What is the blessing of singleness?
Article by Russ Grinter | Pastor & Preaching Elder
Last week’s sermon we heard how we can learn the secret of being content in whatever situation we find ourselves in. There is so much to explore and discover in the Bible on contentedness, including our experiences of singleness.
The Apostle Paul was single, and wrote about having learned the secret of being content, so for our love of single sisters and brothers among us I pray that this essay would be equipping and encouraging for all our church.
Under the grace of God, humanity enjoys many blessings. Every person born onto the earth was once single, it is an aspect of life that at some point everyone has experienced to a certain extent. If the apostle Paul says of the single state that the person who does not marry does even better (1 Corinthians 7:38), then what is the theological blessing of singleness?
A Trajectory Starting in the Old Testament
In Genesis 1-2, the pinnacle of the one flesh union of marriage is explained in Genesis 2:24. This is the start of human community with family, friendships, communication and co-operation. God creates marriage a secure family unit for the establishment of tribes, cities and nations. Within this family unit, single people experience the security of the extended family and the community.
With the entry of sin thereafter is death and the disruption of relationships between the sexes. Painful singleness can be related beck to the effects of the fall. Not only within the marriage of man and woman are there distortions on God’s intention for his created order of marriage (Genesis 3:16), but there is also now a distortion to what is intended for the single person.
The Old Testament era is one in which the promise of blessing given to Abraham points forward to a time of blessing for Israel and eventually all nations. On its own it’s also an age where the pain of singleness is more acute due to the blessing that is tied to family. There is a strong connection between the themes of offspring, land and name (2 Samuel 9, Ruth 9:4-10). The continuity of God’s future blessing is linked to one’s children, and to be without children was seen as tragedy.
In the patriarchal structure, single people would remain in the family for their protection and their livelihood. We observe there is a select group of singles. Jeremiah doesn’t have a wife (Jeremiah 16:2), Ezekiel’s wife dies (Ezekiel 24:18); and we see their God given role is to communicate as prophets how much God suffers because of his burning love for his people (Jeremiah 18:13-15; Ezekiel 24:13, 24). In the Old Testament context, to marry and have children is a sacred duty, and to not undertake this is either culturally an anomaly or tragic.
The Old Testament era see people place marriage to such an ideal as an essential relationship, that singleness may be seen as not a gift as such. Yet we know that marriage is stitched into the blessings of God contained in the overarching promises of God, so that this starts giving us some hints at what might happen in the New Testament.
Yet we know that marriage is stitched into the blessings of God contained in the overarching promises of God, so that this starts giving us some hints at what might happen in the New Testament.
A Trajectory Moving through the New Testament
The Incarnation of Christ
The incarnation of Christ and his bodily resurrection critiques dualistic anthropologies and affirms the body as essential to human personhood. Jesus is the perfect person, who is perfectly single.
The central figure in the New Testament is a single man, Jesus is the model of perfect humanity. He is the complete and whole single person. The gospels give concrete examples and how he relates to his family, to his friends, and to individuals, both male and female.
The central figure in the New Testament is a single man, Jesus is the model of perfect humanity. He is the complete and whole single person.
As a human male, Jesus is completely sexual. He displays the full range of emotions including love of friends (John 11:36, 15:15; 19:26). Jesus loved children (Matt 19:13-15). Jesus knew the pain of going without the security and comfort of a home and family (Matthew 19:29). Jesus regarded women as equal at a time when they didn’t share such a status (Matthew 5:31-32; Luke 7:36-50). Jesus understood the nature of male lust (Matthew 5:28) and taught that these temptations must be dealt with by confronting the evil within (Mark 7:20-3), yet Jesus own life was without sin (Hebrews 4:15). Christologically Jesus ties the created order to the new age by his teaching and redemptive work on the cross, and by his resurrection.
Married or Single for Eternity?
In Matthew 19:11-12, as Jesus upholds marital permanence he also teaches that some choose to remain single. There are three possible reasons for this, that some people are single for reasons from birth. Others are made to be eunuchs by men. Then others have been themselves that way for the kingdom of heaven. The individual reasons for being a eunuch remain unclear at a case by case level, but Jesus’ words indicate that the eunuch is most likely the one who is celibate for the sake of the new kingdom. This is a kingdom where there are no new marriages.[1] For in the new creation male and female gender roles remain, but the institution of marriage is mitigated, if not erased (Matthew 19:27-30). The new family consists of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and a bridegroom. There are no husbands, no wives and no brides - for the church is the bride of Christ.
The new family consists of mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and a bridegroom. There are no husbands, no wives and no brides - for the church is the bride of Christ.
As we see in places like Mark 12:18-27, Matthew 22:22-33 and Luke 20:27-40 - in response to the Sadducees question, Jesus responds that they are ignorant of the Scriptures and the power of God. Jesus says that in the age to come people will neither marry nor be given in marriage.
Theologian-scholar Ben Witherington, argues that Jesus does not say there will be no marriage in the age to come. To show this he contends that the terms ‘marry’ (γαμοῦσιν) and ‘given in marriage (γαμίζονται) are gender specific roles of the man and woman played in the process of getting married. The man, being initiators of the process in such a strongly patriarchal culture, marry, while the women are given by the father or another family member. Thus Mark is saying that no new marriages will be initiated in the new eschatological state. Witherington argues that surely not the same as claiming that all existing marriages will disappear in the eschatological state.[2]
The argument is then that in the new creation we are like the angels who do not die (rather than being thought of as sexless). The two verbs speak of the social institution that of the earthly life but not the life to come, where according to Witherington’s thesis there are no new marriages but pre-existing ones will continue.
Whilst I acknowledge the strength of Witherington’s argument, I agree with R.T. France as he argues that in verse 25 the use of the verbs under examination may be flexible. There is scholarly disagreement over the sense intended in other New Testament uses of ‘he who marries (γαμίζων) in 1 Cor 7:38.[3] There is a history of interpretation that is behind this such as Blomberg and Robinson who argue that Jesus teaches that we will be like the angels and therefore not sexually active beings.[4]
In any case, since we are arguing by way of following a theological trajectory of singleness, I don’t wish to load the whole argument onto the exegetical basis of this text alone. That is, giving does not exclude the idea of a ceasing of existing marriages because of the case that is built by the other texts in this analysis. The new age to come will not be a return to a longer and more enjoyable life on earth, but the resurrected will enter into a new kind of existence with God (1 Corinthians 15:35-49).[5] Since death is no more, marriage is no longer needed to propagate the human species. Family relationships in the life to come will be transcended, which explains why Jesus insisted that marital relationships cannot be the primary relationship (cf. Matthew 10:37; 12:46-50; 19:29).
The Better of Being Single – According to Paul
There is much confusion over the so-called gift of singleness (1 Corinthians 7:7). Karl Barth wrote of the celibate life requiring a certain gift from God, as also the married life (Barth, CD III/4, 144-148). This assertion has become a cultural norm among some Christian understandings of this text. I am not convinced that this is how Scripture interprets this verse. Whilst the grace of God provides for both, this language of gift has become unhelpful in the wide ways it is used. The meaning of 1 Corinthians 7:7 is that Paul wants everyone to be free in Christ to live out his or her particular circumstance in life, regardless of what his or her circumstance is.
The whole discussion in this section of 1 Corinthians 7 is influenced by Paul’s eschatological awareness. So much so that Tertullian said this text had cancelled out the primeval command to ‘increase and multiply’.[6] The age to come has changed the value of things of this age, which includes the things of the flesh and blood family.
Paul says here in 1 Corinthians 7:38 that the person who marries, still does well. But the person who does not does even better. Such a person can have an undivided devotion to the Lord. In this text, Paul promotes singleness over marriage.[7] He does this because the time is short and the present world is passing away. (1 Corinthians 7:29, 31).
Paul’s understanding of marriage is predicated on a positive evaluation of celibacy rather than a negative evaluation of sexuality or a theology of sexual asceticism.[8] Paul’s treatment of whether singles should marry, or not, is based upon the expediency of the times. What he says in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, in 7:29-31, in 7:32-35, and in 7:36-40 depends equally upon the necessity that he speaks of in 1 Corinthians 7:26. To overlook this is to overlook the underlying rationale of Paul’s argument.[9] The way Paul views the New Testament era, and the future eschaton shape the trajectory he sees for marriage and singleness.
In Ephesians 5:31-32 God’s eschatological purposes of marriage. It’s pointing beyond the physical union of husband and wife and pointing to the metaphysical union of Christ and the church. The chief end of marriage points to its appointed culmination and the telos of its inheritance.[10] Ephesians underscores the inheritance that is for those in Christ in the kingdom of God, that it is not in the land anymore. The kingdom of God is not dependent on marriage, but on regeneration.
The kingdom of God is not dependent on marriage, but on regeneration.
If marriage is an outworking of an appropriate gender relationship (contrary to homosexual unions) and it is a reflection of the good relationship between God and his people and Christ and his church, then in the resurrection there is no longer any need for the reflection. In the final resurrection there is no need for the metaphor anymore because the reality has come into full bloom. There is no marriage or the giving in marriage in the new creation.
The Old Testament creation mandate was to be fruitful and multiply and this is never reiterated in the New Testament. Instead the gospel mandate is to make disciples of all nations. This then brings us to an understanding of the trajectory of singleness in the new creation.
A Trajectory Finishing in the New Creation
All Christian life is orientated towards and encompassed by Christ’s return and the completion of God’s kingdom.[11] Both marriage and celibacy each in their own way point toward the fulfilment of God’s kingdom. Where, then, is the essential difference between marriage and celibacy?
The biblical data continues to point forward from its position in time and space. Both testaments speak to their own era; yet make room for the intention of God ahead in time, into the era of the last days. If singleness is viewed more positively in the New Testament, this may be at least in part due to the fact that the marriage-less state of the new creation casts its shadow backward (the future invading the present as it were). Being single at the present time is a finds blessing in that identity, meaning and purpose is understood in the context of the universal state of human beings for eternity.[12]
Historical theology has not always understood the Scriptures correctly in this way. There has either been a view of singleness being under or over a ranking of marriage. In this context Calvin writes of the discrimination against marriage and that the medieval church promoted, ‘that they peddle the ornament of chastity as something necessary,’ (John Calvin The Institutes. IIII.XII.26 [Battles]. There is no need for this error if one understands that a theology of singleness is tracked on the trajectory of created order, redemption and new creation where singleness is a blessing in the now and the future.
All Christian life is orientated towards and encompassed by Christ’s return and the completion of God’s kingdom.
Karl Barth had argued that Genesis 2:18 shows that marriage is for the solution to loneliness. Barth’s argument runs that, ‘His own creation and existence as a man would not be complete without the creation and co-existence of this helpmeet’ (Barth, CD III/4, 149). What then for those who are single in now, will they be lonely in the new creation? However, Christopher Ash makes a sound case that the purpose of man and woman is not primarily to cure their loneliness, but that the woman may be the helper that man needs so that together they can serve and watch.[13] The single person is not incomplete without the helper in the present or the future. We have seen that the trajectory moving forward looks to a unity of Christ and the church that a marital relationship is a metaphor intended for (Eph 5:31-32).
One cannot understand the image of God and the identity of the single person apart from the person of Christ and this has the double consequence that created-ness is bound up with teleological or eschatological and soteriological coherence.[14] Christian identity is bound up with Christ, not in a person’s sexuality alone. Our identity then bound up with Christ is also our telos. Our identity, meaning and future is that of being yoked with Christ and this means we are not going to be incomplete once the church is married to the bridegroom (Revelation 21).
Locating Today on the Trajectory – The Blessing of Singleness Now
In conclusion, what is the blessing of singleness? Having looked at the Scriptural formulation pertaining to past and future days, we now ask our question for the present. What is the blessing of being a single person in the day that is called today? The answer: singleness is the God-given opportunity to serve and wait in single-minded readiness whilst the present form of the world is passing away. It is a station in life that is gifted for a person for that particular day, and whilst a Christian is single, they are blessed to be so. The single person is blessed even if without a present state marriage, for they will enjoy all the blessing of finally being united to Christ in the great wedding day of the new creation.
Singleness is the God-given opportunity to serve and wait in single-minded readiness whilst the present form of the world is passing away.
In this study we employed the idea of marriage to situate and study a theology of singleness. The Old Testament and New Testament are not overly concerned with singleness, but with Christ. We have observed from the biblical data that there is a trajectory that forms and speaks to the theological issue of singleness. This trajectory starts with no singleness in creation, to where singleness is uncommon and undesirable in the Old Testament, to where singleness is an advantage for the ministering of the gospel in the New Testament. Finally I have argued that there is then at the end of the trajectory a universal singleness in the final state.
The single person need not compare the blessing with the married, for the station is different. This station may change; the blessing of singleness may change to the blessing of marriage, and back again. However, the blessing of singleness is neither superior nor inferior to that which the married person has received in the present time. Each person has his or her own gift from God, for the day that is called today.
Bibliography
[1] Marianne Blickenstaff, While the Bridegroom is with them. Marriage, Family, Gender and Violence in the Gospel of Matthew (London: T & T Clark, 2005), 137.
[2] Ben Witherington III, The Gospel of Mark. A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 328.
[3] R.T. France, The Gospel of Mark. A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eermans, 2002), 469-475.
[4] Craig Blomberg and Stephen Robinson, How Wide the Divide? (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), 104.
[5] David E. Garland, Reading Matthew. A Literary and Theological Commentary of the First Gospel (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Co., 1993), 225.
[6] Tertullian, Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy. ‘An Exhortation to Chastity’, 6. (Trans. By William P. Le Saint. Westminster: The Newman Press, 1951), 52.
[7] James D.G. Dunn, The Theology of the Apostle Paul (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 693.
[8] Will Deming, Paul on Marriage and Celibacy. The Hellenistic Background of 1 Corinthians 7 (Gran Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 207.
[9] Alistair Scott May, The Body for the Lord. Sex and Identity in 1 Corinthians 5-7 (London: T & T Clark, 2004), 240.
[10] Simon Verbert, ‘The telos or Chief End of Marriage’, The Churchman, 2002, 369.
[11] Ludwig Schwick, ‘Marriage and Celibacy for the Sake of the Kingdom of Heaven’, Theology Digest, Vol. 36, no. 2 (1989): 138.
[12] Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage, and Family. Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2004), 199.
[13] Christopher Ash, ‘The Purpose of Marriage’, The Churchman, Spring, 2001, 7-28.
[14] Colin E. Gunton, The Trinue Creator. A Historical and Systematic Study (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 200.
