It is good for a man to remain as he is? -Part 1

Okay, I'm back.

And Washington was awesome... as always.

I've got a couple of ideas that I wanted to flesh out on here. This first one will be a bit shorter (2 posts), and the next one quite a bit longer, I imagine (it will probably take me a few days to get it all out and on here).

I wrote a post in October about a "radical" view of marriage. Basically, it was about the idea that God established the institute of marriage first, and foremost, for His Name's sake. I still agree with this view, but I'm afraid that, in reading the post, some of you might have had the idea that I'm a cold-hearted you-know-what... that I view marriage as something which God created only for His glory; that the proclamation of His Name is the only benefit of the marriage union.

Not true. I believe that it fulfills first, and foremost, this role. However, I also believe that God, by choosing to give glory to Himself in this way, also gives joy to His creation... which, in turn, also gives Him glory.

I've got a text from Song of Solomon that I want to meditate on for a bit tomorrow, but I think I'd like to first take a look at some excerpts from the seventh chapter of 1 Corinthians, which may seem at first to cause a bit of a problem for my view. It starts with verse 20:

Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called.

Now, it seems that Paul talks here first of the futility of circumcision as a way of pleasing God (verse 19). However, he then extends his admonition to status of slaves, and then to marriage. Starting in verse 25, he says:

Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy.

I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress - that it is good for a man to remain as he is:

Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.

Paul says that his reasoning here is that those who are married split their energies between the Lord and their spouse (verses 32-33), and he adds that this counsel of his is given to the brethren not so that they may "have a leash put on them," but so that they may "serve the Lord without distraction" (verse 35).

Now, I have to admit something about my interactions with Paul's writings. Paul seems to have been one hard dude to get. I used to actually get mad when I would read his letters: I thought he was a pompous jerk. But, like many things that are found in Scripture, I started with a default position of acceptance, because I believe that, being in the Bible, they are the divinely inspired Word of the Lord Almighty. However, accepting Scripture and liking what Scripture has to say are often two very different things. But then, after more and more study... I began to find a source of immense joy in discovering their hidden truths. I'm now seeing that Paul's letters contain some of the most blessing-infused words I've ever read in Scripture. A detailed study of Paul's epistle to the church at Rome is rocking my world right now...

Anyway, I still agree with Peter when he says that some of Paul's writings are "hard to understand" (2 Peter 3:16), and I would like to just say a couple of quick things before I move on to the Song of Solomon text (tomorrow).

Firstly, I think it is interesting that Paul goes to the trouble of specifically stating twice (verses 25 and 40) that this council is not a direct commandment from God, but rather a personal judgment. He even says back in verses 7-8 that he wishes that all men and women might remain single, as he is. However, he adds the words "But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that" (verse 7). It is clear that Paul recognizes that his personal calling for celibacy may not be the same for everyone.

Secondly, in anticipation of the next post, I would like to say that I would be tempted to disagree with the argument that says that what is written in Song of Solomon and what is written in 1 Corinthians are somehow at odds with one another, one book being from the Old Testament, the other being from the New Testament. I don't believe that there is any Scriptural support for the idea that God changes... that the God of the O.T. and the God of the N.T. are two different Beings in character and in deed. That being said, I would like anyone who is reading this post, and will read the post tomorrow, to share with me the mindset that the same God breathed the words found in both of these books.