New Thoughts: (11/28/15-12/03/15)
For such a small portion of Scripture, there certainly is much to be considered here. Never mind that we are dealing with a particularly thorny topic, as Paul involves himself in the most intimate arrangements of life, and the most powerful emotions. We are also introduced to two terms which will come to be of great importance farther on in the letter: thelo and charisma, which I will briefly define as will and gift. But, as we shall see, both terms require more attention than that. As if this were not enough, there is also the question of whether verse 6 ought better to be understood as completing the thought of the first five verses, or as pointing forward to what follows.
I think that this is where we must begin, and the difficulty of that question can be seen in the way the more paraphrased translations answer it. For example, the Living Bible offers the verse as, “I'm not saying you must marry, but you certainly may if you wish.” This may seem like an effort to soften the passage, as it points us back to the preceding verses: “Let each have their own spouse”, to offer my own paraphrase. But, there is some support for this view, given that Paul found it needful to correct a rather too literal or too stringent interpretation of his words when he wrote to Corinth later. I cannot find the reference at present, but I recall having come across it earlier in this study series.
On the other hand, there is a certain parallelism between this section and the next. Here, we have what could be viewed as an introductory statement that what Paul offers is not a command, but a concession (or permission). In 1Co 7:10, we have a similar introductory clause: I give instruction from the Lord. That is to say, it is a command. Then, once again down in 1Co 7:25, there is an introductory disclaimer of sorts: I have no command from the Lord, but I do have an opinion. So, there is some structural or textual basis for supposing that Paul is prefacing the current topic with this idea of, ‘not a command, but a concession’.
Even there, I think we would have to question whether concession or permission better fits. I permit you to marry? I allow for the possibility of marriage as a concession? The latter would seem to present celibacy as the greater state, and marriage as something God only allowed because of our weakness. It would set the whole under a sense in keeping with the way Jesus addressed divorce. This wasn’t God’s plan. He made a very narrow allowance for your weakness. In my first reads of this letter, as I was seeking to discern the outline of Paul’s thoughts, that is certainly how I took the sense of this. “I’d love to see you all celibate like me! That would be great!” That seems to be the thought that carries the day for Paul, doesn’t it? I shall have to ask, in the proper place, whether such a sentiment could possibly be in keeping with the full context of Scripture, for whether Paul is speaking a command from God or offering his permission, it remains God’s Word, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such, it must remain consistent.
Let us consider another paraphrased rendering, this time from the Message. “I'm not, understand, commanding these periods of abstinence — only providing my best counsel if you should choose them.” This again points back to the preceding verses, but assumes a more specific reference to those periods of ceasing from sexual congress for the specific purpose of prayer. First off, that is a point that would certainly want some clarification, and if there’s one thing we know of Paul it’s that he is very skilled at recognizing where his meaning is likely to be taken wrong. So, having said that it was okay to pursue periods of celibate marriage – by agreement and for this one reason – he was by no means insisting that all married couples must pursue such times.
If, as may be assumed, the whole topic has arisen because some in the Corinthian church were promoting this celibacy within marriage as a point of spiritual superiority, how needful the corrective! You say this is how it should be, and to be sure, there’s great good in that state. BUT. Don’t push it so far that it becomes a beachhead for sin. Don’t be so ‘holy’ that you push your spouse to seek release by means clearly illicit. Marriage is there (in part) to satisfy this need in you both. If there is abstinence, let it be for a season only, and by mutual agreement only. Now, if we take verse 6 in this light, I am not telling you you MUST set aside such times. I’m telling you that would be acceptable.
As I have been looking at this section (and quite apart from the Message’s particular choice in translation) I am finding this view the more reasonable. In my own attempt to paraphrase Paul’s words, I arrive at this sense of the first two verses. “What I said regarding periods of abstinence in marriage is said as a concession to your interests, not as a command incumbent upon all, even though I could wish that everybody was able to do as I do. It is not so.”
Now: That is my present sense of the matter, and may well change by the time I finish writing. Before I can think to call it settled, I shall have to approach the two terms previously mentioned: thelo, and charisma. The latter, I shall likely reserve for chapters 12-14, as regards any truly in-depth explorations. But, thelo, though it also plays in those chapters, is worth serious consideration now.
The lexicons all seem to take notice of two terms that are commonly translated as to will. There is thelo, and there is boulomai. Vine’s actually notes a few others. Here, we are dealing with verbs, but a brief excursion into the related nouns won’t hurt. Thelema is used to speak of God’s will or design. I may also indicate desire. Boulema speaks of what is purposed. There are also eudokia, good will, well-please, and eunoia, of a good mind, also taken as good will. As verbs, Vine’s considers only future tense meanings apart from to will. Here, thelo expresses desire or possibly design. Thus, when reading 1Timothy 2:4, God willing that all men be saved expresses desire rather than decree. Boulomai, on the other hand, is taken to mean a deliberate exercise of volition.
Interestingly, both thelo and boulomai appear under the heading of ‘wish’, as well, together with euchomai. This last is more commonly rendered as to pray. The other two are noted as being translated as wishing in some particular verses, although the present section is not represented in that list. Under desire, thelo is indicates as implying determination, volition and purpose. Boulomai also makes an appearance, being described as stronger than thelo: A deliberate exercise of the will.
So far, so good. But, looking at what Zhodiates has to say, it seems he has the two meanings thoroughly reversed. For him, thelo is the will acted upon, and boulomai is the decision without necessarily including the action. Thus, God’s thelema MUST be done, and boule describes what He does Himself. His tendency is to assign to thelo the power of a purpose decided upon, more generally moved to action. Strong’s takes the distinction differently, identifying in thelo an active determination or preference, whereas boulomai is presented as more of a ‘passive acquiescence’. Then, of course, there’s Thayer. Thayer assigns resolve, purpose, and desire to thelo. It indicates preferences. As a Hebraism, it may even indicate delight or love (as in, I love to do this). Thayer appears to concur more with Vine in setting boulomai as the stronger, more deliberate will with thelo expressing inclination. He does, however, note that other theologians take the sense to be entirely reversed.
Referring to the Exegetical Dictionary of the NT, the following points arise. They note an array of nuances to the significance of willing. It may be the weaker sense of wishing (noting 1Co 4:21 – ‘What do you desire? Shall I come with the rod, or with gentleness?’), decision, or command. It may indicate that which one likes or loves, or what one wants. While the term may be used with God or Devil as the subject, it is most often used of man. It is noted that in the Gospels, the majority of usages apply to men being willing (wanting) to be healed, or in answering the invitation to discipleship. “The call to discipleship in the word of Jesus occurs as inquiry and invitation, not as a ‘must.’” John offers a much lessened perspective on the will of man in these matters, and both he and Mark stress the lordship of Christ by the fact that He has the capacity to act on His own will. In Paul’s letters, we find much more reference to the thelo of Christ, for he is clear that God acts on the human will where it accomplishes anything. At the same time, Paul expresses his wish, or desire on occasion (notably in this passage, and then in 1Co 14:18). Far more often, though, this desire concerns the knowledge of his readers, and the conduct of their lives.
Now, let us try Kittel’s. This text begins with a note regarding our two terms, commenting that one must recognize the period in which the writing takes place to properly assess the distinction as it would apply in that time. As concerns thelo, several shades of meaning are noted, ranging from to purpose or be resolved, to finding pleasure in, to being ready or inclined, to preferring or refusing. The first meaning to be assigned to the term is that of being ready, with possible indications of inclination. Thus, ‘to consent to’. Where inclination is involved, we may take it as ‘It pleases me’, or ‘it is agreeable to me’. In a slightly stronger sense, it may indicate one’s express desire, or wanting. Moving on, we come to intention, often expressed as wishing. It thus has the sense of a determined fixing of the will upon some action. It may even reach the state of being ‘on the verge of doing’, which boulomai cannot express. Purpose, intent or aim may be expressed. Or, it may indicate resolve, decision or choice: a decision weighed and made. Where God is the subject, thelo indicates commanding will; His sovereign rule. Here there is absolute definiteness. (They include 1Ti 2:4 under this point). God being free to do as He wills with what is His own, and being all-powerful, His will (thelo) must necessarily transpire.
In reference to Jesus, we find combined the sense of thelo as it applies to God, and that sense which applies to man, for in Jesus we have the God-man. The disciples clearly recognized this omnipotent power of will in Him. At the same time, we see occasions of His will being frustrated (Mk 7:24 – He wanted none to know He had entered the house, but He could not escape notice). This is a part of His humiliation and humanness. The tension between Christ’s will as a man and His will as Son of God can be seen in His Gethsemene prayer: Not what I will, but Your will be done (Mk 14:36, Mt 26:39).
Paul uses the term far more frequently, particularly to emphasize points of doctrine. He also uses it to express intention, and to express apostolic will in teaching or giving pastoral direction. It is thus an indication of ‘the weighty and authoritative discharge of office’ for him, always indicative of a resolute will on his part, even if this may be in the sense of wishing. Thelo often combines with action in Paul’s writing. Most recognizably, Philippians 2:13 speaks of God empowering the believer to will and to work. [The rest of the text appears focused on Romans 7.]
Moving to the article on boulomai, there is note of the argument regarding its distinction from thelo. The author notes two conflicting theories as to the originally intended distinction between our two terms. On the one hand there is the sense that thelo indicates impulse and desire whereas boulomai indicates rational, conscious decision: instinctual inclination versus deliberate resolve. Others reverse the sense, making of thelo a resolution of the spirit, and boulomai a desire of the soul. Looking at it historically, one finds the poets such as Homer demonstrate a preference for thelo, using it to cover most forms of volition, and reserving boulomai for indicating preference or choice. But, later writers like Herodotus tend to use boulomai more frequently. By the time of Plato, use of thelo has been almost completely reserved for indicating readiness or inclination. Come to the New Testament and the situation reverses yet again, with thelo the more frequently used term, and in modern Greek, this is even more the case.
If we would resolve how the NT authors saw the distinction, our best option is to consider Jewish usage of the period. In Greek rendering of the OT, thelo tends to be found where royal or divine will are involved, indicating it meant more than simple desire, although it often does take that sense, or that of being ready or inclined to act. Boulomai tends to appear where matters of purpose or intention are in view, even where that purpose is unrealized. Josephus tends to choose this term to express divine will, but also uses it to express opinion or intended meaning.
Looking more directly at the NT usage, boulomai is by far the rarer term, and even then, appears primarily in Acts. This could be a stylistic matter, the book of Acts being more in the style of the typical Greek prose authors. It tends to be found expressing the sense of desiring, wishing, or intending, although it can be found indicating matters of apostolic authority. However, its most important usage is found in emphasizing God’s will (in any of His Persons), whereby it is used to express His eternal purpose. We will find Paul utilizing this term to express the absolute control of the Spirit over the distribution of the charismata. They are assigned according to His Sovereign will.
Where does all this leave us? Returning to Kittel’s discussion of thelo, the first meaning to be assigned to the term is that of being ready, with possible indications of inclination. It moves on to having the sense of a determined fixing of the will upon some action. It may indicate resolve, decision or choice: a decision weighed and made. But, many of the same degrees of meaning are applicable to boulomai. The only meaning that appears strictly reserved to thelo is that of indicating imminent action on the decision of the will. That, I must say, certainly does not apply here.
Not surprisingly, I find it utterly beyond me to attempt some rigid distinction based on the material available. In fact, what we are presented with makes it pretty clear that any such attempt is invariably going to result in a false reading or false understanding of the author’s intent. If, for example, we take Paul as expressing his apostolic authority here, then we find him all but insisting that everybody should prefer celibacy over marriage. Yet, such a rendering must leave Paul standing opposed to God’s own order of creation, Who made them male and female, and Who set them forth as man and wife, to so bond one with the other as to be one flesh. This very point Paul has made reference to in the preceding discussion (1Co 6:16). It MUST be unthinkable that Paul, writing under the authority of the Holy Spirit, would state a doctrinal position utterly opposed to Moses, writing under the authority of that same Holy Spirit.
As such, to take Paul’s meaning as indicating that he has come to a binding, reasoned, conclusion of the will upon which he intends to take action can only hold insofar as it applies to himself. He may act upon the will in regard to his own comportment. But, it would be inappropriate to suppose he is expressing any intention to take action on this will in regard to his readers. To find that meaning, I think, one has to suppose his concession in verse 6 was pointing forward to this statement, rather than qualifying the matter of abstinence within marriage. That would seem a rather awkward construct, linguistically. Unless we suppose that Paul considers the whole matter of marriage a concession to spiritual weakness, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to suppose he counsels against it here. Add to this his counsel elsewhere that younger widows remarry. Add, also, the great mystery of marriage that he describes, whereby it is a living parable, if you will, of the relationship between Christ and His church. How can it be supposed, then, that he would reduce marriage to a concession to be avoided unless needful to compensate for one’s sinfulness?
I find it interesting that my other preparations this morning have been touching on the matter of marriage, as expressed in the early Protestant confessions. There, marriage is noted as being for purposes of ‘legitimate issue’ and ‘preventing of uncleanness’. Not surprisingly, our present passage makes an appearance in this regard. Were the authors of these confessions putting forward that these were the sole reasons for marriage? Looking at the beginning of the statement containing those two clauses, we find, “Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife.” Whether, then, the two aforementioned clauses are amplifications upon mutual help, or reasons in addition to that mutual help must be considered. For my part, I would see this as a list of three reasons God ordained marriage. It is not good for the man to be alone… This could not, at that stage, have been because of lust. There was not as yet a woman for Adam to have lusted after. It was more the matter of incompleteness, the need for intimate fellowship and communion. It was, in short, to more fully model the image of the Triune Godhead in mankind. They have eternal, intimate communion. Man, being made in His image, has need of the same. To render that both possible and holy, God created woman, and instituted marriage as the most holy safeguard within which to experience the vulnerability that comes of such intimate communion.
Paul arguing against that as a rule? Unthinkable! Does he find great benefit in being celibate? Absolutely. It leaves one free to pursue kingdom purposes without the conflicting loyalties that must arise from being married, however godly a spouse one has found. But, note that he immediately confines that benefit to those to whom the gift has been given. It is, as he indicates by this use of charisma, something that the Holy Spirit assigns to those to whom it is assigned. It is a capacity given by His will, His boulomai. It cannot be demanded of Him. It cannot be purchased from Him. It cannot be worked up by sheer force of will in man. It is either given, and therefore good, or it is not, and marriage is to be preferred. In short, both are good, and both require that gifting of the Spirit, if they are to be good.
This is where I find Paul landing on the subject. Hey! It would be great if everybody could be celibate and dedicate their lives to church planting without distraction. But, this is a gift imparted by the Spirit as He pleases. And, His pleasure is sometimes to impart the gift of marriage. Don’t pursue celibacy if it is not given to you. Far better for you to marry.
Let me very briefly note one use of that third term of wishing, euchomai. That term is more properly understood as indicating prayerful thought, thought it, like these terms for willing, may indicate a desired outcome. Thus, we have Paul, speaking to King Agrippa and those others holding court, “I would to God, that whether in a short or a long time, not only you, but all who hear me this day, might become as I am, except for these chains” (Ac 26:69). Would to God: I pray God might open your eyes and ears. How marvelous, King Agrippa, should you come to true and saving faith. How great it would be if all of you here today considering my case were so captured by Christ as to become His evangelists to the world!
I ask you: is that a stronger or a weaker desire than Paul is expressing here in regard to celibacy? I dare say the motive or purpose towards which his will is stretched is the same: that the Kingdom of God may grow and its citizens be that much more fruitful. But, I am inclined to hear his prayer for Agrippa as the stronger expression. Oh! That God would bring you to saving faith! After all, this is the desire for life to be brought bursting forth out of death. Celibacy? That’s just a force multiplier, if you will. It’s helpful for those who would be thus dedicated to the service of Christ, and it’s something He Himself commends. But, it’s not for everybody, and it’s not life and death.
Here, and in that other application of thelo in regard to prophecy, it cannot be supposed that Paul is insisting that all follow his lead. Indeed, given what he says here, he clearly recognizes that any such outcome, as much as he might find it preferable, is not in God’s plan or will, and I am unwilling to suppose that Paul was willing to insist upon his will in opposition to God’s will. God, through the Spirit, imparts His gifts to whom He will, and withholds them from whom He will. He has different gifts for different children because they have a different purpose in His kingdom, but all of these disparate purposes come of one Spirit, serve one God, and are given to edify, strengthen, and serve the whole body of Christ. We are designed to be interdependent – as in marriage, so in church. None of us has all that is needed. None of us is so equipped in Christ that we stand alone. That, we should understand, applies to Paul every bit as much as to individual believers today.
I do not wish to get too far ahead of myself here. I will reserve thorough exploration of the matter of the charismata for its appropriate place in later chapters. I shall also, so far as I am able, reserve final assay of their place, purpose, and distribution until that portion of the study. That said, the term has arisen in this context, and we ought to have some understanding of its significance, for it is, so far as Scripture is concerned, a term most peculiarly Pauline. Apart from his letters, one finds precisely one further occurrence, and that is when Peter writes to those churches Paul planted around Asia Minor.
[12/02/15] I have to say that on the matter of the charismata I have had rather lengthy, and somewhat heated discussion with someone who absolutely rejects the idea of translating the term as a gift in any sense. The argument is built on two primary points: that there exists in Greek another term that more correctly translates as gift, and that the ma (or plural mata) ending speaks of the effects or results of whatever root word is in view. Thus, grace being already the gift of God, what is in view, goes the theory, is the result of that preceding gift. From this builds an idea that every effect of the gift of grace is (or should be) available to every believer. That, I have to say, flies contrary to what Paul teaches here, in later sections, and indeed, consistently through all his epistles.
At the same time, the assessment of that ma ending is accurate enough. In the charismata, we are contemplating something that results from grace. Zhodiates, whom I should note has absolutely no use for supposing a present-day continuation of these things, defines them as undeserved benefits resulting from grace. That brings the ma into view. At the same time, I would note, his first definition is ‘a gift of grace’, and other lexicons seem perfectly happy to utilize the same terminology, as do pretty much any translation that I’ve looked at. Take, for example, the NLT translation of verse 7 – admittedly a paraphrased translation. “But God gives to some the gift of marriage, and to others the gift of singleness.” This is also a fairly consistent practice in translation, that the ‘of grace’ part is generally left to one side, such that one may have to hunt around a bit to discover that it is a charisma that is in view.
Now, if the charismata are the results or effects of grace, in what sense is this to be understood? Here, I think the way Paul constantly notes their distribution as being, shall we say, inconsistent, is the tell. “Each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.” What is Paul saying? We don’t all get the same effects, the same gifts. I don’t know that we need say that each has his own unique gift or set of gifts, but the implication is that nobody has them all. A simple example to make the point: It would be utterly impossible that a man had both the gift of celibacy and the gift of proper marital relations at one and the same time. Yes, perhaps for a brief season one may opt for a celibate marriage during a time of particularly intense prayer, but again: Concession, not command.
The fundamental concept Paul has is that of an extraordinary power or virtue, granted by God. Let me shift that just a bit, because the granting implies that it is something He has done in response to our request or demand. Let us instead say given – after all, the very idea of grace is that of something undeserved and undemanded. Let it further be recognized that these gifts, powers, or virtues as you may choose to call them, are such as do not operate under the management of man, but by the Holy Spirit. This is a valuable point to lay hold of. Let it be supposed that you have some particular, even spectacular gift of grace, that some marvelous effect of God’s grace is in action about your person. You aren’t doing it. You don’t command it. In some sense, you may have a degree of control over it, as we shall see later. But, you cannot drum up a charisma. You can’t work yourself into it. It is God working in and through you. It is the Holy Spirit’s power, and He remains the final arbiter.
As to this sense that the charismata, by very definition, already make reference to grace and are therefore not the gift, I wonder how that perspective would handle Romans 12:6, where Paul speaks of us having different ‘gifts according to grace’. The clause there is charismata kata teen charin. It would seem rather odd to think he wanted to say the effects of grace according to the grace. If these are the effects of grace, what else could they be according to? Rather, it seems he does indeed look upon them as gifts, as something really above and beyond grace.
I do not suggest that they are a second baptism or any such thing as that. But, let it be said this way: If all you had of God’s grace was the certainty of salvation with its implications of final sanctification, would that not be already more than sufficient? Would that not be already more than overflowing abundance of unmerited favor? I dare say it is. If that proved to be the sum-total of our experience of God’s grace, I cannot but think we would arrive in heaven utterly and eternally grateful for the magnanimous way of our Lord. But, we have these other things, these charismata, given as He pleases to whom He pleases and for such duration as He pleases. They are, it must be recognized, to be used as He pleases, for though they are given to us, they remain simultaneously His (for we are His). He has given the gift, the capacity, the virtue, and He has not done so that we may flaunt it, but that we might put it to use in service to the body more generally.
What we find in the Corinthian church is that these endowments are viewed as evidence of spiritual progress. They are made points of pride and cause of envy. As if a good gift of God ought ever to be the object of covetous behavior! Shall we have God’s good gift made a basis for sin? May it never be! There is a place, as we shall see, for earnestly desiring that He might choose to entrust us with more, but that is something far different than seeking them out as if they were some sort of merit badge.
That is in part what Paul is addressing here. The church has been so enamored of this charisma of celibacy that they have been pursuing the appearance of the gift even where the gift was neither given nor proper. They were (as with so much else) making the good to be an evil. Stick to the gift you are given. If you have been blessed with marriage, pursue it to God’s glory. If you have been handed the capacity for celibacy, use it for the kingdom, not for self-promotion. I don’t think, apart from this question having arisen, Paul would even bother mentioning his state. Why should he? Marriage is nothing. Celibacy is nothing. It’s about as valuable a distinction as Jew and Gentile, male and female, which is to say, of no value whatsoever.
Is this not yet another aspect of that contentment in God’s Providential appointing of your circumstance? Is it not the case that whatever God has entrusted you with, you should, as Peter instructs, employ that received gift (charisma) like a good steward of God’s grace (charitos), by using it to server each other. It’s not a merit badge. It’s a gift, an endowment, a trust fund to use for the kingdom.
Now, lest we elevate the idea of celibacy too highly, let us consider the wider discussion that Paul is presenting. Does he commend that state? Certainly: For those who are able. And, in this he concurs with Jesus who discussed the matter of those who ‘have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven’, saying, “Let those who are able accept this” (Mt 19:11-12). Now, one may question whether Jesus is urging acceptance of the state or simply of understanding. For my part, I think he applies it to the larger discussion in Matthew 19, which covers divorce as well as celibacy, just as Paul does here. I would note that where Jesus speaks of eunuchs, it comes in response to the reaction of His disciples to the teaching on divorce: “If this is how marriage is, it is better not to marry” (Mt 19:10). That being the case, there is certainly a sense in which He is applying the physical condition of the eunuch to the general condition of the celibate.
Back to Paul. As we proceed through this chapter, we will find him addressing not only the celibate, but also the married, and those with marriageable daughters. It is interesting that only in regard to those married does Paul lay on the full authority of Christ. To you married folks, I have clear command from the Lord: Do not separate, and if you do, remain single thereafter or else be reconciled to your husband (1Co 7:10-11). The same applies to the husband, as Paul makes clear. Remember what he has already said: You belong to each other. You are not your own. Elsewhere, in Ephesians, he speaks of the marriage relationship as one of mutual submission. So firmly does Paul hold to this point that even if coming to faith has meant that one of you is a believer and the other is not, still you remain married so far as it depends on you. If the unbelieving partner leaves, so be it. But you stay (1Co 7:12-16). Maybe you will convert your spouse in time. The sum of Paul’s message comes following this: “Let each one lead the life the Lord has given him” (1Co 7:17). This goes beyond marriage to encompass matters like circumcision and slavery, but he hasn’t left the main topic behind. “Whatever your condition when you were called, continue in it and be close to God” (1Co 7:24). “It is well for a person to remain as he or she is” (1Co 7:26).
From all of this we can draw a conclusion. While Paul may find benefit in being single in that it allows undivided focus on ministry, yet he cannot but uphold marriage as well. And marriage is not upheld as a concession to weakness, but as an opportunity to minister. That opportunity exists not only in ministering to one another, but also in ministering to one’s progeny. If we take in the message of Ephesians, it is also a wider opportunity to minister as a living parable of Christ’s devotion to His church, and the church’s devotion and submission to Him. That should be cause enough to rejoice in marriage! Look what you have been granted to model to the world. How wonderful! How marvelous! How utterly humbling, as we contemplate how often we muddy the lesson by our failures one towards another.
So, then, whereas celibacy has its place, so, too, does marriage. The rule is that there is no rule one way or the other. There are individual rules as the Spirit individually gifts us. We do not exalt marriage as the preferred or required state for all believers. Neither do we insist on celibacy for all. Never mind that such insistence would rapidly deplete the world of believers. It would simultaneously cause a rapid expansion in the population of sinners as those without the requisite Spirit-empowered gift of continence sought to live by their own strength and inevitably failed.
We have watched this play out amongst the clergy in those churches that insist upon a celibate priesthood. I think, too, we are seeing it play out in those societies which have found procreation to be too burdensome. Granted, such societies have not by and large sought celibacy as the alternative, but the result is much the same: A population dwindling and a society weakening.
Let me touch briefly on Paul’s “it is good”. This is not the upholding of celibacy as good such that marriage would be viewed as not good. The term he uses speaks more to beauty than to moral quality, although it can have some of that latter sense. It is harmonious with ministry, he says, to stay celibate if you are able. It is beautiful. It is useful – and that, I think, is the primary point. It’s not so much the beauty of celibate living as the usefulness of that state for ministry. Just think how much harder it would have been for Paul to do half of what he did had he needed to concern himself with the welfare of wife and children. Could he have thrown himself into the work of ministry as he did? Could he have taken to the road for years of church planting? In fairness, yes, he could. Peter did. Many missionaries do so. But, they cannot, and Peter could not, do so with such singular devotion. There are risks Paul could take that other Apostles could not. There are dangers he could face as a single man which a married man would have to consider far more carefully.
As he says, “Each has his own gift from God, one for this, one for that.” If there is one point to hold onto out of this section, that is it. Indeed, it is a thing to hold in mind in regard to all of the sanctified life. When it comes to ministry, this applies. Some are gifted to teach and should do so. Others are not so gifted, and ought not to do so. Some have a particular gift for hospitality and ought to put that to work for the building up of the saints in fellowship. Others do not, and probably shouldn’t try. Some have a particular penchant for prayer, and should follow that with all their hearts. Others, while they are certainly commanded to pray, probably shouldn’t try to keep up in this regard. Neither – and this is the larger point – should those with a particular gift suppose themselves therefore more advanced than their brethren, and neither should those without said gift be jealous of it. Be content in the calling God has given you. It is well to seek to be of greater use to Him, and there is nothing wrong with desiring more or greater gifts so as to be of greater use. But, to lust after them as status symbols and markers of spiritual prowess? No. But, there, I venture back into topics for a later study.
God has arranged your gifts, and they are perfect because He has arranged them. God has sovereignly chosen to withhold certain gifts from you. That, too, is perfect because He has thus ordained it. Oh! That we might hold onto that. It is a thought we will need to retain going forward, and it is the curative for so much that besets the child of God in this life. It is the guard against pride, and the guard against pride’s wounding. God has made me. God has equipped me. He has given me my purpose. That is not your purpose, nor is your purpose mine. He made us as individuals, and He wisely made us all sufficiently incomplete as to need one another. It is true in marriage. It is true in the larger body of the church. It is true in the even larger body of the Church Universal.
As to that closing line, “It is better to marry than to burn,” how shall we hear Paul? Is he that down on marriage that the only thing he could find worse is burning? No. He is talking about the natural tendency to burn with desire. There is a reason that sex sells. It is because the human nature, in its more animal-like aspects, hungers for sex. We are quite naturally attracted to the opposite sex, because they were designed to attract us. We know there’s something there that is for our good. In our fallen natures, we are inclined to pervert the good for the fleeting pleasures of sinful pursuits. But, we still sense the original good there. We want it, and we only want it the more where we can’t have it. There is, as every child knows seemingly from birth, something about the forbidden fruit that only serves to entice. It must be really good if they won’t let us have it.
For those who would live holy, life in this world of free sex of every sort, with everything from ice cream on up sexualized, sensualized, and practically insisting on capitulation, is a constant torment. We burn with the conflict of the desire for holiness and the more base desires. God provides the balm of marriage. Here is the place you were designed to satisfy those desires. Here is the place of safety in which to be so thoroughly exposed. Here is the good you seek in perfect order, and here alone. If that desire is in you, far better you should marry in godly fashion and have that beautiful outlet for your desire. The bride of your youth is a joy for all of life. The agony of celibacy, when that is not your gift, is extreme, and extremely powerful. If you think the flames of desire hold you in agony now, just consider those flames that await the one who succumbs to sexual temptations.
Such as do shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1Co 6:9-10). Then, sadly, they shall truly know the agony of burning – not with desire, but with the unquenchable flames of hell. Does that seem severe? It is! It is severe for a reason, because the offense of sin is severe, and that offense is ever against the eternal, perfectly holy God of heaven and earth. Against Him and Him alone have we sinned (Ps 51:4). It is ever thus. Shall we not, then, avail ourselves of that marvelous estate whereby He preserves us from that worse of temptations? Shall we not, with Job, make covenant with our eyes (Job 31:1), that we might do all within our power to shut off the constant flow of temptation that bombards not only our eyes, but all our senses? Let us do all that is within our power to see to it that our burning does not become so strong a temptation as leads to action. Oh, to be sure, the thought itself is already sufficiently sinful to condemn us, but we have a merciful God in heaven ready to forgive if we will but repent. Yet, I doubt not that such mercy does not extend to the willful and constant pursuit of that which God has forbidden. For, where is the repentance in constant pursuit? Avail yourself, then, of that which He has provided for your good, rejoice in the bride of your youth, and find your pleasure in her all your days – only in her. Be single or be single of mind.
