Single By Circumstance | Boundless Line

Single By Circumstance
by Motte Brown on 02/05/2007 at 2:50 PM

We get an occasional letter or two from our readers questioning Boundless's view of singleness. I responded to someone recently who was in a "rage" about it. Some of them -- mainly women -- are frustrated with our perceived "singleness is bad" message because they sincerely desire to be married but have yet to find it for various reasons. For these individuals, here's a segment of our interview with Pastor Michael Lawrence from Boundless's "Sex and the Single Guy" which may, I hope, dispell the inconceivably held myth that we are anti-single.

To single women who find themselves single but don't particularly feel called to be single and don't particularly want to remain single: I would send them not the 1 Corinthians 7 -- because I think Paul really is talking about a unique gift and calling there -- I would send them to 1 Peter 4, where I think the word gift is being used in a slightly different way. Peter says in 1 Peter Chapter 4 beginning verse 8, "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins. Offer hospitality to one another without grumbling. Each one should use whatever gift he has received to serve others, faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms. If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides, so that in all things God may be praised through Jesus Christ." I think some women may have been given a gift that we should not understand as this particular calling of celibacy, but rather simply the gift of the circumstance that they are in. And it may not be a gift that they particularly wanted, and I don't know that we should think of it as necessarily something they are going to have for the whole of their lives. But 1 Peter 4 and that sense of whatever circumstance you are in, whatever situation, whatever opportunities you have, whatever gifts you have at that particular moment -- don't grumble about them, use them.

We need to be careful here because being content with this gift -- not to be confused with the gift of celibacy -- and being marriage minded are not mutually exclusive pursuits. If you are single and haven't been called to celibacy, you should both seek contentment with your present circumstance while being hopeful and preparing for marriage. And since men are to pursue and women respond, this preparation is gender specific.

Generally speaking, young men should seek spiritual and economic maturity sufficient for leading and providing for a family; they should actively pursue marriage in the present and not view it as something far off in the future. For young women, this means behaving modestly, making wise decisions about education and career, and relating to men in a way that encourages their pursuit of wives, not buddies or girlfriends.

So for clarification purposes, our message is not "singleness is bad." It's that "singleness as an intentional lifestyle alternative to marriage preparation and outside of the calling of celibate service is not biblical." I hope this helps.

Being Single | Mail This | Share on Facebook

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

1. Rosalie said the following at 3:44 PM on Feb 5:

Thank you for this post.

I find for myself it can be hard to find the balance of being content where God had put you now, trusting that He is in control of things beyond your control and being intentional about where you would like to be in the near future. It is easy to swing too far in either direction.

-Peace in Christ, Rosalie

2. John said the following at 4:11 PM on Feb 5:

"singleness as an intentional lifestyle alternative to marriage preparation and outside of the calling of celibate service is not biblical."

Fair enough, but as a long-term single sometimes it's hard to distinguish between "intentional" singleness and simply not being married. I didn't intentionally set out to be single. It just seems to be the default mode, year in and year out.

3. ptschett said the following at 4:39 PM on Feb 5:

I think a lot of us single men who wish to be married but aren't are asking "what does actively pursuing marriage look like" about now. It's not a question I worried about much when I was in college (where odds were that, each semester, I would meet at least one woman that I ended up wanting to pursue) but since then I've gone 3 years in the workforce without meeting any women who weren't dating, engaged, married or otherwise not pursue-able.

4. Marisa said the following at 5:35 PM on Feb 5:

Being single at present, I like the idea that the gift of singleness, though 'given' by God at one point, is not necessarily permanent. In the interim time in which I have found myself, I have decided to work on developing the qualities in Titus 2 by being mentored by an older, godly woman. I want to use this time to prepare for being a wife and mother.

As Rosalie wrote, it's hard to balance contentment and intentionality. But contentment does not equal passivity! There are things we as women can do to prepare for our hoped-for future (marriage and motherhood), without traipsing beyond God's design for us.

5. Jennifer said the following at 7:04 PM on Feb 5:

I appreciate these thoughts, but it seems awfully misguided to use 1 Peter 4:8 to give a few last gasping breaths to the dying "gift of singleness". Let's be honest: this term is entirely man-made and had no business being in so many modern Bible versions of 1 Cor 7:7 in the first place. Besides, in the original Greek, the word "gift" in 1 Peter 4 (it's in verse 10)is not used to mean "gift of the circumstance that they are in", it's about talents and spiritual gifts. Please, let's not start another chain of exegetical misconceptions here!

As for the contentment issue, I think Debbie Maken put it best in her blog when she wrote:

"When Paul is talking about contentment, he is saying that he has an object for his contentment, that is, the Lord. He finds his contentment in the Lord, not in his circumstances, whether he is rich or poor, well fed or hungry. It is entirely possible to be content in the Lord yet find your circumstances are less than desirable. Just like a person who is wrongly imprisoned need not marvel at bread and water in jail, I do not think that those who are single need extol its greatness or pretend that it is inconsequential just to prove that they are somehow 'content.'"

To this I might add that it's also entirely possible to be content in your circumstances without calling them "a gift". The Bible does not call disease, injury, and alienation "gifts", although it speaks in many instances of God revealing His glory to the faithful in those kinds circumstances, thus praise be to Him (NOT NECESSARILY THE CIRCUMSTANCES, the ordination of which remaining always a mystery).

6. lzim said the following at 7:07 PM on Feb 5:

Thanks for writing this!
I am a long time boundless reader, and I have often struggled with all of this!

It is so important to clarify ... I am single, and I deeply desire to be married, but at the same time as I am pursuing that, I am still content, and finding joy in the place where I am.

Sometimes the frustrations of being single when we desire to be married, allows us to be more sensitive to people telling us "it's our 'fault' that we are single, because we think of singleness as a gift."

I do see singleness as a gift, not a gift that I desire forever, but a time in my life when I am able to devote much of my time, and resources to ministry...

7. Leah said the following at 7:11 PM on Feb 5:

ptschett- have a look through Boundless' archives. Pursuing marriage is addressed many times.

8. kendra said the following at 7:55 PM on Feb 5:

Let me preface this by saying that I am single, by default, not by choice. There are times that I am happy and times I am not. There are times that I look to God to fill me up and times that I do not. And lately, being single has been hard ... really hard.

It seems to me, though, that we all put way too much stock in trying to find an answer, a simple answer, a legal answer ... a reason to why we remain alone when we feel the longing for companionship so sharply. Isn't the answer always going to be "God's Plan?" Aren't we expending a lot of energy into the "why" of the question?

I think I'm single because it is what God has for me right now. I think I could easily be married or enfianced if I bent my morals, compromised my integrity or looked outside of my faith.

But I'm not.
And I won't.
And I shan't.
... and so I am single; until God moves otherwise.

Today, I'm OK with that. Tomorrow I might not be. Regardless of my emotions, the answer is always the same, yes?

9. debbie maken said the following at 8:57 PM on Feb 5:

Motte,

Your address to the "mainly women" who complain of Boundless' perceived position that "singleness is bad," makes me wonder what exactly these women want to hear.

On a radio interview I was asked about women who "felt bad" because I suggested that singleness in general has no biblical legitimacy. I responded, "If we had a discussion to suggest that nutrition is superior to starvation, would we have to soothe the ruffled feathers of every Ethiopian before going forward." Really, would we be required to say, "I know it's not your fault dear Ethiopian that you are so emaciated, it certainly wasn't your intention, I know this just happened to you by default?"

Historically, society has always viewed singleness as wayward. In fact, virtually all of your blog commentators suggest that it is a state they put up with rather than relish, and then go on to articulate some vain rationalization for an explanation. What many of these angered women seek to hear, i.e. a false validation of a wayward state, is ultimately going to be their downfall. They have every pocket of Christianity including most pulpits today that will go out of their way to make sure that singleness as the status quo is not challenged. And guess what else-- most of them aren't married either. See bad idea, see bad unwanted consequence. I think these "rage[d]" women should thank their lucky stars for those who have reintroduced the idea that there is nothing glorious about singleness per se, and that it is in fact, bad/sinful behavior for those who are intentionally single without the proper biblical warrant. This "singleness is bad" idea causes men to take the leadership to pursue women for marriage in a timely fashion, whereby women can enjoy the warm benefits of marriage as opposed to the cold comfort of flattery.

We simply cannot allow how an idea makes us "feel" cloud our search for the truth in this area.

Debbie Maken

10. ag said the following at 9:49 PM on Feb 5:

I am highly suspicious of the view that a single lifestyle, is per se unbiblical. Based on the endless number of books, cd's and seminars centered around marriage and offerred for purchase by FOF, it seems quite self serving for Boundless and FOF to basically condemn many singles and assert that marriage is absolutely necesarry for most Christians. It is better to emphasize that sex outside marriage is the sin, and a person does not sin simply based on their marital status.

11. Leah said the following at 11:28 PM on Feb 5:

ag, Boundless and FOF have not condemned singles. And this is coming from a girl who believes they do put a bit too much emphasis on the whole "Find yourself a spouse" thing. You've (probably unintentionally) twisted a lot of their words. As I said, they never condemned singles. They never said the single lifestyle was unbiblical. (They simply said an *intentionally* single lifestyle is unbiblical, UNLESS you have the gift of celibacy, which is rare).

FOF's marriage oriented merchandise stems from their support of finding yourself a spouse, not vice versa. I think you'll find that even if you took FOF's merchandise off the market, there would still be a huge array of literature encouraging people to get married.

12. sarah said the following at 12:54 AM on Feb 6:

I'm still a bit confused about the perspective Boundless takes on marriage. I am single, and I like being single. At this point, I don't have an intention to marry, simply because I enjoy my singleness. Based on your views, would you say this isn't Biblical?

13. Anna said the following at 6:49 AM on Feb 6:

Kendra,
Thank you so much for your comments. They add some perspective that all of us should keep more fully in mind. Its so easy to forget at times... There is a God, and His will is perfect, and He is faithful.

14. Mike Theemling said the following at 8:24 AM on Feb 6:

Sarah,

I don't know your exact situation, so I'll simply respond in more general terms.

Boundless over the years has argued that marrying later rather than sooner and marrying not at all simply because one "doesn't feel like it" (rather than a specific calling) overall isn't a good thing. The term "bad" or even "Biblical" does not necessarily mean "sinful". Perhaps more accurately it should be defined as "not the ideal".

If we consider the following facts:
- In Western countries (including the U.S.) men and women marry later in life on average than they time before
- Cohabitation is also higher than ever before
- Sexual activity, illegitimacy, and single parent households are still rampant and big problems

One sees here that a society that does not view marriage as important helps contribute to these problems. For example with cohabitation, people want the perks of marriage (sex, companionship, etc) but none of the commitment. So on the surface, even realizing that marriage itself is not a silver bullet to all these problems that one can see that the effects of delayed or renunciation of marriage on a widespread scale is not positive.

Also consider this fact: Just about every young man and woman eventually would like to find someone to share their lives with. I have met VERY few people who unequivocately stated that they have no desire to nor ever intend to marry. These are the people I would say are given the "gift of celibacy". There is no internal struggle. But those are a vast minority. Maybe you are one of them Sarah. But realize that most are not.

The problem though is that those that do want marriage "hold out" for a variety of reasons. Waiting for the "perfect" person (the soulmate mentality), wanting to have a career first, etc. The Church isn't helping things out either. They want you to "focus on God", "not worry about it", etc. There are elements of truth here, but it is generally agreed that the Church is not involved at all (at times discouraging even) in helping young people find mates.

As a result of all of this, we end up with more never married singles in their 20's and 30's than ever before. Is this a good thing? For some individuals, perhaps. But in general, I'd argue it is not. Maybe not "sinful", but certainly not ideal. And as Debbie Maken and others have said, rather than recognize this as a problem that needs remedy the Christian community has opted instead to try and justify the situation preaching to singles that they should not "seek a spouse" whether they want to stay single or not.

Finally, who is blame for someone being single not by choice? I believe that we all share some of the blame. The Church for not making it more of an issue, our society for saying that you can enjoy marriage perks without the commitment, and ourselves for putting it off intentionally or being too picky.

I know FoF or Boundless aren't saying "marry now or you are sinning" nor are they suggesting that you marry without discernment. What they are saying is that unless you know that marriage (the desire of) will never be a part of your life, you ought to seriously put effort into making it happen and do it sooner rather than later (there is no magic age).

15. Justin said the following at 9:09 AM on Feb 6:

Boundless seems to argue that it is unbiblical to be single and also be happy and content with being single. You have to want to get married immediately. If you're single and you want to get married in 10 years, then you're sinning.

This claim is of course ridiculous and unbiblical in itself.

16. Motte said the following at 9:30 AM on Feb 6:

To ag, Sarah, and Justin:

Dr. Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, puts it better than I can:

"Singleness is not a sin, but deliberate singleness on the part of those who know they have not been given the gift of celibacy is, at best, a neglect of a Christian responsibility. The problem may be simple sloth, personal immaturity, a fear of commitment, or an unbalanced priority given to work and profession. On the part of men, it may also take the shape of a refusal to grow up and take the lead in courtship. There are countless Christian women who are prayerfully waiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What are these guys waiting for?

The delay of marriage has caused any number of ills in the larger society, and in the church. Honesty compels us to admit that this is indeed tied to levels of sexual promiscuity and frustration, even as it means that many persons are now marrying well into their adult years, missing the opportunity of growing together as a young couple, and putting parenthood potentially at risk."

You can read more here -- Reflecting on the "Mystery of Marriage"

17. Raj Sharma said the following at 10:00 AM on Feb 6:

Ted,

Take a look at this. The link is on Drudge Report.

Wash. initiative would require married couples to have kids

02:34 PM PST on Monday, February 5, 2007

KING5.com Staff and Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. - An initiative filed by proponents of same-sex marriage would require heterosexual couples to have kids within three years or else have their marriage annulled.

Initiative 957 was filed by the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance. That group was formed last summer after the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's ban on same-sex marriage.

Under the initiative, marriage would be limited to men and women who are able to have children. Couples would be required to prove they can have children in order to get a marriage license, and if they did not have children within three years, their marriage would be subject to annulment.

All other marriages would be defined as "unrecognized" and people in those marriages would be ineligible to receive any marriage benefits.

“For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation ... The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. “If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who cannot or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage."

Supporters must gather more than 224,000 valid signatures by July 6 to put the initiative on the November ballot.

Opponents say the measure is another attack on traditional marriage, but supporters say the move is needed to have a discussion on the high court ruling.

18. sarah said the following at 10:04 AM on Feb 6:

Thanks for clarifying -- I understand the position FOF is coming from now.

19. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:06 AM on Feb 6:

Correction to my above post: Should read "bad" or "un-Biblical" does not necessarily mean "sinful".

20. Mike Theemling said the following at 10:27 AM on Feb 6:

"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation"

Actually this is an untrue statement. Marriage exists with procreation as one of its main purposes and functions yes, but it is not its sole purpose.

Another purpose of marriage is companionship. But same-sex marriage proponents would of course state that that is all they are trying to accomplish as well. However, there is one thing that same-sex couples cannot provide which is another purpose of marriage: Raising children with a father AND mother. Most would agree that even though a single parent household (or perhaps even same-sex household) would be adequate for raising children, the ideal would be a father-mother nuclear family environment. Of course same-sex couples would argue this is not the case but many psychologists (including Dr. Dobson of course) would disagree.

This argument is why it would be perfectly acceptable for sterile heterosexual couples to marry and adpot and not allow it for homosexual couples. Plus there is also the simple Biblical condemnation of homosexual acts, but understand that does not resonate with everyone.

21. ptschett said the following at 11:37 AM on Feb 6:

There are countless Christian women who are prayerfully waiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What are these guys waiting for?

In my case, opportunities for meeting someone. When you're in one of those top-10 most-unbalanced-singles-population states it's kind of hard.

22. April A. LaLande said the following at 11:47 AM on Feb 6:

As I serve my Lord, I find fulfillment. I live with my family, so although I am single, I am not alone. Old books, walking, classical music, devising surprises, traveling to ancient-yet-modern cities, cradling a sleeping baby, and special candlelit meals give me much great pleasure. Things like a warm day in February, my littlest brother's adorable grin, pizza night, used book sales, and our black cat streaking across the yard fill me with crazy delight. My life is good. I am content.

Why, then, is there a longing deep within my heart? Why, then, this desire for more? Is it possible that there is even more joy in life than this?

It is the suspicion that there IS that makes me go through each day with an ever-increasing sense of anticipation. I find deep satisfaction in serving God. But He has put into me another special desire. As long as I am single, I cannot know the fulfillment of giving myself to another. Although I am not alone, there is a quiet sort of loneliness in my heart that can only be filled by one person. Could it be possible that sharing the things that give me such pleasure would increase that pleasure more? I think so. Is there someone someday who will fill me with crazy delight? I think so!

If this earth was enough to satisfy us, why is God going to create a new heavens and a new earth? If being single is enough to satisfy us, why did He create marriage?

23. John said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 6:

"There are countless Christian women who are prayerfully waiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What are these guys waiting for?"

In my case, opportunities for meeting someone.

And not just anyone, either. I don't think Dr. Mohler expects us to marry the nearest warm body just for the sake of being married by 25, 30, or 35.

24. Mike Theemling said the following at 12:18 PM on Feb 6:

"There are countless Christian women who are prayerfully waiting for Christian men to grow up and take the lead. What are these guys waiting for?"

I'm waiting for a reverse in the trend where 95+% of all women I initiate contact with either ignore me or outright turn me down (and that isn't an exaggeration either).

25. jess said the following at 1:01 PM on Feb 6:

Mike,

Have you ever considered that you're initiating contact with the wrong women?

Have you also considered what you're saying when you're approaching these women?

Have you considered where you're approaching these women?

26. Mark said the following at 1:03 PM on Feb 6:

At the risk of sounding a little desperate and, perhaps, out of line, I once responded to a similar posting on Dr. Mohler's website asking him for the names and phone numbers of any of these women. I'm still waiting for a response.

I think his mentioning women waiting to get married is just a case of the "squeaky wheel getting the grease." Guys tend not to verbalize these desires lest we look like wusses.

27. Justin said the following at 1:08 PM on Feb 6:

"The problem may be simple sloth, personal immaturity, a fear of commitment, or an unbalanced priority given to work and profession."

This is a ridiculous statement and completely without Biblical Support. People stay single for a variety of reasons, but primarily just because they simply enjoy being single.

By supporting this type of belief, Boundless is losing influence with Christian young people.

28. Elena said the following at 1:15 PM on Feb 6:

A man's 95% success rate of initiating dates and being taken up on the offer, doesn't guarantee his success with me. And a 95% failure rate doesn't guarantee his failure with me either.

If I accept or reject a man's initiation of a date, I am not acting as an ambassador from Womanland to pronounce a judgment on the man's worth. I am sending a message about his suitability for me, based on what I know of him and of myself at the time.

I sorta get the idea of feeling like an overall failure in the area of romance (which is what I sense from the guys who lament their "low" success rates), although I obviously can't know what it feels like as a man to view oneself that way. I used to think no man would ever want me. But by what had to be a miracle of God, I no longer think that way. (Well, it's no longer the predominant mindset.) I believe that however many are in the set of men, there is a set of men who not only would want to marry me but also would be found to be compatible/suitable/desirable by me. Ya know, the area where two circles overlap in a Venn diagram.

So... each man has to keep believing that there is a number of women who are compatible and who will say yes to a date...that there is a subset of women from that set who are more likely to accept a marriage proposal from that particular man. Find a male friend who will encourage you and exhort you to keep believing! (I like Capitol Hill Baptist's urging to men: Initiate even though you do not know how the woman will respond. Take a risk! Keep taking risks!)

And really...after a man is married, does it really matter whether his success rate of "date initiation acceptance" before marriage, was 5%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 95%? What matters is finding a good wife and making a good marriage and forging a Christ-honoring legacy. Yes? :o)

29. jessica said the following at 1:20 PM on Feb 6:

Mark, I think that list is so long that it would have to be sent periodically over the next 10 years...

plus, it's not a matter of meeting "these woman", it's a matter of meeting the one that God presents in your path. It's your choice to go for it.

and what kind of standards are u judging these women by? could it be that your standards are too shallow, therefore you keep dealing or approaching women not on the same level (and i don't mean better or less than)---I just mean where they're going as far as where God's taking them in every area of their life....

30. Mark said the following at 1:55 PM on Feb 6:

Elena,
What you're saying is that the probability of you're acceptance of a date offer from a guy is independent of his previous success rate or "past performance does not predict future results." Sounds good.

But...how much area needs to overlap in the Venn diagram for a union, if you will, to occur? At this point it's no longer a matter of percent acceptance or failure. It's the binary nature of the situation that causes frustration. From my perspective, I operate in ones and zeroes, and all I have are zeroes. The "one" is elusive.

By the way, are some sort of statistician or mathematician?

31. xeres said the following at 1:55 PM on Feb 6:

The reality is that most people aren't meant for celibacy at all. Plus, while celibate people are single, single people often aren't celibate. One of the things Boundless can do is to have more articles dealing with celibacy and its qualifications if I may say. Are all single people willing to be celibate for the rest of their lives? Can anyone up here see themselves celibate? I wonder if I can. As much my experience as a single woman had been most teachable, staying single because my lifestyle won't be cramped or that I don't have to care for anyone or out of relationship insecurities are not good reasons to be celibate. Plus, OUR identities lie in Christ alone, not in our martial status, position in the workplace, or domesicity. Some of the commentors seem to forgotten this. If we love the gifts more the giver, which is God, then we are not worthy of being His disciples. Plain and simple

32. Jennifer said the following at 1:59 PM on Feb 6:

Elena, I think you make some very good points. One thing I think a lot of guys forget is that men reject by not asking, and women reject after they have been asked. If most guys are honest with themselves, they'd have to admit that the rates at which they are not asking is probably at par with the female "no thanks" rate.

Justin,

By admitting that "People stay single for a variety of reasons, but primarily just because they simply enjoy being single", you're actually strengthening the point that the Boundless folks are trying to make: which is that too many people are making their marital decisions (and non-decisions) from the place of what's enjoyable, which is how single peopel get a bad rap for being "selfish". They are trying to make a case for pursuing marriage, not only for your own enjoyment, but for the sake of the church body.

33. Jay said the following at 2:16 PM on Feb 6:

There's quite a bit of talk going around that the "gift" of singleness has no Biblical basis. Here is a biblical argument for staying single:

Corinthians 7:32-35
32 I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35 I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.

However, as I believe Boundless is trying to say: You can't have sex or "shack up" with someone as a single and be in obedience to God.

Under such conditions, singleness is not more or less valuable than being married. Any cultural wars on marriage or family are irrelevant.

God alone will lead you to a life of celibate singleness or marriage.

34. Mike Theemling said the following at 2:28 PM on Feb 6:

Jennifer,

Actually, regarding rejection rates it's not quite that simple comparing the two. With guys the rate is dependent on the number of girls they ask. But according to your definition with girls, it's based on the pool of guys there, regardless of whether the girls are interested in them or not which in my opinion is not an accurate gauge.

It would be more accurate to describe a woman's rejection rate in terms of guys she is interested in but he fails to ask her out. I doubt that a girl would count someone she is NOT attracted to failing to ask her out as a "rejection".

For example say you had a single group of 20 males, 20 females. And let's say that for the sake of argument that one guy asks 5 girls and 1 accepts his request for a date while 4 reject him. His rejection rate is 80%.

For a woman in that group to have the same "rejection rate" she would have to be asked by 4 different guys (16 didn't bother asking her out of the 20). Doesn't sound too bad. But that's assuming she's interested in all 20 guys which is most likely not the case.

Let's change the picture. If you now had a pool of 100 men and 100 women. Let's say a guy asked 5 girls and only 1 accepted. His rejection rate is still 80%. However, for a woman to have the same rejection rate, 20 different guys would have to ask her out and she'd have to be interested in all 100 of them. I just don't see either of those things happening (if 20 guys out of 100 are asking her out she's probably supermodel material). It will almost always be skewed to where a girl is rejected more if you use your criteria of defining a rejection.

35. BDB said the following at 2:36 PM on Feb 6:

I laughed the other day when I came upon 1 Corinthians 7:27:

"Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

It doesn't seem to be trendy to quote that one ... I wonder if anyone has tried to build a theology on it...

(For the record, I would encourage reading the entire Epistle, not just one verse!)

36. Jennifer said the following at 2:40 PM on Feb 6:

Mike,

What you did here, was beautifully, eloquently, numerically prove my point!

37. Elena said the following at 3:45 PM on Feb 6:

Mike: Stats of how many date offerings have been accepted and how many have been rejected are interesting; but they do not tell the entire story of who Mike is, what he offers a woman, and what God's doing over the course of Mike's entire life.

Mark:
But ... how much area needs to overlap in the Venn diagram for a union, if you will, to occur? At this point it's no longer a matter of percent acceptance or failure. It's the binary nature of the situation that causes frustration. From my perspective, I operate in ones and zeroes, and all I have are zeroes. The "one" is elusive.

By the way, are some sort of statistician or mathematician?
Nope, not a mathematician or statistician. A poet. We really like metaphors! :o) And in this case, the metaphor does break down. The compatibility possibility is a new thing with each guy -- just because this guy has some of the same traits as the last guy doesn't mean that those traits are put together in the same way. And ... I learn things about myself and about relationships, and by the time I meet that next guy, my priorities probably have shifted slightly. It's not like the science of chemistry ... it's not like I'm sodium and I need to find a chlorine atom so that we can be NaCl. The "mix" is a new thing every time. Kinda like every time God creates a baby, that human is a unique being. Each relationship is a unique thing. And a person is greater than the sum of his or her parts.

And my comment to Mike applies to you as well ... Mark is more than the stats about his life. Mark is more than the sum of his parts.

Gentlemen, am I correct in inferring that you want to maximize the likelihood of success, before being willing to risk failure?

Every time you initiate with a woman, it is a leap of faith. It is a new story that will unfold and develop.

Really ... I think a lot of us singles are just really scared to be hurt again, really scared to "fail" again, really scared of the unknown and of not being in control. But we are letting fear rule our lives.

Taking leaps of faith is rather messy, isn't it? It's so much easier to not try. So much easier to stay cocooned in our safety areas of inertia or whatever.

I'm right there with you guys! I just am not in the position of pursuer. But I know what it is to battle fear ... and to lose more battles than win them. But our stories are not over yet!

God was with you in the past, He's with you now, and He'll be with you in the future. Press on, brothers! Press on!!!

38. Captain Sensible said the following at 4:24 PM on Feb 6:

Kendra, you say: "It seems to me, though, that we all put way too much stock in trying to find an answer, a simple answer, a legal answer ... a reason to why we remain alone when we feel the longing for companionship so sharply. Isn't the answer always going to be 'God's Plan?'"

I would suggest the answer to that is no, it's not always going to be "God's plan". Not everything that happens to us is in accordance with His will, although God is of course sovereign.

Let's take an extreme example to clarify what I am saying here.
Supposing (God forbid) a woman was to get raped. Would we say that "God's plan" involves rape? Of course not! So we must be careful not to assume that everything that happens in this world is "God's plan".
We know we have departed from God's glorious plan in many ways here on this earth.

The reason so many Christians are single way into adulthood, or even for life, could be part of that departure too, and we owe it to ourselves -- as well as future generations -- to understand why that is the case at this point in our history.

39. debbie maken said the following at 8:05 PM on Feb 6:

BDB, I Cor. 7:27 was written for a set of Christians who were facing the persecutions of 70AD and famine in the Greek countryside. This is the same reason that Paul tells husbands and wives to hold each other and their possessions loosely during this "shortened" time. In proper context, Paul is advocating expediency, not building an entire theology on perpetual singleness, which is exactly what we have sought to do today by applying the whole of Chapter 7 of I Corinthians out of context.

Debbie Maken

40. Leah said the following at 10:30 PM on Feb 6:

BDB- "loosed from a wife" may not = "single" as we see it.

41. Leah said the following at 10:38 PM on Feb 6:

in response to the article Raj Sharma posted- how hypocritcal of same-sex proponents! They carry on how anyone should be allowed to get married, it doesn't matter on your sex, as long as you love each other, etc etc. Yet apparently "love" is not enough for a heterosexual couple to get married (though I bet they'd claim it's enough for a homosexual couple!!) They reckon you have to have kids to make a heterosexual marriage? Well, I say, right back at them- if they don't want THEIR marriage annulled, let's see them have kids.

42. Leah said the following at 10:42 PM on Feb 6:

Justin, the quote said the problem "MAY BE" sloth, immaturity, etc. It didn't say the problem IS those things.

Not to mention, it's very true.

You also say "Boundless seems to argue that it is unbiblical to be single and also be happy and content with being single" which is very untrue. Boundless has said many times we should be content with our current status if we are single- but this doesn't mean we shouldn't look to get married.

43. Eliana said the following at 12:16 AM on Feb 7:

Quoting April: "As I serve my Lord, I find fulfillment. I live with my family, so although I am single, I am not alone. Old books, walking, classical music, devising surprises, traveling to ancient-yet-modern cities, cradling a sleeping baby, and special candlelit meals give me much great pleasure. Things like a warm day in February, my littlest brother's adorable grin, pizza night, used book sales, and our black cat streaking across the yard fill me with crazy delight. My life is good. I am content.

Why, then, is there a longing deep within my heart? Why, then, this desire for more? Is it possible that there is even more joy in life than this?"

April, you sound a lot like me during my early 20's. Now that I'm living away from home, I feel lonely in life overall, and not as happy. So I plan to move back home while waiting for someone if it is God's will, so that I can enjoy life with my family during this time of anticipation.

44. Rosalie said the following at 12:16 AM on Feb 7:

About the rejection rate thing (although I'm not sure how helpful this concept is):

Your point is valid if you are considering all the guys in the pool but I think that even if you look at only the guys the girl is attracted to then "rejection rates" would probably be similar. For example the girl likes (probably over a year) 5 different guys and only one of them ask her out, than isn't that the same as a guy who a yes from only one of the five girls he asks.

But there are other important differences. I don't know what it is like for guys but as a woman what I find frustrating is the not knowing for sure. I mean I probably should be able to tell myself "he's just not that in to me" if a guy has known me for a while and hasn't asked me out but I could also keep telling myself that he's shy or just waiting for the perfect opportunity. Thus the passive rejection girls deal with can be prolonged and experienced over and over again. I do admit that our propensity to see things as we wish them to be rather than as they are is partially to blame for this.

Guys on the other hand, if they have asked the girl out and she indicates that she isn't interested can deal with that and move on without the uncertainty. At least this is what my female brain assumes it is like. However I do fully recognise that guys do typically have to face a more public rejection, in front of at least the object of their affection.

45. DanL said the following at 6:05 AM on Feb 7:

Jess,
As someone who often feels like Mike Theemling (95% of women turn me down) if I could turn your questions back around to you. How are we men supposed to know if we are initiating contact with the right/wrong women? What should we be saying when we approach a woman? And where should we do it? I ask because I’ve heard various answers to all these questions.

I don’t say this to whine or to look for sympathy, but the reality is that each time you get turned down it becomes a little harder to try again.

Justin,
Regarding the person who is single and wants to get married in 10 years, I would have to remind them that actually getting married in ten years may not be as easy as it would seem. Boundless had an articles a while ago, aimed at women, on who it becomes harder and harder to get married as you age. I would argue that this is true for men as well. At least that seems to be my experience.

46. Mark said the following at 7:18 AM on Feb 7:

About the guy/girl rejection thing:

I could see how a guy's passive rejection of her by his not asking her out can be frustrating. Recently, I read in a dating book (I forget which one) that if a guy can't gut it up enough to ask a girl out, she probably wouldn't want him anyway.

On the other hand, I wish that I could get more honest "I'm-not- interested-anymores" from women. A lot of times they just don't return calls. Here's my question: Does a woman think that a guy will forget that he asked a girl out if she decides not to call him? In case anyone out there thinks this, the answer is a resounding "NO."

Sometimes this leads to absurdist actions like my asking Dr. Mohler for names and numbers of women seeking marriage (I didn't really expect a response.) The frustration builds from the several occasions I've dated women who said they want to get married and have a family. As the relationship picks up, I get told that they can't handle serious commitment or they just want to date around. I see two possible reasons for this: 1) they're no longer interested, but are unable to be honest and tell me. At this point I refer back to the previous paragraph. 2) They really can't handle the commitment that they said they wanted. I believe that some women say they want marriage, family, etc., but don't understand the gravity of the situation until they're in it. As I, and others, have said before, guys aren't the only ones that don't act maturely in relationships. It's my opinion that Dr. Mohler only sides with women in this debate.

Sorry for being a little off-topic in this post.

47. Erica said the following at 10:17 AM on Feb 7:

Although I’m not an American, I enjoyed reading your articles. Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree

Another thing, you need to talk about is Dating. You talk about Courtship and what I understand from your discussion is that Courtship happens when you find the one you are ready to marry. So some Christian don’t date as they are waiting for One to Court them and who will marry them six months down the line. However, you never marry someone you never date and you don’t have to have sex with the persons you are dating. Although there are persons you date whom you’ll never marry but you learn important lesson on how you are to relate to the opposite sex. Singles need to know how to talk to someone they are courting or dating, how to appreciate them, how to work on problems that arise. You have to date for a period of time before you decided the persons you are dating is suitable for courtship and marriage. The person you marry might not be from your hometown or home church.

Churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventists. Catholics have a lot of branches in different towns, cities and states. So if a single is serious about pursuing marriage they need to visit different branches of their churches, Church Conventions, Conferences and Camps. On Campus join the Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic and Methodist Club on secular university campus. I attended a secular college and these organizations were on it. Also, go to Christian college that are affiliated to your denomination as the family that worship together stays together. Do not stay in your hometown. I am engaged to be married, the person is from the same denomination but one in another town.

48. April A. LaLande said the following at 12:28 PM on Feb 7:

Eliana,

I pray that God will bless you as you go back home! Living at home is certainly not for everyone, but I personally have been blessed beyond measure by the closeness our family enjoys.

Besides this, as I hope that the near future brings me the answer to my prayers, there is nothing that equals the feeling of security and comfort that I have because of the support of my parents and brothers.

When I was a teenager, I declared that I wouldn't marry anyone who didn't receive the approval of every single member of our family. It is going to be a lot of fun whenever I do meet someone, let me tell you!

49. Female Student from Dr. Mohler's seminary said the following at 12:46 PM on Feb 7:

Mark,

I'm a third year student at Dr. Mohler's seminary. The single female population here is most likely what he's basing things on and frankly, in this limited location, though the men greatly outnumber the women, many of us come single and graduate single.

Some of this may be the fault of the women, but I do believe that most of the fault lies on behalf of the men. Many of us are never pursued because the guys seem to all flock to the same females.

I'd have to say that I am single by choice and by circumstance. The choice lies in the fact that I have turned men down who weren't what I wanted in a husband (personality conflicts, differences in belief, etc.), while the circumstance lies in the fact that I am rarely pursued.

It can be frustrating to hear what Dr. Mohler has to say at times ... trust me -- I get a lot of the marriage talk! BUT I must also say that I have nothing but the utmost respect for Dr. Mohler and the leadership he provides for my school.

However, please take no offense ... I'm a little glad to know that he's not giving out my name and phone number! =)

50. BDB said the following at 1:13 PM on Feb 7:

Female Student from Dr. Mohler's Seminary:

OK -- You may have hit on something important that is worth sharing.

Can you describe the females they are flocking to? What are they doing differently? Are there any patterns? Are these all seminary students that are being flocked to, or are you saying that male seminary students are focusing on something else?

51. Female Student From Dr. Mohler's seminary said the following at 1:35 PM on Feb 7:

BDB,

Many times it seems that the men are most interested in the pretty girls who are either still in undergrad or who are very recent college graduates. Also, it seems that women who go to certain churches and have certain groups of friends are more likely to recieve attention.

I'm trying to be as unbiased as I can be ... though that is hard when you're living in a specific situation. I know that many of the men here feel frustrations as well, so I don't want to put all of the blame on them. Someone else from this same school may have different opinions all together.

52. Justin said the following at 2:02 PM on Feb 7:

If marriage is so important, then why did Jesus stay single?

53. BDB said the following at 2:45 PM on Feb 7:

Interesting.

Also take a look at how they are spending their time. For example, the "pretty girls" in question also investing lots of time in social activities in addition to their outward appearance? Are they ramping down their intellect when in the presence of men they are interested in? Are they giving lots of compliments? Down deep, some of those pretty girls are really insecure and don't believe that people will make a commitment to them if they knew what they were really like. But they can hide it pretty well by being "busy" and "fun."

54. ptschett said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 7:

Erica said:
Churches such as Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventists. Catholics have a lot of branches in different towns, cities and states.

I agree to an extent (if you want to be married it makes sense to get places you can meet people) but in my opinion you can't church shop forever. In my area there are a handful of churches I would attend, and usually there's no one between, say, 16 and 36 (+/- 10 years of my age.) Right now, as I see it, I'm at the point where I would either

a) start going to local churches I disagree with on subjects where my mind is made up (baptism, spiritual gifts, free will vs. predestination, etc.) just because I may have slightly better chances of meeting women there

b) drive an hour one-way (at least!) to find churches which I would want to attend and that might have single women in attendance (goes against my desire to have a local church be local)

c) find work elsewhere, move there and rebuild my life

55. Captain Sensible said the following at 5:18 PM on Feb 7:

Why did Jesus stay single?
There are possibly several answers to this, but I favour His own words in Matthew 19:12: Some people "have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven."
(And I don't think that means they go on a missions trip once a year, or serve in a centre for the homeless every fortnight!)

56. Eliana said the following at 11:47 PM on Feb 7:

Justin, you asked: "If marriage is so important, then why did Jesus stay single?" His Bride is the Church.

Ephesians 5:
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

57. Yvette said the following at 1:18 AM on Feb 8:

To female student ,
Hmm. Yuck. Reminds me of high school! Some things never change.

58. Philippa said the following at 5:17 AM on Feb 8:

If marriage is so important, then why did Jesus stay single?

Another answer is that He already had/has a Bride ... His Church. :)

59. Erica said the following at 7:40 AM on Feb 8:

ptschett, I don't mean someone should change their spirtual belief in order to improve their chances of being married. When I listed those churches i meant if you are already a member of one of those churches, visiting different branches increases your chances. Although, I am not from the USA, I too live in a small rural community and attend a small church where every young man in my age group is married. I don't if they have in the USA but out here most secular colleges student association such a pentecostal, anglican, catholic, seventh day adventist clubs at campus.

60. Justin said the following at 10:12 AM on Feb 8:

But Jesus didn't take a physical bride. He never physically got married, even though he took a physical form.

It just seems to me that if marriage is so crucial to being a healthy Christian, then Christ would have gotten married while on earth.

But he didn't. And I think that stands for something.

61. Simon said the following at 11:09 AM on Feb 8:

Justin: It could be because his mission on earth was to die. From a human perspective, it would be irresponsible for him to marry, have children, and then leave them widowed and orphaned, if he knew beforehand that he was going to die. It's an idea similar to Debbie Maken's comment earlier:

"I Cor. 7:27 was written for a set of Christians who were facing the persecutions of 70AD and famine in the Greek countryside. This is the same reason that Paul tells husbands and wives to hold each other and their possessions loosely during this 'shortened' time. In proper context, Paul is advocating expediency."

62. Captain Sensible said the following at 11:27 AM on Feb 8:

Justin, I too have difficulty with the answer that He didn't marry because the church was His bride. However, I refer you to the answer I gave earlier, which you seem to have ignored.

63. Adam said the following at 5:10 PM on Feb 8:

Jennifer,

I think you are right about 1 Corinthians 7:7 not talking about an "circumstantial" gift, but not because of the Greek of 1 Peter 4:10. There is nothing in the Greek itself that is going to give you the idea that 1 Peter 4:10 is not talking about a gift of circumstance. Words have meanings in the context in which they were written, and you cannot just isolate a word from its context by looking it up in a lexicon. A word can be used in any variety of ways by an author depending upon his context. For instance, in Greek class this morning we were translating Josephus' Antiquities 18:63-64, and in one place the literal rendering of the English is "for he appeared to them having three days." That sounds like nonsense until we realize that the phrase "to have three days" means "after three days."

For an example in English, I can tell you to "go chew on that," but that doesn't mean I am asking you to put your computer into your mouth and start crunching. Here, chew is used in a context which demands that a specific semantic nuance of mental chewing be attached to the word.

However, the reason I think that the conclusion of the blog article is fallacious is because of the fact that there are two gifts in 1 Corinthians 7:7...the gift of marriage and the gift of singleness. If you say that the gift of singleness is circumstantial, then you are forced, by the context itself, to the conclusion that marriage is a gift of circumstance. They are clearly parallel, and put in a very common "men...de" construction which is sorta like the English "on the one hand...on the other hand."

Second, I would wonder why it is that you think that the "gift of singleness" is dying. One could easy see this as a clear biblical reference here in 1 Corinthians 7, and people who want to try to argue against it having to "grasp at straws" to find some way to explain it.

Third, I don't know what you mean that the term is "man made." Paul clearly describes the gift as the way he is. Therefore, you have one gift for the way Paul is, and one gift for Paul's state, and another gift for the opposite of Paul's state. Paul was single, and the opposite of single is married. Therefore, the two gifts are singleness and marriage.

Finally, as to contentment, that depends on what you mean. If you mean that persuit of a spouse is somehow showing a lack of contentment, then I would agree that such is absurd. However, what if you persue a spouse, and God denies your request? Are you going to trust him in that instance, or are you going to be discontent with God's decisions? If you say that you are going to be discontent, then that is where I would say you would be in error.

God Bless,
Adam

64. Jennifer said the following at 7:26 PM on Feb 8:

"I think you are right about 1 Corinthians 7:7 not talking about an "circumstantial" gift"...uh, thanks, but that's not what I said.

"There is nothing in the Greek itself that is going to give you the idea that 1 Peter 4:10 is not talking about a gift of circumstance." This double negative statement makes no sense. I'm not sure what you're trying to say about what I'm say (I think that's probably because you misunderstood what I've said).

"you cannot just isolate a word from its context by looking it up in a lexicon" Actually, my points are based on looking at these passages as a whole -- it's only your assumption that I'm just isolating the word. Go to the actual passage of 1 Peter 4 yourself:

Verses 7, 8, 9, and 10 state that "the end of all things is near" and so love and serve one another using whatever gifts you have, and then verse 11 offers an illustration how you would serve using certain gifts: some of those gifts: "If anyone speaks, he should do it as one speaking the very words of God. If anyone serves, he should do it with the strength God provides..."

I don't see Paul anywhere framing the circumstance as a "gift". He's saying "use your gifts".

As for your exegesis of 1 Cor 7:7, rather than boring everyone with an even longer post, may I simply redirect you to my article on 1 Corinthians 7:6-9 at giftofsingleness.blogspot.com

And as for the obquitous contentment reminder, I think the consensus on that one is "we get it, now please don't oversell it"

65. Justin said the following at 7:29 AM on Feb 9:

Re: Christ was Celibate. (Cpt. Sensible)

It's a fair reading of the scripture. But Christ didn't say he was Celibate. He just said some people choose to remain Celibate. If Christ was celibate, why didn't he come out and say it specifically?

66. Adam said the following at 10:35 AM on Feb 9:

Jennifer,

Quick response now, as I have class here soon...will look at your blog article after class.

You said:
"I think you are right about 1 Corinthians 7:7 not talking about an "circumstantial" gift"...uh, thanks, but that's not what I said.

Actually, what I was referring to was the interpreting of 1 Corinthians 7 through the eyes of 1 Peter 4:10. That is, indeed, fallacious. 1 Peter 4:10 is in a different context then 1 Corinthians 7, and hence, it cannot be used to interpret 1 Corinthians 7.

You said:
"you cannot just isolate a word from its context by looking it up in a lexicon" Actually, my points are based on looking at these passages as a whole -- it's only your assumption that I'm just isolating the word. Go to the actual passage of 1 Peter 4 yourself:

However, isn't saying that "the end of all things is near" showing that the context is talking about the circumstances believers were facing [the end of all things being near]? If you understand it in that context, I have no problem with the idea that these gifts are given circumstantially. That cannot be ignored. While it would have to be argued, it does have contextual support.

I think what the author was trying to say is that these gifts are spoken of in the context in which they are in a specific circumstance. That is certainly a possible interpretation of this passage, namely, that these people have been given these gifts for the purpose of getting through the persecution they are under.

You said:
I don't see Paul anywhere framing the circumstance as a "gift". He's saying "use your gifts".

I don't think that is what the author was saying either. I think what he is trying to say is that there are gifts that are given to us in light of our circumstances, and that singleness is one of those gifts. However, as I said, you run into difficulty when you try to read that into 1 Corinthians 7, as you are forced to the conclusion that marriage is also a gift just given for a particular circumstance.

You said:
And as for the obquitous contentment reminder, I think the consensus on that one is "we get it, now please don't oversell it"

Good. However, are you at least willing to admit that the people who disagree with you are not saying that you cannot pursue marriage?

God Bless,
Adam

67. Rebekah said the following at 2:01 PM on Feb 9:

I grew up in Thailand and India as my parents were missionaries.

Through the years I met many single female missionaries. Now I am convinced that many of them would of liked to be married but either had no opportunity before going to the field and/or met no one on the field.

I don't think they chose it this way necessarily but following God's call and going to the field took precedence.

The point I am trying to make is, is the fact that they were and are single, unbiblical because they do not have "the gift of celibacy"?!!

You can desire marriage and yet go to another part of the world to share the gospel where your chances of marriage are realistically reduced.

In this context I do not see how remaining single is sinful.

68. Jennifer said the following at 2:28 PM on Feb 9:

"1 Peter 4:10 is in a different context then 1 Corinthians 7, and hence, it cannot be used to interpret 1 Corinthians 7." Agreed. The two verses have nothing to do with each other and neither should be used to defend the existence of a "gift of singleness", a phrase that never even existed until it was coined by the Living Bible in the 70's.

"isn't saying that "the end of all things is near" showing that the context is talking about the circumstances believers were facing [the end of all things being near]?" Well, it provides us with a circumstantial context for the passage, but that doesn't necessarily mean that "these gifts are given circumstantially", the text just doesn't say that. Peter's message seems pretty simple and obvious: the end is near, use whatever gifts you have, and here's some examples of how. He makes no mention of those gifts being given "in light of the circumstances", as if persecution is coming so this person will get the gift of this or that. I think that Peter trusts that the listeners already know their talents -- now go and serve with them, regardless of the circumstances.

"are you at least willing to admit that the people who disagree with you are not saying that you cannot pursue marriage?" They may say this, but I think they underestimate how insidious the "gift of singleness" (and the theology of behind it) has been in the way that it has created doubt in people's minds and fed the indifference towards marriage, remarked upon astutely by the good editors of Boundless.

69. Adam said the following at 4:24 PM on Feb 9:

Jennifer,

Here are my comments on your article.

1. When you say that the Greek term "idios" is from the same root as the English word "idiosyncratic," you are committing an exegetical fallacy known as the "root fallacy." With regards to this fallacy, D.A. Carson in his book "Exegetical Fallacies" lists several words that are derived from the same root, and yet have different meanings. For instance, the Greek term apostolos is from the same root as apostello, but the meanings are different. The Hebrew word for war [milchama] and the Hebrew term for bread [lechem] are both from the same root, yet have vastly different meanings. The same root is simply no guarantee that the word will have the same meaning.

What is worse is that you have also engaged in the fallacy of semantic anachronism, that is, reading the meaning of a root in 2007 back into how the root that was used in the first century, and not even in the same language! Here are some counter-examples. We get our English word "polemic" from the Greek term polemos. Does that necessarily mean that "polemos" means "polemic?" Absolutely not. "Polemos" means "war." Our English word "pomp" comes from the Greek word "pempo." However, does that mean that "pempo" means "pomp?" Absolutely not! It means "to send."

The reality is that words and roots change in their meaning. You can't just take a derivative from another language [English], and assume that the meanings are going to be the same, as that results in absurd conclusions. There are even changes in meanings from the English of the KJV to modern day English. This is a reality you have not taken into account.

2. Most New Testament Greek lexicons give the meaning of idios as "belonging or being related to oneself, one’s own" [BDAG], "pertaining to being the exclusive property of someone - 'one's own, one's property'" [Louw and Nida], or something like that. They also cite first century documents, and New Testament examples.

3. The fact that the specific word "singleness" is not used here is another example of why must read words in the context in which they were written. As I mentioned, Paul is contrasting two gifts here. The gifts obviously have to do with marriage, as to deny that would be to force an awkward shift into the text. Not only that, but, again, Paul is talking about himself having a gift, and someone opposite of him having a gift.

4. While the NLT's translation of verse 8 might be unusual as far as translations go, the Greek term kalos can, indeed, mean "advantagious," or "better." Louw and Nida lists Matthew 18:8, and BDAG lists Mark 9:42, 1 Corinthians 9:15, as well as this very passage [1 Corinthians 7:8] among other places where the term bears this meaning. The reason the NLT does this is because kalos is followed by the impersonal esti[n] [it is] and the dative in all instances in which kalos bears this meaning. Therefore, it is generally in this construction that you find the term "kalos" meaning "better, adventagious." While it is certainly not an infallible translation, it is by no means "degrading marriage," as it is consistent both with the context, and with other uses of the term kalos which bear this meaning.

5. My view was never even discussed, and that is that Paul could not have had the gift of celebacy because he was a widower. This is the view of a whole host of experts on 1 Corinthians [Blomberg, Lockwood, Hays et al.]. I have done some research on this topic, so I understand what they are saying. The key rests upon the phrase "to the ummarried and to the widows" in verse 8. The Greek term in question is agamois which is usually translated as "unmarried."

There is a historical problem with this translation. Paul, being a Pharasee would be almost required to marry as there was no gift of singleness or celebacy in Pharaseeism. Worse than that, he was also trained as a scribe, and that strengthens the idea that he was married.

The main problem with the interpretation is that it causes the structure of Chapter 7 to be rather awkward. Singles would be the only ones Paul addresses twice. He would addresses married people [v.1-7], singles and widows [v.7-9], people who have marital problems [such as mixed marriages] [v.10-24], and then singles again[v.26-40].

However, both of those problems can be solved when we look at the language of the text of verse 8. You have the masculine noun agamois [usually translated "unmarried"] followed by the feminine noun cherais [usually translated as "widows"]. Because of the genders, one might suggest that when he uses the term "unmarried" he is referring to "males who have lost their spouse" or widowers. However, there is a Greek word for widower "cheros." Why didn't Paul use that?

The answer seems to be that this word is falling out of usage in the first century. I found ten instances in the literature from the first century B.C., and no clear instance from the first century A.D. Scholars recognize that this means that a word is falling into disuse.

Hence, we solve both problems with this translation. The structure makes sense: married people [v.1-7], widowers and widows [v.7-9], people who have marital problems [such as mixed marriages] [v.10-24], and then singles [v.26-40]. It would also explain how Paul could be married.

However, as a consequence, you are forced to give up the idea that the gift here is the "gift of celebacy." If Paul was married, then he was not a celebate. Not only that, but verse 9 cannot then be used as a test for the gift of celebacy, because he is referring to widows and widowers, and telling them how they know if they have the gift of singleness.

I would invite people to look at the commentaries of the people I mentioned above for more information as I don't want this post to get too long.

God Bless,
Adam

70. charles said the following at 7:02 PM on Feb 9:

I feel out classed here. I read some of what you are saying and it is over my head. I am simple and not educated to the level of some of you. I can simply say that being single is better than being married to the wrong person. If you are single you are not having to live alone with someone that you would rather not be with or to have your heart ripped out of your chest when you find out they are seeing someone else while married to you. I would just let God lead me and do what I feel is his will for me and when that person comes a long, hope and pray he will open my eyes to that "Gift". Have you not heard the old expersion that "a watched pot will not boil". well don't watch the pot. Let it boil on it's on. God has a plan and you are in it. (SOMEWHERE) (SOMETIME)
Count your blessing. Be prepaired with yor heart and your life. Even fire fighters are ready for the fire that is to come.
God Bless

71. Jennifer said the following at 8:44 PM on Feb 9:

1 & 2. "When you say that the Greek term 'idios' is from the same root as the English word "idiosyncratic," you are committing an exegetical fallacy known as the 'root fallacy'...semantic anachronism". I do neither. I mentioned the root "idios" as a point of interest, not as proof of anything. "Particular gift" appears in the NRSV version of 1 Cor 7:7, so they seem to agree that there's something more infinite than just two gifts being contrasted here.

3. "As I mentioned, Paul is contrasting two gifts here. The gifts obviously have to do with marriage...Paul is talking about himself having a gift, and someone opposite of him having a gift". Well, if we assume for a moment that you are correct that Paul is widowed, then I guess he wishes that all had the "gift of widowhood"!

If you have been taught from The Living Bible or The Message, I can see how you would defend the GoS-- but think outside of the box for a moment -- Every other translation preserves the mystery of the passage, without listing any specific gift or gifts. The context of the discussion is about marriage, but Paul is not contrasting someone opposite himself-- he is saying that we all have our own gift. Considering whatever gifts you have, you may prefer to remain unmarried or you may decide to get married, which is what verses 8 & 9 are about: what is permissible or advisable in making that decision to remain unmarried or get married.

4."The reason the NLT does this is because kalos is followed by the impersonal esti[n] [it is] and the dative in all instances in which kalos bears this meaning". This statement does not answer the question why the NLT chose "better" over "good", nor does your Nouw and Lida reference defend the former over the latter in 1 Cor 7:8. Besides, the consensus across the vast major of translations favors good over better, as it obvious presents wiser counsel.

5. As for Paul being a widower, I'm not even gonna go there! And the "gift of celibacy" isn't something I care to defend, because again, Paul does not mention any such thing. It could be that your particular gift is a high degree of sexual self-containment that inclines you to become one of those who "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom", or it could be that your gift is a passion for a perilous mission that exceeds your desire for marriage. Paul spares us specific examples of gifts, perhaps because there are too many to name. Surely if he meant one of two things, he would have spelled them out.

In all, verse 7 is really quite an inconsequential passage that merely serves as a preamble for Paul to state his preference (conceding to individual differences) prior to launching into the meat of his message to the unmarried in verses 8 and 9: Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

So it is left up to the individual to make make a wise decision for themselves about whether or not to marry, one that involves consideration of their gifts and limitations (ie. sexual containment or lack thereof) and their circumstances (ie. remaining unmarried "for the sake of the present distress” in verse 26, also alluded to also in verses 28, 29 and 31).

72. Adam said the following at 3:13 PM on Feb 10:

Jennifer,

1. If you said it as a point of interest, then you have no foundation for saying that idios should be translated as "particular." You have, not only BDAG against you, but also all of the lexicons I have in my library, as well as almost every translation I have in my library.

Second, while the NRSV has the translation you suggest, the NRSV is not a very good translation. That, not by say so, but also by folks who work on committees. I remember that James White [who is a critical consultant for The Lockman Foundation] one time criticized that translation very heavily.

Worse than that, you are using a double standard here. Virtually all other modern translations are against you here, and yet you want to tell me that I am somehow wrong for suggesting that the NLT of verse 8 is an acceptible translation for the very same reason? Why the double standard?

The reality is that we have to argue on the basis of lexical and contextual evidence. I am trying to find one lexical resource that defines idios in the way that you do, or at least some exegetical reason for taking the term in this way. Even worse than that is the fact that the RSV translates it exactly the way I am saying it should be.

Hence, you have all lexicons, and virtually all translations against you, and the first edition of the translation you are citing translates the text in the way I say that it should be translated. In your article, the only thing you have defending this use of idios is an appeal to the NRSV, and to "idiosyncratic," and yet you ignore all the rest of this information. It is hard for me to even fathom that you said that the gift of singleness "had no business being in so many modern Bible versions of 1 Cor 7:7 in the first place" on the basis of this lack of lexical and exegetical evidence.

2. Second, the gift cannot be widowhood, because as you rightly say, the other gift is marriage. There are many people who are neither widowed nor married, and yet Paul says that EACH have their own gift from God in verse 7.

3. The point is that, while the specific term is not in the Greek, there is no "mystery" in the text. Paul clearly defines what he is talking about in his context. That is the whole point. Paul, who was single, states that he has the gift, and that someone opposite him has the other gift.

4. You skirted virtually everything I said with regards to kalos. There certainly IS good reason to translate it the way the NLT does because of the fact that kalos does, indeed, bear that meaning in other passages that have the exact same construction as 1 Corinthians 7:8, and fits the context nicely!

5. You said:
Besides, the consensus across the vast major of translations favors good over better, as it obvious presents wiser counsel.

Two things. First of all, the translations do not choose anything on the basis of what they think is "wiser council." I had a professor who is working on the next edition of the Concordia Study Bible, and he would often talk about how things like this are done. It is NEVER on the basis of what you think is "wiser council."

Second, I think what this shows is that you are not doing exegesis here. Instead of the text telling you what is "wiser council," you are allowing what you think is "wiser council" to determine what the text says. If the Bible is truly our ultimate authority, we need to let the Bible always tell us what is "wiser council," not vice versa.

I also was not saying I agree with the NLT and the NET at this point. Just that it is a perfectly legitimate translation, and that it is in no way "degrading to marriage."

6. You said:
Paul spares us specific examples of gifts, perhaps because there are too many to name. Surely if he meant one of two things, he would have spelled them out.

You seem to be referencing this in you article:

Paul further accentuates the uniqueness of this gifting using a Greek expression still common today: “hos men houto de hos houto”, most closely translated in the KJV and NASB as “one after/in this manner, and another after/in that.” It’s a figure of speech that has an infinite quality (one in this manner, and that manner, and that, and that…etc.), rather than suggesting it's either one of two things (like marriage or singleness). Indeed, “This” and “that” are non-specific, and most likely hypothetical: “this” does not mean marriage and “that” does not mean “singleness”, or vice versa, as the New Living Translation, The Message and other modern translations have concluded! Paul does not identify any specific gift: whatever was his gift that enabled him to proceed on such a perilous mission alone, he probably didn’t quite understand it himself. However Paul may have been gifted, he was gifted in his own particular way.

Well, first of all, you are making a gross error in thinking that the phrase "one...another" is referring to the charisma. It is simply not because of the fact that the Greek term charisma is neuter, and the relative pronouns used here are masculine. The only masculine noun in the context is the pronoun hekastos, and hence, these are referring back to the ones who have their own gift.

Secondly, the fundamental flaw in your reasoning is that you are failing to recognize these as alternate pronouns. Dr. Dan Wallace describes this as:

Like the use of the article as a personal pronoun, the alternative use is also found with men and de (and, as with the personal pronoun use, the article is only found in the nom. case). This usage is distinct from that of the personal pronoun use in that (1) structurally, both men and de are almost always present, and (2) semantically, a mild contrast is implied. (It is probably best to consider this a subset of the personal pronoun use .) The singular is typically translated“the one . . . the other”; the plural is rendered “some . . . others.” This usage is quite rare in the NT. [Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics pgs.212-213]

While this usage is rare, most all grammarians cite 1 Corinthians 7:7 as a particular usage [as Wallace goes on to do]. Notice, however, that Wallace states that there is a contrast going on in this text. How can you have a contrast when there are no specific things being referred to? BDAG gets a whole lot more specific than even Wallace does when it says:

Somet. the combination men … de, does not emphasize a contrast, but separates one thought from another in a series, so that they may be easily distinguished.

Now, BDAG says that we are distinguishing thoughts here, and Wallace says that in some way we are also contrasting something [even if it is not emphasized]. Louw and Nida add to the problem when they say that this words are:

markers of two or more items which are additively related and thematically parallel

There is no distinction, contrast, or parallelism if you just say that the whole thing is a figure of speech.

Hence, I would say that the force of this text is:

One person has his own gift in this manner [the gift of singleness], and another person has his gift in a different manner [the gift of marriage].

God Bless,
Adam

73. Jennifer said the following at 7:41 PM on Feb 11:

1. "If you said it as a point of interest, then you have no foundation for saying that idios should be translated as 'particular.' You have, not only BDAG against you, but also all of the lexicons I have in my library, as well as almost every translation I have in my library." Well, I don't think those lexicons are "against" me, Adam, and that's a rather contentious way of expressing your disagreement. "Particular", "proper" (which the KJV uses), "own" are all considered acceptable translations of IDIOS, and it really is a word that very few scholars of 1 Cor 7 have actually addressed. "Particular", as written in the NRSV, better captures the meaning of the passage as it plays out with "hos men houto" (I'll get to that later). That it doesn't appear in other Bibles may reflect new understanding of the passage--we'll see if it catches on, I'm fine it it doesn't, as long as the GoS continues to fade away. Whereas the "better" translation of KALOS in the NLT did not seem to gain consensus over time, perhaps reflecting the faddishness of its GoS associations.

As for your criticisms of the NRSV as a whole, similar things have been said about the NIV and NASB (and many others too, I would imagine, tho' it's not like I rabidly devour bible reviews!). Your reference to James White's criticisms of the NRSV would be more useful to this discussion if they were directed specifically at the passage in question.

2, 3 & 6. "Second, the gift cannot be widowhood, because as you rightly say, the other gift is marriage"...wait a second, I did not say "the other gift is marriage", I acknowledged that the context of the discussion is marriage, and it's also about sexual containment as well. Even Gordon Fee acknowledges that when Paul says "I wish that all were "as I am", we don't know if he's referring to his abilities of sexual containment or his unmarried state.

"Paul, who was single, states that he has the gift, and that someone opposite him has the other gift." Nope. Paul is too modest to mention any of his gifts and he certainly does not contrast himself with anyone else. He states that he wishes all were like him, but then shifts the focus off himself and onto everyone, we all have gifts, and makes a contrast that is removed from himself and placed on to this one, and this one, as if he's contrasting hypothetical people with hypothetical gifts. So I don't see how I'm "making a gross error in thinking that the phrase "one...another" is referring to the charisma". If anything, the references you've provided under 6, support exactly what I'm saying! “hos men houto de hos houto” is indeed a figure of speech used to illustrate contrast, but not necessarily between only two items, let alone two specific items.

4 & 5. Speaking of skirting everything with regard to kalos!!! Adam, all you did there was toss in a few red herring references that pertained to a similar area, but not the same issue -- and I'm not buying it. There's a big difference between saying that something is "good" vs. saying it's "better". And saying that one thing is better, inevitably discounts the other.

I do agree that biblical translation must be based on sound exegesis, which, BTW, is why I think those remaining modern bibles with the GoS in 1 Cor 7:7 should drop it from their texts. But it's also true that translation is not always a straightforward slam-dunk. Words with multiple meanings have baffled theologians for years, and decisions were often made based on what would lend to better teaching. I'm not defending every instance of that, but as far as "good" over "better" in verse 8, that seems like a good call to me. I would add here that when poor translations occur, problematic teachings are a likely outcome ... the fruits tell the story.

74. Adam said the following at 12:37 PM on Feb 13:

Jennifer,

1. You said:
Well, I don't think those lexicons are "against" me, Adam, and that's a rather contentious way of expressing your disagreement.

And this isn't?:
...it seems awfully misguided to use 1 Peter 4:8 to give a few last gasping breaths to the dying "gift of singleness". Let's be honest: this term is entirely man-made and had no business being in so many modern Bible versions of 1 Cor 7:7 in the first place.

As far as being contentious, I do not think my comment was. I was only stating a fact, namely, that the way you translated the passage has almost no support whatsoever. I agree with you that the Greek does not have "gift of singleness," and so forth, but, I am willing to accept the NASB and NIV's translation as well as the NLT's translation because one is just reading something from the context, and the other is just translating the term as is.

2. The point is that the Greek term idios does not bear a meaning that would suggest uniqueness to any one individual. Hence, it leaves it open to the idea that more than one person can share the same gift. That is all I am getting at. The term idios does not, in any way shape or form, contain the idea of "particular" or "peculiar." Something can be "one's own," and yet be shared by many people. Here are some examples of this usage in the NT:

Matthew 9:1 And getting into a boat, He crossed over, and came to His own city.

Obviously, this city was not exclusively the home town of Jesus!

1 Timothy 5:4 but if any widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to practice piety in regard to their own family, and to make some return to their parents; for this is acceptable in the sight of God.

This statement wouldn't even make any sense, as all of those who belong to a family have the family as their own in some sense.

1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.

Obviously, this does not mean that all slaves in the early church were the only slave of one slavemaster.

The problem is that when you use the words "particular" and "peculiar," this seems to suggest that it belongs to the person ALONE. That is why that is a bad translation of the term.

3. As far as my criticisms of the NRSV, the only kind of criticism that has been given to the NASB and NIV is that they are either not liberal enough, or that they do not agree word for word with the KJV [i.e., the criticisms given by KJV only advocates]. The NRSV is way, way to loose, and has an extreme liberal bias. All I am saying is that, if this is the best translation you have supporting you, then I feel pretty good about my arguments as to the meaning of this word.

4. While Gordon Fee is an excellent Biblical scholar, I would say he is definitely in the minority here. I can quote many scholars who agree with me, but that is not the issue. The issue is that we examine the arguments from both sides and see who has the better interpretation. There are several reasons why I reject Fee's view that this could possibly refer to the controlling of sexual desire:

A. It ignores the parallelism with the first half of the verse.
B. It makes the gift explained two verses later leaving the statement unintelligable until the end of verse 9.
C. It is overly subtle. Without some kind of referent back to verse 7, is difficult to understand how that could be derived from the text of verses 7-9 as a whole.
D. In my view, Paul is talking about widows and widowers in verses 8-9, and hence, has moved on to another issue.
E. The removal of sexual desire, therefore, applies to widows who do not have the gift of singleness. Again, we would fall back into the problem that "each" would not have their own gift from God.

Second, Fee does not at all say that there are many gifts here. He is willing to admit that the referent is to one or the other. Hence, he says that it has a specific referrent in the text. Therefore, to cite Fee here doesn't help your position.

5. It is a gross error to think that the words "one...another" are referring back to charisma because of the fact that the words translated "one" and "another" are masculine, and charisma is neuter. They cannot be referring to the same thing, because the genders do not match. I don't know how much more plain I can say it. That is something that virtually every first year Greek grammar will tell you, namely, that relative pronouns [or, in the case of the NA27 text, articles] must agree with their anticedent/modifier in gender.

4. You say:
He states that he wishes all were like him, but then shifts the focus off himself and onto everyone, we all have gifts, and makes a contrast that is removed from himself and placed on to this one, and this one, as if he's contrasting hypothetical people with hypothetical gifts.

This seems rather awkward and forced. What warrants the shift in context from the specific contrast of "Paul and those who have his gift to those who are married [v.5-7a]" to the contrast of "hypothetical people with hypothetical gifts?" It seems like, right in the middle of verse 7, you have a break, and all of the sudden we are no longer talking about what we have been talking about in verses 5-7a, and a whole host of other gifts are read into the text.

I would say the parallelism between the two contrasting sections of verse 7 absolutely forbids this interpretation. Paul is saying "on the one hand...on the other hand...on the one hand...on the other hand." That is the basic structure of the text. Here is what I mean:

+ Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am.
- However, each man has his own gift from God,
+ one [man] in this manner,
- and another [man] in that.

Therefore, the phrases with the + sign are related, and the phrases with the - sign are related. The parallel forces you to say that these are related. However you want to say that Paul has "shifted the focus." On what basis, given that the structure is parallel?

5. As to the issue of kalos, it is not a red herring to point to similar passages which have the same grammatical structure, which is clearly suggested by the context here [in the context of Paul's apostolic statements to singles], and say that, at very least, that is a valid translation, and is not something that can just be written off as, "anti-marriage."

Worse than that, while there have been passages that have baffled theologians for years, NEVER has a choice been made on what they thought was better teaching. Sometimes choices were made on the basis of other texts of scripture trying to harmonize the Bible as a whole, but it was still on the basis of the scriptures themselves.

As I said, the fact that you have to insert an unnatural break in the text of 1 Corinthians 7:7 and the fact that you have to ignore the clear examples of parallel constructions of the term kalos shows me that this is a view that is being forced onto the text. I can't think of any text that I would ever read and exegete by using this kind of methodology. The fact that I have even stayed in this discussion so long shows that your statement that the gift of singleness being "entirely man made" is overstated at best.

God Bless,
Adam

75. Jennifer said the following at 7:51 PM on Feb 14:

1. The difference here is that I was expressing my contention against an idea, not a person, as in "against you", as you said. Besides, that quote of mine you're using was not addressed to you and singling it out the way you have, is not only contentious, but smacks of petty vengance as well. And then you sign off with "God Bless". Whatever.

2. One could also argue that "particular" works in each of those Bible verses you have given. And yes, it could be that others might possess the same or similar item -- there are a number of different usages for idios. All I'm saying is that the context in which idios charisma is used, along with "hos men houto", suggests greater uniqueness that one of two ordinary things: marriage or singleness (which you still haven't provided much support for -- let's face it, "reading from the context", as you put it, goes both ways.)

3. I don't think you know that "only kind of criticism that have been given to the NASB and NIV is that they are either not liberal enough, or that they do not agree word for word with the KJV" -- another red herring. All versions are meticulously poured over verse by verse by theologians, resulting in an endless number of debates about all kinds of translation details -- that's what they do. Perhaps you think that the most stridently conservative translation of a verse is always the best one. Not always so.

4. As for your concerns about Fee's view, he's hardly in the minority. Catholic scholars for years have been interpreting this as "the gift of celibacy" for centuries (which is probably why the GoS got conjured up in the first place).

A. Actually, the GoC parallels even better with the first half of the verse than the GoS. Consider also that Paul addresses sexual containment before and after verse 7 in verse 5 and in the first half of verse 9.

B. I don't think that Paul ever does explain any gifts here, nor does he need to. The passage is about what's permissible/advisable for people to do.

C. If verse 7 is the preamble or segue to verse 8 & 9, then it would be fitting that it be subtle or rather, inconsequential, so as to not detract from the clear and unequivocal message of verse 8 & 9, which is: if you cannot contain yourself sexually (like Paul), get married.

D. That sounds like that an unusual viewpoint (the widow thing) and I'm not sure if I'm clear on what you're saying. Are you suggesting that verse 7 stands on its own as a message to the never marrieds? On its own, verse 7 would make for an awfully vague message to them. Combined with verse 6 "I speak this by permission, not by commandment (echoed in his message to "virgins" in verses 25 & 26), verse 7 makes the most sense as Paul's preambulary disclaimer (that you don't all have to "be like me", even if that's what I prefer) that sets up his very clear advisements in verse 8 & 9.

E. "The removal of sexual desire, therefore, applies to widows who do not have the gift of singleness." I really don't know where you get this -- perhaps you're starting with the assumption that there even is a "gift of singleness". Paul is suggesting that unless you have (a gift for) sexual containment, it's better to get married (and no, I don't think he's saying that those who are managing to contain themselves sexually "should" stay single, but rather an option).

"Second, Fee does not at all say that there are many gifts here." As I said in my last post, Fee leans in the direction of Paul suggesting that his gift is celibacy, although he does leave open the possibility that Paul could be making reference here to his single state, so in that way, he is "willing to admit that the referent is to one or the other", as you put it. But, what Fee does not say is that those who do not have the "celibate gift" have whatever's opposite to it, which is what you are saying in regards Paul declaring singleness and thus marriage as gifts. Fee respects the mystery of the verse and is tentative in his conclusions.

It's reasonable that you don't agree with everything Fee has to say, I think there are a few things he has overlooked as well--fair enough--it was mammoth work for him to produce and 7:7 isn't the only verse in 1 Cor.

5 & 4 & 5?? "It is a gross error to think that the words "one...another" are referring back to charisma because of the fact that the words translated "one" and "another" are masculine, and charisma is neuter." The referrent doesn't have to be "charisma" per se, but "the way" (houto) in which "one" (there's your masc.pronoun) is gifted. "One" is the pronoun used to refer to a hypothetical person, and "houto" is also non-specific as far as what way one is gifted. Again, you have no parameters of how many people are gifted in how many different ways when you have the phrase,“hos men houto de hos houto”-- I don't know how much more plainly that can be said.

What warrants the shift in context from the specific contrast of "Paul and those who have his gift to those who are married [v.5-7a]" to the contrast of "hypothetical people with hypothetical gifts?"

I'm not sure why you bring verse 5 into this, because if you conclude that Paul is comparing himself with married people, you must consider that the context of has less to do with marriage and singleness and to do with sexual self-control (or the GoC, as some people argue).

Consider the possibility that Paul's message to the married ended at verse 5. And then he segues into his message to the unmarried by setting out a preambulary disclaimer in verses 6 & 7: "I speak this by permission, not by commandment (echoed in his message to "virgins" in verses 25 & 26), with verse 7 essentially saying that you don't all have to "be like me", even if that's what I prefer), since God gifted us each in different ways. With this understood, we can be assured that we are not under compulsion with regard to the choices presented to us in verses 8 & 9.

As for "parallelism" in verse 7, I'm not quite sure why you need that. And if anything, you create your own discontinuity by insisting that "one man in this manner" relate back to Paul talking about himself. The basic structure of the text as you've written, puts a full stop after the first part of verse 7, after which he goes on to talk about "each man".

So I have not inserted an "unnatural break" into verse 7, you have. And you have given no good reason as to why "better to remain single" should be anything other than ignored, in the face of the vast majority of versions that tranlate kalos not as "better", but as "good".

Contributors

About Us

Relevant Boundless Articles

SUBSCRIBE VIA EMAIL

Newer Post | Older Post