I am lurking in another thread on this forum, which, to paraphrase, was started to challenge the raindog about a loving god and homosexuality.
This sparked another debate in my mind, but not one that I think will fit in the context of that discussion.
the raindog, again paraphrasing, said that we should aspire to live according to the model of the life of Christ.
First, is there any biblical support for this statement? Does the bible really tell christians to live according to the model of Jesus’ life, and not necessarily only his instructions?
Second, if christians are supposed to aspire to live according to the same life that Jesus lived, wouldn’t that make a lifelong celibate bachelor somehow better than a married father? Wouldn’t remaining completely celibate more closely resemble the life of Jesus, and therefore be more desireable?
This raises the implication that sex and marriage, or any intimate and romantic contact at all, is therefore LESS desirable than complete abstinance.
I am particularly interested in hearing the raindog’s explanation of this assertion. Is a person that has sinless sex lower or less obedient in the eyes of god than a person who stays celibate their entire life?
It’s nice to meet you. I will endeavor to answer tomorrow in greater detail if I’m able. I have a bias towards using the bible to answer bible based questions, no less than the bias I would have in citing the constitution in that forum. Nonethess I can’t sleep so I’ll type for a few minutes.
EsotericEnigma said:
What comes to mind first is the second chapter of 1 Peter. Most of the chapter offers admonishments that are essentially “godly” and culminates this in Verses 21-25 where Peter says in part," In fact, to this course you were called, because even Christ suffered for you leaving you a model for you to follow his steps closely." (1 Pet 21-25) Christ himself said of a relationship with him, “Come to me, all you who are toiling and loaded down, amd I will refresh you. take my Yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am mild tempered and lowly in heart and you will find refreshment for your souls. for my yoke is kindly and my load is light.” (Matt 11:29-30) Paul wrote that we should “look intently at the chief agent and perfector of our faith.” (Heb 12:2) As part of ministry and life, Jesus gave examples of how one should live their life. This was done powerfully when he washed the feet of the disciples. **(John 13:1-17) ** 1 Peter 4:1 says “As Christ has undergone bodily suffering, you too should arm yourself with the same conviction…” There are other cites as well, that indicate that Jesus’s life was more than an intellectual excercise. The qualities he displayed are pertinent to how we should conduct our life.
Better, no. Christ said the primary concern was the advancement of God’s purposes and kingdom. It was to be our primary focus. (Matt 6:33) However, Jesus remained a bachelor for this reason, and certainly a bachelor would be less emcumbered and therefore in a better position to follow this counsel. when he dispatched his disciples to the missionary work, he sent them in groups of 2 and there was apparently no families in tow. (Matt 28:19-20, See Matt 10:5-14)
Yes, for the obvious reasons, although Jesus didn’t comment on remaining a bachelor as a pre-requisite for his service. The fact remains that he, and apparently his disciples, were bachelors. Paul, OTOH, spoke clearly on the matter. he counseled that it would be better to remain a bacheor to beter facilitate doing the Lord’s work.** (1 Cor 7:7,8)** (See also 1 Cor 7:29-35) Paul, a lifelong bachelor, was NOT anti family or marriage however. He spoke often and elequently about family life and marriage. He was a realist and realized that not everyone had the necessary self control, or desire to remain celibate/unmarried. He saw a single life as the best life to facilitate following Christs’s example, but was certainly pro-family, and wrote extensively on the family.
It’s not anti-sex or marriage, it’s pro-singleness. (And as a consequence celibacy. But the issue is the unemcumbered condition that singleness offers and that is the point.)
Absolutely not. Paul was pro-singleness, not anti-marriage. Would a life of singleness as a means of serving God be preferable? Yes. Is the person who chooses to marry less of a Christian, or less obedient? No. paul addresses this question directly if you’ll consider 1 Cor 7:37-38 which says, :
“36 But if anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virginity, if that is past the bloom of youth, and this is the way it should take place, let him do what he wants; he does not sin. Let them marry. 37 But if anyone stands settled in his heart, having no necessity, but has authority over his own will and has made this decision in his own heart, to keep his own virginity, he will do well. 38 Consequently he also that gives his virginity in marriage does well, but he that does not give it in marriage will do better.”
This was exactly what I intended and expected from you.
Are they more than simply pertinent? Do they resemble rules, or guidelines to most closely approximate perfect behavior? Does the idea that Jesus lived a perfect life directly conflict with a scenario in which he could have fathered a child?
It is this specific reasoning that I used to argue that, according to your logic, a bachelor’s life in service to god is superior (or better) to a father’s.
Certainly not. There are no “behavioral” prerequisites to join his service at all, as far as I know. I did not mean to imply that married men and fathers could not join his service. I only meant to compare the moral value of these two lifestyles.
In order for A to be valued higher, B must be valued lower, correct? What I’m getting from your examples is an impression that “families and sex within marriage is good” but “celibate is better.”
This is not an intolerable distinction for me to accept, but it definitely does conflict with my own code of morality, and I’m sure it rubs many other people the wrong way as well, simply because it seems to disagree with the logic of biology.
I know that I just took my end of the discussion outside of the Bible. Feel free to use Biblical references to address my points, if they are appropriate.
I’m sure that the raindog will be back, but I thought I’d chip in… The most explicit instruction to imitate Jesus’ way of living comes in John 13:34-35 where he tells his disciples to love each other as he has loved them - what makes it all the more poignant is that this is the night before he is to be crucified - the ultimate act of love (but that’s another story ;)). I don’t think that Jesus meant his followers to be imitators of the minutiae of his life, otherwise we’d all be itinerant rabbis in the Middle east somewhere, but to live by the same principles that he did. There are some who argue (for example - and crudely simplified) that women should not be ordained as priests, because Jesus was quite clearly male, and therefore priests who “represent” Jesus should also be male. These sort of arguments hold very little water for me.
I don’t think it was intended that one should be seen as better than the other, but that each has its strengths and weaknesses. Marriage is highly spoken of as a symbol of God’s relationship with his people on earth - the church is likened to a bridegroom in Revalation for example. Having children is often described as being a blessing from God. On the other hand, singleness is praised as allowing the single person to be fully devoted to God’s work in the world - the classic passage on this topic (1 Corinthians 7) needs to be read in light of the fact that the early church was fully expecting Judgement Day to be just around the corner. What was the point of marrying and having children if the end of the world was about to happen? As time passed, and the end didn’t come, attitudes softened… Today, many single Christians are made to feel as if they are only half of something, that life is not complete until they find a marriage partner (“smug marrieds” they call us) - an attitude which is not helpful or loving. In this light, the passage above can be seen as an affirmation that you can still be valuable as a single person, even more valuable than a married person in some circumstances.
Just to expand on my own thoughts - I think that the real change in attitude came when Christianity became the state religion - when citizens are automatically members of the church, having children is just as effective a way of “growing the kingdom” as converting unbelievers (and with much more pleaseant side-effects - or should that be pre-effects??:)). Being married then became more valuable than being single.
I think Grimpixie has said it very well indeed – not that we are supposed to live a life which slavishly copies the particular details of behavior of Jesus, but that we are to live lives that match our own personae but which are underlain by the same character, the same standard of behavior, the same motivation (ceteris paribus), as His.
And it might be worthwhile reflecting on the celibacy/marriage agenda item with reference to the debate from which this one was a spinoff – because Paul makes it quite clear that “different strokes for different folks” is eminently Biblical – celibacy for those for whom it’s a viable choice, marriage for the others, as and when they feel called to enter into it. What is to be rejected is a life devoted to selfish gratification, of sex as of any other pleasure. And this is, he says, true for all people. (The conclusion is left as an exercise for the student. ;))
No one else has given the verse that immediately sprang to my mind:
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (King James Version)
There are a number of other verses, mostly from the Pauline epistles, that have essentially the same meaning. I won’t bore you by giving a zillion quotes (love eSword, with its multitude of different translations).
Others have already answered your second question, I think?
