Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Singleness Is Too Hard

In wider culture, singleness (as we have already noted) is not a problem in and of itself. But celibacy is. It is fine not to have married. It can even be a good thing — you are footloose and fancy-free. (Though I confess I've no idea what either of those terms actually means.) But to be without sexual or romantic intimacy is another matter.

Two recent movies highlight this. Take the Steve Carell comedy The 40-Year-Old Virgin. The whole premise behind it is that to be a virgin at forty years old is utterly laughable. People are horrified when they find out. Some treat him like a child. After all, he's not properly grown up yet. And, of course, the happy ending to the movie is that he finally does lose his virginity. Although the impact on him is overblown, the point is real: he's now entered into one of the key things life is about.

Another example is the movie Forty Days and Forty Nights. The tagline says it all: "One man is about to do the unthinkable. No sex. Whatsoever. For forty days and forty nights." Think about that for a moment. Forty days and forty nights is neither an arbitrary length of time nor an arbitrary way of describing it. In the Gospel accounts Jesus was in the wilderness without food for "forty days and forty nights" (Matt. 4:2). Christians observing Lent typically give something up for the same period of time. Forty days and forty nights has become the standard unit for those who want to be serious about depriving themselves of something. We're willing to go this long without chocolate or carbs or social media or TV. But to go this long without sex? Unthinkable. I've just calculated that I've done the equivalent length of time well over two hundred times. Once is unthinkable. Two hundred plus? Well, I am way off the charts. I heard someone describe long-term celibates like me as being like unicorns: you've heard of them, but you never think you're going to actually meet one.

Behind the comedy of such movies lies a serious belief, one that is widespread in the Western world today: without sex you can't really experience what it means to be truly human. According to this thinking, our sense of personhood is directly attached to our sex life. To ignore this side of us, to deliberately not express and fulfill it, is to actually do harm to ourselves. It is a fundamental aspect of our humanity, and repressing it is not healthy. Those who are long-term single are not just quaint and old-fashioned; we might actually be deluded. Something is very wrong with us.

Choosing to live this way is questionable enough, but there is a unique distaste for those who might, in the name of religion, require it of anybody else. Calling others to live sexually abstinent outside of marriage is now regarded as unnecessary and cruel. Those wanting to uphold the Bible's teaching on sexual ethics are criticized for "enforcing celibacy" on others and, by doing so, causing considerable damage.

All this means we need to be crystal clear about what the Bible really says about these things.

Jesus on Sex and Marriage

One of the prevailing myths today is that Jesus was tolerant when it comes to sexual ethics. Sure, people tend to think, the Old Testament had some strict things to say about marriage and sexuality, and Paul was evidently having the theological equivalent of a bad-hair day when he was writing some of his letters, but Jesus was much more relaxed about these things and didn't seem to have any of the hang-ups that his followers today are accused of having.

But it is wrong to suggest Jesus had nothing challenging to say about sex. In fact, he takes the broad Old Testament sexual ethic and intensifies it. First,Jesus defines sex outside of marriage as sinful:

For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. (Matt. 15:19–20)

Jesus is saying that it is all too possible to be defiled, to be spiritually unacceptable to God. The Pharisees he is talking to generally believed that defilement was a bit like catching a cold: provided you avoided infected people and places, you could stay healthy. So they went to great lengths to wash themselves ceremonially and to stay away from people they thought were spiritually unclean. But Jesus shows them that defilement is not primarily something external to us but internal. It is not outside of us and to be avoided, but inside of us and to be acknowledged — it comes out of the heart. Various attitudes and types of behavior reflect this, and Jesus provides a sampling of them: evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, and slander.

This is not an exhaustive list but a representative one. And in the middle of it comes the phrase "sexual immorality." It is a translation of one Greek word, porneia, which is what Matthew originally wrote. If that word sounds a little familiar, it is because we get the word pornography from it. At the time of Jesus, porneia referred to any sexual behavior outside of marriage. It would have included premarital sex, prostitution, adultery (which Jesus also lists separately), and same-sex behavior. Such sexual activity, Jesus says, defiles us. It is not the only form of behavior that does (as the rest of his list indicates), but it is one of the things. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. In other words, what, I suspect, is the vast majority of sexual behavior in our culture today, Jesus regards as morally wrong. He's not so sexually tolerant, as it happens.

But Jesus's teaching is even more challenging than that. In his famous Sermon on the Mount, Jesus included these words:

You have heard that it was said, "You shall not commit adultery." But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. (Matt. 5:27–28)

In this section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus is contrasting the traditions of the religious teachers at that time with the heart attitude that God intends his laws to promote and his people to have. Evidently it was common to teach the law primarily in terms of externals, so Jesus shows that it was always meant to go much deeper. It is not enough, he shows us, merely to refrain from physically committing adultery. What God requires is honorable intentions and a godly attitude. It is not just about what we do (or manage not to do) but what and even how we think. Jesus doesn't take the Old Testament law and go easy on his hearers; he dials it up for them.

One more passage reflects this:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." (Matt. 19:3–6)

Jesus is asked about divorce, but his answer doesn't cover divorce. Instead he talks about marriage. To do that Jesus goes back to Genesis 1 and 2. When he says, "He who created them from the beginning made them male and female," he is referencing Genesis 1:27. Then he directly quotes Genesis 2:24: "Therefore a man shall leave ..." But Jesus makes clear that by referencing these early chapters of Scripture, he is not merely seeking wisdom from the ancients. Notice it is "he who created them" who says, "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife." It is the Creator himself who provides these words of commentary on what marriage is. What we are seeing is, therefore, the Creator's blueprint for human sexuality. This is not the best of human wisdom; it is our Maker's design for us.

That design clearly shows us that God's template for marriage is one man and one woman for life. This, Jesus shows us, is the union that alone enables two people to become "one flesh." This is not something designed to be undone or reversed. And as Jesus continues to unpack this, and its implications for how we think about divorce, the disciples respond in a telling way:

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." (Matt. 19:10)

This is telling for a very simple reason. I've read these words countless times over the years but only really noticed just recently that when Jesus talks about what marriage is, he actually puts people off getting married. The disciples realize how serious marriage is. Maybe best to give it a miss, they think. It sounds a little too much like commitment. Their reaction is understandable, but it got me thinking. One of the perks of being a pastor is that I get to preach at weddings fairly often. But never has someone come up to me after I've preached on what marriage is and means and said, "Maybe it is better not to marry." This makes me wonder if it was Jesus's view of marriage I was actually teaching. His is not an easy standard when it comes to sex and marriage.

Jesus's response to the disciples seems to underline this:

But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given." (Matt. 19:11)

There is discussion among scholars about whether "this saying" refers to all that Jesus had just been teaching or to what the disciples have just said in response to his teaching. If it is to the former, Jesus is underlining how the Christian standard for marriage will not be for all; hence what he says next about the life of celibacy as the alternative. If Jesus is referring to the latter — to the disciples' remark about it being better not to marry — he is saying that not all will be able to follow the way of life they are commending, although some do and hence the comments about eunuchs. Concerning one way, it is the Christian view of marriage that will be hard to accept; concerning the other, it is the Christian view of singleness that will be hard to accept.

In one sense, it doesn't make much difference. The fact is, marriage can be hard and so too can singleness. Each brings its own challenges. Neither option is the easier one, and the challenges of marriage are quite different from the challenges of singleness. But I suggest Jesus is referring to what he has just been teaching. It is a hard word for many to hear and receive.

If the disciples had hoped the strength of their reaction might make Jesusequivocate in some way, his response would have felt like a slap in the face. Jesus doesn't soften his stance. He tacitly agrees with what they say about marriage. It's difficult. So what's the answer? Interestingly, it's not cohabitation.

It's celibacy.

Jesus continues:

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. (Matt. 19:12)

Eunuchs were celibate men in Jesus's day, particularly those who had been emasculated. Jesus goes on to show that some were eunuchs involuntarily: they were born that way or made that way by others. But alongside that, some were willing to forgo marriage by choice. Barry Danylak notes, "In using the term eunuch, Jesus meant more than someone simply not marrying but rather one's setting aside the right of marriage and procreation. ... Jesus is suggesting that there are some who will willingly give up the blessings of both marriage and offspring for the sake of the kingdom of God." We will think more about this in due course, but for now we can simply note this: when the disciples raise the possibility of not getting married, Jesus talks to them about being eunuchs. As far as he is concerned, that is the only godly alternative to marriage.

These are all challenging statements, but they are very clear. To summarize these three passages:

• Sex outside of marriage is sinful (Matt. 15:19).

• Sexual sin includes not just the physical act, but our thoughts and attitudes too (Matt. 5:28).

• Marriage is between a man and a woman, for life, and the godly alternative is to be celibate (Matt. 19:4–5, 10–12).

Jesus is therefore not as sexually tolerant as people today commonly imagine him to be. Far from relaxing the common Jewish traditions on sexual ethics derived from the Old Testament, he actually intensifies them. For those wanting to follow him, being unmarried very much involves singleness with sexual abstinence.

The Goodness of Singleness

That may clarify the terms of our discussion. But we still haven't answered our central concern: Is biblical singleness too hard? Look again at Jesus's exchange with his disciples following his teaching on marriage and divorce:

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. 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." (Matt. 19:10–12)

Notice again the disciples' premise: marriage sounds too hard. Jesus doesn't contradict that. Marriage (as he presents it) is not easy. It is hard. It will not be the best path for everyone. That is why some choose to be like the eunuchs. Our starting point today is often the opposite. Celibacy sounds too hard, so we should make marriage more readily accessible, even redefining it so that more people can enter into it. But Jesus's thinking seems to go in the opposite direction. Marriage can be too hard for some, so he commends celibacy.

We also need to remember that Jesus made himself a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom. Jesus willingly became fully human for us. He willingly became a male. He was a sexual human being, as we all are. But he lived a celibate lifestyle. He never married. He never even entered a romantic relationship. He never had sex. Jesus was not calling others to a standard he was not willing to embrace himself. He wasn't calling singles to sexual abstinence while knowing nothing of it himself. He lived this very teaching.

But there's more than even that. Jesus is not just an example of a nonhypocritical teacher. He is the example of the perfect man. He is the humanity all of us are called to be but which none of us are. He is the most complete and fully human person who ever lived. So his not being married is not incidental. It shows us that none of these things — marriage, romantic fulfillment, sexual experience — is intrinsic to being a full human being. The moment we say otherwise, the moment we claim a life of celibacy to be dehumanizing, we are implying that Jesus himself is only subhuman.

The significance of this came home to me recently. I was speaking to a pastor who was expressing reservations about calling same-sex-attractedmembers of his church to the sexual ethic we have just been outlining. He summarized his concern with these words: "How can I expect them to live without romantic hope?" I was grateful for his concern for them. Many married pastors can be blasé about what they're asking of some of their unmarried church members. He, at least, was aware of the potential cost for them, and it mattered to him. But there was an assumption behind his concern that troubled me. The assumption was that we can't really live without romantic hope, that a life without any potential for romantic fulfillment is unfair to demand and unbearable to experience. It assumes romantic fulfillment is fundamental to a full and complete life.

Some time later I was preaching from 1 John and found myself teaching a passage that includes these words:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that JesusChrist has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4:2–3)

There was an opportunity for questions from the congregation after the sermon, and someone asked whether there is, in fact, anyone today who denies that Christ has come in the flesh. Wasn't that just a first-century heresy that the early church was able to see off? I was thinking for a moment about how to respond when I suddenly remembered that conversation with the pastor. It dawned on me that the very kind of thinking that claims a life without sexual fulfillment is not really an authentic way to live is actually saying that Jesus did not fully come in the flesh, that his was not a full human life. To say that it is dehumanizing to be celibate is to dehumanize Christ, to deny that he came fully in the flesh and that his humanity was a "real" one.

---

Excerpted from "7 Myths about Singleness"
by .
Copyright © 2019 Sam Allberry.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---