1 Timothy 3:1-7 and celibacy?

[Church_Militant]

Mt 19:9 This is Jesus’s saying, His teaching, on this section on divorce.

Mt 19:10
Let’s keep in mind Peter had a mother-in-law. This statement in the presence of Peter, would seem to place Peter in not having done the better choice. **Yet Jesus is not saying anything negative about marriage, He is giving it the honor God intended for marriage. **

 Also, look at what the disciples say before and after this passage? The continually misinterpret or lack understanding. Jesus is continually correcting them. Is this time any different?Of course Christ was not dissing marriage...that is not the point here. Nor does the Catholic Church dishonor marriage, though you seem hell bent on alleging such, flying in the face of the plain fact that Jesus said that remaining unmarried for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven was both given to some and an excellent thing. If Our Lord is telling the truth here, then why aren't more n-C clergy celibate if they say that they believe everything that is written in the Bible and that is their sole authority.

Yet this teaching of theirs and their criticism of celibate Catholic clergy is grossly unscriptural. Both Christ and St. Paul plainly preached it.

Mt 19:11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
Is Jesus saying this in regards to what He said in 19:9.or what the disciples said in Mt 19:10.

And so you would tell us that even with your assertion that you are “Bible believing Christian” that you find fault with those who out of their love and commitment to Christ and His Kingdom, obediently choose a celibate lifestyle? :ehh: That’s so glaringly wrong…

Mt 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
What is he telling them to accept? His teaching in Mt 19:4-5:
"And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?”

Who taught you this? It is some of the worst twisting of the Word of God I have ever seen!

The context of the passage is simple and only by means of some serious mental and theological gymnastics can anyone assert what you have. I’m sorry sir…but you are dead wrong.

Mt 19:9 “And I say to you, (I)whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Mt 19:11But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
I believe verse 11 refers to Jesus’s teaching in verse 9. Not all can accept marital chastity, only those to whom it is given. Then He gives examples of those who it is not given:
Those eunuchs from birth: deformation?
Those eunuchs made so by others: mutilated by otthers?
Those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Does this mean He is suggesting this is good? Did He also suggest tearing out the right eye for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? :Mt 5:29 “If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.”

So you feel that it’s okay to edit out verse 10 and throw it out of the context and discussion because it doesn’t allow your errant teaching?

I thought “Bible Only Christians” didn’t mess with the Word of God and took all their teachings straight from what the Bible says? :tsktsk:

A big question is what does 19:12b refer to?“He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.” To 19:12a? Or 19:11 (and thus 19:9? Was Jesus correct about marriage and divorce, or where the disciples?

Both…
(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

Hard to tell, then looking where else this account occurs may help. Mark 10 is almost word for word, except no mention of eunuchs. How about that? You were saying some ignore relevant scripture

?

"Mk 10:1-11Yeah I was and you just proved my point on that again.

As for the passage in Mark, how is that relevant to celibacy? Since it doesn’t contain this same discourse on celibacy, it cannot bring anything to the discussion, (except maybe as a smoke screen or diversion (Y’know, like the Jews often did when they heard something they didn’t like…throwing dust in the air!).

So…I ask again. How can you sit there and scripturally deride those who both Christ and St. Paul plainly say have chosen well and been given a gift from God? So far all you’ve done is some illogical and unscriptural gymnastics.

Well then perhaps you should have been a bishop when married Popes were chosen, or when Alexander VI was chosen. The inspired desire for a celibate Pope would surely have prevailed among celibate holy bishops?

Peter was the first pope and was also married…so what? He was married when Our Lord called him, which any Catholic with a brain cell will tell you is a dead giveaway that that man is not called to celibacy…yet St. Paul clearly was and even says that he thanks God for it and even wishes that others could have been like him.

 

[Church_Militant]

Lets not make chaste and celibacy interchangeable.

Michael

They’re not… they are complementary, though all Christians are called to chastity, not all are called to celibacy. Every nun that I have ever known has been both.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Michael, going back to your earlier post:

Why? Do you think young unmarried men who renounce marriage and are put in positions of authority are more or less likely to molest children than a married man as descibed in 1 Tim 3?

Do you think an unmarried man, or a married man as described in 1 Tim 3 would be more likely to take the proper action when they discover a subordinate(s) molested a child?

Is it possible that you are unfamiliar with the fact that celibacy is not a causal fact in molestation, nor a predisposition to same?

Celibacy bears no causal relation to any type of deviant sexual addiction including pedophilia. In fact, married men are just as likely as celibate priests to sexually abuse children (Jenkins, Priests and Pedophilia). In the general population, the majority of abusers are regressed heterosexual men who sexually abuse girls. Women are also found to be among those sexual abusers. While it’s difficult to obtain accurate statistics on childhood sexual abuse, the characteristic patterns of repeat child sex offenders have been well described. **The profiles of child molesters never include normal adults who become erotically attracted to children as a result of abstinence **(Fred Berlin, “Compulsive Sexual Behaviors” in Addiction and Compulsive Behaviors [Boston: NCBC, 1998]; Patrick J. Carnes, “Sexual Compulsion: Challenge for Church Leaders” in Addiction and Compulsion; Dale O’Leary, “Homosexuality and Abuse”).

 

[tkdnick]

Mt 19:12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
What is he telling them to accept? His teaching in Mt 19:4-5:

Just curious, how do you get that what Jesus is saying for them to accept in Mt 19:12 is what he said in Mt 19:4-5? That’s making an awfully big jump considering all the information we have in between those verses. Why isn’t He refering to His previous statement about men giving up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven? Wouldn’t that be a much more logical connection?

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Note–he also mentions unmarried, not merely those who are widows. His point here, as noted before, is that it is best to be as he is–unmarried. Nothing there that implies him to be a widower. as already stated.

Yes, he also mentions unmarried. Is it possible that in the translation from Greek that widowers and widows would come out as unmarried and widows? I have heard this put forth. Any ancient Greek scholars around to help with this question?

Do you see the possibility that there is a structure to 1 Cor 7, with Paul addresing in order those that were married before (7:8), those that are married (7:10), to the married with an unbelieving spouse (7:12), and then those who have not been married/virgins (7:25)? Or was there no structure and order in Paul’s discussion?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Just curious, how do you get that what Jesus is saying for them to accept in Mt 19:12 is what he said in Mt 19:4-5? That’s making an awfully big jump considering all the information we have in between those verses. Why isn’t He refering to His previous statement about men giving up marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven? Wouldn’t that be a much more logical connection?

So, Jesus was teaching about marriage, and not to seperate from one’s spouse. And Peter, who was married, and/or the other disciples, then said it is better not to marry, perhaps implying that this was too difficult. So they propose being unmarried is better, and Jesus agrees with them? Even though in Mt 18 they were asking for the maximum amount of times they had to forgive someone, and then He corrects them in Mt 19:14 after they rebuked those bringing children to them? What was Jesus asking them to accept, what He was teaching about marriage, or what they had proposed that it was better not to marry?

If Jesus was accepting what the apostles proposed, (what else did they propose the was right (Peter gave a right answer to a question, but what did he propose on his own that was right?), then why is this not mentioned in Mark 10, which is otherwise word for word?

And some suggest this is selective Scripture reading and gymnastics? So looking at Scripture before and after, and in other books is being selective?

Michael

 

[tkdnick]

So, Jesus was teaching about marriage, and not to seperate from one’s spouse. And Peter, who was married, and/or the other disciples, then said it is better not to marry, perhaps implying that this was too difficult. So they propose being unmarried is better, and Jesus agrees with them? Even though in Mt 18 they were asking for the maximum amount of times they had to forgive someone, and then He corrects them in Mt 19:14 after they rebuked those bringing children to them? What was Jesus asking them to accept, what He was teaching about marriage, or what they had proposed that it was better not to marry?

If Jesus was accepting what the apostles proposed, (what else did they propose the was right (Peter gave a right answer to a question, but what did he propose on his own that was right?), then why is this not mentioned in Mark 10, which is otherwise word for word?

And some suggest this is selective Scripture reading and gymnastics? So looking at Scripture before and after, and in other books is being selective?

Michael

“Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Jesus’ words immediately preceding this sentence are “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Doesn’t it seem more logical that it is this statement that Jesus is talking about when He talks about acceptance? I’m still not following your logic of how you get that what Jesus is talking about is marriage. He makes a statement about that before saying all of this.

Mt 19:9-11 “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.”

He’s already said that not all can accept marriage, but only those to whom it is granted.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

“Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Jesus’ words immediately preceding this sentence are “Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” Doesn’t it seem more logical that it is this statement that Jesus is talking about when He talks about acceptance? I’m still not following your logic of how you get that what Jesus is talking about is marriage. He makes a statement about that before saying all of this.

Mt 19:9-11 “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.” [His] disciples said to him, “If that is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” He answered, “Not all can accept [this] word, but only those to whom that is granted.”

He’s already said that not all can accept marriage, but only those to whom it is granted.

Again, is Jesus agreeing with what the disciples proposed, that it is better not to marry? Where else did they propose something that they did not have to be corrected by Jesus?

Jesus focuses on marriage in Mt 19 and states not all can accept what he teaches about marriage:
Mt 19:11 But He said to them, "Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.
Is Jesus saying not all can accept His statement, or the disciple’s statement that it is better not to marry (remember Peter was married)?

Then he gives three examples of those who do not marry, those who as he says in Mt 19:11 “not all men can accept this statement”

In Mt 19:12 when Jesus says “He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”, is he referring to accepting what he said not all could accept, or to what the disciples stated? Which is the teaching of Jesus, and which of the disciples?

Does He say not all can accept this, then give examples of those who cannot, and then say those who can accept these acceptions should do so, instead of accepting what not all can accept?

Michael

 

[mercygate]

Seriously, when I read these verses in 1 Tim 3 and 4, and other Scripture, I do not see celibacy for priests as being consistent with Scripture. This is not to be biased. I am Catholic, and was reading hoping to understand this Catholic tradition. So many times I’ve marvelled at the depth of Catholic doctrine and how it weaves marvelously with Scripture. And had hoped for the same when reading about celibacy. If my saying that **it seems bishops and priests being married is not contrary to Scripture, **and may be harmonious with Scripture, don’t turn that into “anti-Catholic biases”

Michael

You are correct. Married bishops and priests are not contrary to Scripture.

Neither is celibacy.

Following the example of our Lord himself, who was celibate, the Church has chosen (and did so from the earliest times) in her discipline to receive men as priests and bishops who are willing to follow him in this – to follow his teaching in Mt. 19:12: “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Celibacy is a sign of contradiction in this world and a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

to follow his teaching in Mt. 19:12: “For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.”

Celibacy is a sign of contradiction in this world and a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom.

That is assuming Mt 19:12 is Jesus agreeing with the disciples that it is better not to marry, instead of telling whoever can accept His teaching on marital fidelity to receive this if they are able. In context of the disciples behavior and understanding in the rest of Scripture, and in context of other Scripture, I do not think He is promoting celibacy. I certainly could be mistaken, yet I read and prayed through the New Testament and some of the Old Testament several times looking to accept the interpretation of Mt 19:12 as promoting celibacy, and have come to believe that is taking the verse out of context. That’s my opinion, and yes, who am I, yet I believe I was sincere in wanting to accept that interpretation.

 If someday I am lead to agree with that interpretation, it still does not say priests should be restricted to celibacy.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Following the example of our Lord himself, who was celibate,

This is probably true. That does not in itself validate celibacy as a discipline required of those wishing to be priests in certain rites.

Jesus knew His hour would come. Knowing this, why would He marry knowing that soon He would be crucified? Why would He subject a wife and children to this? Jesus had a unique role in our salvation, so not everything that applies to Jesus necessarily applies to men.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

Celibacy is a sign of contradiction in this world and a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom.

Are there not other religions/beliefs that have celibacy? Then celibacy in itself is not a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom. Jesus Christ, and our love for Him are a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom.

Michael

 

[mercygate]

I agree, celibacy is not required by God or the Bible.

And yet is a general requirement for Roman Catholic priests.

You’ve read all that stuff on the discipline of clerical celibacy and the spirituality of “undivided devotion to the Lord” (Paul’s observation); you’ve read our Lord’s own words; you know the Tradition of the Church from its earliest days on this subject, and you STILL do not understand that the Church esteems celibacy as a good, based on Our Lord’s own example that (particularly if associated with virginity), surpasses the very great and highly esteemed good of marriage?

Even if I thought celibacy were not a good idea, at least I could not argue that the Church is acting in contravention of Scripture.

God and the Bible ask require us to obey God, and we ask God for forgiveness when we God against what God teaches through His Church and the Bible. We are not to have lustful thoughts, or commit adultry, or fornication, or steal, or lie, or bear false witness. We are to love one another in spirit and truth. These are required by God and His Bible through His Church. God does not require us to believe in celibacy for priests, and 1 Tim 3 appears to contradict celibacy for bishops, etc…

Celibacy is not required by God or the Bible. Loving God with all our heart is required. Marriage does not intrinsically cause one to be divided in love of God, as we see many examples in the Old and New Testament.

Paul, in I Cor 7 disagrees with you. And so would a lot of clergy wives who end up in a state of near-neglect because their husbands are so given to the care of their congregations.

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You go beyond what is written there with the statement that Paul was married at some point. There is nothing in the NT or in Christian history that in any way even implies that.

It would not have mattered if Peter had written that passage, since the discourse is about married bishops, not about marriage.

From Jewish history there is reason to believe Paul would have been expected to be married. Saying that there is nothing in the NT that in any way even implies that is chosing to ignore that there are interpretations that suggest that this is actually implied.

Thank you for saying it would not have mattered if Peter had writtne the passage. It has been asked why would Paul teach that bishops must be married if he was celibate. Since Peter was married, if Peter wrote this, would 1 Tim 3 be interpreted more favorably for priests to be chosen from exemplary married men?

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

And so would a lot of clergy wives who end up in a state of near-neglect because their husbands are so given to the care of their congregations.

That is a hazard of any occupation, when the occupation can become an excuse to neglect one’s other responsibilities. Did Moses neglect his wife while leading Israel? There are Christian ministers who love their families and their congreation, trusting in our Lord’s grace.

Michael

 

[Mt_28_19_20]

You’ve read all that stuff on the discipline of clerical celibacy and the spirituality of “undivided devotion to the Lord” (Paul’s observation); you’ve read our Lord’s own words; you know the Tradition of the Church from its earliest days on this subject, and you STILL do not understand that the Church esteems celibacy as a good, based on Our Lord’s own example that (particularly if associated with virginity), surpasses the very great and highly esteemed good of marriage?

Even if I thought celibacy were not a good idea, at least I could not argue that the Church is acting in contravention of Scripture.

Well, Popes have acted in contradiction of Scripture.

“undivided devotion to the Lord” So, is this restricted to celibates? Was Moses divided? Abraham divided? Mary and Joseph divided?

“Tradition of the Church from its earliest days on this subject”
it is tradition, not Tradition
Popes and bishops from the earliest days have been married
starting with Peter. Then there are those who were fornicators

I do not see Jesus teaching celibacy, I disagree with the interpretation. Did Jesus come to abolish the old law, or to fulfill? To give new disciplines, or to renew and give understanding to God’s will from the beginning? Did He replace or add to the Ten Commandments?

Michael

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Popes have acted in contradiction of Scripture.

As personal sinners (as are we all), yes. Peter not only denied Christ 3 times, he also (in a personal action which he did not ‘require’ or teach as necessary to the faith) had to be reminded by Paul regarding interaction with Gentiles. So Peter (the man) could make errors. Peter the Pope, in matters of faith and morals being taught as dogma to the Church. . .could not.

Teaching a contradiction, as dogma. . .no.

Big difference.

I cannot recall any Pope who taught that John 6 was “symbolic” (which contradicts Scripture), or that women can be priests (which contradicts Scripture) or that abortion is a ‘choice’ (which contradicts Scripture) or that we are saved by “faith alone” (which contradicts Scripture). . .

 

[mercygate]

Well, Popes have acted in contradiction of Scripture.

“undivided devotion to the Lord” So, is this restricted to celibates? Was Moses divided? Abraham divided? Mary and Joseph divided?

“Tradition of the Church from its earliest days on this subject”
it is tradition, not Tradition
Popes and bishops from the earliest days have been married
starting with Peter. Then there are those who were fornicators

I do not see Jesus teaching celibacy, I disagree with the interpretation. Did Jesus come to abolish the old law, or to fulfill? To give new disciplines, or to renew and give understanding to God’s will from the beginning? Did He replace or add to the Ten Commandments?

Michael

I repeat: embracing clerical celibacy simply opts for the adoption of a good deemed to be greater than marriage, according to scriptural warrant, for the clerical state for the benefits it bestows upon the individual and upon the Church, and as a witness to the Kingdom.

 

[mercygate]

Are there not other religions/beliefs that have celibacy? Then celibacy in itself is not a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom. Jesus Christ, and our love for Him are a profound and dramatic witness to the Kingdom.

Michael

Celibacy in Christianity is deeply embedded in the theology of the Kingdom. The fact that that passage is in the Gospel of Matthew is no accident. Other religious traditions tend to have sporadic celibacy. For them it is not a sign of the Kingdom, since they don’t have that theology. You’re comparing apples and lug wrenches.