The Missing Gift

There is an error that occurs practically universally when interpreting Scripture, and that is to ignore the context of a passage you are trying to interpret. Sometimes with a passage as small as half a verse the Biblical commentator will quote the half verse, and then scratch his metaphorical head and wonder ‘why God says this?’ or ‘what does it mean?’… seemingly oblivious to the blindingly obvious fact that the rest of the verse (or passage) actually provides a very clear answer to he question!

One of the most famous, or infamous, examples of this comes with the passage ‘Pro 29:18a Where there is no vision, the people perish:…’. I have seen this on countless church yard signs, heard it from the pulpit. And the passage is used to raise the question ‘what is a vision?’. Or ‘what is our church vision?’'.

“…but he that keepeth the law, happy is he.”

And this leaves me scratching my head because, you know, that is literally only half of the verse. And in my humble opinion the rest of the verse might shed some light on what the Proverbist was talking about when he used the word ‘vision’. You might even say that it kind of is the definition!¹

Summary to this point

Now, this post is part of my exchange with Incognito on the issue of Monks and Celibacy. And the exchange has gotten a bit confusing, and full confession, it is all my fault. You see, we had agreed that he would write the first post but when he did, I found something missing from it, so I wrote a ‘first post’, and then I wrote a post in answer to him (sort of. I believe in building my case, not in going so much point by point through my opponent’s case.)

So it behooves me to list the posts so far, and I’m not going to do so in the order they were written in.

My first post dealing with definitions, which I published after his first post:

His first post, which was actually also the first post published:

Celibacy and Monasticism are Biblical

My First Post in reply:

And his most recent post:

Eunuchs for the Kingdom

To Valiantly Resist

Which brings us to this post, and the issue of… the missing gift. In his most recent post, Incognito wishes to change the definition I propose for celibacy, and ends up saying:

Celibacy is the abstinence from all sexual activity.

I take “sexual activity” to be a rather broad term and include things like pornography and sexual fantasy. This allows us to affirm that “The man who is walking around with his imagination in hyperdrive, with issues of reading or watching, is not ‘celibate’” without slipping into the condemnation of the individual who undergoes temptation but valiantly resists. I will work from this definition and trust that there is little difference between Von and myself on the subject.

Well… no.

First of all because merely saying ‘all sexual activity’ will not actually imply in readers ’ minds the problems of ‘pornography and sexual fantasy’ even if he says it. Second of all, because I think that saying that this leaves out ‘the man who undergoes temptation but valiantly resists,’ kind of ignores the actual nature of sexual temptation…²

But thirdly because of the words ‘valiantly resists’. Because he and I are going to differ on what ‘valiant resisting’ means. Luckily (for me) Scripture actually defines such resistance:

I Corinthians 7:9

But if they cannot contain,

let them marry:

for it is better to marry than to burn.

Pro 5:15-20

Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and

running waters out of thine own well.

Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and

rivers of waters in the streets.

Let them be only thine own, and not strangers’ with thee.

Let thy fountain be blessed: and

rejoice with the wife of thy youth.

Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe;

let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and

be thou ravished always with her love.

And why wilt thou, my son,

be ravished with a strange woman, and

embrace the bosom of a stranger?

I Corinthians 7:2-5

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication,

let every man have his own wife, and

let every woman have her own husband.

Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and

likewise also the wife unto the husband.

The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

Defraud ye not one the other,

except it be with consent for a time,

that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and

come together again,

that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

In other words, the God commanded way to resist sexual temptation begins with… taking a wife. If you refuse to take a wife then you are not ‘valiantly resisting temptation’ you are ‘blatantly disobeying God’. Rather different things.

The Missing Gift

But now I wish to get at a confusion in his post which is entirely my fault. I take full blame. Because the standard modern American way to read I Corinthians Seven is to completely divorce (see my opening above) a couple of parts of the passage, and Incognito, in doing so, wasn’t helped by my post. So let me be very clear: Paul, in I Corinthians Seven, speaks of a ‘gift’ that he had, and that is not shared by all men. Indeed it is shared by so few men that he used the word ‘every man’ to describe those who don’t have it. It is the gift… of sexual continence.

Not the Gift

Galatians 3:13

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law,

being made a curse for us: for it is written,

Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Let’s be very clear: it is not the gift of being unmarried and childless. That is not a gift, it is curse. It may be (it would hardly be the only one) a curse which may fall upon some Godly men. It may even be a curse which they take on themselves voluntarily, as in the long hair of the Nazarite vow or the curse of crucifiction. But it is a curse, not a blessing, and not a ‘gift’.

First of all, it would be a strange gift if you could get it by literally doing nothing. I mean, most of reach a man’s estate not yet married… how odd would it be if we could get a ‘gift’ merely by refusing the blandishments of all of those hundreds of women who wish to marry us. A lot easier for some of us with a number lower than ‘hundreds’, eh?

Nor, obviously, can it be the ‘gift’ of having taken a vow to never marry. A vow to call a curse upon yourself, even if proper, is not a ‘gift’. A gift is something given, not taken.

Burning

And the fact that this gift is the gift of being sexually continent is made pretty obvious by Paul in the immediate context of the passage; where he contrasts it with the ‘every man’ tempted by fornication, the married man tempted by too long abstention, and the ‘burning’ man immediately after.

God given, situation driven

And this gift is, in the context of I Corinthians Seven, God given and situation driven. In the unusual context of I Corinthians Seven, we see that God had given some men (but by no means the majority) the gift of remaining sexually continent. It could well be that God gives the same gift to others in similar situations… perhaps men called to missionary settings where bringing a wife and having children would be incredibly foolish.

I don’t know. God knows. But in any case, Monks fall completely outside the situation here. They cannot claim that they have the gift of continence, the news has been far too full for that; and they cannot claim that they are in some life threatening situation that would require abstinence.

Indeed, as I have said repeatedly, they are in a situation where what is actually needed is thousands if not millions of Godly young men jumping into marriage, being active in the marriage, having lots of children, and raising them in Godliness. We do not need more dry branches! Our world is full of them!!

So what of the Eunuchs?

Matthew 19:3-12

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him,

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

And he answered and said unto them,

Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said,

For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and

shall cleave to his wife: and

they twain shall be one flesh?

Wherefore they are no more twain,

but one flesh.

What therefore God hath joined together,

let not man put asunder.

They say unto him,

Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and

to put her away?

He saith unto them,

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you

to put away your wives: but

from the beginning it was not so.

And I say unto you,

Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and

shall marry another,

committeth adultery: and

whoso marrieth her which is put away doth

commit adultery.

His disciples say unto him,

If the case of the man be so with his wife,

it is not good to marry.

But he said unto them,

All men cannot receive this saying,

save they to whom it is given.

For there are

some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are

some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be

eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.

He that is able to receive it,

let him receive it.

Which brings us back to the situation of the ‘eunuchs for the kingdom’ described by Christ. I believe that the situation is clear, and clearly different from what Incognito describes. Let us go through the entire text:

1. The Pharisees challenge Jesus on divorce

2. Christ elevates marriage above the disciples’ expectations, making divorce impossible.

3. The disciples then wonder if they should avoid marriage then.
   Note the issue: They are afraid of not being able to divorce a wife! Note the unGodly way that this conversation with them begins!!

4. Christ then compares being unmarried with… being a eunuch. Being castrated or being born defective. And he limits those for whom that state is appropriate to… eunuchs.

So if we see a ‘eunuch for Christ’ as someone who is given the spiritual gift of being sexually continent and is in a situation where marriage might be extremely difficult… that matches Christ’s words. Keeping in mind that in the Old and New Testaments, marriage is seen as our relationship with God, the idea of being unmarried should be seen by us as a curse. Something extremely rare and out of place… like the child born a eunuch… or horrifying… like the castrated man.

But, like the castrated man, there are some who promote the idea of the unmarried Christian man as somehow more Godly. As ancient civilisations castrated their boys to keep them as ‘good singers’, or to put them in charge of harems, so some in the church have invented a category of spiritually castrated men, not as some extreme exception, but as an actual spiritual goal for a normal man.

And Christ makes the same point as Paul: this type of eunuch is not something you can choose, or vow… it is something that must be given. God must give the ability… man must be able to receive it. And how do you know, oh man, how long God will give the gift?

Marry, young man

Now, Incognito wishes to bring up the spectre of accidentally condemning the poor, not-yet-married young man struggling with sexual temptation. But in this, he makes a dramatic category error. In fact, two:

1. The young man who is struggling with sexual temptation and, in reaction, is seeking desperately and appropriately to marry is, in fact, acting in obedience to God’s command. He is no eunuch, and knows it, and is seeking God’s will for his life. He is being celibate in the best way. He is in no sense in the same category as the monk who has taken a blasphemous vow.

2. However, most of our young men are NOT in that category. They are admittedly struggling with sexual temptation; however, they have rejected God’s answer. Oh, they may not think of that as long-term, and they may not have taken a blasphemous vow… but they certainly aren’t seeking a wife, and definitely not in a Biblical fashion.

So I may very well condemn the not-yet-married young man, unless he is acting in the way God calls him to act. And if he is struggling with temptation, the way that God calls him to act is… to get married!

Marry, Young Monk (and old monk, for that matter)

Now, Incognito wishes to dismiss any distinction between the not-yet-unmarried young man and the vowed monk. However, he cannot do so. Since the monk has vowed to be perpetually disobedient to God’s command, while the young man may be doing his best to obey it.

Indeed, let us take a kinder case. Suppose we have a young man who is sexually continent. He finds himself (unlike so many of his peers) not struggling with sexual temptation. And during that period he takes ‘vows of celibacy’. What price those vows if, hours, days, weeks, months, or even years later, he suddenly finds himself struggling, indeed burning, with sexual temptation? And finds that he has vowed himself to perpetual disobedience to God?!

Outside of an actual gift from God, in what other area of life do we promote such stupidity? Is the high schooler who decides to go into playing tennis still required to be a ‘tennis player’ into his sixties? Might he not decide to move into Golf in his late thirties?

The Enemy of Marriage… and God

At the risk of being repetitive, I am going to repeat myself: the monk or nun is the enemy of marriage and of God.

• They don’t marry

• They don’t have sex

• They don’t have children

• They don’t raise a Godly family

• They don’t serve as an example for other young men and women

• They don’t have Godly grandchildren and future generations

• These things are especially problematic in today’s age, where

  • We have so few Christians marrying

  • They are marrying late

  • They are not having children (let alone a full quiver)

  • They are not raising Godly families

  • Sodomy

  • Transgender

  • Abortion

• As well, I believe that they withdraw from ‘the world’ at a time when we need the maximum number of Godly men engaged with the world.

• And they do not remain unmarried in accordance with their strength and gifting from God, they take a blasphemous and disobedient permanent vow of unmarriage!

• And they pretend it is a ‘vow of celibacy’, thus claiming for themselves something only God can know.

Get off the Bench!

Genesis 18:17-19

And the LORD said, Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do;

Seeing that Abraham shall surely

become a great and mighty nation, and

all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him?

For I know him, that

he will command his children and

his household after him, and

they shall keep the way of the LORD, to

do justice and judgment;

that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him.

So, to use a sports analogy…

Let’s say that the young man considering being a monk is, indeed, one of our best and brightest, a truly Godly man. (I am not conceding this by a long shot, but for the sake of argument). And let us put this in sports terms: It is late in the fourth quarter, our team is behind by six points, and it is fourth down…

… and Incognito is saying it is a good idea to leave some of our best players… on the bench! Out of the game!

What we need now is for our most Godly men and women to serve as an example and a vanguard. We need them to be marrying young, being faithful and fruitful in their marriages, producing loads of children, raising those children in the LORD, becoming elders as they become grandparents, with generation after generation looking back at them and honouring them.

We need young men and women to take on one of the most difficult roles in our modern society: Godly mothers and fathers. We need them to… get off the bench.

Luke 19:20-23

And another came, saying, Lord, behold,

here is thy pound,

which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.

And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:

Wherefore then gavest not thou

my money into the bank,

that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

1. A standard reformed view of this passage reads it as, “When there are no prophets in the land giving out the Word of God, the people can be saved by following the already revealed Law of God. This is NOT how the standard modern sermon on this passage usually ends up!

2. I will not speak for all men, but I think it is pretty generally true for men that ‘sexual temptation’ is a visual thing. The man imagines looking at this, pictures himself touching that, etc.