Where is the “catalog” of which St. Paul speaks (1 Tim. 5:9)?

[raumzeitmc2]

Father Paul writes to his spiritual son Timothy regarding the “Order of Widows”:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man…” 1 Timothy 5:9

Another translation has:

“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once…”

And of course, there are other translations.

In any event, phrases such as, “taken into the number" or “be enrolled,” are translations of the single Greek word Katalego (our word, “catalog”).

Now here katalego refers to an official “list or register” of celibate widows – “proto-nuns” as Jimmy Akin calls them - who have devoted themselves to lives of prayer and service to the true Church.

The New Testament tells of a vow of celibacy–a formal commitment to lead the single life–and Paul incorporates it into his regulations for the order of proto-nuns he discusses in 1 Timothy 5. Ironically, this vow of celibacy is mentioned in 1 Timothy 5, just a chapter after the “doctrines of demons” passage in 1 Timothy 4!

“DOCTRINES OF DEMONS” By James Akin

Thus we have a picture of what a true “Bible Church” is supposed to look like.

Now a question to our Protestant friends: Where is such a catalog in your church (or at least something to indicate you follow the *Scriptural pattern *of having consecrated celibate women (and men) in the service of God and his Church? If not, why not?

---

More on the New Testament “Order of Widows”.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Well, this is kind of amazing! I mean, has no one a response to this?

Are there no Protestants faithful to this teaching of Scripture?

 

[Joshua27]

I have a response…but I suspect I’ll simply be told I’m wrong in this thread too [like I’m currently dealing with in another thread, but oh well].

---

The term is “celebate widows”, not “celibate women (and men)”.

The operative word that “celebate” is tied to is “widow”:

A widow is “a woman whose husband has died”.

---

Paul says, “Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man…” 1 Timothy 5:9

As you’ve pointed out in your further translation, Paul is saying “DO NOT enroll widows under sixty years old…” but Paul continues his thought…

"Enroll widows sixty years old and up, once married, well reported of for good works, IF (1 Timothy 5: 9-10):

• she has raised children
• she has given lodging to strangers
• she has washed strangers feet
• she has relieved the afflicted
• she has diligently followed every good work…"

(Conversely, Paul’s thought continues in 1 Timothy 5:11-15…)

“But REFUSE the younger widows, because when they’ve begun to “wax wanton” (lose faith) against Christ, they will marry; Having damnation because they cast off their first faith. They become idle, but also tattlers and busybodies, speaking things they ought not. I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, and give no opportunity for The Adversary to speak reproachfully, for some are already turned aside after Satan.”

Point 1: Here, Paul is speak about widows; women who have lost their husbands. Not once does Paul refer to men who’ve lost their wives or women and men in general (in terms of celebacy in the church).

Point 2: Paul says to “accept” the older widows IF they’ve done all of the things listed [which in my opinion, are examples of a woman living a fulfilled, godly life]…So not even older widows were to be accepted if they did not these things.

Finally Paul says to “refuse” the younger widows because when their faith in Christ wanes these women will simply find fulfillment in another man [marriage] or wandering from house to house, start gossiping and pettiness…so Paul would prefer that younger women marry, have kids, run a home, etc. so that they are not put in a position to speak against the faith.

---

If we start at the beginning of Paul’s thought - where he speaks about this situation of “widows” in context - notice what Paul says…

1 Timothy 4:1-7…

Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the latter days some will depart from the faith and succumb to seducing spirits and dictrines of devils; (a) speaking lies in hypocrisy; (b) having their conscience seared with a hot iron; (c) forbidding to marry, (d) abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving from them who believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good and nothing is to be refused, if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.

If you put the breatheren in rememberance of these things, you will be a good minister of Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine that you have attained. But refuse profane and old wives fables, and exercise rather unto godliness."

---

…so having women marry - and not be celebate - IS being faithful to this passage, right?

 

[Joshua27]

[replace all of my words - “celebate” - with “celibate” (lol wow) I kept making the same spelling error.]

 

[Metamorphoo]

Father Paul writes to his spiritual son Timothy regarding the “Order of Widows”:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man…” 1 Timothy 5:9

Another translation has:

“Let a widow be enrolled if she is not less than sixty years old, married only once…”

And of course, there are other translations.

In any event, phrases such as, “taken into the number" or “be enrolled,” are translations of the single Greek word Katalego (our word, “catalog”).

Now here katalego refers to an official “list or register” of celibate widows – “proto-nuns” as Jimmy Akin calls them - who have devoted themselves to lives of prayer and service to the true Church.
“DOCTRINES OF DEMONS” By James Akin

Thus we have a picture of what a true “Bible Church” is supposed to look like.

Now a question to our Protestant friends: Where is such a catalog in your church (or at least something to indicate you follow the *Scriptural pattern *of having consecrated celibate women (and men) in the service of God and his Church? If not, why not.

I don’t see where Jimmy Akin gets the idea that the widow has taken a vow of celibacy. She is celibate because her husband has died, making sexual relations improper for her unless she remarries.

I am not against people who choose to live lives of celibate singlehood. I’m just not seeing support for Akin’s “proto-nun” idea in this passage, which you are using to state is the picture of a “true Bible Church.” The context of the passage deals with how the church should care for its widows.

The proper issue to be addressed would be asking what churches are doing to care for widows–not whether they have consecrated celibate women “enrolled” in their church.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The term is “celebate widows”, not “celibate women (and men)”.

Last time I checked, widows were women! And there were of course celibate men in the New Testament - St. Paul and St. Timothy for example.

If we start at the beginning of Paul’s thought - where he speaks about this situation of “widows” in context - notice what Paul says…

1 Timothy 4:1-7…

What has that to do with the fact that there was an *official list *of *celibate * widows??

…so having women marry - and not be celebate - IS being faithful to this passage, right?

Huh? This is surreal!

Listen, why don’t we just forget the widows for a moment?

Now surely you don’t deny that in the New Testament Church, we find both married and unmarried people, men and women. Those who were unmarried, the consecrated celibates, chose celibacy for the sake of the kingdom of God. The wanted to consecrate themselves totally to God.

You may recall the celibate Christ spoke of such:

“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 [celibates]* for the kingdom of heaven’s sake*. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Matt. 19:12

“And the (celibate) answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” Acts 8:34

St. Paul, himself a consecrated celibate, reaffirms this teaching:

“An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.”
1 Corinthians 7.

So there you have it - the Biblical pattern for the Church.

Now to Joshua and Metamorphoo, just one question.

Do your churches follow this Biblical pattern?

 

[Joshua27]

Now a question to our Protestant friends: Where is such a catalog in your church (or at least something to indicate you follow the Scriptural pattern of having consecrated celibate women (and men) in the service of God and his Church? If not, why not?

Now your asking…

“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 [celibates]* for the kingdom of heaven’s sake*. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” Matt. 19:12

“And the (celibate) answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” Acts 8:34

St. Paul, himself a consecrated celibate, reaffirms this teaching:

“An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33 But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34 and his interests are divided.”
1 Corinthians 7.

So there you have it - the Biblical pattern for the Church.

Do your churches follow this Biblical pattern?

…So first you ask if we follow the scriptural pattern found in 1 Timothy 5:9, to which we essentially replied, “Yeah! Sure!”, but because it didn’t prove your gotcha point you want to change the thread question to ask if we follow the scripture found in Matthew, Acts, and Corinthians? Ok.

1. In Matthew 19:12, Christ is saying that there are some who choose to be celibate for the sake of God, and to essentially let them be. Some of us are celibate; some of us are married. No where does Christ say to start an Order for celibates, Christ merely says “if being celibate is what one’s called to do by God, don’t judge”. So do we follow? Yes.

2. The context of Acts 8:34 starts at Acts 8:27, where Phillip meets a “celibate official from Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians”, who decided to sit and read the book of Isaiah but couldn’t understand what he was reading. Phillip was then lead by the Holy Spirit to help explain Isaiah to the celibate. The celibate quotes a passage from Isaiah (Acts 8:32-33) and then asks [Acts 8:34], “I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” So Acts 8:34 merely describes a celibate asking a question. There is no teaching about celibacy here in this verse.

3. For the context of your Corinthian passage, we must start at the beginning of Paul’s thought at 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 [brackets are mine]…

Now concerning the things you wrote to me: it is good for a man not to touch a woman. NEVERTHELESS, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render due benevolence to his wife and the wife to her husband. The wife doesn’t have power over her body, but over the husband’s…and the husband does not have power over his body, but the wife’s. Deprive not one another, except if it be with consent for a [short] time, and then come together again, so that Satan does not tempt you through your incontinency “lack of satisfaction” is the assumption I get].

(1 Corinthians 7:6-9 - Paul continues his thought…)

But I speak this as a “permission” not a “commandment”. For I would [prefer] that all men were even as I myself. But [meaning “however”] every man has his [own] proper gift of God, one after this manner, and one after that. So I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain [their urges] let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn “because of sin of fornication” is the assumption].

(1 Corin. 7:10 - Paul then speak about “the unmarried” and what they’re commanded to do)

But unto the unmarried I command, no, the Lord commands, ‘Let not the wife [meaning “you”] leave her husband [meaning “God”]’.

…Paul then continues on through the verses you quote, saying that “distraction” is the issue he’s addressing…

1 Corin. 7:35-36 - And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin [betrothed], if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

---

Point: Paul - reflecting what Christ speaks about in Matthew - also says that neither one way or the other is “required”, but a choice; a calling from God. Paul then defines the real problem of “distraction”, saying ‘if people can be married with full devotion to God, then bless them…and if people choose to remain celibate - like Paul - bless them more, as this is the better choice in Paul’s opinion [Paul uses the word “judgement”]’.

So is this Biblical Pattern followed? Yes! We have some who are married and some who are celibate…but again, no where do these passages speak of establishing a “Consecrated Order” of celibate individuals.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

…So first you ask if we follow the scriptural pattern found in 1 Timothy 5:9, to which we essentially replied, “Yeah! Sure!”, but because it didn’t prove your gotcha point

“didn’t prove your gotcha point”??

Wow Josh, didn’t you notice that no one responded to this thread at first? Not one!

That it was not until I expressed my amazement at that fact than even a couple of folks - you and Metamorphoo - responded? (and I do appreciate the comments btw)

And that even now, no one has yet come forward and said, “Sure, we follow the Biblical pattern. We have an order of consecrated celibate widows in our church” or “we have consecrated celibates, both men and women, just like the New Testament Church,” or some such words? No, not even one!

And that is what this thread is about - consecrated celibates! It is *not *about whether St. Paul permitted people to get married. We all know that. It’s beside the point.

But anyway, to better understand where you’re coming from, perhaps you wouldn’t mind giving your thoughts on the following:

Luther:

The body demands a woman and has need of the same.

Chastity is not in our power. All are created for marriage. God does not permit that one be alone.

From Luther and Lutherdom, Heinrich Denifle, p. 9.

St. Augustine (ibid., p. 117):

One who, by the grace of God, has vowed something greater than conjugal chastity, (i.e., continency) will be damned if he takes a wife, after the vow which he promised to God, though he would not be damned if he had taken a wife previously.

Why? Because he who has taken the vow of continency and nevertheless afterwards takes a wife, has looked back. A virgin, if she married, would not sin; a nun, if she married, shall be accounted an adulteress of Christ. She has looked back from the place to which she had come. Such is the case of those in monastic communities. Whoever goes back into the world is not held as one who never entered. He has looked back. Therefore let each one, as he can, fulfil his vow to God: ‘Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God.’ Let no one look back or have delight in that which lies behind him and which he has forsaken."

Peace.