All posts by Peter Ditzel

Q. Does God see choosing singleness to be equally as good as marriage?

A picture of a lone man with his head down. A Scripture reads, It is not good for the man to be alone. Genesis 2:18.
Various circumstances may cause some people to not marry and others to lose a spouse. All can live fulfilling, God-glorifying lives. Paul learned to be content in whatever state he was in (Philippians 4:11). So should we all. But are those who teach singlness as a choice that is equal to or even better than marriage going too far?

A. Years ago, if a Christian never married, his or her spiritual brethren might consider it mildly unfortunate, but they usually remained polite enough to stay out of the person’s personal life. Now, however, “celebrating singleness” has become so trendy that many Christian writers and preachers are advocating staying single. Whether someone marries or not is that person’s private business, but false teaching is potentially damaging and ought to be exposed.

Instructions that misrepresent the Bible regarding singleness can lead people—usually impressionable young believers—to make decisions they may later regret. No matter how preachers and Christian writers try to distort Scripture to sound as if singleness without compelling circumstances is a plan for your life that is on a par with marriage, the Word of God really says otherwise: “It is not good for the man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). Period. Full stop. Right through the New Testament, except for very unusual circumstances most of us will never experience, the Bible never strays from that position. Yet, because singleness is so promoted as a fabulous lifestyle, many who hear the propaganda question the Bible’s stand.

1 Corinthians 7

But what about what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7? Didn’t he say, “it is good for a man not to touch a woman”? Yes and no. Actually, Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:1, was quoting “it is good for a man not to touch a woman” from a letter the Corinthians had written to him. In the verses that follow, he addresses the subject they raised: “But, because of sexual immoralities, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection owed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2-3). If you think that doesn’t sound like singleness, you’re right. It’s marriage. Rather than not touching each other, men and women are supposed to marry.

Later, Paul gives his opinion, not commandment, that he believes that if they have the self-control, it is better for the unmarried to remain so. But he admits that, if they don’t have the self-control, they had better marry. And let’s admit it; most people don’t have that self-control. Later, in verses 25ff, Paul appears to explain his opinion as based on the “distress that is on us.” By this, he is speaking of severe persecution. Although he expressly allows marriage for those who want it, his opinion was that changing our state—marrying, separating, buying, even weeping and rejoicing—sets our minds on worldly things, which is an unnecessary distraction from the kingdom of God when the time is so short. Notice that Paul’s reason was so that those who were facing possible martyrdom could focus what remained of their lives on the kingdom of God. He had no other possible reason for singleness in mind. Those who use 1 Corinthians 7 to advocate singleness today, unless they are specifying an area of the world where there is great persecution, are taking Paul out of context.

Jesus

Jesus spoke of being a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake (Matthew 19:10-12). But being a eunuch for the kingdom was not the normal course that Jesus expected for someone’s life. Jesus clearly said it was not for everyone, but that being able to do this was a gift: “Not all men can receive this saying, but those to whom it is given” (verse 11). And it had one reason and one reason ONLY. That reason was to sanctify your life to the furtherance of the kingdom of God.

So, if you want to solemnly dedicate your life to the preaching of the Gospel, living a self-sacrificing life of peril and poverty as did Jesus and Paul, entirely focused on the one goal of getting the Gospel to the lost, and you believe that God has given you this gift so that you will have no desire for or temptation to have sexual intimacy, then you go right ahead and plan on being single. If, on the other hand, you want to remain single with any other goal in mind, then, sorry, the Bible does not support your choice.

If you are planning your future as the breezy life of a single person—this is how I will be self-fulfiled, this is how I can find myself, this is how I can live the life I want, this is how I can reach my career goals, this is how I can have the stuff I want—you have your head on cross-threaded. I advise you to take it off, align the threads with God’s will, and try again.

But, you might ask, if it’s okay to plan to stay single for the Gospel’s sake, why not for other reasons? The answer is simple. The Bible doesn’t give other reasons for planning to be single.

But, argue some famous preachers who ought to know better, Jesus didn’t marry, and, thus, He set an example to follow. Excuse me, but Jesus’ life wasn’t typical in many ways, and, therefore, we cannot just live the way He lived. Jesus’ physical life met the rare criteria for singleness we just discussed. Jesus dedicated His life to His ministry, and His life was a road to the Cross. Marriage would have been a distraction from the Gospel-centered focus for which He came. And He knew He would die an early and violent death. Thus, Jesus’ singleness cannot be held up as an example for the average Christian.

“Choosing” Vs. “Circumstances beyond Your Control”

Notice that all through this article, I’ve used the words “plan” and “choice.” I’m not talking about circumstances beyond your control. The reality is that there are some guys whose marriage proposals will always get turned down, some gals who will never be asked, and some folks who have physical or psychological or developmental disorders that make marriage questionable and maybe even out of the question. Related to this, some have been scarred by very bad home lives as children. These are things that have happened to these people. Some of these may be overcome; some may not. But these things have nothing to do with the self-absorbed, planning-to-be-single-and-free attitude I’m talking about.

There are those who preach that singleness is not a trial to be endured but a gift to be celebrated. By placing the poles of the dichotomy as far apart as possible, they create a straw man. Singleness is not the equal of being starved, dressed in rags, and enslaved to hand pull barges up the river (cue “Song of the Volga Boatmen“). Yet, neither is it a gift (as we’ve seen, the gift is the rare ability to be single and dedicate your life fully to the kingdom of God). Neither is singleness something to be celebrated as if it were an academy award.

Singleness is not a superior or even an equal choice to marriage; it is not something to desire for any reason other than focused dedication to the Gospel. That’s because, rather than the joyful lifestyle choice presented in so many books, singleness is merely a circumstance. Unless you’ve chosen it because you have the gift to devote your life entirely to the Gospel, or unless you have some mitigating circumstance, if you have consciously chosen to be single, your choice is not biblically supported. Singleness is something that happens to you for reasons that maybe God only knows and which you can learn to live with and still have a fulfilling life. It is not something to desire.

God and Your Private Life

“But what right has God to interfere in my private life?” you ask. Every right: “Or don’t you know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20).

Paul wrote the above verses in the context of talking about fleeing sexual immorality. Let’s face it, many who plan to stay celibate while single don’t succeed. Celibacy is not the way God made us. Remember again, it was our Creator who said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him” (Genesis 2:18). He did not make men and women to be independent units putting their selfish desires first. Those who hype singleness are speaking contrary to the natural order that God has established. In the world, we can expect selfish fads to be popular. Such things ought not be promoted amongst believers.

God made humans to be teams of two close-knit people of the opposite sex working together through life and supplying each others’ physical and emotional needs. This includes sex, but goes far beyond it. It encompasses the hand that reaches out during a social engagement, the conversations that go late into the night as your minds become one, the times when you’re snuggling together and saying nothing, the nursing through sickness, the coaching through the birth of a child, the support through trial, the word of correction fitly spoken, the long walks hand-in-hand, and—after 35 years of marriage—I could go on and on.

Before closing, I want to be sure that you understand that I am not talking about condemnation for the choices you make. If you are a believer, you are not under the law and you are not under any condemnation. What I want to leave you with is an admonition not to be swayed into a trendy choice now that you may regret later. From the beginning, God made men and women to pair off in marriage. Don’t be so quick to give it up for a life of me, myself, and I.

Peter Ditzel

Print-friendly PDF Version

Christianity and Your Self-Esteem

by Peter Ditzel

Two contradictory quotes are presented. Oprah Winfrey: Surround yourself with only people who are going to lift you higher. Apostle Paul: Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Philippians 2:3-4, NASB
Who would you believe?

You’ve heard the precepts: “Only make decisions that support your self-image, self-esteem, and self-worth” (Oprah Winfrey), “Of all things God created, what He is most proud of is me. I am His masterpiece, his most prized possession” (Joel Osteen, part of a self-declaration), “Sin is any act or thought that robs myself or another human being of his or her self-esteem” (Robert H. Schuller). Such thinking is becoming so commonplace that it’s influence can be found practically everywhere from popular magazine articles to public school educational objectives to the pulpits of neighborhood churches. As Christians, we need to determine whether elevating our self-esteem is a valuable part of our Christian lives or whether it is harmful. How does God want us to see ourselves?

Read more… →

Q. Has God reconciled all things to Himself or is He still wrathful? John 3:36 says that the wrath of God remains on the disobedient, but Colossians 1:20 says that God has reconciled all things to Himself by Christ, “having made peace through the blood of his cross.” Can you explain this seeming contradiction?

A photo of a quizzical looking infant captioned, The wrath of God remains on the disobedient...or...through Him to reconcile all things to Himself
How can God reconcile all to Himself while remaining wrathful towards some?

A. This seeming contradiction has caused no end of controversy. How can God be wrathful toward the disobedient if He has reconciled the entire world to Himself through Christ’s atonement? Colossians 1:20 sounds like a universal atonement, but John 3:36 seems to name the disobedient as an exception to it. On top of that, the exception sounds like it is based on works—disobedience or obedience. Does this mean that obedience (works) saves people from God’s wrath and reconciles them?

Read more… →

The Growing Threat of Anti-Intellectual Emotionalism, part 2

by Peter Ditzel

 

"A picture of a woman sitting praying with her Bible and overlaid with the words, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My Word.' John 14:23."
If we are to know Jesus, we must know what He has revealed about Himself in His Word. If we love Jesus, we will obey His command to keep His Word.

In part one, we saw that a false belief is taking hold that asserts that we can attain a relationship with Jesus through emotion at the expense of learning about Him through a study of God’s written Word. Now let’s see how such a notion leaves us with no knowledge of God and Christ and deludes us into accepting a god of our own creation as the true Creator.

Read more… →

The Growing Threat of Anti-Intellectual Emotionalism, part 1

by Peter Ditzel

"Two juxtaposed memes: First meme: Devious-looking woman with pink hair saying, 'Jesus isn't someone to study. Jesus is someone to know.' Second meme: Peter Falk/Columbo holding up a finger and saying, 'Let me get this straight. I'm supposed to know Jesus without studying who He is and what He said?'"
Those who claim to know Jesus without knowing the statements by and about Him in the Bible cannot really know Him. Jesus said, “I am…the truth” (John 14:6) and “Your word is truth” (John 17:17). To know Jesus, we must know and believe what the Bible says about Him. Any assertion contrary to this is mysticism.

From the seminaries, the pulpits, electronic media, and the pages of some of Christendom’s most popular writers, the siren song of an alluring message blares forth. Its simple and seductive philosophy, carried on the air of its confident maxims, deceives much of the public into accepting it as a more palatable Christianity than the faith once delivered to the saints.

This siren song is the sound of anti-theological, anti-intellectual emotionalism. You’ve no doubt heard some of its claims: “the Spirit is what is important,” “Jesus has to be discovered through relationship,” “we must stick with the simplicity that is in Christ,” “knowledge doesn’t save us,” “head knowledge is not enough,” “don’t forget that knowledge puffs up,” and so on. All of these assertions contain some truth, and that is what makes them all the more hazardous. When we go fishing, we hope the fish will swallow what is partially real food and partially deadly hook. As believers, we must insure that we don’t get fooled by the bait. To succeed, we must exercise our senses to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:14). So, let’s examine some of these ideas.

Read more… →

Q. If God makes sure we persevere, how can we be shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19) and become castaways (1 Corinthians 9:27)?

The wreck of the SS American Star (originally named the SS America) on Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands.
The wreck of the SS American Star (originally named the SS America) on Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands. Can we make shipwreck of our salvation?

A. In 1 Timothy 1:18-19, Paul wrote to Timothy, “This instruction I commit to you, my child Timothy, according to the prophecies which led the way to you, that by them you may wage the good warfare; holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust away made a shipwreck concerning the faith.” How can some have thrust away their faith and good conscience to become shipwrecks at the same time that God is making sure that they persevere? Is the perseverance of the saints an unbiblical doctrine that gives us false hope?

Read more… →

Are We Under the Law of Christ?

by Peter Ditzel

A montage of Lady Justice and Moses facing each other with a Cross between and behind them.
Can Christians be under both law and grace?

In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul writes that he is not “outside the law of God but under the law of Christ” (English Standard Version). Yet elsewhere, he writes, “For sin will not have dominion over you. For you are not under law, but under grace” (Romans 6:14); and, “if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law” (Galatians 5:18). Surely, Paul was under grace and led by the Spirit, so why does he describe himself in 1 Corinthians 9:21 as “under the law?” Is it the fact that Paul is speaking of the law of Christ in 1 Corinthians 9:21 that makes the difference? Does grace take us out from under the law of Moses and put us under the law of Christ? Or, does Paul mean something else entirely?

Read more… →

Lessons from the Adulteress

by Peter Ditzel

A detail from the painting, Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, 1888, oil on canvas, by Vasily Dmitrievich Polenov (1844-1927)
The scribes and Pharisees brought the adulteress to Jesus to entrap Him, but Jesus used the occasion to teach important lessons. (Vasily Dmitrievich Polenov [1844-1927] Jesus and the woman taken in adultery, 1888, oil on canvas [detail])

In chapter 8 of his Gospel, John tells us about the incident of the woman the scribes and Pharisees caught in the act of adultery and brought to Jesus. Most people who have read John 8 likely remember that Jesus ended His encounter with the woman by telling her that He didn’t condemn her, and, “Go your way. From now on, sin no more.” We see forgiveness, but we also see a command to stop sinning. This leaves a question: Was Jesus’ forgiveness dependent on the woman’s obedience? The answer to this question teaches us much about the relationship between grace and works.

Read more… →

Fifty-one Theses for the Twenty-first Century Ekklēsia

by Peter Ditzel

Painting of Luther nailing the 95 theses, by Julius Hübner, 1878.
This 1878 painting by Julius Hübner of Luther nailing the 95 theses is narrative art. It depicts the story, showing Tetzel in the lower left receiving adoration and money from those who have purchased indulgences by enriching the pope. This is contrasted with starving people who could better use the money begging on the church steps. Luther’s disciples are on the left teaching the people and followers on the right receive his message with enthusiasm. Luther’s enemies are seen in the lower right running off to inform the pope. Of course, this is all fanciful. Luther probably hung the theses as a matter of routine to inform other scholars that he would like to discuss these points. It wasn’t until scholars realized that the theses implied a challenge to the authority of the pope that the document caused a stir.

October 31, 2017: Today marks the five-hundredth anniversary of what has come to be considered the formal beginning of the Protestant Reformation. That’s because, on October 31, 1517, Martin Luther (1483–1546), then a Roman Catholic Augustinian monk and priest, nailed a notice on the door of All Saints’ Church in Wittenberg, Germany. He titled the notice, “Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences,” but it became known as Luther’s 95 Theses.

Read more… →