Valentine’s Day, Singleness, & The Church: Part II
A basic understanding of hermeneutics tells us that one comes to any text with preconceived notions of what it should or does say. The best exegete tries to compensate for this issue but cultural understandings may so influence their thinking that they can’t see out of that paradigm.
I propose we do this with marriage when we read the Bible. We put our cultural views–our views that come from our current Christian culture– into what the Bible actually teaches on marriage and singleness. We tend to believe it is a Biblical mandate to be married except, of course, for those few people who are called to singleness. So we read the Bible accordingly, only seeing those parts that talk of marriage and how it plays a role in our lives and represents our future with Christ. We do not see the parts that talk about singleness.
So, let’s take a look starting in Genesis and look at creation with an eye towards singleness. In Genesis 2:18-22 it says:
Many foundational insights exist in these passages of Genesis that tell us who we are as humans and who God created us to be. Most people look to these chapters to tell us about God’s mandate for marriage. But take a moment to look at this passage from the perspective of God creating us also to be single–at least for a time.
The passage starts with God stating that it is not good for man to be alone. Of course, God knows that none of the animals are going to be the match for Adam but he still has Adam go through the naming process. Why would God do this? This question persists to be an interesting one with many commentators weighing in but I’d like to look at it from the perspective of singleness for some answers.
During this time of naming the animals Adam was going through a God-ordained period of singleness. Adam was waiting and hoping and expecting a companion to come along. At the very beginning God created this process of singleness in humans. It seems God wanted Adam to go through this. It seems that God wanted Adam to learn and grow during this time.
Singleness then, in some sense, seems to be our natural state. Marriage is something that God created for us while in this life—it doesn’t exist in our eternal state. He created marriage as a teaching tool and as a way for us to experience a healthy way to feed our need for real relationships in this world. But, we need not act like being single is wrong. God creates us as singles (everyone is born single), as individuals, and even, as with Adam, requires us to be single for a time period in our lives.
Moving into the New Testament now, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:7-9:
Again, in this oft quoted passage on singleness and marriage we tend to put on our ‘marriage goggles’ and look at it assuming that we should get married, often as quickly as possible. In the context Paul is addressing a question that the church in Corinth asked regarding abstaining from sex altogether. Paul is talking about when it is appropriate and not appropriate to have sex. If you read the previous verses this is clear, but we often just pull out a few verses making it easy to misinterpret the meaning. In 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 the verses right before the verses I quoted above it says:
Paul says both engaging in sex and abstinence are appropriate but in the correct contexts. It also seems we may fool ourselves into thinking that when Paul says that those who do not have ‘self-control’ should get married that he is speaking to anyone who has thoughts about sex and/or desires to have it. Most likely this was not his intent. The culture of that time was rampant with ways to express yourself sexually from temple prostitutes to brothels. If you are participating in those options, it is better to get married and have sexual relations in a marital context but he’d prefer if everyone stayed single as he was.
Obviously the Bible does address singleness through the passages I talked about as well as several others I’ve not looked at here. I’ll continue to look at more Biblical passages on the topic and develop the theology of singleness and marriage more fully in upcoming posts.
Read more in the intro piece to this series:
Valentine’s Day, Singleness, & The Church: Part I
.
Related Posts
About The Author
Bethany Sundstrom-Smith
Bethany Sundstrom-Smith holds a Master's Degree in Theology (Th.M.) with a focus in Media Arts from Dallas Theological Seminary. Her background is in journalism, marketing, and making lattes. She lives in Portland and runs Cadia Marketing and Food Blog Usability.
I wanted to share a comment & my answer from a response on Facebook as I think others may have a similar question.
From MCS:
I love your writing style and interpretations. amazing work! congrats! Although I don’t understand exactly why you say: Singleness then, in some sense, seems to be our natural state.Marriage is something that God created for us while in this life—it doesn’t exist in our eternal state.”… How do you know our eternal state is not in “union”, and we were just born single in this life to have that learning process you mention (the naming of things)?
And my response:
MCS: good to hear from you! Among other reasons, Jesus says that it does not. You can read it here in Matthew in the New Testament: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22%3A23-33&version=NIV
Excellent locution! I quote you, “He created marriage as a teaching tool and as a way for us to experience a healthy way to feed our need for real relationships in this world.” Then the definition of a real relationship is defined as sex or no sex? In jest, our Facebook relationship status’ are truly descriptors of our openness to sexual relationships? I disagree with your definition of a real relationship, especially the derivative definition, intended or not that that singleness does not involve real relationships.
Thanks for the comment.
Marriage is a ‘tool’ (we can use other tools) and ‘a’ (read ‘one’) healthy way (read ‘option’) to ‘feed our need’ (a need we all have regardless of being married, single or whatever in between might be) for real relationships (relationships is plural, we need more than one relationship with someone else).
I don’t define marriage by having sex or not. Obviously people have sex that are not married and people that are married don’t have sex.
I appreciate reading your thoughts on singleness. As a 33 year old single woman this issue is very dear to my heart. I have met many people – both Christians and non-Christians – who think that one must be married. It’s not just in the Christian culture; it’s also in American culture – well at least in some circles within the American culture. Christians should set the stage for a proper and healthy perspective towards singleness.
I must say though, that I am confused by your use of Genesis 2.18-22 to establish a biblical basis for singleness. While your overall point about singleness is expressed in the Bible, that is not what Genesis 2 is about. In fact, God says that it isn’t good for Adam (“man”) to be alone (i.e. single). This passage isn’t about a God ordained time of singleness for Adam, rather it is part of the creation story which explains why there had to be more than one human. Genesis 2 establishes why there is marriage (the main reason given is for procreation – which was needed to “fill the earth” with other humans). Genesis 2 does not establish that singleness is good, or that it is God ordained. Adam’s singleness is “not good,” while the union of him to Eve is “very good.” If anything this passage defends marriage against singleness.
It should also be noted that the culture that Genesis was originally written for was a culture in which singles had no place in community. Both men and women needed marriage to live/survive (although, admittedly, more necessary for the woman than the man).
Now as we proceed through the progress of revelation God does reveal that singleness is good. And, as you pointed out, 1 Corinthians 7 specifically speaks of singleness as a good thing. Both marriage and singleness are good – or at least they can be.
Also, Bethany, could you explain what you mean in your previous comment above about marriage being a “tool”? Because my initial inclination is to react negatively to that statement, to refer to a marriage relationship as a tool seems to degrade what marriage is; but perhaps you have a specific intended meaning that I’m just not getting
JoAnna — thanks for the comments & questions.
You said, “God says that it isn’t good for Adam (“man”) to be alone (i.e. single).” I don’t equate being alone and being single as the same thing. Someone can be alone and be married. The word in Genesis here translated as ‘alone’ is used again in the book, for instance in Genesis 32:24, and is talking of when someone is not with anyone else, not specifically if they are married or not.
God says that it isn’t good for Adam to be alone and then he creates woman and along with her a way (procreation) to ensure he, and others, is not alone. Also, it doesn’t say that God says the “‘union of him to Eve is ‘very good'” as you said in your post. Is that in a different chapter?
I’m not trying to argue that this passage has nothing to do with marriage but I believe it doesn’t carry the mandate that often is interpreted with it.
The command to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ is not in Chapter 2– it’s in Chapter 1. I tend to take Chapter 1 as more of an overview and introduction and the following chapters as more specific descriptions of what occurred. There is debate on how the ‘be fruitful and multiply’ should be taken — if it is specific to each marriage or a general command to society. I tend to take it as a more general command, I am aware many don’t. I could comment further but that seems to be getting off topic of this specific post.
God could have created Adam & Eve at the same time or as soon as he created Adam then immediately created Eve. He didn’t do this. There clearly is a period of time of enough length to have some significance from when Adam was created to when Eve was created. We can debate why God did this, but it’s clear that He did. So it was ‘God ordained’ for Adam to be single and alone.
I am not arguing for people to stay single forever. I’m not trying to say even that the primary point of this passage is about singleness. My point, which comes out more in my first post on the topic and hopefully will later in other posts, is that there is a time for being single and a time for being married. And God uses both to teach us important lessons about ourselves and Him and created us to have both times occur in our lives.
As far as the comment about marriage being a tool — two responses. First, I think in the context of my original sentence — “He created marriage as a teaching tool and as a way for us to experience a healthy way to feed our need for real relationships in this world.” — it doesn’t come across as ‘cold’ as it may have in my explanation. Second, I define a tool as something other than ourselves and other than God; something that we can use to extend ourselves. I believe that God uses everything to point us tangibly, spiritually or otherwise to himself and so, in that sense, I believe marriage is a tool. It’s something that God uses to extend ourselves out of our own naturally myopic viewpoints to better understand Him and better understand ourselves through that process.
Bethany,
I agree that there is a time to be single and a time to marry. My disagreement with you is not on that point. My disagreement is how you make your point. The text you are using does not support your point.
You mention that you don’t believe this passage (Gen 2) carries “the mandate that is often interpreted with it.” I think you are arguing a point that is unnecessary for your point. When you approach the Bible with the understanding of the progress of revelation then this passage does not affect our current theology of singleness. In the beginning marriage was mandated. Marriage was also practically necessary for life. As time progressed God continued to reveal more about Himself, and about how humans should/could live; culture also changed. In the New Testament God reveals that singles is not bad. Singleness can be good. We can base our theology of singleness off the New Testament and be okay with the Old Testament mandating marriage because we know that revelation progresses over time.
Since you bring up the Hebrew word for “alone” and I am a Hebrew scholar I will start with this issue. You say that you “don’t equate being alone and being single as the same thing.” Yet in the passage God himself describes Adam as “alone.” You take this same passage and say that this was a “god ordained time of singleness” for Adam. You can’t have this both ways. The Hebrew word לבד means to “be alone, to be separated, or by oneself.” It refers to a physical state of being. It is true that this word is not used for singleness in the Old Testament, but that does not prove anything. Singleness is not a concept in the Old Testament like it is today. Adam was single during this time because he was alone – he was the only human alive. But this time of “singleness” is described by God as “alone.”
Your mention that “someone can be alone and be married.” You are using a meaning for “alone” that is neither intended nor allowed by the Hebrew word for alone. If a husband of a married couple leaves on a trip and the wife is home alone (no children or anyone else) then she is alone in the Hebrew sense of the word. If they are both at home but are emotionally distant so that the wife or husband feels emotionally alone – that is not the Hebrew use of the word alone. You cannot define Hebrew words with English definitions.
About the “very good” comment – I was thinking of the end of chapter 1. My bad.
This “god ordained time of singleness” for an unspecified amount of time is to show that there was no suitable companion for Adam (2.20) and thus he needed Eve. The narrative structure shows that the culmination of this chapter is the end (2.23-25) where marriage is described. What he gives here is the description and inauguration of marriage. So if you want to argue that this passage helps with understanding singleness today, then singleness is a time to learn that we (singles) do not have a suitable helper and are incomplete.
You mention that there was a period of time in which Adam was alone (i.e. single) before Eve was created. Yes, that is true. Yet to describe this as a “god ordained time of singleness” is a stretch. Yes, God created Adam alone initially. Yes, during this unspecified amount of time Adam was single. But your statement is full of subtext from our 21st century culture. Singleness today involves staying single even when there are single people of the opposite gender. We make a choice (although, sometimes it’s not a choice made willingly). Adam made no such choice.
You state that you see Genesis 1 as an overview and introduction of what follows. Yet you say this to justify not including “be fruitful and multiply” in the discussion. But, if you want to take Genesis 1 as an introduction to Genesis 2 and following you must read Genesis 2 with Genesis 1 in mind. This is basic to narrative structure. Thus when Adam and Eve are brought together in Genesis 2 it is with the foundational understanding that their union is for the purpose of being fruitful and multiplying.
Thank you for explaining what you meant by tool. I understand better now what you meant. While I understand what you mean, and think there is truth to the statement I think that it is an incomplete picture of what marriage is. But this is something that I will leave alone for now, since I am unmarried and thus will leave this to the married people to discuss.
Lord knows I see the need to explain the value of singleness because of the church cultures I’ve grown up in. So hooray for developing a theology that doesn’t excuse or merely justify singleness, but in fact celebrates it as part of God’s plan for some (and as you suggest, for all at some stage of their lives). After all, we aren’t born married. Though apparently my parents started receiving requests from people who wanted me to marry their daughter within a few weeks of being born. A sure case of caveat emptor, if ever there was one …
However, I think the natural state argument kinda falls flat coming out of the gate. First of all, I don’t think it’s helpful to talk about anything being in its natural state while creation is incomplete, as it is at the window into day six given to us in Chapter 2. God hasn’t rested, not everything is good yet. Only after Eve is created do I think humanity can be thought of as existing in any sort of “natural state.” Adam by Himself is declared not good (i.e. not the way God intends things to be).
So if we’re going to try to see singleness in Genesis 2 (and I know that you want to distinguish between being alone and being single, yet for your line of argument to continue we have to understand Adam as single in the modern sense, regardless of what we mean by alone), the only lesson I think we could draw while still being consistent with the meaning and purpose of the text is that singleness is an incomplete and not “good” state to find oneself in as a human being. Which of course none of us are going to say! I really don’t think you can get the lesson that God wants us to be single for a season from Genesis 2 without necessarily having to equate singleness with incompleteness. Which isn’t to say there’s not biblical support for such an idea, but this just isn’t the passage to use to get there in my opinion.
The other thing about the “natural state/marriage is a tool” line of argument is that (at least to my recollection) it doesn’t look like any argument for singleness made in the NT. Whether it’s Jesus talking about people being made “eunuchs” for the Kingdom or Paul talking about the advantages that singles have over marrieds as servants of the Lord, the argument seems to always be that those without obligations to spouses or families are freed to devote all energy, time, resources, or what have you to the Lord’s work.
Maybe you have every intention of going there in a future post, but to me, that is the heart of any theology of singleness: singleness is a gift to the Church because singles are able to serve in ways, at times, and in places that marrieds often can’t. Singleness is one way in which God chooses to equip His saints for the sake of Kingdom work (whether for a season or a lifetime) … just as marriage is (at least in part) a gift to the Church and an equipping, as well, as it is in the marriage relationships of its members that the Church displays most fully to the world how the people of God ought to interact with God.
As the people of God — as one corporate body carrying out the same mission — we need singles and we need marrieds in the ranks … and we need to be taught to see the benefits and value of both states to the work of the kingdom. For, in truth, I think we wrongly value both states — by giving too little value to singleness and by valuing marriage for the wrong reasons.
Looking forward to seeing how you develop your theology of singleness in future posts!