Marriage and Celibacy
To the unmarried
and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do. But if they cannot exercise self-control,
they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with
passion.
(1
Corinthians 7:8-9)
There are several reasons why celibacy was advocated in the New
Testament.
(1) In times of approaching persecution being married can increase
the pressure on believers.
I think that in
view of the impending distress it is as well for a person to remain as he
is. (1 Corinthians
7:26)
(2) A brother or sister who is unmarried may be able to devote his
or her energies in a more single-minded manner towards serving God.
I want you to be
free from anxieties. The unmarried man
is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly
affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious
about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about
worldly affairs, how to please her husband.
I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but
to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
(1
Corinthians 7:32-35)
This
should not be seen as a negative passage towards marriage, but as a positive encouragement
to those who are not married that their present state provides additional
opportunity for service to God. This
passage also indicates a move in the New Testament away from the idea that the
only suitable role for a woman is as a wife and a mother. It therefore stands against ancient society’s
norms where women were under the control of men, whether husbands, fathers or
other male guardians.
(3) Christian marriage expects a higher standard of faithfulness
and commitment in the relationship than exists among non-believers. The ideal
as presented by Jesus and reaffirmed in the rest of the New Testament is a
permanent, life-long relationship, as had been God’s intention from the
beginning (Matthew 19:4-6). Marriage, even among Jews, was frequently regarded
lightly and women were treated unfairly.
Wives could be divorced for the most trivial reasons and under rabbinic
law a woman who was sterile had to be
divorced.
The object of
marriage was the procreation of children; and if after ten years a couple were
still childless divorce was compulsory.
In this case the woman might remarry, but the same regulation governed
the second marriage. (William Barclay, Daily Study Bible on Matthew 19)
Jesus,
by opposing divorce and aiming at the ideal, elevated the position of married
women. They were no longer to be treated as objects or as pieces of property
possessed by men.
Jesus’ high standards astonished the disciples and they questioned
whether celibacy was the answer.
The disciples said
to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to
marry.” But he said to them, “Not all men can receive this precept, but only
those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth,
and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs
who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him
receive it.” (Matthew
19:10-12)
Jesus’ reply in verse 11 seems to mean that only his followers are
given the ability to follow his high standards. As regards celibacy, Jesus
listed three instances where it was applicable.
(a) Those born incapable of marriage.
(b) Men who had been castrated according to eastern practice.
(c) Those who had decided not to get married (like Jesus himself)
so as to be able to serve God without marital ties. This last category is the
same as (2) above.
The relevant principles are service to God in whatever way is most
applicable to each individual in his or her own particular circumstances. Some
can best serve God by not being married, others by being married. Although Paul from his own personal
experience advocated celibacy, his attitude to marriage was very positive. Like
Jesus he elevated the position of wives in a manner which had been lacking in
the Jewish and pagan worlds.
The husband should
give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For
the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his
own body, but the wife does. Do not refuse one another except perhaps by
agreement for a season, that you may devote yourselves to prayer....
(1
Corinthians 7:3-5)
Christian
marriage was not to be a matter of one partner dominating over the other but a
relationship which worked by agreement in which each showed consideration for
the other.
Be subject to one
another out of reverence for Christ.
(Ephesians 5:21)
Ephesians
5:21-33 is often read at weddings, and appropriately so, because of what it
says about the reciprocal nature of Christian marriage. But how reciprocal is
it? Different terminology is used in the instructions to the husband compared
with those to the wife. Though brothers and sisters in general are told in
Ephesians 5:21 to “be subject to one another”, wives are told to “be subject”
to their husbands “in everything” “as to the Lord” and to “respect” their
husbands, while husbands are told to “love” their wives “as their own bodies”
“as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her”. The husband is
described as the “head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his
body, and is himself its Saviour”. Considerably more space is devoted to how
husbands should treat their wives than vice-versa, which suggests a need to redress
the male chauvinism of the pagan world where wives were only to produce
children and run the household and were not treated as proper companions. By
contrast, the Christian ideal was that “the two shall become one” (Ephesians
5:31).
Secular laws varied in time and place but in general the husband
was head of the wife in an absolute manner.
She was his property and he could do whatever he liked with her. He could tell her what to do and she had to
obey. Aristotle (384-322 BC), who
strongly influenced church thinking in centuries subsequent to the apostle
Paul, said that the man’s proper qualities were to command, the woman’s proper
qualities were to accept orders.
... tame animals
are superior in their nature to wild animals .... Also, as between the sexes, the male is by
nature superior and the female inferior, the male ruler and the female subject.
(Aristotle, Politics 1254b, 1260a)
When,
however, the husband is described as the head of the wife in the New Testament,
a completely different kind of headship is envisaged.
For the husband is
the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is
himself its Saviour.... Husbands, love
your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.... (Ephesians 5:23, 25)
Christ
became head of the church by giving himself up for it, that is by being a
servant even to death:
And being found in
human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a
cross. (Philippians
2:8)
And he said to
them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called
benefactors. But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as
the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.... ... I am among you as one
who serves.”
(Luke
22:25-27)
Paul in Ephesians, therefore, is not saying that the husband
should be the head of the wife in the sense that he always or exclusively takes
the lead or tells her what to do, but the reverse! He is saying the husband should do all he can
to care for her, to serve her and to see to her needs. In Colossians 2:19
Christ is described as “the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit
together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from
God.” Paul in Ephesians 5, therefore,
transforms the conventional understanding of male dominance. Husbands are to dedicate themselves to the
nourishment of their wives just as Jesus does for the ecclesia. Influenced by Aristotle and by pagan society,
many interpreters have assumed that Paul was simply endorsing commonly accepted
attitudes. A careful examination shows
that Paul means the opposite. He
approaches very closely to a mutual relationship where husbands and wives work
together as a unity. If the husband
really loves and cares for his wife, he will not attempt to tell her what to
do. They will consult one another, planning things out together, each serving
the other to the utmost. Headship is
therefore a position of service, of being an example of Christlike behaviour,
as indicated also by the comment that “husbands should love their wives as
their own bodies” (verse 28). A husband who so loves his wife will seek to do
the best he can for her, to attend to all her needs and concerns. Christian love (agape) means submitting to one another, being subject to one
another, not acting selfishly but looking to the interest and needs of the
other. The same is meant when wives are
told to submit to their husbands in everything. Submitting in this sense
equates closely to the word “love”. All
believers are told to do this to each other (verse 21). When wives are told to submit or be subject
to their husbands in everything, Paul is instructing them to a positive
attitude of service to their husbands.
It is notable that Paul does not instruct husbands to rule their
wives; he does not describe the husband
as “master” of the wife; nor does he
tell wives to obey their husbands. He
reserves the word “obey” (hypakouo)
for children to parents and slaves to masters. The practical outcome of this teaching is
effective equality, despite the slightly different manner in which it is
described. Compared to the standards of
the ancient world (and indeed compared to the standards prevalent in the modern
world) Paul’s teaching is revolutionary in its reciprocity.
The principle, therefore, is of service to one another, service in
which the needs and cares of each individual are fully understood and catered
for by one another. It is worth noting
that in Ephesians 5:21-33 Paul did not lay down a specific role for the husband
and another specific role for the wife, nor was he prescribing roles
distinguishing brothers from sisters within the ecclesia. The New Testament does not make such distinctions:
... be filled with
the Spirit, addressing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,
singing and making melody to the Lord with all your heart, always and for
everything giving thanks.... (Ephesians 5:18-20)
Of
course different roles occur in marriage and in the ecclesia. Marriage roles
(who does what) are worked out by each couple according to ability, inclination
and personal circumstances. Similarly in
the New Testament according to passages like Romans 12, the different roles within
the ecclesia were apportioned not on the basis of male or female but “according
to the grace given to us” (Romans 12:6). In modern terms this means that we are
to use our God-given talents according to ability.
