beings our sexuality is, of course...

2009-09-08T12:08:15.516-07:00
"As sexual beings our sexuality is, of course, intrinsic to who we are. But I don't think sexuality is synonymous with sexual activity. What I meant was that I don't think we must be sexually active (in the short or long term) in order to be truly or completely human (or adult)."

One of the biggest lies told to Christian youth by their leaders, is that staying single will not exact a toll on your masculinity, femininity, or your maturation as an adult. By very definition, those mentioned by Christ in Matthew 19 who "made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom", were indeed sacrificing their manhood in God's service -- something very few can do, which is why Christ mentions TWICE "not all can receive this teaching" and "let those who can receive it, receive it". Those who are not so gifted will be at risk for sexual sin, and the kind of self-serving idleness that CS Lewis talks about.

"In this light, sexual hormones become uncontrollable sexual urges that most of us (apart from a very few who have some injection of super-spiritual celibacy) will not be able to control but to which we will invariably give in to – so we better get ourselves married before we ‘break’. (As if being married is going to be the cure-all for giving in to sexual temptation!)"

But in larger sense (not just the "personal" message to the individual) that is what the scriptures are saying. Not that marriage is a "cure-all", but you can be certain that among any society where you see the delay of marriage, you will find widespread premarital sex, and its accompanying ills. As I said earlier, the scriptures were crafted with the masses in mind -- you cannot do the characteristically modern, western thing and look at it solely from a place of individual holiness. When we do that, we run the risk of "overspiritualizing" marriage and singleness -- which are, in reality, spoken of in scriptures entirely in the language of practical human needs and personal choice.

"Well if it is eschatological then I don’t se...

2009-09-08T12:03:12.362-07:00
"Well if it is eschatological then I don’t see that we can describe it as ‘temporary’... we can’t overlook the fact that in 1 Cor 7 Paul encourages the Corinthians to deliberately consider whether they might remain unmarried for the sake of the kingdom."

Acutally, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize that remaining single to serve God is an option, one that the individual can choose without compulsion (v 35: "I say this not to put a snare on you", 36-37, "a man...should do as he wishes being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well" - the last verse especially suggesting that the delay of marriage is temporary).

"My point is that (in my evangelical Christian circles at least) we very rarely hear anybody encouraging anyone to consider remaining deliberately single as Paul does repeatedly in 1 Cor 7..''have you actually considered choosing to deny yourself and remain unmarried for the sake of the kingdom."

No one should be posing these kinds of questions to a single, **unless they have already expressed an interest in remaining single to serve God**. Keep in mind that Christ did not even bring up "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom", until one of the disciples suggested (after hearing about the permanence of marriage and the limitations of divorce) that it might be better to not to marry at all. It's more than not comforting -- it is psychologically vexing to suggest to those who all of those who are single (most likely not by choice) that perhaps God might want them to stay that way.

"I am persuaded that a proper exegesis of 1 Cor 7:2...is not that ‘every man should find himself a wife and (and vice versa) so they can avoid sexual immorality’. But rather ‘that every husband should ‘have’ (ie. have sexual relations) with his own wife (and every wife with her own husband)."

Yes, I have heard that argument, and it is a very recent one. Previous generations of theologians were not of the consensus that "have" - should be interpreted in this manner. It seems to be a trend among certain modern theologians who support the modern status quo that young people should not be "pressured" into marriage.

"Marriage was not created for sex... Sex was created for marriage… in order that men and women might fulfil the creation mandate. In fact I’d go so far as to say that marriage wasn’t created to meet our needs at all."

This is actually a very dangerous point of view, one that has wreaked havoc in the Catholic church. And it has absolutely no scriptural basis. You will not find one passage that suggests that marriage is something God created only for himself and his creation mandate. Clearly, Genesis 2:18 and 1 Cor 7:2-5 affirms that sex and marriage were indeed created to fulfill human needs for companionship and sex.

What bothers me about the way you approach these passages, Dani, is that you seem to be taking the most sexually negating stance possible - perhaps so as to not go overboard on commending the very thing you and most of your peers want, which is marriage!

I would disagree with you on the meaning of "...

2009-09-07T01:40:43.180-07:00
I would disagree with you on the meaning of "the present crisis," but I do agree with many of your other points here.

I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we are, a...

2009-09-07T01:09:30.500-07:00
I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we are, and I don't think the New Covenant nullifies this.

I agree than sexuality is intrinsic to who we are. Ironically my original post said...

All of this is to say (again) that I think we have bought into the world’s view that sexual activity (NB. NOT our sexuality) is intrinsic to who we are as individuals.

... but I was over the word limit and so had to cut a few things out. As sexual beings our sexuality is, of course, intrinsic to who we are. But I don't think sexuality is synonymous with sexual activity. What I meant was that I don't think we must be sexually active (in the short or long term) in order to be truly or completely human (or adult). This is deeply counter cultural to the message of our world.

I believe Paul's encouragement to remain single should be understood in light of the "present crisis" mentioned in the chapter.

As do I. Except I think the present crisis Paul speaks of is eschatalogical rather than temporary.

But we must also recognize some of the timeless truths of this passage--there are certain advantages to remaining single.

Yes, but these ARE advantages which are unique to the new covenant age only. Singleness in the OT was something to be pitied rather than something which was intrinsically good or purposeful. Something changed with the inbreaking of God's kingdom at the cross, and so I don't think these 'advantages to being single' are time-less in that sense. I think they are, instead, eschatological.

Again--it's about balance. 1 Corinthians 7 clearly teaches that singleness is not a sin and has some advantages. But we must also balance this chapter with the Bible's overall affirmation of marriage.

I agree- except I think we currently have the balance weighted the wrong way (at least in the christian circles I move in). Whilst it is right and proper (and indeed biblical) to affirm the goodness of marriage, it is also right and proper (and biblical) to affirm (ie. more than just lip service) the goodness of singleness - and not just the 'oh dear, you never got married? Well just be content with your lot' type of singleness... but the 'have you actually considered choosing to deny yourself and remain unmarried for the sake of the kingdom' type of singleness (and no, I'm not talking about convents and monasteries or anything like that!).

Frankly, as a 31 year old single woman who would quite like to be married, that second option isn't particularly comforting to me! Nonetheless I am convinced that it is deeply biblical and something we don't talk about nearly enough.

Dani, I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we ar...

2009-09-06T19:42:40.405-07:00
Dani,

I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we are, and I don't think the New Covenant nullifies this.

I believe Paul's encouragement to remain single should be understood in light of the "present crisis" mentioned in the chapter. But we must also recognize some of the timeless truths of this passage--there are certain advantages to remaining single.

Again--it's about balance. 1 Corinthians 7 clearly teaches that singleness is not a sin and has some advantages. But we must also balance this chapter with the Bible's overall affirmation of marriage.

verses 25-26 speak to the never married as abst...

2009-09-06T19:02:22.931-07:00
verses 25-26 speak to the never married as abstaining only temporarily, due to the "present crisis" (whether that is eschatalogical or the pending persecution of the early church)

Well if it is eschatological then I don’t see that we can describe it as ‘temporary’… but rather as Paul says ‘from now on’. With the inbreaking of God’s kingdom into this world something fundamental changed. Where marriage had been normative in the Old Testament, suddenly in the New Testament we see both Jesus and Paul affirming chosen and deliberate singleness as something which is both good and purposeful.

Of course, marriage is not overturned. Nor are the blessings it brings negated. However, we can’t overlook the fact that in 1 Cor 7 Paul encourages the Corinthians to deliberately consider whether they might remain unmarried for the sake of the kingdom.

My point is that (in my evangelical Christian circles at least) we very rarely hear anybody encouraging anyone to consider remaining deliberately single as Paul does repeatedly in 1 Cor 7. Rather we just run with the assumption that marriage is the norm and if you remain unmarried then it’s ultimately because you’ve ‘been left on the shelf’ (for one reason or another).

As such, he was practical and realistic that people should have a spouse, due to the likelihood of getting caught up in the sexual immorality of the world (1 Cor 7:2)

This is where I think we have inherited (or developed) an unhelpful theology of marriage. Marriage was not created for sex (ie. people should have a spouse to avoid getting caught up in sexual immorality). Sex was created for marriage… in order that men and women might fulfil the creation mandate. In fact I’d go so far as to say that marriage wasn’t created to meet our needs at all. God’s purpose for it was much bigger than that.

I am persuaded that a proper exegesis of 1 Cor 7:2 (in its context and taking into account the original greek) is not that ‘every man should find himself a wife and (and vice versa) so they can avoid sexual immorality’. But rather ‘that every husband should ‘have’ (ie. have sexual relations) with his own wife (and every wife with her own husband) . That is, v2 is saying the same thing as v3, and expanded upon in the following verses.

All of this is to say (again) that I think we have bought into the world’s view that sexual activity is intrinsic to who we are as individuals. In this light, sexual hormones become uncontrollable sexual urges that most of us (apart from a very few who have some injection of super-spiritual celibacy) will not be able to control but to which we will invariably give in to – so we better get ourselves married before we ‘break’. (As if being married is going to be the cure-all for giving in to sexual temptation!)

I’m not denying that for many controlling their sexual desires is hard work. I’m not denying that hormones are popping all over the place. I’m not denying that there isn’t endless sexual temptation out there (for the single AND married alike). Paul doesn’t deny any of that either. But in the face of it he says to exercise self-control against those temptations. That is the first port of call.

Self-control is not something out of our grasp. Why? Because God has given us his Spirit and it is a fruit of the Spirit. Yes, there will be people who give in to sexual temptation- but that is because we are sinful. Not because we are biologically and physically sentenced to eventually ‘break’ and not be able to hold our sexual urges in check any longer.

1 Cor 7 isn’t a stand alone passage. It comes in the larger biblical theological framework of God’s intention for marriage and singleness from creation through to new-creation. We need to start looking at it in that larger framework.

Comments on SingleChristian.org: Three Questions RE: "The Case for Early Marriage"

PS. Gortexgrrl - I apologise if you felt I was bei...

@ gortexgrrl - I think there is little point conti...

"And I believe it is cruel (and unbiblical) t...

I will not continue to moderate this discussion fo...

Boundless: ”Because what was not good about man al...

I said: "What's more, there is no biblica...

Can we wrap up this debate or take it elsewhere?

"I think the crux of our differences is that ...

Paul was likely responding to a letter written...

It is cruel (not to mention inappropriately pre...

cont. What's more, there is no biblical s...

(LOL. My posts just don't get any shorter. Sor...

cont'd I mention 1 Cor 7:7 especially, becaus...

"Marriage is not spoken of entirely in the la...

"Actually, according to BDAG the actual the g...

PS - Sorry for the really long comments! I've ...

This is actually a very dangerous point of view...

Acutally, Paul goes out of his way to emphasize...

One of the biggest lies told to Christian youth...

"As sexual beings our sexuality is, of course...

"Well if it is eschatological then I don’t se...

I would disagree with you on the meaning of "...

I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we are, a...

Dani, I think sexuality is intrinsic to who we ar...

verses 25-26 speak to the never married as abst...