Is Celibacy REALLY a valid choice?

[CecilW]

Don't know what happened to the thread I started yesterday. It disappeared. And seems to have taken good responses with it. *sigh* Will try again. ...

I often hear folks say that PM and Mono are both equally valid marital choices from a Biblical point of view. I agree.

Then I hear them say that Celibacy is an equally valid choice, and I have a much harder time. "Celibate Marriage"? Sounds like one of them oxy-morons to me! :lol:

Thing is, I keep hearing the voice of God rolling across the heavens during creation week and declaring, "It is NOT GOOD for mankind to be alone!" So He did something about it. Created families, specifically marriages.

He repeats that theme in Ps 68:6, saying "God sets the solitary in families." That's what He does. That's where solitary folks belong.

Seems to me that He's saying that being single should be but a temporary condition on the way to a marriage.

Now, I know Jesus talked about eunuchs. But that has to do with reproductive capability, not with being in a marriage. Judging by recent Chinese customs, many eunuchs WERE married, and often did not become eunuchs until after siring children. Different issue, however often misinterpreted.

And yes, Paul seemed a bit personally disillusioned or wary of marriage in some of what he said. But he also was right out there talking positive stuff about marriage.

Either way, Paul had no right to contradict the decree of God at creation, and Jesus seems unlikely to have as He presumably is the one who actually spoke it during creation, and He never changes.

Further, we know that in Jewish thought, a man who refused to marry was considered to be shirking his duty to society. Doing so was considered selfish and dishonorable.

So all and all, I am wondering. Yes, there are prominent men in the Bible who have no wives mentioned. But that is no proof that they didn't have wives, and even if they did not, that is mere example, not theological justification. David collected 200 foreskins from involuntary donors as a bride-price. I have not felt it necessary to take a position that doing so was a valid practice for any and all of us. Don't even KNOW any philistines, myself. :lol:

So is there TRULY any Biblical support for the idea that remaining single (and presumably celibate) is a valid choice? Or "equally valid" as marriage, either mono or poly?

To me, quotes such as the following seem much more valid:

“Marriage has many pains, but celibacy has no pleasures.” -- Samuel Johnson

“Celibacy is the worst form of self-abuse.” -- Peter De Vries

"Chastity - the most unnatural of all the sexual perversions." -- Aldous Huxley

 

[porkchop]

I've had several responses disappear. I was getting paranoid!

 

[porkchop]

So, are you suggesting that everyone should be married, no exceptions?

 

[CecilW]

So, are you suggesting that everyone should be married, no exceptions?

Well, kids can't, of course. And I can see a case for older widows not wanting to marry again, as per Paul.

But for most of us, in the "marriageable age range", yeah, that's pretty much what I'm thinking. It seems as though we oughta either BE in a marriage, or WORKING towards doing so.

In other words, what I'm decrying is the "celibate by choice" and "God is my husband" options. I don't think that they're Biblically "as good as" or "as valid as" marriage.

I readily recognize that finding an appropriate mate may take time. And that some folks are pretty horrid people and shouldn't ever be married to anyone. Better to euthanize them NOW. And some folks have no interest in the opposite sex, some are damaged by traumatic experiences, ... there are a whole lot of practical reasons why someone may validly not be in a marriage at the moment.

What I'm saying is simply that I don't see any Scriptural support for the idea that a lifetime (or rest of life) choice of singleness IS as valid as marriage. I don't think it is God's "Plan A" for anyone. He'll deal with it if he has to, but sadly, IMO, as an unfortunate second choice. Whereas I see no reason to think He makes any such distinction between Mono and Poly, unless He does actually call someone to poly (His right, and it DOES happen), and they refuse.

There's a BIG difference, to my mind, between "I'm single at the moment, 'cause I haven't found my right place in a family yet" (or perhaps am recovering from a loss, etc.) vs. "I'm not interested in getting married. Celibacy is my choice. It's an equally valid marital choice. Besides, God is my Husband." Got no problem with the first. Got lots with the second.

 

[nathan]

Off topic, since it came up here: biblicalfamilies.org switched web-hosters last night (first time in over 3 years, and we've paid for 3 years now - so it's a one-time blip). I guess between the time the new host made a snapshot yesterday (~7pm), and the new site went live during the night, we lost those posts. Sorry about that, we should have locked the forums briefly. But it shouldn't happen again.

Now back your regularly scheduled topic: celibacy (well, not my regularly scheduled topic, er, nevermind).

 

[Kimberley]

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:11-12

 

[CecilW]

Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, ... Matthew 19:11-12

Sure enough, Kimberly. But being a eunuch means you can't have kids. Doesn't mean you can't be married.

Jesus was the Word made flesh, who dwelt among us. By Him was everything made that was made. Presumably it was He who had originally declared, "It is NOT GOOD for man to be alone." His laws, both natural and moral, were perfect. He never changes.

Or does He? In the passage you quote above, which is about those unable to conceive or sire children, was He somehow mysteriously contradicting His earlier pronouncement, without saying so directly?

Or, like the passage clearly about divorce, which is consistently misused to condemn polygamy, has this one been misused to justify celibacy as a "higher" choice, when it is, in fact, just the opposite.

Mind you, I am not saying it is wrong to take your time, and make a good choice of mates. It is the mental intent, the chosen life course, that I question.

 

[Kimberley]

Or does He? In the passage you quote above, which is about those unable to conceive or sire children, was He somehow mysteriously contradicting His earlier pronouncement, without saying so directly?

Considering that Jesus' statement that I quoted was in response to the disciple's statement:

The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matthew 19: 10 NIV)

It makes me wonder whether or not Christ was solely talking about men who chose not to conceive children..

I find the following phrase found in verse 12 of particular interest: "The one who can accept this should accept it." Is Christ saying that anyone who can accept the choice of not having children should?

Jesus is the supreme example of how we, His followers, should live our lives. If marriage is a key part in living life for God, why is there no biblical evidence that Jesus was married? There is evidence of baptism, compassion for others, obedience to the Father, etc.

 

[Anonymous]

Considering God's design of humans and His provision for the first family and for the benefit of the human race, marriage should be understood to be the norm for the vast majority of people. It is in this normal structure that people are best suited to know and do the will of God, to find fulfillment in social structure of His design. That there are a very small minority that may be suited for and/or called to celibacy is undeniable. However, celibacy is not superior to or to be desired by the majority over marriage. Loneliness is not necessarily godly. God knew/knows what He was about when creating families. We can exist as singles, but it is extremely rare if one thrives outside a family context.

 

[CecilW]

... We can exist as singles, but it is extremely rare if one thrives outside a family context.

Thank you, John.

That would be my point. God has a Plan A for each of us, and it involves marriage, I believe.

He's also got Plans B, C, D, etc. But His BEST for us involves marriage and thriving.

Anyway, having fun getting a discussion going.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

Presumably it was He who had originally declared, "It is NOT GOOD for man to be alone." His laws, both natural and moral, were perfect. He never changes.

Cecil,

First we do see a plain statement of Scripture which in fact does say: "for when there is a change in the priesthood there is necessarily a CHANGE in the law as well" (Hebrew 7:12). The word "change" is metatithe, and it simply means alteration, a change of place or options, to change sides or parties. So the ole "God never changes his law" argument cannot be as absolute as your sentence could or does indicate. God never changes in his character, his being (which is what Malachi and Hebrews 13:8 says, 'I the Lord do not change'), but with that text itself it has to be accepted as a clear statement that some things in some degree in his laws can and do change. And if you are not still making animal sacrifices you indeed are following a law that differs from the Mosaic Law code which required animal sacrifices on an ongoing basis. And we cannot equate God who never changes as the same as his law because that creates an error of reducing God to the law itself. God and the law of God are not the same, i.e. God is more than a law, he is a living and active being who creates a law to reflect some portion of his character and being. He never changes, but he can and does at times adjust his laws as the change in the sacrificial system in and of itself shows to at least a degree.

But, secondly, even if that is overlooked, God's point in Genesis about it is not good to be alone did not prescribe onto all people the doctrine of a covenant union. There are other ways man can indeed be in fellowship with others than through a covenant union.

We always have to ask, "what is the purpose and reason for God not wanting a person to be alone." What was the principle behind the text. When someone lives to themselves it can feed selfishness, or even be selfishness itself. God knows it is not in the best interest of person to be isolated from others as being around others will curb one's own loneliness but even more so it will also make one have to examine their own selfishness.

The Genesis text would not then be in contradiction to Jesus' words that Kimberly actually noted there. Genesis is not a mandate to a sexual covenant union but a principle to show man is in need of others, which can imply a sexual union but does not only imply that. It can be part of the point in some cases but not the total point to the exclusion of other valid options supported by Scripture.

Christ taught us in that text that there are different gifts. The context, which is the king in hermeneutics, shows us clearly that Christ had a covenant union in mind. He said, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” Matthew 19:11-12

Why is this so hard to accept? I think for those of us who have heterosexual desires we read the Bible through that lens. We experience that drive and thus take that emotion and idea back into the text to try and make it fit how we are biologically wired. We can't help but not to do that in a sense and thus it is so easy to elevate the "union" status above the true and clear teaching of Christ as well as Apostle Paul who taught us this is a gift. 1 Cor. 7:7 shows us that the gift of celibacy comes from the Lord.

Dr. Wayne Grudem, a solid Evangelical scholar, has noted in his most excellent systematic theology manual that this is often a spiritual gift overlooked by many and not even recognized as such, but it appears that Christ had it and maybe even Paul had it for awhile.

Guess who else today has it? Dr. John Stott, the great Evangelical Scholar from England. He is in his late 70's or early 80's now. He has never been in a union and he has no desire to be in one. He has used his free time to lead and teach and write for the kingdom of Christ. And he has done some great things for us with that spare time. He has the gift of celibacy.

Some people are indeed called to this lifestyle. It is not good for us to place into the text our heterosexual drive as the norm for all people when clearly the Lord, Paul, and others today experience the gifting of the Spirit in a different way. 1 Cor. 12:11 tells us the Spirit gives the gifts to whom he pleases as he pleases. Some are thus called to be celibate, some are not, and each is perfectly honorable in the Lord so long as they are in step with the Spirit as Paul would say (Gal. 5:25).

 

[cnystrom]

However, celibacy is not superior to or to be desired by the majority over marriage.

Paul seems to indicate that there are times and situations when being single is preferable to being married, such as in a time of crisis if I am reading 1 Cor 7 correctly. He lists some clear and obvious advantages to being single such as being free to focus on pleasing God as opposed to pleasing your spouse.

I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine if our current era is a "present crisis".

 

[CecilW]

"for when there is a change in the priesthood there is necessarily a CHANGE in the law as well" (Hebrew 7:12). The word "change" is metatithe, and it simply means alteration, a change of place or options, to change sides or parties. So the ole "God never changes his law" argument cannot be as absolute as your sentence could or does indicate.

Ok, Keith. Your position on this is well known.

i maintain that there are several sets of laws in play (natural, moral, civil, and ceremonial - having to do with how worship is conducted), and that Paul's target audience would have understood the above reference as referring to the latter, but neither of the first two. You apparently disagree.

While our hearts on this site are united, our theological unity only goes so far. We agree that PM is ok. Fair enough.

Sorry, my friend, but I find your argument as unconvincing as you do mine. And the reason at its core would seem to be this issue of whether God changes the moral law or natural law or whether it is only civil and ceremonial laws that are subject to change.

Thus endeth my ability to discuss this topic. We're not starting with the same premises. And you are this site's official resident scholar.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

i maintain that there are several sets of laws in play (natural, moral, civil, and ceremonial - having to do with how worship is conducted), and that Paul's target audience would have understood the above reference as referring to the latter, but neither of the first two. You apparently disagree.

That's why I used the terms change in at least some degree or sense. My specific words were: "some things in some degree in his laws can and do change." Even if we tag it with a ceremonial law code change, that still shows something did change which means God can change his law code without him changing, right? Even your position would agree to that much I would think. Whether we call it ceremonial or even something else we know it was a law that required obedience and yet it was changed so that those in Christ today are not under that same obligation. A change is a change no matter what or even how small of one we try and make it to be. As for the no change in the moral law that is another topic all together. My point was that we cannot make it as simple as no law of God ever changes because clearly even if we limit it to the ceremonial law it was still a law that changed in at least some way or sense.

But even sidestepping that issue, which was and is key to the issue of consideration it looks like to me that there is no "moral" law as you termed and placed this issue that all should pursue a union. Working within the bounds of the views you are comfortable with it looks like to me there is no law, moral law or any law that prescribes each and every person must seek to be in a union. If so I am not aware of it. And it seems like indeed there can't be such a law as it would conflict with the spiritual gifts of some who are called and designed a different way.

Is there a majority of people who are under a natural law, i.e. under the natural desires for a union? Yes probably but we can't build a universal law from what is only a common norm, even if it is true that it is the common norm for the majority. That still would not make it a universal law for all people at all times in all places. For that to be true we have to have more than "more than not or many experience this desire so it is right for all to experience it."

Too in thinking about it, if one takes 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 to mean an elder is under an obligation by law to be in a union, which I do, then that would for those who hold that view imply that some indeed were known to be living in a single life and thus a command needed to be given for that special group. To me that would imply various classifications of giftings by the Spirit or there would have been no need to say that there for elders. If everyone was under a law or under the expectation to be in a union then why would Paul give that command to just the elders but never to anyone else? When we examine that text in 1 Corinthians 7 we see Paul urging some not to join in a union. So if the total set of data is examined it looks like to me we are left with:

1. some, such as elders, are expected to be in union.
2. some are simply called to be in a union though maybe not also called to be an elder.
3. some are called to a celibate lifestyle
-a. of the some called to celibacy some are that way by birth
-b. of the some called to celibacy some are made that way by the Spirit's gifting and calling.
-c. some may have at once been in a union but now out of one receive the gift to be or remain celibate.

All three seem to have not only biblical support but also explicit examples by various lives in Scripture. That seems to coalesce with the doctrines as set forth in Scripture that Christ taught about in Matthew 19 where some are called to the celibacy lifestyle. Certainly the disciples response to his strong teaching on a union led them to think it was better just not to join at all. So by way of context we know that was in their thinking process. And Christ did not rule their idea out, but instead he just gave guidance on to whom could rightly live that way, which was only those who were by divine design made that way. Thus, it looks to me Christ was saying this: "Yes, disciples you are right that the doctrine of a covenant union is a high standard. And yes for some it is better not to join in such a union, but only for those who are designed that way. Not all can live that way."

 

[CecilW]

Since God spoke at creation and said it ISN'T good for us to be alone, during a time when every word rolling out of His mouth became natural law (let there be light, and it was so, etc.), it seems to me that the burden of proof must be on the other foot, of those who feel that choosing to remain alone IS an equally good thing.

I don't think that it is met by the passage you quote.

There is at least one alternative meaning to Jesus' words, namely that not all men were up to handling the high standard of marriage and never divorcing, so God had made provision for their unfortunate need to divorce, as He had just said.

And my argument is not that it is a moral law, for the disobedience to which it was necessary for Christ to die. Rather that marriage, whether mono or plural, is normative, God's Plan A for each human, and that the choice of celibacy, while allowed, is not equally good.

But we can agree to disagree.

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

If you place it under a natural law then what about the fact that spiritual gifts run contrary at times to natural law? Does not miracles supersede and alter natural law? Is not a spiritual gift something that is supernatural and thus beyond the laws of nature?

And that is where many theologians, like Dr. Grudem and Dr. Stott, and others of us place this issue because Paul specifically did say that in 1 Cor. 7 about this was a gift that some receive.

Gravity is a natural law. Christ in his ascension overcame gravity. Heterosexual desire is a natural law desire for humans. But the supernatural gift of celibacy would overcome that natural law.

You ask for the burden of proof, well many of us find it there in the fact that a spiritual gift is a miraculous work by a miraculous God who does and works miracles today, such as with giving out supernatural spiritual gifts for some such as with the gift of celibacy. It seems to fit rather well with the words of Christ where he says some are "made this way for the kingdom." Why and how? For his service and through his supernatural gifting.

A natural law is indeed a norm but you cannot hold to that as the superior law if you also affirm supernatural gifts overrule natural laws at times. Which that is the position held here by some that SOME, not all, maybe not even many, but indeed some experience a supernatural gift that alters the normal laws of nature. The theology fits rather consistently with the whole tenor of our faith in that though natural law exists, God is also above natural law and able to inject into norms events and circumstances that are not bound to the laws of nature. Celibacy would fit into that category just like someone ascending into the sky, or rising from the dead, or being able to speak and teach the Scriptures when otherwise with a shy and reserved personality DNA design, etc. etc. Though natural law applies in all of those cases the gifts of the Lord, which celibacy can indeed be, require us to recognize God as the gift giver who uses those gifts, miracles, for his sovereign purposes that differ with natural laws and norms.

 

[steve]

i am going to have to agree with our Creators original statement. no matter how well it can be argued against, society as a whole loses when celibacy is a equaly valid option. i fully see His intent for His statement, we have no need to read anything into it or to provide Him room to change His mind about it.
besides, what percentage of the non-married are actualy celibate?

 

[Dr. K.R. Allen]

As it looks to me, the problem arises when there is a latching onto the Original Creation ideology as the highest or only or best ideology because in that it commits the same error as the Romanists did but just in the reverse way as they elevated celibacy to the highest order. To elevate marriage or a union to the highest order or the best order for all is to ignore re-creation. Paul too seems to have understood this as he said, "IF they cannot exercise self-control then they should marry" (1 Cor. 7:9a). He is referring back to the unmarried as well as widows. The "if they cannot" clause shows he realized some indeed could and would. If Paul thought it was better for all to marry then it would have not been reasonable for him to say it that way. He would have rather said, "It is better for all to marry" or "it is better for the unmarried and widows to seek to be married."

But why did he not ever once in his discourse hint at that?

He realized that there was no absolute law for all in this regard, especially when those in Christ are citizens of a new kingdom that posses Christ in them as the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. Indeed to some it was fine for them to remain as they were without any hint of a directive by any writer of Scripture to do otherwise so long as they were able to do that, i.e. so long as they did not have the urge and desire pressing them that way.

Yet,natural law is indeed the norm for the vast masses of people. I agree that to be the norm and the common route most all will need to follow as that is the earthly natural law and part of what makes a male and female functional as gender. No problem with that. I'm fully on board with the common norm as just that. But the problem is when we extend further what Scripture does not extend to be a mandate. We cannot take a descriptive creation order principle (it is not good for man to be alone) and extend it into a command or position that elevates it into some exalted category above every other option, especially when other options were even taught by Christ as well as his apostles.

Supernatural law can and indeed does clearly as it seems to me and other Evangelicals present the case that the teaching of Christ and the apostolic witness shows that someone who may have male and female earthly functions may be gifted towards another way because of the supernatural gifts of the Spirit.

None of that would alter the original creation or earthly or natural law position. What is common or a norm for the masses by natural or earthly law is not always the calling of each and every saint due to the specific gifts given when born again (a new order, re-creation life). Some may even be designed this way by birth but some clearly are by the words of Christ "made this way for/because of the kingdom" which is a reference to the new birth experience that places one in the kingdom of Christ.

Dr. Karl Barth, who wrote 16 volumes of theology, spent some elaborate time dealing with this very subject of Original creation order in regard to males and females as I just recently discovered. To date I've not seen anything this in depth on the matter anywhere else yet. For those interested in that it is volumes 5,6,7, and 8. Cecil I know you love to read so you would likely love every word of it even if not arriving at the same conclusion in every place. It is no doubt an exhaustive and careful treatment of this very doctrine in question here.

Interestingly Dr. Barth traced this idea of the highest order being a union for all back to an overreaction by the Protestants coming out from under Rome. He shows where Luther in anger towards Rome over corrected, which is often easy to do when building one's theology in reaction mode, and by his emotional reaction and "inversion" took the polar opposite view that "marriage mainly and almost exclusively exists for the procreation of children and is the better state, more pleasing and possibly alone pleasing to God" and this then developed into a "doctrine of the universal obligation of marriage on the supposed order of creation" (Barth the Doctrine of Creation, Vol. 8, part 3.4, p. 141).

I wonder is it possible that because we too are emotional being that we might look around and see such an error where marriage is so corrupted by the world that we elevate it to a status that even God did not? It seems like we could be falling prey to the same experiential reaction that Luther did if we go that route as he did.

In taking natural law above supernatural law one misses the recreation theme that brings along with supernatural gifts (1 Cor. 12:11) that come from being in Christ, i.e. baptized in the Spirit. As Dr. Barth noted, "From that [natural order] viewpoint the life of man and woman outside marriage can only be understood as a notable, individualistic exception which, limits but also proves the rule. But when we consider the whole complex of which marriage is if the centre and the unmarried state is the circumference, there can be no question of perpetuating this militant thesis. For it undoubtedly means, contrary to the Evangelical principle [the gospel; the supernatural order or supernatural realm of specific giftings to believers], that a human tradition--later grounded in natural law--is set above Holy Scripture . . . .On the contrary [to that natural law] the positive point has to be made that the very thing which confers on marriage a new consecration and meaning also enables to understand and appreciate abstention from marriage as a possibility, a way, a matter of special gift and vocation" (p. 141, 143).

Albeit, and admittedly, Barth was not purely solid in his own Evangelical premise with his lack of a verbal plenary view of inspiration. But granting him grace for a moment he has indeed studied more on this topic and written more on this thus far than any Evangelical I have see to date which was somewhat interesting to me. His four volumes of the 16 volume set covers this view of the "Creation Natural order" in a balanced way that certainly makes some arguments that expose some apparent serious weaknesses in a creation principled argument for the elevation of marriage to a higher estate than others.

His entire set on this very subject totals 1,745 pages of nothing but this doctrine of the Creation order in light of the Recreation of it through the Spirit's coming into the world after Christ's resurrection. It is very impressive to say the least. I've not seen anything close to it as of yet. Just a note for anyone wanting to dig deeper into this than what we will be able to do here.

Also, one other point, he pointed out an OT verse that too shows God's view of singleness was predicted and/or established by God for the Gentiles to also be an equally valid position for those coming to him in celibacy. In Isaiah 56:1-8, especially verses 3-5 that God divinely approved of those who were not joined to a woman. A theme that carried over into the teachings of both Christ and the apostles (Matt. 19 and 1 Cor. 7:7). The point of the text there was to make the single Gentile (foreigner) person feel totally without any hint otherwise that he is right, holy, and perfectly honorable in that current condition. It is the exact opposite of the view that tries to press and push and make the single person feel as if they are not as holy, or as righteous, or as wise, or as mature as the one who is seeking or has the desire for a union or is in a union.

As Dr. Barth went on to say: "We certainly cannot say, in light of these sayings [of Christ on eunuchs and marriage], that entrance into marriage is universally the higher way, the better possibility. On the contrary, they indicate that the vicissitudes of life may make it incumbent upon a man to remain unmarried and to express the relationship between Christ and his community in this way" (p. 144).

As it looks to me all through 1 Cor. 7 the theme is neither a total for marriage nor a total con against marriage as it all depends upon each ones particular gift from the Lord. Some were to remain unmarried, but some were to marry and needed to marry. To marry is good and not to marry is also a good throughout the entire discourse of chapter 7.

 

[Doc]

Yeah, Cecil, I think I am on Plan Q.....way down the list....LOL

I am curious as to the response of others to the following: to what degree is marriage a component of sexual desire?

Please allow me to explain.

If a man finds himself without sexual desire, wouldn't it be best for him to remain celibate?

Conversely, if a man finds himself with sexual desire, Paul says explicitly that he should marry.

What about unnatural sexual desire? I know I may be wading in deep water here, but if a man found himself without a sexual desire for a heterosexual relationship, should he remain celibate?

Is a marriage without a sexual component a marriage? Can there be marriage without sex (no jokes please!)?

 

[steve]

doc, i think that you need a new thread for those questions