Tobit vs. Corinthians

[eponymic]

This question came up on Page 5 of another unrelated thread, so I thought I’d re-ask it in a more appropriate setting.

Many Catholic weddings I’ve gone to in the past include a reading from Tobit that includes “It is not good for man to be alone”, which is a reference to Genesis. God made Eve to compliment Adam, bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Clearly, not something to be taken lightly. Conversely, in 1 Corinthians, Paul states that it is better to remain single. Being married diverts your attention away from God, and a couple should only get married if they cannot save themselves from the temptation.

So the question I have is, which passage is more important? Clearly, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone’” (Gen 2:18), has a more direct divine source than Paul saying to the unmarried and widows, “It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do.” (1 Cor 7:8). If Paul’s assement is correct, shouldn’t single vocations be promoted by the Church as better than married life? In my personal experience, socially and religiously, most people seem to need to have some reason not to “get married, have 2.5 kids, white picket fence, etc., etc.”, which is in concert with Genesis/Tobit but not with Paul.

 

[davidv]

This question came up on Page 5 of another unrelated thread, so I thought I’d re-ask it in a more appropriate setting.

Many Catholic weddings I’ve gone to in the past include a reading from Tobit that includes “It is not good for man to be alone”, which is a reference to Genesis. God made Eve to compliment Adam, bone of his bones, flesh of his flesh. Clearly, not something to be taken lightly. Conversely, in 1 Corinthians, Paul states that it is better to remain single. Being married diverts your attention away from God, and a couple should only get married if they cannot save themselves from the temptation.

So the question I have is, which passage is more important? Clearly, “The Lord God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone’” (Gen 2:18), has a more direct divine source than Paul saying to the unmarried and widows, “It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do.” (1 Cor 7:8). If Paul’s assement is correct, shouldn’t single vocations be promoted by the Church as better than married life? In my personal experience, socially and religiously, most people seem to need to have some reason not to “get married, have 2.5 kids, white picket fence, etc., etc.”, which is in concert with Genesis/Tobit but not with Paul.

Why does one have to be more important or better that the other? Both are vocations that individuals are called to by God. By definition, anything from God is good.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Epo__,

The Church has constantly promoted virginity as superior to the married life, just as Paul has done. But, just as Paul has done, it says that it is not for everyone. In fact, it is not for most people, and that is why it is good that “man should not be alone”.

By the way, the thousands of religious who live in communities, are far from “being alone”.

Verbum

 

[drafdog]

Also bear in mind that Paul is writing at a time when the second coming was deemed to be immenent. What is the point of marrying if Christ is returning within a short period of time?
The relative importance of the two passages is equal in the instance of a vocation to marriage or a vocation to the single life. One consults one’s heart to determine which path to follow, as Jesus said to the apostles, “Not all can hear this.”

Matthew

 

[eponymic]

Why does one have to be more important or better that the other? Both are vocations that individuals are called to by God. By definition, anything from God is good.

The problem is the contradictory nature. God made man single, and it was good, but then said that man should not be alone. Paul advocates asceticism, that states that it is better for man to be alone than tied to worldly desires that divert your attention from God, one of which is marriage.

Hi Epo__,

The Church has constantly promoted virginity as superior to the married life, just as Paul has done. But, just as Paul has done, it says that it is not for everyone. In fact, it is not for most people, and that is why it is good that “man should not be alone”.

By the way, the thousands of religious who live in communities, are far from “being alone”.

Verbum

In the light of a 50% divorce rate, wouldn’t the Church want to ramp up this promotion and only allow couple to get married if they prove they are worthy of the vocation? The Church does have requirements for marriage, but a compatability test is not one of them.

Also bear in mind that Paul is writing at a time when the second coming was deemed to be immenent. What is the point of marrying if Christ is returning within a short period of time?
The relative importance of the two passages is equal in the instance of a vocation to marriage or a vocation to the single life. One consults one’s heart to determine which path to follow, as Jesus said to the apostles, “Not all can hear this.”

Matthew

I’ve heard that claim several times, although when I want to find a reference to it, it always eludes me. Do you have a definitive resource that verifies that Paul was expecting Jesus to return in a week or two? I’m not questioning that so much as wanting to remember where I found that.

Similarly, it appears that most Church teachings these days profess that “as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end.” Paul states that it is foolish to get married and start a family because the world is ending, but since we do not believe that the world is ending imminently, shouldn’t we take what he says with a bit of salt? There still may be truth to his words, but the context may change the fine details.

 

[davidv]

The problem is the contradictory nature. God made man single, and it was good, but then said that man should not be alone. Paul advocates asceticism, that states that it is better for man to be alone than tied to worldly desires that divert your attention from God, one of which is marriage.

They are only contrary if you try to apply them to the same person. Your question imposes an artificial constraint that it has to be one or the other. Others posters and I have said it can be both/and. In either the single or married life there are ample opportunities for not being alone and for exercising self-discipline (ascetisism).

 

[123rock]

Also bear in mind that Paul is writing at a time when the second coming was deemed to be immenent. What is the point of marrying if Christ is returning within a short period of time?

To point out a few mistakes, the first would be that 1 and 2 Corinthians (since I’m not sure which one has the marriage discussion ) is one of the 7 universally accepted letters as having been written by Paul himself in 50-60 AD. At this time there was NO imminent expectation of the Second Coming. The period that you speak of is 80-100 AD.

Secondly, the alleged influence on some of the later epistles as of an expected imminent coming is confused with the language which the Jews used. When the NT speaks of “the coming of the Lord is at hand,” it is similar to the Old Testament prophets who spoke of the first coming (and salvation itself) as being soon (Isaiah 11, etc). Clearly, it is rather ignorant (and skepticism is very very guilty at this point) to believe that the ancients were so ridiculously dumb as to have a perfect theological system, yet contradict not only the Old Testament prophets who speak of ALL gentiles being evangelized (Isaiah 11:10, Malachi 1:11), the book of Acts with its preaching of missionary activity toward the gentiles as well as Paul’s own, but the Great Commission of Christ Himself:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, - Matthew 28:19

 

[Wisdom]

To point out a few mistakes, the first would be that 1 and 2 Corinthians (since I’m not sure which one has the marriage discussion ) is one of the 7 universally accepted letters as having been written by Paul himself in 50-60 AD. At this time there was NO imminent expectation of the Second Coming. The period that you speak of is 80-100 AD.

Secondly, the alleged influence on some of the later epistles as of an expected imminent coming is confused with the language which the Jews used. When the NT speaks of “the coming of the Lord is at hand,” it is similar to the Old Testament prophets who spoke of the first coming (and salvation itself) as being soon (Isaiah 11, etc).

Uhh Paul spoke explicitly about a second coming in the books 0f 1 and 2 Thessalonians during the same 50-50 AD period that you say there was no imminent expectation of the Second coming. The early church certainly had a belief of the second coming by the time Paul wrote his epistles it did not have to wait for the book of Revelation to reveal this. Of course Jesus himself said he would come back if that’s worth anything. There is a devlopment of doctrine in the church of course but concerning the second coming of Christ it is not as much as you suggest between the time of Paul and St John’s Revelation. Both believed in a literal second coming.

 

[123rock]

Uhh Paul spoke explicitly about a second coming in the books 0f 1 and 2 Thessalonians during the same 50-50 AD period that you say there was no imminent expectation of the Second coming. The early church certainly had a belief of the second coming by the time Paul wrote his epistles it did not have to wait for the book of Revelation to reveal this. Of course Jesus himself said he would come back if that’s worth anything.

I’m not saying that the Church had no belief in the Second Coming. I’m saying that the epistles do not expect it within the next 50 or so years.

123rock:

At this time there was NO imminent expectation of the Second Coming

 

[rciadan]

123 Rock and Wisdom: Both of you are straying far away from the focus of this thread…

 

[123rock]

123 Rock and Wisdom: Both of you are straying far away from the focus of this thread…

Sorry about that, it’s just that I saw this when reading. I think that to answer the original question, both Genesis and Paul speak from man’s perspective. In Proverbs we’re told that wisdom can be both bad and good. I think that it is not wise to compare two books as far sociohistorically as Paul’s 1 Corinthians and Moses’ Genesis are on a ground that is not established very clearly as being the same. The meaning of marriage in Genesis is in no way connected to being a better missionary, as Paul’s letters seem to indicate. It was simply how to live a nice life, unless you want to do something more productive (Matthew 19:12).

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

In context of I Cor 7, Paul is giving his advice in a specific crisis situation, not as binding for all time.

1 Corinthians 7:26 (New International Version)

Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.

 

[Ilroy]

And you are leaving out very important verses just before verse 8:

6 But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.

So there appears to be no contradiction…Paul is basically just giving HIS opinion, but that ultimately God has the last say.