So I agree with you on this. These are the nuns. The women who dedicate themselves to God and not men. The godly older widows Paul says needn't marry. Female eunichs for God. No problem here, they have no compulsion to marry, so long as they remain under male headship otherwise.
But you and I both know that this isn't 'a thing' today; not outside of Catholic/Orthodox nuns anyway (and even there it is rare). Almost all unmarried women want to get married eventually, just not yet. Almost all do not live in their fathers house. Almost none have sworn off men, unless they've hit that age where they've given up trying (after wasting their young fertile years when they could have gotten a husband). Just as Paul says the older widows needn't remarry, he also insists the younger ones must remarry.
In theory, yes I agree with you. This would be acceptable. But in practice, Protestant women don't do this and that's not what going on with the vast majority of women who aren't married. 1 Corinthians 7:34-38 isn't a get out of jail card for women who don't marry. In the first place, the "the difficulties of the present time" have passed; that wasn't even Paul's advice by the time he wrote 1 Timothy 5. Secondly, virtually no fathers prohibit their daughters from marrying and lastly, we don't have nuns; virtually no Protestant women are taking lifetime oaths of celibacy to serve God alone.
Well, admittedly there are very few women in all of American Christianity that cover. Yet at the same time, few American Christians even know that passage is in their Bible. My point is more, you talk about some rare exception, but those rare exceptions are well, non-existent, but the average Christian woman will read what you wrote and think it applies to them.
It is tricky to make generalizations. Ask most early to mid 20something women and they'll say they want to get married and are looking for 'the one'. But in truth, they're just sleeping around and/or won't get serious about settling down until their late 20s. There's a pretty strong correlation between a woman's age and how serious she is looking for a mate in America today. The earnestness with which a 32 year old looks is about what a 20 year old of a couple generations ago would have treated it. But the early 20 year olds today? Even Christian? Not looking very hard, if they are even willing to consider it at all.
Where we need to be is young women earnestly pursuing marriage in their late teens/early 20's and most being married by that time. What instead we see today is few doing that and most only starting to look as they approach their 30s; after they've squandered their fertility.
It's a rhetorical question to point out the obvious. Logic....women were created for a purpose (marriage and helpmeet) -> they are supposed to be in headship under a man (1 cor 11) -> rejecting all those things (saving nuns) is rebellion against God. Of course there will be consequences. How could there not be? To say there wouldn't be would be to say woman can rebel against God with impunity.
I see, so you're saying what about the ugly girls? If they're not pretty enough to secure a guy how is that their fault? In theory, sure I could see them innocent. But they should still live under authority (father, uncle, brother, church, etc). These could be thought of as the female counterpart to Christ's "eunichs by God or made that way for the kingdom of God" if they dedicate themselves to serving God and swear off marriage.
But have you looked outside lately? Obesity (the sin of glutony) runs rampant. Never has it been easier for a woman to compete for a man as today... stay thin, be pleasant, cultivate traditional homemaking skills, maintain your virtue, have sorrowful repentance for sin. All within reach of any woman. All enjoined by scripture. Do that and there will be a man for you. Except in rare extreme cases a less than perfect face isn't going to stop you.
But what might stop you from getting a husband is a feminist attitude, gluttony, a complete lack of homemaking skills, an unwillingness to get out and find men, or an overinflated sense of what one deserves in a mate.
This is one of those areas where physical and behavioral appeal often go together. Gluttony leads to ugliness. Feminist bitterness uglifies women. Taking action to become a better wife prospect overcomes lack of prettiness. Even in this age of media beauty expectations, many men understand porn-star hot women often aren't the best candidates for marriage.
Just because most women are in rebellion, doesn't insulate them from consequences of rebellion. I'm not excusing married women who rebel against their head.
I agree with you, we need to recapture the value of celebacy. Protestantism tossed the baby out with the bath water when they rejected the practice of nuns and monks. Quite frankly, there are a small number of young women who naturally are unsuited to marriage, and a larger natural number of such young men. But vows of celibacy isn't what is stopping young Christians from marrying today; its the pursuit of worldly goals instead of Godly ones.
You know, a lot of the answer to this is we just don't know. Guardian angles are a thing (as documented by Enoch). But the Bible says nothing of them or their benefit. The workings of the spiritual world are not well explained.
Eph 5 provides some answers here though if we turn the question on its head...what spiritual benefit does a husband bring to a woman? Those are the things she goes without when she refuses to be in submission. Some of it is obvious...someone to pray for her, wash her in the word, look over her spiritually and work to her sanctification. But there is hint here of greater 'spiritual warfare' like benefits I can't even speak to. Does a husband provide a spiritual hedge of protection? I'd say so.
Though as I've implied above, a lack of father isn't an excuse, as in old times headship over her should pass to a male relative or other local spiritual authority.
